Guns

[Johnnypenso]

Wrong.

Do people own more guns in states with high homicide rates because high homicide rate or does an escalation in gun ownership cause an increase in homicide?

This graph doesn't seem to indicate much of a relationship between homicide rates in developed countries:

:

 

[x3ra]

Dalai Lama tends to agree with me (which is nice !)

"We will never solve our problems simply by instituting new laws and regulations. Ultimately, the source of our problems lies at the level of the individual. If people lack moral values and integrity, no system of laws and regulations will be adequate. So long as people give priority to material values, then injustice, inequity, intolerance and greed -- all the outward manifestations of neglect of inner values -- will persist."

Capitalists to blame then.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This debate will never been won with statistics. Would you rather have a 0.01% chance of death by gunshot or a 0.2% chance of having to survive a stabbing? For every one of those studies there is another one saying the opposite... even at the same university:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://calwatchdog.com/2012/08/07/ignorance-abounds-in-gun-control-stories/
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...u-s-has-more-guns-but-russia-has-more-murders

The second two of the three links come back to the first "paper". Except it isn't a Uni paper as you and I might think of one, and isn't "from the same University". It's a piece by an NRA-backed activist published in a non-peer-reviewed review that describes itself as Conservative and Libertarian and has previously condemned gay marriage. The "paper" commits the greatest of GTP sins by cherry-picking data to support the argument. The opinions might make it through any eventual peer-review but the data wouldn't.

 

[Danoff]

The second two of the three links come back to the first "paper". Except it isn't a Uni paper as you and I might think of one, and isn't "from the same University". It's a piece by an NRA-backed activist published in a non-peer-reviewed review that describes itself as Conservative and Libertarian and has previously condemned gay marriage. The "paper" commits the greatest of GTP sins by cherry-picking data to support the argument. The opinions might make it through any eventual peer-review but the data wouldn't.

It's harvard, though law review instead of what appears to be medical. The student may have had some ties with the NRA, but it's still a harvard law review publication. I'm not surprised that you can find yet more arguments against the data and findings, since any article for or against gun control seems to have a corresponding debating article.

I think my point is pretty solid here. For each pro-gun control article you can find there is one that interprets the data in the other direction... so many that you can even find it within same university.

Edit:

I posted the second link because it digests the first one.

 

[Barra333]

The second two of the three links come back to the first "paper". Except it isn't a Uni paper as you and I might think of one, and isn't "from the same University". It's a piece by an NRA-backed activist published in a non-peer-reviewed review that describes itself as Conservative and Libertarian and has previously condemned gay marriage. The "paper" commits the greatest of GTP sins by cherry-picking data to support the argument. The opinions might make it through any eventual peer-review but the data wouldn't.

That last link sounds like Harvard is getting as far from that 'publication' as it can.

In the first paragraph: "The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims."

The last line: "The Kates and Mauser article is simply a one-sided polemic, usually misleading, and does not deserve much attention."

 

[Danoff]

That last link sounds like Harvard is getting as far from that 'publication' as it can.

In the first paragraph: "The paper itself is not a scientific article,

Yea... it's a law review article. This isn't a scientific subject.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yea... it's a law review article. This isn't a scientific subject.

And non-peer-reviewed in a "club" paper run by students, not by Harvard. The "paper" has as much merit as a blog post.

 

[Danoff]

And non-peer-reviewed in a "club" paper run by students, not by Harvard. The "paper" has as much merit as a blog post.

Do you know what a law review is? Comparing it to a blog suggests the answer is "no". You drank the kool-aid by someone who wanted to attack the piece. "Peer-reviewed" is a bit vague here. But the link you posted lists articles all written with one common author that are not "scientific" either. They're just an assemblage of picked statistics.

Back to my point, you won't win this argument with statistics. They can be cooked either way, and there are a million articles for and against using real statistics cooked to support their position.

 

[Barra333]

That last link sounds like Harvard is getting as far from that 'publication' as it can.

In the first paragraph: "The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims."

The last line: "The Kates and Mauser article is simply a one-sided polemic, usually misleading, and does not deserve much attention."

Yea... it's a law review article. This isn't a scientific subject.

I went back and emphasised the parts that are more important than what you mentioned.

 

[Danoff]

I went back and emphasised the parts that are more important than what you mentioned.

uh huh. It's like you're not actually reading my posts. You're arguing the point, I'm arguing one level higher - a meta point.

 

[Barra333]

You said it was not a scientific article. Fine, that doesn't bother me. The fact that it is systematically dismantled by another member of Harvard faculty is what discredits the article, including the comments that I quoted above.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You said it was not a scientific article. Fine, that doesn't bother me. The fact that it is systematically dismantled by another member of Harvard faculty is what discredits the article, including the comments that I quoted above.

You don't think that person might have an agenda?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't think that person might have an agenda?

In writing that piece, yes. I'd say the agenda was to discredit the article that was purported to be somehow either part of an official Harvard publication or accurate. It was neither.

 

[Danoff]

You said it was not a scientific article. Fine, that doesn't bother me. The fact that it is systematically dismantled by another member of Harvard faculty is what discredits the article, including the comments that I quoted above.

In writing that piece, yes. I'd say the agenda was to discredit the article that was purported to be somehow either part of an official Harvard publication or accurate. It was neither.

It is an official Harvard publication, both of them are. All law review articles are official publications of their corresponding universities. The agenda to discredit its accuracy is what you would expect - it is true of any gun/anti-gun commentary. My point is this, and very simple... I was able to find a publication from within the same institution that contradicted what TenEightyOne posted. Statistics are not a viable way to win this argument.

 

[RC45]

So this bit here, where you assigned an argument I didn't say as being following from "my logic" when you clearly didn't read what I actually said:

Was just meaningless pap so you could try and be ahead of the curve in trying to look clever. Or, in other words, it was just your attempt at doing this:

Both you and Northstar like the idea that no situation exists where a rifle is required for home defense.

I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun.

(getting ready for the "but a rifle is not required, it could be a shotgun also... or a broom or a cup of hot coffee or even a stern loud voice." response)

 

[Exorcet]

My point is this, and very simple... I was able to find a publication from within the same institution that contradicted what TenEightyOne posted. Statistics are not a viable way to win this argument.

I'm not sure if that reasoning works [at least in a specific example] if the paper isn't credible. It's easy to respond to a disagreeing idea with gibberish 1:1, but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure if that reasoning works [at least in a specific example] if the paper isn't credible. It's easy to respond to a disagreeing idea with gibberish 1:1, but it doesn't mean anything.

To a large extent, every paper on the subject of gun statistics is not credible and is roughly gibberish. Take, for example, the first summary of the paper that @TenEightyOne posted.

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Now, I know this isn't the full paper. But the summary here is intended to present the conclusion in the first sentence, and support for that conclusion in the second sentence. A "risk factor" is something that increases likelihood. It's not a term for coincidence, it's supposed to imply causation. The second sentence then does not support the first. All we know is that there appears to be correlation in the data (based on the second sentence). We have no idea whether that correlation means that guns increase likelihood. There could be a correlation because guns decrease likelihood, in otherwords, people gravitate toward guns to solve a problem - so where you see the problem you see the attempted solution. If that were true it could be a mitigating factor, not a risk factor.

Again, I know that's not the full paper. Maybe the full paper has some credible evidence to suggest that the link goes the other way around (rather than just a hunch), or maybe the paper has some other important fact that would tie the two together. One would think, though, that if the paper had that they'd lead with that and it would be in the summary.

...and we're back around to my point. Using statistics in this argument is not a recipe for success.

Edit:

While we're talking about it. I'll note that TenEightOne's point was that @x3ra was wrong in saying that the two are not related. While a correlation is not necessarily a relationship (pirates and global warming for example), I'll point out that x3ra being a bit quick with has language. I believe his intent was not that there did not exist any relationship, but that the relationship was not causal. So even if the paper refuted the claim (it doesn't), it wouldn't address the point.

 

[Northstar]

Both you and Northstar like the idea that no situation exists where a rifle is required for home defense.

And all you have done thus far is prove us right by not providing a situation where an assault rifle is required.

I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun

Admittedly I don't have time to read the laws of all 50 states, but from the few I did read pistols and assault rifles are lumped into the same category. So if it's illegal for them to possess a handgun it would also be illegal for them to possess an assault rifle.

Of course I highly doubt they would prosecute if a kid used a (legally owned) handgun illegally to ward off intruders.

(getting ready for the "but a rifle is not required, it could be a shotgun also... or a broom or a cup of hot coffee or even a stern loud voice." response)

The only time either of us has said anything like that is when I pointed out a pistol could have worked in the two videos you posted. I know other people have said things along those lines, but I don't necessarily agree them.

 

[RC45]

And all you have done thus far is prove us right by not providing a situation where an assault rifle is required.



Admittedly I don't have time to read the laws of all 50 states, but from the few I did read pistols and assault rifles are lumped into the same category. So if it's illegal for them to possess a handgun it would also be illegal for them to possess an assault rifle.

Again, you would be incorrect

Minimum Age for Gun Sales and Transfers:
Under federal law

Licensed firearms dealers
Handguns
Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.

