|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
It's even worse than that. Shotguns and rifles are disproportionally more useful for home defense and general defensive gun use than homicide. Handguns tend the other way around.
No stats for overall DGU by weapon type exist, but long arms are disproportionally represented in justified homicide relative to overall homicide, even when police shootings are not excluded (which dilutes the numbers in favor of handguns).
And this Massachusett AG just banned the shit out of rifles and shotguns without touching handguns.
I'd be surprised if this new ruling is enforced as declared. As for whether it passes Constitutional scrutiny...well, that depends on the election.
|
On July 26 2016 09:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 02:29 acker wrote:On July 26 2016 02:13 Plansix wrote: I am claiming that gun manufactures don’t give a fuck about anyone’s safety and just want to sell guns to everyone. And this is obvious by the fact that the NRA opposes anything the government does in relation to guns beyond let anyone who asks buy them.
Gun laws could be better written, but that would involve people who like guns taking part in the process. And that doesn’t happen often. Or ever.
Only people who oppose gun control can understand guns? Nothing is stopping Massachusetts legislators from reading wikipedia or taking gun education lessons. Or, for that matter, purchasing firearms to better understand them. this is an excellent article. imagine how most of you feel when you hear about congress trying to regulate the internet, that is what reading most of this thread feels like.
It's a bit silly when he says the AR-15 is underpowered for hunting and then calls the Mini-14 a common hunting rifle, even though both shoot the same caliber.
|
He still doesn't get everything right, but it's better than most.
+ Show Spoiler + Technically, the Mini-14 generally shoots .223 and the AR-15 generally shoots 5.56; guns chambered for 5.56 are normally rated for .223 but not vice versa. That said, a 5.56 version of the Mini-14 does exist and both rounds do pretty much the same thing downrange.
|
On July 25 2016 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 21:01 DucK- wrote: Rip. Next one's probably going to happen again in two weeks or so~~ Statistically, there's a mass shooting every day in the United States there are more mass shootings than days in the US. there are some rare days that dont have mass shootings though, its just there are other days that make up for it with multiple mass shootings lol
|
Corruption: organisations/people pay politicians to support certain causes
Lobby: funding politicians' campaigns in exchange for their support
Don't quite see a difference actually (of course lobby do other things as well...)
|
The difference is that people in the US are totally fine with corruption as long as you call it "lobbying" or "campaign contributions"
In fact, apparently a lot of US legislators spend more of their time on the phone begging for bribes than they do actually legislating.
I have yet to figure out why people think that that is a good system. But i guess we are getting off topic here.
|
On July 26 2016 18:12 Simberto wrote: The difference is that people in the US are totally fine with corruption as long as you call it "lobbying" or "campaign contributions"
In fact, apparently a lot of US legislators spend more of their time on the phone begging for bribes than they do actually legislating.
I have yet to figure out why people think that that is a good system. But i guess we are getting off topic here. the people in the system think its good because theyre the ones maintaining and benefitting from it
the people outside the system have lots of trouble unseating the entrenched status quo
but yea lump the two together?!?!?!
The difference is that people in the US are totally fine with corruption as long as you call it "lobbying" or "campaign contributions" what's with people lumping a country of over 300 million as one monolithic entity
distract enough of em with other shit and there wont be enough people to take on lobbying directly
attention is finite/limited and politicians and the media understand this better than anyone...
EDIT: nvm ignore this post i've again mistakenly wandered into the part of the general forum where 90% of people are just looking to feel superior to others via generalization
constitutional convention now
|
I'll be concerned about money in politics ooh scary when I see evidence that there is a political position/opinion that is not being communicated to the general American public because it is being drowned out. Americans are not facing a dearth of knowledge as to all the wonderful shades of the political spectrum, from anarcho-capitalist syndicalites to anarchist commune-dwellers with philosophies centered around shrooms who only leave the deep woods when a particular grouping of members of the Grateful Dead is created for a summer tour. Okay, maybe those two aren't generally well known.
On an issue that gets right to the core of the nation's civics and constitution, the solution (if there is a problem) is the people. Not any politician saying there is a problem and this will fix it. Any politician, even Saint Sanders, who says he or she wants money and undue influence out of politics really means they want money that goes to their opponents and the influence of people they don't like out of politics. It's all self-serving.
|
On July 20 2016 15:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:10 acker wrote: If you believe that stopping mass shootings is the only legitimate reason someone should carry a gun in public, well ok then. It's simply not believable that you don't care about rape and murder and armed robbery outside of the home. This confuses me; why do you believe that it's not ok for people to carry guns in public in response to more common violent crimes? I didn't say I didn't care about rape and murder, but for every study I find that says carrying around a gun helps deter criminal activities, I find another that says they don't. I've read articles about how there are correlations between high civilian ownership of guns and more crime, or how guns can cause escalation during a situation (potentially having a robber- who just wants your wallet- to end up attacking the victim), or how the number of prevented crimes is inappropriately extrapolated. Here are two examples (there are countless more examples, just as how there are just as many on the pro-gun side): ""We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."" ~ http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html "5) Underneath all these statistical problems is a larger conceptual problem. When we hear "defensive gun use," we're invited to think of a law-abiding citizen confronting a criminal aggressor. Yet crime does not always present itself so neatly. The vast majority of homicides take place between intimates, not strangers. Assaults, too, are often an acquaintance crime. When guns are produced by two parties to a confrontation, one party may deter the other. Yet it may be seriously misleading to designate one of these persons as a "criminal" and the other as a "law-abiding citizen." Perhaps when we hear "defensive gun use," we should not imagine a householder confronting a prowler. Perhaps we should think of two acquaintances, both with some criminal history, getting into a drunken fight, both producing guns, one ending up dead or wounded, the other ending up as a "DGU" statistic -- but both of them entangled in a scenario that would have produced only injuries if neither had carried a gun." ~ http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/ So, given the tons of studies that are apparently pro-gun and the t ons of studies that are apparently anti-gun, I'd rather err on the side of caution (or, at least, what I consider to be caution) and prefer not to be around strangers with guns. Of course, in a concealed/ open carry state, I don't exactly have a choice, but I'm merely talking about what I would consider a personal preference of mine. That's why I said "I'm not a fan..."
I'd just like to point out that there are not tons of legitimate studies that are anti-gun, and the vast majority of the more popular ones have already been debunked as unscientific.
|
One of the only ways to (obtain)/(fast-track) a (concealed carry permit)/(firearms license) in any state is to show that you are in imminent danger. When the chips are down, even states that support gun control do not seem to believe that owning a gun is more dangerous than the alternative.
I believe the above is true for most European countries as well, but I don't know for sure.
To take it to an extreme, I can't think of any state that disarms its law enforcement officers despite the studies that show that gun ownership is more dangerous for every demographic. The biggest cutouts in state and federal firearm possession laws go to current and retired LEOs as well. And the people who handle firearms the most, LEOs, are disproportionately likely to support gun rights for the public.
|
British police don't carry guns. Only a very small proportion of certain trained police officers do, and they are only called to do so when there is a clear reason to do so. But different culture breeds a different situation.
In any case, it's a little odd, for you acker, to extrapolate civilian gun statistics and to try to apply it to the police force.
i mean, how can you say with a straight face that a civilian statistic is appliable to every demographic, when it very clearly it excludes non-civilians; the very group you are including?
|
On July 31 2016 04:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: British police don't carry guns. Only a very small proportion of certain trained police officers do, and they are only called to do so when there is a clear reason to do so. But different culture breeds a different situation.
In any case, it's a little odd, for you acker, to extrapolate civilian gun statistics and to try to apply it to the police force.
i mean, how can you say with a straight face that a civilian statistic is appliable to every demographic, when it very clearly it excludes non-civilians; the very group you are including? First off, police are civilians. Second, "Britain" is not "most European countries", no matter what Brexiters might think about the importance of their country. Police in Northern Ireland carry guns (and general gun ownership seems looser in NI), so even "The United Kingdom" is inaccurate.
Third, which paper are you referring to?
Also, after looking into this further, what paper are people getting the "more than one mass shooting a day" statistic? The only source for this number I can find is /r/GunsAreCool and their agitprop tracker.
|
On July 31 2016 04:35 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 04:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: British police don't carry guns. Only a very small proportion of certain trained police officers do, and they are only called to do so when there is a clear reason to do so. But different culture breeds a different situation.
In any case, it's a little odd, for you acker, to extrapolate civilian gun statistics and to try to apply it to the police force.
i mean, how can you say with a straight face that a civilian statistic is appliable to every demographic, when it very clearly it excludes non-civilians; the very group you are including? First off, police are civilians. Second, "Britain" is not "most European countries", no matter what Brexiters might think about the importance of their country. Police in Northern Ireland carry guns, so even "The United Kingdom" is inaccurate. Third, which paper are you referring to? Also, after looking into this further, what paper are people getting the "more than one mass shooting a day" statistic? The only source for this number I can find is /r/GunsAreCool and their agitprop tracker. they include non press covered things such as gang warfare and domestic homicide/suicide.
|
On July 31 2016 04:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2016 04:35 acker wrote:On July 31 2016 04:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: British police don't carry guns. Only a very small proportion of certain trained police officers do, and they are only called to do so when there is a clear reason to do so. But different culture breeds a different situation.
In any case, it's a little odd, for you acker, to extrapolate civilian gun statistics and to try to apply it to the police force.
i mean, how can you say with a straight face that a civilian statistic is appliable to every demographic, when it very clearly it excludes non-civilians; the very group you are including? First off, police are civilians. Second, "Britain" is not "most European countries", no matter what Brexiters might think about the importance of their country. Police in Northern Ireland carry guns, so even "The United Kingdom" is inaccurate. Third, which paper are you referring to? Also, after looking into this further, what paper are people getting the "more than one mass shooting a day" statistic? The only source for this number I can find is /r/GunsAreCool and their agitprop tracker. they include non press covered things such as gang warfare and domestic homicide/suicide. They also appear to include airgun injuries and nonfirearm injuries sustained during incidents. They also don't seem to regularly update their tracker to reflect later news on the incidents they record. Do people consider this at all credible?
They don't even use the FBI definition of mass shooting to define incidents. They use four injuries sustained during unlawful or lawful use of a firearm as their definition, and the FBI uses four (or three) people murdered with a firearm (no gang incidents counted) as theirs. If someone fires a shot into the air and four people fall on their ass in surprise, apparently that counts as a mass shooting.
Given that the number of injuries outweighs the number of deaths multiple times over, I'm surprised that there's only one mass shooting every day. That number should definitely be higher.
Edit: They appear to have stopped including airgun injuries in their tracker after they were called out on it.
Edit 2: They claim to only count 4+ people shot rather than every injury. Their track record says otherwise. This discrepancy may be due to poor information in the articles they pull their mass shooting data from.
TL DR: This is bog standard violence.
|
On July 26 2016 12:12 Soap wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 09:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:On July 26 2016 02:29 acker wrote:On July 26 2016 02:13 Plansix wrote: I am claiming that gun manufactures don’t give a fuck about anyone’s safety and just want to sell guns to everyone. And this is obvious by the fact that the NRA opposes anything the government does in relation to guns beyond let anyone who asks buy them.
Gun laws could be better written, but that would involve people who like guns taking part in the process. And that doesn’t happen often. Or ever.
Only people who oppose gun control can understand guns? Nothing is stopping Massachusetts legislators from reading wikipedia or taking gun education lessons. Or, for that matter, purchasing firearms to better understand them. this is an excellent article. imagine how most of you feel when you hear about congress trying to regulate the internet, that is what reading most of this thread feels like. It's a bit silly when he says the AR-15 is underpowered for hunting and then calls the Mini-14 a common hunting rifle, even though both shoot the same caliber. given the context, it certainly makes sense. you can hunt small varmint with .223 just fine. hunting game you would normally use .30-06 for with a .223? that's likely a problem.
|
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-court-ban-gun-sales-medical-marijuana-cardholders-41778478
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.
It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.
|
I cant even...
how does smoking pot makes you more dangerous than someone else? How about people who drink beer?
this is so weird. Is it a way to dissuade people from buying legal dope?
"We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don't get a gun, but if you're on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,"
this is so strange
|
On September 01 2016 09:01 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I cant even...
how does smoking pot makes you more dangerous than someone else? How about people who drink beer?
this is so weird. Is it a way to dissuade people from buying legal dope?
"We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don't get a gun, but if you're on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,"
this is so strange Well at the least you have to sign up for a medical marijuana card where a faceless burocrat with no real reason needed can put you on the no flylist under 6 different names without anyone batting an eye.
|
its medical marijuana. if you are legally allowed to obtain marijuana for medical reasons lets just say youre not the healthiest person out there. i think the US government is slowly trying to further regulate guns but because they cant just slap a restriction on the entire population theyre starting with smaller segments where they can. thats why you wouldnt be able to slap a ban on guns for anyone who drinks because how will you even know?
|
If medical pot is given to the mentally ill, then doesn't this make sense?
|
|
|
|