Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Your link gives me a warning, which alerts me because of the way I have my internet explorer settings. So I could not read it and see who did the study. Which keep in mind, you would not accept a study ether if it was done by a group which you felt had a agenda against gun control.

The first problem is that you're using Internet Explorer....The link is safe, it's a PDF file to the actual study.

Here is another link that gives a basic breakdown.

[Mayhem]

Your link gives me a warning, which alerts me because of the way I have my internet explorer settings. So I could not read it and see who did the study. Which keep in mind, you would not accept a study ether if it was done by a group which you felt had a agenda against gun control.

wait, so, because you were unable to look at the study you´re guessing that it was done by some group with an agenda? aha

[Twotonsteak]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/j...-home-24731289

Short:
A Federal Judge in DC struck down the cities ban on carrying guns outside of their home.

The decision is the latest in a protracted fight. In 2008 the SCOTUS ruled DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. Since then the law has been rewritten and lawsuits were filed.

The city is planning on asking for a stay while they decide whether to appeal.

_____________________________________________________

Wonder how many Federal Judge's have to rule that bans are unconstitutional before people realize that they're....unconstitutional?

[Mayhem]

i do wonder what this will lead to

is it unconstitutional to be ban guns from court houses, planes, schools?

[Tinykong]

i do wonder what this will lead to

is it unconstitutional to be ban guns from court houses, planes, schools?

Sliding down the slippery slope, probably.

[Mayhem]

Sliding down the slippery slope, probably.

i don´t quite follow, could you explain please?

[Tinykong]

i don´t quite follow, could you explain please?

You're suggesting that the over turning of a ban on the grounds that it is unconstitutional will result in firearms being carried in schools, courts and airliners.

[Svifnymr]

you know i was talking about 2000-2011

Didn't see the change, why were you talking 2000-2011? I brought the numbers up in relation to CWL and SYG.

and then from 2005 since the implementation of stand your ground till now... so coming up with numbers prior to that is pretty pointless, also it´s a 30% jump not a 20% or to be specific ~28.14% and after that and another slight jump slightly declining is hardly positive when it´s still well above (~10%) the initial number from 2005

26ish%, you rounded up,so I rounded down. Again though, it may be significant, or it may be minor or it may be many other adjectives we could debate, but I don't think you'd jump to describing it as "blood in the streets!" except as intentional hyperbole. Which was the initial point, some folks actually believe it whole heartedly.

Had a lady last year, the store I work at was out of some item (I forget what, let's say oreo's as an example, nothing super important). I told her we were out, should be in within a couple days, she said it was the worst thing that could have happened. Not out of the ordinary for someone to say something like that and not mean it, really. I apologized, said it was just a couple days, she repeated with emphasis. "Literally, this is the WORST thing that could have happened!"

no, as i wrote earlier, i agree that it´s probably not only because of stand your ground if at all, but i do wonder why the increase happened

The SYG law didn't really CHANGE much for Florida. We were always pretty much Castle Doctrine and big on self-defense. Marion Hammer was big with the NRA and is from Florida. Many pro-gun-rights folks didn't really think the law was worth the press it would engender. I mean, up until that point you could defend yourself quite fine, but now suddenly the press is telling people they can go shoot whoever they want and claim self-defense!

Similar stories to the banning of armor piercing handgun ammunition. No one used the stuff, no cops were getting shot with it. The main guy that worked on AP handgun ammo was a cop that wanted to be able to hit someone through a dumpster. Suddenly the press is screaming about how cops are all in danger because of this stuff defeating their vests, but most criminals didn't really know cops were wearing vests before then!

The FN 5.7mm, HCI circulated memo's saying that it was armor piercing and cops should be extra careful! As one cop put it "what, like we should just stand their like superman and laugh at normal guns, but this one is kryptonite?".

Anyway, I digress. We can't know for sure that SYG increased or decreased crime rates, I'm sure the "advertising" on the news had some effect. In either case, we're probably discussing the wrong numbers since we're looking at homicides and actual SYG deaths might not be on that list. (Not sure if it includes "justifiable homicides".)

- - - Updated - - -

With a double action revolver, you can have the chamber in the cylinder in front of the firing pin empty and when needed all you have to do is pull the trigger. But in this condition it is impossible for it to fire if dropped or the hammer is accidently struck.

And you're a bullet short of where you'd be if you just kept the gun fully loaded? Assuming your double action revolver is less than 50 years old, it has that same transfer bar safety. The hammer hits a bar which hits the firing pin. If the trigger is not pulled all the way to the rear, the bar is not there. If you drop the gun on the hammer, the inertia won't travel to the firing pin. Even in an older double action revolver the odds of it discharging via a fall are miniscule.

The single action revolvers are a different matter, because the non-rugers must be loaded in half-cock position. You then must lower the hammer on an empty chamber. If you slipped, you'd avoid firing it, if you drop the gun you'd avoid firing it. Ruger's system handles both problems and the vaquero/blackhawk can be safely loaded and carried fully loaded, afaik.

[Mayhem]

You're suggesting that the over turning of a ban on the grounds that it is unconstitutional will result in firearms being carried in schools, courts and airliners.

how is asking a question suggesting something? i don´t know that much about the US law

you should read on slippery slope again, or point out where i formed the argument that this will definitely lead to guns in schools and what not

[Tinykong]

how is asking a question suggesting something? i don´t know that much about the US law

you should read on slippery slope again, or point out where i formed the argument that this will definitely lead to guns in schools and what not

i do wonder what this will lead to

is it unconstitutional to be ban guns from court houses, planes, schools?

You're implying that this ruling will lead to guns being carried in courts, planes and schools.

[Mayhem]

Didn't see the change, why were you talking 2000-2011? I brought the numbers up in relation to CWL and SYG.

because that was the years for my numbers, i was talking about, the years why you posted the stats...

26ish%, you rounded up,so I rounded down. Again though, it may be significant, or it may be minor or it may be many other adjectives we could debate, but I don't think you'd jump to describing it as "blood in the streets!" except as intentional hyperbole. Which was the initial point, some folks actually believe it whole heartedly.

it´s not 26ish% it´s 28.14% and i agree it´s not blood on the streets... but it´s not a slight increase either, one has to ask the question what happened and why didn´t it return to 2005 numbers by now

- - - Updated - - -

You're implying that this ruling will lead to guns being carried in courts, planes and schools.

no i´m wondering if this might lead to other cases the courts have to rule constitutionality on, like gun bans in court houses, planes or schools

[Svifnymr]

because that was the years for my numbers, i was talking about, the years why you posted the stats..

I mentioned two timeframes, you replied with 2000-2011, I replied with full numbers and marked the eras I was discussing and you went back to discussing your chosen time period, no biggie.

The initial point was in reference to CWL and SYG laws. starting in 2000 is meaningless since neither is marked for that.

Anyway, doesn't really matter.

- - - Updated - - -

You're implying that this ruling will lead to guns being carried in courts, planes and schools.

Judges buy a LOT of guns...

[Ghostpanther]

The first problem is that you're using Internet Explorer....The link is safe, it's a PDF file to the actual study.

Here is another link that gives a basic breakdown.

Ok I read it. And if you will accept this report about Florida's carry and conceal law reducing crime, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ent-crime-down then I will accept your link that the Stand Your Ground laws lead to more death's due to individuals protecting themselves. Deal?

- - - Updated - - -

!

- - - Updated - - -

And you're a bullet short of where you'd be if you just kept the gun fully loaded? Assuming your double action revolver is less than 50 years old, it has that same transfer bar safety. The hammer hits a bar which hits the firing pin. If the trigger is not pulled all the way to the rear, the bar is not there. If you drop the gun on the hammer, the inertia won't travel to the firing pin. Even in an older double action revolver the odds of it discharging via a fall are miniscule.

The single action revolvers are a different matter, because the non-rugers must be loaded in half-cock position. You then must lower the hammer on an empty chamber. If you slipped, you'd avoid firing it, if you drop the gun you'd avoid firing it. Ruger's system handles both problems and the vaquero/blackhawk can be safely loaded and carried fully loaded, afaik.

5 rounds is enough for me. And my double action revolver is a model 10 SW .38 special. More than 60 years old.

- - - Updated - - -

wait, so, because you were unable to look at the study you´re guessing that it was done by some group with an agenda? aha

Which some studies are. . You saying groups who do studies are never bias? Would you accept a study done by the National Rifle Association? I didn't think so. :P

[TZucchini]

Ok I read it. And if you will accept this report about Florida's carry and conceal law reducing crime, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ent-crime-down then I will accept your link that the Stand Your Ground laws lead to more death's due to individuals protecting themselves. Deal?

Two words. Raw. Data.

That "report" attempts to draw a scientific conclusion based off raw data. This is precisely the type of fallacy we've been harping on about for hundreds of pages.

The report takes two statistically raw measurements: Violent Crime Rate, Concealed Carry Permits. It then implies that one directly effects the other, without a single control put in place.

The study I linked has put several controls in place, including: unemployment rates, poverty rates, prisoners per 100,000, welfare spending, race, etc, etc.

So I apologize, but I won't be accepting that report.

[Ghostpanther]

Two words. Raw. Data.

That "report" attempts to draw a scientific conclusion based off raw data. This is precisely the type of fallacy we've been harping on about for hundreds of pages.

The report takes two statistically raw measurements: Violent Crime Rate, Concealed Carry Permits. It then implies that one directly effects the other, without a single control put in place.

The study I linked has put several controls in place, including: unemployment rates, poverty rates, prisoners per 100,000, welfare spending, race, etc, etc.

So I apologize, but I won't be accepting that report.

Hehe. It is ok. I did not figure you would.

[Mayhem]

Which some studies are. . You saying groups who do studies are never bias? Would you accept a study done by the National Rifle Association? I didn't think so. :P

sure, why not? if it´s done properly

- - - Updated - - -

Hehe. It is ok. I did not figure you would.

do you accept that report? and if so, why?

[ugotownd]

I don't think I have heard anyone explain Chicago better than this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGYn22iMLyY

[Ghostpanther]

sure, why not? if it´s done properly

- - - Updated - - -



do you accept that report? and if so, why?

I accept them both. One which deals with the Stand Your Ground does not deter homicides makes sense. The idea is not reducing crime per day, but defending yourself. So I can see where there could be a increase of death's because those defending themselves are not running away.

The Florida one dealing with conceal and carry with a decrease in crime after it was enacted makes sense because some criminals may not know if a private citizen is armed or not.

In both cases the increase and decrease is fairly small however. And in nether is there blood running in the streets as a result of such laws. Such laws are not creating a wild west scenarios as predicted by the opponents. And we know which cities are the worse now. The ones with the strictest gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think I have heard anyone explain Chicago better than this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGYn22iMLyY

I agree. Excellent video! Thanks for sharing it.

[Mayhem]

with the positive responses in the other thread about the old guy that killed the thief, i´m not suprised anymore that more people dying is viewed as a good thing

[Rukentuts]

with the positive responses in the other thread about the old guy that killed the thief, i´m not suprised anymore that more people dying is viewed as a good thing

The ironic thing is that more errant bullets fly around in Redneckia than Chicago.