Print

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

[Montague]

I'm dismissing both sites on the grounds on having zero credible scientific value. Can you do better?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp -Lot's of scrolling and untold footnotes citing references.

http://www.crimetrends.com/id3.html -A site showing long term crime statistics

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx -A different site showing an increase in gun ownership.

So in the USA, crime has gone down while guns have become more commonly owned. The country is safer, guns are more prevalent. Mysteries.

[Willfor]

When did we talk about gun bans? You're burning a straw man here MSH. (Except if you're talking about assault weapons bans. Which the same polls suggest most Americans favor.)

Which is strange, considering the second amendment. Assault weapons, as others have pointed out, are not useful for crime. But, they are very useful for overthrowing governments. The same is true for anti-tank weapons and mortars. So, to stay in the spirit of the second amendment, it's handguns that should be banned, not assault weapons.

I'm pretty sure hyperbole is banned in this thread. Mostly because I am the reason it is banned.

[Max White]

Which is strange, considering the second amendment. Assault weapons, as others have pointed out, are not useful for crime. But, they are very useful for overthrowing governments. The same is true for anti-tank weapons and mortars. So, to stay in the spirit of the second amendment, it's handguns that should be banned, not assault weapons.

So... Does that make me entitles to own a functioning tank?
Well not me, but the American version of me?

I'm dismissing both sites on the grounds on having zero credible scientific value. Can you do better?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp -Lot's of scrolling and untold footnotes citing references.

http://www.crimetrends.com/id3.html -A site showing long term crime statistics

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx -A different site showing an increase in gun ownership.

So in the USA, crime has gone down while guns have become more commonly owned. The country is safer, guns are more prevalent. Mysteries.

I'll get reading.

[Sheb]

Well, depend what you call "regulations" and what you call "bans" then. And even that talks of restricting guns to the range was when presenting Belgium as a rather extreme, but working exemple.

Anyway, let's find something else to talk about.

[Frumple]

So in the USA, crime has gone down while guns have become more commonly owned. The country is safer, guns are more prevalent. Mysteries.

Nrg, there's pretty strong suggestion that the crime rate going down has more to do with the prison system than gun use -- and that the crime rate isn't going down as much as the numbers might suggest, just being hyperconcetrated into the prisons and not reported. Of course, gun ownership doesn't have much to do with in-prison crime, but eh.

Not to mention like fifteen billion other variables involved.

[Virex]

Which is strange, considering the second amendment. Assault weapons, as others have pointed out, are not useful for crime. But, they are very useful for overthrowing governments. The same is true for anti-tank weapons and mortars. So, to stay in the spirit of the second amendment, it's handguns that should be banned, not assault weapons.

So... Does that make me entitles to own a functioning tank?
Well not me, but the American version of me?

That's an interesting question, because besides weapons, tanks are also defense, making it harder to stop you for gun-carrying civilians if the need arises. From the second amendment alone there would be no reason to ban tanks, but I could imagine there being other laws that trump the constitution in this specific case (not to mention local traffic rules. A tank is going to break the pavement of most roads)

[Andir]

I'm dismissing both sites on the grounds on having zero credible scientific value. Can you do better?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp -Lot's of scrolling and untold footnotes citing references.

http://www.crimetrends.com/id3.html -A site showing long term crime statistics

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx -A different site showing an increase in gun ownership.

So in the USA, crime has gone down while guns have become more commonly owned. The country is safer, guns are more prevalent. Mysteries.

It's also, apparently, hard to follow sources, (Google for online copies, etc.) without my help.  The information is out there, if you want to find it.

[Frumple]

So... Does that make me entitles to own a functioning tank?
Well not me, but the American version of me?

Pretty sure there's at least a few privately owned tanks in the US. Regulated straight to hell and obviously not road legal, but they're out there.

[Nadaka]

So... Does that make me entitles to own a functioning tank?
Well not me, but the American version of me?

Pretty sure there's at least a few privately owned tanks in the US. Regulated straight to hell and obviously not road legal, but they're out there.

I endorse personal tank ownership.

[Max White]

That's an interesting question, because besides weapons, tanks are also defense, making it harder to stop you for gun-carrying civilians if the need arises. From the second amendment alone there would be no reason to ban tanks, but I could imagine there being other laws that trump the constitution in this specific case (not to mention local traffic rules. A tank is going to break the pavement of most roads)

Well tanks large enough to break pavement tend to cost money. I know that in Sydney you can rent a tank that has had it's torrent disabled, parts ripped out, and barrel filled, so that thing will never be used as a weapon again, but the tank itself is roadworthy.
On that basis, I'm sure you could navigate your way around the road laws, the only problem would be the fact that weaponry of that calibration is so illegal here it isn't even funny. Just for owning the ammo you would get put away... But over in the land of freedom and fire fights, a man can dream!


Also, still reading. Finding a lot of interesting figures here, and a lot of them show correlation! It is a shame that such a thing is in no way proof, or I could prove that pirates prevent global warming. Correlation != causation.

[Virex]

That's an interesting question, because besides weapons, tanks are also defense, making it harder to stop you for gun-carrying civilians if the need arises. From the second amendment alone there would be no reason to ban tanks, but I could imagine there being other laws that trump the constitution in this specific case (not to mention local traffic rules. A tank is going to break the pavement of most roads)

Well tanks large enough to break pavement tend to cost money. I know that in Sydney you can rent a tank that has had it's torrent disabled, parts ripped out, and barrel filled, so that thing will never be used as a weapon again, but the tank itself is roadworthy.

Wel, IIRC it's not that a single tank is going to fuck the pavement up, but they put much more wear on it than other vehicles, so if tanks rolling around becomes commonplace, poor grade roads start to suffer. Hell, anyone that's ever visited the countryside of northern France knows what normal cars can do to a road given enough time, let alone what happens if tanks regularly use those kind of roads.


Of course, if you stick to the main roads that isn't much of a problem as those are generally well-maintained.

[Nadaka]

With real world studies on social issues correlation is all you ever get. You can not prove ANYTHING by looking at real world statistics.

[Max White]

Wel, IIRC it's not that a single tank is going to fuck the pavement up, but they put much more wear on it than other vehicles, so if tanks rolling around becomes commonplace, poor grade roads start to suffer. Hell, anyone that's ever visited the countryside of northern France knows what normal cars can do to a road given enough time, let alone what happens if tanks regularly use those kind of roads.


Of course, if you stick to the main roads that isn't much of a problem as those are generally well-maintained.

I guess if tanks became that common, there would be light weight models, cheaper to produce, and easier to park.
Hell, maybe we can make a version for the far left wing. The electric tank!

EDIT:

	Total Contributions	Donations to Democrats	Donations to Republicans	Percent to Dems	Percent to  Repubs
Gun Rights	$22,467,579	$3,231,405	$19,195,400	14%	85%
Gun Control	$1,888,886	$1,776,310	$112,326	94%	6%

I wonder why gun supporters feel that need to give so much to their chosen political party...

[Montague]

There is a private contractor that owns an M60 tank with live ammunition in the US. It's hired by the state government to shoot the sides of mountains to cause controlled avalanches.

http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/83916802.html

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960328&slug=2321287

Ok, it's apparently just Washington state, I guess.

Also, tanks don't really tear up pavement as bad as popularly believed. They have rubber pads and whatnot. They do leave something like black tire marks and bits of rubber when they turn and they'll crush the edges of curbs if they run into them.

[Virex]

Also, tanks don't really tear up pavement as bad as popularly believed. They have rubber pads and whatnot. They do leave something like black tire marks and bits of rubber when they turn and they'll crush the edges of curbs if they run into them.

In retrospect, that does make sense, as caterpillar tracks are designing to spread the weight.