Earthstrike
Member
Indeed you did, thank you.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
Indeed you did, thank you.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Fine. I was wrong about the definition of homicide.
Take suicides off the table. How bout the fact that approx. 1/3 of those "homicides" were accidental? (Hunting accidents, ect.) That still means Hawkian's statistic is skewed by more than 20,000 if we really were talking about preventing violent crime. Sure, accidents are tragic, but they aren't crimes. We're talking about roughly the same amount of people that die in accidental falls. Do we ban ladders?
If we are talking about violent crime, I disagree with the notion that we shouldn't look at intentional homicide statistics.
Oppo
Member
Ok. Accepting this argument for the moment, what do you think should be done?
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
To save you time look up his previous posts. He's listed quite a few.
Here's the death tally that number could have come from
Don't filter by child and read the sources
It's incredibly sad...My friend, you are simply mistaken. No accidental deaths whatsoever- zero- are included in homicide statistics. None at all.
It is you that needs to become familiar with the definition of "homicide."
I know the exact sentiment you're experiencing right now- but Mammoth has several very pragmatic and potentially effective suggestions on this issue. He's not putting his head in the sand.
Holy crap, I did not know about this before reading it in this thread. I think it's amazing that something this barbaric can happen and not even be widely reported. This is truly medieval policy making, especially cutting the funding of a research agency dedicated to Disease Control and Prevention as some sort of political show of power. Awful.
Baconsammy
Banned
Ban bullets everywhere except at gun ranges and let the gun lovers keep their toys.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Allow each household to keep 20 rounds (pistol and/or shotgun) per household, and you've got a deal.
Oppo
Member
Ok...
This is what I found:
Mammoth Jones said:
So essentially more background checks, but no further restrictions on the actual firearms.
What would happen with a failed check? Can't buy anymore guns legally? Do you think that will lower the gun death rate significantly? I mean, it might, but on the other hand, people aren't always born crazy; they often turn crazy. I'm not certain how a check would curb that phenomenon. Lots of these mass shooters bought their stuff legally.
I would support this approach though, if it was basically zero tolerance (again like Canada). Any criminal record, no gun. Do a crime, and yes, the government does in fact take that gun. Forever. Caught possessing or using a gun illegally would mean a huge prison sentence. I wonder what the NRA would make of that.
gutterboy44
Member
Wow, fantastic post Hawkian. Curse actual unbiased statistics and the harsh light of reality! It burnnnnsss.
I have read this over so many times.
I know this was just a mistake and you weren't being mendacious.
I know that you just need to readjust your understanding, and that you thought this was a valid point.
But the stats are right next to each other on the CDC's data sheet.
606. Where on earth did you get 1/3 of the number of homicides? Even misunderstanding the word homicides... and removing the justifiable homicides from the total... 606 is ~%5 of 10,678. 1/3 is ~33%. And those 606 aren't even included in that number to begin with.
Thanks. It was a little painful because that Harvard Law piece (which immediately jumped out at me as the most compelling new evidence in the infographic) really takes a big dump on Western Europe. It's actually quite lovely there.
I've brought something like this up to a few gun advocates. I believe I brought up something like this to Mammoth, too, in one of the last threads and he was ok with it. I didn't bring it up nearly as strict. I said that any sort of violent crime at all (assaults, domestic abuse, etc) means you get no guns for a certain amount of time (probably quite a few years), and in order to get that right reinstated you have to go before a judge and prove you're responsible again, and possibly that you might have a need.
The advocates I've talked to seemed ok with that, since the normal ones actually do want to limit guns to "law-abiding citizens." If you literally target people who aren't law-abiding citizens most can't find much fault, I think.
Here's the death tally that number could have come from
Don't filter by child and read the sources
Thanks...I think, you're right, it is very sad
CrunchyFrog
Member
Cut that shit out. Don't argue to the least common denominator, there are plenty of well-reasoned supporters of the mag size reduction in here. Respond to them with your arguments and maybe you'll see opinions start changing.
I'll admit the keeping of 10 round magazines but mandating they only be loaded with 7 is incredibly stupid logic, likely some concession made to gun manufacturers, but I won't speculate any further. But saying it (or more effectively worded legislation) won't reduce crime? Do you know how many shots were fired in the confrontations surrounding each of those deaths, and which shots inflicted the fatal blow? Do you have any statistics on the average number of shots taken by an assailant to kill their target? Under what circumstances, mental condition, experience? Otherwise, maybe the shooter missed with the first 7/8/9 rounds? Maybe the those 3 rounds is the difference between 2 shots to the chest and 2 shots to the chest, 1 to the stomach, and 1 to the temple? What about those who were assaulted but not killed, perhaps even made handicapped or comatose? Maybe those 3 shots mean the difference between a day or two in the hospital and the rest of one's life in a vegetative state? There's a whole lot of shit that at the moment neither I nor you know or can ever possibly know. But using the only predictive tool we have in such wildly varying scenarios, the simple law of averages says that less bullets = less potential for violence or harm. So yea, it very well may save someone's life.
Once again, see above
Earthstrike
Member
I have read this over so many times.
I know this was just a mistake and you weren't being mendacious.
I know that you just need to readjust your understanding, and that you thought this was a valid point.
But the stats are right next to each other on the CDC's data sheet.
606. Where on earth did you get 1/3 of the number of homicides? Even misunderstanding the word homicides... and removing the justifiable homicides from the total... 606 is ~%5 of 10,678. 1/3 is ~33%. And those 606 aren't even included in that number to begin with.
Thanks. It was a little painful because that Harvard Law piece (which immediately jumped out at me as the most compelling new evidence in the infographic) really takes a big dump on Western Europe. It's actually quite lovely there.
Wow, that is fairly glaring. That is actually ridiculous if he pulled that one number up but completely ignored the other.
So since Newtown, there have already been a higher total number of gun deaths in this country than the total number of accidental gun deaths in this country per year.Here's the death tally that number could have come from
Don't filter by child and read the sources
This was the factoid that broke the camel's back as it were. I have immersed myself in this research far too much today to be anything other than utterly depressed.
I shall seek my puppy for guidance.
So I just got a DEATH THREAT on facebook cause I responded to a fb status saying why I support the gun law reform. I wanna laugh it off but part me wants to be a dick and report it just to what happens. I doubt anything would come of it but the ignorance and immaturity of some people..Jesus Christ.
If you're talking about reporting it to facebook, nothing will happen. If you're talking about the authorities... I'd be tempted.
And yeah, nothing says "Gun owners aren't violent people" like making a death threat against those who support some gun control... You'd think they'd be more cognizant of how that looks...
Well, yeah. Their goal isn't a prosperous society with logical legislation. Their goal is money. That's it. They gain nothing by agreeing to anything at all.
Yeah I responded to him pointing out the irony of his message. I think he just blocked me though, or maybe he reported me for hating guns.
toddhunter
Member
Excellent post, but I'll pull you up here. You can't really compare Australia to anything because a) it is just too hot to be bothered most of the time and b) we are all in it together against the spiders.
Six people died and 14 more were injuerd and you have the audacity to talk about "lives saved"?
Do you have no regard for human life?
Gonna reach 40c in the south eastern states today, mate. Too hot for gun violence.
I'd argue most pro-gunners have no idea they have no regard for human life.
Not that it would it make a difference if they WERE aware.
The whole pro-gun angle is basically boiled down to somehow if the government takes away guns or proposes any type of strict regulations that the government will IMMEDIATELY start drafting plans for a dictatorship.
Eh, I think that may be a harsh judgement. Less lives were lost due to an equipment malfunction. There are only so many ways to say that.
User 100115
Banned
This is what kills it for me. I just can't understand why this is the issue that is polarizing the nation. Not, you know, healthcare. But freakin' guns. And no one can talk about it AT ALL without people screaming about the sky is falling. It's depressing as hell and makes me sort of hate my country.
Thats perhaps been the most disturbing thing for me in this whole ordeal, and I see it coming from both sides, definitely more from the pro-gun side though. The immediate jumping into defense of guns mode with not even a second thought or consideration of the victims, just a springboard. It's an ingrained problem that if we really looked at is a big part of the problem, a lack of respect for life and death. Almost surreal how people just casually or coldly talk about lives like they are numbers.
And yet posts like this are the epitome of well thought out contributions? That is one broad brush you are painting with there.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Oh, spare me your faux outrage. The gun jamming undoubtedly saved lives in this case. Had he been able to fire off the next magazine, don't you think more lives would have been taken? Do I really have to defend that statement?
Hehe. I was gonna make a joke along the lines of "then again if we were to compare how likely you are to be killed by a seemingly innocuous creature on the way to the movies..." but I pulled the punch. ;P
Yeeeeeesh. Stay frosty.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Majority of pro-gun people have no regard for human life? Jesus...
Ok, yeah, what's even the point of debating at that point in these threads.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i am totally against appointing an ATF director. Reason: Because.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Me too. But I have a more thought out reason. Because Obama wants one.
CrunchyFrog
Member
That seems odd and counterintuitive, but that's SCOTUS sometimes, I guess.
Problem is you'd be hard pressed to find this magic legislation that only affects illegal possession as, by definition, illegal possession is done so outside of the bounds of the law. That's just a reality of government, some idiots screw things up for the rest of us. thisiswhywecanthavenicethings.jpg Though I agree that better efforts should be made to enforce the laws we have on the books.
But let's not go off the deep end here. Accidents happen, and the last thing we need is more crowding of the penal system. Enforcement is the issue here, not the penalty, plus 25 to life is pretty much the highest you can go before getting to capital punishment (but that's another debate for another day)
Agreed, though enforcement is a bit more difficult in this area. While I'm all for misdemeanors for unsecured firearms in theory, it's one of those laws that's only enforceable as part of discovery in the investigation of other crimes (i.e. you can't kick down somebody's door to check if their firearms are secure and nobody would willfully admit to doing something illegal if asked). But I suppose threat of enforcement can be enough to deter at least a few. Plus, there is the fine line between having the weapon secured and yet also accessible enough to be effectively reached when needed in an emergency.
Ok so you have established that a victim would need more rounds to effectively themselves both due to inherent inexperience and pressure of circumstances, and that the assailant, being skillful enough to have possession of illegal firearms in the first place, is more skilled with that same weapon than you are. Basically, then, the assailant has more potential lethality per bullet than the victim. It then follows that decreasing the number of bullets decreases the overall potential for lethal action in the situation, and (more importantly) reduces the assailant's potential for lethality (especially in situations with multiple potential targets) more so than it does the victim's. While sadly sterile, this is the only remotely quantifiable method I can think of for justifying less rounds in such a case, though it's a rather weak argument admittedly. As an additional caviat, the victim obviously needs at least one bullet, and likely more than one, to defend themselves, so a line has to be drawn somewhere before then. But that's where empirical study comes in.
EDIT: and to be clear, I do agree with the doctrine of justified lethal force
xxjuicesxx
Member
How much is he asking for all this again? I feel like this would cost a ton.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
we just need to roll ATF into the FBI. what the hell is the point of them
You think this is faux outrage? I think loss of life is a tragedy worth being outraged over. Be it a child gunned down at school, a gang member gunned down in a drive by shooting, a drug addicted teen gun downed when burglarizing a home, or a political figure being assassinated.
Life shouldn't be so casually dismissed, regardless of criminal liability. It's such a waste when people down on their luck end up dead without getting a second chance.
I don't understand how you can even begin to view such tragedies through the lens of "lives saved" because someone's gun jammed, or because someone shot the shooter, or any similar event. A gun is not a savior in any sense of the word, or any emotional connotation
When multiple studies and statistics and empirical evidence points to your side being wrong (as it always has, but that's besides the point) along with mass murders and ridiculous amounts of violence with firearms and yet DESPITE that you still cling to a complete and total delusional notion of somehow that taking away guns will make the government tyrannically authoritarian...yeah.
You realize what you're saying?
I don't give a shit that 26 children were murdered in cold blood by legally obtained weapons that tight regulations would've likely prevented.
I don't give a shit that we could do something about the nature of our gun violence, but 2nd Amendment, so fuck that.
I don't give a shit that military-grade rifles have no place in civilian use and cause more harm than they're worth, but 2nd Amendment!
Criminals will always find a weapon, so nope, no regulations at all. Forget that, by that logic, we should be in anarchy since we literally can't prevent every crime.
Having a weapon increases your chances of being shot and fatally injured. Nope, still fuck that, I want to keep my guns!
We must protect ourselves from government if it turns on us! Yet these are the same people who will cry foul if you even attempt to slash one penny from the DoD's defense budget.
There are very few pro-gun arguments that I can even SORT of see where they're coming from. The Rest of the world has already figured out this problem...except us. To my knowledge there is no gun lobbying organization in the rest of the developed world that even comes HALFWAY close to the power the NRA has.
I didn't know you were in Congress, Bulbo.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I'd fit right in.
I have a better reason. A black man wants one.
I'd vote for you.
As long as you came to work everyday dressed like your avatar.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Well, I can agree with that. I'm pretty sure everyone here can agree with that. I just don't see how my post set you off. I was simply pointing out that the magazine jammed and because of this, lives were (most likely) saved. I think that was a very fortunate thing to have happened under the circumstances. It gave people the chance to stop him. I had no intention whatsoever of making light of the lives that WERE lost.
Listen guys, not everyone who believes in gun rights is some crazy psychopath. Please stop demonizing. It's really childish. The vast vast vast majority of legal gun owners have never used them to harm someone.
Thanks Ponn.
Has the American flag ever looked so good?
PoweredBySoy
Banned
I think people are probably more upset at the gun owners, or more importantly, the NRA, who resort to conspiracy fear-mongering to protect their beloved gun collection.
I don't know, I have trouble finding conservatives that agree that we have a gun violence problem in this country, and that's disturbing to me.
Here's a gem I just saw on Facebook:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/disarming-americans-arming-terrorists/
Just fucking trash.
CrunchyFrog
Member
To be clear, the executive orders deal entirely with enforcement of laws currently on the books and allocation of funds to research into various causes and aspects of gun violence, nothing about any new gun legislation AFAIK
OT, I know, but how are we defining "conservatives" these days? Not that I mean to single you out, but labels like "conservative" and "liberal" (at least in the political sense) have become so mucked up these days that they're pretty much just useless rhetoric IMO.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
It doesn't and NEVER will.
The cold hard fact is that there will always be situations like this no matter what amount of legislation they want to pass.
It's feel good legislation.
That said, I'm a gun owner and don't have much of a problem with any of these proposed laws. I don't like the push for another assault weapons ban. Didn't work for Columbine, won't work for future tragedies either.
And I want to add I've been the victim of an armed robbery(had a snub nosed revolver pointed at my face).
- Status