weekend_warrior
Banned
Correlation does not imply causation.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jason Alexander's amazing gun rant
- Thread starter Salvor.Hardin
- Start date
- Status
Correlation does not imply causation.
Hes just spewing a load of shit. Majority of illegal guns come from illegal private sales. Not from "cartels".
We definitely need to crack down on the whole private market for guns, straw purchases, and licensed fire arms dealers selling illegally.
If we're talking about statistics, then it should be reiterated, handguns are used to injure and kill far more often than AR-15's. The idea that the AR-15 is more dangerous and thus should be banned completely ignores the realities of how guns are used. On paper the AR-15 MAY look more dangerous (which I'll argue against in a moment), but in execution (no pun intended), they don't contribute to gun violence and death nearly as much as handguns.
Secondly, while we're talking statistics, the reason that AR-15's may seem like a common gun used for violent gun related incidents - again, that involve a long gun rather than a hand gun, which is the minority - is because they ARE common. They are a very common rifle with parts and ammo widely available. It's a platform that has been popular for decades. Does that make it the most dangerous gun out there? No. Does that make it the best weapon a killer can use? No. It's simply a good gun that is very obtainable and popular.
To suggest banning it because it has been used in some massacres or is used with some frequency over other long rifles (which I'd need to see the data on; I've yet to see any) is like saying we should ban 9mm handgun ammo because it's used in more gun related incidents. Which is to say, it's nonsense. 9mm is the most popular round because it's cheap, there's a lot of it out there, most manufacturers make several 9mm models, etc. Does that mean it's the most dangerous chamber for a gun or even handgun out there? No. Does that mean it's the best weapon a killer can use? No. It's simply a popular round that is very obtainable.
Finally, this argument that AR-15's are more deadly than handguns is absurd. You critics point to magazine capacity (as if you can't get heavily extended mags for handguns), to accuracy and easy target acquisition (which means nothing . . . I challenge you folks saying this to explain yourself. In what way is the AR-15 more accurate or easy to acquire targets with? More accurate and easy to acquire targets with than what exactly? What optics system are you referring to? BUIS, holo, etched glass, etc? What accuracy? Compared to what? Certainly not a dialed in hunting rifle . . .), to . . . I don't know what else.
The problem is, you aren't mentioning a certain factor that makes handguns far more deadly than AR-15's: conceal-ability. Don't act as if this isn't a direct factor in making up a weapon's deadliness. The fact that you can hide a handgun (or 3) and use them at your leisure with the element of surprise is a huge one, and lends a deadly edge to handguns, as the majority of gun violence statistics would indicate.
The fact is, AR-15's aren't boogie-men, they aren't mass murder enablers, they aren't the problem here. Disconnected communities where we are isolated and alienated from each other and our environment are the problem, societies where schizophrenia goes unnoticed and depression and autism are on the rise, societies where we glorify consumption, commodification, and marketing, where we see toxic mimicries of all of the fundamentally important relationships and infrastructures that make up a healthy community, etc. The list goes on and on. Guns may be far more efficient tools at killing people than sticks, rocks, or even knives, but they're hardly to blame. We are killing each other for a different reason, and if we want the mass murders, the serial murders, the rapes, the hate crimes, and the other shit to cease, we've got to look at the fundamental structures of our society. Getting rid of one weapon or another won't change a fucking thing. It's a distraction. It won't slow us down. We'll switch to other guns, and if not guns, then fucking dirty bombs or anthrax in light bulbs, or suicide fucking bombs.
Secondly, while we're talking statistics, the reason that AR-15's may seem like a common gun used for violent gun related incidents - again, that involve a long gun rather than a hand gun, which is the minority - is because they ARE common. They are a very common rifle with parts and ammo widely available. It's a platform that has been popular for decades. Does that make it the most dangerous gun out there? No. Does that make it the best weapon a killer can use? No. It's simply a good gun that is very obtainable and popular.
To suggest banning it because it has been used in some massacres or is used with some frequency over other long rifles (which I'd need to see the data on; I've yet to see any) is like saying we should ban 9mm handgun ammo because it's used in more gun related incidents. Which is to say, it's nonsense. 9mm is the most popular round because it's cheap, there's a lot of it out there, most manufacturers make several 9mm models, etc. Does that mean it's the most dangerous chamber for a gun or even handgun out there? No. Does that mean it's the best weapon a killer can use? No. It's simply a popular round that is very obtainable.
Finally, this argument that AR-15's are more deadly than handguns is absurd. You critics point to magazine capacity (as if you can't get heavily extended mags for handguns), to accuracy and easy target acquisition (which means nothing . . . I challenge you folks saying this to explain yourself. In what way is the AR-15 more accurate or easy to acquire targets with? More accurate and easy to acquire targets with than what exactly? What optics system are you referring to? BUIS, holo, etched glass, etc? What accuracy? Compared to what? Certainly not a dialed in hunting rifle . . .), to . . . I don't know what else.
The problem is, you aren't mentioning a certain factor that makes handguns far more deadly than AR-15's: conceal-ability. Don't act as if this isn't a direct factor in making up a weapon's deadliness. The fact that you can hide a handgun (or 3) and use them at your leisure with the element of surprise is a huge one, and lends a deadly edge to handguns, as the majority of gun violence statistics would indicate.
The fact is, AR-15's aren't boogie-men, they aren't mass murder enablers, they aren't the problem here. Disconnected communities where we are isolated and alienated from each other and our environment are the problem, societies where schizophrenia goes unnoticed and depression and autism are on the rise, societies where we glorify consumption, commodification, and marketing, where we see toxic mimicries of all of the fundamentally important relationships and infrastructures that make up a healthy community, etc. The list goes on and on. Guns may be far more efficient tools at killing people than sticks, rocks, or even knives, but they're hardly to blame. We are killing each other for a different reason, and if we want the mass murders, the serial murders, the rapes, the hate crimes, and the other shit to cease, we've got to look at the fundamental structures of our society. Getting rid of one weapon or another won't change a fucking thing. It's a distraction. It won't slow us down. We'll switch to other guns, and if not guns, then fucking dirty bombs or anthrax in light bulbs, or suicide fucking bombs.
You're scaring me.
It's the truth, unfortunately. We're damn privileged in the US . . . we export all of our own violence elsewhere in the world, and people suffer far away as a result. When something like the CO massacre occurs, it shakes people here up because that just doesn't happen. But elsewhere in the world, people walk into rooms, buses, and buildings and blow themselves to the ceiling and walls, murdering sometimes dozens with them. It's not less terrible there. It's not less painful and scary and traumatic. But in some places, lots of places maybe, it's fucking common and therefore, all the more disgusting. But that's there. Not here. Not 'Merica the Brave.
We're upset (and rightfully so) about 12 poor people and 50+ others getting senselessly killed or injured. It's fucking terrible. But guns aren't our problem, and banning the AR-15 isn't going to make it harder for people to kill, and it won't stop us from killing.
Dreams-Visions
Member
childplease
Banned
A better solution should be outlawing or restricting high capacity magazines. There should be no reason for a person to own a 100 round magazine like the one possibly used in the shooting.
Partial Gamification
Banned
You speak for a very diverse group of people. I don't think that everyone in this country considers himself or herself privledged, and the "rest of the world" is not full of suicide bombers. It is true that is someone of set on commiting a heinous crime, any tool can be a weapon if used incorrectly. To say increased regulation would do nothing is absurd. Handguns have little other specific purpose than to be used against people. Responsible people can have their hobbies but it just seems like you are putting freedom above saftey. Saftey has historically trumped freedom in constitutional debates (as freedoms of speech do not allow one to cry fire in a theater, causing a stamped) and it is ultimately up to the politicans and judges to decide. No one is "coming for the guns and magazines" that are already out there, the question is if we need more just for the sake of tradition.
Really? Seriously, after all that I just wrote? Is this thread hooked up to a fucking broken record or something?
Read my 2nd post up from this one, ffs.
I don't think you read what I wrote if you think that I'm "putting freedom above safety" and feel the need to tell me that "No one is 'coming for the guns and magazines' that are already out there." Nor did I say that increased regulation wouldn't do anything. I said it would change the medium of the killing.
To simplify for you, my point wasn't that WE ARE FREE FUCK YEAH BABY and that YOU CAN TAKE MY GUN FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS. My point was that the problem isn't AR-15's. The problem isn't guns. The problem is systemic, societal, and far deeper than the current tools we are using to murder each other. Banning AR-15's of all things won't change that. And please go back to my previous post and reply to that before responding to this one. It's all there. This is just repetition.
Partial Gamification
Banned
The ease to aquire guns is a systematic problem whose solution is hindered by the traditions of gun-culture.
This statement has nothing to do with mine and is a response only insofar as having similar vocabulary.
Partial Gamification
Banned
I don't think anything is going to change your mind. Fair enough, you see what you want to see, I see what I want to see. Hopefully, we can find a better place that has less people injured by people out to hurt others.
Different weapons are meant for different roles.
You're obviously missing the context here. I'll repeat it again for you. Different weapons are meant for different roles. I'm not even sure why this example of yours was brought up. In 2011 do you think more people have been killed with a sword or with a knife/dagger?
It was more your use of inclusive terms like we/us that were scaring me rather than the sentiment expressed.
Probably more innocent than Freudian but still, I usually use them/they when I'm talking about nutjobs to exclude myself from them.
I use we, because it's we in most senses of the word. It is "we" humans who are suffering right now in our toxic culture. It is "we" US citizens who are dealing with the CO massacre and the ever re-occurring gun control question. It is "we" privileged who miss the boat on good analysis of power structures and society and instead focus on just exactly how we are killing each other, and it is "we" people that hurt, whether from bullet wounds, lost loved ones, taunting at school (Columbine), or whatever demons most recently taunted Holmes. I use "we" because it's important to identify with the reality of our current social condition and the violence that is bound up with it.
Well then if that's the case I don't think you give the rest of American enough credit. You honestly think that if guns were banned... "It won't slow us down. We'll switch to other guns, and if not guns, then fucking dirty bombs or anthrax in light bulbs, or suicide fucking bombs."
Really? Dirty bombs and anthrax light bulbs? I think you're buying into that American culture of fear a bit too much.
Really? Dirty bombs and anthrax light bulbs? I think you're buying into that American culture of fear a bit too much.
Pretty much. Guns ARE the problem. They are tools that allow violence. The ease of getting them is pathetic and our gun culture that we mythically need them is even worse. We need much stricter laws on not just guns like AR-15 but handguns as well.
So when we talk about Holmes, it's legit to refer to his AR-15, but it's "buying into that American culture of fear a bit too much" to mention the explosive rig that he built in his house? But forget it, I wrote an entire post above that responds to what you just wrote, but I'm sure it's too inconvenient to read or recall or apply. We'll just lazily continue to have the same argument for another 20 pages.
What shallow, inane analysis. We aren't killing each other because we have guns. We are killing each other because we have complex, deep, and systemic problems in our society, in my opinion rooted in the isolation and alienation from ourselves, each other, and our environment that is constantly marketed and taught and forced upon us. But regardless, we aren't killing ourselves because we have guns, and the guns are NOT the problem. They're simply a popular flavor for murdering. Take them away, and you've got 30 flavors left to choose from. We see them used in our own country and across the world every single day.
But again, more lazy arguments, please.
I never said most come from cartels. I said most come from corrupt FFL's that sell to the Cartels. Cartels then wipe many of the weapons and sell them back in the United States.
The Cartels also set up purchases LEGALLY through people they have in the Mexican government, to buy LOADS of weapons you can't buy as a civilian in the United states, from contractors in the US.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/
Many of those weapons end up back in the USA. Which is why they find weapons in the ghetto's of America, that can't even be sold to Civilians in the rest of the country.
You are correct that guns are purchased using strawman purchases (from corrupt FFL's). However, many of the people buying them that way, are from the Cartels. Especially around the border. Then those guns, once again, end up found in crimes commited on US soil.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/16/nation/la-na-gunrunner-20110616
Partial Gamification
Banned
But as magicstop says, it is clear that guns are not the only means to cause harm.
Anyone that claims they have all the answers is probably selling something.
Sorry if this is lame but this is how I feel:
Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.
Monkey killing monkey killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs.
They make a club.
And beat their brother, down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
...
Angels on the sideline again.
Benched along with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end.
-Tool Right in Two
How is Holmes in any way indicative of the majority of Americans? If that's your benchmark for the way you expect your fellow citizens to behave then wow, there's obviously a much bigger problem than just guns.
And really, your posts aren't the insightful be-all-end-all analysis you think they are so you can stop calling out everyone who disagrees with you as providing lazy arguments, it's lame.
Kenshin001
Member
Well previous to that there were a series of massacres similar to what goes on in the US. After that they stopped. I don't think anyone in Australia cares about the correlation/causation debate as long as no-one is getting killed. If there is another massacre then maybe that discussion becomes relevant. The Australian government had the balls to do something, the US government does not.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Depending on the law they may. I don't have the legal right to carry in my county/state. So I don't. And when it comes to firearms I follow the law to the letter. Criminals have this pesky habit of not following the laws. Hence why gun crime is still a bitch in areas where guns aren't legal to carry.
If I were in a CC state I would. In that situation I don't NEED to be police to carry a gun. And a person does have the ethical right to use a gun in self defense in areas where they're allowed to legally carry and have legally purchased a firearm and have their license.
Your argument was lazy because it had already been responded to, and yet you repeated it like something brand new, as if the response wasn't a little further up on the same page. It was lazy by simple virtue of it being . . . lazy. Not because my analysis > your analysis, or some such rubbish.
Also, if Holmes isn't indicative of Americans and isn't a benchmark, then why the fuck are we talking about the AR-15 as if it's a problem, or even having this discussion in light of the CO massacre at all? If this guy is a singular nut (he's not, despite your hardest wishes otherwise), then gun control isn't an issue. Holmes arrested, case fucking closed. Next.
I didn't even mention the AR-15. Just your stupid argument that if we took away Americans guns they'd resort to using "Dirty bombs and anthrax light bulbs" instead. Lazy argument, case-closed etc...
In most states in America, it is very difficult to get a weapon. Most people on Neogaf, would not qualify. You have any type of mental problem, from aspergers to depression, you don't qualify. You fail testing, you don't qualify. You have past convictions of any type, even a DUI, you don't qualify. If you fail a background check, for any reason, even aggressive tendencies that were marked down by a hospital you went to one day at 10 years ago, you don't qualify. You have to file massive paperwork. Every weapon you own has to be registered with the state or federal government.
There are a few states, like Texas and Pennsylvania where it is not like that. I feel on those states the laws could be strict. Like in NY.
There were 8,775 firearm murders in 2011. What is clear, is that total murders has nothing to do with gun laws of the state, and everything to do with population and amount of low income ghetto's.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Mammoth Jones
Member
Good for Australia. I'm glad they made their choice. We made ours. You don't have to agree with it.
Personally, I enjoy the idea that my government trusts me enough to be competent with a loaded weapon and use it according to the law.
Problem is every time some maniac goes on a rampage we're suppose to ban all guns for the 50% of American households that own them...
Some perspective is needed. I'm going to link this one more time because it amazes me that everyone bitching about guns conveniently ignored it:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
If crazy people want to kill others, they will. Most of the worst killers and terrorists of the past 100 years didn't use firearms.
And now you're misrepresenting what you've said over a series of posts, in a thread about gun control, I might add.
We're done here.
Well it seemed like that is what you were arguing. The top three ways to get illegal guns are
1. Corrupt FFL's as you said.
2. Strawman purchases.
3. Private sales (individual to individual).
Its pathetic that we supply the Mexican cartel who then in turn uses the weapons and brings some back across to us. Cartel weapons being brought back into the United states as a source of illegal weapons doesn't even come close to comparing to people going directly to corrupt FFL's and the other reasons I listed. Its also mainly restricted to the border states/cities.
Cracking down on those three reasons alone would help significantly in the gun trafficking.
Partial Gamification
Banned
This is the problem. There is already laws in place to stop this. They are just NOT ENFORCED. Thats the issue.
Most gun crime in the United States is not caused by legal firearms owned by responsible people. It's caused by ILLEGAL firearms. The numbers had to be posted 100 times in this thread already. It's virtually all ILLEGAL guns.
Now people want to ban Assault Rifles. I posted a link from the FBI in this thread that stated. 4 percent of Firearm homicides are committed with rifles, a fraction of a percentage are with Assault Rifles.
People are letting their emotions and lack of knowldge to counter their own cause.
If you want to get mad fine. If you want to fight fight. However put that effort into fighting ILLEGAL firearm activity, and force the ATF to actually enforce the laws like they do with the A and T part of their name.
I agree, but the majority of people killing others daily with firearms in the US aren't crazy people, they're just criminals or caught up in the heat of the moment. Don't tell me you agree with magicstop that these people would use anthrax and dirty bombs instead if they couldn't get their hands on a gun?
You're reducing my argument into something that it's not. People will continue to kill people, whether with knives, illegal guns, baseball bats, dirty bombs, or light-sabers. Guns aren't the problem, not with mass murderers, not with individuals caught up in the heat of the moment. You can't legislate pacifism, you can't legislate away murder. We need to focus on why we're killing each other and less on how, especially considering the ridiculous arguments against specific guns (like the AR-15, as has been occurring in this thread).
What magical fairyland would people not be able to obtain illegal firearms. Show me one example of prohibition working for anything, anywhere on earth.
I mean, thank goodness the government banned cocaine. Now nobody can get it.
The laws in place are only against corrupt FFL's. Strawman purchases and Private sales are another ball game.
LINK
Thats a pretty freaking big gap that private sellers don't have to do background checks. So yes we need ATF to do their job AND we need to create new regulations against private sales/strawman purchases that result in the private sale gap.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Well, they don't put it in child's cough syrup anymore. You are taking the absolutist perspective.
No, he is. He thinks somehow it's remotely feasible to eliminate guns in America, somehow.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Okay you are rubber and he is glue. Gun are not going to be banned, I agree.
This news story is inflamatory. They said they WOULD sell it to someone who couldn't pass a background check, not that they did.
Do you know how to obtain a firearm online in NY? You order it, and it's sent to YOUR LOCAL GUN STORE. Who then DOES THE BACKGROUND check. If you FAIL THE CHECK, you don't get your weapon. I outline exactly how to get a firearm online in NY in this thread already.
Online dealer may sell it to you if you can't, but the local gun store owner is not going to give you the weapon.
It's a bullshit piece.
Wouldn't it be harder to rig up such explosives in a movie theater (or elsewhere) or smuggle in any other arsenal, than to simply hide a gun and some rounds around your body?
I'm not an expert, though, so I'm not sure how easy it is for someone to get hold of a bomb (or its ingredients and construction know-how), place it in your shoe or whatever, walk into a theater, place it down, and walk out (or stay inside for that matter)... Surely it's much harder to achieve? Or will every psychopath suddenly use that method when high power guns are harder to acquire?
And why not make gun ownership harder, or require more identification or surveillance? For instance, all adults are free to purchase a safety handgun but must provide photo IDs and proof of residence, must wait 6 months to acquire the gun, meanwhile a taser can be requested to be delivered to the address (at pre-selected usual time of being home) 2-3 weeks later, you must carry a licence with you everywhere or face suspension, and at a small price have the licence renewed in person every 6 weeks, ... "for the safety of all, not just yourself".
Who said that?
1. The United States has a massive problem with violence and crime of all type. Not just gun crime. They have the worst gangs and ghetto's of any country you mentioned. So yes, there is going to be more gun crime based on this fact alone. There is more violent crime PERIOD in the United States. Why not mention that?
2. Firearms are not banned in those countries. It's easier to get a firearm in Canada, then it is in New York state.
3. The United States is larger then all of those countries combined.
I live in Canada. I could have gotten an illegal hand gun from the time I was in middleschool. We don't kill eachother as much because we grow up IN A DIFFERENT CULTURE. Our gangs are not as violent, are ghetto's are not as bad. United States has a massive cultural problem, of violence of poverty. This will never go away by "banning guns".
Calm down and stop going into tangents that have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. Why are you rambling about NY gun stores. This has nothing to do with them. Its private sales.
You are arguing that anthrax, dirty bombs and even nukes should be legal.
The notion that anything that can kill is exactly as dangerous and likely to be used as any other thing is quite silly. The logical conclusion of "people will always find other weapons to use" is that literally zero weapons should be illegal or even regulated.
Did you even watch it? It's private sale in New York via online sales. The online vendor sold the gun. However those guns don't go to your door in NY. They go to your gun store. Where you are vetted, and pick them up. After going to the police station. Then you go back to the police station, and register the firearm.
The ONLINE store sold the gun to the person. The gun store didn't give the firearm to the consumer.
Do you even bother to look at that graph? Gun deaths and gun ownership are pretty tightly correlated. Maybe not proof but it is something valid to consider.
Also, even if what you say is true, and there are other reasons why the US has a high murder rate, couldn't the total number of guns in circulation also be a major reason? I mean, you've listed a bunch of reasons, but apparently steadfastly refusing to admit guns might play a part.
- Status