Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

First off, wouldn't it be more appropriate to look at a graph of firearm-related homicides, rather than all homicides? This seems to be a popular conflation among pro-gun folks, because it makes for a convenient strawman.

No, it's not a conflation. I'm not "pro-gun", but I'm also not stupid enough to think "reducing gun-related homicides" actually fucking means anything. I just don't give a shit HOW people get murdered. I want them to get murdered less. IF gun laws do not help towards that end, they are worthless. (Though I believe most gun laws would help towards that end)

No one (other than the NRA and their shills) is making the argument that stricter gun legislation will reduce all forms of dying or even all homicides. But it WILL reduce gun homicides, which is kinda the whole point here.

IF gun laws do not reduce "all" forms of dying, then they have increased dying in some non-gun-related way. This is not an improvement. Reducing gun homicides is NOT the point. If we wanted to reduce gun homicides, the easiest way to do it would be to introduce some other alternative that's far more effective at killing people. But that would be stupid. We can certainly talk about reducing gun-related deaths, but we should do so within the context of reducing deaths overall. Once we elevate it to it's own special category, we've lost any moral justification that I can see.

As I've said before, you don't see a whole lot of mass stabbings or mass whacking-people-with-a-baseball-bat or mass archery massacres. Firearms (especially automatic and semi-automatic) firearms are unique from almost every other readily available form of weaponry in that they allow a person to kill multiple people very quickly at a distance.

That's pretty much... reprehensible, as a viewpoint. You aren't opposed to people dying, only to spectacle? Dead people aren't worth a dime unless they are part of some media-worthy event or something? This sort of thinking, and knowing how popular it is, scares me. This belief that the best way to solve the problem of people dying isn't to prevent people from dying, but to spread it out a bit more so it's easier to ignore.

It leads to bullshit like the assault weapon ban, when we would obviously and by far be better off banning handguns.

[Trollheiming]

Banning guns has indeed cut down homicide rates dramatically. The spike in 2003/04 & 2005/06 homicides is as it says caused by the possibly over 250 victims of Harold Shipman and terrorists. Pointing at that graph and saying "BANNING GUNS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" is just highly insulting.

No, it isn't highly insulting. Your hyperbole is a meaningless outburst and disrupts the discussion. How could it be insulting when you post a similar chart that shows almost no change in murders within a frigging decade of the ban? My chart actively points out the anomalies in 2003 and sets aside the extra deaths from Shipman and terrorism, then you follow me with outrage over the data that was pointedly adjusted in the first chart?

You're full of fake outrage, because you found nothing wrong with the data, in principle.

[Sheb]

To be honest, while the connection between guns and murder is less evident, the connection between guns and mass murders is pretty straigthforward. When you ban guns, people look for alternative as has been said. And the alternatives are usually far less effective.

[mainiac]

Banning guns has indeed cut down homicide rates dramatically. The spike in 2003/04 & 2005/06 homicides is as it says caused by the possibly over 250 victims of Harold Shipman and terrorists. Pointing at that graph and saying "BANNING GUNS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" is just highly insulting.

No, it isn't highly insulting.

Yes it is insulting.  You are either intentionally misleading people or saying things with confidence when you didn't look for the most basic background information.  Either way it's insulting.

[RedKing]

I understand what you're saying, but again...it's like judging a policy that regulates spinach to prevent E. coli outbreaks and saying it's ineffective because people are still getting E. coli from hamburger. Qualitatively, I stand by the argument that if a would-be mass murderer switches from an AR-15 to a fire axe...mission-fucking-accomplished. He's not going to be able to get more than a few victims before the rest flee and/or he's taken out by law enforcement or even bystanders.

And if a would be mass murderer switches to a scoped hunting rifle and kills people over the course of a few weeks instead of all at once? Or he switches to a truck full of fertilizer and diesel? Or if he switches to burning down apartment buildings full of kids? "Assault Weapons" are not the most effective tools available for mass murder.

Let's think about the availability of an AR-15 versus the availability of a dump truck and several hundred pounds of ammonium nitrate (the sales of which are now closely scrutinized by both the USDA and FBI). Moreover, the amount of time and planning it would take for any of the above scenarios, which increases the likelihood of the would-be killer tipping his hand.

Now let's think back to the AR-15. Walk into a gun show, buy a gun and some ammo. There, you're done. No background check required, no method for law enforcement to have any foreknowledge. Just because you have some psychopaths who will take the difficult route to causing mayhem is absolutely no sane argument for not preventing the easy routes.

Terrorists have any number of options available to them. That doesn't mean we should stop inspecting cargo containers or having increased security at large public events.

As I've said before, you don't see a whole lot of mass stabbings or mass whacking-people-with-a-baseball-bat or mass archery massacres. Firearms (especially automatic and semi-automatic) firearms are unique from almost every other readily available form of weaponry in that they allow a person to kill multiple people very quickly at a distance.

That's pretty much... reprehensible, as a viewpoint. You aren't opposed to people dying, only to spectacle? Dead people aren't worth a dime unless they are part of some media-worthy event or something? This sort of thinking, and knowing how popular it is, scares me. This belief that the best way to solve the problem of people dying isn't to prevent people from dying, but to spread it out a bit more so it's easier to ignore.

It leads to bullshit like the assault weapon ban, when we would obviously and by far be better off banning handguns.

Totally misreading my point there. It's about threat mitigation. My point is that you cannot stop every psychopath out there. But you can certainly limit their capacity to kill. We're never going to eliminate murder. It's part of human civilization, unfortunately. But you can heavily impact the rates of mass murder, which are much more strongly correlated to firearms than to other forms of attack. I appreciate what you're saying, but frankly it's idealistic. When you have a population of 310,000,000+ you're not ever going to eliminate murders. Certainly there should be (and are) efforts to reduce homicide rates across the board, but my point is that guns are statistically far more likely to be involved in mass murders than any other kind of weapon, hence more (pardon the unintentional pun) bang for your buck by going after automatic and semi-automatic weapons and/or high capacity clips.

[GlyphGryph]

But statistically, pistols are more likely to be involved in gun-murders, period. By your own logic, shouldn't they be banned as well?

Then we're just left with regular rifles and shotguns and... well, actually, I'm okay with that.

I wouldn't personally mind moving to the swiss model with it's focus on rifles and tight regulation of ammo (bought at ranges, has to be used at the range)

[Trollheiming]

Yes it is insulting.  You are either intentionally misleading people or saying things with confidence when you didn't look for the most basic background information.  Either way it's insulting.

But you can't tell me what part is wrong. You only have fake outrage. There's nothing misleading. My graph pretty much is your graph. Moreover, do you see the pink dotted line in mine? That is the number of deaths due to Shipman and terrorism. Those were accounted for and removed to clarify the data.

My chart is purely other homicides in 2003. Your outrage is empty.

[mainiac]

I wouldn't personally mind moving to the swiss model with it's focus on rifles and tight regulation of ammo (bought at ranges, has to be used at the range)

Switzerland has a much lower rate of gun ownership then the US (29% vs. 43%).  And that gun ownership is government issue so they are much more picky.  So I'd be all in favor of us going the Switzerland route by massively decreasing the number of guns and gun owners and making the restrictions much tighter.

[Loud Whispers]

Banning guns has indeed cut down homicide rates dramatically. The spike in 2003/04 & 2005/06 homicides is as it says caused by the possibly over 250 victims of Harold Shipman and terrorists. Pointing at that graph and saying "BANNING GUNS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING" is just highly insulting.

No, it isn't highly insulting.

Yes it is insulting.  You are either intentionally misleading people or saying things with confidence when you didn't look for the most basic background information.  Either way it's insulting.

Quite. You posted a graph that exaggerates the initial rise in crime after the first gun ban - which was not enough before the UK imposed the stricter gun restrictions today which show a massive decrease in homicide, to the lowest it is in the past 30 years, while completely ignoring national disasters.
It holds as much worth as saying 9/11 proves banning guns does nothing.


And now for a thorough breakdown.

[1] I'll grant that, but it's been so long since the ban, it would be hard to claim that the ban caused declines recently.
[2]What we can definitively say, however, is that the ban had no overall effect on homicides anywhere near its implementation date.
[3]I never claimed, when presenting a chart or some other data, that people would read the tea leaves the same way.
[4]I do, however, say that the data is not straight-forward in concluding the prevailing assumptions here.
[5]Fewer guns do not equal less murder. People have compelling reasons to snap, and they will snap regardless of ease or difficulty.

[1][4] No, it is easy to say what caused the decline. In America the number of gang related homicides committed with firearms has increased. In LA 58% of all murders were gang related.
How any people were murdered in LA last year and this year.
"Data from the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service also indicate that firearm usage has increased dramatically over time where murders are concerned. For the period 2002 to 2010, a total of 3264 murders were committed, of which 2421 or 74% were committed with the use of a firearm. Indeed, as Figure 16 indicates, firearms have become the weapon of choice where murders are committed. Prior to 2000, firearms were used in fewer than one third of all homicides in Trinidad and Tobago, whereas after 2000, firearm usage in homicides consistently increased to the point where at present, firearms represent by far the predominant type of weapon used in homicides. These data imply that at least an appreciable proportion of gang related murders are committed with the use of firearms.
The link between gangs and firearms is a troubling one. Firearm usage has increased over time for a range of additional crimes including wounding with intent and shooting with intent (see Figure 17). For the period 2002 to 2010, a total of 2164 woundings with intent were committed, with an annual average of 240. For this period, wounding with intent increased by an annual average of 13.4%. Shooting with intent exhibits similar upward trends. For the period for which data are available, there were a total of 1204 such shootings, with an annual average of 134. Shootings with intent increased at an average of 5.4% per annum. The only crimes in which firearms were used and in which there were decreases were robbery with aggravation (an annual average decrease of 2.7%) and robbery with violence (an annual average decrease of 0.3%). While there were observed decreases in these crimes, the quantum of such crimes nevertheless is cause for concern. With respect to robbery with aggravation, the annual average number of such crimes occurring is 1637 while the annual average number of robberies with violence is 455."
http://sta.uwi.edu/uwitoday/archive/june_2012/article9.asp

In the UK there are around 171 gangs, and as the same article says "the risk of becoming a crime victim in Britain today is at a 30-year low. There has been a long-term downward trend in crime, [2]including violent offences, since the mid-1990s," after the gun control laws were passed to make sure things like the Dunblane massacre wouldn't happen again. That is a direct reaction that means the difference between murder and attempted murder - [5]the difference between homicide and violent crime. This is even after cuts in the police force REDUCING the size of Britain's police force - and crime is still going down.
[3]There is interpreting data and falsifying data.
You are either deliberately misleading people, politicizing national tragedies or honestly don't care to have the slightest sensitivity towards anyone that's not a shotgun. Your graph is a bloody upward slope which does not correlate with actual data.

But you can't tell me what part is wrong. You only have fake outrage.

How fake you are Mr. Trollheiming. How fake indeed.

[Trollheiming]

But you can heavily impact the rates of mass murder, which are much more strongly correlated to firearms than to other forms of attack. I appreciate what you're saying, but frankly it's idealistic. When you have a population of 310,000,000+ you're not ever going to eliminate murders. Certainly there should be (and are) efforts to reduce homicide rates across the board, but my point is that guns are statistically far more likely to be involved in mass murders than any other kind of weapon, hence more (pardon the unintentional pun) bang for your buck by going after automatic and semi-automatic weapons and/or high capacity clips.

I know that you keep up on China, so I'm sure you know that every few years a nutter here stabs a couple dozen child to death in a school. They don't have so much as a blunderbuss here, but they get the job done. Mass-murders are rather small percentages of total murders, vanishingly so, and even then these crimes still do happen without guns. Crazy people gonna crazy.

[RedKing]

But you can heavily impact the rates of mass murder, which are much more strongly correlated to firearms than to other forms of attack. I appreciate what you're saying, but frankly it's idealistic. When you have a population of 310,000,000+ you're not ever going to eliminate murders. Certainly there should be (and are) efforts to reduce homicide rates across the board, but my point is that guns are statistically far more likely to be involved in mass murders than any other kind of weapon, hence more (pardon the unintentional pun) bang for your buck by going after automatic and semi-automatic weapons and/or high capacity clips.

I know that you keep up on China, so I'm sure you know that every few years a nutter here stabs a couple dozen child to death in a school. They don't have so much as a blunderbuss here, but they get the job done. Mass-murders are rather small percentages of total murders, vanishingly so, and even then these crimes still do happen without guns. Crazy people gonna crazy.

Yeah, China (and to a lesser extent Japan) are the only places I know of where "mass stabbing" is actually a thing. I don't know why, maybe the classrooms are harder to run out of? I honestly can't fathom how a dude can stab 20+ kids at one go. I don't see that happening here. US kids gonna run like hell.




Also, guys....seriously.

1. No name calling. It's one thing to call an idea stupid. It's altogether a different thing to call a poster stupid. This will not be tolerated.

[Bot Hack]

Not sure if trolling.
Certain that I approve.

But where do we send our 102 million man army of users for their tour of duty?

Trolling? I accuse you of treason! Though, oddly you approve anyways?

I say we complete Manifest Destiny and conquer Central and South America and Canada, under the United States of the American Empire. We will also need to appropriate many British islands in our waters, plus the Caribbean. Lose all ties to Europe after that, they'll be pissed.

Humanity Prevail! Those folks do not have to die, but they also can not understand our cause, so there may very well be bloodshed.

USAE 4 LIFE

[RedKing]

Not sure if trolling.
Certain that I approve.

But where do we send our 102 million man army of users for their tour of duty?

Trolling? I accuse you of treason! Though, oddly you approve anyways?

I say we complete Manifest Destiny and conquer Central and South America and Canada, under the United States of the American Empire.

Humanity Prevail! Those folks do not have to die, but they also can not understand our cause, so there may very well be bloodshed.

USAE 4 LIFE

And then the politics thread merged with an HoI AAR...

[mainiac]

USAE 4 LIFE

There isn't enough approval in the world.  Tell us more!

[PTTG??]

In non-gun issues, I want to know: in the upcoming year, we will probably see at least two serious revolts in major countries, and then there's the Eurovention in Mali, and Pakistan and India might finally get around to solving each others food supply issues.

Greece has a good chance of collapsing this year as food prices will be very high and nobody's happy with the Greek government. Algeria was also mentioned, and probably a bunch of unstable countries are going to wobble severely.

So, my question is, what should the US do about it? I for one don't think we should get involved; we tried that for a half-century, and being world police doesn't pay well.