|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
Healthy young people are assigned to quick reaction and armed patrol units. The old and lame secure infrastructure, maintain communications, care for the wounded or displaced persons.
Quote:
Yeah, it does give everybody at least one thing in common about which they can talk. In a natural disaster scenario, it is, of course, good to know who should be where in your neighborhood. |
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,553
|
I get it ... and it will not do anything to deter improper use of firearms. We take this approach right now in two ways. First, mandatory minimum sentences associated with illegal drugs. You know as well as I do how that's working. Second, in California, we have a three strikes law. It does nothing to deter career criminals and sweeps up petty crime in the process.
But I will tell you what it would accomplish: the cost of the penal system would skyrocket. The USA has the highest prison population (both in terms of absolute number and based on population size). In California, we spend more on prisons that on education. No, draconian sentencing is not a useful element in gun control and the unintended consequences can really bite you in the butt. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,888
|
I'm fully aware that not all of these attacks are without fatalities, but did you actually read the two stories (and I can find others) in one the man killed 8 before bystanders managed to wrestle him to the ground. How many could he have killed had he had a gun? Could the by-standers have wrestled him to the ground had he been wielding a semi-automatic rifle? In the second, there were 28 stabbings, and no fatalies, serveral in serious condition though.
The simple fact is that knives and axes and machettes and the like, while dangerous and capable of killing in the wrong hands, are still less deadly than a gun in the wrong hands. |
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,553
|
Easy. Assuming the murder rate is only driven by gun control laws is silly. The explanation is the inane war on drugs and the ineffective war on poverty. The result is a whole underbelly of society that really isn't part of the society. Without a community, people join gangs and fight turf wars. People kill over drug deals gone bad. People kill because, hey, why not, this life is the pits.
Surprise! ( ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,115
|
I have my own missgivings, but this is all blue-skying anyway.
If they made me the gun law czar, I'd try to weasel my way into decriminalization of drugs across the board too, thus ensuring my imminent removal, probably through a Dallas retirement lunch. Believe me, had I posted this gun law revamp on a gun board, they'd run me out of town on a rail. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,033
|
I got a sack of feathers here, but the cost of tar is off-putting.
![]() The road to hell is paved with good intentions--and people want some feel-good legislation--and all feel-good legislation does, in this case, is turn people like myself and others here on this board into criminals--which is not always good for society. |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
|
Something just occurred to me about one aspect of your suggestions Bstrong (and it's something I suggested earlier too) but am now second guessing.
I worry, that increased penalties on gun crimes to too high a level might end up resulting in more deaths in crimes that might have otherwise left witnesses alive. Criminal commits a gas station robbery, knows that if he's caught he does 10 yrs for the gun, and 25 years for the robbery, kills witnesses to avoid getting caught. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
|
Pretty much that. The data shows that if you excluded the minorities that typically are most effected by drugs and poverty that the deadly assault rates for the rest of the population are both very close to flat and are more than a full 1 per 100,000 less. If you go by region the south is the most likely place for them to occur, another place where drugs and poverty is prevalent.
Shootings like New Town and Aurora are outliers and don't even make a dent in the overall statistics unless you really start to narrow them down, at which point they become ineffective rational excuses for expanding gun controls across the board. They do make great appeals to emotion though. |
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,115
|
That's a real concern, but there's only so many guys doing the stereotyped 211's because people have learned it's easier to walk into a bank (and safer) with a note than taking your chances with somebody who might be armed.
One of the stated concerns of LE when states started passing Shall-Issue was that actors would roll in shooting to counteract citizens carrying concealed. Never happened. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,313
|
Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.
Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. ![]() I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources. The problem with any local gun regulations, be they city, county or state is that anyone can just go buy their guns elsewhere and take them to the place the guns are banned. To be effective a ban has to be federal. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,115
|
Not legally they can't. There is already a federal law on the books (FOPA 1986) the requires an individual to follow the laws of their state of residence wrt firearms purchase or sale while in another state (or local as applicable) Example - a resident of California can not purchase a firearm from an out-of-state FFL dealer or individual directly, even if they were in compliance with the state laws in that local.
The two Supremme Court cases Heller and Mcdonald have put the fork in any chance of a blanket federal ban on firearms in common use. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,888
|
I looked at the data, and as noted above, once you remove the suicide by gun count from the statistics, it's no longer true. As far as assaults with weapons, or accidental shootings, more people get shoot by guns they don't own. Since these thread isn't about self-inflicted wounds, including suicides is not entirely honest.
|
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,208
|
I have a hard time formulating an opinion about gun control when I know so little about gun laws. With 17 threads spawned by the Newton shooting, already, I am not going to start another one but I am not sure where it belongs; I hope I am not derailing.
It has always been my understanding that to purchase a hand gun from a dealer, there is a waiting period and a background check, the details of the requirements will vary from state to state. Is this correct? In order to be able to carry your handgun, you must pass additional tests (I am not sure about the requirements) and some states have an outright ban on carrying. Is this correct? It is to my understanding, though, that buying rifles and shotguns are easier, as in, no background check, no license. Is this correct? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,115
|
State laws do vary, some states adhere to basic federal law wrt purchase, other states (like California) go far beyond the basics.
Laws pertaining to concealed or open carry are all state generated statutes - there is no federal statute addressing the carrying of firearms, although there are fed. laws pertaining to the shipment of firearms including the rules pertaining to traveling by air with firearm(s) In general, a purchase of a handun under federal law requires the purchaser to be 21 or over, not in the prohibited class of individuals (felon, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, user of or addicted to drugs, habitual drunard, dishonerable discharged, under a restraining order, illegal alien, etc) the buyer must fill out a federal form (4473) and have government issued photo ID. The individual purchaser is then run through a federal NICS background check at point of sale, with either an OK, denied or pending results - the pending class usually means that the records searched are incomplete, and the purchaser can provide their SSN# to narrow the search and then pass or be denied based on the background check. In most states, that's it - the individual either leaves with their purchase or is denied. Some states go much farther, California requiring a second proof of residency beyond the DL or ID card, all handguns are registered with the state at point of sale (DROS form Dealers Record of Sale) and there is a "Safe Gun Roster" that lists "Safe" handguns lawful for California sale by licensed dealers - individuals possessing "unsafe" handguns are allowed to sell same as individuals, but licensed (FFL - Federal Firearms Licensee) dealers are barred from selling those handguns from inventory - interestingly, law enforcement officers are exempt from this regulation. In addition, there is a ten day (240 hours down to the exact second, I kid you not) waiting period, also applied to long guns. Under federal law, no background check is required for long guns. Minimum age is 18 for purchase and possession. California requires the same background check and ten day WP- and all long guns will be registered at point of sale as are handguns starting in 2013. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,618
|
It matters not one jot what gun controls are or are not introduced in the USA. There are too many guns out there to be able to control them and too many gun owners who will resist control.
USA culture is the cause of the high rate of homicides and number of mass shootings and that is not going to change any time soon, if at all. |
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.
still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,208
|
Am I misunderstanding that? I am reading that as in they leave with their purchase, if they pass, on the same day of application.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 134
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 241
|
That's parallel to what I, a gun owner, have been arguing for years. However, before we can proceed we need to be clear about how difficult it is to own a firearm in the first place. You have to be 21 to own a handgun in the U.S.; this is a reasonable law. Buying one in my state takes five days without a license, and a couple of hours even with one.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 134
|
That's the problem. This entire debate is allowed to occur when one side is given free license to mislead, misinterpret, and obscure.
