stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments [Archive] - Page 2

Humerox

01-12-2013, 06:54 PM

Instead of leaning on your philosophical point, please better evaluate the data or show any proof that gun controls do reduce violent crime. I'm made a fairly clear and evidence-based case whereas through 25 pages there has been absolutely no proof that gun controls reduce violent crime.

You won't get it.

Science cannot provide you a clear-cut, absolute answer. The issue is that studying the impact of gun laws on violent crime isn't really the simple question that it appears to be. Instead, we're talking about many different individual laws, written in different ways and enforced in different manners. One law might fail while another succeeds. Where those laws are implemented makes a difference, because a new, strict gun law in a place surrounded by similar laws is going to have a different outcome than the same law in a place where you can just cross a border and find completely different legislation.

Some studies are funded by biased institutions. Some studies aren't peer reviewed. Some studies feature poorly thought-out methodology.

All of that leads to a mess of frequently contradictory conclusions that can be used to support just about any position you'd like to put forward. So, basically, just because you can support your position, don't think that makes you absolutely correct. This goes for both sides.

However...it HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT that gun legislation absolutely reduces mass killings by firearm. People can knock themselves off all they want in this country. Just as long as they don't knock off a bunch of kids in school, take out an entire movie theater, or mow down a bunch of people in a cafeteria.

We've never been arguing the same issue.

patriot1776

01-12-2013, 07:24 PM

The Newtown Shooting happened in a gun control zone.

vaylorie

01-12-2013, 07:32 PM

You are scared of something that is about as statistically as likely as getting struck by lightning. Because you are scared, you want me to be afraid also and you want to remove my liberties. You don't get it. You let your fear control your decision making and wonder why I call you a fool.

You won't get it.

Science cannot provide you a clear-cut, absolute answer. The issue is that studying the impact of gun laws on violent crime isn't really the simple question that it appears to be. Instead, we're talking about many different individual laws, written in different ways and enforced in different manners. One law might fail while another succeeds. Where those laws are implemented makes a difference, because a new, strict gun law in a place surrounded by similar laws is going to have a different outcome than the same law in a place where you can just cross a border and find completely different legislation.

Some studies are funded by biased institutions. Some studies aren't peer reviewed. Some studies feature poorly thought-out methodology.

All of that leads to a mess of frequently contradictory conclusions that can be used to support just about any position you'd like to put forward. So, basically, just because you can support your position, don't think that makes you absolutely correct. This goes for both sides.

However...it HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT that gun legislation absolutely reduces mass killings by firearm. People can knock themselves off all they want in this country. Just as long as they don't knock off a bunch of kids in school, take out an entire movie theater, or mow down a bunch of people in a cafeteria.

We've never been arguing the same issue.

Relapse2

01-12-2013, 07:40 PM

http://i.imgur.com/YJl1u.jpg

that is sooo me hahahahaha

Ephirith

01-12-2013, 07:51 PM

I should have the right to own a slave. Big government makes all these laws prohibitating slavery, and all that does is put slaves in the hands of criminals and sex houses instead of law abiding citizens like me. People are still going to own slaves whether there are slave controls or not, so it doesn't make sense to try and control it.

Also, studies have shown that countries with little or no slave laws have lower rates of slave abuse. You're going to have to pry my slaves from my cold, dead hands Yankee.

-

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/3062/jurnyreb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/jurnyreb.jpg/)

hatelore

01-12-2013, 07:52 PM

Lexical

01-12-2013, 08:36 PM

I should have the right to own a slave. Big government makes all these laws prohibitating slavery, and all that does is put slaves in the hands of criminals and sex houses instead of law abiding citizens like me. People are still going to own slaves whether there are slave controls or not, so it doesn't make sense to try and control it.

Also, studies have shown that countries with little or no slave laws have lower rates of slave abuse. You're going to have to pry my slaves from my cold, dead hands Yankee.

Heh, as entertaining as this post is, you have to realize the radical moral differences between owning slaves and owning a gun.

Lexical

01-12-2013, 08:37 PM

However...it HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT that gun legislation absolutely reduces mass killings by firearm.

Show me the proof please.

Humerox

01-12-2013, 08:43 PM

Alarti0001

01-12-2013, 08:45 PM

Alarti... If you spend another night on here arguing (c'mon man, its Saturday, you already wasted your Friday here) I am going to feel more bad for you then i did last night :( please go have a life tonight, i am counting on you!

Lol i was on my phone riding the bus back from pikes place. Its also only 4:45. Also, you are here and its what 6:45 ish where you are? You dum broooo

vaylorie

01-12-2013, 09:55 PM

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4221133_700b_v1.jpg

patriot1776

01-12-2013, 10:00 PM

the role of government is to take care of us and provide for our safety -alarti 2013

OforOppression

01-12-2013, 10:01 PM

vaylorie just linked to 9gag

literally the biggest retard in a gaggle of retards

vaylorie

01-12-2013, 10:14 PM

Wait until you're part of that statistic. You might change your mind then.

You keep saying I'm afraid of something. You're dead wrong...just to let you know.

If I am, I would be sad and I would grieve and I would probably be angry. These are expected human emotions in a time of tragedy. That being said, I wouldn't be angry at 'guns' nor would I be angry at the government for allowing the criminal to get access to a gun. I would blame the crazy or evil fucked-up guy that fucking did it. I certainly wouldn't want to remove your access to something just because someone went outside the law and abused it.

Removing liberties of law abiding citizens in order to do something that statistically has been shown to have no impact on the problem. That is ignorance.

Humerox

01-12-2013, 10:31 PM

Regurgitating the statement "not statistically proven" is ignorant.

We both can come up with "statistics". I'm talking about ending mass murder by firearm. The Aussies did it, and did it right.

How you feel isn't changing the fact that the tide is turning against you. New York (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/11/ny-at-forefront-of-gun-control-fight/1827737/) is getting it right.

vaylorie

01-12-2013, 11:01 PM

How you feel isn't changing the fact that the tide is turning against you. New York (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/11/ny-at-forefront-of-gun-control-fight/1827737/) is getting it right.

I sleep well at night knowing that my right to bear arms will not be infringed regardless of the feeble attempts of you lefties. Time and time again the Supreme Court has struck down restrictive gun laws and New York may be next.

Look, if you want to remove guns to reduce gun-based crime, you will be successful. Some of the gun crime will be turn into other types of violent crime and murder weapons and you will feel better feeling that you have solved a problem since deaths by guns will slightly decline while violent crime continues to grow. (again, look at Britain)

If you want to reduce violent crime (a.k.a. protect people / kids / etc.), then you have to actually evaluate the problem and statistically & historically a gun ban will not work.

If you want to reduce mass murders caused by guns, which have almost the same probability of happening as getting struck by lightning, then you can ban the guns and criminals will find an alternative weapon. Like fire, bomb, illegal assault weapon, etc. which still happen despite your saying they don't. You will be 'successful' because while mass killings still happen, they aren't done with guns. I use successful carefully since mass killings represent a fraction of 1% of homicides each year so you aren't really solving the problem.

If you really want to reduce mass murders, you can evaluate the commonalities from mass murderers and figure out where the likely problems live. You will find one primary box checked routinely when looking at a mass murderer in hindsight. Almost every one will have 'signs of mental illness shown prior to event'. That is where our focus should be, not trying to get rid of the weapon that the crazy person used.

vaylorie

01-12-2013, 11:03 PM

However...it HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT that gun legislation absolutely reduces mass killings by firearm.

Show me the proof please.

This is still pending also, lest you make hypocritical statements that can't be verified with facts.

Humerox

01-12-2013, 11:16 PM

It's not pending, lol. Australia (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf). Simple.

patriot1776

01-12-2013, 11:59 PM

aka breakins and rapes thereof increased 10fold

Lexical

01-13-2013, 12:36 AM

It's not pending, lol. Australia (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf). Simple.

I have one word for you: propaganda. Sorry, I just skimmed through it a bit and found some of it hard to believe. I then googled for about 2 seconds and I was presented with contradictory evidence on a lot of their claims. They try to hide a lot of evidence and use extremely biased statistics. For example,

In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the
massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass
shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead
and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years
since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass
shootings have occurred in Australia.

However, there is a very famous shooting that occurred in Australia in 2002 however.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Granted it wasn't on the scale as the Port Arthur massacre, but it still happened and still qualifies as a mass shooting. Mass shooting don't happen very often and have a very sporadic turn out and therefore can only be categorized as anomalous tragedies.

However, Australia did lower their gun injuries and deaths substantially after 1996 and obviously so.

2010: 236
2009: 227
2008: 232
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685
Compare
Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
ChartIn Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0615
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

I actually tried to find some sort of overall statistical analysis from 1987-2012 in Australian crime rates, but the ABS only has records from 2008+ which really doesn't help me. I wouldn't be surprised though if the number of assaults stayed the same if not increased. Also, you can't really compare Australia to the USA. The USA has much denser and larger cities than Australia therefore crime rates are going to be higher. Also, the immigration laws in Australia are MUCH more strict than they are in the states and the USA has a lot more illegal immigrants than Australia.

What I am trying to say is that it is not simple.

Lexical

01-13-2013, 12:55 AM

What I find really interesting however is that the rate of gun deaths and homicides were already on a steady decline BEFORE 1996 in Australia and if you keep looking at the statistics it follows a downward linear trend. It can be easily hypothesized through these observations that Australian gun laws did not "solve" the problem but as a culture, Australians were becoming less and less violent and lower gun violence was bound to happen.

vaylorie

01-13-2013, 12:56 AM

It's not pending, lol. Australia (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf). Simple.

Proven beyond the shadow of a doubt..... Anyone can plainly see that there is an immediate and noticeable effect that the gun ban had on crime statistics. Also, I agree w/ Lexical re: other mass shootings or mass killings that somehow didn't make it in their stats. What was the hostel fire or something like that?

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/accgundths.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suichisty.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/assault.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/propcrym.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/homihisty.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/murder.gif

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:06 AM

I sleep well at night knowing that my right to bear arms will not be infringed regardless of the feeble attempts of you lefties. Time and time again the Supreme Court has struck down restrictive gun laws and New York may be next.

I'm not against bearing arms. Outlawing assault-style weapons is common-sense. No one needs them. Your right to bear arms is already limited. Supreme Court?

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. (Limits your freedom).

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote.

So, your right to carry what you want to is already limited...and can be changed by law.

Determining what those weapons are is the common sense point we need to reach.

Look, if you want to remove guns to reduce gun-based crime, you will be successful. Some of the gun crime will be turn into other types of violent crime and murder weapons and you will feel better feeling that you have solved a problem since deaths by guns will slightly decline while violent crime continues to grow. (again, look at Britain)

I prefer to look at Australia, which is much more culturally like us, albeit on a smaller scale. I can also refer to actual research.

If you want to reduce violent crime (a.k.a. protect people / kids / etc.), then you have to actually evaluate the problem and statistically & historically a gun ban will not work.

Only due to half-assed enforcement and implementation. And no, gun legislation by itself won't do the trick.

If you want to reduce mass murders caused by guns, which have almost the same probability of happening as getting struck by lightning, then you can ban the guns and criminals will find an alternative weapon. Like fire, bomb, illegal assault weapon, etc. which still happen despite your saying they don't. You will be 'successful' because while mass killings still happen, they aren't done with guns. I use successful carefully since mass killings represent a fraction of 1% of homicides each year so you aren't really solving the problem.

Mass killings without guns happens all the time in the US. You're arguing apples and oranges by saying that the same nuts will find another means to do the killing. I say they won't because it isn't nearly as easy, and most of the killers have been cowardly lone-wolf rejects. I can count exactly TWO incidents in Australia that were mass murders since 1986. One was a fire, and the other was a man that beat his family to death.

If you really want to reduce mass murders, you can evaluate the commonalities from mass murderers and figure out where the likely problems live. You will find one primary box checked routinely when looking at a mass murderer in hindsight. Almost every one will have 'signs of mental illness shown prior to event'. That is where our focus should be, not trying to get rid of the weapon that the crazy person used.

And I say that the focus should be on that and legislating assault-style weapons, among quite a few other legislative moves, like requiring yearly registration, no private transfer of guns, insurance, firearms courses required to own, etc.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:07 AM

Didn't read that actual research paper I linked did ya? Still looking for skewed statistics that support your argument rather than facts.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:13 AM

I have one word for you: propaganda. Sorry, I just skimmed through it a bit and found some of it hard to believe. I then googled for about 2 seconds and I was presented with contradictory evidence on a lot of their claims. They try to hide a lot of evidence and use extremely biased statistics. For example,

However, there is a very famous shooting that occurred in Australia in 2002 however.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Granted it wasn't on the scale as the Port Arthur massacre, but it still happened and still qualifies as a mass shooting. Mass shooting don't happen very often and have a very sporadic turn out and therefore can only be categorized as anomalous tragedies.

I am so glad you brought up Monash...not only because I defeated that argument before, I did so handily. You didn't read up on Monash, did you?

The very fact that only 2 people were killed and 5 injured is a statement against assault style weapons in itself. Suppose Xiang had assault-style weapons? The following wouldn't have happened.

When Xiang stopped shooting and moved to switch weapons, Lee Gordon-Brown, the injured lecturer, grabbed Xiang's hands as he reached into his jacket. Gordon-Brown and a student in the room, Alastair Boast, a trained wing chun practitioner, tackled him.[3][5][8][9] Bradley Thompson later entered the room and discovered five guns in holsters around Xiang's waist, including two Berettas, a Taurus, a .357 Magnum and a .38-caliber revolver, as well as two magazines from near his hip.

Gordon-Brown and Boast were assisted by a passing lecturer from a nearby room, Brett Inder, to restrain Xiang for thirty minutes until police arrived, while Thompson and university administrator Colin Thornby, provided first aid.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:17 AM

The Barettas were revolvers iirc...before you go ballistic on it.

Lexical

01-13-2013, 01:19 AM

I am so glad you brought up Monash...not only because I defeated that argument before, I did so handily. You didn't read up on Monash, did you?

I am very proud of you, but I don't think you really read my post, and yes I did read up on Monash. I really have one question for you and all I request is that you reread my post and then answer it: What is my argument?

The very fact that only 2 people were killed and 5 injured is a statement against assault style weapons in itself. Suppose Xiang had assault-style weapons? The following wouldn't have happened.

If this is your fabled defense, then I can only imagine the mental midgets you overcame.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:29 AM

I am very proud of you, but I don't think you really read my post, and yes I did read up on Monash. I really have one question for you and all I request is that you reread my post and then answer it: What is my argument?

You didn't want argument; you wanted proof that gun legislation reduced mass murder by firearm. I gave you Australia, which is the only existing example...since Britian doesn't even really have the problem.

If this is your fabled defense, then I can only imagine the mental midgets you overcame.

Refute it instead of mocking it. Mental midgets mock. ;)

Faron

01-13-2013, 01:34 AM

It can be easily hypothesized through these observations that Australian gun laws did not "solve" the problem but as a culture, Australians were becoming less and less violent and lower gun violence was bound to happen.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:37 AM

Oh yeah? I can cherry-pick quotes too.

However, Australia did lower their gun injuries and deaths substantially after 1996 and obviously so.

Faron

01-13-2013, 01:44 AM

Lexical

01-13-2013, 01:45 AM

You didn't want argument; you wanted proof that gun legislation reduced mass murder by firearm. I gave you Australia, which is the only existing example...since Britian doesn't even really have the problem.

What you linked was of highly questionable integrity. It read like a Chinese fiscal report honestly. Also, the source you linked did not prove it. There are many gaps in mass shootings and in the data collected and presented.

Now, I DO agree that restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun related injuries and deaths. This is because they are not readily available and will thus constrict the sample size. However, mass shootings are entirely different. Mass shootings occur from a myriad of different reasons and generally involve a very devoted and unstable culprit. Can said culprit do more damage with an assault rifle than with a pistol? Most likely so and no one is arguing that. Can said culprit still take many lives with a legal gun? Yes, of course. So the next question is, did you really solve the problem? No, you just reduced the probable damage done. The culprit could still find a way to get an assault rifle. All the gun control laws did was make it harder for him/her to obtain one.

Refute it instead of mocking it. Mental midgets mock. ;)
The problem with your argument is that it is inherently flawed. You are assuming a false pretense and asking what-if and then trying to make a case for your side. I can easily do the same with "Well if all the other students and teachers has assault rifles then much less people would have been killed since they could defend themselves and thus everyone should be assigned a SMG." Your argument is invalid which made it deserving of my mockery. ;)

Lexical

01-13-2013, 01:48 AM

Also on the subject of mass killings, which is what we should be arguing about, is that they don't need to involve guns. If some one wants to kill a school and can't get a high powered rifle, where do you think they are going to turn? Homemade bombs most likely which could actually drastically increase the number of deaths and injured when such tragedies occur.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 01:58 AM

What you linked was of highly questionable integrity. It read like a Chinese fiscal report honestly. Also, the source you linked did not prove it. There are many gaps in mass shootings and in the data collected and presented.

Now, I DO agree that restrictions on guns will reduce the number of gun related injuries and deaths. This is because they are not readily available and will thus constrict the sample size. However, mass shootings are entirely different. Mass shootings occur from a myriad of different reasons and generally involve a very devoted and unstable culprit. Can said culprit do more damage with an assault rifle than with a pistol? Most likely so and no one is arguing that. Can said culprit still take many lives with a legal gun? Yes, of course. So the next question is, did you really solve the problem? No, you just reduced the probable damage done. The culprit could still find a way to get an assault rifle. All the gun control laws did was make it harder for him/her to obtain one.

The problem with your argument is that it is inherently flawed. You are assuming a false pretense and asking what-if and then trying to make a case for your side. I can easily do the same with "Well if all the other students and teachers has assault rifles then much less people would have been killed since they could defend themselves and thus everyone should be assigned a SMG." Your argument is invalid which made it deserving of my mockery. ;)

Except that it's a fact that Australia has had no mass murders by firearms in 16 years...not since 1996 when they established common-sense legislation. In the preceding decade they had 13.

I'm glad that you agree on reduction of guns = reduction of gun-related injuries and deaths, but that's not my argument...although it would be a nice benefit.

The research I presented was done by the University of Sydney. Please illustrate what was questionable. Methods? Sources?

Here it is again so you can have at it. University of Sydney Research Report (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf).

Also on the subject of mass killings, which is what we should be arguing about, is that they don't need to involve guns. If some one wants to kill a school and can't get a high powered rifle, where do you think they are going to turn? Homemade bombs most likely which could actually drastically increase the number of deaths and injured when such tragedies occur.

What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 02:04 AM

The point is that societies do not exist in a vacuum where something like a crime rate is affected by a singular factor (the availability of a particular weapon). I don't understand why people don't focus on the actual problem: criminals. And in particular: people who want to kill as many people as possible. A gun sitting on their desk, or knowing that one can be easily purchased at Walmart does not cause people to be criminals or mass murderers.

I don't disagree that there aren't more factors. All of which need to be addressed. But an assault-style weapon easily purchased at Wal-Mart makes a future Newtown killer's job so much easier, don't you agree?

Lexical

01-13-2013, 02:07 AM

Except that it's a fact that Australia has had no mass murders by firearms in 16 years...not since 1996 when they established common-sense legislation. In the preceding decade they had 13.

I'm glad that you agree on reduction of guns = reduction of gun-related injuries and deaths, but that's not my argument...although it would be a nice benefit.

The research I presented was done by the University of Sydney. Please illustrate what was questionable. Methods? Sources?

Here it is again so you can have at it. University of Sydney Research Report (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf).
I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

What? You just went from intelligent and reasoned to... well I'll just say you know what this is. C'mon...do better.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

Lexical

01-13-2013, 02:09 AM

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire

Humerox

01-13-2013, 02:23 AM

I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

Weak sauce. Don't make me go digging for US statistics for firearm killings that included at least 2 killed and 5 injured. Just from 2006-2010 alone, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed. All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. I'd hate to see what less restrictive rules on what constitutes a mass killing does for our figures.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

It's what you accused me of earlier. An inherently flawed what-if argument.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 02:26 AM

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire

Of what? A killer turning to other means to kill other than guns? Is that the point of this link?

Lexical

01-13-2013, 02:45 AM

Weak sauce. Don't make me go digging for US statistics for firearm killings that included at least 2 killed and 5 injured. Just from 2006-2010 alone, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed. All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. I'd hate to see what less restrictive rules on what constitutes a mass killing does for our figures.

Sorry to disappoint, but this conversation is becoming old for me as all I am doing is moderating and not even arguing my opinions on the matter. I am much more interested on discerning what pick-up lines have the highest probability of success on targeted female audiences.

It's what you accused me of earlier. An inherently flawed what-if argument.

Not quite. Mine was an extrapolation on the mentality of a psychopath given certain constraints. It is also observed often and can be noted by the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat." Your argument was changing the past of a very specific instance and using the difference between the divined results and the actual results as the basis for your argument. Do you see the difference?

Lexical

01-13-2013, 02:47 AM

Right now I have a pretty good one involving a sugar packet, but it backfires way too much.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 02:53 AM

Not quite. Mine was an extrapolation on the mentality of a psychopath given certain constraints. It is also observed often and can be noted by the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat." Your argument was changing the past of a very specific instance and using the difference between the divined results and the actual results as the basis for your argument. Do you see the difference?

I didn't change the past of the Monash shooting. It wasn't a mass murder. It was an attempted mass-murder that was stopped because the shooter had to reload. Something he wouldn't have needed to do with assault style weapons.

If you're then saying that the Childers fire was an example of "more than one way to skin a cat", you don't understand the crime or the motivation. The idiot didn't even intend on killing anyone.

Justice Peter Dutney, who sentenced Long at Brisbane's Supreme Court, said it was the worst case of arson in Queensland history.

He said: "I'm happy to concede you had no intent to kill but death was such an inevitability in the circumstances that to light those fires displays callousness and cruelty that is hard to imagine."

Lexical

01-13-2013, 02:57 AM

I even have a follow up if the girl turns out to be a feminist. I just throw down an equal packet instead. I would even make a wager that says it is more effective.

Humerox

01-13-2013, 02:57 AM

Right now I have a pretty good one involving a sugar packet, but it backfires way too much.

Just ask them if they want to go home with you. You get slapped - and laid - more often.

;)

Lexical

01-13-2013, 03:00 AM

I am not looking to increase the sample size. What I want is an increased rate of success.

hatelore

01-13-2013, 03:29 AM

I am not looking to increase the sample size. What I want is an increased rate of success.

Confidence + Humor = success. Master that, and you will be okay.

hatelore

01-13-2013, 03:29 AM

Ask my eskimo wife, she knows this shizzle.

gotrocks

01-13-2013, 04:28 AM

Confidence + Humor = success. Master that, and you will be okay.

this is mostly true, especially in first encounters. obviously if you're looking for something more long term than a one night stand, other things are going to enter into the equation.

and, looks are always a factor. if you're absolutely hideous you are going to have a harder time.

pickup lines are overrated.

gloine36

01-13-2013, 12:31 PM

By the way, just quoting a Founder, and also most of the quotes used were never said or written by them doesn't mean jack shit. You must understand the context of the era.

When it comes to gun control going back to the Founders is a waste of time. Their era is not this era. The situation is totally different. They didn't want gun control beyond keeping firearms out of the hands of the incompetent. In short, they used common sense. When common sense is brought up today the gun dealers of America go apeshit and get their political action front the NRA in gear screaming about the rights of the people which are in no fucking way being threatened.

This is all about making money for gun dealers and not giving a rat's ass for the people of this country.

Zahrok Vekin

01-13-2013, 12:41 PM

and where did you study colonial history?

Vadd

01-13-2013, 01:16 PM

I don't disagree that there aren't more factors. All of which need to be addressed. But an assault-style weapon easily purchased at Wal-Mart makes a future Newtown killer's job so much easier, don't you agree?

I keep seeing people harp on this "assault style" shit....

A high powered, bolt action hunting rifle has the SAME deadly potential as any "assault style" rifle purchased at Walmart.

Are you shooting one person in a small room?

People exiting a public transportation unit?

Are you targeting helpless children, or physically capable adults?

How far away are you?

What cover is available to potential victims?

What is your skill level with a firearm?

There are SO many factors to take into consideration when think about what COULD happen....

Guy with PISTOLS runs into an elementary school full of small CHILDREN and WOMEN....
What the fuck do you think the outcome is going to be?

Same fucking loser could have walked into ANY other place and got knocked the fuck out before having a chance to fire off for than a couple of shots, "assault style" weapon or not.

All of this is very situational.

Anyway, all of this focused, repetitive imagery of "assault style" weapons makes me feel uncomfortable. I feel like its being used as a scare tactic, and too many people are just eating it up.

"Okay, we make them THINK this, so they agree to let us do this. And THEN, from there, we'll go after THIS next, until....."

Until YOU'VE all willingly become these other fish in some other barrel.

Lexical

01-13-2013, 01:21 PM

I keep seeing people harp on this "assault style" shit....

A high powered, bolt action hunting rifle has the SAME deadly potential as any "assault style" rifle purchased at Walmart.

Are you shooting one person in a small room?

People exiting a public transportation unit?

Are you targeting helpless children, or physically capable adults?

How far away are you?

What cover is available to potential victims?

What is your skill level with a firearm?

There are SO many factors to take into consideration when think about what COULD happen....

Guy with PISTOLS runs into an elementary school full of small CHILDREN and WOMEN....
What the fuck do you think the outcome is going to be?

Same fucking loser could have walked into ANY other place and got knocked the fuck out before having a chance to fire off for than a couple of shots, "assault style" weapon or not.

All of this is very situational.

Anyway, all of this focused, repetitive imagery of "assault style" weapons makes me feel uncomfortable. I feel like its being used as a scare tactic, and too many people are just eating it up.

"Okay, we make them THINK this, so they agree to let us do this. And THEN, from there, we'll go after THIS next, until....."

Until YOU'VE all willingly become these other fish in some other barrel.

This seems a little too aggressive and hostile. It also comes off as you just throwing the female in the middle of a conversation and then bombarding her with questions. Idk, I will give this pick up line a shot, but I am fairly certain that I will get the cops called on me.

patriot1776

01-13-2013, 02:13 PM

the founders were prophets of god who scribed jesus' will on hemp

GOD BLESS THE BILL OF RIGHTS and you communist fucks can go to north korea if u want gun control

Vadd

01-13-2013, 02:35 PM

the founders were prophets of god who scribed jesus' will on hemp

GOD BLESS THE BILL OF RIGHTS and you communist fucks can go to north korea if u want gun control

Sunday has officially become "funday."

Hitchens

01-13-2013, 02:36 PM

Military vs patriot1776:

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DprFYMvWXLo?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DprFYMvWXLo?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Vadd

01-13-2013, 02:51 PM

OforOppression

01-13-2013, 04:57 PM

Gonna have dojii and cast talk to your girlfriend again, how will she react when she finds out you relapsed??

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 01:35 AM

I dont give a fuck abotu crime rates or statistics you arent getting our fucking guns you communists lol move north to that socialist shithole present british colony if you aint like it

Resheph

01-14-2013, 01:35 AM

Lots of folks sure do think they know what I need. I'll be the judge of that, thanks. I don't need big brother or anyone else to tell me.

When what you claim to 'need' can easily kill someone with little to no training and, also, can easily kill someone not even related tot he incident at hand (AKA 'innocent bystander') then yes, Big Brother SHOULD have a say in the matter.

How many people have been killed in driveby shootings, mall-type killings, etc?
How many people have been killed by accidental shootings?
How many of those killings were by handguns?
How many people were killed killed in driveby knifings, mall-type knifings, etc?
How many people were killed by accidental stabbings?

This isn't even a numbers issue, it's a common sense issue. Guns should be allowed, but allowed in residences only. Handguns should be permitted, but with full registration and a legitimate reason. There is no legitimate for assault rifles to be carried outside a home, and the ONLY reason I'm willing to accept assault ownership AT ALL is because I'm a realist and understand that in a worst-case scenario, they may be needed to defend citizens from a corrupt government (or zombies, always think of the zombies).

Resheph

01-14-2013, 01:40 AM

I dont give a fuck abotu crime rates or statistics you arent getting our fucking guns you communists lol move north to that socialist shithole present british colony if you aint like it

From what I've read in the past two weeks, you may find yourself eating your words. You have a President in his second term (therefore no reason to campaign for another one) and multiple mass shootings recently (2 in the past 3 weeks if I recall correctly).

And not everyone that is for gun control (read 'control', not 'elimination') is a communist. Your decision to use that as an attack shows ignorance.

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 05:00 AM

taking the guns is step 1 of the Marxist playbook

Lexical

01-14-2013, 05:04 AM

How the fuck is this stupid thread still alive?

OforOppression

01-14-2013, 05:32 AM

i am ~really~ good at creating troll topics.

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 05:49 AM

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530511_313063578811081_38400182_n.jpg

OforOppression

01-14-2013, 06:01 AM

Naez is literally Alex Jones

Faron

01-14-2013, 10:00 AM

When what you claim to 'need' can easily kill someone with little to no training and, also, can easily kill someone not even related tot he incident at hand (AKA 'innocent bystander') then yes, Big Brother SHOULD have a say in the matter.

No, actually. Myself, and the vast majority of us out there are responsible adults and responsible firearm users. We do not need big brother to reach any further into

How many people have been killed in driveby shootings, mall-type killings, etc?
How many people have been killed by accidental shootings?
How many of those killings were by handguns?
How many people were killed killed in driveby knifings, mall-type knifings, etc?
How many people were killed by accidental stabbings?

This isn't even a numbers issue, it's a common sense issue. Guns should be allowed, but allowed in residences only. Handguns should be permitted, but with full registration and a legitimate reason. There is no legitimate for assault rifles to be carried outside a home, and the ONLY reason I'm willing to accept assault ownership AT ALL is because I'm a realist and understand that in a worst-case scenario, they may be needed to defend citizens from a corrupt government (or zombies, always think of the zombies).[/QUOTE]

Tell me why you think that a law restricting gun ownership to the home is going to stop any criminal. You also just effectively banned hunting.

Resheph

01-14-2013, 11:02 AM

No, actually. Myself, and the vast majority of us out there are responsible adults and responsible firearm users. We do not need big brother to reach any further into

[snip]

Tell me why you think that a law restricting gun ownership to the home is going to stop any criminal. You also just effectively banned hunting.

I agree that the responsible gun owners, whether I agree with their overzealous need for guns or not, will get the short end of the stick but the unfortunate fact is, you have to plan for stupid. You have to plan for the crazies who do things they shouldn't. In addition, you will never convince me a 'responsible gun owner' will carry anything larger than a handgun on their person outside of their own home.

Hunting and sport shooting are exceptions to this. By law, these activities have to take place in specifically designated areas, or unpopulated areas. You can carry a RPG into the woods and I wouldn't care, but if you carry one on your person in the city, you should be arrested on the spot. Same thing for anything larger than a handgun.

Personally, I think they need to cap the handgun size as well to make .45 and .50 caliber handguns illegal as well, but that's a hair I won't argue about splitting... it's a smaller issue in the overall scheme of things and not worth the hassle.

Goofier

01-14-2013, 11:09 AM

I agree that the responsible gun owners, whether I agree with their overzealous need for guns or not, will get the short end of the stick but the unfortunate fact is, you have to plan for stupid. You have to plan for the crazies who do things they shouldn't. In addition, you will never convince me a 'responsible gun owner' will carry anything larger than a handgun on their person outside of their own home.

Hunting and sport shooting are exceptions to this. By law, these activities have to take place in specifically designated areas, or unpopulated areas. You can carry a RPG into the woods and I wouldn't care, but if you carry one on your person in the city, you should be arrested on the spot. Same thing for anything larger than a handgun.

Personally, I think they need to cap the handgun size as well to make .45 and .50 caliber handguns illegal as well, but that's a hair I won't argue about splitting... it's a smaller issue in the overall scheme of things and not worth the hassle.

Yeah, see, to me that's just this side of being institutional-grade retardation 'cause it sounds like you're saying a .45 is more dangerous/deadly than a .22LR.

And why is it okay to carry an RPG in the woods, but not the city? Country folk are immunte to shaped charges?

But hey, cool, let's do it.

But now let's also make parking spaces illegal within 1500 feet of all bars 'cause that'll save us from drunk drivers.

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 11:33 AM

Gotta keep this thing alive!

Australia, people? Really?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Wondering if this stuff was just cherry picked, (Choose Your Own Crime Stats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)) I attempted to verify it. The data from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics actually compares positively with the Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/). Some other things I personally noted:

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research points out that robbery only rose 6.2% during the period of 1995 to 2007. However, it is interesting to note that the Australian Institute on Crimonology shows a *massive* spike in robberies during the immediate period after the gun ban was instituted (1996 to 2001) and then something (presumably unrelated - any Aussies care to enlighten us?) caused it to immediately drop way down after 2001.

Looking at assault, which was specifically mentioned, AIC seems to show an increase of about 78% in the number of assaults from 1995 to 2007. It notes, "The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period."

The onus is not on me to provide a need for any of my human rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It was written so that I don't have to bother justifying my reasons for exercising such rights. (That's one advantage of having a republic as opposed to a democracy.) This would hold true even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that guns 'r' bad, mmmkay?

Regardless, why do I want a gun? So I can shoot you in the face if you try to violate my other human rights. Why do I want an AR-15? So it's easier to shoot you if you try to take my other guns by force.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 02:51 PM

Vellatri! What are you doing here with all this intelligent posting nonsense?

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 03:05 PM

Comes from choosing a dark elf over a big-butt ogre. My bad.

Hitchens

01-14-2013, 03:57 PM

Lexical

01-14-2013, 04:12 PM

Unless someone has done so in the last five or six pages of replies I didn't read, no one is saying that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms results in less overall violence. The argument is that Australia's ban on certain types of firearms has resulted in the stopping of mass shootings.

I graced on the subject of that being inaccurate based on the article's definition of "mass shootings." But that is besides the point, the number of mass shootings is a terrible metric to illustrate the effectiveness of gun control.

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 04:12 PM

who cares about our wives and daughters being raped by big burly PCP'd out criminals who dont follow laws anyway

Hitchens

01-14-2013, 04:21 PM

I graced on the subject of that being inaccurate based on the article's definition of "mass shootings." But that is besides the point, the number of mass shootings is a terrible metric to illustrate the effectiveness of gun control.

I don't read your posts.

Daldolma

01-14-2013, 04:39 PM

From what Humerox's study reported, Australia suffered from 13 mass shootings between 1979 and 1996. These resulted in 104 deaths, or what works out to 8 deaths per year. It should also be noted that the statistics are naturally skewed, as the study uses a 35-death massacre as the cut-off point between 'before' and 'after'. In other words, before that course-altering mass shooting, there had been 69 Australian deaths due to mass shootings over the course of the past 17 years -- which works out to about 4 per year.

Explain to me why such measures aren't alarmist, and why Australia's successful elimination of an almost non-existent problem should serve as a model for a country like the US.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 04:42 PM

I don't read your posts.

why?

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 04:56 PM

Resheph

01-14-2013, 04:57 PM

I was talking to my g/f about this subject last night and she pretty much agreed with me:

Regardless, why do I want a gun? So I can shoot you in the face if you try to violate my other human rights.

Reasonable and acceptable. Handguns used for protection purposes should be allowed, with a permit. The lack of proper background checks is solely on the shoulders of the gun sellers and the government.

Why do I want an AR-15? So it's easier to shoot you if you try to take my other guns by force.

Not acceptable. Shooting someone who lawfully attempts to confiscate your guns is, in itself, an illegal act making you one of the unstable people that shouldn't own ANY gun. No reasonable argument has ever been made for assault rifles being carried in a populated area. In your home, OK, fine. But keep them there or in locations meant for hunting.

The world is not all-or-nothing. It required compromise and common sense. This, sadly, seems to be lacking on all fronts (I am in no way placing the blame solely on gun owners OR the government for this debacle)

OforOppression

01-14-2013, 04:57 PM

if they dont want to be raped they should stop being so hot (lololol)

OforOppression

01-14-2013, 04:58 PM

Also, if you hunt with an AR-15, you're a fucking moran.

gloine36

01-14-2013, 05:02 PM

I love the Australian stuff when it's totally bullshit. That story has been kicking around the Net for a while. Check out Snopes.

Resheph

01-14-2013, 05:02 PM

Right. Mass shootings get a lot of attention, but why eliminate them at the expense of, say, increasing the overall murder or violent crime rates? The same logic applies to people who point to "gun violence." I don't give two shells about gun violence. I'm much more interested in reducing all violence, guns or not.

But hey, I'm sure the increasing masses of raped Aussie women are thrilled that the mass shootings have stopped.

I would like hard numbers on the number of women who stopped their attempted rapist using an assault weapon. After you get me those, find me the numbers on the women who stopped a rape with a handgun (which I'm all for).

If someone is trained in the handling and firing of a handgun they shouldn't need more than 6 rounds to protect themselves from almost any situation. If there's 7 or more people after you and they're dumb/angry enough to let you shoot 6 of them, you're not getting away anyway...

Lexical

01-14-2013, 05:17 PM

I would like hard numbers on the number of women who stopped their attempted rapist using an assault weapon. After you get me those, find me the numbers on the women who stopped a rape with a handgun (which I'm all for).

There is a mental factor in less strict gun control as well that you are forgetting. People of criminal intent can be deterred by the very threat of an assault rifle being present and this is shown in the many pages of statistics posted.

Also, your argument was applied to the American police force a while back: 'There is no good reason for an officer to be armed with anything more than a hand gun. More advanced weaponry is for the SWAT team.' Then the 1997 LA bank heist happened and now almost all police cars have an assault rifle in the trunk.

Since you keep bringing up handguns though, here is an interesting graph you should look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Resheph

01-14-2013, 05:21 PM

who cares about our wives and daughters being raped by big burly PCP'd out criminals who dont follow laws anyway

Again, handgun = problem solved. You shoot someone in the head or kneecap and they're pretty much out of commission.

There is no reason to have a semi-automatic or automatic weapon on your person in a populated area. Very few people, if any, are arguing against handguns.

But I should stop posting here because it seems those who do listen already agree with me and those that don't agree refuse to listen anyway.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 05:24 PM

Your argument is silly. It assumes that the majority of violent crimes are being carried out with assault rifles which can't be farther from the truth.

Resheph

01-14-2013, 05:26 PM

There is a mental factor in less strict gun control as well that you are forgetting. People of criminal intent can be deterred by the very threat of an assault rifle being present and this is shown in the many pages of statistics posted.

Also, your argument was applied to the American police force a while back: 'There is no good reason for an officer to be armed with anything more than a hand gun. More advanced weaponry is for the SWAT team.' Then the 1997 LA bank heist happened and now almost all police cars have an assault rifle in the trunk.

Handguns are a problem, but I refuse to argue against them. It's a futile attempt to do so and I can see legitimate reasons to have them. Police having automatic weapons in the trunk is not much of an issue. Anyone, police or not, walking around with an automatic rifle slung over their shoulder IS (unless they are summoned to the scene for a specific purpose, like SWAT).

I'm not against owning an automatic rifle in the home. Well, I am, but won't argue against it. It's your house and what's in it is none of my business. The governments take on it, well... I don't blindly follow anyone in politics, ever. But regarding the 'mental factor' thing... if you having a handgun doesn't discourage an attacker chances are nothing will.

Resheph

01-14-2013, 05:28 PM

Your argument is silly. It assumes that the majority of violent crimes are being carried out with assault rifles which can't be farther from the truth.

No, my argument is sensible. Using your own argument against me, if the majority are NOT being carried out with, or prevented using, assault riffles then the ban shouldn't affect anyone other than those intending to carry out mass killings.

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 05:36 PM

Is it that hard for people to acknowledge the possibility that the mere threat of armed resistance can deter violence before armed resistance actually needs to be used? It's not like criminals prey on the weak or anything...

I love the Australian stuff when it's totally bullshit. That story has been kicking around the Net for a while. Check out Snopes.
Of course you didn't provide specifics. You can't, because Snopes didn't refute any of the points I listed. Like I said, I even verified the data from an independent source. You're free to do so yourself.

Maybe you were referring to someone else's post. In that case, ignore the above.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 05:38 PM

Handguns are a problem, but I refuse to argue against them. It's a futile attempt to do so and I can see legitimate reasons to have them.
Can you even argue completely against them if you can see legitimate reasons for having them?

Police having automatic weapons in the trunk is not much of an issue. Anyone, police or not, walking around with an automatic rifle slung over their shoulder IS (unless they are summoned to the scene for a specific purpose, like SWAT).
You are correct and it just so happens our current gun control laws already state that such things are illegal and very strictly enforced.

I'm not against owning an automatic rifle in the home. Well, I am, but won't argue against it.
So you are against stricter gun control?

if you having a handgun doesn't discourage an attacker chances are nothing will.
I am sure there are plenty of people who are more scared of an assault rifle than they are of a 9mm.

From this post, you are not arguing anything and are against the stricter gun control. You are just turned off by the word "Assault Rifle" and therefore think they should be banned.

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 05:43 PM

Truth be told, the reason I want an AR-15 is for the kiddies, in case I'm not home. It's quieter than a shotgun and has less kick. It's easier to control and has more stopping power than a handgun. Perfect for the munchkins.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

Arrisard

01-14-2013, 05:47 PM

You are correct and it just so happens our current gun control laws already state that such things are illegal and very strictly enforced.

In point of fact, here in the great state of Ohio, it's 100% perfectly legit to walk around with your legally owned slung automatic rifle. YMMV if you live in some pussy state that hate muh rites.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 05:50 PM

No, my argument is sensible. Using your own argument against me, if the majority are NOT being carried out with, or prevented using, assault riffles then the ban shouldn't affect anyone other than those intending to carry out mass killings.

Heh, this isn't sensible. It is like saying "since aids is typically spread through needles, all needles should be outlawed." If they aren't the problem, then why address them as such?

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 05:55 PM

Maybe Lexical got hung up on different possible definitions of "automatic." My state also allows open carry of all legally owned guns.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 06:05 PM

In point of fact, here in the great state of Ohio, it's 100% perfectly legit to walk around with your legally owned slung automatic rifle. YMMV if you live in some pussy state that hate muh rites.

Far enough, but the states with full preemption of all firearm laws like Ohio are generally less populated/rural. If you were walking around a metropolitan area with such a cannon around your back, then you would be surrounded with cop cars faster than you know it.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 06:06 PM

TEXAS IS THE ONLY STATE THAT MATTERS GOD DAMN IT! PISS OFF YA YANKS!

gloine36

01-14-2013, 07:19 PM

vaylorie

01-14-2013, 07:25 PM

Since criminals follow the laws, instead of going after the guns, we should just make a law that says performing mass shootings is illegal. If we couple that with imaginary lines around places that we don't want guns to be (we could call them gun-free zones), this should solve all of the issues.

Seems like an open and shut case for more legislation. Call your representatives!

On an unrelated note, of the 62 mass shootings that were recorded since the early 80's, semi-automatic rifles were used 9 times (handguns were used 41 times). Also unrelated, 94% of the shooters were either confirmed or showed signs of mental illness. I think there is clear evidence that guns make people mentally ill therefore I propose a ban on mental illness.

You can take action! (think of the poor kids) Call your representatives to put a stop to mental illness!

gloine36

01-14-2013, 07:28 PM

A very good book on the Second Amendment was written by Saul Cornell. It is A Well-Regulated Militia: the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America .j I found it to be very well researched and interesting. The gun nuts hated it, but the gun nuts lack understanding of context when it comes to historical studies. Interestingly the conclusion is that the Founders did not want to disarm the people, but they also saw the need for reasonable gun laws. When it came to resisting the authority of the federal government, the Founders made it extremely clear that the only way to do that via armed force was through the state militias, not individual actions.
Anything other than the state militias involving armed rebellion was treason and was put down more than once in the early years of the Republic.

vaylorie

01-14-2013, 07:35 PM

I don't give a fuck how many guns you own. Some Gun control is legal and is going to happen whether you like it or not.

There you go smart guy. Fixed that for you.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 08:05 PM

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
There ya go. You're refuted. I'm amazed at the stupidity of the gun nuts when it comes to their ignorance. Let me explain it gently. You're outnumbered. I don't give a fuck how many guns you own. Gun control is legal and is going to happen whether you like it or not. You can scream, bitch, holler, or pee down your leg about it, but it will happen. If you choose to be a criminal then you can go to jail.
If you want to see more little kids get massacred then keep going on with the mantra of more guns. People like you are the problem and the reason for the gun culture in this country.

And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

Now who was refuted? You really should read your sources before you post though.

Lexical

01-14-2013, 08:06 PM

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 08:22 PM

mexico has among the strictest gun control laws in the world and is in the middle of a fucking civil war

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 08:25 PM

:rolleyes:

A very good book on the Second Amendment was written by Saul Cornell. It is A Well-Regulated Militia: the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America .j I found it to be very well researched and interesting. The gun nuts hated it, but the gun nuts lack understanding of context when it comes to historical studies. Interestingly the conclusion is that the Founders did not want to disarm the people, but they also saw the need for reasonable gun laws. When it came to resisting the authority of the federal government, the Founders made it extremely clear that the only way to do that via armed force was through the state militias, not individual actions.
Anything other than the state militias involving armed rebellion was treason and was put down more than once in the early years of the Republic.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Vellatri

01-14-2013, 11:12 PM

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
There ya go. You're refuted.
Of course you didn't provide specifics. You can't, because Snopes didn't refute any of the points I listed.
You might want to actually try reading your own link, and compare its points with the ones I listed here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=323). None of it was refuted.

Even if it was, I actually went to the primary sources. (You did read what I wrote, right? You didn't just see, "Australia blah blah guns blah blah." Right?) Snopes is only a secondary source.

patriot1776

01-14-2013, 11:16 PM

Yea actually that link just made the countercase of what you thought. It clearly shows violent crime skyrocketing even on the snopes propaganda data.

Alawen

01-15-2013, 01:09 AM

Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/)

Humerox

01-15-2013, 03:06 AM

Some gun control is legal and is going to happen whether you like it or not.

There you go smart guy. Fixed that for you.

I see you've come to terms with it. :)

mexico has among the strictest gun control laws in the world and is in the middle of a fucking civil war.

Funded with guns and dirty money supplied by us over drugs supplied to us...but that's another argument.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Nice linkage, Gloine. Whether or not it could happen here is something worth shooting for. The affirmation of skewed statistical data regarding attempts to overcome the Aussie argument is nice, tho.

Jon Stewart (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/jon-stewart-goes-after-gun-control-opponents-on-the-right.php) made a pretty good presentation a few days ago...

Lexical

01-15-2013, 04:38 AM

Jon Stewart usually is a lot better and I don't really like his routine when he is appealing only on a moral level. Most people who are for much stricter gun control laws now seem to only be reacting to the recent mass shootings. Yes, these are terrible tragedies and steps should be taken to stop them from happening. The biggest problem is that the pro-gun control side is prying on your fear of guns by saying things like "shooting epidemics" and "rampant gun violence" which is just not true. The statistics have been shown on the pro-gun side with the facts being compared amongst multiple primary and unbiased sources in this thread while the pro-gun control side has been riddled with appeals to emotions. Here is another primary source that shows through multiple statistics that the homicide rate remained constant through the past decade: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/htus8008.txt

This article also illustrates a very interesting set of data however. Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost
half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25.
It is the young that are committing these murders. Perhaps we should invest a little bit more money in public schools or help the impoverished or how about more outreach programs for these disturbed individuals?

Now, I am not a gun-nut. Never have been and never will be. I see many practical(for lack of a better word) to use a gun and I am sad that my side on the matter is saturated with these crazy gun nuts(See jon stewart video linked). Citing these raving lunatics and comparing the entire pro-gun side to them is a straw man argument and just illustrates how weak the actual pro-gun control position is.

Kagatob

01-15-2013, 04:54 AM

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 05:01 AM

we really don't give a fuck about it, comes with the territory of being a free society

Humerox

01-15-2013, 05:19 AM

US isn't #1 in the world in gun violence by a sight, anyone who believes otherwise is a masochistic retard. I'd say they are blissful in their ignorance but I don't consider reveling in your own fearmongering to be blissful.

No...we're just the most violent of first-world nations. But yeag, let's pat ourselves on the back and congratulate each other over not being as bad as say...Swaziland.

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 05:24 AM

So glad I was born here where we aren't treated like slave children instead of socialist shithole Europe

Kagatob

01-15-2013, 05:42 AM

So glad I was born here where we aren't treated like slave children instead of socialist shithole Europe

Always Americans complaining about "Socialist Europe" or "Socialist Canada". Never Europeans or Canadians complaining about it.

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 05:50 AM

Because you are serfs who do not know any better.

Hollywood

01-15-2013, 05:55 AM

founding fathers were profiteers who wanted to break off from the british to avoid taxes, and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself and getting food.

Those men supported your right to bear arms because it meant you were very likely to kill some redcoats.

A) Someone's been playing Assasssin's Creed III too much.
B) Again why is this shit not in the general discussion forum?

Kagatob

01-15-2013, 05:56 AM

Because you are serfs who do not know any better.

I live in Massachusetts...

Hollywood

01-15-2013, 05:57 AM

Always Americans complaining about "Socialist Europe" or "Socialist Canada". Never Europeans or Canadians complaining about it.

Ignorance is bliss - don't notice things when they happen incrementally.

But they are paying for it now.
European economy is in the shit and England is overrun with everything but English culture.

Kagatob

01-15-2013, 06:04 AM

Ignorance is bliss - don't notice things when they happen incrementally.
K, keep telling yourself that. I prefer to listen to the dozens of people I know who are former US citizens living in Canada/Europe who aren't coming back and don't want to.

But they are paying for it now.
European economy is in the shit and England is overrun with everything but English culture.

The mean value of the Euro compared to USD hasn't changed much in the past 4 years, the only dip it's taken (compared to USD) is when the strength of the dollar went up.

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 06:10 AM

In America, we believe being able to defend yourself, both inside and out of the home, is a basic human right. Fuck Europe, and Fuck british colonies like Canada and Australia for butting into our business.

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 06:10 AM

http://i.imgur.com/2eJre.jpg

Kagatob

01-15-2013, 06:12 AM

Lexical

01-15-2013, 09:13 AM

No...we're just the most violent of first-world nations. But yeag, let's pat ourselves on the back and congratulate each other over not being as bad as say...Swaziland.

Russia? China if they would report anything accurately and publicly?

Lexical

01-15-2013, 09:15 AM

http://i.imgur.com/2eJre.jpg

Did.... did you just have a change of heart?

Lexical

01-15-2013, 09:46 AM

Did.... did you just have a change of heart?

Oh! nvm, sorry for the derp.

Vellatri

01-15-2013, 10:20 AM

The U.S. is the most violent of first-world nations? What is the U.K then, chopped liver? Its violent crime rate is much higher than ours. Other "first-world" nations also make us look good. This is why people keep saying "gun crime" instead of "all crime" or "violent crime." It's just a tactic to sometimes twist the figures in their favor.

Jon Stewart is a great comedian, but obviously not a logician. In order to back up his claim that gun control might work, he noted that regulating alcohol abuse works: "No, but we do enact stricter blood-alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties and charge bartenders who serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question."

It's interesting to note that nobody seems to be against regulating the abuse of firearms. All agree that the shooting of innocents must be penalized, for example. Regulating the objects that are abused, however, is a different matter. I wonder why Stewart didn't cite alcohol prohibition in defense of his desired gun regulations. It worked so well, right? Didn't it?

It's also funny that he claims the Second Amendment only protects muskets while he exercises his First Amendment rights using television.

Since everyone enjoys watching television instead of actually reading, here's another good one: Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs)

Oh! nvm, sorry for the derp.
Yeah, Lexical, it's called sarcasm. Sadly, I think many won't get it.

vaylorie

01-15-2013, 10:50 AM

I see you've come to terms with it. :)

There was never a debate regarding some gun restrictions being legal/constitutional. The debate we previously had, in which you suffered an embarrassing defeat mind you, was regarding gun laws equating to a decrease in violent crime. As has been proven on this forum a few times now, restricting guns does not reduce overall violent crime.

patriot1776

01-15-2013, 06:29 PM

The debate has become so skewed by the two party system (like every other issue in this country) that we are now arguing for the ability of law-abiding citizens to own the most basic form of functional modern weaponry known to man: a semi automatic rifle. We're not talking about how it be illegal for them to own fully automatic guns, or grenade launchers. We're down to literally restricting the weaponry of the law-abiding American citizenry to kissing bolt-action antiques (except for the rich who can afford to buy bodyguards that are permitted to own the weapons us plebs aren't). This is ridiculous.

vaylorie

01-15-2013, 08:29 PM

The liberal approach, as is generally the case, is an incremental increase in regulation. They will propose major changes like banning and confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons without ever being serious. In turn, it lets them 'settle' on smaller restrictions that they really want like magazine capacity caps and a national registry.

Then, when it happens again (since they aren't fixing the real problem), they will cause another uproar and do the same thing. Incrementally piece by piece they will try to achieve their goal of disarming the people. This is the way that these things historically work.

You paltry liberals smile while they take away your liberties and then you thank the for the privilege. Pathetic.

Pico

01-15-2013, 08:30 PM

Humerox

01-15-2013, 10:36 PM

Lexical

01-15-2013, 10:47 PM

As has been proven on this forum a few times now, restricting guns does not reduce overall violent crime.

Actually no. ITT there was a wide array of statistical analysis that support that hypothesis, but it is far from proven. There are many other factors that can tie into the equation, but there is a far amount of evidence that support this claim.

Lexical

01-15-2013, 10:48 PM

wow, that post was so redundant. That is what happens when you write a sentence and get distracted and have another conversation and try to rapidly finish a thought. My apologies.

Harmonium

01-16-2013, 03:21 AM

"During MSNBC’s “The Cycle” on Monday, MSNBC co-host Touré said Americans are putting themselves in danger, not protecting themselves, by owning guns. He later said only President Barack Obama can “save us from the gun epidemic.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/msnbc-host-we-are-endangering-ourselves-by-owning-guns-and-we-need-obama-to-save-us/

lol, do any of you watch MSNBC for news? honestly?

Kagatob

01-16-2013, 03:23 AM

Humerox

01-16-2013, 03:50 AM

[QUOTE=Harmonium;814748lol, do any of you watch MSNBC for news? honestly?[/QUOTE]

personally I prefer the BBC...but there has to be a Fox alternative.

Humerox

01-16-2013, 03:51 AM

fail quote

lol, do any of you watch MSNBC for news? honestly?

personally I prefer the BBC...but there has to be a Fox alternative.

patriot1776

01-16-2013, 05:09 AM

fuck 'news' who cares

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:19 PM

You might want to actually try reading your own link, and compare its points with the ones I listed here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=323). None of it was refuted.

Even if it was, I actually went to the primary sources. (You did read what I wrote, right? You didn't just see, "Australia blah blah guns blah blah." Right?) Snopes is only a secondary source.

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.

And I'm right there with ya on gun violence. I was talking about mass shootings. People keep putting me on the wrong position on things...I agree that there's not any statistical evidence pointing to a decrease in overall gun violence when assault weapons are banned.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.

Big difference. I don't want to dig for whatever article that was atm, lol. :p

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 04:30 PM

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.
What? My statement (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813212&postcount=358) was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.
Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:31 PM

What? My statement (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813212&postcount=358) was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.

Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

who cares that murder/violence has risen 300%, gun violence has now fallen 40%!!!!!!!!

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 04:45 PM

No kidding. I guess it's okay to have much more blood in the streets as long as it doesn't get on the newspapers.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:52 PM

who cares that murder/violence has risen 300%, gun violence has now fallen 40%!!!!!!!!

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf)

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University (http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf) in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 06:02 PM

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 06:20 PM

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf)

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University (http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf) in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.

From the University of Sydney link:
Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm
deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass
shootings

From me here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820785&postcount=393):
Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.
and here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813555&postcount=379):
This is why people keep saying "gun crime" instead of "all crime" or "violent crime." It's just a tactic to sometimes twist the figures in their favor.

Regarding the Wilfrid Laurier University link, its conclusion seems to be focused on firearm deaths, as well. Just as irrelevant.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 06:37 PM

From the University of Sydney link:

From me here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820785&postcount=393):

and here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813555&postcount=379):

Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total nonfirearm
homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws

Regarding the Wilfrid Laurier University link, its conclusion seems to be focused on firearm deaths, as well. Just as irrelevant.

The study included non-firearm homicides and suicides. Suicides remain high and have slightly increased lending credence to the possibility that if you're going to off yourself, you will. Non-firearm homicides remain about the same. Since there has been a drastic drop in firearm related homicides, it's not irrelevant because overall rates have dropped.

You need to read the study and refute the statistics...not peruse the conclusions. I wanted some debate, lol.

Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

Overall murder/violence in Australia HAS NOT increased. I want to see equally valid research articles that contradict what I linked. Not shit from Fox or the Examiner or The National Enquirer.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 07:13 PM

Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total nonfirearm
homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws
Why are they only focusing on death rates Humerox?

From this survey: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf
Since 1996, the rate of assault in Australia has been far higher than any other type of
violent crime. At its peak in 2007, the assault rate was 840 per 100,000 population.
In 2010, the rate fell to 766 victims per 100,000 population.

The study included non-firearm homicides and suicides. Suicides remain high and have slightly increased lending credence to the possibility that if you're going to off yourself, you will. Non-firearm homicides remain about the same. Since there has been a drastic drop in firearm related homicides, it's not irrelevant because overall rates have dropped.

You need to read the study and refute the statistics...not peruse the conclusions. I wanted some debate, lol.

It is all around death Humerox. I was actually trying to compile a list of sexual assault rates and other non-fatal violent crimes from 1996-2010, but the ABS doesn't always share those statistics every year.... I did see rises in sexual assault on the statistics they did post and then they stopped for 5 years and then started again. It makes it hard to make a case, but the trend was generally rising.

Overall murder/violence in Australia HAS NOT increased. I want to see equally valid research articles that contradict what I linked. Not shit from Fox or the Examiner or The National Enquirer.
Murder according to the statistics given has fallen. Violence has risen.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 07:21 PM

You need to read the study and refute the statistics...not peruse the conclusions. I wanted some debate, lol.
You're the one that provided links without citing the relevant contents.

Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total nonfirearm
homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws

The study included non-firearm homicides and suicides. Suicides remain high and have slightly increased lending credence to the possibility that if you're going to off yourself, you will. Non-firearm homicides remain about the same. Since there has been a drastic drop in firearm related homicides, it's not irrelevant because overall rates have dropped.

...

Overall murder/violence in Australia HAS NOT increased. I want to see equally valid research articles that contradict what I linked. Not shit from Fox or the Examiner or The National Enquirer.
Already addressed here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322). Also verified by another independent source.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 07:29 PM

You're the one that provided links without citing the relevant contents.

Already addressed here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322). Also verified by another independent source.

That's the source that I was talking about. It's not a study and it's not verified by anyone that wrote it except the author...who also happens to be an NRA analyst.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 07:45 PM

That's the source that I was talking about. It's not a study and it's not verified by anyone that wrote it except the author...who also happens to be an NRA analyst.
Reading comprehension FTW:
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges...
Wondering if this stuff was just cherry picked, (Choose Your Own Crime Stats) I attempted to verify it. The data from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics actually compares positively with the Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/).

Lexical

01-21-2013, 07:53 PM

The article below shows that despite our relaxed gun control laws, our rates of violent crimes have decreased from 1996 - 2010. The FBI annual crime statistic report also shows these numbers to be accurate. These same numbers are used in the report Vell linked. The ABS rates are hard to come by, but the article refers to them.
http://www.fcsm.gov/12papers/Li_2012FCSM_I-B.pdf

First, you can not look at a law in Australia and expect the same outcome here. Snopes said that and anyone who went through stats 101 will know that. We have been through these motions Humerox.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 07:57 PM

I was going to continue, but I know whatever I would have posted would have been ignored or fallen on deaf ears while more irrelevant statistics come rushing in.

Faron

01-21-2013, 08:04 PM

First, you can not look at a law in Australia and expect the same outcome here.

Yep. And the other fail is looking at their gun laws and assuming it is the one single factor that affects mass murder rates, or that it even affects mass murders at all. If someone has it in their head that they want to murder 50 people, I don't see how a gun law is going to magically remove that idea from their head. This issue has really shown a lack of basic problem solving skills for a lot of people. They are unable, or unwilling to correctly identify the cause of a mass murder. Ok I'll tell you, it's the mass murderer that's the cause, not what's in his hand.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 08:14 PM

Snopes said that and anyone who went through stats 101 will know that. We have been through these motions Humerox.

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

Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. 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’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 08:16 PM

Getting pretty tired of all this tbh.

No ones changing their minds, and the arguments are really circular, lol.

Gonna wait to see what happens over the next cople of years. Should be interesting.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 08:17 PM

Goofier

01-21-2013, 08:30 PM

Ok I'll tell you, it's the mass murderer that's the cause, not what's in his hand.

Won't take long before one of 'em puts together Oklahoma City with Sandy Hook.
U-Haul or a dumptruck full of fertilizer and oil, drive right into the cafeteria.
Nothing but windows, usually, and large numbers gather there at scheduled times.

Just sayin'.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 08:57 PM

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

Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. 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’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.
Nobody disputed any of this.

No ones changing their minds, and the arguments are really circular, lol.
You're the one circling back to things that have already been proven false because you refuse to change your mind despite evidence to the contrary.

Getting pretty tired of all this tbh.
Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:10 PM

Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.
Vellatri is pretty hot when she uses puns like that.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:15 PM

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:16 PM

You're the one circling back to things that have already been proven false because you refuse to change your mind despite evidence to the contrary.

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Well...you have to properly counter with legitimate sources in order to shoot an argument down.

Cognitive dissonance. Not very pertinent, but it sure sounds smart. ;)

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:28 PM

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

I guess showing that your Australian study, your holy grail of 'proof,' is not relevant, tagging your reasoning as illogical, highlighting how the statistics you are posting are skewed, and showing you why the right to own guns is protected
by the constitution isn't enough evidence to show you that your side is full of shit. What would it take for you to at least acknowledge that the type of guns are not the problem?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:30 PM

<glares at Lexical with hand ever-so-slightly tilted toward holster>

heh, didn't mean to startle you miss. Just admiring your word play is all. <tips hat>

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:49 PM

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

Well...you have to properly counter with legitimate sources in order to shoot an argument down.
Oops, looks like you ignored this post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322), yet again. You can keep calling it illegitimate non-evidence, but simply saying so does not make it so.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:50 PM

heh, didn't mean to startle you miss. Just admiring your word play is all. <tips hat>
I actually typed out an "emote" but using greater-than and lesser-than signs mucks with the formatting.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:50 PM

I actually typed out an "emote" but using greater-than and lesser-than signs mucks with the formatting.

I know. It was in response to you reaching for your gun :P

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:52 PM

I guess showing that your Australian study, your holy grail of 'proof,' is not relevant, tagging your reasoning as illogical, highlighting how the statistics you are posting are skewed, and showing you why the right to own guns is protected by the constitution isn't enough evidence to show you that your side is full of shit. What would it take for you to at least acknowledge that the type of guns are not the problem?

Let's go for a third study. You missed the second one dincha?

RESULTS OF THE '96/'97 AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html#crime)

Where'd I say people can't own guns or that I said the Constitution disallowed it? Now that's a straw-man.

You keep saying the statistics are skewed. I can't seem to find out where that's been shown. Link the researched evidence showing the statistics in any of those studies are flawed.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:00 PM

Oops, looks like you ignored this post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322), yet again. You can keep calling it illegitimate non-evidence, but simply saying so does not make it so.

An article by an NRA analyst that doesn't state where he got the statistics, a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology, and a Youtube video trumps two academic research articles with full disclosure of sources and methodology, and an independent article using the AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

My bad. Sorry. ;)

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:01 PM

Let's go for a third study. You missed the second one dincha?

RESULTS OF THE '96/'97 AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html#crime)
You are completely ignoring the fact that Australian statistics are not relevant to American politics. I went through the second one and it said the same thing.

Where'd I say people can't own guns or that I said the Constitution disallowed it? Now that's a straw-man.
**facepalm** No, it is not a straw man. I was referring to the whole tirade you went on about the word "arms."

You keep saying the statistics are skewed. I can't seem to find out where that's been shown. Link the researched evidence showing the statistics in any of those studies are flawed.
I swear I am up to the triple digits in how many times I post this damn point, but here.
I have many posts about the multiple issues I have on the primary statistic that is cited from that study: the number of mass shootings have been 0 since the gun ban. First problem I have with it is the metric is flawed. As Vel, me and others have pointed out that overall violent crime rates have gone up which this metric does not show/illustrate/or even consider while overall violent crime rates does include mass shootings. This constriction of data shown is generally used to manipulate statistics to further an agenda. Also, since mass shootings seem to happen spuriously, it is not a reliable, ongoing occurrence that can be measured from year to year which makes it a weak metric.

Second problem I have is their definition of mass shooting. The study defines a mass shooting as any incident involving a gun where 5 die by gun shot. It does not consider the amount of people injured and does so for the clear purpose to dismiss other shootings. If you do not consider 20 injured by gun shot and 4 dead a mass shooting, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that they only consider the number of deaths and used a generally higher number than the rest of the world (UN and US use 4 for example) illustrate further tampering of the statistics to further a clear goal.

Third problem I have is that the sample size is very small and its cut off point is in a very biased position. Cutting off at one of the largest mass shootings in history is biased and will skew the statistics. As discussed before, the occurrence of mass shootings is a spontaneous anomaly in societal statistics, thus using a small sample size, you can accent your point unfairly. For example, consider for the years 1990-2000 cattle were fed X and for the years 2000-2010 they were fed Y. During 1990-1996 cattle had an average weight of 750kg, for the years 1996-2000 they weighed on average 700kg, and for 2000-2010 they averaged 725kg. I could say that feed Y is better since from 1996-2000 the cows weighed 25kg less, but that would be manipulating the sample size and is thus of little integrity. The Australian survey you posted does that since during 1987-1996 Australia had one of the highest frequencies of mass shootings in their history by their metric.

These three problems, which are the glaring problems with that statistic, are not my opinion, but common statistical tricks that many politicians and businesses use. I would also like to say that just because it is from a university does not make a study scientific nor does it make it accurate. A professional analyst's report is actually a more credible source than an academic survey in most cases.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:10 PM

An article by an NRA analyst that doesn't state where he got the statistics, a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology, and a Youtube video trumps two academic research articles with full disclosure of sources and methodology, and an independent article using the AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

My bad. Sorry. ;)

I posted statistics from the American and Australian government that line up with his statistics. He is also not employed by the NRA, but he has the title as their unofficial Analyst. I really don't know how to explain this to you, but AUSTRALIA IS NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:19 PM

Australia is the only country where we can measure data and determine whether a gun ban will effect a change in mass shootings.

Which is what I'm arguing.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:25 PM

So you are arguing for a terrible metric? Cool. Have fun with that. When you are ready to have a discussion, hit me up.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:39 PM

Well...a reasonable person would assume that since there were 13 mass murders by firearm prior to 1996 and none since 1996, that a firearms ban enacted in 1996 might have had something to do with it.

But that's a flawed basis for measurement and all. 13 in 18 years before and none in 16 afterward. Guess we'll need to wait two more years or something.

:D

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:40 PM

Then we can call it a 40-year study.

:D

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:45 PM

What I love about this is that you can't refute the reasons on why the statistics is flawed so you just ignore it just like I claimed previously which you were vehemently opposed to. Then instead of accepting the argument like a reasonable human being, you resort to ad hominem.

So tell me. How does it feel to be outsmarted by a "gun nut?"

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 10:47 PM

that doesn't state where he got the statistics
Oops, reading fail (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=821043&postcount=403), once again.

a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology
Leading a horse to water. If you refuse to drink, it's not my problem. It's all easily available on their site.

trumps two academic research articles
Who said it trumps them? I never said that the stats conflicted.

will effect a change in mass shootings.
Once again, at the cost of greater overall violence (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322). If you don't like the circles, don't keep going back to this utterly failed argument.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:17 PM

Who said it trumps them? I never said that the stats conflicted.

The stats in your link say overall violence has increased. the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.

If you're not saying the stats conflict, what are we arguing about?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:19 PM

The stats in your link say overall violence has increased. the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.

If you're not saying the stats conflict, what are we arguing about?

Please understand that violent crimes also includes crimes where people didn't die.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:30 PM

I do. if you factor that into the equation the overall violence has gone down.

I'd like to see an actual study that says differently. A study that is credible - meaning that it discloses methods, sources, statistical data, and is preferably from an academic institution. I've found two so far that meet that criteria.

Link me one so I can can read it. The only actual studies I've found dispute what both you and Vell are saying.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 11:30 PM

the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.
Where? You never pointed out any such "overall violence" item.

I was pointing out that Australia experienced a decrease in murder comparable with the U.S., where no such ban exists. At the same time, it experienced an increase in violent crime while the U.S. experienced a decrease. It's all in the first post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322).

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:31 PM

I do. if you factor that into the equation the overall violence has gone down.

I'll factor into your equation.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:35 PM

Where? You never pointed out any such "overall violence" item.

I was pointing out that Australia experienced a decrease in murder comparable with the U.S., where no such ban exists. At the same time, it experienced an increase in violent crime while the U.S. experienced a decrease. It's all in the first post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322).

If you'd read what I linked you'd find the overall violence statistics in those studies.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:37 PM

Pretty sure I posted a statistic from the AIC that shows overall violent crimes rose, but that shit doesn't exist if I ignore it so w/e.

**insert phallic joke here**

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 11:53 PM

If you'd read what I linked you'd find the overall violence statistics in those studies.
They say nothing about overall violence decreasing. Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove a negative. If the "facts" are so obvious, you should be able to pull them out front and center.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:54 PM

yeah I'll pull something out front and center.

Pico

01-21-2013, 11:55 PM

cant believe how many words i didn read

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:59 PM

Pico! Join RPG!

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:59 PM

As one pug to another.

Breeziyo

01-22-2013, 12:03 AM

lexical ur pug has a p cool hat

Lexical

01-22-2013, 12:05 AM

thanks homie. He tries to look dapper for the ladies.

Lyra

01-22-2013, 02:26 AM

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.

You be dammed and damned too.

I cannot speak to constitutional law, but I can speak to grammar and sentence structure which anyone should acknowledge was probably more intimately studied and practiced in the 18th century than it is today.

The document which we call The Constitution was constructed on sets of conditional clauses, reasons and explanations.

The preamble, the thesis statement if you will, the sentence that sets the grounds for everything that follows: We the People of the United States , (the who part of the statement), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, (the why part of the statement), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (the what part of the statement). That would mean that everything that follows MUST support the WHY part of the statement – Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

Then skipping to the second amendment which so many like to flaunt and debate. First, it must support the original statement: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the why part of the statement), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the what part of the statement). The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first and the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.

We as individuals, as a community and as a nation need to reexamine if our obsession with our supposed personal right to bear arms is in the spirit and language of the constitution both in the second amendment but maybe more importantly, in the preamble: to promote Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rFaVZ9K_Eng/UOftRYpjVpI/AAAAAAAAVg4/bxEWlnJtOBM/s1600/It'll+be+a+sad+day+for+this+country+if+children+ca n+safely+attend+their+classes+only+under+the+prote ction+of+armed+guards.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/312434_593064497385732_127298518_n.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d3579330b399ff50b3a075f0f3760c92/tumblr_mfilvgc9Rc1rkevu0o1_1280.jpg

OforOppression

01-22-2013, 02:40 AM

"smoke weed EVERY day" - barack obama

patriot1776

01-22-2013, 02:45 AM

GOD BLESS AMERICA WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW IM FREE

Humerox

01-22-2013, 08:14 AM

Nice post, Lyra.

They're not used to people they think of as sheep standing up and telling them they're full of crap. But that's what's happening...and they're going to be surprised when they see that the people that want more gun legislation and/or gun control ARE the majority, and that Congress starts to listen when the majority speaks.

America is changing. They can love it or leave it.

:)

Faron

01-22-2013, 08:29 AM

Everyone has their opinion on it, but actually only a small percentage of people even actively give a shit about gun control according to recent Gallup polls. The hype around it is completely manufactured by Pres and crew and foaming-at-the-mouth drones on internet forums.

Lyra

01-22-2013, 08:36 AM

manufactured by Pres and crew and foaming-at-the-mouth drones on internet forums.

And the NRA - aka gun manufacturers / profiteers

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:15 AM

Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement:
Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.

The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first
Actually, it can, because the first is only a preface and not operational. They included it, as you said, simply to state the "why" of 2A. It places no restriction on the "what."

the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.
Agreed. It's there in order to keep government in check. (To secure a free state.) That's why I've said in the past that even if guns unquestionably increased crime across the land, there would still be justificaiton for keeping them.

Liked your pics at the end, Lyra. Some reasons why this gun nut can't stand the NRA or the GOP. The black resistance to gun control in the 60s makes for some great reading.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:19 AM

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:23 AM

Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.

Not necessarily so.

Clause and Effect.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0)

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:30 AM

Humerox, have you found anything to back up your claim that overall violent crimes have decreased in Australia since the gun ban? Anything at all? The sources you provided said nothing of the sort. Lying doesn't help your case much.

Good...now I know you've read them.

My claim never was that overall violent crimes decreased in Australia since the gun ban. I've gone to great lengths to establish my position throughout multiple pages of two threads here.

Yet you guys still want to use an *ahem* straw-man.

Your claim that if mass murders committed by firearm stop yet overall violence remains the same or increases, it's inconsequential. There are many problems with that statement...not the least of which is that you're saying that banning assault weapons causes increased overall violence...because there is no proof of that.

Nevertheless...I'm not concerned with overall violence and never have been in discussing this issue.

Billbike

01-22-2013, 10:30 AM

The ban will have little change on "gun crimes".

Guns are not legal in Mexico, safe place amirite?

Oh hey let's ban cars so all those drunk drivers won't kill anymore people.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:32 AM

Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.Not necessarily so.

Clause and Effect.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0)
Is this a joke? You're not aware of the SCOTUS ruling on D.C. vs Heller? From the court's opinion (1)(a):
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:33 AM

And the third source does...but to be fair I never counted that source as being entirely credible. I'd have to research it before I said that.

Regarding assaults in Australia:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

It is true, as claimed by gun possession advocates, that the assault rate has increased a lot since the ban/buyback. But the ban/buyback cannot be blamed for this since the rate was increasing at essentially the same rate before the ban/buyback (and the other changes) began. The rate did not rise as fast for '99 and 2000, but then rose even faster than before for '01 and '02. The ban/buyback did not have a definite effect of any kind on the assault rate—neither improving it nor making it worse. It is possible that the small declines for '99 and 2000 were caused by the ban/buyback and other changes made at the same time. But, if so, something must have completely counteracted that in '01 and '02.

But like I said...that's not my argument. That's an argument you're attempting to force me to make.

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:33 AM

Is this a joke? You're not aware of the SCOTUS ruling on D.C. vs Heller? From the court's opinion (1)(a):
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

I'm aware of it. I'm saying it may not be correct.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:42 AM

My claim never was that overall violent crimes decreased in Australia since the gun ban.
Good thing you can't go back and edit your posts.

The stats in your link say overall violence has increased. the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.

If you're not saying the stats conflict, what are we arguing about?
Where? You never pointed out any such "overall violence" item.

I was pointing out that Australia experienced a decrease in murder comparable with the U.S., where no such ban exists. At the same time, it experienced an increase in violent crime while the U.S. experienced a decrease. It's all in the first post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=322).
If you'd read what I linked you'd find the overall violence statistics in those studies.
They say nothing about overall violence decreasing. Furthermore, the onus is not on me to prove a negative. If the "facts" are so obvious, you should be able to pull them out front and center.