Support NeoGAF

[PeteZaTheHutt]

The point is: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so people should have the right to defend themselves in those unfortunate situations.

The point is not: Criminals don't tend to follow laws so we just shouldn't have any laws anywhere ever for anything.

Fair enough. I do know what the message is trying to say, but I believe that whoever made this simply used the wrong wording. They should've added in one more "gun" so that it says "Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees? Please tell me more about how criminals follow gun laws." I think that's more clear. Without the second "gun" stuck in there, it starts to sound like I described a couple of posts earlier. It is fairly obvious what the point is meant to be though...

No you wouldn't. Because the moment some criminal disobeys the law (that have this pesky habit of doing that) and takes it out and does something evil with it we'll be right back here having this same debate. It'll just be in the context of removing guns from homes.

Actually, you're probably right about that. But might this be an acceptable first step in the right direction that wouldn't piss off gun owners? There has to be some kind of middle ground that both sides can compromise on. Why are other countries able to achieve at least some success while the U.S. lags behind?

As far as Colorado Theatre last time I checked that theatre was a gun-free zone. That didn't stop him from carrying a bunch of shit one is not allowed to carry, did it? There's also a law that you can't just gun people down. Funny how he seemed to completely ignore that one too....

I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I actually agree that gun-free zones, at least the way that they currently exist in the U.S., do not work. The stats clearly show this in Chicago. There's one gun-free zone - that I'm aware of - in the world that does appear to work. The UK. It's one giant gun-free zone. Chicago doesn't work because there is absolutely NO barrier preventing outside guns from entering the city. The only way to accomplish this would be to construct a massive wall around the entire city and then have people check their guns at checkpoints along the wall before entering the city. Obviously, this is not realistically possible. If the entire country were gun-free, however, then you've already got a "wall" built around the entire country in the form of the border. Sure, people will still smuggle guns across the border, but you'd have to believe that this would, in some way, reduce the amount of guns in the country. Again, this is highly unrealistic because the gun advocates in the U.S. are loud and powerful and gun owners would be very reluctant to give up their guns. The bottom line is that there is no easy solution.

Believe me when I say that we Canadians are horrified and upset at seeing our closest and friendliest neighbors living their lives in what often appears to be a war zone. I turn on the news on any Canadian channel and we get news about big events happening, international stuff, and occasionally crime and murders. I flip the channel to any American channel and the news is just a constant deluge of murders and violence. It's REALLY shocking. As one poster already mentioned earlier, it's quite pleasant to walk around Canada, even downtown Toronto (our largest city) without a gun and without any thought spent worrying about encountering any potential violence. It's WONDERFUL. We understand that it's not all Americans that feel this way, but it's simply baffling how a large proportion of Americans don't want this, that they instead value guns more than human life...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Pretty much how everyone felt after reading your posts on Meth use being something that can be managed.

 

[Happypwnstar]

Browse a gun forum everyday a person ether personal carry or in a shop, gas station, truck stop any where someone uses a gun to protect themselves employs and there business from harm. If there was a school shooting i rather be the one shooting back than one getting shot in the back running away, some of the biggest shooting were in schools and or collage campus.

 

[HyperionX]

Are all killings in Chicago drive by shootings? No Of course sometimes nothing will change an outcome, but some chance is better than no chance. Also even in a drive by depending where people were would intervention could have stopped the attacks or caused them to break off quicker.

You've basically admitted that guns are nearly worthless in that scenario.

 

[ghst]

Browse a gun forum everyday a person ether personal carry or in a shop, gas station, truck stop any where someone uses a gun to protect themselves employs and there business from harm. If there was a school shooting i rather be the one shooting back than one getting shot in the back running away, some of the biggest shooting were in schools and or collage campus.

you should probably put your gun down next time you attempt to use a keyboard.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You've basically admitted that guns are nearly worthless in that scenario.

No one ever claimed they would be useable in every scenario. I never said they would be worthless. Better to have some chance instead of no chance

 

[HyperionX]

Browse a gun forum everyday a person ether personal carry or in a shop, gas station, truck stop any where someone uses a gun to protect themselves employs and there business from harm. If there was a school shooting i rather be the one shooting back than one getting shot in the back running away, some of the biggest shooting were in schools and or collage campus.

This is just a Rambo fantasy.

 

[Amir0x]

Pretty much how everyone felt after reading your posts on Meth use being something that can be managed.

