Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

It's not what they devote the most time to, is the point. What do you think training to be a police officer entails, field stripping/gun cleaning for three hours, holstering/unholstering for an hour, lunch, then four hours of range time?

Oh cool, we are now still continuing to pretend their other training doesn't have an effect on how often they use their firearms.

[TZucchini]

Does "firearm handling" according to the census include, as for example, how to clear a room? How to go through doors? The various techniques of holding a firearm and flashlight together without compromising control of either?

In other words, many things which have absolutely no practical application or utility for a CCW?

Because that's how we got on this, right? The idea that a CCW should be trained as rigorously as a LEO?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Because the training is police-specific, it's therefore not extensive? Very confusing.

And yes, the basic argument is that if you're going to carry a firearm on your person, you should have extensive training before doing so. And since we can't trust people to do the right thing, it needs to be government-mandated.

- - - Updated - - -

And on the topic of CCW holders, the Violence Policy Center has a new project detailing 'Concealed Carry Killers.'

[Deleted]

And on the topic of CCW holders, the Violence Policy Center has a new project detailing 'Concealed Carry Killers.'

Interesting link, do you also have a link that shows how many concealed carryers stopped a crime/violence from happening? Or is that also provided in the link?

[TZucchini]

Interesting link, do you also have a link that shows how many concealed carryers stopped a crime/violence from happening? Or is that also provided in the link?

In that same link, it shows "lawful self defense," which is even less than unintentional killings. The number is obviously low, considering the FBI counts a lot more. I haven't read over the entire article as to how they got their numbers yet.

[Stormdash]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Because the training is police-specific, it's therefore not extensive? Very confusing.

More to the point that "because the training is police-specific, it is almost entirely of no application to a CCW", and, as follows, that there is no point to putting a CCW through the same training. And even less of a point in having CCWs spend the same sheer time on the far less sweeping subject matter that a CCW needs to cover.

A CCW needs to know how to avoid the gun discharging other than when they intend for it to discharge, and they need to know what the local laws about carry and the use of force are. That's pretty much it. That can be covered in a day easily, and probably not even a whole day no matter how slow you talk.

And yes, the basic argument is that if you're going to carry a firearm on your person, you should have extensive training before doing so. And since we can't trust people to do the right thing, it needs to be government-mandated.

Funny thing is, right there, that's you trusting government (also people by all accounts) to do the right thing.

- - - Updated - - -

And on the topic of CCW holders, the Violence Policy Center has a new project detailing 'Concealed Carry Killers.'

Lots of lobbying groups have lots of categories with which to demagogue on behalf of their lobbying interest.

- - - Updated - - -

I notice that chart does not in any way discuss how many, if any, of the pending criminal charges are ones in which the defendant has raised an affirmative defense of lawful/justified use of force. Seems relevant, since any such acquittal immediately slides into the lawful self-defense graph at the conclusion of trial.

[PhaelixWW]

And on the topic of CCW holders, the Violence Policy Center has a new project detailing 'Concealed Carry Killers.'

Yeah, bogus study. Can basically include any shooting death in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont, because those states don't issue CCW permits, so the "study" decides that all gun owners are CCW. Also loosens the commonly accepted definition of mass shooting to inflate the numbers. Also includes suicides to further inflate the numbers. And that was found out within 5 minutes of looking at the study.

For the record, though, I don't have a problem with requiring a permit for CCW, provided that it's potentially available to every non-prohibited person (shall-issue).

For more, here's a counter-study from the Crime Prevention Research Center:

How law-abiding are permit holders?
One extremely easy fact to get information on is how law-abiding permit holders are. Much of the existing public discussion on crimes committed by permit holders in the media involves a report by the Violence Policy Center. Unfortunately, that report contains many inaccuracies as it often double or triple counts cases that shouldn’t even be counted as crimes or problems with guns to begin with.

Consider the two large states at the front of the current debate, Florida and Texas: Both states provide easy web access to detailed records of permit holders. During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding a permit for more than a decade.

Few--168 (about 0.006%)--have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002 percent. The already low revocation rate has been declining over time.

Over the last 77 months from January 2008 through May 2014, just 4 permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations. With an average of about 875,000 active permit holders per year during those years, the annual revocation rate for firearms related violations is 0.00007 percent--7 one hundred thousandths of one percentage point.

For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent. The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012, the latest year that crime data are
available, there were 584,850 active license holders.

Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent, with only a few of these crimes involving a gun.

The Florida numbers can easily be compared to data on firearms violations by police officers during the three years from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. During that time period, the annual rate of such violations by police was at least 0.007 percent. That is higher than the rate for permit holders in Florida. The police data on total annual offenses also provide a direct comparison for Florida and Texas. The rate of all crimes committed by police is 0.124 percent--a number about 6 times higher than the rate for in Texas and about 10 times higher than for Florida

Here's a more in-depth critique of the VPC study. I have to head to work ("paper-pushing", lol), so I don't have time to read through it, but have fun.

[Reeve]

There are now more pages in this thread than the number of years since Christ's birth (theoretically) and my birth.

How do you not exhaust all the avenues of discussion between page 1 and now?

[Tinykong]

What point are they trying to make by collecting all of these CCW incidents? Most of these are altercations between people fighting, would the lack of a CCW permit have prevented the killing?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you not exhaust all the avenues of discussion between page 1 and now?

Beating a dead horse just because.

[Stormdash]

And then there's this clown, in the Pennsylvania legislature --

In the near future, I will introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which will address the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges.

Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth. Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.

My legislation creates a new section under Title 18 Chapter 61 regarding firearms and other dangerous articles. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth except by law enforcement officers, military personnel or other public safety personnel in line with their official duties. If a person violates the provisions of the new section, he or she will commit a summary offense.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...hette-targets/

Some people in PA surely must be thinking they need to pay closer attention to state legislature races.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, bogus study. Can basically include any shooting death in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont, because those states don't issue CCW permits, so the "study" decides that all gun owners are CCW.

Where does it say this?

I have to head to work ("paper-pushing", lol), so I don't have time to read through it, but have fun.

At least you take pride in your work.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a more in-depth critique of the VPC study. I have to head to work ("paper-pushing", lol), so I don't have time to read through it, but have fun.

LMFAO John Lott.

In addition, gun nuts will inevitably cite the "research" of serial cherry-picker, data fabricator, and sock puppeteer John Lott.[11] Some may also use the equally fraudulent arguments of Lott's source, the criminologist Gary Kleck.[12]

This is worse than dismissing controlled inputs because they didn't align with raw data. And you linked this confirmed "data fabricator" not once, but twice. And you call Pre 9/11 intellectual dishonest? Holy hypocrisy Batman.

[Ghostpanther]

And then there's this clown, in the Pennsylvania legislature --



http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...hette-targets/

Some people in PA surely must be thinking they need to pay closer attention to state legislature races.

Lol! What a stupid legislation. How often will a CCP encounter a need to shoot a bear, wild turkey ( rofl! ) or deer with his handgun he is carrying for self defense? The great majority of the time in PA he will be defending himself from humans. Now if he lived in Alaska......

[lockedout]

. The requirements of the academy are not extensive, and the upkeep requirements sure as hell aren't.

Go on any cop forum, they joke about how they get a 16 hour course broken down into 2 days and in some cases fire there weapon 12 times to be certified. Out of those 16 hours 2-3 are spent on the range. Some of these cadets never had any prior experience with a weapon. Pre 911 linked Colorado STATE police, probably the only one he could find that had a 100 hour course. Regardless your local municipality does not go through the same courses as state police. You are more likely to deal with a local police officer then a state trooper, not to mention local cops outnumber state police by a great margin.

- - - Updated - - -

LMFAO John Lott.This is worse than dismissing controlled inputs because they didn't align with raw data. And you linked this confirmed "data fabricator" not once, but twice. And you call Pre 9/11 intellectual dishonest? Holy hypocrisy Batman.

Should he go back and delete those posts and pretend they never happened?

[TZucchini]

Yeah, bogus study.

Bogus study? That sounds like you've read through the study, and read through all the evidence as to why it's bogus. Please, proceed.

Here's a more in-depth critique of the VPC study. I have to head to work ("paper-pushing", lol), so I don't have time to read through it, but have fun.

Wait, what? You know the study is bogus because you posted a refuting paper that you didn't even read?

Can basically include any shooting death in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont, because those states don't issue CCW permits, so the "study" decides that all gun owners are CCW.

How do you know that the study you didn't read does that?

Also: Arizona CCW permits. Wyoming CCW permits. Arkansas CCW permits.

Am I missing something here?

[Rukentuts]

Wait, what? You know the study is bogus because you posted a refuting paper that you didn't even read?

There isn't really many times where attacking a source is really permissible. Lott is one of those exceptions. He has a history of just making shit up, and then using sockpuppet accounts to sing his own praises. I don't understand how Phaelix can lazily handwave studies by David Hemenway and then post this author's garbage. The double standard is overwhelming.

[TZucchini]

LMFAO John Lott

John Lott is the most discredited, most thoroughly debunked, "academic" on either side of the gun debate. He straight up fabricates data, and has been caught on multiple occasions.

[lockedout]

near 40,000 posts and it still goes on. its very simple really. if you want to reduce gun related murder and gun related crimes all you have to do is introduce striker gun controls.

all this 2nd amendment, freedoms, stuff is just utter bullshit. i read an academic study into the right to bare arms, and it referenced 14th century english law to support its weakassed argument. truth is, arms dealers want to sell arms, and they buy influence through power hungry politicians. this approach also strengthens those politicians because all the have to keep them in power is to sell you fear. fear of house invasion, fear of religious fundamentalists, fear of a new cold war.

well guys, all you can do is eat your daily dose of bullshit and fear.

Sounds to me like you're the one who is afraid.

[Stormdash]

Like, controls on striker-fired guns?

[lockedout]

Like, controls on striker-fired guns?

Striker from a Smith & Wesson M&P. The striker is partially cocked by the movement of the slide, then finished and released by pressing the trigger.

[Stormdash]

I was riffing on what clearly meant to say "stricter" gun control. I have no doubt that you'd have some gun control nut proposing a ban on striker fired guns because they are more 'violent' somehow, though.

[lockedout]

I was riffing on what clearly meant to say "stricter" gun control. I have no doubt that you'd have some gun control nut proposing a ban on striker fired guns because they are more 'violent' somehow, though.

Assault triggers bro.