|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 29, 2012 12:28:03 GMT 1
It's been at least five minutes and I'm still laughing. Jklinders may be the "Great White Snark" of the forum, but Buch still comes at quite the close second. There's a reason why I'm still hanging around at this place. There are quite a few people on this forum who are just the epitomes of awesome... ;D
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Oct 29, 2012 14:10:22 GMT 1
Good points made by all (Buch's snark excepted on the grounds that it wasn't up to his usual standards. ) As has been stated, there is no easy answer, but I'd focus more on educating the general populace on the subject of gun safety. This would include teaching and encouraging safe gun handling skills from a fairly early age with refreshers every so often while the children are in school. It should also be made clear the danger a gun poses if used improperly. The way it happened with me is my dad took me out shooting with a .22 pistol when I was old enough to know what a gun is and what it can be used for. He set up a few paper targets, taught me the 4 Cardinal Rules of gun handling, and taught me the basics of marksmanship. We went through most of our ammo when he had me stop and unload the pistol. He holstered the gun, got a watermellon, set it down range near where the targets were, loaded the gun, and then shot the watermelon as fast as he could. Naturallly the melon was absolutely destroyed and I was bug-eyed at the demonstration. After he let it sink in for a second, my dad said "Just remember... if you treat a gun like it's a toy, you could end up like that watermellon." Pretty powerful stuff for a 7 year old to digest. As far as restrictions go, there are actually quite a few laws on the books restricting gun ownership (note I'm doing my approximation of British understatement here). Certain types of weapon, such as full-autos, rifles with barrels of less than 16 inches in length, shotguns with barrels of less than 18 inches in length, pistols with foregrips attached to them, guns of a caliber of greater than .50 inches/12.7mm, sound suppressors, and so on are all tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. To purchase a weapon that falls under the NFA, you need to undergo a full background check, have the chief law enforcement officer in your area (usually the county sheriff) sign off on it, pay a $200 tax to the government, and await approval of your paperwork which can take 3-8 months depending on how busy the ATF's examiners' office is. I'm oversimplifying a bit, but that's pretty much the gist. As far as registration goes, to carry a pistol, you need to submit to a background check and go through a licensing process for concealed carry in most states. Stepping away from guns for a moment, just to address something Lily said. She mentioned measures to ensure someone isn't going to misuse a gun. I presume you have access cleaning chemicals such as bleach and ammonia? Mix the two, and you've got a weapon that is considered a WMD by the Geneva Convention: chlorine gas. Rubbing alcohol is a powerful accelerant as is petrol and it's a relatively simple matter to make explosives out of a lot of household chemicals so long as you know basic high school chemistry. I'm speaking from a technical standpoint, of course, not a moral/ethical standpoint. The bottom line is there is no easy answer, but I'll err on the side of greater freedoms and promote proper education instead of knee-jerk all out bans on guns.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 29, 2012 14:15:28 GMT 1
I think you can guess my views, in all seriousness. Just take Iron's views, and reverse them. This applies to all things.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Oct 29, 2012 14:20:10 GMT 1
To be honest, guns were banned in Australia a few years ago, in the wake of that Hobart Massacre. At the time I was really young, hence I don't get much of the gist with guns 'openly'. So I don't have an actual opinion at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 29, 2012 17:40:10 GMT 1
Stepping away from guns for a moment, just to address something Lily said. She mentioned measures to ensure someone isn't going to misuse a gun. I presume you have access cleaning chemicals such as bleach and ammonia? Mix the two, and you've got a weapon that is considered a WMD by the Geneva Convention: chlorine gas. I don't think I have bleach or ammonia... I have laundry detergent - does that have bleach in it? And I hate to admit, I am not entirely certain what ammonia is...
|
|
|
Post by Battlechantress on Oct 29, 2012 17:54:23 GMT 1
(It's missing "the shit has hit the fan" line, but I thought it was appropriate here nonetheless.)
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 30, 2012 2:01:52 GMT 1
Stepping away from guns for a moment, just to address something Lily said. She mentioned measures to ensure someone isn't going to misuse a gun. I presume you have access cleaning chemicals such as bleach and ammonia? Mix the two, and you've got a weapon that is considered a WMD by the Geneva Convention: chlorine gas. I don't think I have bleach or ammonia... I have laundry detergent - does that have bleach in it? And I hate to admit, I am not entirely certain what ammonia is... There's terrorist threats... And then there's Lily.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 30, 2012 2:35:16 GMT 1
*raises one eyebrow* Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Dec 7, 2012 7:53:29 GMT 1
And to necropost... I'll leave this here.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Dec 7, 2012 8:23:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Dec 7, 2012 12:57:23 GMT 1
I've already weighed in on the gun debate as much as is productive.
I've also weighed in on the value of out of context statistics. They have a tendency to harm rather than help your cause. Obviously that list needed only mention of actual violent crimes as opposed to the voluntary self poisoning done by abusers of alcohol and tobacco.
Violent crimes are frequently crimes of opportunity. Guns are rarely used except in cases of premeditation. Let's see a list of violent premeditated crimes and see where guns stand on that list. Then we'll talk. Until then all I see is a deceitful set of non related stats.
That doesn't change my stance that US citizens need to decide on their laws without outside influence but when the pro gun crowd keeps pulling this crap it's hardly a surprise that folks are skeptical of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Dec 7, 2012 12:59:18 GMT 1
Aye aye.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Dec 7, 2012 18:46:38 GMT 1
The point brought up by those stats is that less people die from guns than a multitude of commonly "acceptable" means. And if you want a comparison of violent crime rates, Britain's violent crime rate is around 2,034 per 100,000 residents (2009 stats). In the same year, the US's violent crime rate was 431.9 per 100,000. This is all violent crime to include homicide, rape, etc. It may be unrelated, but as the US had loosened up on weapons laws, Parliament in the UK has been tightening their grip (since banning practically all guns except for very few exceptions, they've been trying to ban knives and I suspect once that's done they'll move on to cricket bats or something). One analogy I've been using of late is comparing gun bans to prohibition. That bit of legislation cost the government huge sums of money and didn't do anything except create a black market for alcohol. The same would happen if a ban were enacted on guns. Also, it's not particularly hard to make a gun using basic machine shop skills and some pipes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearmAlso consider several other bits of information. The US Supreme Court has decided that the police has no obligation to protect the individual: their purpose is to enforce the law. Also, even in a well-manned police force, the average reaction time for an officer to show up is between 5-15 minutes if you live in a well-patrolled precinct. With recent draw downs and restructuring of precincts in various parts of the country, that time is increased to upwards of 20 minutes in some locales. In the rural areas it can be up to a full hour before the cops show up. On top of that, most gun control laws we have on the books originated with the "Jim Crow" laws; the object was to keep newly freed slaves from owning arms. Later that concept was expanded to include anyone who wasn't on good terms with those in power. Then there's those anti-gun crowd who feel that it's better for a woman to be beaten, raped, and strangled than for her to defend herself with a gun. I'm in favor of guns since they allow those who are physically weak the opportunity to defend themselves against those who have physical and/or numerical superiority on more equal terms. Take that away, and the monopoly of power goes to the strong and the numerous who will then prey on the weak.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Dec 7, 2012 19:02:23 GMT 1
Can we agree to disagree at this point? Because really guys, i love all of you but for the holidays this is all bumming me down man.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Dec 7, 2012 19:06:01 GMT 1
But there was no point at all. Accidental death is by far the most common non natural cause. It doesn't mean that it has any business being on that table. As it happens I was actually browsing the FBI's website for some actual related stats. Sure enough a statistically significant to majority of incidents of violent crime in the US last involved firearms. In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level. There were an estimated 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011. Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 62.4 percent. Robbery comprised 29.4 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.9 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2011. Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.) I bolded the relevant bits. Italics were added for the really juicy part. Source. www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crimethat is worthwhile hard data comparing like to like. Apples to apples if you prefer. As opposed to apples to wooden oranges on your little macro image. Now you bring stats from the UK. When someone mentions to the pro gun crowd, "we have this law here and it works for us so it should work for you," you all pitch a fit and rightly so. The UK's stats have no business in this debate. Just as Canada's or Australia's or whatever. I am absolutely not that you need to burn all your guns but stop using irrelevant data and piss poor analogies to back yourself up with. The damage you are doing to yourselves among those us who actually know how stats work is enormous. Comparing firearms related deaths to smoking or cancer or alcohol or whatever is less than worthless, it clutters up the debate with information that means nothing. That is the only point i raise in opposition to this. It's that silly election map all over again, which as was pointed was even factually incorrect.
|
|