Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

uhm, that´s active wartime duty, hell, that´s how you´re supposed to carry your weapon to be ready, i really doubt that´s for comfort reasons more than for being ready fast

You can hold a conventional shoulder-stock rifle in a manner ready to be used quickly, as well, but it's far less comfortable to do so for hours on end.

[Cthulhu 2020]

An untrained rabble with weapons is not an army.

That's when it's a militia, heyooo.

[Mayhem]

You can hold a conventional shoulder-stock rifle in a manner ready to be used quickly, as well, but it's far less comfortable to do so for hours on end.

if it doesn´t rest on the belt around your should than you´re doing something terribly wrong, you´re not actually carrying it in your hand all day long, but even if, then it´s not really about comfort anymore, or to rephrase that, comfort becomes necessary not a nice to have feature

[PhaelixWW]

then it´s not really about comfort anymore, or to rephrase that, comfort becomes necessary not a nice to have feature

As a necessary military comfort, then, it doesn't qualify as a civilian combat effectiveness upgrade.

[Ghostpanther]

An untrained rabble with weapons is not an army.

A untrained rabble that has been killing thousands and controlling large parts of Iraq and Syria. Which is drawing attention of nations to the point a call is out to band together and take them out. If it was not for the US air strikes, they would have control of all Iraq by now. You seriously underestimate ISIS. And they are trained better than a lot of country's army's are.

It is far better to go down by fighting, resisting their kind than to meekly give in and let them slaughter your family.

[TZucchini]

So you're just being intellectually dishonest. Got it.

Interesting how I'm being called intellectually dishonest for using figures we're certain of, rather than figures we're uncertain of. Seems a little backward if you ask me.

There's no doubt that firearms are used defensively. There's no doubt that there are individuals who would be dead if they hadn't had access to firearms during the time of victimization. I'm not doubting that in the least.

I do believe, however, that the gross imbalance in firearm crime, and homicide especially, cancel out the beneficial effect of firearm defensive uses.

No one?

That's a pretty serious knee-jerk right there. I mean, it's the whole reason this thread was started in the first place, no?

Any time there's a large change in national opinion based on a specific event does not necessarily make that change in opinion a "knee jerk reaction." Such change in opinions could have been thought out, debated, and intellectually derived. Events can cause individuals to look into subjects they haven't really given much thought to in the past, and upon doing so, change their opinion. Labeling these opinions "knee jerk" is just a cheap way of ridiculing things you don't agree with.

Just because you don't like how fast it's decreasing (and 73% over 20 years is phenomenal, be honest), doesn't mean that it's okay to make things more difficult for legal purchasers.

Obtaining a firearm shouldn't be easy. It should be difficult, imo. This really goes back to my distaste for the 2nd, and I realize I'm in the vast minority here.

And yet there's no proof of a causal relationship.

And there likely never will be. It'd be almost impossible to prove causality. You'd need to watch thousands of situations play out with individuals that have access to firearms, then go back in time, and watch the same situations play out with those same individuals when they don't have access to firearms.

We need more information, more unbiased peer-reviewed studies, for sure. Until then, I'll base my decisions on strong correlations produced through academia.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of "it's subjective" is tripping you up?

Some people shoot better with them, some don't. If it's hindering your performance, then I'd call that a cosmetic feature, much like putting a spoiler on your 1986 Civic.

Whether or not a pistol grip is purely cosmetic is not subjective. Ever.

It objectively changes the way you hold and fire the weapon. In no possible instance you could ever dream up, would a pistol grip be "purely cosmetic."

[PhaelixWW]

I do believe, however, that the gross imbalance in firearm crime, and homicide especially, cancel out the beneficial effect of firearm defensive uses.

So you're not willing to use figures that you're not certain of, but you are willing to claim as fact that there's a "gross imbalance" and use that as the basis for your position.

That's being intellectually dishonest. Especially when confronted by a statement from the CDC report acknowledging that most studies on the subject say that there are at least as many defensive uses as offensive uses. That would seem to argue against that "gross imbalance" you claim.

Any time there's a large change in national opinion based on a specific event does not necessarily make that change in opinion a "knee jerk reaction." Such change in opinions could have been thought out, debated, and intellectually derived. Events can cause individuals to look into subjects they haven't really given much thought to in the past, and upon doing so, change their opinion. Labeling these opinions "knee jerk" is just a cheap way of ridiculing things you don't agree with.

Wow. You must just really hate admitting that you're wrong. You do realize that everyone reading this statement of yours will know that you're full of shit, right?

You might have had a point... had not the "trend" immediately reversed itself back to previous levels. When popular opinion spikes and then returns to the previous trend, that spike is pretty much proven to be a knee-jerk. Or are you seriously trying to imply that people came to a carefully thought-out, informed decision due to new information... only to immediately change their mind based on even newer evidence.

Yeah, wait, that's pretty much exactly what a knee-jerk reaction is.

You know what's not knee-jerk? The massive trend over the last 25 years dropping the desire for additional gun control to current levels.

Obtaining a firearm shouldn't be easy. It should be difficult, imo. This really goes back to my distaste for the 2nd, and I realize I'm in the vast minority here.

No, we get it. You don't care about the relevant crime statistics and how they've fallen. You just don't feel comfortable with the current firearms laws. Totally justifiable reasoning as the basis for more gun control.

We need more information, more unbiased peer-reviewed studies, for sure. Until then, I'll base my decisions on strong correlations produced through academia.

From the FactCheck.Org article on "Violent Crimes and Handgun Ownership"

In fact, major studies on this issue have not shown cause-and-effect – that the presence of guns causes more murders to occur (or crime in general) – which is certainly a more difficult hypothesis to test. The National Research Council of the National Academies in 2004 released a lengthy study of the available research on this issue, with the aim of finding whether a causal relationship existed. It didn’t find one, and it said that the available research itself was lacking.

The National Academies report noted that drawing a causal inference is "always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty."

Charles F. Wellford, chair of the committees that authored the report and a professor of criminology at the University of Maryland, says it’s the causal relationship that people are interested in when the question of guns and crime is broached. "While scientists can make the distinction between association and causation, in the real world the interest is in the latter," Wellford tells FactCheck.org, noting that this is his opinion, not the panel’s. "Work that knowingly reports findings that do not meet a causal test knowing they will be used as if they do can only produce confusion especially in such contentious issues."

The report said that "case-control studies" (the urban-area-to-urban-area type of comparisons) "show that violence is positively associated with firearms ownership." What the National Academies calls "ecological studies" (those comparing large areas, such as countries) "provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms." But neither have shown a causal relationship. Both studies fail to address the multiple factors involved in the decision to buy a gun – owning a gun is not a random decision, said the report.

[Mayhem]

As a necessary military comfort, then, it doesn't qualify as a civilian combat effectiveness upgrade.

where´s the difference? it´s a feature that´s not purely cosmetic, regardless if used by the military or civilians

- - - Updated - - -

No, we get it. You don't care about the relevant crime statistics and how they've fallen. You just don't feel comfortable with the current firearms laws. Totally justifiable reasoning as the basis for more gun control.

relevant crime statistics? relevant for what?

[PhaelixWW]

where´s the difference? it´s a feature that´s not purely cosmetic, regardless if used by the military or civilians

I didn't say it was purely cosmetic. That's just Pre 9-11 trying to move the goalposts. What I actually said was:

Ugh, not this again. A pistol grip on a rifle does not provide any significant combat benefit in the realm of civilian crime.

That's the statement that I'm defending.

relevant crime statistics? relevant for what?

Sigh. If you'd bothered to click the quote links back once or twice, you'd see that this section of debate started with a discussion about non-fatal firearm violent crime rates.

But here's the relevant discussion:

But whatever, if 1,136 makes you feel better, that's fine. The number is much higher than it should be, and no one should be happy about it.

I'm happy about the fact that it's down to 1136 a day from 3527 a day 20 years ago. Keeping in mind population changes, that means that the non-fatal incident rate is 73% lower than it was 20 years ago. Considering a nearly 3/4 drop in 20 years, I'm fine with seeing how things go without falling victim to a knee-jerk "we must do something more" reaction.

Just because it's been decreasing, doesn't mean it's OK where it is now.

Just because you don't like how fast it's decreasing (and 73% over 20 years is phenomenal, be honest), doesn't mean that it's okay to make things more difficult for legal purchasers.

Obtaining a firearm shouldn't be easy. It should be difficult, imo. This really goes back to my distaste for the 2nd, and I realize I'm in the vast minority here.

So, basically, Pre 9-11 said "I don't care about the dramatic statistical drop, I just feel like it should be more difficult."

[Mayhem]

I didn't say it was purely cosmetic. That's just Pre 9-11 trying to move the goalposts. What I actually said was:

That's the statement that I'm defending.

and how do you know it doesn´t? if it provides combat benefit for the military why not for civilians? with a pistol grip one doesn´t need to turn the wrist that much, providing more stability, look at biathlon weapons, they all have pistol grips

- - - Updated - - -

So, basically, Pre 9-11 said "I don't care about the dramatic statistical drop, I just feel like it should be more difficult."

and considering the dramatic drop occured after an even more dramatic rise and still higher than in the 60s it´s not unreasonable

so what ever lead to that rise was probably combatted, but the remaining rate is still well above other countries, that on a side note had a drop as well

[Ghostpanther]

and how do you know it doesn´t? if it provides combat benefit for the military why not for civilians? with a pistol grip one doesn´t need to turn the wrist that much, providing more stability, look at biathlon weapons, they all have pistol grips

If it does provide a easier control of a rifle, I have no issue with that for civilians. A handgun has easier control in many circumstances for a shooter and for sure is easier to conceal. But they are not banned. Give me a choice between a rifle and a handgun in close quarters for home defense, I would prefer the handgun. Outside with more than likely long range shots being involved, for sure any rifle is going to be more accurate.

[Mayhem]

If it does provide a easier control of a rifle, I have no issue with that for civilians. A handgun has easier control in many circumstances for a shooter and for sure is easier to conceal. But they are not banned. Give me a choice between a rifle and a handgun in close quarters for home defense, I would prefer the handgun. Outside with more than likely long range shots being involved, for sure any rifle is going to be more accurate.

well for home defense a shotgun would probably be the best choice anyway

[Ghostpanther]

well for home defense a shotgun would probably be the best choice anyway

Oh, I agree. Esp with a open choke and 18" barrel. Loaded with home defense heavy shot.

[TZucchini]

So you're not willing to use figures that you're not certain of, but you are willing to claim as fact that there's a "gross imbalance" and use that as the basis for your position.

That's being intellectually dishonest.

You're right. I'm not sure why I included the 'firearm crime' imbalance, as I've already stated outright that certain studies show the imbalance being the other way around (2.5 million). The imbalance I've been speaking of applies to unjustified homicides vs. justified homicides.

Especially when confronted by a statement from the CDC report acknowledging that most studies on the subject say that there are at least as many defensive uses as offensive uses. That would seem to argue against that "gross imbalance" you claim.

The CDC is only acknowledging the existence of the studies, not confirming their findings. These studies have been examined and critiqued, finding that many projections are extreme overestimates.

Furthermore, and most importantly, determining the amount of actual defensive uses isn't as simple as surveying a single party, since there are two parties to the crime, the criminal, and the victim. These studies only survey the victim. The actual determination as to whether or not a firearm caused retreat by the criminal needs to come from: the criminal. The presence of a homeowner during a burglary is more than enough to scare a criminal away, regardless of whether or not they're holding a firearm.

Wow. You must just really hate admitting that you're wrong.

Not really. I've admitted fault several times in this thread. I have no qualms about doing so when I feel I'm wrong.

You might have had a point... had not the "trend" immediately reversed itself back to previous levels.

You're still just guessing. You have no idea whether or not these people made knee-jerk reactions, and you're only using the term to ridicule opinions you disagree with. It doesn't help the discussion at all.

No, we get it. You don't care about the relevant crime statistics and how they've fallen. You just don't feel comfortable with the current firearms laws. Totally justifiable reasoning as the basis for more gun control.

You're right. I don't feel comfortable with current firearm laws. And that really has nothing to do with current or past crime levels. It's based on the responsibility that such a weapon demands. It shouldn't be easy, nor a right, to posses a firearm. But possession should still be legal and obtainable.

From the FactCheck.Org article on "Violent Crimes and Handgun Ownership"

All this article does is confirm that causality has not been determined, which I've already agreed to.

[Tinykong]

Whether or not a pistol grip is purely cosmetic is not subjective. Ever.

It objectively changes the way you hold and fire the weapon. In no possible instance you could ever dream up, would a pistol grip be "purely cosmetic."

If someone shoots worse with a modification, it's cosmetic. It's exactly like putting a spoiler on your shitty econo-box car. It makes it slower, but you put it on there to "look" cool. That's the very definition of cosmetic.

[Mayhem]

If someone shoots worse with a modification, it's cosmetic. It's exactly like putting a spoiler on your shitty econo-box car. It makes it slower, but you put it on there to "look" cool. That's the very definition of cosmetic.

the definition of cosmetic is "make things "look" cool in exchange for functionality"? well then your point makes sense, you´re wrong though

[Tinykong]

the definition of cosmetic is "make things "look" cool in exchange for functionality"? well then your point makes sense, you´re wrong though

Try reading again.

If you modify something, and it makes performance worse, but you leave it on anyway because it "looks cool," that is a cosmetic feature.

Since pistol grips are subjective based on each user, they can sometimes be cosmetic.

[Mayhem]

Try reading again.

If you modify something, and it makes performance worse, but you leave it on anyway because it "looks cool," that is a cosmetic feature.

Since pistol grips are subjective based on each user, they can sometimes be cosmetic.

i see what you mean and i agree

i wouldn´t say sometimes, i would say rarely, i doubt there are many people that would shoot noticeable worse with a pistol grip, but alright, it can rarely be cosmetic

on the other hand it´s the grip, you´re not showing it anyway if holding the weapon, so modifing the one part you´re not showing while shooting just for the sake of it, while knowingly shooting worse, is beyond moronic

though, are we now calling things cosmetic because they in rare cases are a cosmetic feature?

[Svifnymr]

well for home defense a shotgun would probably be the best choice anyway

I never really liked a shotgun for home defense. Much more recoil than a 223 or 9mm rifle, and the spread isn't wide enough to have a huge advantage in increasing the chances of a hit. More likely it just increases the chances of collateral damage. The rifle holds 20 or 30, the shotgun 5 or 9. A 9mm rifle is quite easy to handle. I'm certainly not going to advocate blasting off a round through a door, and if you're going to fire off a round as a deterent, better to dump 1 from 30 rather than 1 from 9.

Sure folks give the "racking the shotgun" some mythical advantage, but that assumes the gun is chamber empty anyway. In either case, racking the bolt on a semi-auto rifle should be just as much of a deterrent in that case.

[Dethh]

i see what you mean and i agree

i wouldn´t say sometimes, i would say rarely, i doubt there are many people that would shoot noticeable worse with a pistol grip, but alright, it can rarely be cosmetic

on the other hand it´s the grip, you´re not showing it anyway if holding the weapon, so modifing the one part you´re not showing while shooting just for the sake of it, while knowingly shooting worse, is beyond moronic

though, are we now calling things cosmetic because they in rare cases are a cosmetic feature?

If it's not a cosmetic feature and it in fact does improve accuracy, wouldn't you want a civilian who might not be a marksman to be more accurate and not shoot innocent people? I didn't read the entire back and forth so excuse me if I missed something.