Licensed firearms dealers
Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)
Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.

Unlicensed persons
Handguns
Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*.

Unlicensed persons
Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)
Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.

Of course I highly doubt they would prosecute if a kid used a (legally owned) handgun illegally to ward off intruders.



The only time either of us has said anything like that is when I pointed out a pistol could have worked in the two videos you posted. I know other people have said things along those lines, but I don't necessarily agree them.

I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun

A minor is someone below a legal age limit. here we use the Hand Gun age limit as out bench mark for "minordom"

A minor with regard to hand gun ownership can also be someone old enough to live on their own.

If they live on their own they by law may not own a handgun as there is no guardian to consent to legal possession of the handgun they could not have legally acquired.

As such, any discharge of said illegal weapon, even in self defense, would be a crime.

So again - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun a long gun would be required to legally defend themselves with a firearm.

I have shown you to be incorrect on a number of fronts.

a) a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun

b) a small framed person that would not be able to effectively wield a hand gun

 

[Northstar]

Again, you would be incorrect. This is almost too easy.

Minimum Age for Gun Sales and Transfers:
Under federal law

Licensed firearms dealers
Handguns
Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.

Licensed firearms dealers
Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)
Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.

Unlicensed persons
Handguns
Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*.

Unlicensed persons
Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)
Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.



I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun

A minor is someone below a legal age limit. here we use the Hand Gun age limit as out bench mark for "minordom"

A minor with regard to hand gun ownership can also be someone old enough to live on their own.

If they live on their own they by law may not own a handgun as there is no guardian to consent to legal possession of the handgun they could not have legally acquired.

As such, any discharge of said illegal weapon, even in self defense, would be a crime.

So again - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun a long gun would be required to legally defend themselves with a firearm.

I have shown you to be incorrect on a number of fronts.

a) a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun

b) a small framed person that would not be able to effectively wield a hand gun

Do those laws apply to ASSAULT rifles though? Or is it just hunting style rifles?

There is a difference you know, I figured you of all people would know that (or maybe you weren't expecting me to know)...

Still waiting on an actual scenario, not just words...

 

[RC45]

Do those laws apply to ASSAULT rifles though? Or is it just hunting style rifles?

There is a difference you know, I figured you of all people would know that (or maybe you weren't expecting me to know)...

Still waiting on an actual scenario, not just words...

It is post 2004. Feel free to Google what that has to do with the assault rifle designation as far as the Feds are concerned.

So again, I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun. (but may legally possess a rifle {ANY RIFLE})

 

[Northstar]

It is post 2004. Feel free to Google what that has to do with the assault rifle designation as far as the Feds are concerned.

Actually, I would like a link to the regulations. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

So again, I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun. (but may legally possess a rifle {ANY RIFLE})

And I'm asking for an actual situation that has happened where an AR15 style weapon was the only option. As in, go find a news story that proves your point, your "example" proves nothing really.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Do those laws apply to ASSAULT rifles though? Or is it just hunting style rifles?

There is a difference you know, I figured you of all people would know that (or maybe you weren't expecting me to know)...

Still waiting on an actual scenario, not just words...

The federal definition of an "assult rifle" differs from meanings by state. In Ca for example you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 for a handgun. There are RAW's in Ca which means "Registered Assault Weapon". To legally purchase one you had to be 18 before 1/1/2000 and register it with the DOJ. Now that they no longer accept RAW applications you have to have a device that locks the magazine in place requiring a tool to remove the magazine and also a 10 round limit. Once done AR15s are not by state definition "assault rifles" and as such only require tou to be 18 to purchase one. Many in this thread would still call that an "assault rifle" although it's no different than any semi automatic rifle that shoots .223/5.56mm ammunition such as a Mini 14. Mini 14s were never considered "assault rifles" although there was a fully automatic version for Law Enforcement/Military use called the AC556. Federal Assault Weapon definition means full auto or burst fire which we talked about earlier that are NFA items which are heavily regulated, extremely expensive, taxed and mainly for Law Enforcement/Military use. Semi auto rifles are not Assault weapons per definition. The quicker you realize your arguments are based off of word play and popular terminology, you will understand you are calling them the wrong thing. A rifle is a rifle. An assault weapon is more than a rifle. You only have to be 18 to buy a rifle most anywhere. No matter if the media and certain states call them assault weapons.

I'm not knocking anyone for their beliefs but if the media were to call all bolt action rifles "sniper rifles" because some idiots started picking off people with pinpoint accuracy with a bolt action rifle, you may be inclined to believe that bolt guns that are extremely accurate should be called sniper rifles. "Assault style clothing" also makes me lol.

 

[Northstar]

The federal definition of an "assult rifle" differs from meanings by state. In Ca for example you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 for a handgun. There are RAW's in Ca which means "Registered Assault Weapon". To legally purchase one you had to be 18 before 1/1/2000 and register it with the DOJ. Now that they no longer accept RAW applications you have to have a device that locks the magazine in place requiring a tool to remove the magazine and also a 10 round limit. Once done AR15s are not by state definition "assault rifles" and as such only require tou to be 18 to purchase one. Many in this thread would still call that an "assault rifle" although it's no different than any semi automatic rifle that shoots .223/5.56mm ammunition such as a Mini 14. Mini 14s were never considered "assault rifles" although there was a fully automatic version for Law Enforcement/Military use called the AC556. Federal Assault Weapon definition means full auto or burst fire which we talked about earlier that are NFA items which are heavily regulated, extremely expensive, taxed and mainly for Law Enforcement/Military use. Semi auto rifles are not Assault weapons per definition. The quicker you realize your arguments are based off of word play and popular terminology, you will understand you are calling them the wrong thing. A rifle is a rifle. An assault weapon is more than a rifle. You only have to be 18 to buy a rifle most anywhere. No matter if the media and certain states call them assault weapons.

See, now this is how you correct someone without being a 🤬 about it.

 

[RC45]

Actually, I would like a link to the regulations. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Don't be a complete tool. I am not going to spoon feed you. Either you are an adult that can research for yourself or you are a kid that needs to be spoon fed.

It is general regular knowledge and easily researched that in 2004 the Clinton era Federal Assault Weapons Ban (that included classifications and definitions) expired.

I am trying to imagine how certain people function in your jobs and studies "OOOhhhoOOO - citation.. I don't beweeeeve you... you are liar!!!!1`111!!!!"

If you doubt someone, learn to do your own research or just walk away and sulk - your education is not my job.

I now understand why the general population in the US are the most ignorant and ill informed people on the planet.

They are have this self centered entitlement mentality - and it even permeates into conversational discussion - it appears an entire subset of the population has no ability to discuss without screaming for citations and quotes every 5 seconds.

And I'm asking for an actual situation that has happened where an AR15 style weapon was the only option. As in, go find a news story that proves your point, your "example" proves nothing really.

Way to keep moving the goal posts.

So again, I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun. (but may legally possess a rifle {ANY RIFLE})

See, now this is how you correct someone without being a 🤬 about it.

Except you never called him a liar and demanded citations to back up his unsubstantiated claims.

Go on, call him out for not providing links and proof...

 

[Northstar]

Way to keep moving the goal posts.

They are where they have always been...

That video has also already been discussed, please try again.

Except you never called him a liar and demanded citations to back up his unsubstantiated claims.

You see, when you are nice and go about making your point in a non-confrontational way using facts people are much more likely to take your words on things. I've seen your posts here and I've seen his. You come off as being overly confrontational and rude for little to no reason most of the time. Whereas Blood Eagle has been able to make points while still being civil about it.

TLDR; Kindness pays off, even when you are arguing differing viewpoints.

 

[Joel]

I now understand why the general population in the US are the most ignorant and ill informed people on the planet.

They are have this self centered entitlement mentality - and it even permeates into conversational discussion.

Good. Lord.

 

[Keef]

Good. Lord.

He's not really wrong.

 

[jimipitbull]

I now understand why the general population in the US are the most ignorant and ill informed people on the planet.

They are have this self centered entitlement mentality - and it even permeates into conversational discussion - it appears an entire subset of the population has no ability to discuss without screaming for citations and quotes every 5 seconds.

Do you honestly think these people you describe should have access to assault rifles?

 

[RC45]

They are where they have always been...

That video has also already been discussed, please try again.

Again, in a jurisdiction where someone is under the legal age to possess a handgun - they would be required to NOT use a handgun, being that it would be illegal. They would be required to used a long gun.

WTF are you arguing a subject you have little to no knowledge about?

If you had any you would know firearms charges are not something to be taken lightly - therefore anytime a person under the legal age to possess a particular firearm can avoid prosecution they would.

In other words it would be stupid for any 18 year old living alone to use a handgun in self defense if they live in s jurisdiction where it is illegal for an 18 year old to possess a handgun.

This is not a hard concept for many to understand - yet it escapes you.

You see, when you are nice and go about making your point in a non-confrontational way using facts people are much more likely to take your words on things. I've seen your posts here and I've seen his. You come off as being overly confrontational and rude for little to no reason most of the time. Whereas Blood Eagle has been able to make points while still being civil about it.

TLDR; Kindness pays off, even when you are arguing differing viewpoints.

Awwe... You just needed your hand held and to be spoon fed?