Take suicides out of your data set and see what happens. In addition it must be noted that a gun does not have to KILL an intruder to protect a family from being KILLED. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#61 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,208
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,618
|
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,115
|
#1 yes - in most states there is no waiting period after the purchaser passes NICS. #2 -Complicated. Long guns + hacksaw = concealable, but the general idea is that "sportsman" use of firearms is less problematic, and the cardinal rule of gun control real politic is "Don't piss off the Duckhunters!" because some keen waterfowlers can write out a 100K $ check to your opponent next election cycle if you do so. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
On the contrary, there are many controls in place, and millions of gun owners take the responsibility to abide by the legal requirements. The gun controls are such that several seemingly benign activities we choose to participate in present a greater risk of injury or death than guns, gun owners, or gun oriented activities. But when someone tries to point out the greater risks we all accept every moment of our lives, to put the gun issue in some kind of broader perspective, gun opponents are often quick and certain to reject objective reality in favor of clinging to a subjective fear. When I buy a handgun I have to wait three days after the purchase before I can take the gun home. That's so I don't buy a gun in a fit of rage and go kill my neighbor because his dog pees in my garden. Cooling off period, you know. But even if I go to the gun store to pick up a gun I bought three days ago, have the gun in my hand, ready to carry it out of there legally, a gun that I could use to shoot my neighbor, I can't buy another gun right then and there and take it home, too. I have to wait three days to pick up that other gun, even though I clearly could use the one I am taking home today. Silly? Sure. We do it because there are people who are so scared of guns that the regulation, silly as it is, gives them some peace of mind. There's an issue here that the gun opponents seem reluctant to address. At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear? We already have regulations that accommodate their fear but have little objective rationale. For example, the idea of banning "assault weapons" is specifically designed to assuage the fear of people who don't understand guns, the machinery itself, the existing regulations, or the social dynamics that might put them at risk. The term "assault weapon" is intentionally loaded to work on the fearful. So at what point along the way do we just accept that some people will be scared and we shouldn't have to coddle them any further? When we have regulations which are not based on objective reality but are put in place to make the fearful comfy? We're already there. The overwhelming majority of gun owners, although many may grumble at having to treat adult human beings like scared little kids, do abide by the rules and accept them as they stand. How far beyond that should we go? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,999
|
This is it.
Too much crime causes too many people to be nervous and keep a gun in the house to counter their fear of being attacked. This causes there to be too many accidents. Violent crime by itself is a problem and is too high. If you have less violent crime, you will automatically have less violent crime with guns involved. What causes so much violent crime? Too many people with in a bad situation who don't see a better way out. Poor, broke, no job, no chance of getting a job= turn criminal and take what you need (or want) or sell illegal drugs 'cause there's mucho bucks to be made doing that. Drugs are illegal, selling them is illegal. The criminals run it all, and their first thought is to just take out the competition via murder. End the *********** useless war on drugs because it has turned into a war in the streets. Improve the economy so people can get work. Provide job training to people who need it. Provide financial support to people who need it. Provide medical care to people who need it. Get people off the street and into a decent life. Get the crazies some help. Once you've done all that and you still think there's too many gun deaths we can talk about removing guns from the hands of the citizens |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 152
|
why not treat them as we do cars?
must posses valid gun owners license, like a drivers license- pass test (written and range) plus extensive background check (id like to see psych eval too). mandatory gun liability insurance (price commensurate with owner's qualifications, exp, and type of and number of guns) yearly reg fee (like a license plate) for each gun owned. huge fines penalties for possessing non reg/ins guns, severe punishment for using gun while a committing a crime (and for not filing transfer of ownership paperwork or not reporting a gun as stolen in a reasonable amount of time). if a gun reg to you is used by someone else to commit a crime you are responsible/liable as well. hell we can fix the economy while were at it ![]() (ps. im a gun owner) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,618
|
Which is not contrary to what I said
Quote:
|
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
Good of the Fods
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,430
|
A week ago I'd have disagreed with you on machine guns. Over the past few days I have done some googling, and a little other research. Now I am a little more knowledgeable, and would agree with all of your suggestions.
Seems like a reasonable set of regs to me. Why anyone might want to own a machine gun remains beyond me. given proper training/storage etc if an individual has a good reason to own one though I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to own one. I do still like the idea of magazine capacity restrictions, though if there are good reasons not to have them then perhaps I'm wrong there. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
Good of the Fods
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,430
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 668
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 152
|
how poor is "poor"? we have a house hold income of about $35,000 and we own pay for all the fees on 2 cars (pp tax, city decal, inspection, reg and ins) annually.
im failing to see the problem for anyone other than those who think they need a lot of guns. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,264
|
Rock! Thanks for some excellent posts, folks.
BStrong's ideas seem to have a lot of traction here, besides the punitive sentencing for gun crime part. I'll agree that such things tend not to work as intended. In general, it seems like punitive anything - sentencing, fines, etc.. aren't an effective way to go for guns as far as actual results. Again, I like the idea of treating guns like vehicles, though with how common it is for someone to own a whole collection, having to keep up individual registration, especially on a yearly basis, sounds like too much of a PITA unless you could find a way to make it extremely painless. We certainly seem to currently have many fees that are unsensibly high, and more red tape than actually does any good. A well thought out licence/registration scheme that replaced all that mess should be a vast improvement. I'm not interested in 'assault' weapon bans, auto/semiauto bans, etc... It seems clear such bans, at least in the US, are not useful as far as keeping anyone safer. I like the idea of an actual community militia... Maybe you could do it like community service; you could participate in the militia meet in exchange for a waiver of your licensing fees for the year, or something. That would a) make it so you don't have to do it if you REALLY don't want to and b) make it less painful for those with little disposable income. Please, I'm trying to talk about what would encourage gun safety, not what would stop gun crime. This is not a 'how to make your life difficult if you like guns' thread. This is a 'how much do you gun owners trust everyone else who wants to be a gun owner' thread. I honestly can't figure out how you go from to in the same breath? You say there are gun owners who don't know what they're doing to the point you wouldn't want to be around them, AND you think some kind of gun class as a requirement of ownership is a stupid and unhelpful idea? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 24,171
|
How much more dangerous than, say, the UK is the U.S. ?
We don't have guns available for home defence and yet the number of people killed in break-ins is very small indeed. edited to add..... In 2010 there were 45 murders that happened during a burglary or robbery, source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...office-figures Scaling for the size of country, eliminating all such murders (and remember this includes robberies not just home burglaries) would reduce the U.S. death toll by around 230, less than half the number of people killed accidentally. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,313
|
If dealers can sell then half the equation is out of law enforcement's hands.
If people can legally buy and the only law they are breaking is moving that gun illegally, that is a different threshold for people. If they have to go to the black market to buy, that is a different threshold and many many fewer people cross that threshold. I don't agree with your interpretation. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,430
|
How many crimes are averted each year by gun wielding citizens - excluding cops of course?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,033
|
When you're not allowed to flunk an individual who passes a written test (standardized) and doesn't have an accident at the range test (not to mention many people can pass a test and still not know what the hell they're actually doing), you get that attitude.
But, on your other points, there are some very good programs on firearm safety, including the NRA's, for kids of all ages, which teach respect and reality of firearms. They work. But they are not allowed in schools. And most people are too afraid of guns to allow their kids to go to these programs/classes--the oft-stated reason is that it 'encourages gun use"... |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,313
|
There are plenty of conflicting ways to manipulate the stats out there. You can find whatever you want to support your preferred outcome.
Reliable medical sources of data all say people are more likely to be killed by their own guns when there is a gun in the house. The depressed teen who kills himself with his parent's gun is just as dead as the kid killed in the shooting on the high school football field. The battered spouse is just as dead when a gun is easily within reach in the heat of the moment. Another way to interpret your version is people don't need guns, there aren't that many strangers with guns breaking in their houses to kill them. I work and am educated in the medical field. In medicine you weigh risk vs benefit and only in some circumstances, some neighborhoods, is it safer to own a gun than to not own one. On a personal level, I had a boyfriend that was into guns. While moving from one house to another, our un-occupied house was burgled and they got one of his guns. We also think we came home while he was there because we found an empty beer bottle from our fridge in the backyard. So we likely came home when a possibly intoxicated burglar was in our house with my boyfriend's loaded gun in the burglar's hands. Yes yes, anyone can rationalize, that wouldn't happen to them, they are more careful with their guns, yadda yadda. The data shows even careful people make human mistakes. |
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|