What reason would there be to remove gunshot suicides from a 'deaths by firearm' graph other than to try and skew the statistics to suit your agenda?
Link?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gunsmiths 3D-Print 30 Round MAGAZINES To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws
- Thread starter CrankyJay
- Start date
- Status
What reason would there be to remove gunshot suicides from a 'deaths by firearm' graph other than to try and skew the statistics to suit your agenda?
Link?
It can get pretty bad around these parts.
EDIT: I do agree that according to the statistics I've read, the vast majority of these sort of crimes are committed with handguns.
And clearly the only way to stop that, is more guns.
Maybe not where you live, here they do.
TheKaeptain
Banned
http://www.news10.net/news/article/163263/2/stockton-man-killed-in-pot-related-home-invasion
This? Because that is the only thing coming up from the last few years.
Edit: Also no one should live in Stockton. Piece shit of a town. It may be worse than South Fresno.
The guns used in these crimes were not legally acquired. Fully autos are not legal here.
Does arming law abiding citizens help protect them? I believe it does, as does my city. Which is why the Sheriff department issued me a CCW permit.
I definitely feel safer now.
Angelus Errare
Banned
I'm sure there are dudes out there who have acquired AKs, but they're definitely not the norm.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
No seriously, I'm curious what they mean by undetermined.
Nope not it. I'll try to find it. Stockton had 71 homicides just last year. 58 in 2011, so it's increasing. Things sorta get buried with that sort of data.
The local news has even become lazy in reporting it nowadays.
And most of the people who use 'autos' are committing violence against other criminals generally, its about turf wars and crap. The random home invasion is done, 99% of the time without a weapon at all because they generally think that the person wont be home...
Arming you does nothing. Its nothing but a 'give up' by the cops and local council who cant be bothered to do or pay for law enforcement.
Arming you does nothing. Its nothing but a 'give up' by the cops and local council who cant be bothered to do or pay for law enforcement.
A gun may be involved, someone can be shot, but they can be stabbed too. How did they die? undetermined, but a gun was involved.
desertdroog
Member
Is this the video people are talking about? Happened in Arizona.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715
TheKaeptain
Banned
I'm still looking.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
According to ProPublica:
"The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research."
http://www.propublica.org/article/five-federal-policies-on-guns-you-never-heard-of
So yeah they lobbied hard to stop research.
"The New York Times explains that as the CDC became "increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon," the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research."
http://www.propublica.org/article/five-federal-policies-on-guns-you-never-heard-of
So yeah they lobbied hard to stop research.
It's stuff like this that makes me emphasise that gun culture in and of itself is the issue, not the component (well kind of the component, but hear me out). The less people idolize guns, the less people look to guns as some sort of symbol of freedom (that's a little perverse when you give that some thought) the less you'll probably see of gun violence.
Whether or not that violence is replaced 1:1 with non-gun violence (stabbings, lethal beatings) I guess is unknown, but my un-professional opinion is that it probably won't be.
Basically, let's all just have less of a hardon for guns and killing in general, and look to helping the people who have serious mental issues, and that's probably the most future proof we can get.
Whether or not that violence is replaced 1:1 with non-gun violence (stabbings, lethal beatings) I guess is unknown, but my un-professional opinion is that it probably won't be.
Basically, let's all just have less of a hardon for guns and killing in general, and look to helping the people who have serious mental issues, and that's probably the most future proof we can get.
Not what I was talking about but holy crap that was intense. Glad the homeowner is safe.
This is another situation where a handgun and/or a shotgun would not have been the right tool for the job.
Anyways, I'm going to leave this thread because despite my good intentions, I think I may be irritating some.
Just want to reiterate I respect ya'lls opinions, just thought I'd take a moment to express my own. While I am gun proponent, I have many anti-gun friends. I realize they have good intentions, just like I do, and that is really what matters to me. Good peoples sometimes have different opinions, it's just the way the world works.
I hope I didn't bother anyone too much and I enjoyed our palaver
This is another situation where a handgun and/or a shotgun would not have been the right tool for the job.
Anyways, I'm going to leave this thread because despite my good intentions, I think I may be irritating some.
Just want to reiterate I respect ya'lls opinions, just thought I'd take a moment to express my own. While I am gun proponent, I have many anti-gun friends. I realize they have good intentions, just like I do, and that is really what matters to me. Good peoples sometimes have different opinions, it's just the way the world works.
I hope I didn't bother anyone too much and I enjoyed our palaver
I know this won't be a popular post, but the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in the Bill of Rights so citizens could go hunting, or so they could defend themselves within the confines of their homes in the event of a burglary, or so they could go out an practice at a target range as a form of recreation. The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that people can fight, effectively, with guns. Guns that are on-par with the standard issue weapon in the army. The SCOTUS has issued rulings consistent with this interpretation, repeatedly.
If you don't like that this has been included in the Bill of Rights, then do your best to get it repealed. It was intended by those who wrote the Constitution as in integral component of the contract between the government and the governed - the people were to always keep in their possession the ability to meaningfully resist any foreign invasion or imposition of tyranny. It was an attempt by soldiers in 1775 at Lexington/Concord to confiscate privately owned weapons that sparked the Revolutionary War, so there can be little mistake that this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee. It doesn't matter if you think it is anachronistic, or unrealistic .... it is still the supreme law of the land. It is a fundamental right, which the Constitution specifically says shall not be infringed.
More kids will die this year from drunk driving than have ever been killed in random mass shootings involving semi-auto weapons, and a simple 'blow-n-go' device could easily be built into every car at a reasonable cost, but nobody's out there screaming for that to happen. Why? Because it's the drunk's fault, not everyone else's.
If you don't like that this has been included in the Bill of Rights, then do your best to get it repealed. It was intended by those who wrote the Constitution as in integral component of the contract between the government and the governed - the people were to always keep in their possession the ability to meaningfully resist any foreign invasion or imposition of tyranny. It was an attempt by soldiers in 1775 at Lexington/Concord to confiscate privately owned weapons that sparked the Revolutionary War, so there can be little mistake that this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee. It doesn't matter if you think it is anachronistic, or unrealistic .... it is still the supreme law of the land. It is a fundamental right, which the Constitution specifically says shall not be infringed.
More kids will die this year from drunk driving than have ever been killed in random mass shootings involving semi-auto weapons, and a simple 'blow-n-go' device could easily be built into every car at a reasonable cost, but nobody's out there screaming for that to happen. Why? Because it's the drunk's fault, not everyone else's.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Awesome I am going to go into my local arms store and buy a shit load of grenades and maybe a tank.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Exactly. In gun crimes and even suicides, people aren't using these types of rifles with these large magazines in the first place. They make up a very small percentage of actual gun crime and deaths. And it appears that, yeah, 2% is about the rate in which assault rifles are actually used in crime.
Here is at least one report on that. Not sure of the credibility of the site and it looks like that stat is pulled straight from the linked Congressional report.
Why not try to prevent them though? Columbine's weapons were purchases legally. Aurora's weapons were purchased legally. Sandy Hook's weapons were purchased legally.
The point is people are focused on the 'mass shooting' events, and in those, they are always assault weapons, and they are always 'mass shootings' because they have those weapons available to them.
You cant kill as many people as quickly with a hand gun with 10 bullets and having to reload. You cant do as much damage physically either.
You cant kill as many people as quickly with a hand gun with 10 bullets and having to reload. You cant do as much damage physically either.
Your "local arms store" won't have that stuff. You'll need to find a Class 3 dealer. Plus lots and lots of cash.
Would've been no problem before 1934.
So because there is one situation that kills more people, we should neglect another? Bullshit misdirection. Just because people die from one thing doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that there is poor regulation on tools designed explicitly to kill efficiently and we have a backwards culture that believes there is a direct correlation between how quickly they can throw metal projectiles around and freedom.
And a bunch of rednecks with guns isn't going to defend anything. People would need actual training to effectively resist an opposing military, and that is assuming the resistance had access to tools like Drones, Tanks, etc.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Because it has already been attempted. There was an assault weapons ban in 1994 that was largely ineffective. I'm fine with increased gun ownership standards and storage requirements. That's all fine.
What I'm not ok is Congress trying to pass ineffective legislation in order to pat themselves on the back. I mean if you're going to target categories of gun, if at all, then go after handguns. At least I'd have more respect for the federal politicians that have the balls to go for it. I don't understand spending all of this energy to target rifles when they in reality are not involved in nearly as many crimes as they are portrayed. Yes the ones they are involved in are sometimes mass shootings and that is unfortunate they happen in the first place - but they are not the main problem in the scheme of things.
It was ineffective due to the amount of loopholes within the 1994 ban. Under the ban, and under the NY and other state bans, it's still possible to purchase high capacity clips and magazines if they were made prior to the ban. A mandatory gun census, followed by an exto-facto buy back program could begin to make that type of legislation effective.
reggieandTFE
Member
1) How do you know what the writers of the 2nd amendment intended? Are you a constitutional law scholar?
2) What does "well-regulated" mean to you?
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Prior to the North Hollywood Shootout most police had only pistols and shotguns. It was only after did they get AR15's.
Just an interesting sidenote.
Oh and that's how the 10 round gun clip law got introduced. So blame criminals not politicians.
Just an interesting sidenote.
Oh and that's how the 10 round gun clip law got introduced. So blame criminals not politicians.
GoldenEye 007
Member
No legislation will make it through without a grandfather clause. No politician probably in our lifetimes will sponsor a law that would require people turning in their existing arms or accessories. It's a non-starter if you're talking about not allowing a grandfather clause.
The current proposed legislation includes a grandfather clause too.
I think this is a point on which most people misunderstand how it works ... any government that would order the confiscation of previously legal firearms, in a nation where the possession of such arms is a right guaranteed by its Constitution, has already crossed the line. When the confiscations begin, how many erstwhile law-abiding families (including children) will need to be gunned down by federal agents before public opinion begins to shift?
MOLON LABE
History says otherwise.
I don't know if that's a good argument - especially considering how things that may have once been possible are no longer possible all the time, and vice versa.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Different times, different places.
You're telling me that a ragtag group of people with guns would be able to defend against a military like the US's?
-- You're obviously not, so your point is what. If you don't like what the Supreme Court has said on this issue then try and get it amended. This ridiculous attempt to paint the 2nd Amendment as "outdated" (but everything else you take advantage of is A-OK) is just embarassing. There are mechanisms that don't require backdoor dealings and exploitation of the ignorant to do what the pro-ban people want. But they know for a fact that there's zero chance of that happening so they need to work hard to find a way around the Bill of Rights.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Eh, I think this is an irrelevant course of debate, but I mean it's not like even in modern times, rebel groups haven't wreaked havoc on established militarizes. I'm sure you could ask the former USSR or even US about some recent conflicts in which they assumed they would just roll over their opponents yet were stymied by largely rebel, unorganized militants.
Additionally, are we so sure the military would be open to firing on US citizens in their own towns and soil?
Byakuya769
Member
I thought people only had these guns because they're fun to use recreationally or they're collectors. Why do they need bigger magazines?
Jail them all.
Jail them all.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
That is the key. My own post may be slightly irrelevant but it all boils down to this pretty much.
Also one need only look towards the arab spring. Military sides with the populace (ala Egypt) you should be in OK shape. Military going against the populace (ala Libya), well, good luck.
The reason why those small rebel groups have a chance is because the goal of the invading force/army isn't to kill any and all civilians that step a toe out of line. Look at countries where that sort of thing is a reality - ie, North Korea.
If the US got all North Korea, and didn't hold any value for civilian life - then you better believe a bunch of 'rednecks with guns' would do next to nothing.
At the same time, the odds that the US Army would turn on it's civilians en masse is absolutely not a possibility.
As you stated, gun and violent crime is going down. What happened in Aurora and Sandy Hook were anomalies, but it's obvious that some type of legislation needs to be implemented.
I think it'd be easier to initiate a yearly firearms census. Get an idea of what's out there for ten years, and slowly begin to regulate the AR market in particular, after the ten year registration program.
After the ten year census program, the Federal government should federalize gun regulation with a new amendment pertaining to State's rights. Next, the government should begin a buy back program of telescoping and fold-able stocks, high capacity magazines and anything that could make the rifle more concealable.
If the government actually got a number of what's going on a gun and what's not. Who has one and how close is that gun to a criminal? I think it'd be more effective instead of introducing reactionary legislation for sure.
Do you like not watch the news? At all? Ragtag bands of nobodies with poor eyesight, badly maintained smallarms, and extremely poor tactics have certainly proved to be quite a challenge for the US military. But that fact doesn't fit your narrative, so you'll just ignore that right now, at this very second, there are situations where all the tech-fu and billions of dollars in proxies we can conjure isn't any help.
Technofetishism by ignorant civilians is what is is. No veteran in their right mind would downplay the effectiveness of an armed person with motivation. Even with tanks and drones and cyberwar ECM suites and all.
The Soviets in Afghanistan tried this scorched earth policy and they won the war easily, the poor rebels never stood a chance in a total war strategy. Oh wait, that's not what happened. At all. (See Grau, Lester. Bear Went over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan for some interesting discussion on this subject).
This is hardly ancient history folks. I know this is a gaming forum, but the level of historical ignorance shown here is depressing.
1) Well, I took constitutional law, passed the bar exam, and have about 15 years' experience in criminal law including 5 years as a prosecuting attorney, so I'm probably qualified to state an opinion on the subject. How 'bout you?
2) I suggest you read the Supreme Court's Heller decision, or at least delve into some remedial grammar. The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, i.e. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a dependent clause. In other words, it does not stand alone on its own as a sentence. The operative clause, i.e. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a standalone sentence in its own right. So, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on any participation in, or even the existence of, a Militia. Conversely, it is the possibility of assembling a Militia which is dependent on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Simply put, the meaning of the term "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment has no bearing on the debate. But to answer your question, I take it to mean "well equipped and trained". And even if it did mean "to regulate" in the modern usage of the term, it still applies to the Militia once it is formed, not to the right. The right shall not be infringed.
.
You can get higher capacity magazines for handguns and .223 ammunition is not significantly more lethal than most handgun ammunition. Banning "Assault Rifles" is not going to stop or mitigate mass shootings.
Rural Americans with guns sure got smashed by Washington in the Civil War.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Do you, like, totally, like need to treat me like I'm 5? Obviously anyone anti-gun is fucking retarded.
You act like those who have fought the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan were ragtag nobodies? Guess you need to pay attention. Even if you don't see it, they were and are organised, and actually have tactics to deal with the military? Car bombs? Roadside bombs? Guerrilla tactics? Obviously it fits your narrative to think these people are anything like the fat fuck rednecks who dream of overthrowing an American Dictatorship hell bent on coming after their guns.
Also The Civil War ring any bells? The moment the Union actually took it seriously as something more than just an uprising and used their superior communication, tactical, and installed infrastructure of the US Military, the ragtag nobodies LOST.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Wikipedia has a similar list, and if you only look at homicides in that list the US places pretty high at 3.7 (per 100,000 people). Now, that's a far cry from the craziest countries (El Salvador at over 50, damn), but the European countries with the highest gun homicide rates only come in at around 0.6 (and most have significantly lower rates than that - the Nordic countries, except Norway it seems, come in at around 0.2).
Now, I have no idea how accurate that list is, but I'm sure it gives some indication of things.
EDIT: Missed Montenegro, which has a much higher rate than the rest of Europe.
Are you talking about the insurrection supported by half the developed world(slight exaggeration)? I don't think that situation is even slightly analogous.
Do you think the Taliban would have been successful had they had no outside intervention?
edit: Also, I could go into why I think that the situation in general wasn't analogous to the scenario I was painting, even without intervention from the US and the like - but I don't think I even need to. But let me clarify, and maybe you can clarify.
If the US decided that it wanted to kill any human being in it's country that owned guns for example, with the full backing of the Army and with no fear of causing massive damage to the populace, do you think the guns that the civilians owned would do anything to prevent it from happening? And how so?
What would prevent this situation from occurring is just the fact that it is an impossible situation in the first place. The US government would never decide to systematically kill/attack it's citizens, as it is counter-productive to having a prosperous nation, the Army is made up OF citizens from that nation who would object very thoroughly.
Well golly gee, there were a few examples where someone could have used a higher count magazine. Considering how insanely unlikely it is that your weapon is going to be used for good instead of bad in the first place, citing a few examples out of a pool that already has near lottery odds must have sounded really, really compelling.
I'm sure I could find several examples where someone could have used a grenade launcher to protect themselves. Doesn't mean that everyone should be allowed to have an RPG.
makingmusic476
Member
I can only imagine what the future holds as creating objects of any type in our own homes becomes possible, and eventually quite cheap and easy.
It's only a matter of time. "Printing" nuclear weapons?
Right now I think comprehensive gun regulations can effectively keep guns off the street, as seen in places like Australia and Japan, but how long will that last? It only starts with printing magazines.
It's only a matter of time. "Printing" nuclear weapons?
Right now I think comprehensive gun regulations can effectively keep guns off the street, as seen in places like Australia and Japan, but how long will that last? It only starts with printing magazines.
Speaking about Stockton, I was driving to San Jose today and pulled over to read a text. Looked out my window and saw this (Quoted for size)
Stay classy Stockton.
Back on topic. I was just thinking about 3D printers. Don't all guns have to have serial numbers tracing and stuff like that?
What's to stop people from using 3D printers to just make untraceable guns. If I was a mob I'd be all over that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked