Support NeoGAF

[Laughing Banana]

This talk about data and stuff.

I am interested in seeing any relevant data that is in favor of gun-owning people's arguments in here. Manos, can you give examples of such data?

 

[Godslay]

Because its untenable with the realities of modern life. It was founded on the belief that it were necessary to protect oneself against tyrannical government. Not only was that a poorly devised legislation in the first place, it reflects the political climate of 200 years ago, not the very complex and volatile environment we see now.

I'm not sure when the law was devised that the legislators envisaged a scenario where a young adult could walk into a shop and purchase a fully automatic, bullet spitting assault rifle for his own personal use. It's legislation that got out of hand and the political climate in the US is so complex that any attempts to amend it have been met with avalanches of self-centred derision.

People are under increasing living pressures too. Stress is high. All our issues, both personal and culturally, are documented and highlighted. Money is tight, political commentary has created a tinderbox effect, emotions are constantly heightened. Our speawling growth ensure too many people slip between the cracks, and our structures are often inadequate to deal with their mental and everyday issues. People just cannot be trusted. That we allow these people to be armed is negligible in my eyes.

And that's not to say I hate guns. Guns ARE fun to shoot at a firing range. But aside from controlled hunting and recreational use, they don't belong in modern society, especially not in the hands of the everyman.

Sorry for my rambling post, I just feel very strongly about it.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and I respect them. Even with that said, the 2nd Amendment has been challenged very recently and upheld by the Supreme Court. I know that you have stated that the Constitution is an ancient irrelevant text, but it is the document that is the supreme law of the land in the US.

Secondly, a young adult cannot purchase a fully automatic assault rifle without the proper documentation.

Increased living pressures and the other factors really don't have anything to do with gun control. They are separate societal issues. Failures in mental health possibly due to increased living pressures (and other factors listed) combined with readily available guns may translate to deaths. Getting rid of the second amendment isn't the correct response to solve such a problem. If someone is mentally ill, and society has no way of dealing or detecting it, what would taking guns away due to solve it? Nothing in my opinion. If it's not guns, it's bombs, gas, vehicles, or other methods to kill. The mental illness is the problem at the root, not the tool to cause death.

In terms of trusting people as a whole, I believe they can be trusted. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. They respect and uphold the law. So why wouldn't you trust them? Saying that people cannot be trusted sounds more paranoid to me, than people that buy guns out of fear.

I will most likely not return to this thread, but I enjoyed the conversation.

 

[SteveWinwood]

This talk about data and stuff.

I am interested in seeing any relevant data that is in favor of gun-owning people's arguments in here. Manos, can you give examples of such data?

You have to answer his question first.

 

[inky]

You have to answer his question first.

Which he'll not accept as a valid answer anyway because bias/ignorance/not in the mood, and dismiss it without any obligation to answer your questions instead.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Which he'll not accept as a valid answer anyway because bias/ignorance/not in the mood, and dismiss it without any obligation to answer your questions instead.

Oh you've never bought a gun? You obviously don't even know what a bullet looks like. You can't have any opinion on legislation or anything related to guns ever.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Oh you've never bought a gun? You obviously don't even know what a bullet looks like. You can't have any opinion on legislation or anything related to guns ever.

Even if you had bought one, it needs to be a recent experience. Anything from before year 2000 is inadmissible. Also anything that is after year 2000. In fact, anything.

 

[GorillaJu]

Crime itself is extremely low in Japan, and I'm happy to be a part of such a peaceful society.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Manos why haven't you answered the banana's question yet?

 

[cajunator]

I think comparisons such as this are a bit silly. A lot of gun deaths are gang/drug related. We have a border with Mexico, and a lot of crime spills over that border. Whether people agree with the drug war or not, a ton of drugs get into the US and rival factions fight to the death to control them. Japan doesn't exactly have border issues like this. Its on an island, and a much smaller landmass that is a hell of a lot easier to secure. I would say this comparison is apples to oranges.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos why haven't you answered the banana's question yet?

Chumly and Snake need to stop ducking and supplying bad information.

 

[Delusibeta]

Chumly and Snake need to stop ducking and supplying bad information.

You need to stop ducking and supplying no information.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You need to stop ducking and supplying no information.

You mean like when you claimed the UK didnt lack basic legal protections and tucked tail when you got exposed.

 

[Jackpot]

Yea I learned a while back in this thread that Manos is complete unable to respond in a reasonable fashion. He can't even make a legible argument. Throws around bias and "ive proven you wrong" without actually posting anything. I'm still waiting for him to respond to about private sales.


It all comes down to is we have a massive problem with how people get access to "illegal guns". The Manos solution is to ignore it because somehow there is no problem in fairy land.

nailed it. False dichotomies, strawmen, moving goalposts. Guy can't argue, can only filibuster.

And ironic he throws around the word "biased" so much when he has so obviously pre-judged every single study and source that doesn't say what he wants it to.

edit:

You mean like when you claimed the UK didnt lack basic legal protections and tucked tail when you got exposed.

That never happened...

 

[Delusibeta]

You mean like when you claimed the UK didnt lack basic legal protections and tucked tail when you got exposed.

Uh huh. Explain Guantanamo Bay, then.

 

[jaxword]

nailed it. False dichotomies, strawmen, moving goalposts. Guy can't argue, can only filibuster.

Well, that's a learned skill.

 

[Roland Garros]

nailed it. False dichotomies, strawmen, moving goalposts. Guy can't argue, can only filibuster.

And ironic he throws around the word "biased" so much when he has so obviously pre-judged every single study and source that doesn't say what he wants it to.

Uh huh. He is one of the most futile posters to debate with because he has pre-conceived notions and refuses to deviate from them, or even enter into mature or reasonable debate. He constantly muddies the flow of debate and then picks on irrelevant components of the discussion to discredit and marginalise other posters and their opinions.

Its just futile. I wonder if he thinks he's doing a good job of making the gun culture seem less insane than it really is?

 

[jmdajr]

Hey Latin America is still worse!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Uh huh. Explain Guantanamo Bay, then.

Explain Maze Prison which was around longer than GBay has been as a prison.

 

[Delusibeta]

Explain Maze Prison which was around longer than GBay has been as a prison.

If that's a reference to the hunger strike, do note that the cause was the removal of "political prisoner" status to those jailed due to the Troubles, which meant that they had some benefits that regular prisoners did not have (e.g. the right to wear their own clothes) stripped away from them. They were protesting being treated as common or garden prisoners.

My point with raising GBay is that the USA can and have get round their basic legal protections, rendering them academic at best.

Besides, it's all beside the point, and a fine demonstration of your inability to answer a question. You should really become a politician, your abilities in dodging questions will ensure that you'll go far.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Chumly and Snake need to stop ducking and supplying bad information.

You're not going to answer someone's question because you think some other posters aren't being "fair"?

 

[jaxword]

You're not going to answer someone's question because you think some other posters aren't being "fair"?

It's a pretty petty deflection technique. Others are doing it, so I can too! Why aren't you getting mad at THEM, are you a HYPOCRITE?

This is used a lot in religious/political/social debates where large groups of people inevitably have deviants. Attack the "other side" by pointing out their own hypocrisy, weakens their character.

 

[Pennywise]

She's sleeping son.

Has she ever bought a weapon ?

 

[GungHo]

Where, if at all, do you draw the line when it comes to weaponry? Assuming everything is purchased and owned in the name of self defense, is there a point where you say enough is enough?

I kind of want a Bofors 40mm in my backyard, like in 1941.

 

[elkayes]

This whole thread is such an incredible trainwreck^^

Here are two cracked articles for your relevant amusement.

http://www.cracked.com/article_1946...at-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p2.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19086_5-reasons-humanity-terrible-at-democracy_p2.html

I esp. like point 1:
That is why confirmation bias exists. We read a news article that supports what we believe, and we add it to the "I'm right about this" column. News articles that contradict what we believe are dismissed. We make up a reason -- maybe the source is part of the conspiracy from the other side or whatever it takes to make sure the "I'm wrong about this" column remains empty.
Researchers have done experiments where they hooked up people's brains to scanners and then made them read a story pointing out something stupid their favorite candidate said. The logical parts of the brain stayed quiet, while the emotional parts of the brain lit up. Their brains were weighing the story, not based on what it logically meant for their position, but on the emotional/social consequences of that position being wrong.

Then, once the brain had decided that this news story being right would mean pain and humiliation for the reader, it told the logical part, "Figure out a way to use your 'logic' stuff to make this pain go away." The next day, you probably heard those test subjects at the coffee shop going on and on about how biased the press is against their guy.



Since cracked is most def a biased source, and provides no real data: Here´s the wikiedia article on Confirmation Bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

Tbh: I find it incredibly scary and fascinating that my basically brain would reward me for dismissing every right wing argument I will ever hear. And I hear I thought I´m a open minded person.

 

[Transhuman]

Oh look, another gun-toting lunatic brings his 2nd Amendment toy to a Dark Knight screening: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=485691

..and no theater-goers were hurt that day. That gun-and-knife toting idiot is the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You like Apples?

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

What is a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is an illegal firearm purchase where the actual buyer of the gun, being unable to pass the required federal background check or desiring to not have his or her name associated with the transaction, uses a proxy buyer who can pass the required background check to purchase the firearm for him/her. It is highly illegal and punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases.

Can the firearms criminals purchase illegally on the street come from straw purchases?

According to the ATF, the average "time to recovery" (the time span between the initial purchase of a firearm to the time that it is used in a crime) is more than 10 years. This tells us that criminals are using older, recycled firearms, not newer firearms bought from licensed retailers. So, unless you believe that criminals are buying firearms only to use them a decade after the purchase, it is clear that straw purchasing is not a common method for criminals to obtain guns.

If few criminals obtain their firearms via straw purchasing, why does the firearms industry spend so much time and money on the Don't Lie program?

The firearms industry takes very seriously the criminal acquisition and misuse of its products. While there is nothing the industry can do to stop a criminal from stealing a firearm or buying one on the street illegally, the industry can make sure that firearms dealers are as prepared as possible to recognize and stop any would-be straw purchaser. Even if the number of criminals who obtain their firearms through straw purchasing is very low, through awareness programs such as Don't Lie, that number could fall even more.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D.

November 4, 2001 NCJ 189369

Describes firearm use of State and Federal prison inmates. Data are from the Surveys of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. These surveys of nationally-representative samples of prison inmates in 1997 asked inmates about their use of firearms during their current offense. Topics of this BJS Special Report include types of firearms used, characteristics of inmates using firearms, why and where inmates used their firearms, and where they obtained their firearms.

Highlights include the following:

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
Press Release
PDF (120K)
ASCII file (47K)
Spreadsheet (Zip format 39K)
Codebooks and Datasets
To order paper version

Help for using BJS products

About the Source Data
Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)
To cite this product, use the following link:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

View All Publications and Products

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8

It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.

 

[Roland Garros]

You like Apples?

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt



It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who should have given them a gun in the first place, but not straw purchases.

At least you're being honest now.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

At least you're being honest now.

I was always honest and right. Straw purchases only accounted for 8.3% of criminals getting guns and EVIL gun shows less than 1%

So much for the bull being tossed around.

 

[Roland Garros]

Did that sentence I quoted read like you meant it to be read?

And I'm indifferent to the source of gun possession. By that point the problem's already well set-in.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Did that sentence I quoted read like you meant it to be read?

So? There was typo that was fixed, it was clear from reading it that it was a mistaken and meant what is there now.

And I'm indifferent to the source of gun possession. By that point the problem's already well set-in.

But it's not retail or from gun shows.

 

[Roland Garros]

So? There was typo that was fixed, it was clear from reading it that it was a mistaken and meant what is there now.

Was just employing a Manos' patented tactic you often utilise in debates. Irritating, isn't it, when a debate gets derailed by pointless sideshow antics?

But it's not retail or from gun shows.

I don't ever remember basing an argument in regards to that factor? My issue is why citizens even need guns, why they can legally buy them and take them home, why lunatics believe guns are a good thing at all (besides recreational shooting and legitimate uses like hunting.)

 

[Delusibeta]

Well, a least it's data. I do find it ironic that you were complaining about data from 2000 being too old to be relevant and yet data from 2001 and 1999 (and 1997 and 1991) is OK.

 

[Roland Garros]

Well, it least it's data. I do find it ironic that you were complaining about data from 2000 being too old to be relevant and yet data from 2001 and 1999 is OK.

It wouldn't be a Manos dominated thread without crippling argumentative inconsistencies.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Well, a least it's data. I do find it ironic that you were complaining about data from 2000 being too old to be relevant and yet data from 2001 and 1999 (and 1997 and 1991) is OK.

Except it's to refute snakes data which is from the same period and the 91 info is to show a historical decline and included with the 97 data.

 

[alphaNoid]

It wouldn't be a Manos dominated thread without crippling argumentative inconsistencies.

It would be a gun thread without the anti gun nuts doing everything they can to team up against Manos either. In the end, none of your opinions matter because the second amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon.

 

[Delusibeta]

Except it's to refute snakes data which is from the same period and the 91 info is to show a historical decline and included with the 97 data.

No it isnt. You dont get to offer 12 year old numbers as current and valid information. You havent established anything besides you do a piss poor job of research.

Nuff said.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

.

He offered it first. Nice try though. Since Snake was too lazy to get current data I have to respond to his data with contempary data.

 

[inky]

Meh, not going to bother. Carry on guys.

 

[Roland Garros]

It would be a gun thread without the anti gun nuts doing everything they can to team up against Manos either.

But he makes it so easy.

In the end, none of your opinions matter because the second amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon.

If wanting less guns in society is 'nuts', then take me to the looney bin.

Opinions always matter, and debate breeds understanding and perspective. Let's face it, gun laws in America will get stricter and stricter and ultimately the second amendment will lose its damaging grip on the American psyche. Could be decades away, but it will happen IMO. Common sense will prevail, eventually. Hopefully.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

It would be a gun thread without the anti gun nuts doing everything they can to team up against Manos either. In the end, none of your opinions matter because the second amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon.

pic is old. would like to see new materials that shows off how unaffected you are.

thank you~

 

[Mercury Fred]

Go America, let's keep those numbers UP!!

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=486365

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What is your question? Is it the false equivocation that if we have active gun control in this country, then our police force is going to all of a sudden be unafraid of the populace and impose some authoritarian agenda? Because no, I don't believe that will happen.

No, I'm saying it requires control like in Japan to function.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Go America, let's keep those numbers UP!!

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=486262

.

 

[jaxword]

Sometimes I wonder if the gun debate is actually a controlled-substance abuse debate.

To wit: prohibition was tried once, and all that resulted was black market alcohol.

If prohibition was tried today, half of the entire country would rise up in anger, citing rights, numbers, personal testimonials, etc. saying that they can control their alcohol responsibly. Whereas there'd be a camp that said "yes, actually it's a pretty dangerous substance, maybe we should start limiting access to it."

Quite similar to the gun debate and its arguments, really.

What does this mean?

I think people simply don't like the idea of having a possession, something they like, taken away from them.

It's MINE, you can't take it from me!

That's pretty much why the gun control debate is pointless, really. Once they have it, they'll never give it back.

 

[Roland Garros]

Sometimes I wonder if the gun debate is actually a controlled-substance abuse debate.

To wit: prohibition was tried once, and all that resulted was black market alcohol.

If prohibition was tried today, half of the entire country would rise up in anger, citing rights, numbers, personal testimonials, etc. saying that they can control their alcohol responsibly. Whereas there'd be a camp that said "yes, actually it's a pretty dangerous substance, maybe we should start limiting access to it."

Quite similar to the gun debate and its arguments, really.

What does this mean?

I think people simply don't like the idea of having a possession, something they like, taken away from them.

It's MINE, you can't take it from me!

That's pretty much why the gun control debate is pointless, really. Once they have it, they'll never give it back.

That's not to say it couldn't work, because there are examples of a gun amnesty being successful.

Nothing on the scale of America though, admittedly. And never in a society where gun culture was so entrenched.

I still believe!