You mean this post:

even if there was no possible way to moderate meth, it still shouldn't be outlawed. Let the person kill themselves, kill the social stigma and implement more meaningful treatment programs, save money on stupid prosecutions.

The drug war is an abject failure; it can never be won. The only rational path is decriminalization, education and focus on rehabilitation.

'Cause that's the closest I can find to such an argument from Amir0x+meth search. I understand reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but that's a fairly different argument from 'meth use can be managed.'

In any event, classic redirection attempt: you know you haven't the ground to stand on, so you attempt to drag mud from other topics to cover your tracks. Next you'll be like "OLOL HOW DO I KNOW U DIDNT EDIT UR POST" and I'll shake my head solemnly and just continue to look at you as the sort of pitiable ideologue you are, knowing that you'll think you have won some salient point.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You mean this post:



'Cause that's the closest I can find to such an argument from Amir0x+meth search. I understand reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but that's a fairly different argument from 'meth use can be managed.'

In any event, classic redirection attempt: you know you haven't the ground to stand on, so you attempt to drag mud from other topics to cover your tracks. Next you'll be like "OLOL HOW DO I KNOW U DIDNT EDIT UR POST" and I'll shake my head solemnly and just continue to look at you as the sort of pitiable ideologue you are, knowing that you'll think you have won some salient point.

Managed by legal means duh. Its an incredibly stupid idea to suggest.

 

[HyperionX]

No one ever claimed they would be useable in every scenario. I never said they would be worthless. Better to have some chance instead of no chance

Your biggest chance of getting murdered is by someone you know and not a stranger. Recently a man murdered his 2 kids and his wife before committing suicide with a gun. There's very little his family could have done other than not own a gun.

 

[Amir0x]

Managed by legal means duh. Its an incredibly stupid idea to suggest.

If by incredibly stupid you mean supported by literally every point of data we have regarding countries that have tried it, then sure.

but, as this topic has shown, you have absolutely no interest in logical points of views derived from facts. you're speaking from your heart, not your mind.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Your biggest chance of getting murdered is by someone you know and not a stranger. Recently a man murdered his 2 kids and his wife before committing suicide with a gun. There's very little his family could have done other than not own a gun.

Or knives or knowing the crossface cripler and having workout equipment.

 

[Messypandas]

No one ever claimed they would be useable in every scenario. I never said they would be worthless. Better to have some chance instead of no chance

how about living in a reality where chances are a perpetrator doesn't have a gun. Would you rather live in that world Manos?

 

[Happypwnstar]

This is just a Rambo fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RmXX60ALs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCYTKaYsToA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0vGwykNc8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf8v4m5Vdg

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/glock-talk-discussion/1377-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder.html

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/glo...cky-store-owner-opens-fire-armed-robbers.html

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/category/ccm-departments/true-stories/



Rambo fantasy? Seems real enough to me, i can post more links if you want.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

how about living in a reality where chances are a perpetrator doesn't have a gun. Would you rather live in that world Manos?

Explain how you will get the 270 million firearms in private hands in the US collected from just the legal firearm owners. Then how do you address the fact that the criminals are really the only non cops with guns?

I'm legit interested in what you propose.

 

[HyperionX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RmXX60ALs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCYTKaYsToA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0vGwykNc8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf8v4m5Vdg

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/glock-talk-discussion/1377-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder.html

http://www.glockforum.net/forum/glo...cky-store-owner-opens-fire-armed-robbers.html

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/category/ccm-departments/true-stories/



Rambo fantasy? Seems real enough to me, i can post more links if you want.

There's a huge industry in America to trump such stories as much as possibly. Not to say they don't happen at all, but there on the level of magic diet supplements in honesty. Meanwhile far more people get murdered that goes entirely unnoticed.

 

[Messypandas]

Explain how you will get the 270 million firearms in private hands in the US collected from just the legal firearm owners. Then how do you address the fact that the criminals are really the only non cops with guns?

I'm legit interested in what you propose.

You ban the sale and criminalise the private possession of a handgun (like we did). You allow people to over-turn their weapons during police sanctioned amnesties(like we did) which are subsequently either destroyed or reclaimed for training purposes (like we did) or you charge them with a felony if they're ever caught in possession of an illegally-owned hand-gun (like we do). Then you perhaps, maybe, you join the rest of the world where gun-related homicides rarely break triple figures. Sound simple enough? Or are you scared that only the bad guys will have da gunz!! And for every pro-conceal gun story you can post i'll post 10 U.S school massacre stories that could have been avoided. Should take about 5 minutes with google

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You ban the sale and criminalise the private possession of a handgun (like we did). You allow people to over-turn their weapons during police sanctioned amnesties(like we did) which are subsequently either destroyed or reclaimed for training purposes (like we did) or you charge them with a felony if they're ever caught in possession of an illegally-owned hand-gun (like we do). Then you perhaps, maybe, you join the rest of the world where gun-related homicides rarely break triple figures. Sound simple enough? Or are you scared that only the bad guys will have da gunz!! And for every pro-conceal gun story you can post i'll post 10 U.S school massacre stories that could have been avoided. Should take about 5 minutes with google

Now do you realistically think that will work in rhe United States were ,unlike in England which had handgun licences, and a low number of handguns, where in the US those records only exist in a very few state?

Do you people will actually comply and that law enforcement would have the resources to carry it out?

 

[Messypandas]

Now do you realistically think that will work in rhe United States were ,unlike in England which had handgun licences, and a low number of handguns, where in the US those records only exist in a very few state?

Do you people will actually comply and that law enforcement would have the resources to carry it out?

Realistically yes, i've given you a model where it did work. Do you have evidence or an example to back up the fact it wouldn't? In the u.k people over-turned everything up to rocket launchers.

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=15452

Guns are a blight on a civilised society. Theres a seemingly purveying circular-logic to peoples rationality for owning a gun. "Bad people probably have guns so i should have a gun = more guns in circulation, more chances for bad people to get guns so more reasons for me to need a gun"

How about less guns in circulation, less chances bad people have guns, less reasons to need a gun = less overall gun-related homicides!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Realistically yes, i've given you a model where it did work. Do you have evidence or an example to back up the fact it wouldn't? In the u.k people over-turned everything up to rocket launchers.

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=15452

That's part of the Good Friday Agreement and not the same so it doesnt apply.. Though Handguns are still legal in NI.

To get what you talk about would require door to door confiscation, which the police don't have the resources to do, and if peoole know they can't enforce it it will be ignored...just like all the unregistered long guns people "found" after the Canadian long gun registry was repealed. The attempts made to enforce mass confiscstion and violation of the US Constitution would also produce lots of needless deaths for citizens and police officers.

How about less guns in circulation, less chances bad people have guns, less reasons to need a gun = less overall gun-related homicides!

Being stabbed isnt much better.

 

[Messypandas]

That's part of the Good Friday Agreement and not the same so it doesnt apply.. Though Handguns are still legal in NI.

Not relevant

To get what you talk about would require door to door confiscation, which the police don't have the resources to do, and if peoole know they can't enforce it it will be ignored...just like all the unregistered long guns people "found" after the Canadian long gun registry was repealed. The attempts made to enforce mass confiscstion and violation of the US Constitution would also produce lots of needless deaths for citizens and police officers.

It would require patience. Of course guns won't disappear over-night it would takes decades for the numbers to whittle down significantly. Every gun off the street that can't be re-bought without great difficulty is progress.

Being stabbed isnt much better.

And how many school massacres were committed with a knife? how many cinema patrons could James Holmes have realistically mowed down with one?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

If you lose a lighter or a pen or some other common household item, how hard do you think it would be for you to find one from somewhere else? I'm talking anywhere, be it a friend's house, a shop, a shady hideout, anywhere. Not that hard. And it's not because they're legal or illegal, but because they're so common.

That's the same thing with guns. Anyone can obtain one in America rather easily. It's much harder to obtain a car license than it is to obtain a gun permit, and most states have "shall issue" laws which make the process more streamlined and accessible than the DMV. Not to mention, in most states, private transfers of guns that are not going to be carried are completely unregulated.

Let's just say I was a convicted felon, and I have gone back into a life of crime. Because I have a record, I can not buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. In Minnesota, someone I know can go into a store and buy a gun for me, though. It doesn't have to be registered, and no permit or registration of the individual is necessary, either. Nor is any record of who bought what gun. Even pawn shops can buy and sell firearms. In private, the person who buys the gun sells me the gun. This may technically be illegal because I'm not supposed to own a gun, but it is done in private, so you're protected by the 4th amendment from having it found out. And depending on the wording of the laws about selling guns (for intance, if they discuss the transactions in general or the rules regulating licensed distributors, that could affect the applicability), that person may not have even committed a crime by selling it to me. Regardless, they're protected from having it found out by the system.

I now have a gun. Obviously, I'm not going to try to get a carry permit since I'm a felon and I wouldn't be able to get one, and I'd likely incriminate myself. But what's going to stop me from concealing and carrying it anyways? Again, I'm protected by the 4th amendment. You can't find out i'm carrying a gun illegally if I don't make it known or get caught doing something else.

So now that I have a gun, I begin using it during my robberies to ensure compliance by other people.

Eventually I get caught during a robbery, and this gets written off as a "bad guy" using guns, so the system is fine. After all, I'm not a good guy, and that invalidates any criticisms about how society helped enable me to become equipped thorugh lax gun control. Especially since I broke the law anyways by becoming equipped.



Do you see why "It doesn't matter if you outlaw guns, because then only the criminals will have them!" is a stupid idea?

Under current laws, you just need to know someone who can own a gun, someone who doesn't keep their guns locked up, somewhere a gun is stored, and you can obtian a gun, regardless of whether or not you should have one. And it's quite easy to find one. And you can hide the fact that you have a gun.

If there were stricter regulations on gun ownership, registration, transfers, distribution, it would reduce gun crime.

Thanks for posting this. Very eye-opening. It's just baffling that a convicted criminal can obtain a gun and then is allowed, by law, to keep it hidden. Manos has mentioned a few times in this thread about how effective the screening process is at keeping guns out of the hands of prohibitive individuals, but what you've said here kind of makes all of that moot.

I appreciate you taking the baton, PeteZaTheHutt. You've been engaging to read. You too, Gaimeguy.

No problem. I've read many of your posts in the past where you've put zealots in their place and I'm always impressed with how succinct you are about it. People like Manos (ie- fundamentalists) need to be exposed. Not unlike Romney and Ryan, their agendas of misinformation need to be revealed for what they are - misinformation. I've got a science education background, so I know how to read scientific papers and spot the relevant and irrelevant bits in them. It's disturbing, not to mention disingenuous, to simply throw up a link to a source in the guise of proof so that your argument appears more legitimate, all the while not really understanding what the information contained within that source actually means. This is bad enough on its own, but when someone utilizes these tactics to justify a policy that clearly harms society, then it needs to be confronted.

Are all killings in Chicago drive by shootings? No Of course sometimes nothing will change an outcome, but some chance is better than no chance. Also even in a drive by depending where people were would intervention could have stopped the attacks or caused them to break off quicker.

Seriously? The total time of the drive-by would likely be no more than a handful of seconds. The first instinct of bystanders would be to duck or dive for cover. If, by some minor miracle, somebody manages to pull their gun out, the car will be long gone. If, by some major miracle, somebody manages to get a shot off, they are now shooting at a moving target. I can't remember who it was, but somebody posted the following stats for the accuracy of trained police officers shooting at moving targets:

Here is the study page 7-8 and have the hit and distance numbers. The first number was 38% not 32% as I recalled, my mistake on that.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

1994-2000
NYPD Hit Ratios By Distance
Gunfights, Other Shootings vs. Perpetrator, and Against Dogs
DISTANCE (Yards)
0-2
3-7
8-15
16-25
25+
Unknown
HIT RATIO
38%
17%
9%
8%
4%
2%

The person who originally posted these numbers somehow concluded that regular citizens would be more accurate than professional police officers. LOL! I know, right? Well, stupidity aside, these stats clearly show that any guns that any bystanders might happen to have on them would be essentially useless. In other words, what color is the sky in your Matrix-fantasy la-la land, Manos? LOL!

 

[ghst]

Being stabbed isnt much better.

the figure for knife murders in the UK hovers around 200 per year, the figure for firearm murders in the US hovers around 10,000.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Thanks for posting this. Very eye-opening. It's just baffling that a convicted criminal can obtain a gun and then is allowed, by law, to keep it hidden. Manos has mentioned a few times in this thread about how effective the screening process is at keeping guns out of the hands of prohibitive individuals, but what you've said here kind of makes all of that moot.

Oh give me a break most of what he posted was lies and inaccuracies. The fact you accept it so willingly is hillarious, Mr Peer Review. You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. Of course you aren't interested in the truth so I guess it's not an issue for you.

No problem. I've read many of your posts in the past where you've put zealots in their place and I'm always impressed with how succinct you are about it. People like Manos (ie- fundamentalists) need to be exposed.

Expose what? No one has proven anything that I've said is wrong, quite the opposite you've been refuted multiple types and exposed.

Oh Amirox isn't a mod anymore so you don't need to kiss up to him lol

Not unlike Romney and Ryan, their agendas of misinformation need to be revealed for what they are - misinformation. I've got a science education background, so I know how to read scientific papers and spot the relevant and irrelevant bits in them

Clearly from the way you accepted Gamieguys lies and inaccuracies as truth you do a piss poor job at peer review.

It's disturbing, not to mention disingenuous, to simply throw up a link to a source in the guise of proof so that your argument appears more legitimate, all the while not really understanding what the information contained within that source actually means. This is bad enough on its own, but when someone utilizes these tactics to justify a policy that clearly harms society, then it needs to be confronted.

Which is why you continue to be confronted for your lies and mistrusts.

Seriously? The total time of the drive-by would likely be no more than a handful of seconds. The first instinct of bystanders would be to duck or dive for cover. If, by some minor miracle, somebody manages to pull their gun out, the car will be long gone. If, by some major miracle, somebody manages to get a shot off, they are now shooting at a moving target. I can't remember who it was, but somebody posted the following stats for the accuracy of trained police officers shooting at moving targets:

The person who originally posted these numbers somehow concluded that regular citizens would be more accurate than professional police officers. LOL! I know, right? Well, stupidity aside, these stats clearly show that any guns that any bystanders might happen to have on them would be essentially useless. In other words, what color is the sky in your Matrix-fantasy la-la land, Manos? LOL!

it shows the NYPD can't shoot for shit, most aren't as bad as the NYPD.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

No one ever claimed they would be useable in every scenario. I never said they would be worthless. Better to have some chance instead of no chance

You continue to drone on about having better chances at living. Simply BEING in America significantly increases your chances of being murdered compared to simply BEING in any other industrialized nation. Grab a gun while you're in America and your chances of being murdered increases by a factor of 4.5. These are the REAL chances. You are SO concerned with making sure that you can defend yourself if you are attacked, yet you admitted earlier that you have never used your gun in such a manner. How many years is that? And guess what? You probably never will. You will never need that gun, but your refusal to change gun control laws has significantly increased your chances of being murdered in cold blood... for NOTHING. You're betting on the wrong horse... with your LIFE.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You continue to drone on about having better chances at living. Simply BEING in America significantly increases your chances of being murdered compared to simply BEING in any other industrialized nation. Grab a gun while you're in America and your chances of being murdered increases by a factor of 4.5. These are the REAL chances. You are SO concerned with making sure that you can defend yourself if you are attacked, yet you admitted earlier that you have never used your gun in such a manner. How many years is that? And guess what? You probably never will. You will never need that gun, but your refusal to change gun control laws has significantly increased your chances of being murdered in cold blood... for NOTHING. You're betting on the wrong horse... with your LIFE.

Better to have a chance than to die with no chance that said the 4.5 studies and others that Kellerman did were found to be faulty.
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/5/1/64.short

Using a case-control design comparing homicide victims with matched nonvictims, Kellermann et al. (1993) concluded that keeping a gun in one's home increased the risk of being murdered by a factor of 2.7. The authors' underlying assumption was that a significant elevation in homicide risk derived from the risk of being murdered with a gun kept in the victim's home. This article shows that homicides are rarely committed with guns belonging to members of the victim's home and that such killings could be responsible for no more than a 2.4% increase in the relative risk of being murdered. Guns in one's own home have little to do with homicide risk. Scholars need to attend more closely to the mechanisms by which an alleged causal effect is supposed to operate and to consider their plausibility before concluding that an association reflects a causal effect.

 

[SirButterstick]

Gunnz . . . make people really weird, paranoid.

I live in Jersey City, right by the 'bad section of town,' and I never thought 'Gee, maybe I should get a gun to protect myself.' I don't see how a dude living in rural Pennsylvania feels the need to 'protect himself.'

I think it's just compensating.

 

[HyperionX]

Better to have a chance than to die with no chance that said the 4.5 studies and others that Kellerman did were found to be faulty.
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/5/1/64.short

Gary Kleck is a right wing hack. None of his studies should be taken seriously.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Gary Kleck is a right wing hack. None of his studies should be taken seriously.

Do you have actual data to invalidate his study?

Gunnz . . . make people really weird, paranoid.

I live in Jersey City, right by the 'bad section of town,' and I never thought 'Gee, maybe I should get a gun to protect myself.' I don't see how a dude living in rural Pennsylvania feels the need to 'protect himself.'

I think it's just compensating.

You live in New Jersey, you ever look into the process to get one? Also JC isn't bad, I used to live in Newark, that's bad.

 

[SirButterstick]

You live in New Jersey, you ever look into the process to get one? Also JC isn't bad, I used to live in Newark, that's bad.

Don't want one at all.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
An excerpt full 43 page report is at the URL. That said the bolded comment is of extreme interest.

INTRODUCTION

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a com‐ pound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest suc‐ cess in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less So‐ viet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drasti‐ cally that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the lat‐ est figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.7 Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transition‐ ing into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”8 While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many devel‐ oped nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.9

Table will not paste in, but can be found in the PDF

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on fire‐ arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are high‐ est.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:

[T]here is no consistent significant positive association be‐ tween gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12

A second misconception about the relationship between fire‐ arms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accu‐ rate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced.13 For instance, virtually the only English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns. During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high.14

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, sui‐ cide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐ extant studies.16

 

[HyperionX]

Do you have actually data to invalidate his study?

Not that particular one. But he was the guy who claimed guns saved millions of lives per year and is easily refuted. He and John Lott are perhaps the two biggest BSers on this subject.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Not that particular one.

Fine, but you have to understand that doesn't really help in proving your point about this study,

But he was the guy who claimed guns saved millions of lives per year and is easily refuted. He and John Lott are perhaps the two biggest BSers on this subject.

Except Lott did prove something that even his critics agreed he contributed

that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[27] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[28]

I include the full quote because I have never advanced more guns, less crime and I'm not trying to hide anything.

 

[HyperionX]

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
An excerpt full 43 page report is at the URL. That said the bolded comment is of extreme interest.

Another hoax study.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x475526#475562

Most incompetent pro-gun "researchers" tend to try to use at least slightly subtle methods for distorting and misrepresenting data. A good example is Gary Kleck, comparing estimates of defensive gun uses arrived at using one very loose methodology versus gun crimes estimated using a tighter methodology in order to come to the absurd conclusion that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses, despite the fact that any "apples-to-apples" comparison shows that there are far more criminal gun uses.

But Kates and Mauser raise the bar by simply using false data. It makes propagandizing so much easier! As has been pointed out on this board before, the authors quote the homicide rate of Luxembourg as 9.01/100K. Of course, as anyone even marginally knowledgeable about international crime statistics knows, this is completely out of the question, unless there were some kind of anomalous mass killing in that year. It is common knowledge that the only first-world nation with a homicide rate even close to that is the USA (which, not coincidentally, has far higher gun ownership than any other first-world nation).

What happened was there was a decimal point error: the Luxembourg homicide rate is actually 0.9/100K. Now, if this was some number hidden away in some table, maybe it wouldn't matter much. But it's not: they refer directly to this supposedly sky-high homicide rate of Luxembourg in the text, and they even highlight the number in Table 2. And with good reason: if that actually were the homicide rate of Luxembourg, then it would deserve to be highlighted.

This leaves us with the standard two possibilities for pro-gunner propaganda: 1) (Dishonesty) Kates and Mauser knew the number was bad, but chose to highlight it anyway, perhaps because it felt so good, for once, to have a statistic that didn't have to be further manipulated in any way in order to support their case. 2) (Incompetence) Kates and Mauser really didn't double check the number despite the fact that even an amateur would instantly be able to spot this as way out of line with reality.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. For most people I'd say dishonesty is the only possible answer, because it's such an egregious error. It would be like a climate scientist citing an increase in temperature of 8 degrees Celsius as opposed to 0.8 over the last century. But, based on the quality of the rest of this paper, along with other things I've seen by Kates and Mauser, in this case it is possible that these guys are actually clueless enough to slide by with the incompetence defense.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

What Rahm Emmanuel is bad for lots of reasons not confined to be the Mayor of Murder City.

Actually, everything is FINE in Chicago. The murder rate is decreasing there. It's fine. The gun-free zone idea is working:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/chicago-murder-rate-down-in-september-mccarthy-somethings-working/

Chicago Murder Rate Down In September; McCarthy: ‘Something’s Working’


numbers trending down in high crime areas like Englewood which has seen a more than 40-percent drop in its murder rate.

“We had five consecutive months of shooting reductions. We had a very average month of August, and now in the month of September, we’re down 30% in the murder rate, so something’s working,” he explained.

According to McCarthy, about 80% of Chicago’s murders are gang-related.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Actually, everything is FINE in Chicago. The murder rate is decreasing there. It's fine. The gun-free zone idea is working:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/chicago-murder-rate-down-in-september-mccarthy-somethings-working/

Bahahaahahaha

End of summer is far more likely than gun free zones finally working, that or gang members are finally having trouble coping with the personal losses.

 

[Angry Fork]

No need to fear this, the law will be put back to normal once 2 assholes get into an argument in the cafeteria and start shooting each other. And if nothing happens then nothing happens. It's a shame gun nuts think schools are unsafe but it is what it is. If/when this school becomes more dangerous because of this ruling they'll have to eat crow.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No need to fear this, the law will be put back to normal once 2 assholes get into an argument in the cafeteria and start shooting each other. And if nothing happens then nothing happens. It's a shame gun nuts think schools are unsafe but it is what it is. If/when this school becomes more dangerous because of this ruling they'll have to eat crow.

So you're saying school violence before and school shootings were not an issue?

 

[Amir0x]

Actually, everything is FINE in Chicago. The murder rate is decreasing there. It's fine. The gun-free zone idea is working:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/chicago-murder-rate-down-in-september-mccarthy-somethings-working/

I found this amazing:

According to Chicago Police, as of Monday, murders in the city stood at 391 this year, compared to 313 for the same time period last year. At the same time, shootings were at 1850 this year, up from 1679 last year.

I don't know if you've seen The Wire, when the mayor of Baltimore was trying desperately to keep the murder rate under 300 for the year. Shit is already at 391 in Chicago lol

Anyway, seems like super lax gun control laws were once again showing their amazing power in Chicago. With all those people that own guns in Chicago, gun related violence should be approaching zero! Gang bangers should be getting shot down by honorary citizens every other second!

Hm, I wonder whatever the root cause for these issues might be... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Danne-Danger]

it shows the NYPD can't shoot for shit, most aren't as bad as the NYPD.

I haven't had the time to read your nonsense up to this point, but have you gathered any data to back up that claim yet? Who's 'most' in this scenario and how much better are they at fending off drive-by shootings than the NYPD?

 

[HyperionX]

Fine, but you have to understand that doesn't really help in proving your point about this study,

I can't chase down every thing Kleck wrote. But like fox news you can't him seriously on this subject.

Except Lott did prove something that even his critics agreed he contributed


I include the full quote because I have never advanced more guns, less crime and I'm not trying to hide anything.

You got that quote from wikipedia. Which must mean you've read his wikipedia page. Which means you should realize how full of crap he is. At best this is a broken clock thing.

 

[Angry Fork]

So you're saying school violence before and school shootings were not an issue?

No I don't think it's an issue, they're horrible but rare events that don't justify allowing everyone to carry guns in a school of all places. They aren't military academies or forts. The likelihood of 2 idiot 19 year olds raging at each other and pulling out a weapon (that was easy to obtain and legal to carry) to prove they're boss is far more likely imo than a random massacre.

Only paranoid people will carry guns and if they're paranoid they're more likely to do something stupid. Allowing guns in an effort to combat random acts of violence is putting a used bandaid on the situation. Fix the conditions that contribute to people resorting to violence or the threat of it and the gun debate stops being a big issue.

If a lone person is bullied harassed develops mental illnesses etc. and then shoots up a school the topic should be how did the parental/social infrastructure/school fail that person and how do you prevent that from happening to another person. The topic shouldn't be if only george the rent-a-cop had an m16 everyone would be alright. That completely misses the point of the problem.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I can't chase down every thing Kleck wrote. But like fox news you can't him seriously on this subject.



You got that quote from wikipedia. Which must mean you've read his wikipedia page. Which means you should realize how full of crap he is. At best this is a broken clock thing.

Right, my point isn't to validate Lott, but to point out that his critics agree that conceal carry laws do not increase crime or lead to bloodbaths on the street. That that point is no longer controversial. Therefore if it doesn't make things worse or even better, than I would rather have the extra chance in a self defense situation. Do you see where I'm going?

 

[SirButterstick]

I love how people who say, 'You know, if there was a guy who pulled a gun at my local supermarket and was going to start blasting people, I'd like to have a gun to defend myself and the unwilling, NRA hatin' populace . . . . ' would probably be the first ones shitting in their pants.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I love how people who say, 'You know, if there was a guy who pulled a gun at my local supermarket and was going to start blasting people, I'd like to have a gun to defend myself and the unwilling, NRA hatin' populace . . . . ' would probably be the first ones shitting in their pants.

Like this guy did against a knife wielding attacker.
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/to...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

Or this guy against two armed thugs?
http://www.abc57.com/seen-on/wednesday/Florida-elderly-man-stops-armed-robbery-162848846.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

Did they look like they shit themselves?

 

[SirButterstick]

Like this guy did against a knife wielding attacker.
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/to...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

Or this guy against two armed thugs?
http://www.abc57.com/seen-on/wednesday/Florida-elderly-man-stops-armed-robbery-162848846.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

Did they look like they shit themselves?

Hey! They get to live their RAMBO FANTASY!!!!1 in real life.

Don't worry, I can go to YouTube and pull vids of gunfails, so stop being predictable.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Hey! They get to live their RAMBO FANTASY!!!!1 in real life.

Don't worry, I can go to YouTube and pull vids of gunfails, so stop being predictable.

Lol I knew you would do that. It's either all gun owners are cowards or want to live out a Rambo fantasy. I just wanted to see if you would confirm that. So which is it?

 

[SirButterstick]

Lol I knew you would do that. It's either all gun owners are cowards or want to live out a Rambo fantasy. I just wanted to see if you would confirm that. So which is it?

Easy, they're cowards compensating for something, a sense of fear of the big bad world outside, a small dick, etc.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Managed by legal means duh. Its an incredibly stupid idea to suggest.

But he didn't suggest it. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? His post suggested nothing of the sort. This is quickly going from good-natured ribbing to casting serious doubts on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously, Manos, what level of education did you achieve?

Being stabbed isnt much better.

Better chance of surviving a knife attack than a gun attack. Oh, and what Messypandas said below.

And how many school massacres were committed with a knife? how many cinema patrons could James Holmes have realistically mowed down with one?

Good luck getting an answer on this one. He tends not to answer questions that make sense. Actually, I take that back. He may respond to it, but he won't answer it. The response will likely involve some kind of re-direction or hand-waving tactic, possibly a link to UK knife-related homicide rates. Judging by previous behavior, he may also try to lie or contradict himself. In other words, you'll get anything but an actual answer.

the figure for knife murders in the UK hovers around 200 per year, the figure for firearm murders in the US hovers around 10,000.

It doesn't matter to Manos. He'll reference something completely random and unrelated and conclude that the UK stat is horribly worse than the U.S. stat. I would usually say that you can't make this stuff up, but this thread has taught me that you can. Don't bother posting your response to this, Manos. I'll take care of it:

Manos response: "It's taught me that too! You make up lots of stuff! LOL! ZING!"

Oh give me a break most of what he posted was lies and inaccuracies. The fact you accept it so willingly is hillarious, Mr Peer Review. You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. Of course you aren't interested in the truth so I guess it's not an issue for you.

Really? All right. Seeing as how riled up you are, I've obviously hit a nerve. Just leave the gun in the holster there, Rambo. I'll look into it. Does GaimeGuy have a response to this? Or maybe Manos himself could actually point out what was inaccurate with what GaimeGuy said. You know... specifics. I'd like to know. We need a response here before Scarface goes all postal on us and shows us his "little friend".

Expose what? No one has proven anything that I've said is wrong, quite the opposite you've been refuted multiple types and exposed.

Ooookay. Then I'm sure that you can point out and share these refutations and exposures. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh yeah, you told everybody that you talked with Funky Papa in another thread and he told you how lax Spanish gun control laws are. I then copy and pasted a post where Funky Papa describes how strict they are. You LIED.

Oh Amirox isn't a mod anymore so you don't need to kiss up to him lol

I know he's not a mod. I have reading comprehension skills that allowed me to determine that a long time ago. I "kissed up" to him because I thoroughly enjoyed the methodical process by which he intellectually tore you a new one.

Clearly from the way you accepted Gamieguys lies and inaccuracies as truth you do a piss poor job at peer review.

Oh, is GaimeGuy publishing his post? Which peer review journal is he publishing in?

Which is why you continue to be confronted for your lies and mistrusts.

I'm... not so sure that "confronted" is quite the word to describe what you've done here. Maybe... spewed?

it shows the NYPD can't shoot for shit, most aren't as bad as the NYPD.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Bahahaahahaha

End of summer is far more likely than gun free zones finally working, that or gang members are finally having trouble coping with the personal losses.

It's been declining since March. Look at the stats. They are decreasing. It's kind of sick how you disapprove of declining murder rates. Or do you disagree that they are declining?