Guns. Good or Bad?

Guns. Good or Bad?

  • Guns Good.

    Votes: 88 71.5%
  • Guns Bad.

    Votes: 35 28.5%

  • Total voters
    123
Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolfy

Space Kitty
Donor
Apr 27, 2017
2,186
8,583
2,860
RSI Handle
WolfytheWarlock
Right, Page 1, finally.


Oh! It was meeeeeeee!

Thats useful.

So lets just take that little checklist and see how many are in the Original Post:



On The List:
Gays
Muslims
Christians
Anything else the Original Poster personally finds undesirable (Mass shootings and Massacres of the innocent)



Hmmmm, don't see any Gays. Or Christians. Or Muslims. I do see a reference to one of the worst massacres in US history that left 59 dead and hot damn 527 injured! http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/03/59-dead-and-527-injured-by-multi-millionaire-armed-with-23-guns-6972556/

So you got 1 out of 4.
The hate is so subtle its like it doesn't exist D:
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,237
44,990
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I love my guns and that is all there is to say on that. Drugs kill more kids in schools a year than gun and they are already illegal so it is what it is.
Thanks for your experience and joining the conversation - you're right there isn't much more to say if you like 'em you like 'em.

I like guns too. Well, Aircraft cannon to be exact - I used to collect 30mm Aden Canon shells and sure I had a 20mm Vulcan cannon round at some point - but then it may have been a Hispano round. Stopped collecting and got rid when I thought I'd accidentally picked up High Explosive shell... It was probably a practice round painted to be a replica of a HE and was bought in an junk shop, but you never really know and I didn't want to blow myself up. At the time I lived 11 miles from where the first Hispano Canon factory was set up in the UK, so it was a fair possibility there were a few lost live rounds kicking around.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ezz

ThomSirveaux

Space Marshal
Sep 12, 2014
1,162
2,036
2,670
RSI Handle
Thom_Sirveaux
Ho hum, whats to be done?

Unless this is it... Is a massacre every two days the acceptable price of easy gun ownership in the US?

I take it you are part of the Militia being 37 (from your profile) American and male... Would you say it is "Well regulated"?
Sass typically doesn't help dialogue, especially if someone disagrees with you. This goes for everyone, not just you, Naff.

For the record: Most firearms related deaths are attributed to semi-automatic handguns. If there's anything we should really be regulating, they should be first on the docket, however, most of those deaths are typically gang related using illegally obtained firearms. Firearms deaths, in general, pale in comparison to all other causes of fatalities, but they are among the most horrific due to the violent nature from which they occur.

I am 100% in favor of universal background checks, as I happen to live in a state that already requires them. Registering the firearm should also be included in this transaction. This should reduce the instances of gun violence in regards to legally purchased weapons.

However, more power should be given to authorities to help prevent these types of deaths at the hands of people who are already on their radars. The most recent involved an individual who boasted that he wanted to become a "professional school shooter" in comments on youtube and the like. Since the comment, in general, is not made in regard to any political agenda, law enforcement or federal authorities should be able to at least 1. interview the person who made the comment if it is reported, appropriately, and 2. ensure that the person is not an immediate threat to public safety (i.e. - if they have access to firearms, remove said access; monitor their activities to make sure they aren't purchasing other possible weapons or weapon/destructive device components)

I can discuss further, if required, but I really should be getting back to work.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,237
44,990
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Sass typically doesn't help dialogue, especially if someone disagrees with you. This goes for everyone, not just you, Naff.
Quite right, many thanks for the pointer. I have edited my original response to make it a little less bumholey. Might have been projecting a bit.
 
Last edited:

Bigcracker

Space Marshal
Feb 2, 2015
397
1,470
2,400
RSI Handle
Bigcracker8789
Everyone stop trying to scapegoat this kills more than that or those guys over in that country do this or that. If we're trying to fix a problem for example people hitting deer in a road and someone stands up and goes sometimes boats hit dolphins so we can't ever fix the deer problem! That solves absolutely nothing. because it's two entire completely different things.

Also I see a ton of GSW's very few if not none is a suspect being shot from a civilian with a gun, and out of the 50 states Pennsylvania is the 11th most armed state in the US with 15 guns for every 1,000 residents.
 

Ezz

Space Marshal
Feb 4, 2016
943
4,805
2,510
RSI Handle
Pfen
and out of the 50 states Pennsylvania is the 11th most armed state in the US with 15 guns for every 1,000 residents.
Where is this number from? The numbers I found is that Pennsylvania is No. 34 of Gun Owners / Person with 34.7% so if every gun owner has only one gun (many have more) it would be at least 347 guns for 1,000 people. Another Numbers is that there are 101 guns per 100 People in the US (nearly doubling number 2 Serbia with 58.2 guns / 100 people btw)
 

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
I am 100% in favor of universal background checks, as I happen to live in a state that already requires them. Registering the firearm should also be included in this transaction. This should reduce the instances of gun violence in regards to legally purchased weapons.
100% background checks already a thing nationwide.
and out of the 50 states Pennsylvania is the 11th most armed state in the US with 15 guns for every 1,000 residents.
source for that? according to my findings, we have 101 guns per 100 people nationwide. 'MERICA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
 

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
Well it is two-part, that is now how a law is passed in the US, From my understanding, this is one of the laws that Obama made and signed without it going through Congress (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1438/reverse-barack-obamas-2016-gun-executive-order/) This action of Obamas was TOTALLY wrong, it is not power that the President EVER had and no other branch kept him in check. As such the order NEEDED to be repealed and passed by Congress, to the President. This is a lot of the reason why I do not like Obama, He was amassing power to the office that he did not have, in a very tyrannical way. I do not know much about what the law really said, I know it was being pushed as a prevent mentally ill from getting their hands on guns, A sentiment I partially agree with and partially disagree with. Any law that was targeted at "mentally ill" has to be clean and defined in such a way that it would not allow the government to choose what people it determined as mentally ill. Here is a lighthearted example. The Flat Earthers, they are fucking mentally ill, but do they want to kill people? no, well there is no reason to not let them have guns, even if they are dumb as all fuck. So it is a line that is really hard to get a hold on, and as such cannot be made by one man who is just amassing power to himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

Ezz

Space Marshal
Feb 4, 2016
943
4,805
2,510
RSI Handle
Pfen
From my understanding, this is one of the laws that Obama made and signed without it going through Congress [...] This action of Obamas was TOTALLY wrong, it is not power that the President EVER had and no other branch kept him in check. As such the order NEEDED to be repealed and passed by Congress, to the President. This is a lot of the reason why I do not like Obama, He was amassing power to the office that he did not have, in a very tyrannical way.
If you mean executive orders, Obama did not use that many if you compare it to other presidents.

Obama signed 276 (34.6 /year)
G.W. Bush signed 291 (36.4 /year)
Bill Clinton signed 363 (45.5 / year)
G.H.W. Bush 166 (41.5 / year)
Reagan 381 (47.6 / year)
Carter 320 (80.0 / year)

The first to sign less / year (if you go back in time) is Grover Clevelend - I (1885-1889) with 113 ( 28.8 / year) so in the last 100+ years there was not a single President who used less exe. orders.

Trump is at 59 (54.7 / year) [1.079 years in office]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

(Sorry for going of topic again)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
If you mean executive orders, Obama did not use that many if you compare it to other presidents.

Obama signed 276 (34.6 /year)
G.W. Bush signed 291 (36.4 /year)
Bill Clinton signed 363 (45.5 / year)
G.H.W. Bush 166 (41.5 / year)
Reagan 381 (47.6 / year)
Carter 320 (80.0 / year)

The first to sign less / year (if you go back in time) is Grover Clevelend - I (1885-1889) with 113 ( 28.8 / year) so in the last 100+ years there was not a single President who used less exe. orders.

Trump is at 59 (54.7 / year) [1.079 years in office]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

(Sorry for going of topic again)
I should have been cleaner, the Executive Order is NOT meant to pass laws "Executive orders issued by Presidents of the United States to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage operations within the government." Obama used it to pass a law (maybe other President have too), that is what I take issue with. but that is now how laws are made by law.
 

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
Last edited:

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,476
21,988
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Thing about statistics is, there are always more statistics, and this report is based on statistics that are interpreted in a specific way, and so removes the bulk of gun crime from the statistics, to focus on a very small number of specific cases. It focuses on a specific kind of crime: and puts a qualification on it that nobody else puts - highlighted. "Mass public shootings – defined as four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty." It's data source is: "The cases were complied doing a news search"

Seriously... that is not statistical research. If you remove the bit that's underlined, and use actual statistics instead of a news search, there were 334 cases in the USA in 2015 alone. See file attached. It's text, but in CSV format. You can look them up if you want.

This too.
Firearm—In 2014, 33,594 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 16.8% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2014 from 2013. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2014 were suicide (63.7%) and homicide (32.8%)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

The CDC is the American Government institution that maintains statistics on mortality in the USA, not John Lott. They don't get their data from news searches. Here is another non-governmental report for 2010 which paints a different picture alltogether. I would say, a much more accurate picture since it reports cause and does not cherry pick within a cause:
firearms.PNG


Nobody is arguing that there aren't statistics in other countries that show they have issues too, that is not the point. The point is the numbers for the USA are MUCH higher than anyone else's.
 

Attachments

Bigcracker

Space Marshal
Feb 2, 2015
397
1,470
2,400
RSI Handle
Bigcracker8789

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
Thing about statistics is, there are always more statistics, and this report is based on statistics that are interpreted in a specific way, and so removes the bulk of gun crime from the statistics, to focus on a very small number of specific cases. It focuses on a specific kind of crime: and puts a qualification on it that nobody else puts - highlighted. "Mass public shootings – defined as four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty." It's data source is: "The cases were complied doing a news search"

Seriously... that is not statistical research. If you remove the bit that's underlined, and use actual statistics instead of a news search, there were 334 cases in the USA in 2015 alone. See file attached. It's text, but in CSV format. You can look them up if you want.

This too.
Firearm—In 2014, 33,594 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 16.8% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2014 from 2013. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2014 were suicide (63.7%) and homicide (32.8%)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

The CDC is the American Government institution that maintains statistics on mortality in the USA, not John Lott. They don't get their data from news searches. Here is another non-governmental report for 2010 which paints a different picture alltogether. I would say, a much more accurate picture since it reports cause and does not cherry pick within a cause:
View attachment 9227

Nobody is arguing that there aren't statistics in other countries that show they have issues too, that is not the point. The point is the numbers for the USA are MUCH higher than anyone else's.
I will read this more in-depth after I wake up a little, however, I can tell my some of your numbers that your stats include suicides, while bad I would argue should not be counted in a murder rate with firearms. Yes the US has a higher violent death rate, those articles I posted last night were about Mass shooting as that was the conversation we were having. I will read the CDC report. however I believe we do not have a gun issue in America, we have a human issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

Ezz

Space Marshal
Feb 4, 2016
943
4,805
2,510
RSI Handle
Pfen
According to that article Number one is Wyoming with about 20% Guns/Person.
According to the Congressional Research Service there are 101% Guns/Person in all of America.
By the same year, 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.
Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf [ Page 8 ]


Here is some really amazing data I just found on mass shooting and murder rates. https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Mainly this Chart:

This also makes a better comparison from Then US to UK in my opinion. Both the US and Europe similar population sizes and a diversity of gun laws depending on where you are.
BONIS ARTICLE!!!
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2018/02/1068275-columbine-survivor-concealed-carry-bill/
The issue with those numbers (0.45 compared to 0.62) is that more than 50% of the Fatalities in the EU were through an act of terror by IS. But If you take away those 130 lost lives you are left with 100 that would amount to 0.196
And who ever created this chart was aiming for that since the time window starts with the biggest mass-shooting in Germany and ends with the biggest Terror attack in the EU.
If we change the window of time we get totally other numbers.
Mass-Shootings from 2016-2018
US: 153, per million: 0.47 in just 2 years compared to 0.62 in 6 years. That's 0.235 / Million / year compared to 0.103 / Million / year

For EU I haven't found Numbers for 2017 but 2016 had 11 death to Mass-Shootings based on this: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4wb9p3/mass-shootings-in-europe-in-2016 (note That Russia, Ukraine, Serbia are not in the EU but Europe)
In 2018 There hasn't been a Mass-shooting in the EU that I know of. If we Assume that 2017 was as deadly as 2016 (I guess it was less deadly since there did nothing come up on my search) We have 22 death related to mass-shootings.


So EU: 22, per million: 0.042 -> 0.021 / Million / year compared to 0.235 in the US so 10 times higher.

As you can see the statistics you found are useless since you can find the polar opposite just based on the time frame. To get a better result, you should use a objective time frame, 20 years for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

sum1

Space Marshal
Jun 26, 2015
1,007
3,039
2,600
RSI Handle
sum1
The issue with those numbers (0.45 compared to 0.62) is that more than 50% of the Fatalities in the EU were through an act of terror by IS. But If you take away those 130 lost lives you are left with 100 that would amount to 0.196
we are talking about people killing people, terrorists breaking laws, getting weapons and going on massacres is just as evil as anyone else doing it. And if the people are killed either way, Also do you then take gang violence out of the US? Also, the San Bernardino shooting is not called a terrorist attack, for some reason.

This is part of the issue those, stats get manipulated all different ways I have shared this video before, Here is a great rebuttal for a Vox work of fiction that shows how stats can be so manipulated to paint a false narrative. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-rebuttal/
 
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,344
6,525
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
I have been around firearms most of my life. My first experience firing a rifle was when I was 6.
In the army I qualified expert with pistol, rifle and machine gun. I have fired revolvers, bolt action and semi-automatic pistols. I have fired single shot to fully automatic long arms.
Rocket launchers, grenade launchers are fun. I have even called in artillery and air strikes.

I have never seen a fire arm go out and kill someone.

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a criminal is stupid.
 

Ezz

Space Marshal
Feb 4, 2016
943
4,805
2,510
RSI Handle
Pfen
we are talking about people killing people, terrorists breaking laws, getting weapons and going on massacres is just as evil as anyone else doing it. And if the people are killed either way, Also do you then take gang violence out of the US? Also, the San Bernardino shooting is not called a terrorist attack, for some reason.

This is part of the issue those, stats get manipulated all different ways I have shared this video before, Here is a great rebuttal for a Vox work of fiction that shows how stats can be so manipulated to paint a false narrative. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-rebuttal/
I am glad you post this, because this Video us just as bad .. worse than the VOX video. Because he speaks about numbers that are just plane wrong.

For example he says suicide did not go down in Australia since the ban on guns, so it has nothing to do with guns and while he says that he shows this graph:

If you don't look at the graph you might say "well there is now huge drop". But look at the numbers: it goes from 2 to below 1. That means it goes down by more than 50% .. 50%+ less suicide .. nothing to see here.
And the non-firearm suicide go from 11 down to 8 after a short rise.

He goes own with Homicide and says that there the US doesn't have a high homicide rate and shows this thing:

Also looks great if you don't look at it for real. Nearly no red dots it the US and nearly white background color just like the EU.
But again, if you look at the numbers you will find that the color-graph starts at 5.2 as a low. The US has a rate of 4.88 so is on the lowest end of that color.

What the graph does not show you that the EU with the same color has a way way WAY lower rate with below 1
(Some are above with France and Belgium but it evens out at below 1)
But based on the colors it is the same. And btw look at the Countries surrounding the US in homicide rates.
And what about those red dots? Its just one dot per country so at first glance US looks better than the EU. Even though dots are based on how big they are not based on the color. Very strange since the color does show the exact same thing. Why all the alarming red dots? So everything is red except from the US and some other countries like Russia an China? Why? What for?
He goes on with this one shown by VOX

And complains about why they choose AIDS since that is just a .. gay thing? And that putting drugs there does not make sense because drugs cause gun crimes.. what? And he act like he does not understand what the War-number means since people dying in war are shot by guns .. even though it seems pretty clear to me that Gun deaths are related to gun deaths in america and War is based on death outside of the US in war. Than he goes on to say the old "San Bernardino was Terrorism" thing and that he thinks that they put it in gun death and not Terrorism .. San Bernadino was bad but we are talking about 14 deaths .. the graph wouldn't even change for 14 deaths. So again no point really.

Next he talks about how big cities are the reason for gun homicide and shows this:

And says "the US has more big cities than many of those shown Countries combined" Countries that were shown were: Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Denmark
His statistic shows 100k+ cities so lets take that as big cities: Germany has 80 Cities with 100k+ people. with about 80Miopeople in Germany thats about 1 big city per 1 Mio people living in Germany, comparing that to the US Germany has even more big Cities/Person and since we talked about rates earlier we have to take that into account.
Lets take Netherlands: 17Mio people and 25 Cities above 100k so even more
Even Switzerland has 0.75 100k+ Cities per Million people. US has about 0.9.
So again those numbers don't make sense.

He also talkes about this:

And is saying that if the US has so many guns, why is it just number 28 on gun homicide in the world. Clearly the graph does not show all countries in the world (there are more than 10) and comparing it to countries like Honduras and Venezuela? Really? And btw its Number 18 not 28 if you sort my homicide rate and all shown countries are way below the US so the graph does make sense.

There are so many other things he gets wrong intellectually to support his agenda just like he says VOX does (and I'm not saying that they don't, they do) or because he does not understand what he is talking about. There are many good examples on debunking agenda driven statistics. That is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NaffNaffBobFace
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forgot your password?