More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your stance on gun proliferation?

I own a gun. I DON'T TRUST MY DAMN NEIGHBOUR!!!
2
2%
I own several guns, I'm a hitman .(shhhh don't tell anyone)
3
4%
Change the constitution. Outlaw guns once and for all!
14
16%
GIMME A FLAMETHROWER!
2
2%
Nukes for everyone!
7
8%
I don't own one right now, but I seek to acquire some soon as I'm planning a massacre.
2
2%
I'm a hippie. WADDUA THINK I MEAN?? *punches you in the face*
0
No votes
I don't like guns. When I kill people I use a dildo.
5
6%
mmmmmmmmmmmmy Glock.
1
1%
Strict gun control is the way to go.
18
21%
If everyone had guns, less violence would be the result.
11
13%
I'm in a gun club, I only shoot for pleasure.
2
2%
I'm in a gun club, I train for home defense.
3
4%
I like bananas.
6
7%
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
4%
Militias is our only hope.
6
7%
 
Total votes: 85
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:13 am

Feud wrote:It's kinda like if someone steals a prescription pad . The pharmacist might follow all the laws and protocols, and thus be innocent of wrong doing on their end. But the buyer is not, and if the doctor doesn't do somethings to ensure that their keeping proper safety measures they might not either.

I'm still not sure I follow, and more precisely I don't get how that's an issue of enforcement.

Even assuming that the "doctor" follows the safety measures dictated by law, there's the possibility it could still be stolen. Consequently, if one is so worried about the items being acquired illegally, it confuses me that the system skips the rather obvious step of having the "pharmacist" asking the "doctor" directly.

And for that matter, I do know several doctors and I do know of cases of prescription forgery. These are pretty hard to pull of unless the doctor (and often the pharmacist) is willingly involved.

If you have such a system/society, that a fair amount of illegally acquired "legal" guns would be done through these means, then quite frankly you have worse problems than lax enforcement - which, at best, would be a symptom, not the cause.

rus|Mike wrote:You were talking specifically about bans:

I misspoke. And for that I apologize. I didn't correct myself because I felt the point I was actually trying to make would still stand.

However I feel the need to point out that nitpicking and sidestepping the issue won't actual help us discuss the issue. If you believe I got something wrong, by all means feel free to correct me, but don't turn that into your sole argument.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:27 pm

Xocrates wrote:
rus|Mike wrote:You were talking specifically about bans:

I misspoke. And for that I apologize. I didn't correct myself because I felt the point I was actually trying to make would still stand.

However I feel the need to point out that nitpicking and sidestepping the issue won't actual help us discuss the issue. If you believe I got something wrong, by all means feel free to correct me, but don't turn that into your sole argument.

Each time you're pointed to demonstrably false statements of yours, you say "yeah, but the general point stands". How's that contributing to healthy discussion?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:59 pm

What exactly is your issue here?

I got stuff wrong, I admitted to it corrected it where needed. The points I was trying to make didn't change and weren't invalidated, even if they ended up slightly weakened.

In the meantime you never even tried to discuss the points I raised. As if the fact I got a comma out of place invalidates all I've said.

Point what I got wrong and discuss why the difference is important, that's how you maintain a healthy discussion.

Just calling me out everytime my english is less than perfect adds nothing.


And for that matter:
rus|Mike wrote:You were talking specifically about bans:

I've looked it up, and countries with straight up bans have murder rates as low or lower than the countries I've mentioned. This includes the UK.
In the meantime, Canada and Australia are described as having "strict gun control".

Like I said, my point stands.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:56 pm

Xocrates wrote:I've looked it up, and countries with straight up bans have murder rates as low or lower than the countries I've mentioned. This includes the UK.
In the meantime, Canada and Australia are described has having "strict gun control".

Like I said, my point stands.

Ofcourse, if you take out of comparison all the countries that do not support your case, there will only be left countries that do support your case. Your point is invalid for 2 reasons:

1) Taking 2-3 countries and saying "hey, they have less/more gun control and their homicide rates are lower/higher" is invalid by default since such sample size is unrepresentative of the parent population. Data on such samples yields ZERO information and is completely useless. And I'm not even talking about actual connection between gun ownership/regulation and gun-related homicides which you ideally would have to prove after finding statistical correlation (which you didn't find);

2) You have dismissed Russia as a counter-example since it has bad "standards of living" or whatever. Let's take Serbia. 2nd armed country on Wiki list (58 per 100k vs 88 of USA) PLUS much worse economy situation (GDP per capita is HALF of the one of even Russia). According to your logic, it should have sky-high gun homicides, but it doesn't (0.62 per 100k homicides at 25th place vs 3.7 at 14th place of USA and 3.9 per 100k at 19th place total gun-related deaths vs 10.2 at 10th place of USA). If you think that taking single countries for comparison is valid, then here, take this one.

Also, out of interest, I took Wiki lists of gun-related deaths/homicides and weapons per capita and calculated correlation. It's not there. -0.08 for total deaths to weapons per capita and -0.15 for gun homicides to weapons.
Excel list (I'm rusty with Excel so you might want to check my calculations)

If you have actual data on the correlation you are talking about which goes beyond "Hey look at Canada which has gun bans but not really" I will be happy to look into it and admit that I were wrong. But so far you have provided no information to support your case and I've provided at least some data to back up mine (even though I didn't have to to dismiss your case for the reason of absence of proof).
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:11 pm

See? Now we're getting somewhere.
rus|Mike wrote:Ofcourse, if you take out of comparison all the countries that do not support your case, there will only be left countries that do support your case.

No, I took out the countries where the societal differences are too significant for a straight up comparison to be meaningful.

Example:
rus|Mike wrote:2) You have dismissed Russia as a counter-example since it has bad "standards of living" of whatever.

What I've actually said was:
Xocrates wrote:If you compare the US with countries with similar standards of living

And:
Xocrates wrote:Russia has a notoriously high rate, as does Africa and South America. But there are larger social issues at hand there, those are mostly absent in the US


You'll notice that I've never passed judgement on Russia's standards of living other than stating them to be different from the US. Likewise I've pointed out that there are social differences that make a straight up comparison difficult, because there are other factors that affect gun crime other than gun availability.

rus|Mike wrote:1) Taking 2-3 countries and saying "hey, they have less/more gun control and their homicide rates are lower/higher" is invalid by default since such sample size is unrepresentative of the parent population.

I didn't take 2-3 countries, I named 2-3 which I believed would be the closest to the US in terms of comparison. In reality I looked at dozens.


In the meantime I'll do my own analysis of the data.

EDIT: Right, after some analysis, if you throw in everything in there you will obviously get a load of non-sense since you're ignoring a shitload of factors. If you pick and choose the countries where the societal standards are similar, a trend starts to emerge.

Using the data relative to EU (disregarding Eastern Europe), Canada, Australia, and US, you get a linear regression with R^2 = 0,64.

Which isn't hugely conclusive, granted, but it's enough to raise an eyebrow.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:45 pm

Xocrates

vs

rus|Mike

Who won? You Decide? Not so epic wrap [up] battles of history...

Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates is by far the best.

:P

*votes rus|Mike*

Xocrates, I'm lazy and perhaps a bit dense, could you sum up your point/s again? They've gotten lost in the downward spiral of bickering.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:47 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Xocrates, I'm lazy and perhaps a bit dense, could you sum up your point/s again? They've gotten lost in the downward spiral of bickering.

The US has too many guns, and it's too easy to get one. This isn't helping them keeping gun crime low.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:09 pm

Xocrates, your initial point was that lower standards of living produced more (gun) violence. Correct? Then why do you refuse to take Serbia as an example? I would understand if Serbia had high violence rates, you could dismiss it, saying that the primary cause is low standard of living. But not if it's gun crime rates are so low.

Serbia:

-Has lots of guns;
-Has low living standard;
-Has low gun violence.

What does it tell us? That neither gun numbers nor standard of living is a decisive factor. Can they still influence gun crime rates? Sure, but I haven't seen any data conclusively pointing to it. And even if they do influence crime rates, they do so by very much (relatively to other factors), according to Serbia example. Thus I don't see why exactly number of guns is the discussed issue. Not the type of guns, not the ammo size, not how you regulate sales, but exactly number of guns.

And once again, we primarily agree on the solutions, even though I think you came to the right answer through a wrong way.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:08 pm

rus|Mike wrote:Xocrates, your initial point was that lower standards of living produced more (gun) violence. Correct?

I'm pretty sure I never ever stated that. In fact I specifically stated.

Xocrates wrote:You'll notice that I've never passed judgement on Russia's standards of living other than stating them to be different from the US. Likewise I've pointed out that there are social differences that make a straight up comparison difficult, because there are other factors that affect gun crime other than gun availability.

My point was that social issues cause more violence, and while these are usually accompanied by lower standards of living, it's not a direct relation of standards of living -> violence (if there's a relation at all. Plenty of places with low living standards are perfectly peaceful).

If I'm ignoring Serbia is because I know too little about it to make a direct comparison.

And yes, there are other issues, and were we talking about any other country than the US with high violence, and I would focus on that as opposed to amount of guns.
Most of the issues that lead to violence are either absent in the US or are not worse than most comparable countries. As such, the amount of guns is not only the largest point of difference, it's the one that's easier to control.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:23 pm

Finally back on a computer...

On the topic, for my bachelor party my brother took me out shooting. Hand guns and AKs. :D

I do think the best way to get people to change their mind is to take them shooting. SOOOO much fun.
Last edited by Feud on Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:44 pm

Feud wrote:I do think the best way to get people to change their mind is to take them shooting. SOOOO much fun.

What a terrible, terrible rationale.

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:10 pm

That's not a rationale, it's a proceedural observation and opinion.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:27 pm

Do you have any idea how much it unnerves me that you actually seem to want to encourage people to own and use guns?

Guns are not toys, and they should not be treated as toys. By all means, go to the shooting range and enjoy yourself every once in a while, but your fascination with them comes across, rather frequently, as unsettling.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:05 am

Well, first off, I do want and encourage some people to own guns. There's no question of that.

Second, I'm not surprised at all that you might be unsettled by it. I find myself frequently unsettled by European cultural, political, and economic norms, so it makes sense that it would go both ways.

While I occasionally refer to them as a "toy", such is a term commonly used where I'm from for machines that adults enjoy (cars, boats, guns, electronics, etc), many of which are extremely dangerous if used irresponsibly. You have never, ever, heard me advocate the ownership or use of guns in reckless or irresponsible manner.

I disagree with your use of the term "fascination" though, as it implies to me a conception of them (by me) as things of marvel, wonder, or unusual power. I am certainly interested in them, much as people are interested in airplanes, cars, electronics, music, sports, cultures, or various other things (all of those, by the way, I am also interested in).

Honestly, I'm not sure when I last held one of my guns. I think I checked my handgun when I got back from my time out of town, but aside from that it's sat in the safe since I did some maintenance back in November. Before that, I think the last time I'd shot it was July or August.

Really, I'm fairly low on the enthusiast totem pole for them. If you think I'm obsessed, I know a few (dozen) guys that you'd just love. ;)
User avatar
MeatNit
level1
level1
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:56 pm
Location: Freezer

Postby MeatNit » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:53 am

Image

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests