You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT
 

farson135:

reonhato:
ok im not going to bother replying to your other stuff because it is like bashing my head against a brick wall.

Or the more likely thing is that you knew you could not defeat me so you decided to go with something you thought you could win. Surprise surprise you are still wrong.

800 bucks now compared to 300 in the 80s is within inflation

No it is not. He bought it in 1987 and by current prices his $300 becomes a little under $600 today. In other words the same gun (used no less) costs a little more than $200 more than it did (new) in the 80s.

you cannot defeat someone who does not recognize what defeat is. even if as you say this person bought the gun in 87, and remember we only have your word on this, there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

TechNoFear:

farson135:
the suicide rate when up with non-firearm implements and the rate went down with firearms.

"Correlation does not imply causation"

Sorry if I prefer 8 peer reviewed studies conducted by trained scientists than some unsubstantiated numbers posted on a forum.

farson135:
Again FIREARM suicide rates are not important in comparison to OVERALL suicide rates. I do not understand why y'all think that suicide rates with firearms are more important than overall suicide rates.

Because we are looking at the effect; "does removing easy access to firearms reduce suicide?"

To do that we MUST compare suicide by firearm to suicide by any other method.

You are not comprehending the data.

According to the ABS suicide in Australia has fallen by 22% since 2000.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent,"

This says suicide using a firearm dropped by 80%.

" with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates"

This says that those 80% did not use other methods.

farson135:
First of all this study has already lost all of its credibility the second it used the term Assault Rifle in reference to the Assault Weapons ban.

You did not read it did you?

Please quote where the Director of Research for the Police Executive Research Forum use the term 'Assualt Rifle' incorrectly.

Becasue you do realise that Assault Weapons are divided (by US government legal definition)into 'Assualt rifles (AR)' and 'Assualt pistols (AP)'?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

farson135:
Beyond that I did not see them actually explain the rationale behind banning barrel shrouds, bayonet mounds, pistol grips (aside from that Hollywood lie), flash hiders, and telescoping stocks. If it is there tell me what page.

Page 4

Ban advocates stress the importance of pistol grips on rifles and heat shrouds or forward handgrips on pistols, which in combination with large ammunition magazines enable shooters to discharge high numbers of bullets rapidly (in a "spray fire" fashion) while maintaining control of the firearm

Page 6

The ban is directed at semiautomatic firearms having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a "features test" provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features.

That particular bill did in fact fail. After it failed, many states actually relaxed their firearms laws. My state (Kansas) passed a bill soon after allowing Class III weapons and devices (full-auto rifles/handguns/SBRs and suppressors).

reonhato:

farson135:

reonhato:
ok im not going to bother replying to your other stuff because it is like bashing my head against a brick wall.

Or the more likely thing is that you knew you could not defeat me so you decided to go with something you thought you could win. Surprise surprise you are still wrong.

800 bucks now compared to 300 in the 80s is within inflation

No it is not. He bought it in 1987 and by current prices his $300 becomes a little under $600 today. In other words the same gun (used no less) costs a little more than $200 more than it did (new) in the 80s.

you cannot defeat someone who does not recognize what defeat is. even if as you say this person bought the gun in 87, and remember we only have your word on this, there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

Or that there is demand, and the supplier feels they can get away with jacking up prices without losing sales.

My FN Five-SeveN cost me ~$845 when I bought it about three years ago. Now they retail at about $1200.

Firearms are better than bonds. They almost always increase in value, and the more unusual they are, the more likely they are to be worth money later - hence my WWII collection.

tsb247:
That particular bill did in fact fail. After it failed, many states actually relaxed their firearms laws. My state (Kansas) passed a bill soon after allowing Class III weapons and devices (full-auto rifles/handguns/SBRs and suppressors).

To be picky, it did not 'fail' as much as 'expire'....

That is there was a ban on assault weapons but it ran out in 2004.

The AWB, or the 'Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act' of 1994, had a 10 year sunset (ran out after 10 years).

Of the 3 studies into I have read, 2 show some reduction in violent crime (including the most unbiased, which I have already linked).

TechNoFear:
"Correlation does not imply causation"

Nor did I mean to imply otherwise. As I have said many times there are many socio-economic elements that go into suicide and crime.

Sorry if I prefer 8 peer reviewed studies conducted by trained scientists than some unsubstantiated numbers posted on a forum.

The numbers I used are from a peer reviewed study from the Melbourne Institute -http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp2008n17.pdf

Because we are looking at the effect; "does removing easy access to firearms reduce suicide?"

To do that we MUST compare suicide by firearm to suicide by any other method.

You are not comprehending the data.

You keep saying that the number of GUN suicides are going down but the number of GUN suicides is irrelevant in comparison to the number of suicides. If the number of gun suicides go down but the number of suicides stay the same then why do argue that the situation has improved?

According to the ABS suicide in Australia has fallen by 22% since 2000 despite the increase in population.

And that is because of what? If guns are the cause of suicides then wouldn't the suicide rate have dropped off and remained about the same since the gun buybacks? Why is it dropping? Because of other socio-economic issues.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent,"

This says suicide using a firearm dropped by 80%.

" with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates"

This says that those 80% did not use other methods.

When, where, why, and how. Answer the methodology or post the source.

You did not read it did you?

In its entirety, no. But I skimmed the important parts. Did you read the whole thing?

Nor do you actually know what the term 'Assault Weapon' means.

Assault weapon is any semi-automatic firearm with a detectible box magazine or fixed magazine with more than 10 round capacity. The rifle must have 1-2 (depending on the bill) features. In addition certain firearms are added by name.

Please quote where the Director of Research for the Police Executive Research Forum uses the term 'Assault Rifle' incorrectly.

Are you talking about the paper? If so right here- "Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." Page-7

You do realise that "Assault Weapons (AW)" are divided (by US government legal definition) into 'Assault Rifles (AR)' and 'Assault Pistols (AP)'?

No they are not. An assault rifle has a specific definition that is used by the military. Specifically it is any rifle that has a selector switch, an intermediate rifle round, and a detachable magazine. The AWB does not cover ANY firearm that has a selector switch so therefore it does not cover assault rifles. Congratulations you continue to prove your ignorance of firearms.

BTW that text you provided did not even use the term assault rifle.

Ban advocates stress the importance of pistol grips on rifles and heat shrouds or forward handgrips on pistols, which in combination with large ammunition magazines enable shooters to discharge high numbers of bullets rapidly (in a "spray fire" fashion) while maintaining control of the firearm

As I told you it is a myth portrayed by Hollywood that pistol grips make spraying fire easier.

The ban is directed at semiautomatic firearms having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a "features test" provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features.

Simply stating they are not useful is not an argument.

Some flash hiders help deaden muzzle sound and decrease jump. That sounds useful to a civilian. Folding stocks are used to ease of storage and silencers are used by people with close neighbors so that they do not disturb them.

There are manu other references but you appear not to actually read much, so I have only provided the first 2.

In other words you could not find the others so you are just making excuses to save face. Kid, it is not shameful to admit you are beaten by someone who quite literally makes a living around the thing you are ignorant about. What is shameful is your continuing attitude where you degrade people who know what they are talking about after you have been beaten.

reonhato:
there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

They still make it and have in fact increase production since last year (due to a reintroduction of certain models). Congratulations you are wrong again.

Keep in mind kid I did not give a reason I simply stated a true fact. Specifically that the price of firearms is going up despite what that study said.

TechNoFear:

To be picky, it did not 'fail' as much as 'expire'....

That is there was a ban on assault weapons but it ran out in 2004.

The AWB, or the 'Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act' of 1994, had a 10 year sunset (ran out after 10 years).

They tried and failed to reintroduce it (they even tried to put in a harsher bill) but it failed to pass. Look up AWB of 2007.

Of the 3 studies into I have read, 2 show some reduction in violent crime (including the most unbiased, which I have already linked).

The one you linked stated that the "reduction" was minimal. In fact violent crime is still going down in the US despite the sunset of the AWB and the increase in CHL states and the overall increase in gun sales. In other words socio-economic conditions still seem the most likely reason for decrease in violent crime.

farson135:

reonhato:
there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

They still make it and have in fact increase production since last year (due to a reintroduction of certain models). Congratulations you are wrong again.

Keep in mind kid I did not give a reason I simply stated a true fact. Specifically that the price of firearms is going up despite what that study said.

yep one personal instance in which no one can actually disprove makes an entire study worthless. then again some guy going hey guys you will never believe this shit is basically how our modern religions started.

farson135:

TechNoFear:
"Correlation does not imply causation"

The numbers I used are from a peer reviewed study from the Melbourne Institute -http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp2008n17.pdf

Once again, that study has been heavily criticized among academics. I mean seriously, it comes from the Economic Department.

Because we are looking at the effect; "does removing easy access to firearms reduce suicide?"

To do that we MUST compare suicide by firearm to suicide by any other method.

You are not comprehending the data.

You keep saying that the number of GUN suicides are going down but the number of GUN suicides is irrelevant in comparison to the number of suicides. If the number of gun suicides go down but the number of suicides stay the same then why do argue that the situation has improved?

According to the ABS suicide in Australia has fallen by 22% since 2000 despite the increase in population.

And that is because of what? If guns are the cause of suicides then wouldn't the suicide rate have dropped off and remained about the same since the gun buybacks? Why is it dropping? Because of other socio-economic issues.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent,"

This says suicide using a firearm dropped by 80%.

" with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates"

This says that those 80% did not use other methods.

When, where, why, and how. Answer the methodology or post the source.

You did not read it did you?

In its entirety, no. But I skimmed the important parts. Did you read the whole thing?

Multiple studies have been posted that conclude the gun ban helped reduce suicide. You lean on a single study that has been heavily criticized and came from a freaking Economic Department.

Nor do you actually know what the term 'Assault Weapon' means.

Assault weapon is any semi-automatic firearm with a detectible box magazine or fixed magazine with more than 10 round capacity. The rifle must have 1-2 (depending on the bill) features. In addition certain firearms are added by name.

Please quote where the Director of Research for the Police Executive Research Forum uses the term 'Assault Rifle' incorrectly.

Are you talking about the paper? If so right here- "Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." Page-7

You do realise that "Assault Weapons (AW)" are divided (by US government legal definition) into 'Assault Rifles (AR)' and 'Assault Pistols (AP)'?

No they are not. An assault rifle has a specific definition that is used by the military. Specifically it is any rifle that has a selector switch, an intermediate rifle round, and a detachable magazine. The AWB does not cover ANY firearm that has a selector switch so therefore it does not cover assault rifles. Congratulations you continue to prove your ignorance of firearms.

BTW that text you provided did not even use the term assault rifle.

The legislation clearly makes a distinction between rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Ban advocates stress the importance of pistol grips on rifles and heat shrouds or forward handgrips on pistols, which in combination with large ammunition magazines enable shooters to discharge high numbers of bullets rapidly (in a "spray fire" fashion) while maintaining control of the firearm

As I told you it is a myth portrayed by Hollywood that pistol grips make spraying fire easier.

It is not a myth, it is about comfort. A lot of people are a lot more comfortable using a pistol grip, which in turn allows them to control the weapon easier. A lot of it does come down to the design of the rifle though. Some designs are easier to handle with a pistol grip, others are not. I don't know anyone that claims having a pistol grip magically makes it easier to maintain control of the weapon, the claim is that a comfortable firing position allows better control.

The ban is directed at semiautomatic firearms having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a "features test" provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features.

Simply stating they are not useful is not an argument.

Some flash hiders help deaden muzzle sound and decrease jump. That sounds useful to a civilian. Folding stocks are used to ease of storage and silencers are used by people with close neighbors so that they do not disturb them.

What kind of fucking crazy nut is firing a weapon in a residential area. Even in most of the US it is illegal.

There are manu other references but you appear not to actually read much, so I have only provided the first 2.

In other words you could not find the others so you are just making excuses to save face. Kid, it is not shameful to admit you are beaten by someone who quite literally makes a living around the thing you are ignorant about. What is shameful is your continuing attitude where you degrade people who know what they are talking about after you have been beaten.[/quote]

Congratulations, you now how to fire a gun. So does most of America, that doesn't make you special. What would make you special among gun nuts is if you could read the 95% of studies that reach conclusions that go against what you believe.

reonhato:
yep one personal instance in which no one can actually disprove makes an entire study worthless. then again some guy going hey guys you will never believe this shit is basically how our modern religions started.

Fine let me simplify it. Kid, firearm prices are going up, I have seen it myself and have heard about it for years. Unless you have something that proves otherwise I will go with what I have seen on the market.

farson135:
If the number of gun suicides go down but the number of suicides stay the same then why do argue that the situation has improved?

But the number of suicides went down by 22%, not remained the same, so clearly the situation has improved.

What lead to this reduction in suicides?

A 80% reduction in firearm suicides.

8 studies into this effect ALL found that the Australian Gun buy back resulted in 2 effects;
reduction in suicides
reduction in mass killings

farson135:
When, where, why, and how. Answer the methodology or post the source.

I did, it is the latest Australian study (2 years after the L&S you posted) and uses data from after the handgun ban in 2003 (which L&S did not, their data stopping in 2004).

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

farson135:
If so right here- "Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." Page-7

Are you being obstreperous or ignorant?

It is a 'legal' definition (which is much more stringent in range and language), not a coloquial definition (which you keep using).

It is used to distinguish between firearms such as a MAC10, SPAS 12 and a AR10, which were all subject to the AWB but are clearly different types of firearms.

farson135:
BTW that text you provided did not even use the term assault rifle.

If you read the definition carefully you would see it divides AWs into a number of groups.

Group 'A' are rifles (ie AKs), group 'B' are pistols (ie MAC10) and group 'C' is shotguns (ie SPAS 12).

Semantically it is therefore correct to use 'assault pistol' and 'assault rifle' to contrast different 'groups' of 'assault weapons' banned under the AWB (and ensure the reader does not confuse them with 'normal rifles' and 'normal pistols').

farson135:
silencers are used by people with close neighbors so that they do not disturb them.

LOL!

farson135:
silencers are used by people with close neighbors so that they do not disturb them.

Suppressors (not silencers as they really don't silence shit) slightly reduce the decibal level. Forget what you've seen in movies, it's not a little whisper. Your close neighbors will still be bothered. http://youtu.be/qZU5TGljAmw

There have been a few silenced weapons, but these all had integrated silencers

pyrate:
Once again, that study has been heavily criticized among academics. I mean seriously, it comes from the Economic Department.

A study that talks about a controversial issue is controversial? Fancy that. BTW who better than economists to study non-theoretical numbers? It is what they do.

Multiple studies have been posted that conclude the gun ban helped reduce suicide. You lean on a single study that has been heavily criticized and came from a freaking Economic Department.

Have you ever wondered why? I mean the why on anything. After all you continue to ignore my questions as to why. Why is suicide going down in the US if the number of guns is increasing? Why is suicide in Australia continuing to go down despite the gun buyback happening years ago? Why exactly is the presence of guns more important than every single socio-economic issue? How about you answer those questions. Studies have limited ranges. If a study is meant to study the effects of gun control they will look at gun control and not the overall picture. The overall picture is what is important.

The legislation clearly makes a distinction between rifles, pistols and shotguns.

But the legislation does not use the term assault rifle. Once again assault rifle is a military term that is occasionally misused (as it was in that study) but that does not change its meaning.

It is not a myth, it is about comfort. A lot of people are a lot more comfortable using a pistol grip, which in turn allows them to control the weapon easier. A lot of it does come down to the design of the rifle though. Some designs are easier to handle with a pistol grip, others are not. I don't know anyone that claims having a pistol grip magically makes it easier to maintain control of the weapon, the claim is that a comfortable firing position allows better control.

What you said is not a myth but the idea that "spray firing" is easier with a pistol grip is a myth and that is what the study said.

What kind of fucking crazy nut is firing a weapon in a residential area. Even in most of the US it is illegal.

The sound of shots carry. On a clear day you can hear a .22 from miles away. Even in rural areas if you set up a range and it is somewhat close to a person's house a silencer is simply polite. Why don't you calm the fuck down and stop jumping to conclusions.

Congratulations, you now how to fire a gun. So does most of America,

Not even close.

that doesn't make you special.

Actually what makes me special is that I am a certified Range Safety Officer. I am a nationally ranked marksman with several thousand hours of training under my belt. I have shot local, state, and even a few national level competitions for 3 position rifle, USPSA, and others. I have been trained by several Olympic, Junior Olympic, and NCAA shooters. In addition I am a hunter, I been shooting for more than a decade. In addition I am a licensed FFL gunsmith. Also I occasionally help some friends of mine on their range and another friend in his self defense classes.

What would make you special among gun nuts is if you could read the 95% of studies that reach conclusions that go against what you believe.

Could read? I read them but unfortunately for y'all they do not say what you want them to say. What would be nice is if y'all would realize that guns are tools and their presence does not cause anything. If guns cause suicide then why does Japan have one of the highest suicide rates on earth? Because of socio-economic issues that go beyond guns. If guns cause homicide then why does Switzerland have such a low number of murders? Because of socio-economic issues that go beyond guns. I could go on if you like. Y'all argue the same thing but for some reason you refuse to apply it to the US. I have heard many people state that Switzerland has different issues than the US. That is true BUT WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING IT WHEN IT HURTS YOUR CAUSE?

BTW 95% of studies go against my views? I would love to see you prove that.

usmarine4160:

farson135:
silencers are used by people with close neighbors so that they do not disturb them.

Suppressors (not silencers as they really don't silence shit) slightly reduce the decibal level. Forget what you've seen in movies, it's not a little whisper. Your close neighbors will still be bothered. http://youtu.be/qZU5TGljAmw

There have been a few silenced weapons, but these all had integrated silencers

Silencers and suppressor are the same thing. The name might not be very descriptive but it is still the name. BTW people DO use suppressors (happy now) on personal ranges. Imagine you are out in the country and you have neighbors relatively close by. A suppressor can be used (and regularly is) out of simple politeness.

I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

TechNoFear:

But the number of suicides went down by 22%, not remained the same, so clearly the situation has improved.

What lead to this reduction in suicides?

A 80% reduction in firearm suicides.

Really? Suicides are going down in the US. Are you going to try and argue that the number of guns is decreasing in the US? Correlation does not equal causality.

I did, it is the latest Australian study (2 years after the L&S you posted) and uses data from after the handgun ban in 2003 (which L&S did not, their data stopping in 2004).

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

I love this part- "There are a number of studies that have found a positive relationship between firearms ownership and firearms deaths using variation across countries or across regions within a country (e.g. Killias 1993). However, it is possible that this does not reflect a causal pattern (Duggan 2001). Cultural, legislative, or socio-economic factors in particular jurisdictions could explain both high gun ownership rates and high firearm death rates."
And
"Moreover, there is little agreement in the literature as to an appropriate empirical model of either homicide or suicide rates, making it difficult to be sure that all relevant socio-economic factors have been addressed, and therefore that estimates of the effect of firearms availability on death rates reflect a causal relationship."
And
"Duggan (2001) notes that a lack of reliable data on gun ownership makes many of these studies rather difficult to rely on. He uses subscriptions to gun magazines (which he shows are closely correlated with firearm ownership) as a proxy for firearm ownership. Cook and Ludwig (2006) and Bridges and Kunselman (2004) use the percentage of either suicide or accidental deaths that are due to firearms as a proxy for firearm availability."

And
"Finally, the results from such studies may be contaminated by the endogeneity of firearm
ownership. For example, in jurisdictions with higher rates of violent crime, individuals may be
more likely to own a firearm to protect themselves. In this case, firearms ownership may merely
reflect current crime rates or expectations of future crime rates."

And
"A problem with studies of national gun control law changes that rely on time series variation
is that it is impossible to distinguish between two factors, both of which may be important: (1) the effects of socio-economic or other policy changes on all suicides or homicides; and (2) method 9 substitution.6 Unless it is possible to control for all conceivable time-varying shocks, it is not feasible to control for (1) and thus identify (2)."
And
"It is also clear from Figure 1 that firearm deaths have been falling on a consistent basis in
recent decades, while a similar trend is not as clear in the case of non-firearm deaths."
And
"Non-firearm suicides, on the other hand, have remained relatively high compared to
historical averages, despite declines in the early-2000s. The increase in non-firearm suicides from 1996 to 1998 is noteworthy, since some commentators (for instance, Baker and McPhedran, 2007) have pointed to this as possible evidence of substitution from guns to other methods of suicide following the gun buyback. Non-firearm homicides have likewise remained relatively high compared to long-run historical averages, although they appear to have dropped sharply since 2004."
And
"Although the NFA buyback targeted firearms that were of the type that had been commonly used in crimes, an important feature of the buyback is that very few of the firearms handed in to police were military-style automatic-fire weapons. For the state of Victoria (the only jurisdiction to provide a breakdown of the types of guns handed in), Reuter and Mouzos (2003) report that nearly half of the guns were .22 caliber rifles, and almost all the remainder were shotguns. Less than one in 1000 of the weapons handed back in Victoria was an automatic."
And
"While the time series evidence suggests that the NFA reduced gun deaths (Chapman et al. 2006; Ozanne-Smith et al. 2004), it suffers from the lack of a credible control group, or of a fully specified model of the determinants of suicide and homicide."
And
"There is a question as to whether it is reasonable to suggest that a withdrawal of about 20 per cent of the stock of firearms could have plausibly led to drops of about 74 per cent in the firearm suicide rate, and perhaps 35 to 50 per cent in firearm homicide rates. It should be noted that the standard errors on these estimates are fairly large, so that estimates of the declines in firearm homicide rates are usually not statistically significantly distinguishable from no effect"

Looking at the graphs:
Both firearm and non-firearm suicide went down. Socio-economic issues anyone?
Both firearm and non-firearm homicide went down. Socio-economic issues anyone?

Wow, it looks like the study is not quite as conclusive as you say. Fancy that.

It is a 'legal' definition (which is much more stringent in range and language), not a coloquial definition (which you keep using).

What legal definition? The definition I am using is the one used by the military because it is the military who came up with the term.

It is used to distinguish between firearms such as a MAC10, SPAS 12 and a AR10, which were all subject to the AWB but are clearly different types of firearms.

None of those things is an assault rifle because none of them have a selector switch.

If you read the definition carefully you would see it divides AWs into a number of groups.

Group 'A' are rifles (ie AKs), group 'B' are pistols (ie MAC10) and group 'C' is shotguns (ie SPAS 12).

Semantically it is therefore correct to use 'assault pistol' and 'assault rifle' to contrast different 'groups' of 'assault weapons' banned under the AWB (and ensure the reader does not confuse them with 'normal rifles' and 'normal pistols').

No, because there already is a definition for assault rifle. If you add another one to the jargon people get confused, especially since it is in reference to similar things. Assault weapon is a made up term that came looong after the term assault rifle came into being. If you do not like it then find another term (the term assault weapon is stupid anyway).

LOL!

Are you laughing because you are surprised or because you think I am lying? Have fun-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Other_advantages and http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=632412&highlight=silencer

farson135:
[snip]

You keep ignoring or misunderstanding basic concepts that are required to fully debate the topic at hand.

You appear to be confused that 'assault rifle' can have a colloquial meaning (or 'military' as you put it) AND slightly different 'legal' meaning when defined in the AWB laws.

Or that the government study on the AWB used the legal meaning (as defined in the AWB), not the 'military' meaning.

You then use this confusion to dismiss an entire study.

You list parts of L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" study where it explains why it used a particular methodology to examine a given data point, as if that invalidates the study. (You are taking small parts of the study out of context and not comprehending the entirety.)

You repeatedly fail to understand that the scientific studies do not look at the raw data but use complex mathematics to analyse trends in data.

For example;

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? pg 23:
The regression here, then, is:

Dst = + Gspost97t + Ss + Yt + st

where Gspost97t is the number of guns bought back per 100,000 population in the state, Ss is a full set of state fixed effects, Yt is a full set of year fixed effects, and is an IID error term.
We include a vector of socio-economic variables in some specifications, including the unemployment rate, the percentage of the population that is living in an urban area, the proportion aged 20-24, and the share aged over 65.

There are number of definitions for 'regression' and 'vector'.

As to if L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" reached a definite conclusion;

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?:
We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

TechNoFear:

farson135:
[snip]

You keep ignoring or misunderstanding basic concepts that are required to fully debate the topic at hand.

You appear to be confused that 'assault rifle' can have a colloquial meaning (or 'military' as you put it) AND slightly different 'legal' meaning when defined in the AWB laws.

Or that the government study on the AWB used the legal meaning (as defined in the AWB), not the 'military' meaning.

You then use this confusion to dismiss an entire study.

You list parts of L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" study where it explains why it used a particular methodology to examine a given data point, as if that invalidates the study. (You are taking small parts of the study out of context and not comprehending the entirety.)

You repeatedly fail to understand that the scientific studies do not look at the raw data but use complex mathematics to analyse trends in data.

For example;

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? pg 23:
The regression here, then, is:

Dst = + Gspost97t + Ss + Yt + st

where Gspost97t is the number of guns bought back per 100,000 population in the state, Ss is a full set of state fixed effects, Yt is a full set of year fixed effects, and is an IID error term.
We include a vector of socio-economic variables in some specifications, including the unemployment rate, the percentage of the population that is living in an urban area, the proportion aged 20-24, and the share aged over 65.

There are number of definitions for 'regression' and 'vector'.

As to if L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" reached a definite conclusion;

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?:
We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

It is why arguing with any far right wing american is pretty pointless, they do this for everything they argue about. They see the world in a simplified black and white and anything that seems to break their view of the world is wrong, it is simply lies from the liberals. What they fail to understand is that Colbert was absolutely right when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias".

TechNoFear:

tsb247:
That particular bill did in fact fail. After it failed, many states actually relaxed their firearms laws. My state (Kansas) passed a bill soon after allowing Class III weapons and devices (full-auto rifles/handguns/SBRs and suppressors).

To be picky, it did not 'fail' as much as 'expire'....

That is there was a ban on assault weapons but it ran out in 2004.

The AWB, or the 'Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act' of 1994, had a 10 year sunset (ran out after 10 years).

Of the 3 studies into I have read, 2 show some reduction in violent crime (including the most unbiased, which I have already linked).

No, the bill you linked was the 2007 effort to reinstate the, "Assault Weapons," ban that expired in 2004. Note the text:

"H.R.1022 -- Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 1022 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007"

The bill never got support because 1.) It is political suicide to vote a bill like this into law (as was shown after the ban of 1994), and 2.) The Supreme Court would have tossed it out given their recent rulings on firearms.

In short, the link you posted was the bill to reinstate the ban that never got enough support to pass. It had new wording and some different information, but it was, in fact, the same bill and it did fail to pass; not, "Expire," as you put it.

The ban expired in 2004. All attempts to reinstate it thusfar have failed - for good reason.

pyrate:

It is why arguing with any far right wing american is pretty pointless, they do this for everything they argue about. They see the world in a simplified black and white and anything that seems to break their view of the world is wrong, it is simply lies from the liberals. What they fail to understand is that Colbert was absolutely right when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias".

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? Farson135 has raised plenty of valid points, cited just as many (if not more) studies, and you ignore those handily enough yourself.

Colbert is incorrect. Reality is not polarized in any direction.

EDIT: You also seem to have the (false) notion that only conservatives value the Second Amendment in the U.S. That is not necessarily the case either.

EDIT 2: This also looks like a veiled ad hominem i.e. an attack on his character in an attempt to invalidate any and all of his arguments. Way to sink to the lowest level of debate!

tsb247:

reonhato:

farson135:

Or the more likely thing is that you knew you could not defeat me so you decided to go with something you thought you could win. Surprise surprise you are still wrong.

No it is not. He bought it in 1987 and by current prices his $300 becomes a little under $600 today. In other words the same gun (used no less) costs a little more than $200 more than it did (new) in the 80s.

you cannot defeat someone who does not recognize what defeat is. even if as you say this person bought the gun in 87, and remember we only have your word on this, there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

Or that there is demand, and the supplier feels they can get away with jacking up prices without losing sales.

My FN Five-SeveN cost me ~$845 when I bought it about three years ago. Now they retail at about $1200.

Firearms are better than bonds. They almost always increase in value, and the more unusual they are, the more likely they are to be worth money later - hence my WWII collection.

Well, also gun sales have been going through the roof as of late because of a fear of future bans, since as of yet the US government hasn't been able to win ANY case where they tried to take any object from a person that was bought when it was legal. Thus, the laws of supply and demand are kicking in and making guns more expensive as more and more people demand more from the market.

Thus, gun control is putting more gun on the street.

Congradulations gun control. :P

farson135:

blind_dead_mcjones:

what exactly is done in regards to gun regulation (by that i specifically mean dealing with the large number of illegal firearms in circulation) that you know of? and what exactly could be done in your opinion to improve on that? (be it through legislative means or other means)

Nothing is being done, aside from the occasional arrest. The best thing would be to stop making idiotic gun laws. Keep in mind that things only become illegal when there is a law to make them as such. There was a case in New Jersey where a man named Brian Aitken (at the time a resident of Colorado) purchased several firearms IN Colorado but later decided to move to New Jersey. He was charged with illegal transportation of firearms despite the fact that he actually followed New Jerseys law to the letter. In other words police and even regular people (since the jury had no idea either) do not understand their own laws which is a recipe for abuse. BTW Aitken was later pardoned- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

And the gun law problems are not just about ignorance either. Think about this, a Ruger Mini 30 is legal to own in New Jersey (NJ) unless you add a pistol grip and a telescoping stock. So in other words the SAME rifle becomes illegal if you add accessories to it. There are probably thousands of guns out there that are illegal because someone thought it would be cool to add a pistol grip. Then there are the out and out bans on some rifles like the m1 Garand which is illegal because it is semi-automatic, it has a detachable magazine (NO IT FUCKING DOESNT IT HAS A DETACHABLE CLIP YOU IGNORANT FOOLS), a bayonet mount (to prevent all those drive by bayonetings we have been having as of late), and a barrel shroud (a barrel shroud is simply a piece of metal, wood, or plastic that fits around the barrel of a gun so you can grip that area without burning your hand). The m1 Garand is a common rifle and very popular amongst ww2 and Korean War veterans. Right now there are probably a few m1 Garands hidden in someone's attic (BTW this is not unheard of) just waiting for the police to raid and add an "assault weapons" charge onto whatever else they were going to be charged with.

In case you cannot tell, what I am getting at is that the illegal gun problem is not as massive as our lawmakers would like you to believe. In fact most of the "problems" are self manufactured due to reactionary policies. As for other illegal guns there really isn't anything that can be done. Most illegal guns (as in machine guns) are coming across the US/Mexico border. We can tighten security but that won't mean much for the guns already here and the only way to get rid of them is just find them and take them away.

Trying to tighten security across the Mexican/American is both VERY expensive and rather futile effort. And the standard construction of the wall (the last extension cost around 60 BILLION dollars to add about 200 miles of fencing, still leaving the majority of the border completely open) can be beaten within ten minutes with anybody with a shovel, some decent clippers, or a shirt and a running start. They can NEVER stop the flow of illegal guns.

Not G. Ivingname:

tsb247:

reonhato:

you cannot defeat someone who does not recognize what defeat is. even if as you say this person bought the gun in 87, and remember we only have your word on this, there are many reasons why a single product could cost more 25 years later. the obvious one being they either do not make it any more or make much fewer.

Or that there is demand, and the supplier feels they can get away with jacking up prices without losing sales.

My FN Five-SeveN cost me ~$845 when I bought it about three years ago. Now they retail at about $1200.

Firearms are better than bonds. They almost always increase in value, and the more unusual they are, the more likely they are to be worth money later - hence my WWII collection.

Well, also gun sales have been going through the roof as of late because of a fear of future bans, since as of yet the US government hasn't been able to win ANY case where they tried to take any object from a person that was bought when it was legal. Thus, the laws of supply and demand are kicking in and making guns more expensive as more and more people demand more from the market.

Thus, gun control is putting more gun on the street.

Congradulations gun control. :P

That too...

However, I do not have any real fear of a ban at this time.

TechNoFear:

You appear to be confused that 'assault rifle' can have a colloquial meaning (or 'military' as you put it) AND slightly different 'legal' meaning when defined in the AWB laws.

Tell me what the legal meaning of assault rifle is.

Or that the government study on the AWB used the legal meaning (as defined in the AWB), not the 'military' meaning.

WHAT LEGAL MEANING. I have never seen a "legal" definition for assault rifle in the US. You know why? Because it does not exist. There is the military meaning and the colloquial meaning that Y'ALL are using.

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._.22Assault_weapons.22
and here
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html (look at the definition section)

You then use this confusion to dismiss an entire study.

I used the FACT that they are using terms incorrectly to conclude that the study is sloppily put together and therefore is barely worth my time.

You list parts of L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" study where it explains why it used a particular methodology to examine a given data point, as if that invalidates the study. (You are taking small parts of the study out of context and not comprehending the entirety.)

I never said it invalidates the study just that it validates what I have been saying (and what you have been ignoring) all along. Specifically that socio-economic factors go into homicide and suicide and studies are unable to FULLY grasp all of those issues especially when their primary topic is a specific (mostly irrelevant) topic like gun control.

You repeatedly fail to understand that the scientific studies do not look at the raw data but use complex mathematics to analyse trends in data.

And? Where exactly did I say otherwise? Are you just pulling more stuff out of your ass? Or are you hoping that this ensures you do not have to answer the question. Specifically why suicide is going down in the US when the number of guns is going up. BTW population increases are occurring in states with high numbers of guns and are in fact shrinking or staying about the same in states without guns. Kid, if you cannot answer the question then just admit it, the fact is that suicide is going down in the US despite the increasing number of guns and in Australia BOTH firearm and non-firearm suicide are going down (according to your study) once again implying a socio-economic shift.

As to if L&N's "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?" reached a definite conclusion;

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?:
We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

THEY reached a conclusion but the conclusion is not nearly as CONCLUSIVE as you would like to believe. Kid get off your high horse and listen to what people are telling you. Socio-economic factors are more important to the presence of crime and suicide than the presence of an object.

BTW FIREARM suicide rates are irrelevant without looking at ALL suicide rates. More statistical manipulation. Look at their graph, all forms of suicide are dropping and in fact firearm suicides had been dropping for years (which they said in the paper) and non-firearm suicides went up and then started dropping. The graph is on page 42, have fun.

pyrate:

It is why arguing with any far right wing american is pretty pointless, they do this for everything they argue about. They see the world in a simplified black and white and anything that seems to break their view of the world is wrong, it is simply lies from the liberals. What they fail to understand is that Colbert was absolutely right when he said "reality has a well known liberal bias".

First of all, way to pigeon hole millions of people. I can already see how fruitful discussions with you will be.

Second of all YOU state that the presence of an object is more important than every socio-economic and cultural element present in a society when it comes to determining crime and suicide. It seems more like y'all are taking to more black and white road by stating that firearms equal suicide and crime. That is about as black and white as you can get. Of course I do not expect you to acknowledge this point because doing so would invalidate large portions of your arguments. I would ask you to come up with better arguments but apparently "socio-economic elements are irrelevant" is the best y'all can do.

Third I am a Classical Liberal and my Democratic Senator has an A- rating from the NRA (kind of hurts your ability to pigeon hole millions of people).

Kid, grow up and stop acting so obtuse.

