View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4675. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,818 60.28%
  • No

    1,857 39.72%
  1. #21961
    I am for a general ban, like basically Joe Blow cannot walk into Franks gun shop and buy an Assault Rifle. But if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record, you could go through the proper channels and have to get a special permit to own one. I am all for that.

  2. #21962
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    And how do you determine what the sample is? What effect did the potential closing of a nearby ER that was not sampled have on one that was? There are too many variables not accounted for.
    If you're curious about their methodology, then criticize it directly. Hypothetical questions aren't particularly useful. And if you're going to reject the scientific method, then you have to reject all of it, including the studies it produces that actually support your argument.

    I don't know why it's so hard to believe that non-fatal injuries with firearms have increased in the past decade. You can admit it. The world won't explode.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The NCVS does a survey of 40,000 people. It actually asks where the care was provided. ER is only one of the options. I'd say that's more comprehensive. The fact that the numbers are 8x higher on the DoJ report should be a simple indication that it's more comprehensive.

    Edit: To be fair, the fact that the NCVS victimization rates exclude those under 12 will inflate the numbers very slightly, but since less than 10% of the population is in that age range, (and assuming that there are no victims in that age range), the shrunken population pool only accounts for an 11% increase in the numbers, not a 700% increase.
    Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

    A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.

  3. #21963
    The Lightbringer PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC17 View Post
    What your downward trend poll doesn't answer is WHY there is supposedly less support. The poll told you what you want to hear, and you trumpeted it as significant. It's cute.
    The poll told me what the poll told me. Multiple polls said the same thing. I posted it because I figured it was relevant information.

    Why there's less support isn't necessarily as important as the simple fact that there is less support. But the downward trend mirrors the downward trend in gun crime.



    A spike after the events of Newtown, but a sharp return to the downward trend afterward. And no successive spike after the D.C. navy yard shootings. Mostly because there was no evil, black gun to blame for the event, so the focus stays on the proper target: problems with mental illness.

    Edit: Time for work. No responses from me for a while.
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  4. #21964
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

    A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.
    Non-fatal injury resulting from firearm discharge really has nothing to do with crime or gun violence rates. Not all discharge related injuries are criminal.

  5. #21965
    Quote Originally Posted by schwank05 View Post
    I am for a general ban, like basically Joe Blow cannot walk into Franks gun shop and buy an Assault Rifle. But if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record, you could go through the proper channels and have to get a special permit to own one. I am all for that.
    Two points:

    1. Assault Rifles are defined as rifles with the capacity to fire more than one round with a single pull of a trigger. These are either full auto or select fire rifles and have been largely unavailable to the general populous since the ban on their manufacture in the 1930's. Beyond that the import of said assault rifles has been banned since the 1980's and existing ones within the country were grandfathered, however the cost of such a weapon is outside the realm of what most people would spend on one. Even further, the purchase of said assault rifle is subject to an ATFE background check and additional taxing with a generally accepted wait time of approximately 6 months. The term you were looking to use is "assault weapon" which is an ambiguous term used by politicians and gun control groups to describe a rifle that looks scary.

    2. To purchase a weapon at "Frank's Gun Shop" one has to submit to an NICS background check prior to receipt of said weapon and depending on the state/locality additional registration and permitting may be required.

    What you seem to be proposing is not a general ban, but an increase in background checks, training and vetting of an individual prior to the purchase of a firearm.
    Last edited by Tasttey; 2013-09-23 at 08:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardhyn View Post
    Now this is just blatant trolling, at least before you had the credibility of maybe being stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SourceOfInfection View Post
    Sometimes you gotta stop sniffing used schoolgirl panties and start being a fucking samurai.

  6. #21966
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Non-fatal injury resulting from firearm discharge really has nothing to do with crime or gun violence rates. Not all discharge related injuries are criminal.
    What would expect the non criminal discharge injuries vs criminal discharge injuries to look like? Percentagewise.

  7. #21967
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    If you're curious about their methodology, then criticize it directly. Hypothetical questions aren't particularly useful. And if you're going to reject the scientific method, then you have to reject all of it, including the studies it produces that actually support your argument.

    I don't know why it's so hard to believe that non-fatal injuries with firearms have increased in the past decade. You can admit it. The world won't explode.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

    A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.
    I can support the scientific method without accepting everything that has been done under its banner. I can pose hypotheticals because I have not seen where the variables are accounted for. I also know the CDC has some odd ways of doing things, like counting 18 year olds as children.

  8. #21968
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    What would expect the non criminal discharge injuries vs criminal discharge injuries to look like? Percentagewise.
    I don't know, but if you're going to say "this is how many people are injured by firearms every year, and it's an increasing trend, therefore gun violence is on the rise" you need to exclude non-crime related injuries before making that assertion. I'm sure the data exists somewhere.

  9. #21969
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    I don't know, but if you're going to say "this is how many people are injured by firearms every year, and it's an increasing trend, therefore gun violence is on the rise" you need to exclude non-crime related injuries before making that assertion. I'm sure the data exists somewhere.
    Right. The data certainly exists, and I'm not exactly itching to find it. I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.

    Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

  10. #21970
    Legendary! Callace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ivory Tower
    Posts
    6,527
    It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.

  11. #21971
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Right. The data certainly exists, and I'm not exactly itching to find it. I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.

    Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.
    Seems more like a reason to bring back teaching proper safe gun handling in schools.

  12. #21972
    Quote Originally Posted by Callace View Post
    It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.
    Agreed. But unless/until everyone is protected by a personal forcefield, or we have precogs to prevent crime, or the minority of the population (you know, the criminals) decides that crime is wrong, it's still better for (law-abiding, and hopefully responsible) citizens to have the right to bear arms. And once we get to such a utopia where violence is unheard of, there's no reason to restrict the right to bear arms...so, in actuality, whether or not there is crime, there is no reason to restrict the right of the law-abiding populace to bear arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryngo Blackratchet View Post
    Yeah, Rhandric is right, as usual.

  13. #21973
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.
    Never assume.
    Has the total number of people with firearms also increased?
    If it has then the total number of non criminal injuries would also rise.
    Socialism is the only economic system that requires billionaires to exist.
    https://i.redditmedia.com/P8UE8DAGeB...c1ef120404fdbd
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.

  14. #21974
    Legendary! Jaxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Yogurt.
    Posts
    6,037
    Today, let us look at numbers and facts provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    In 2009 —

    -An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.
    -Offenders used firearms to commit 8% of violent crime incidents in 2009.
    -Robberies (47%) were the most likely crime to involve an armed offender.
    -Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.
    -Most rapes and assaults did not involve the use of a weapon.

    Additionally, from 1993-1997, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

    Interpret as you will.

    More information: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
    Quote Originally Posted by Imadraenei View Post
    You can find that unbiased view somewhere between Atlantis and that unicorn farm down the street, just off Interstate √(-1).

  15. #21975
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    Never assume.
    Has the total number of people with firearms also increased?
    If it has then the total number of non criminal injuries would also rise.
    The point is we don't have to assume.

    Oh. And studies take population into effect when creating rates. That's sorta 101.

  16. #21976
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    The point is we don't have to assume.

    Oh. And studies take population into effect when creating rates. That's sorta 101.
    Given the study is based on assumptions, yes, we do have to assume things.

  17. #21977
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Given the study is based on assumptions, yes, we do have to assume things.
    What assumptions is the study based on?

  18. #21978
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    What assumptions is the study based on?
    Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.

  19. #21979
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.
    "Quite a bit" is rather vague.

  20. #21980
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.
    Give me a specific assumption that the CDC study is based on. Just one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •