Guns. Good or Bad?

[Radegast74]

Here is a good summary of what current research shows (note that the US govt. doesn't fund research on gun violence*, that means there isn't going to be a whole lot of research out there):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


* link for that:
https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7bw8/the-government-quietly-let-funding-lapse-for-gun-violence-research

 

[Bambooza]

I do wish such written articles would be more honest with the truth and not attempt to push an agenda. Instead of only looking at cases related to mass murders caused by guns they should include all forms of mass murders and then see if guns increase the incidences and number of deaths or not. Instead of just looking at homicides by guns across countries they should look at all homicides across populations then see if guns increase the number or not. Instead we have two news articles that play to their narrative while attempting to appear to be objective.

 

[Radegast74]

I do wish such written articles would be more honest with the truth and not attempt to push an agenda. Instead of only looking at cases related to mass murders caused by guns they should include all forms of mass murders and then see if guns increase the incidences and number of deaths or not. Instead of just looking at homicides by guns across countries they should look at all homicides across populations then see if guns increase the number or not. Instead we have two news articles that play to their narrative while attempting to appear to be objective.

Do they not have Google where you live? try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
In particular:
Some studies suggest that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with higher homicide rates,[14][11][15][16] although Gary Kleck argues that the highest-quality studies show that gun ownership does not increase homicide rates.[17] Higher rates of gun ownership are also associated with higher suicide rates[18][19] and higher accidental gun death rates.[20][21][22] The availability of illegal guns, but not that of legal guns, is associated with higher rates of violent crime.[23]

 

[Deroth]

Here is a good summary of what current research shows (note that the US govt. doesn't fund research on gun violence*, that means there isn't going to be a whole lot of research out there):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


* link for that:
https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7bw8/the-government-quietly-let-funding-lapse-for-gun-violence-research

Unfortunately research funded by governments is typically the most biased as politicians and bureaucrats like to abuse 'pay for performance' legislation to pay out millions if a very specific particular result is returned from the research.

Whereas privately funded research frequently has to make due with multiple up to $9k donations from unique entities paid up front.

 

[Radegast74]

Unfortunately research funded by governments is typically the most biased as politicians and bureaucrats like to abuse 'pay for performance' legislation to pay out millions if a very specific particular result is returned from the research.

So, if none of that research is government funded, it must be ok then, right?

Whereas privately funded research frequently has to make due with multiple up to $9k donations from unique entities paid up front.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you re-phrase?[/QUOTE]

 

[Deroth]

So, if none of that research is government funded, it must be ok then, right?

I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you re-phrase?

First part: Was pointing out that government funded research shouldn't be trusted anymore than any other research.

Second part: There are so many laws on how research can be funded, mostly tax laws, that it makes privately funded research very difficult to get enough money to do the type of in-depth research that is desired. Since much of it is tied to taxes private entities can only legally donate a certain amount per year and year to year, with each private entity needing to be unique or risk being brought up on various tax fraud charges.

 

[Bambooza]

Do they not have Google where you live? try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
In particular:
Some studies suggest that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with higher homicide rates,[14][11][15][16] although Gary Kleck argues that the highest-quality studies show that gun ownership does not increase homicide rates.[17] Higher rates of gun ownership are also associated with higher suicide rates[18][19] and higher accidental gun death rates.[20][21][22] The availability of illegal guns, but not that of legal guns, is associated with higher rates of violent crime.[23]

Not sure how this is relevant to news articles attempting to appear to be objective while play to their narrative. But you are right wiki is a good starting point but it shouldn't be the end of the research.

 

[ShakyWater]

Bad poll.

Neither.

Guns are guns.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Bad poll.

Tee hee. I can tell you didn't read the original post, i've already got that allllll covered.

https://testsquadron.com/threads/the-ultimate-poll.9941/

 

[ShakyWater]

f(gun) = gun

I'll make you a graph, hold on.

 

[ShakyWater]

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Nice graph, it reminds me of the amount of money the pledge store mysteriously takes in starter packages shortly after VirtualAce is banned again.

 

[AntiSqueaker]

I like my guns, but I fucking loathe the NRA. They're quite literally a paid lobbying firm of the firearm industry and are just stupid overall. NRA bootlicks to law enforcement and military way too much for my taste since they love those yummy government contracts. Hence the lameduck response to every time a black person is shot legally carrying (a la Philandro Castile ), where they basically wring their hands and go "oh golly how awful".

NRA is there to defend arms manufacturer's pockets, and I don't really trust people who make money off of selling something to be the best judges in writing policy for it. I drive an extra 20 minutes to go to a range that doesn't require NRA membership.

Can we get over the whole "government coming to take our guns away" thing now? If Sandy Hook and 8 years of Obama didn't do anything, I doubt anything will happen under a Republican House, Senate, and Presidency.

IMO, guns should be treated a bit like cars. Have a mandatory short safety class by a certified instructor, pass a written test on firearms law and safety, and then you can go to town. No marksmanship test because that's stupid if you're just starting to shoot. Can also double as a CCW license, with universal reciprocity as a bonus. Will-issue, not may-issue. If you pass the test, you can get a gun. Period. (This would easily be legal under a "well-regulated" militia imo, but I'm not a lawyer)

Then maybe we can stop doing stupid shit like banning "scary" gun parts like pistol grips on ARs, extending stocks, foregrips, "hi-cap" magazines. Hell even throw suppressors on there too, I've been waiting 9 fucking months for my Class III paperwork to go through, I could have popped out a kid in this timeframe.

As always there are two stupid sides, the "guns are evil and only cops should have them" which I loathe because I see the rise in increasingly militarized police forces as a net loss for the trust and safety of the public, and "let me have my 20mm cannon because the 2nd amendment says so" people that think that the big bad gubberment not letting them stockpile their own personal Javelins and Tomahawk missiles is literally worse than Hitler, whose stupidity should be readily apparent.

 

[Phil]

The second amendment argument is old, it says you have the right to bear arms, the government dictate what kind of arms those are so this argument that citizens have the right to own AR 15 or other types of military assault weapons is laughable at best. In the 30s we passed laws against fully auto, sawed off shotguns and grenades and I don't see anyone complaining about the 2nd amendment, we passed an assault weapons ban in the 90s and again it was not as big of a deal as it is now.

Why does every gun debate turn into an anti 2nd amendment barrier?? At no point has any liberal or democrat asked for "all of your guns" this has been an NRA and right wing talking point to stir up their voter base and keep the gun sales up, period.

The one common factor in most of these mass shootings has been assault weapons, high capacity magazines, modifications etc... yet we keep hearing the rhetoric about mental health, the criminals who will always find a way and of course people kill people guns don't. I still argue no civilian needs an AR 15 with a 100 round magazine, body armor, armor piercing rounds, bump stocks, etc....

Again you have the right to bear arms yes even that is a very loose description of a 200 year old amendment, the constitution was designed to be changed that is why we have amendments, the government has the right to dictate what type of firearms civilians have access to otherwise where is the line drawn? We passed laws 90 years ago and it seems only this current generation is so obsessed with guns that we can't even talk about common sense gun laws without hitting a brick wall.

In the end I don't have to make the argument, the hundreds of youtube videos showing irresponsible gun owners, the almost 200 mass shootings in this country since Sandy Hook and the numbers prove that assault weapons have no place in our society, they were created for war and one purpose to kill people I don't care how you spin the hunting/sports aspect of an AR 15 that guns sole purpose when it was created was to be used in war, period and there is a reason people can walk out their front door and mow down 50 people with easy because that is what it was designed for.

I remember having this same debate after Sandy Hook when those children were slaughtered, I remember saying this country will do nothing and we will continue to have these worthless, meaningless debates and arguments and the people in this country will fail to act because of an obsession with guns and its true here we are not even a few months after Las Vegas and we can't even stop the sales of bump stocks...... I am ashamed as an American and as a gun owner that we put more emphasis on owning guns than saving lives.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

...we put more emphasis on owning guns than saving lives.

You've just made something click with me... Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people don't save lives or they'd be doing it without guns, it is guns that save lives and so need to be retained at all costs...

Until people stop killing people, or the guns start killing people by themselves... Perhaps that is the answer if people won't give up the guns, maybe the guns can give up the people?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ygFeywrvjc

 

[Deroth]

The second amendment argument is old, it says you have the right to bear arms, the government dictate what kind of arms those are so this argument that citizens have the right to own AR 15 or other types of military assault weapons is laughable at best. In the 30s we passed laws against fully auto, sawed off shotguns and grenades and I don't see anyone complaining about the 2nd amendment, we passed an assault weapons ban in the 90s and again it was not as big of a deal as it is now.

Why does every gun debate turn into an anti 2nd amendment barrier?? At no point has any liberal or democrat asked for "all of your guns" this has been an NRA and right wing talking point to stir up their voter base and keep the gun sales up, period.

The one common factor in most of these mass shootings has been assault weapons, high capacity magazines, modifications etc... yet we keep hearing the rhetoric about mental health, the criminals who will always find a way and of course people kill people guns don't. I still argue no civilian needs an AR 15 with a 100 round magazine, body armor, armor piercing rounds, bump stocks, etc....

Again you have the right to bear arms yes even that is a very loose description of a 200 year old amendment, the constitution was designed to be changed that is why we have amendments, the government has the right to dictate what type of firearms civilians have access to otherwise where is the line drawn? We passed laws 90 years ago and it seems only this current generation is so obsessed with guns that we can't even talk about common sense gun laws without hitting a brick wall.

In the end I don't have to make the argument, the hundreds of youtube videos showing irresponsible gun owners, the almost 200 mass shootings in this country since Sandy Hook and the numbers prove that assault weapons have no place in our society, they were created for war and one purpose to kill people I don't care how you spin the hunting/sports aspect of an AR 15 that guns sole purpose when it was created was to be used in war, period and there is a reason people can walk out their front door and mow down 50 people with easy because that is what it was designed for.

I remember having this same debate after Sandy Hook when those children were slaughtered, I remember saying this country will do nothing and we will continue to have these worthless, meaningless debates and arguments and the people in this country will fail to act because of an obsession with guns and its true here we are not even a few months after Las Vegas and we can't even stop the sales of bump stocks...... I am ashamed as an American and as a gun owner that we put more emphasis on owning guns than saving lives.

View: https://youtu.be/wgfwyQ557t8

 

[Thalstan]

You've just made something click with me... Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people don't save lives or they'd be doing it without guns, it is guns that save lives and so need to be retained at all costs...

Until people stop killing people, or the guns start killing people by themselves... Perhaps that is the answer if people won't give up the guns, maybe the guns can give up the people?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ygFeywrvjc

no no and HELL NO.

The only thing worse then people owning guns is someone programming a computer to use guns...even if there is a "human" at the controls. It's for the same reason I don't like the idea of automated cars. A few nights ago, a car started to pass me by using the left hand lane. Before he finished passing, we swerved into my lane. I had a car behind me and a car to my right, so my only option was to take the hit, or hit my brakes and pray the guy behind me was paying attention. I am wondering what an automated car would have done. Considering I was on the downslope of a bridge approach with a curve to the right, had I been hit in the left front of my vehicle, I would have almost certainly have spun out, if not flipped. If hit from behind, I might still have spun but a square hit would be easier to control. A calculation by a computer might say "take the hit because sudden breaking or swerving to the right could endanger more then yourself."

With some good luck, nothing happened except for some swearing and honking on my part as everyone missed. I suspect the guy behind me saw what was going on and was doing some breaking even before he saw my brake lights come on, which is why he did not end up in my trunk.

besides, if you were to install those in say...Chicago, Detroit, New Castle, Dallas, etc...those guns would be gone in 3-5 days, taken by thieves and sold off to gangs very quickly.

 

[Deroth]

no no and HELL NO.

The only thing worse then people owning guns is someone programming a computer to use guns...even if there is a "human" at the controls. It's for the same reason I don't like the idea of automated cars. A few nights ago, a car started to pass me by using the left hand lane. Before he finished passing, we swerved into my lane. I had a car behind me and a car to my right, so my only option was to take the hit, or hit my brakes and pray the guy behind me was paying attention. I am wondering what an automated car would have done. Considering I was on the downslope of a bridge approach with a curve to the right, had I been hit in the left front of my vehicle, I would have almost certainly have spun out, if not flipped. If hit from behind, I might still have spun but a square hit would be easier to control. A calculation by a computer might say "take the hit because sudden breaking or swerving to the right could endanger more then yourself."

With some good luck, nothing happened except for some swearing and honking on my part as everyone missed. I suspect the guy behind me saw what was going on and was doing some breaking even before he saw my brake lights come on, which is why he did not end up in my trunk.

besides, if you were to install those in say...Chicago, Detroit, New Castle, Dallas, etc...those guns would be gone in 3-5 days, taken by thieves and sold off to gangs very quickly.

That old tech concerns you?

Hold my beer!

https://www.tracking-point.com/2015/12/08/taya-kyle-wins-american-sniper-shootout/

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

no no and HELL NO.

But... Guns are good. Even the poll is 71% to 29% in favor.

It has been stated so many times before Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. So remove people from the problem. Automate the guns and make sure everyone is aware of what triggers them and ta-daa! Peace in our time.

The only issue I could see is suicide by turret, where people wishing to end their lives intentionally activate them by acting in a way that would cause them to fire, however the US and places with other armed police forces already have "suicide by cop" so I would not expect the rate of instances to be much higher than at present with law inforcement.

I think this is the answer.

In Gun We Trust.

 

[Wolfy]

This showed up in my feed as I was cleaning my new AR.... huh...