Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ...
41
49
50
51
52
LastLast
  1. #1001
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    That's not what skewed data means. You seem to have it confused with reality.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 07:04 AM ----------



    They're not interested in data or statistics. It makes their action movie fantasies seem silly.
    Your data doesn't overpower the fact....a real fact....that I can and will take part in my second amendment right regardless of your tears and I will continue to live happily with my guns and enjoy them with my family at the range or in the woods and utilize them for home protection.

    The only confusion is anyone thinking they are going anywhere, but I did hear that being liberal is a risk for dementia (I'm sure I can find you a source!!) which could lead to that hope and continual drip drop of liquid failure.

    Infracted - please post respectfully
    Last edited by Kasierith; 2013-04-21 at 12:18 PM.
    The first explanation means you don't know. The second means you don't understand. The third means you can't accept the answer.

  2. #1002
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    They didn't vote it down. A minority of senators filibustered.
    Actually, the answer is that 54 senators DID vote for it... however, 5 Democrat senators, including Harry Reid voted NO. The particular rules that required 60 votes to pass were put in place in the year 2007, by the then Senate Majority Leader.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  3. #1003
    Quote Originally Posted by a1derful1 View Post
    Your data doesn't overpower the fact....a real fact....that I can and will take part in my second amendment right regardless of your tears and I will continue to live happily with my guns and enjoy them with my family at the range or in the woods and utilize them for home protection.

    The only confusion is anyone thinking they are going anywhere, but I did hear that being liberal is a risk for dementia (I'm sure I can find you a source!!) which could lead to that hope and continual drip drop of liquid failure.
    It doesn't overpower your fact. In the same sense your fact doesn't overpower the trend of data. The data doesn't show that everyone who owns a gun will accidentally or intentionally shoot someone. It does state that having a gun around will increase your chances of being shot. This should be completely obvious to everyone. Yes you can lower your risk by proper parenting, environment etc.. Individuals do this however, as a whole we don't which is why the overall trend shows that guns generally do more harm than good.

  4. #1004
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Helais View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

    Australia was a good success story of pretty heavy gun control. I think its pretty obvious that something this scale would be impossible in murica however it shows that the idea can work. If you have a reduced rate of gun deaths you probably will have a reduced rate of homicides. This isn't stating that people won't be killed by other means but it at least should make it more difficult to kill someone.
    Helais, now, provide the rest of the crime data from Australia for the affected period.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  5. #1005
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    In otherwords, having a gun around makes it more likely you will be shot by a gun.

    We see several claiming it isnt stored correctly thats why the numbers gets bad. so how about we mandate laws demanding ALL guns to be stored in gunsafes and unloaded.

  6. #1006
    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    Helais, now, provide the rest of the crime data from Australia for the affected period.

    http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/20...g?w=1024&h=725

  7. #1007
    Quote Originally Posted by Helais View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

    Australia was a good success story of pretty heavy gun control. I think its pretty obvious that something this scale would be impossible in murica however it shows that the idea can work. If you have a reduced rate of gun deaths you probably will have a reduced rate of homicides. This isn't stating that people won't be killed by other means but it at least should make it more difficult to kill someone.
    Should have read it closer.

    It said homicide rate changes were not significant and were debatable....some saying it was just wrong and that Aussies had a low homicide rate anyhow.

    It did say that suicide rates went down dramatically and were reinforced through other studies. While that's good...it's of no concern to me. I don't plan on killing myself. My favorite cousin put a gun in his mouth and ate a bullet. It doesn't mean I shouldn't have a gun for protection. I don't blame the gun....I blame him for being a moron.
    The first explanation means you don't know. The second means you don't understand. The third means you can't accept the answer.

  8. #1008
    Quote Originally Posted by a1derful1 View Post
    Should have read it closer.
    Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well. Such a buyback isn’t in the cards in the U.S. anytime soon — an equivalent buyback here would entail the destruction of 40 million guns — but the data suggest Howard might have a case.

  9. #1009
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Pretty graph, however, you clearly didn't read what I said... So I'll do it for you

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf

    here are your stats, enjoy your read.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  10. #1010
    Quote Originally Posted by Helais View Post
    Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted
    Two other studies don't give the answer the writer wants so they'll just go with the one that they like.

    Yup...as long as you discount or discredit others data you very well might have a case!!

    Nice find!!
    The first explanation means you don't know. The second means you don't understand. The third means you can't accept the answer.

  11. #1011
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    We see several claiming it isnt stored correctly thats why the numbers gets bad. so how about we mandate laws demanding ALL guns to be stored in gunsafes and unloaded.
    That would pretty much set off the "oh but I need it for sudden home defense" crowd.

  12. #1012
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Helais View Post
    Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well. Such a buyback isn’t in the cards in the U.S. anytime soon — an equivalent buyback here would entail the destruction of 40 million guns — but the data suggest Howard might have a case.
    The data you cherry picked might suggest that. In addition, you might want to check your source when you say there are only 40 million guns in the US.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf page 8


    How Many Guns Are in the United States?
    The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey that in 1994, 44 million
    people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were
    handguns. Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one
    firearm.26 According to the ATF, by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were
    available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States. That total includes
    roughly 72 million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64
    million shotguns. By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259 million:
    92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns. By 2007, the number of
    firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles,
    and 83 million shotguns.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  13. #1013
    Pit Lord lokithor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mobile, AL
    Posts
    2,396
    Question is.

    Does the OP even know what liberal is?

    He can even speak english and claims hes Irish

    Infracted - please do not post just to bash people
    Last edited by Kasierith; 2013-04-21 at 08:18 AM.

  14. #1014
    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    Pretty graph, however, you clearly didn't read what I said... So I'll do it for you

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/...%7Dfacts11.pdf

    here are your stats, enjoy your read.
    What are you trying to prove by the article? Most of the stats show an overall decline or leveling out...? You also asked for data around the affected period which this shows little of. A majority of the trend graphs start at 2002 which is 6 years after the gun buy back.

  15. #1015
    I can't believe people are worried about "confiscation".
    The logistical nightmare of trying to confiscate 300million+ guns alone makes it damn near impossible, to the point of making it near tinfoil hat level.

  16. #1016
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    They didn't vote it down. A minority of senators filibustered.
    There was no filibuster. There was a unanimous consent agreement prior to the vote.

  17. #1017
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    That would pretty much set off the "oh but I need it for sudden home defense" crowd.

    You cant claim both sides of the debate, if you think the storage is the issue for the numbers of gun owners and family of gun owners getting hurt by guns is due to storage you can than not come and claim if they stored it better it wouldnt happen, Since stored better means it is locked up, and best way to make sure that happens and that we get rid of it from under the pillow is to but it in the gun safe and demand it to be locked. Sorry not going to give the gun lovers the safety numbers of guns stored in safes when they arent willing to admit to laws that forces them to be stored in safes at all time when not in use.,

  18. #1018
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    This is not the gun control thread - if you want to talk about gun control legislation, take it here - http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...Control-Thread . Please stay on topic and post constructively.

  19. #1019
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Editing makes them equal? Heh...not even close.

    Editing and making shit up quite a difference when push comes to shove between FAUX and MSNBC.

  20. #1020
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    We see several claiming it isnt stored correctly thats why the numbers gets bad. so how about we mandate laws demanding ALL guns to be stored in gunsafes and unloaded.
    Heller shot that down. But sources indicate that it doesn't matter how you store it, your risk still goes up greatly.

Posting Permissions

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