Not G. Ivingname:

Trying to tighten security across the Mexican/American is both VERY expensive and rather futile effort. And the standard construction of the wall (the last extension cost around 60 BILLION dollars to add about 200 miles of fencing, still leaving the majority of the border completely open) can be beaten within ten minutes with anybody with a shovel, some decent clippers, or a shirt and a running start. They can NEVER stop the flow of illegal guns.

Of course the current methods are too expensive. I simply wanted to exhaust all options. And to stop the SOME guns coming from Mexico, I think (aside from an invasion of Mexico which would be counterproductive) increasing border security is about all the US government can do. But as I said you would only stop some of them.

tsb247:

Not G. Ivingname:

tsb247:

Or that there is demand, and the supplier feels they can get away with jacking up prices without losing sales.

My FN Five-SeveN cost me ~$845 when I bought it about three years ago. Now they retail at about $1200.

Firearms are better than bonds. They almost always increase in value, and the more unusual they are, the more likely they are to be worth money later - hence my WWII collection.

Well, also gun sales have been going through the roof as of late because of a fear of future bans, since as of yet the US government hasn't been able to win ANY case where they tried to take any object from a person that was bought when it was legal. Thus, the laws of supply and demand are kicking in and making guns more expensive as more and more people demand more from the market.

Thus, gun control is putting more gun on the street.

Congradulations gun control. :P

That too...

However, I do not have any real fear of a ban at this time.

Right now, gun control appears to be political suicide. Obama's statements have been a bit contraditctory on the matter, but even though his opinion on gun ownership is somewhere between "restrictive" and "should be none," he hasn't been able to move on it just because how unpopular it is currently. Gun control is starting to lose both it's ground and it's allies fast, and the future for this one freedom seams a little brighter than it is now.

If only I could say that about the rest of them. :(

farson135:

TechNoFear:

You appear to be confused that 'assault rifle' can have a colloquial meaning (or 'military' as you put it) AND slightly different 'legal' meaning when defined in the AWB laws.

Tell me what the legal meaning of assault rifle is.

Or that the government study on the AWB used the legal meaning (as defined in the AWB), not the 'military' meaning.

WHAT LEGAL MEANING. I have never seen a "legal" definition for assault rifle in the US. You know why? Because it does not exist. There is the military meaning and the colloquial meaning that Y'ALL are using.

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._.22Assault_weapons.22
and here
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html (look at the definition section)

Why wouldn't the military meaning be the legal meaning anyway? I would hope the people who constantly use the weapons KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

Not G. Ivingname:

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

In the United States you can own an automatic weapon (barring belt fed). It's just very expensive and there is extensive paper work. Expect to pay at least $150,000 for the first year.

You can legally own belt fed weapons in the United States provided you have a historical firearms collectors license and the weapon needs to hold some historical value. Also expect to pay out of the ass for that, we have freedom provided you can pay for it ;)

Not G. Ivingname:

Why wouldn't the military meaning be the legal meaning anyway?

Because for there to be a legal definition it has to be defined by law and because there are no laws (that I know of) that specifically mention the definition of assault rifle the military definition will have to do. Unfortunately the colloquial definition used by anti-gun politicians has leaked into the civilian world and now people who know what the definition is have to fight against that bullshit (as you can see on this topic).

usmarine4160:

In the United States you can own an automatic weapon (barring belt fed). It's just very expensive and there is extensive paper work. Expect to pay at least $150,000 for the first year.

Even more when you factor in the cost of the safe and all the hoops the local sheriff may make you jump through. Then once you get the thing ammo costs will just about break the bank for only a few seconds of fire.

usmarine4160:
Also expect to pay out of the ass for that, we have freedom provided you can pay for it ;)

And of course we need to get rid of "Saturday Night Specials" because the right to keep and bear arms is too fun to be retained by lowly plebs ;).

usmarine4160:

Not G. Ivingname:

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

In the United States you can own an automatic weapon (barring belt fed). It's just very expensive and there is extensive paper work. Expect to pay at least $150,000 for the first year.

You can legally own belt fed weapons in the United States provided you have a historical firearms collectors license and the weapon needs to hold some historical value. Also expect to pay out of the ass for that, we have freedom provided you can pay for it ;)

Hmm...

...

I am about to be brilliant! :D

Let's get the occupiers rallied up against these eltitist laws and force them to make fully automatic guns affordable! :D

Although it might backfire if they strive to make it illegal outright. >_>

Not G. Ivingname:

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

Yeah. It is sort of rare.
And unless you agree I don't think I've ever found anybody else who supports anti-aircraft for militias here haha.

2012 Wont Happen:

Not G. Ivingname:

2012 Wont Happen:
I think that individuals should be able to hold assault rifles and that private militias should be able to hold anti-aircraft weapons.

Wow, somebody else that thinks that we should be able to own fully automatic weapons! :D

We are a rare sight around here. >_>

Yeah. It is sort of rare.
And unless you agree I don't think I've ever found anybody else who supports anti-aircraft for militias here haha.

I'm fine with AA weapons for Militias. They're rather expensive and large, and no one is going to use them to hold up a 7-11

I think it's a sensible, albeit borderline unreasonable right to own firearms.

What's really messed up, is how it's legal to own firearms, but not drugs. And that people defend this.

Furthermore, the type of people who buy firearms in the first place scare me and I'm not sure that I would want them in my home.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked