|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Violent crime is low just like in Kennesaw, and I imagine that since this is Massachusetts that gun ownership would be pretty low, too. So then, we can be sure that adding guns doesn't necessarily cause an increase in violent crime nor gun injuries or deaths, as evidenced by Kennesaw.
You need data from before and after 1982 when the Kennesaw gun ordinance was passed to see if had any effect on gun prevalence and violent crime. I'm having trouble finding anything reliable, but there's stuff like this:
quote: Violent crime should increase with increased gun prevalence because it will become easier for criminals to acquire guns, and gun injuries and death should just increase in general, but gun prevalence is only one of many factors, such as social and economic factors. Yeah, I know when the data doesn't make guns look bad then we have to deny it, but when the data does make guns look bad, then it is unquestionably the whole truth.
Violent crime should increase with increased gun prevalence because it will become easier for criminals to acquire guns, Not all violent crimes are committed with a gun. And with an increase in gun prevalence, it is more dangerous for the criminals to be committing violent crimes.
Statistical analysis across a broad dataset is required to reach meaningful conclusions about individual factors. Unless the claim is that only one thing can happen, then you only need to find one instance of something else happening to prove the claim wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So it's bullet caliber and velocity together that makes ammunition dangerous. The weight and velocity. Bullets can be made out of different materials and have different shapes, so a larger caliber doesn't necessarily mean a higher weight, but otherwise yes.
I believe bullet shape makes a difference, too. For sure, I thought we were just talking about regular ol' bullets.
When it comes to ammunition, gun control efforts have focused on magazine size. Yes, this has been one of my complaints all along: that the people who are writing gun control legislation don't know enough about guns to write effective laws. They're so dumb that they enacted a law that is based on the aesthetics of the gun. That's just retarded. They are too incompetent for this.
Shouldn't gun caliber and ammunition type also be regulated? How about limiting guns and bullets for self-defense to standard .22? I don't care if a State regulates ammunition, but I'd never be for a Federal regulation like that. Still though, caliber just isn't the right metric. Take the .17 HMR, it's on the left compared to a .22 Long:
It has a smaller caliber than the 22 but it is way more deadly because it has twice the velocity. For me personally, I wouldn't like a caliber limit that was less than .40. If someone is charging you then you want stopping power. I think for what you want, you'd be better off limiting the grains and velocity of the bullet instead of the caliber. Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given. Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A lot of your info on calibers is correct, but this was pretty egregiously incorrect. Well I was talking about people and you're talking about big game... Would you rather be shot with a 22 or a 17 HMR? I'd take the 22.
For me personally, I wouldn't like a caliber limit that was less than .40. If someone is charging you then you want stopping power.
Cuz we all know thats gonna happen. After I knocked over the gang member that had just jumped my cousin, he pointed at me and said: "You're next". I'm not going to assume that he didn't mean it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How about regulating ammunition lethality? How? Some sort of lethality index or something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For a right that "shall not be infringed", there's a lot of infringement going on. Every restriction on gun-keeping and gun-bearing is an infringement.
But it also says well regulated and milita, and its clear that guns in the US are not well regulated, and not owned by only militia members. Then obviously these interpretations are incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Are you going to tell those 163,600 people that they shouldn't have be allowed to defend themselves with a firearm?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you going to address the study or just build more strawman arguments? I am addressing the study: It shows that more people are defending themselves from violent crime with firearms than are being killed by them. That's great news, firearms are actually helping make us safer.
Are you going to ask the NRA to validate their claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year? No, fuck the NRA, I don't give a shit what they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
~160,000 people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm during a period where ~90,000 (3 years * 30,000 per year) people would have been killed by a firearm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Taking these numbers at face value still falls short of an argument in my opinion. Surely violent crimes include things like robberies, car jackings for example. What generally happens to people who don't have guns when they encounter such situations? The 90,000 number seems to stand on its own merits. However the 160,000 number needs quite a bit of parcing out before we can see some kind of balance between the relative safety involved with having or not having a gun. Yeah, "safer" is kind of a fluffy term. But I would consider being safe as not being robbed or car-jacked, even if it wouldn't end in bodily harm to myself. So I don't really see the need to parse the 160,000. That's violent crime, that's not safe. Or, we could just drop the whole "safer" thing. About twice as many people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm than people who died from a firearm. And that includes people who chose to shoot themselves with their gun, i.e. suicides. It goes up to about five times as many people defending themselves against violent crime with a firearm than there were homicides with a firearm. Guns are being used a lot more to defend people than they are to murder them, and that's a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But more often than not, guns are not used in "response" to an attack; they're used in anticipation of an attack. Is that a fact or an opinion?
If the other guy shoots first, a gun won't help you. We just had a republican congressman get shot by a Bernie supporter whose life was saved, and probably a mass tragedy prevented, by the defensive use of guns in response to an attack where the other guy shot first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well at least those Trump voters are shooting their selves rather than being like those Bernie supporters who are shooting others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
All of The NewsTM is shit and you're better off without it. Stay tuned out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, go outside and do stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You make my point. You have a funny way of making your points look like other points. The other guy fired first, and then their guns helped them - something you said won't happen.
The police officers fired after the attacker's gunfire. Their guns did not protect the congressman. They prevented his death, I call that "protecting".
To be fair, they did protect other people who might have been shot. And killed. Defensive Gun Use for the win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They didn't prevent him from being shot in the first place. So? Is your claim completely vacuous then?
If you follow the thread, I said in Message 5001 that, "The idea that you can defend yourself with a gun is the problem, not the solution." YOURSELF. I concede that you can defend somebody else with a gun - but only if you shoot him BEFORE he shoots you. Not necessarily - it depends on where you get shot.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024