Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

I defended that poll because it used a scientific process. You don't need a huge sample size. The laws of statistics state that you can extrapolate the opinions of a large population from a relatively small sample size, as long as you use a scientific process.

Since Gallup does, and the police survey didn't, the difference is enormous.

If you can't see the problem with pretending that the opinion of ~1200 people is the same as the opinion of 300 million people, then you should go crawl back under your rock.

Then I guess every legal dictionary in the world is also wrong. Laws provide recourse in the event that said law is broken. But why does that law exist to begin with? To govern the conduct of the people. To prohibit undesirable behavior, and also to promote good behavior.

Nope. Because laws don't dictate what people do. People dictate what people do. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of people each year being put into prisons after breaking the law. If no one ever broke the law, then we wouldn't need them in the first place. They have nothing to do with 'governing behavior' and everything to do with 'giving the government and law enforcement recourse.'

I hope that didn't actually happen.

But... I'll stick by my line. I am not an action hero. You are not an action hero.

So because you're not an action hero, you're just going to stand there while someone breaks into your house and does whatever he wants to you and your family? There comes a point in every person's life where they are faced with a life or death decision. Choosing whether or not to protect yourself and your family is one of them.

[belfpala]

So because you're not an action hero, you're just going to stand there while someone breaks into your house and does whatever he wants to you and your family? There comes a point in every person's life where they are faced with a life or death decision. Choosing whether or not to protect yourself and your family is one of them.

No. I'm going to assume anyone physically strong enough to break into my house and overpower the people therein is going to continue to kick my ass if I pull a gun, most likely resulting in them having the gun.

I'm also not going to assume I'm a good enough shot to hit the invaders and miss my family members.

[Moadar]

No. I'm going to assume anyone physically strong enough to break into my house and overpower the people therein is going to continue to kick my ass if I pull a gun, most likely resulting in them having the gun.

I'm also not going to assume I'm a good enough shot to hit the invaders and miss my family members.

Thats a limp wristed attitude on life. If there is a break in at my house the wife calls the police and takes cover in the back corner of the room. If we had kids they would evacuate to the spot she is at. I cover the hallway leading to the master bedroom. No heroics, no hunting intruders in a dark house. If they enter the hallway I fire, and if not I hold the room until police clear the house.

EDIT: Most importantly family is behind me and out of the line of fire.

[Deadvolcanoes]

If you can't see the problem with pretending that the opinion of ~1200 people is the same as the opinion of 300 million people, then you should go crawl back under your rock.

You seem like a smart guy, so I will assume that you understand the science behind the laws of statistics.

In a scientific study, with a sample size of 1200 people, the margin of error is roughly 4%. With a 95% confidence interval that Gallup polling employs, we can then say, with 95% certainty, that the polling results is accurate, within a plus or negative 4 percentage points.

In other words, I'm not the one "pretending" that the opinion of these 1200 individuals is representative of the rest of America...science is.

And oh look! It's not just one poll. It many!

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1877
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/am...-violence.aspx


But yeah. I guess I'm the one living under a rock. Right? Right?

Nope. Because laws don't dictate what people do. People dictate what people do. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of people each year being put into prisons after breaking the law. If no one ever broke the law, then we wouldn't need them in the first place. They have nothing to do with 'governing behavior' and everything to do with 'giving the government and law enforcement recourse.'

At this point, I don't know what to tell you. You've refused to acknowledge the fact that laws have many purposes. You've refused to acknowledge the absolute fact that laws are intended to govern behavior. We've gotten no where and you're unwilling to budge. Let's just agree to disagree.

[belfpala]

Thats a limp wristed attitude on life. If there is a break in at my house the wife calls the police and takes cover in the back corner of the room. If we had kids they would evacuate to the spot she is at. I cover the hallway leading to the master bedroom. No heroics, no hunting intruders in a dark house. If they enter the hallway I fire, and if not I hold the room until police clear the house.

EDIT: Most importantly family is behind me and out of the line of fire.

That's an action hero view of life.

Last I heard, most home invaders don't really want ANY kind of confrontation. Those who do aren't really going to wait around to let you make tactical decisions.

[Deadvolcanoes]

No. I'm going to assume anyone physically strong enough to break into my house and overpower the people therein is going to continue to kick my ass if I pull a gun, most likely resulting in them having the gun.

I'm also not going to assume I'm a good enough shot to hit the invaders and miss my family members.

Oh look. Someone who knows his limitations and is not scared to express his dislike of guns. Lets make fun of him and talk about how he isn't man enough to protect his family and how he has a limp wrist....

oh.... too late...

[Moadar]

That's an action hero view of life.

Last I heard, most home invaders don't really want ANY kind of confrontation. Those who do aren't really going to wait around to let you make tactical decisions.

They will be hard pressed to stop me from taking the 15 seconds to grab my gun and aim down the hall. Its not more "action hero" than a fire escape plan.

[belfpala]

Oh look. Someone who knows his limitations and is not scared to express his dislike of guns. Lets make fun of him and talk about how he isn't man enough to protect his family and how he has a limp wrist....

oh.... too late...

Irony being... I'm in pretty much pristine shape. 6'3" and just short of 200 pounds now, almost no body fat. Rather thin, to be honest, was more like 225 pounds at the "peak" of my athletic ability. I've been in various forms of martial arts since I was about 5 years old. Yet, I have no delusions about my ability to defend myself, or my lack thereof.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Irony being... I'm in pretty much pristine shape. 6'3" and just short of 200 pounds now, almost no body fat. Rather thin, to be honest, was more like 225 pounds at the "peak" of my athletic ability. I've been in various forms of martial arts since I was about 5 years old. Yet, I have no delusions about my ability to defend myself, or my lack thereof.

6'1, 190 lbs of steel checking in. :P

I'm well trained with firearms, and to be honest, I'm still concerned about what my abilities would be like under severe duress. I mean shit. When it comes down to it, preparation isn't nearly as useful as experience.

[PhaelixWW]

Interesting thing.

The Senate voted 54-46 on the bill.
In a recent post-vote poll, public response was 47-39 upset/happy.

Looking at it that way, it may seem like the vote went at about the same ratio as public response.

So I guess support wasn't at 90% like people thought.

Comments?

[Todgruppe]

Well I mean, there are some people who do, legitimately, want common sense gun control but still allow for the continued ownership of guns. Those people exist.

I am not one of those people.

In most things, my political philosophy falls fairly conservative. Not on this though, because my background as a scientist has made me the kind of person that has no problem questioning things and calling bullshit for what it is.

At let me tell you, flat out, I do not give a monkey's ass about the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and 834 pages into, the vast majority of arguments in favor of continued gun legalization have been utter bullshit. If it isn't archaic thinking at work, its paranoia. And sorry, but this country deserves better than to have laws just to make people paranoid of government power sleep a little bit better at night.

Guns are weapons of death. The Ar-15, which folks here flash around like it's their pride and joy, is designed to kill other living things. People. Deer. Birds. Whatever. It's designed to, at high velocity, propel a little projectile to extinguish life. No one buys a gun because they get off shooting targets at 100 yards. Maybe its the element of power, of sexiness or delusions of grandeur, who knows. But these things any which way you cut it, are designed to kill.

The power of life and death is not something any citizen should have. To deprive one of life, the state has trials, then automatic appeals, and multiple layers of review. That is how our civilization decides to deprive one of life.

This notion, this crazy, obscene notion, that some stupid 20 year old breaking into your house to steal a television or some valuables, or a car jacker, deserves to lose their life over that crime is absolutely insane. It's insane, and its shameful and anyone who thinks the penalty of death is what is right for crimes of that nature brings shame to themselves and their family for the poor value system they have. Crime has root, and many criminals make mistakes. Robbers, even armed robbers, do not deserve to die. They deserve to pay a stiff penalty. But not their life.

The power to decide that should not be in the hands of an individual who just so happens to be the deed holder to the property. That person has rights to the property, but to think he has a right to decide life or death of anyone who steps foot onto it is shameful.

Now this is just one corner of the absurd gun debate, but in my opinion it's the root. It's a fear of what you can't control happening to you and a feeling of powerlessness. Those who favor gun rights favor a response. Prevention is the superior approach. And if there is prevention, there is no need to fear, thus no need to own guns.

I want guns gone, because no citizen should have the right to decide who lives and who dies under any circumstance. More than anything else, that is the idea I find most abhorrent. That a background check and the retail price of a gun and some ammo gives a citizen that power. That's wrong. That's backwards. And as an idea, it needs to die.

Gun control won't kill that idea. Gun elimination will. So I look forward to that day. It will be decades from now - it took decades for universal healthcare to become law and will take decades more to finally get it right. But it is inevitable. The Supreme Court has termed this our society's "evolving standards of decency", with respect to other cases where what we once considered fair and legal now is considered neither. One day, guns will be considered indecent, and they shall go away.

But it is going to be a very long game, and it's a game where the attacker has inherent advantages over the defender. So best of luck.

Defense mechanisms triggered over 9000!!

[Deadvolcanoes]

So I guess support wasn't at 90% like people thought.

Comments?

I'll take a crack at it since I'm the one supporting the 90% polls.There's probably a few reasons for the results of the Pew poll.

First: As many people here have pointed out, the legislation that was voted on contained more than just background checks. As usual, they threw in a bunch of other items, such as creating a Nation Commission on Mass Violence. Others pointed that out to me, I conceded that point, and even agreed that I'd like to see a bill that does nothing but make background checks universal.

So we basically have this problem: Do you support background checks on all gun sales vs. Do you support this legislation, which doesn't make background checks universal, and also has a bunch of other stuff added.

Second: People don't like to support losers. The loser-winner effect is well documented in society, and even in other species in the form of the dominance hierarchy. So while people may have supported this bill at one time, they no longer do after seeing it fail, Republicans especially.

Third: And of course it's always possible that the four polls I linked showing 90% support are wrong, and that this poll is right. It's highly unlikely, but it certainly possible. It's also possible that public opinion on the issue has changed rapidly. The Quinnipiac Poll is the most recent poll showing 90% support for background checks on all buyers, and that was released on April 4. The Pew Research Poll was released 20 days later, and it's certainly possible, though unlikely, that public opinion has changed since then. If that were the case, I'd probably give a lot of credit to the NRA for lying and distorting the facts surrounding certain issues.


But anyway, that's my take on it. It's probably a combination of all three to some extent, though I think my first point carries the majority of the weight.

[Eroginous]

You seem like a smart guy, so I will assume that you understand the science behind the laws of statistics.

Statistics are the joke part of mathematics. They are the aspect of math that the media and politicians love because they can fudge numbers all day long to make things seem different than they really are.

The reality is that what 1200 people think doesn't matter one bit when the liberal media is citing 'what America thinks.' America doesn't consist of 1200 people, it consists of 300 million people. It's far more wise to understand that the opinion of 0.0004% of the population is not an accurate reflection of the other 99.9996% thinks of it, no matter what 'statistics law' say. Until you've polled 300 million Americans, you literally have no idea what America thinks about issues like gun control.

At this point, I don't know what to tell you. You've refused to acknowledge the fact that laws have many purposes. You've refused to acknowledge the absolute fact that laws are intended to govern behavior. We've gotten no where and you're unwilling to budge. Let's just agree to disagree.

Because laws only have one purpose: to give the government and law enforcement recourse. People don't decide to be 'law abiding' simply because there are laws. They make the decision to be good people based on their morals and values, which have coincidentally shaped the laws of society. Conversely, people don't decide to become criminals, because they want to break laws. They make the decision to be bad people based on their morals and values, which is done completely independent of the law. We have laws BECAUSE of what behavior society expects from people.

When people are confronted with a choice that has legal implications, their response isn't to quote the law and then decide to make the right choice because of what the law says. Their response is to make the choice that best fits with their morals and values. This is why we have people breaking the law on a regular basis. Because their morals and values conflict with the law.

As I said before, if the law had any bearing on shaping the behavior of society, NO ONE WOULD EVER BREAK THE LAW, and we wouldn't need them in the first place. The fact of the matter is that we have all kinds of laws, with widely varying degrees of government recourse. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE break at least one law intentionally within their life. Afterward, if they change their behavior, it's due to the consequences of being caught breaking the law (fines, jail time, community service, confiscation, probation), and not because the laws existed in an attempt to govern their behavior.

So please, stop trying to make this argument like laws exist as a force field that prevents crime. They don't. We have ample evidence indicating as much, and zero evidence that anyone ever refrained from breaking the law simply because the law has special powers of crime prevention.

No. I'm going to assume anyone physically strong enough to break into my house and overpower the people therein is going to continue to kick my ass if I pull a gun, most likely resulting in them having the gun.

I'm also not going to assume I'm a good enough shot to hit the invaders and miss my family members.

1. You don't have to be physically strong to break into someone's house.

2. Not all intruders are after the same thing. Some of them are just as interested in hurting people as they are with stealing stuff.

3. Having a gun to protect your home does not automatically mean that you will just start shooting wildly if you hear a noise in your house. Many violent situations are completely defused simply because one person had a weapon to defend themselves with. Just google Mormon Samurai.

4. Nothing about being an armed citizen has anything to do with being an 'action hero.' Just having the tiny sliver of courage it takes to pick up a weapon and attempt to defend yourself is what's important, not being Jason Born and taking down 6 heavily armed bad guys with a bic ballpoint pen.

At some point EVERYONE (you, me, the next guy reading this) HAS to understand that it's entirely possible that some asshole breaks into your house with the intent to harm you or your family. That this WILL happen WITHOUT the police being able to respond quickly enough, and that YOU are the only thing standing between said intruder and harm coming to your family.

It's up to YOU to decide which is more important: Letting some asshole hurt you or your family (possibly raping and/or killing them) or your flimsy ideal that cops are there to prevent things like that from happening, so you don't need to do anything but call them.

Every day there are situations where someone had a split second to choose between defending themselves and becoming a victim. I can guarantee you that 100% of the people that survive becoming a victim WISH they had only made the decision to defend themselves.

[Thephayul]

Thats a limp wristed attitude on life. If there is a break in at my house the wife calls the police and takes cover in the back corner of the room. If we had kids they would evacuate to the spot she is at. I cover the hallway leading to the master bedroom. No heroics, no hunting intruders in a dark house. If they enter the hallway I fire, and if not I hold the room until police clear the house.

EDIT: Most importantly family is behind me and out of the line of fire.

Don't forget one very important fact: For the most part, these bad guys breaking into your house are cowards, yellow through and through. So many scenarios have ended peacefully with just a gun being unholstered.

---------- Post added 2013-04-25 at 01:39 PM ----------

Statistics are the joke part of mathematics. They are the aspect of math that the media and politicians love because they can fudge numbers all day long to make things seem different than they really are.

The reality is that what 1200 people think doesn't matter one bit when the liberal media is citing 'what America thinks.' America doesn't consist of 1200 people, it consists of 300 million people. It's far more wise to understand that the opinion of 0.0004% of the population is not an accurate reflection of the other 99.9996% thinks of it, no matter what 'statistics law' say. Until you've polled 300 million Americans, you literally have no idea what America thinks about issues like gun control.



Because laws only have one purpose: to give the government and law enforcement recourse. People don't decide to be 'law abiding' simply because there are laws. They make the decision to be good people based on their morals and values, which have coincidentally shaped the laws of society. Conversely, people don't decide to become criminals because there are laws. They make the decision to be bad people based on their morals and values, which is done completely independent of the law. We have laws BECAUSE of what behavior society expects from people.

When people are confronted with a choice that has legal implications, their response isn't to quote the law and then decide to make the right choice because of what the law says. Their response is to make the choice that best fits with their morals and values. This is why we have people breaking the law on a regular basis. Because their morals and values conflict with the law.

As I said before, if the law had any bearing on shaping the behavior of society, NO ONE WOULD EVER BREAK THE LAW, and we wouldn't need them in the first place. The fact of the matter is that we have all kinds of laws, with widely varying degrees of government recourse. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE break at least one law intentionally within their life. Afterward, if they change their behavior, it's due to the consequences of being caught breaking the law (fines, jail time, community service, confiscation, probation), and not because the laws existed in an attempt to govern their behavior.

So please, stop trying to make this argument like laws exist as a force field that prevents crime. They don't. We have ample evidence indicating as much, and zero evidence that anyone ever refrained from breaking the law simply because the law has special powers of crime prevention.



1. You don't have to be physically strong to break into someone's house.

2. Not all intruders are after the same thing. Some of them are just as interested in hurting people as they are with stealing stuff.

3. Having a gun to protect your home does not automatically mean that you will just start shooting wildly if you hear a noise in your house. Many violent situations are completely diffused simply because one person had a weapon to defend themselves with. Just google Mormon Samurai.

4. Nothing about being an armed citizen has anything to do with being an 'action hero.' Just having the tiny sliver of courage it takes to pick up a weapon and attempt to defend yourself is what's important, not being Jason Born and taking down 6 heavily armed bad guys with a pen.

At some point EVERYONE (you, me, the next guy reading this) HAS to understand that it's entirely possible that some asshole breaks into your house with the intent to harm you or your family. That this WILL happen WITHOUT the police being able to respond quick enough, and that YOU are the only thing standing between said intruder and harm coming to your family.

It's up to YOU to decide which is more important: Letting some asshole hurt you or your family (possibly raping and/or killing them) or your flimsy ideal that cops are there to prevent things like that from happening, so you don't need to do anything but call them.

Every day there are situations where someone had a split second to choose between defending themselves and becoming a victim. I can guarantee you that 100% of the people that survive becoming a victim WISH they had only made the decision to defend themselves.

Just gotta throw this in here, police are reactive, not proactive. They show up after the fact. What happens in between is up to you

[Eroginous]

Don't forget one very important fact: For the most part, these bad guys breaking into your house are cowards, yellow through and through. So many scenarios have ended peacefully with just a gun being unholstered.

While I agree with most of this post, it's pretty stupid to just assume that because 'most' bad guys are cowards, that all of them are. You don't want to be in a situation where the one non coward breaking into your house is after your or your family and you didn't do a damn thing to prepare for that sort of a situation because you just assumed that most bad guys are cowards.

Just ask the Petit family of Connecticut how that turns out.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Statistics are the joke part of mathematics. They are the aspect that the media and politicians love because they can fudge numbers all day long to make things seem different than they really are.

Right. Which is why all those polls that showed Obama destroying Romney in the election turned out to be nothing but a "joke."

If you're going to call statistics a joke, that's fine. But don't do it just because you don't like what those statistics are saying. I've seen your other posts in the spirituality threads. You're a pretty scientific-minded individual. Don't let your biases cloud your judgement on this issue. Stick to the science.

So please, stop trying to make this argument like laws exist as a force field that prevents crime. They don't. We have ample evidence indicating as much, and zero evidence that anyone ever refrained from breaking the law simply because the laws exist.

I've never once said that laws are a "force field that prevents crime." Unfortunately, that's just another example of you putting words in my mouth.

I've been very clear in stating that the purpose of laws is to govern our behavior, and to prohibit undesirable behavior. There isn't a single law on the books that doesn't seek to alter our behavior in one way or another.

That's not to say, however, that everyone will end up following said laws. But the majority of individuals will(in terms of felonies). And how are we supposed to know which laws to follow if they aren't clearly defined?

The purpose of a background check law is to clearly define what behavior is legal, and what behavior is not legal. It's also to give government recourse in applying and enforcing said law. There will be people that follow the law, simply because it's defined, and there will be people that break the law regardless.

I have to register my 15 round magazines in Connecticut due to the new legislation that passed. Personally, I think it's a dumb law, and the State has absolutely no way of enforcing it, or knowing how many 15 rounds mags I have. That being said, I'm going to register my magazines, because that's the law.

[Thephayul]

While I agree with most of this post, it's pretty stupid to just assume that because 'most' bad guys are cowards, that all of them are. You don't want to be in a situation where the one non coward breaking into your house is after your or your family and you didn't do a damn thing to prepare for that sort of a situation because you just assumed that most bad guys are cowards.

Just ask the Petit family of Connecticut how that turns out.

Agree'd, thats why i put in the for most part bit. No doubt, out there somewhere is a dude just looking to hurt someone and he just doesn't care,but by and large most guys looking for a good time with some larceny arent going to argue with the guy with a gun.

[vaeevictiss]

just another one of those things that never makes the news since an AR15 can never be used for personal defense...

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defens...been-on-drugs/

[Deadvolcanoes]

just another one of those things that never makes the news since an AR15 can never be used for personal defense...

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defens...been-on-drugs/

I think the argument is more along the lines of "there are much better weapons to choose from for home defense/close quarter combat." Not that an AR15 can't be used for home defense.

Good on the home owner. Kept a level head and eliminated the threat.

[vaeevictiss]

well there are a shit load of stories on there. Like a WW2 vet that killed 1 of 3 burglars with a .22. People seem to think that a home invasion will always only be 1 bad guy.