The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5401 - 5420 of total 5657 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
Madbolter I'll agree with you that there is a fixation on "solutions" that are perhaps not effective to problems that pale in comparison to other issues. With a big factor in that being sensationalism.

Look at all we've done to combat terrorism for example. If we put that money into cancer research or perhaps most effectively towards public education about preventing heart disease we would save thousands of times more lives. But this thread is about the gun debate.

I also probably agree with you that gun control regulations are probably less effective than other measures we could take to reduce gun violence (helping inner city youth would probably be the most effective). But it seems many gun proponents (I struggle for the right term as I'm a gun owner but want sensible regulations and don't want to carry a gun around with me at all times to be safe, I'd rather have less guns around in public, but don't have a problem with trained and ) won't accept that any new gun control regulations would help. And I know that logically they would.

Now, please explain to me how such utterly LOCKED DOWN weaponry was so TRIVIALLY available to a guy like me.

You were hanging with the wrong crowd? I have never come across anyone who would sell me illegal weapons. I suppose I could drive around Oakland and start asking people, but I wouldn't do that, too risky. I would go buy a gun at a gun store though. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who feel similar who could have criminal intent or are unstable.

These laws DON'T WORK! Period! And your idea that there is going to be even a statistically significant "reduction" in access is what "defies reason and common sense."

How many thousands of people are turned away because they failed the background check? How many thousands of crimes are committed with guns that were bought without a background check? Or bought from a private seller that could sell them to another person without a background check because they weren't worried about a stiff jail term if they were caught selling it to someone without a background check. I'm not going to take the time to research it and there would be a lot of conjecture about what would have happened if things were different, but I would guess thousands of acts of gun violence are prevented yearly from background checks keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people who would otherwise easily obtain them. I just took a quick look and the total number of denied background checks conducted in 2010 at 152,850. So even if half of those were a mistake 75,000 people wanted a gun who shouldn't have one. Whey didn't they just buy one illegally in the first place if it was so easy?

If you don't mess with me in deadly fashion, then you already HAVE parity with ME whether or not you are armed! My being armed is IRRELEVANT to you, IF you are a decent human being!

We're not talking about you. We're talking about guys like Zimmerman (regardless if it was self defense he wouldn't have stalked that kid and shot him without a gun) and the guy in the movie theater who shot a guy for talking. Yes they were maybe legal to have guns, but having a culture where so many people want to carry guns leads to more people like that with guns. That's the point. We feel safer with less guns around.

It's pretty selfish in my opinion for people who carry guns to want to prevent regulations that keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Sure they feel safe because they are armed but what about all the people who don't want to or can't carry a gun. That was my point before about wondering how many people who don't carry firearms are opposed to gun regulations. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't own a gun that agrees we shouldn't have sensible gun regulations (like background checks).
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
Funny madbolter I show you the graph of the drop in gun deaths in California and you look for any other reason why it can't be gun control, while someone else shows you a graph indicating what you want to see and it's a tour-de-force.

Do you really not see how skewed your views are on this subject?
Braunini

Big Wall climber
cupertino
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:32pm PT
Yours are totally objective, of course.
Flip Flop

Trad climber
Truckee, CA
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
Enlighten us Braunini, or is your expertise a secret ?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
It's pretty selfish in my opinion for people who carry guns to want to prevent regulations that keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Sure they feel safe because they are armed but what about all the people who don't want to or can't carry a gun. That was my point before about wondering how many people who don't carry firearms are opposed to gun regulations. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't own a gun that agrees we shouldn't have sensible gun regulations (like background checks).

I'll completely agree that most non-gun-owners are intuitively inclined to think that "sensible" gun regulations will do some good. Fine. As I've said, I have no problem with "sensible" gun regulations. I continue to disagree that they will have any noticeable effect. But, as I said, they do little harm.

I am always intuitively PRIMED to be worried about handing the feds yet more power, which is why unless somebody can produce some really solid and virtually incontrovertible evidence that THIS "war on..." by the feds is going to do anything but make it tougher on legitimate gun owners, I'm not enthusiastic about, for example, federal background checks.

Regarding my "hanging around with the wrong crowd," you are exactly right!

But you help me make my point. It is not hard to get in with the "wrong crowd," and once you do, the whole underworld opens up to you. Most street thugs, and certainly gang-connected people, DO have this underworld open to them. And that underworld is FILLED with every imaginable sort of weapon you could want to get your hands on.

So, with the feds ALREADY in "firm" control of military-grade weaponry, it remains TRIVIAL to get it with the sorts of connections that many/most criminal elements have access to. I don't see the feds even BEGINNING to lock this down, so I have supreme doubts that throwing yet more bureaucracy at the "gun problem" is going to have any noticeable positive effect.

Funny madbolter I show you the graph of the drop in gun deaths in California and you look for any other reason why it can't be gun control, while someone else shows you a graph indicating what you want to see and it's a tour-de-force.

Do you really not see how skewed your views are on this subject?

I think that the quoted statistics are displayed in very different ways and ranged very differently. For example, notice on YOUR graph that the spread between 2 and 8 is the same distance as the spreads (the ones that really matters for what the chart is trying to demonstrate!) between 14 and 16, and between 16 and 18. This has the effect of making VERY small fluctuations APPEAR much more dramatic than they really are.

The Scott-quoted statistics are not so flagrantly skewed.

The chart you showed is skewed, not my views. I just look for at least on-the-face-of-it accuracy. Your chart did not demonstrate that.

"Objectivity?" Well, none of us HAVE it! We can only keep trying. And having one's viewed challenged on a thread like this is always healthy... for ALL of us!

Count me in!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:52pm PT

Someone explain that IF Gun Laws just plain "don't work", then why is this?


Alaska: loosest gun laws and highest firearm deaths in the nation per capita

Massachusetts: toughest gun laws in the nation and fewest firearm deaths, per capita


the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:54pm PT
As a gun owner but not a gun nut, whose posts should indicate I see both sides of the issue, I'd venture they are more objective than many posters on this thread.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
Alaska: loosest gun laws and highest firearm deaths in the nation per capita

Massachusetts: toughest gun laws in the nation and fewest firearm deaths, per capita

You've claimed this before, and I asked you for citations of your sources. My own research just does not sustain this.

But you ignored my request before. Will you continue to ignore it?

If so, then you are just pulling those claims out of your....

Uhhh...

Imagination.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:56pm PT
I'd venture they are more objective than many posters on this thread.

I would agree. And I would count myself in your camp. I try to be careful and not make claims (or decisions, for that matter) on the basis of pre-theoretical intuitions or "feelings."

Of course, being human, we all stumble now and then. :-)
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
Just take a deep breath to clear your head and relax. THen look up the before and after in Austraila and their efforts on gun control. And btw, they still have guns in the hands of pivate owners...
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:10pm PT
Hmm, madbolter I didn't notice the graphs axis was skewed. So probably CA's rate is now very close to the US rate, not significantly below it.

But Scott's graph isn't so innocent either. Notice how it lumps all states together (including ones that have enacted gun control laws) with states that have allowed open carry. It would be interesting to see that data split out between those two types of states and see where the greater reductions happened.

"Objectivity?" Well, none of us HAVE it! We can only keep trying. And having one's viewed challenged on a thread like this is always healthy... for ALL of us!

Count me in!

Agreed. And you have done a good job at keeping me challenged and focused on the real issues in this debate. I guess these threads really can be good for something!
A5scott

Trad climber
Chicago
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:15pm PT
thanks MB!

The vast majority of conceal/open carry advocates are like mad bolter, that is to say benign... therefore the discussion is about his type. they are the ones we don't need to think about, as Texas shows us out of 65,000 convictions, 120 are CCW holders. 1 of those convictions was murder. one.
there were 395 murders by non CCW holders though in 2012, texas

George Z, who was found not guilty, is the statistical outlier case of somebody that should have let the police figure things out and he should have bugged out. I wasn't there. none of us were

that movie theater cell phone argument guy that killed someone was a retired police officer.

where are the other incidents involving CCW holders?

according to the violence policy center, a very anti gun group, so we know they are trying to count every death they can, just about 60 CCW holders a year commit murder. They call them conceal carry killers. That's out of more than 11 million CCW holders. 60 out of 11 million.


scott
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
BTW, kind of off topic, but I recently visited the 700 foot high Foresthill-Auburn bridge in Auburn, CA. I haven't been there for years since they did some major retrofit work on it.

For suicide prevention they raised the railings from about 4 feet high to about 6 feet high. And they installed suicide prevention hotline call-boxes on both ends of the bridge and one in the middle.

To me it seems like:
 Laws banning suicide do nothing. If someone is going to kill themselves are they worried about breaking a law?
 The railings do almost nothing. Someone won't climb 2 feet higher? I guess it may help with spurt of the moment poor decisions. But I'd think most people plan their suicide. They just don't end up on a high bridge and decide to end it all
 The hotlines probably are effective. Looking at the sheer terror of jumping vs. a call box I'd think the call box would be a tempting option

Just kind of related because there are different ways to deal with things and it's interesting what may actually work.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
I'm glad to hear they've eliminated suicide. We won't have to worry about that ever again.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:25pm PT

Hello MadBolter,

I was wrong, it USED to be Alaska but the latest statistics show that Louisiana tops the list of per capita firearm deaths while having some of the, if not the, loosest gun laws.

And yes, it does appear that the opposite is also true: The states with the toughest gun laws have the least firearm deaths per capita

you asked me to provide a link, here you go

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/gun_violence_louisiana_deaths.html


by the way, you can confirm these very clear causal correlations from other sources should you find a couple of minutes time to do so yourself
A5scott

Trad climber
Chicago
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
in 2010 alaska had 19 murders with a gun, and 31 total murders.... fewer than 1 million pop.

in 2010 Mass had 118 gun murders and 209 total murders.... pop. about 6.5 million


Alaska is kind of the drunk and suicide capital of the US. I may be wrong about alaska being the capital, but they do drink a bunch and tend towards depression.

scott
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
I don't have a problem with CCW permits. If someone takes training and passes a background test no problem. If I lived or worked in a dangerous area I'd get one.

I do have a problem with people saying having more guns around in general leads to more safety.

The closest I've come to a violent situation on the last 20 years was at two Oakland Raiders games. At one a fight broke out next to me and my kid, and at the other a fight almost broke out next to me and my two kids. (note to self: stop going to raiders games). I'm 100% glad that there is a metal detector and there weren't private people carrying guns. If bullets went flying someone probably would have been shot. As it was I felt reasonably confident that with my self defense skills that if they fight worked it's way over to me I could defend myself and my family. If they had guns there would have been nothing I could do.

Basically anywhere that it makes economic sense to install metal detectors (court rooms, airports, etc.) and keeps guns out I'm glad I don't have to worry about them.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
Just take a deep breath to clear your head and relax. THen look up the before and after in Austraila and their efforts on gun control. And btw, they still have guns in the hands of pivate owners...

Okay, I'll take a deep breath, as you should, and let's look at the facts.

Sweeping gun control passed in 1996.... Is FactCheck objective enough for you?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Alrighty then....

Which line to you want to look at since 1996? The 1999 line, where the number went from 354 to 385? Why NOT that one?

Okay, how about 2002, where the number is STILL higher than in 1997? (And that line belies the article's false claim: "The number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007.")

Ohhh... you're one of those "trends" guys, and "clearly" the "trend" is heading downward! Ohhh, right!

The problem with "trends" is focusing on "just the right" time-slice in which you GET the "trend" you are looking for. And from 2002 to 2007 you DO see a "marked decline" (to quote the obviously biased author of this piece) in homicides! Wow... just LOOK at it! Down from well over 350 to 282, a drop of... uhh... 68, which is a drop of 19.4%. SCORE! Gun control works!

But wait.

What happened from 2004 through 2006? Homicides went UP during that period, and "significantly" relative to other parts of the chart. Oh, that's NOT a good time slice to consider what the "trend" really is. Right?

Well, WHY should we think that ANY "trend" we are seeing in such a limited time-slice as the ENTIRE chart is really showing anything of significance?

Ohhh... because, as the article says, "In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007."

That is CLEARLY a "trend." Right?

Well, okay, so what is the difference from 24% to 11% of the drop of 68 homicides a given year? (Pick a year, since the article isn't clear on what particular year would be THE relevant one.) Let's say from 2006 to 2007.

So, let's make things as bad for "my side" of the argument as possible. Let's say that guns caused 24% of the homicides in 2006 and only 11% in 2007. That means in 2006, there were about 300 killings, of which 72 were caused by a gun. Now, in 2007, there were 282 killings, of which 31 were caused by a gun. Wow! That's a reduction in gun-related homicides of better than 50%! Goodness gracious! Gun control DOES work!

Here's the funny part. This article itself quotes Snopes, as it should be quoting Snopes right back at itself (but doesn't): "The claims [statistical analysis claiming that gun control WASN'T working] about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a 'small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics' signifying little."

Laughably, ALL of what we see in this article SHOULD fall to the same claim Snopes made about other articles.

Sorry, I don't buy any of it. ALL of these time slices are very, very short in sociological terms, and you already see significant fluctuations in the figures, even in such short periods.

If we, for example, ran my same analysis from 2005 to 2006, instead of from 2006 to 2007, you would get very different results! Why not choose that time slice?

The problem with all time-slice analysis is that you can get whatever you want by zooming in and out. The jury is still out in Australia, if you are going to be truly CAREFUL in your analysis and not just jump on whatever article INTERPRETS the figures as you see fit.

Another HUGE factor not taken into consideration by this (or any other article I've seen about Australian gun control) is that Australia bears little sociological relation to the US. Surrounded by a HUGE water border, Australia has a virtually non-existent gang problem compared to the US. The society is MUCH more monolithic than the US society, and the socioeconomic ranges are much tighter. And I'm just scratching the surface of the many and very significant sociological differences.

(These differences also apply to the TINY socialist-democratic countries in Europe that are often cited as "models" of how the US should be and what laws we should pass! Most of our STATES are bigger and more sociologically diverse than most of the COUNTRIES of Europe!)

So, yeah, let's all take a deep breath and repeat after Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Repeat again.

Then tell me ALL about Australia.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:52pm PT

Thanks, Norton. But I'll take a chart produced by the US Census and FBI over a NOLA-produced chart based upon a study from: "'America Under the Gun,' a report by the left-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank," thank you very much!

Try this, as you steer away from "a left-leaning think tank," and look at what the FBI data say:

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

As predicted, we see that Washington DC leads by a mile (most gun-controlled region in the USA).

Yes, Louisiana is second. But then look at Maryland, a heavily gun-controlled state.

Notice most of all that after DC, the RATE of gun-related homicides all fall in a pretty tight range, falling slowly regardless of whether or not the particular state has strong or weak gun control.

In 2010, for example, Colorado had one of the lowest rates of gun-related homicide, and at that time it had about the laxest gun control in the country!

YOU simply can't get the figures to support the idea that lax gun control correlates with high gun-related homicide rates. But I CAN do exactly as I said and show that places like DC, Chicago, and California have the highest (or among the highest) gun-related homicide rates in the country, DESPITE their very stringent gun control.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:59pm PT
Maybe those figures have a lot to do with our handling of minority populations? Course, we all know racism and the effects thereof doesn't exist.

For the unimportant record, I'm not even against open carry by reasonably sane folks. This rifle toting as protest has got to run up there with rolling coal though.
Messages 5401 - 5420 of total 5657 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews