Guns

[Badasp5.0]

They have gun control at Fort Hood. Unbelievable.

Its on every US Army post. Thank Bill Clinton for that one. When I was in the Army I never bothered to have a personal weapon since it was such a pain in the rear. I left all my personal stuff at my parents home in NM.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is an interesting tid bit.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=23828

From a source most democrat politicians trust more than any other document comes a serious international study on the relationship between restrictive gun laws and murder rates. The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Vol.30, no.2) has published an exhaustive study by two criminologist, professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser. The study is especially insulting to Colorado democrat legislators who too often cite European countries as models for enacting socialist programs here in Colorado. Denver’s mayor is currently touting his fact sharing trip to the dope capital of mainland Europe to help Denver better develop the marijuana industry.

So this major study of murder and suicide rates which included most of Europe is a major loss to their already empty quiver of anti-gun talking points. But the study published by Harvard was nearly unreported compared to headlines given a report authored by Mark Gius and released by the Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. The Gius report was a definitive examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons ban on state-level murder rates. Gius focused only on the United States. Kates and Mauser focused mainly on international laws and crime. These two very diverse studies from two very different universities using very different methodology arrived at the same conclusion; when the law-abiding adult population of a society owns more guns per capita, their lives are safer – without any doubt.

The Harvard study which asked if banning firearms would reduce murder and suicide, reviewed mainly international evidence. This study compared all murders; not just those involving guns. The idea is to compare overall safety of citizens. In Russia, for example, where private weapons are almost non-existent, the murder rate is four times higher than in the United States and twenty times higher than the murder rate in Norway where gun ownership is the highest percentage in Europe. But in Russia most murders do not involve a gun so when anti-gun advocates want to discus low “gun” murder rates, Russia is always a shining example for the case to disarm the public. Death from being beaten or stabbed or choked will leave you just as dead as being shot. Regardless of what Colorado democrats claim, our chances of staying alive are at least 4 times better in the U.S. than in Russia.

Moreover, those survival rates go up dramatically in the states with the least restrictive concealed weapon carry permit laws. That is the emphatic conclusion drawn by the Gius examination where his data and results are included in a table titled, “fixed effects regression gun-related murder rate.”

Understanding that Gius focused only on data of related to gun related murders, two numbers from his table got most of the headlines. When the federal assault weapons ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, the murder rates went up 19.3%. The second statistic is that in those states with more restrictive concealed carry laws the murder rates are at least 10% higher than the average rate over the study period from 1980 to 2009.

Gius drew his data from an exhaustive list of references including the recently released book by John R. Lott, Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. Lott’s book reviews an 18 year study of data from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. for the years 1977 to 1994. The book includes a significant case study of “multiple victim public shootings” such as one in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in 1988 where 4 children and a teacher were killed by two school boys. Lott explained in an interview published by the University of Chicago that he gathered statistics related only to multiple victim shootings not otherwise related to a second crime such as a robbery.

In the 18 years of the study, the effect of enacting laws which allowed law abiding adults to receive a CCW permit was to reduce multiple-victim shootings like the Aurora theater shooting by a staggering 84%. Lott further discovered that “deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90% and injuries by 82%.

These are not he-said-she-said religious points of view for ideology debate. These studies, all of them, are not political opinion talking points. They are facts. Legislators who insist on denying the truth about gun control must be held accountable for these excessive deaths.

The second Amendment to the U.S.Constitution was not an afterthought. Thomas Jefferson wrote it his way; “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so that the second will not become the legal version of the first.”

I haven't read either study yet, but here is the Harvard study(PDF).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[a6m5]

Did Jefferson really say that? That is some quote, and sadly, I think many already see the Government as some kind of scammer.

 

[FoolKiller]

Did Jefferson really say that? That is some quote, and sadly, I think many already see the Government as some kind of scammer.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/two-enemies-people-are-criminals-and-governmentquotation
Yes.

 

[Keef]

http://gfycat.com/DistantNeedyHog#

 

[a6m5]

http://gfycat.com/DistantNeedyHog#

To be honest, my only concern for safety in such situation is for the victim. Guy on the ground, I am sorry, but you did walk right into it. If you had kids, I hope they turnout better than you.

 

[BobK]

Any backstory on it? Looks like it was staged to me.

 

[ledhed]

A wild enfield having bagged a lone shoe takes a break

 

[a6m5]

A wild enfield having bagged a lone shoe takes a break

Wrong thread!(I like the pic)

Thread titles should be clarified though. Gun control thread's simply just called "Guns", and firearms thread is called "Real Guns". Confusing for the noobies, or someone like the gentleman above who's just come back from some time off.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Any backstory on it? Looks like it was staged to me.

I've seen this as a video clip some time ago, pretty sure it's regular CCTV from someone's gate (as you can see). At the time I didn't think it was staged but... this is the internet

 

[Zenith]

Any backstory on it? Looks like it was staged to me.

Why would that be staged? Defensive shootings are not uncommon, it is just uncommon for them to receive coverage from most news sources.

If there were some improbable heroics I could see calling it staged, but that looked pretty real to me.

 

[BobK]

Why would that be staged? Defensive shootings are not uncommon, it is just uncommon for them to receive coverage from most news sources.

If there were some improbable heroics I could see calling it staged, but that looked pretty real to me.

Why? For the lulz? As @TenEightyOne points out, this is teh interwebz.

I dunno, it could be legit, but somehow it just feels staged to me.

 

[a6m5]

I had no reason to think it was staged either, but you guys are right, anything's possible. We know nothing about it.

 

[JulesJackson]

I had no reason to think it was staged either, but you guys are right, anything's possible. We know nothing about it.

Our own army tested LSD on our troops, I wouldn't past the government doing it.

 

[ledhed]

Another mass shooting in Cali . And another push for anti gun legislation in a state that has proven they do not work .
The media has lots of thoughts on the issue as far as blame , except they do not blame the shooter.
Its getting weirder.

A6m5 zero Honorable one,
Just consider my photo a response to those that think guns kill people . I am sure the Enfield could have killed the shoe if it chose to or had the ability to act on its own .

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

[TenEightyOne]

@ledhed14, what are you saying? You seem to argue against gun control then show two pro-regulation judgements? What is "Enfield could have killed the shoe"? Okay, I kind of get the Shoe thing

 

[ledhed]

They are not pro regulation but the highest court in USA affirmation of the second amendment and the basis being the section that says , The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed with the , Well regulated militia being secondary to the peoples right to self defense .

 

[a6m5]

The media has lots of thoughts on the issue as far as blame , except they do not blame the shooter.
Its getting weirder.

Money in the bank. 👍👍

Talk seems to be mostly about: 1) Where this kid(arrogant psycho) was shortchanged. 2) We should take away all guns(i.e. 100% of the guns from law abiding citizens, 99% of the criminals will be exempt).

They are blowing people up with homemade bombs in third world countries. They act as though ban(that will be very ineffective) on small arms, or limiting the magazines to five, seven, ten rounds will put a stop to these types of attacks.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here is an interesting tid bit.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=23828

I haven't read either study yet, but here is the Harvard study(PDF).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Just downloaded the study to have with my coffee... maybe 2 or 3 coffees...

I don't know who Craig Masters is (other than the editor of that "newspaper" with a little n, as it titles itself) but he's not the greatest of sources to have to wade through at this time of the morning. His "Beware of Killer Tomatoes" piece was very good though

EDIT: Just removed the rest of my post by highlighting it and allowing my jaw to hit the spacebar while reading Kates/Mauser...

EDIT: I have a serious problem with the Kates literature review, for a start he seems to draw heavily on private tabloids like The Daily Mail and the Telegraph for sources, he confuses Kingdom gun crime (historically massive) with English gun crime (not a center of the Troubles), and doesn't mention that some of his stats include what was virtually an underground civil war.

He also says that "The only gun control in England" (again, why pick that part of the Kingdom?) "...was that the police didn't carry guns". Seriously, this guy's an academic? Gun control goes back the Bill of Rights (1689) and guns (at least outside the home) have been subject to license since 1870. (Quick source, better ones available)

I'm going to work through the lot later but his preparatory arguments seem fatally flawed, hopefully he hangs some better data on his hat later.

An interesting paper from the aptly-named Killias that demonstrates some of the difficulty in picking a gun quantity figure; quantity-of-ownership is directly related to method-of-suicide (and not quantity-of-suicide) but not necessarily to quantity-of-homicide.

Whereas the percentage suicides using firearms may measure gun ownership as validly as direct questions (like those in the ICS), the percentage of homicides, robberies and perhaps also other violent crimes committed with firearms should no longer be used as indicators of gun ownership in cross-sectional analyses, whenever other measures (such as those used in the ICS) are available.

 

[ledhed]

I used to be just as amazed Brit police went mostly unarmed as many Brits are amazed at how the US has a firearm for everyone from birth it seems .
We are certainly a violent bunch as being at war is safer than being in Chicago . But thats a social disorder not a firearm problem .
We tend to shy away from the hard jobs , like looking too close at ourselves . Its easier and safer to blame the rocks .

 

[A2K78]

I support loose controls and not just loose controls, I'm talking about NO controls whatsoever .i.e people should be able to acquire a gun free of background checks, waiting times, etc.

Gun controls laws do nothing in way of public safety other than empower criminals because you are essentially disarming one group of society by erecting barriers to ownership(e.g. background checks, waiting times, ammo limits, etc.) whereas its the business of criminals and would be mass shooters to disregard laws. Its the same deal with certain kinds of guns e.g. banning assault guns is straight up stupidity seeing how criminals and would be criminals always have an alternative meas of acquiring such guns e.g. theft, gang members, back alley sale, etc. To things straight, If I wanted to acquire an AK-47 or SPAS12 that was banned there are tons of blackmarket dealer who willing to supply them.

Overall the point I'm trying to make is that anybody who believes in the control of any kind of weapon is not only ignorant and but flat out clueless about crime..take it from someone who actually lost 2 relatives as a result of being killed by a gun.

 

[Danoff]

I support loose controls and not just loose controls, I'm talking about NO controls whatsoever .i.e people should be able to acquire a gun free of background checks, waiting times, etc.

Fundamentally there isn't anything wrong with background checks. You no longer have the right to buy a gun if you've violated someone else's rights in the past (you lose all kinds of rights when you do that).

 

[Carlos]

I support loose controls and not just loose controls, I'm talking about NO controls whatsoever .i.e people should be able to acquire a gun free of background checks, waiting times, etc.

Gun controls laws do nothing in way of public safety other than empower criminals because you are essentially disarming one group of society by erecting barriers to ownership(e.g. background checks, waiting times, ammo limits, etc.) whereas its the business of criminals and would be mass shooters to disregard laws. Its the same deal with certain kinds of guns e.g. banning assault guns is straight up stupidity seeing how criminals and would be criminals always have an alternative meas of acquiring such guns e.g. theft, gang members, back alley sale, etc. To things straight, If I wanted to acquire an AK-47 or SPAS12 that was banned there are tons of blackmarket dealer who willing to supply them.

Overall the point I'm trying to make is that anybody who believes in the control of any kind of weapon is not only ignorant and but flat out clueless about crime..take it from someone who actually lost 2 relatives as a result of being killed by a gun.

What you are saying is fight fire with fire? The reason I think guns should have been illegal is because there are too many people walking around that can't deal with the responsibility, like the criminals you describe. You would only need a gun because they have one. They probably will have guns forever, but that isn't a good enough reason to just allow everyone to walk around with a gun. What if you were being attacked, you shoot at the guy, miss horribly and then what.. In such a case we 'normal' people think we can handle right, but we are not trained to react correctly. We just do what feels right and that is an emotion.

Take away the criminals, what is left? People who have gone crazy, suicidal, going for public rage like Isla Vista. Maybe a gun is safer in the hands of a professional criminal than just everyone that wishes. Maybe, a gun should be only legal if you have a proof of good citizenship, have taken multiple shooting classes, no medicinal use and regular check at home to see if you have your gun taken apart (ammo and gun in different safes).

 

[FoolKiller]

What you are saying is fight fire with fire? The reason I think guns should have been illegal is because there are too many people walking around that can't deal with the responsibility, like the criminals you describe. You would only need a gun because they have one. They probably will have guns forever, but that isn't a good enough reason to just allow everyone to walk around with a gun. What if you were being attacked, you shoot at the guy, miss horribly and then what.. In such a case we 'normal' people think we can handle right, but we are not trained to react correctly. We just do what feels right and that is an emotion.

Take away the criminals, what is left? People who have gone crazy, suicidal, going for public rage like Isla Vista. Maybe a gun is safer in the hands of a professional criminal than just everyone that wishes. Maybe, a gun should be only legal if you have a proof of good citizenship, have taken multiple shooting classes, no medicinal use and regular check at home to see if you have your gun taken apart (ammo and gun in different safes).

Listening to you, it sounds like you think everyone who has a legitimate reason to own a gun is just an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think most gun owners are irresponsible idiots?

I also find it funny that a criteria you have for owning a gun for self-defense is to have it in multiple pieces, locked in different areas, and requiring a scavenger hunt and multiple keys, RPG-style, to be able to use it. I'm sure that when you would actually need it the criminals will wait, just like they kindly wait for the police to show up.

I have no problem with a background check to keep criminals or mentally disturbed individuals from legitimately getting guns. I disagree with a registry and occasional home invasion to do so. I also think that "medicinal use" is a very broad term. That would be a direct violation of health privacy and would include nearly the entire country. Eve if you are just talking about mental health drugs, it is a privacy violation and seems to punish a guy who had a temporary case of depression after a death or losing a job.

 

[Leggy1]

Here in Britain guns are well controlled, very few people have a gun, and only special police units have guns. Gun violence certainly isnt common, mass shootings are very rare, especially compared to countries like America. Having strict controls is a good thing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Here in Britain guns are well controlled, very few people have a gun, and only special police units have guns. Gun violence certainly isnt common, mass shootings are very rare, especially compared to countries like America. Having strict controls is a good thing.

Thanks Piers Morgan, it's good to see that you still have work after CNN. I was worried. As for what you actually said, there are plenty of statistics through the 100+ pages here that shows you you're wrong, and your special case study (The UK) isn't a proving point that it works. Especially since semi-peripheral nations and peripheral nations that have as much or more control have worse gun violence than core nations. Because of their status as a nation to begin with being part of the issue.

Then you have the fact that -if you actually read the thread instead of inserting your one of a kind snowflake- you'd see that playing the one type of violence card Morgan played isn't reality in play. Because reality shows that Britain has violence of the other kinds on a large scale, your wording makes it sounds as if you live in some Utopia.

Also let's go with your complete ban that you and @Carlos think works. So you take guns away from everyone bravo you get a ticker tape parade, but after it winds down what do you do about illegal gains. Nations to the south of the U.S. that have questionable gov'ts that get weapons from third world nations that make it into mexico then to here(US) or stolen and trafficked weapons that make it on to the streets for a virtual back alley black market pay attention to a ban how? Like they do with drug bans? Which is they don't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here in Britain guns are well controlled, very few people have a gun, and only special police units have guns. Gun violence certainly isnt common, mass shootings are very rare, especially compared to countries like America. Having strict controls is a good thing.

Be very careful. @FoolKiller linked an (apparently) excellent paper which, on the face of it, appeared to support exactly that argument. (No discredit to Foolkiller, the paper really WAS good on the face of it!)

After a little drilling it seemed that the authors had confused England (gun control since 19th Century, comparatively little gun crime) with the UK which, since records began, has significantly included Northern Ireland, scene of some of the most horrendous sectarian, military and para-military violence in recent European memory.

When you talk about Britain you need to be clear that you're excluding your political, statistical home country... which is the UK. Otherwise claiming "Britain" has statistical significance in world comparisons is like claiming that Republican US states are representative of the entire Union.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Be very careful. @FoolKiller linked an (apparently) excellent paper which, on the face of it, appeared to support exactly that argument. (No discredit to Foolkiller, the paper really WAS good on the face of it!)

After a little drilling it seemed that the authors had confused England (gun control since 19th Century, comparatively little gun crime) with the UK which, since records began, has significantly included Northern Island, scene of some of the most horrendous sectarian, military and para-military violence in recent European memory.

When you talk about Britain you need to be clear that you're excluding your political, statistical home country... which is the UK. Otherwise claiming "Britain" has statistical significance in world comparisons is like claiming that Republican US states are representative of the entire Union.

Finally some reason and the sad part is that you're not a gun supporter and you rationalized better than he did.

 

[Danoff]

Here in Britain guns are well controlled, very few people have a gun, and only special police units have guns. Gun violence certainly isnt common, mass shootings are very rare, especially compared to countries like America. Having strict controls is a good thing.

I have no idea why anyone would single out a certain kind of violence "gun violence" when discussing crime. I honestly don't really care whether I'm murdered with a gun or a knife, it's the murder part that gets me.

 

[Leggy1]

Thanks Piers Morgan, it's good to see that you still have work after CNN. I was worried. As for what you actually said, there are plenty of statistics through the 100+ pages here that shows you you're wrong, and your special case study (The UK) isn't a proving point that it works. Especially since semi-peripheral nations and peripheral nations that have as much or more control have worse gun violence than core nations. Because of their status as a nation to begin with being part of the issue.

Then you have the fact that -if you actually read the thread instead of inserting your one of a kind snowflake- you'd see that playing the one type of violence card Morgan played isn't reality in play. Because reality shows that Britain has violence of the other kinds on a large scale, your wording makes it sounds as if you live in some Utopia.

Also let's go with your complete ban that you and @Carlos think works. So you take guns away from everyone bravo you get a ticker tape parade, but after it winds down what do you do about illegal gains. Nations to the south of the U.S. that have questionable gov'ts that get weapons from third world nations that make it into mexico then to here(US) or stolen and trafficked weapons that make it on to the streets for a virtual back alley black market pay attention to a ban how? Like they do with drug bans? Which is they don't.

The 2010/2011 figures show that the gun murder rate is 33 to 27 times lower in England and Wales compared to the USA in the same period. In Northern Ireland the rate is 0.83 percent per 100,000 population. In Scotland there were 2 gun murders in 2010/2011. The rate for the USA is 3.6 to 2.9 percent per 100,000. Very clearly much, much higher in the USA.

Violent crime is high in the UK, but the homicide rate is 4 times lower than in the USA. However, countries record violent crimes differently, so general violent crime statistics are not always good to use when comparing countries. Also, this thread is about gun control, not violent crimes in general.

When did I say I support a complete ban? I think what's best is strict control. And guns are a worldwide problem, but of course the issue wont be tackled by every country.