Dark Lord Potter Forums
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Donate to DLP Scryer Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2015, 08:43 PM   #1261
CheddarTrek
Moderator
Set Phasers to Melt
 
CheddarTrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,927
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Protip @newageofpower - If you're on the losing side of an argument, where most everyone else disagrees with you, keep the emotion / vitriol / idiocy out of it. It just makes it that much easier for everyone to dismiss you as a fool.

Example:
Quote:
LOL! Gunpolicy.org? University of Sydney?

I'm not here to insult the University of Sydney.

But asking if the University of Sydney (or Gunpolicy.org) had certain biases would be like asking if Fox News had a certain conservative bent.

Philip Alpers, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney and the creator of Gunpolicy.org had his 'studies' repeatedly criticized.
Now that's just fine so long as everyone is laughing along with you, or nodding along, or agreeing with you... but if you want to be taken seriously as a point of opposition you might want to rephrase.

Instead:
Quote:
I have concerns about how legitimate and unbiased your sources are. From what I've heard, they are not only biased but highly biased.

Philip Alpers, an associate professor at the University of Sydney (and the creator of gunpolicy.org) has had his studies repeatedly criticized. Here are some links where you can read up on it yourself, but I'm going to pull out three or quotes to support my point.

*does that*

I feel that X and Y are better sources, here's why. And no, it's not just because they happen to agree with me.
Notice that my phrasing says the exact same thing yours is, but I'm not trying to make it sound like the other side is stupid.

Drop the ! and the trolling. Not because they don't have a place on DLP, they do. They definitely do. And the other side will bandwagon to a point and do it to you. But if you are trying to hold up your end of the argument almost entirely by yourself, stop giving them ammo to use against you by coming off poorly. Rephrase, make it harder for them to dismiss you.

I am personally offering no opinion on this at all, because I fully intend to stay the fuck out the politics sub-section. I always have before. But this came up in IRC so I ended up clicking, damnit.
__________________
Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. But I rather believe than time is a companion who goes with us on the journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important how we lived. After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
~Jean-Luc Picard


Last edited by CheddarTrek; 10-09-2015 at 09:11 PM.
CheddarTrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 2 thumbs up
Old 10-09-2015, 08:47 PM   #1262
Giovanni
The Fifth House
God of Scotch
 
Giovanni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gilligan's Island
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post
Tee off on? What does that mean?
Familiarize yourself with the game of golf, it's a good game

Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post
Erm. It's not only gunpolicy/University of Sydney section of Joe's post that's in doubt. It's just the easiest target to attack.
It's actually the only part of his post where he's citing Gunpolicy.org. Hence why your little tirade was totally unnecessary, plus you were trying to tie the two together. Something which you may have done in anger and have apologized for, but it's still a bad faith argument strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post
First of all; in Joe's post he did not control for poverty. I'm uncertain how failing to control for poverty is arguing in bad faith.
Joe also didn't link gun deaths to a specific racial group, whereas you did. That's where the accusations of racism come in, since statistics presented in a vacuum without any additional details are pretty inherently flawed. I believe you agree with this assessment based on your arguments about why it's bad to compare the US to Japan. Got all that bad faith and existential angst, but none of the Philosophy major in undergrad pussy -- it's like the worst of both worlds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post
Secondly, I'm relatively unused to internet arguments. Nobody in real life has accused me of racism; even when I've said racist sounding-things in a debate, one look at my group of friends pretty much forestalled any conclusions.
Okay, you're not racist. You have black friends. Here's a rundown for why that's a fucking dumb argument.

* * *

Also, double and triple posting while people are responding to your initial post is in pretty poor form. As for the Bloomberg/not Bloomberg stuff, I'm observing a flaw in your reasoning and your overall argument about Joe's sources. There's actually no discussion necessary, since we're dealing with your lazy attempt at generalized character assassination.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @Ched because it's a Friday night and I have other shit to be doing. Until next month
__________________
This is what happens when you contemplate a career switch.

Quote:
Xiph0 What then?

Xiph0 Everyone needs projects.

Giovanni No long term projects except the goal of acquiring more property so that I can die.

Last edited by Giovanni; 10-09-2015 at 08:54 PM.
Giovanni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2015, 09:08 PM   #1263
newageofpower
Professor
 
newageofpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Glad to see you back. Have you reconsidered pink for Johnny's sake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
Familiarize yourself with the game of golf, it's a good game
I dislike golf. I don't understand why others enjoy it so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
It's actually the only part of his post where he's citing Gunpolicy.org. Hence why your little tirade was totally unnecessary, plus you were trying to tie the two together. Something which you may have done in anger and have apologized for, but it's still a bad faith argument strategy.
Er. Gunpolicy & University of Sydney are not the only sources in doubt. I'm fairly certain I've said this.

For example, Duke University & Violence Policy Center are difficult to describe as unbiased in either case. VPC, especially, has a history like Philip Alpers.

Did you want me to go into more detail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
Joe also didn't link gun deaths to a specific racial group, whereas you did. That's where the accusations of racism come in, since statistics presented in a vacuum without any additional details are pretty inherently flawed.

I believe you agree with this assessment based on your arguments about why it's bad to compare the US to Japan.
The first part was more of an add-on to my arguments about why Murica can't be compared with Finland, the way Fish & Chip eaters are not the same as Sushi eaters.

This part of the argument is indeed incomplete, but it was not the critical point of my post, imho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
Got all that bad faith and existential angst, but none of the Philosophy major in undergrad pussy -- it's like the worst of both worlds.
Ah. I was plenty soaked in... female attention as an Engineering major. The jealousy (80% male school) was even more delicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
Okay, you're not racist. You have black friends. Here's a rundown for why that's a fucking dumb argument.
That's... not my point. It was a reflexive (if admittedly retarded) statement.

---------- Post automerged at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
Also, double and triple posting while people are responding to your initial post is in pretty poor form.
Is it now? I keep coming up with more stuff as people reply to me. What should I do instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
As for the Bloomberg/not Bloomberg stuff, I'm observing a flaw in your reasoning and your overall argument about Joe's sources. There's actually no discussion necessary, since we're dealing with your lazy attempt at generalized character assassination.
You're insisting I have balls to claim that 'Bloomberg is biased against guns but even that source supports my position.'

I'm not going to argue the first point, but you're avoiding my reasoning. Am I correct or incorrect about Bloomberg and that dataset/conclusion pair?

@Joe, I love your stories (esp Lord of Kobol & Wastelands, very Bond-esque).

Again, I was out of line with some of my statements. I believe I've already apologized, but let me make this clear, I am not here to 'Assassinate your character'.
__________________
Because.

Last edited by newageofpower; 10-09-2015 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Clarification.
newageofpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2015, 09:50 PM   #1264
Sesc
Moderator
Slytherin at Heart
 
Sesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hbg., Germany
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,944
A s general rule, the quality of any debate is inversely proportional to the number of quotes per post. Consider which stage you've reached here.

Personally, I think this round of Guns vs. No Guns has run its course (until the next occasion ...), but then this is the official discussion thread, so if you still find someone to debate the issue with you ... (HINT)


Edit: Article. TL;DR:
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Liberals don't want to admit about gun control
Meaningful changes to the nation's firearms policy aren't politically feasible, he said: "We're screwed. This is America."
__________________
She shuddered, even as we were descending, but when we dismounted, there was no sadness, no grief. Her ice blue eyes burned in boundless fury, a look so piercing it went clean through me. It was simultaneously the most beautiful and most terrifying thing I had ever seen on her face.

“Someone is going to pay.”

Kairos

________________________________
FF.net :: By That Last Candle's Light :: The French Affair :: Unatoned


I heard that you like the bad girls, honey,
Is that true?
Sesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 10-09-2015, 09:50 PM   #1265
Perspicacity
High Inquisitor
High Score: 3,994
 
Perspicacity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Elsewhere
Gender: Male
Posts: 544
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovanni View Post
As for why my name isn't in pink, it's because if I haven't been made a Mod in 10 years of posting here then there's no point in racing to 1800 for the privilege
Off topic: I suspect few of us in pink are bothering to participate in the race to mod. While I would like to think that I've added (and donated) enough to DLP over the years to warrant consideration, that's neither here nor there. My posting rate of 4k posts over 8 years isn't nearly up to being competitive for the auto-qualifier. (I leave this to the worthy hands of @E. C. Scrubb and @Republic, who are running away with this thing.)

Back on topic, I think the registry thing is a non-issue, practically. There's no way an effective system will be in place before advances in additive manufacturing render the point entirely moot. When anyone and his sister Stella can print a firearm on demand in a matter of days (or hours), then what's the point in trying to regulate?
__________________

Last edited by Perspicacity; 10-10-2015 at 09:07 AM.
Perspicacity is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 10-09-2015, 10:27 PM   #1266
Russano
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post

@Joe, I love your stories (esp Lord of Kobol
One for two is good enough, I guess.
Russano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2015, 11:08 PM   #1267
Xiph0
Administrator
First Tovarisch
 
Xiph0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: People's Republic of California
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russano View Post
One for two is good enough, I guess.
Quality shit post right here. Doesn't add anything, attacks the author (even if he is oh so attackable).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyg View Post
As far as I can tell, Sree is some kind of racist joke.
Xiph0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2015, 11:39 PM   #1268
Russano
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 602
You're right, better off not posting that. What I originally had wasn't even 10 characters and I struggled to come up with something else. Didn't intend for something to sound "attacking." Intention was to point out that he wasn't the author of that fic, albeit apparently very poorly.
Russano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 02:32 AM   #1269
Joe's Nemesis
Order Member
High Score: 2,058
 
Joe's Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 879
High Score: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspicacity View Post
Back on topic, I think the registry thing is a non-issue, practically. There's no way an effective system will be in place before advances in additive manufacturing render the point entirely moot. When anyone and his sister Stella can print a firearm on demand in a matter of days (or hours), then what's the point in trying to regulate?
Supposedly, technically, it's illegal to print one. How they'll regulate it is an entirely different issue. And, frankly, it's something that scares me. Because the people printing them will be the cartels and drug gangs that are running them from Mexico right up through my city.

----------
Off topic - posting. Dissertation Avoidance Issues not withstanding, there's a 50/50 chance I'd donate it to charity, anyway.

---------- Post automerged at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
Clip
Just got home. Too tired to sift through numbers. I'll get to this tomorrow when I can focus better on what your presenting and arguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheddarTrek View Post
Protip @newageofpower - . . . I am personally offering no opinion on this at all, because I fully intend to stay the fuck out the politics sub-section. I always have before. But this came up in IRC so I ended up clicking, damnit.
Maybe it's just me, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading a post of an annoyed CheddarTrek!Mod. I think it was the tone, the education provided, and the placement of both swearing and italics.
__________________
I've thrown [the ancient story of] Bel and the Dragon on as well; it looks short... and idolatrous dragons still almost count as dragons
~Marsupial
Joe's Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 07:49 AM   #1270
Joe
Professor
The Reminiscent Exile
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 453
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 1,800
@newageofpower - don't be overly concerned, mate. I'm not. You performed on cue. Based on your contributions in this thread, could've put good money on the fact you'd attack credibility/post author over providing a genuine rebuttal to the individualistic vs. society argument that was being debated.

If you had any salient points in your post, they were lost in the vitriol wash.

I'm still keen to hear your thoughts on what benefits are provided by firearms, when for every legal shooting there are 44 illegal ones? The net gain for society just doesn't add up, even when you account for self-defense behaviour (DGU's). I'll even take the high end of the figures provided by you and Scrubb, 300,000 DGU's a year. Compared to the average over five years provided by the Bureau of Justice, a source which you accepted, of 29,000,000 violent crimes (and that's violent crime holistically, not just violent crimes where both victim and perpetrator had a gun).

300,000 x 5 years = 1.5 million DGU's

1.5 million of 29,000,000 recorded attempted/completed violent crimes is...

5.17%

Still not seeing the benefit there, but I'm sure as shit seeing the fallout in terms of gun violence.

Which is why my position is fewer guns = good benefit to society. I don't want to take your guns off you, far from it, I want to limit the amount available flowing from legal to illegal means.

If the stats were the other way, 44 legal shootings to 1 illegal shooting, I'd see guns as a benefit. Hell, if it was as low as 2 legal shootings for every 1 illegal shooting, I'd still see that as a net gain to society. But it isn't.

The statistics/raw data/reality just does not reflect a benefit - even accounting for DGU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspicacity View Post
. When anyone and his sister Stella can print a firearm on demand in a matter of days (or hours), then what's the point in trying to regulate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by E. C. Scrubb View Post
Supposedly, technically, it's illegal to print one. How they'll regulate it is an entirely different issue. And, frankly, it's something that scares me. Because the people printing them will be the cartels and drug gangs that are running them from Mexico right up through my city.
So... you're saying we need greater restrictions on firearms, Scrubb?

The printed firearm issue is something rising to precedence, yes. I don't have much in the way of a position on this one - something I'm not too well-read in - but I imagine similar security features could be built into the printers. Like how you can't scan/photocopy bank notes. That's a fragile example, but perhaps something inherent to the software on the machines?

Here's an article discussing just that, actually. It won't stop the motivated, of course, but a trickle instead of a flood is far more manageable from a regulation/law enforcement perspective.

Quote:
Just got home. Too tired to sift through numbers. I'll get to this tomorrow when I can focus better on what your presenting and arguing.
Cool - eager to read your thoughts.

Edit: I'd like to thumbs up some responses in this thread, namely @Giovanni and @CheddarTrek, but I'm a pasty pink bastard who don't have no thumbs yet.
__________________
-

Becoming a writer is a polite way of saying you've chosen alcoholism as a career.

- Joe Ducks

Follow me on Twitter


OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 12:52 PM   #1271
newageofpower
Professor
 
newageofpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
DLP Supporter Donor Star
This is going to be a little short; I've got a hot date this afternoon. If I'm back early (...or at all today), you'll know it didn't go well.

@Joe

44 illegal shootings per legal shooting is completely incompatible with even 100,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year (I've expressed doubt in the 370,000 number in my previous posts). Let's analyze your other sources.

I've also expressed doubt in both VPC and Duke University numbers, although not to the same extent as the University of Sydney/Philip Alpers.

The closest (reputable) source I can identify for giving those kinds of numbers is the FBI Uniform Crime Reports; there are immediately multiple issues with said data source.

Most importantly, by the FBI UCR Guide; they have a very limited definition of justifiable homicide. (Link to handbook, Page 25) A direct quote from the book (bold emphasis mine):

NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

Yes. Even if the court rules your homicide is justified, the FBI will probably not relist it as such; as such trials may take months or years; over 80% of homicides are taken to court (As they should be, given the weight of taking a human life)

Fuck, according to the National Institute of Health, we don't even have accurate numbers for killings by police each year.

Secondly, the not all states contribute to the UCR, and especially not regularly.

Okay. Hopefully, I've demonstrated you can't just pull out Violence Policy Center numbers and assume they're unbiased. Even FBI UCR data is not indicative of actual 'conditions on the ground'.

Instead, let's take a look at the CDC Report on Firearms Violence ordered by President Obama (who, I think we will agree, is not a pro-gun shill).

Although most of the key figures involved in pushing for this report are antigun and it faced severe NRA opposition, the actual CDC Committee was remarkably bipartisan, although I cannot say the same about the Reviewers.

One of the most interesting findings the CDC report generated was that armed citizens tend to get injured at a much lower rate!

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actualdefensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
(Direct quote, page 15-16)

Other key points of the research I found interesting were that it found [paraphrasing here, running out of time] gun buybacks do not lower gun violence, and the effectiveness of anti-gun legislation tends to be mixed.

Fascinating.

RE your "I'm not here to take your guns away statement", disclosure: I reside in the People's Republic of NYC, and do not own any firearms.

I do not foresee NYC making firearms ownership less restrictive within the next decade, and I'll have moved before then.

Moving on to your thoughts on additive manufacturing...

Erm. I don't think you realize how much simpler a firearm is than a banknote.

You do realize it's possible to build guns from like, pipes & sheet metal, right? I don't mean like crude 12ga single-shot shotguns, but magazine-fed automatic weaponry...

This fascinating design was created by a British pro-gun activist and uses minimal tools. He is known to have created several more; a simple search of Expedient Homemade Firearms has immediately turned up 3 more documents.

A 3D printer that could not print any of those parts would be an expensive paperweight.

Quote:
@CheddarTrek, but I'm a pasty pink bastard who don't have no thumbs yet.
I wanted to thumbs-up Pers, but ran out while browsing the WBA.

And I just missed 2 text messages. Gotta run, wish me luck y'all!
__________________
Because.
newageofpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 07:46 PM   #1272
Joe's Nemesis
Order Member
High Score: 2,058
 
Joe's Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 879
High Score: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
Having guns stops overall crime? Okay, I'd like to see statistics on that. But let's just take murder, as it could arguably be called the worst crime - and, more specifically, murder by firearms. One small slice of the overall crime pie, but relevant to this discussion.

In 2010 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. For the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.

Source (Duke Univeristy). Also supported by Violence Policy Centre and the Federal Bureau of Investigation official statistics.

If murder/justifiable homicide alone - never mind far more common crimes such as assault, cause injury with a deadly weapon, and robbery - has a 1 in 44 chance of being justified - that is, 2.2% of all national homicides being considered legal in any given year - then just how is overall crime being stopped? When firearms are annually responsible for 44 times more crime than they stop just in homicide cases alone?
But, again, that comparison is grossly onesided. The average citizen with a gun does not want to shoot. So, comparisons between justified and non-justified homicide is like comparing apples and oranges. The comparison that I suggest is DGU (meaning brandishing a weapon in face of a felony) vs. crime with a weapon. So, first . . .

FBI Stats 2013 (2014 is actually a tad bit lower)-
Murder - 14196. 69 percent were by gun, so, 9765 (estimate based on percentages.
Aggravated assaults - 72149. 21.6 were by gun, so, 15584 (est.)
Robbery - 345093. 40 percent by gun, so 138037 (est.)

That means, 163,386 felonies by gun (not including rape. For some reason, the FBI doesn't gather those numbers. I doubt it'd be that high, however, as a rape is an (anti-)intimate crime which doesn't lend itself to gun use (no data to support that, just reasoning it out).

SO, using the above numbers, 163,386 crimes by gun (as designated above). The lowest, most conservative estimates that are considered legitimate for DGU use hover between 100-300k. It would be wrong to assume crimes confronted with DGUs are not counted in the felonies listed above. It would also be wrong to assume that all crimes are counted in the above numbers as well.

On the other hand, DGU begins when someone threatens your life or limb, enters your house, or attempts to carjack you. That means many felonies that might have been listed above, were probably stopped by DGU before they reached the level of felony. So, what can we take away from this stat, then?

What I take away from it is that using conservative numbers for DGUs, it suggests guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens help stop as much or more crime that crime committed with guns in the hands of criminals.

So, is there any hard data to prove that fact? Yes and no, as you well know, data is always up for interpretation. But, I think we can control for a pretty good amount of variance. The way to do that is to compare crime numbers of areas before and after major gun legislation. So . . .

Arizona, 2010 moved to concealed carry without permit.

Murder per 100k
05 7.5
06 7.5
07 7.4
08 7.0
09 5.8
10 Gun went into effect six months into year: 6.4
11 6.1
12 5.5
13 5.4
14 4.7
I don't want to make this post unnecessarily long so: rape saw a very modest increase, robbery saw a drastic drop starting in 2009, assault saw a drop in 2009 and except for 2012, has remained the same, Burglary has seen a drastic drop throughout the years, but after a modest increase in 2011, has resumed its drop.

Results: more access to carrying guns on the streets resulted in either no change, or positive change depending on intervening variables and interpretation of trends.

New York. 2013 NY Safe Act - (the only real relevant part of the act in our conversation concerning number of crimes committed is the background checks on ammo buyers). Instead of wasting time listing the numbers, the summary is, there's no real change. Like in Arizona, numbers were dropping, and continued to drop overall at about the same rate.

At this rate, I'll be at it all day. So, instead, I'll go big picture. All following data from here.

UK. In 1998, they passed their big gun law. Change in intentional homicides? Per 100k, 1 intentional homicide in 1995-1998. 1999 it was still 1. Starting in 2000, it doubled until 2005, when it went back down to pre-ban levels.

Conclusion: UK gun laws passed in 1998 either negatively, or neutrally affected overall homicides, depending on other factors.

Canada and Australia: Gun law passed in 1995 and 6, respectively. Intentional homicides before gun law per 100k: both at 2. Intentional homicides after gun law through 2004, both at 2.

Conclusion: Gun laws had no overall effect on intentional homicides in either country after passing them.

United states: Brady Bill and Assault weapon law went into effect in 94-95. Homicides by 100k went from 8, down one point every two years until 2000 at 6. Blipped up in 2001, then back down to 6. Note, both bills are now expired around 2004 (Brady bill waiting period expired in 1998 with NICS in place. Note, NICS was part of Brady Bill). Yet, since the bills expired (waiting period for Brady Bill), homicide rates remained at 6 through 2007, then down to 5 in 2008-12.

Conclusion: The background check looks to be effective, as it is the only part of the legislation still in place. All other pieces of legislation from these changes have ended. Yet, homicide rates continue to slowly decline. It should also be noted that state laws were loosening over the last 4 years as listed above as well. This very well might be the combination of NICS stopping criminals from getting weapons, and law abiding citizens still have access to them in their daily lives.

Within the US, concerning gun laws, 75 percent of the top 11 states (and territories) with the toughest gun laws, are also in the top 26 states (and territories) for highest percent of gun murders compared to all murders in that state. On the other hand, 55 percent of the 11 states with loosest gun laws are also in the bottom 26 states and territories for murders with guns compared to overall murder.

Edit: There's a plethora of other studies putting DGUs somewhere between 100-300k. Look at one of the previous posts for that source, which then lists a number of other sources a well. If I have time, I'll link it here as well.

2nd Edit: It wasn't as robust as I remembered, but here's the article posted earlier. What I do remember is low-ball number based on a study being 100k. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...n-self-defense
-----------------------------
Overall conclusion:

In every case where gun laws were tightened except the US, there was no overall affect on homicide rates. In the US, NICS most likely affected it (depending on what you do with outside factors like economics, which seems to have played a part in all rates before and after as well, something I didn't touch on), but after dropping gun bans, waiting periods, and loosening gun laws in many of the states, there's still an overall decrease in homicides per 100k.

Within the US, however, 75 percent of the top 11 states with tough laws are also in the top half for gun murders compared to all murders, and the reverse is true (at 55percent) for loosest gun laws.

What that suggests to me, is, you're more likely to be murdered by a gun in a state that restricts guns, than you are in a state that doesn't restrict them. And, that would follow the data above about DGUs.




Quote:
Other countries - mine, similar Western nations - have plenty of violent crime, but you know what the difference is in the United States? The sheer amount of available firearms. And firearms change the outcome of violent confrontations considerably - reflected quite obviously in the high number of firearm homicides compared to other nations. Guns to blame
The problem is, what I just showed above tends to argue against that. In fact, tighter gun control has done little to nothing to reduce overall homicides. (I'd throw in other crimes, but didn't do the stats on it). What that tells me is the problem in the US isn't guns. It's a larger societal issue.
Quote:
Defensive gun use is an interesting one, but also not quite backed up by the numbers. Can I see your math? I'm taking these figures from official government sources - in this case the Bureau of Justice Statistics - and according to them for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, there were an estimated 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm.

Now, 235,700 sounds like a lot - but over five years? And as an overall percentage of all reported crime it's only 0.8%?

DGU accounted for 0.8% of firearms used in attempted or completed violent crime.

So guns are used for self-defense. They absolutely are. I've been in situations where an armed escort has seen me safely home. Granted, that was law enforcement/military carrying the weapons, not private citizens, which is a vital distinction. However, the statistics paint a pretty clear picture that in American society guns are used for far more crime than they are for self-defense, which is why I consider your argument individualistic.
My numbers above would disagree. Here's the soures for those numbers:

(Note, I'm including Kleck and Gertz just to be complete).

Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology vol. 86, no. 1 (Fall 95): 150-187. Access this study here

For a response to this study from (at the time) one of the foremost criminologists and gun control advocates, check out this article in the same journal. Though completely opposed to the use of guns for self defense, he praises the above study for it's methodological soundness.

Wolfgang, Marvin. "A Tribute to a View I have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology vol. 86. no 1 (Fall, 1986): 188-192. Access this article here.

As for DGUs without shooting or in some cases, even brandishing, an older article: Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms. Aldine de Gruyter: New York, 1986. (in it, it is found 60 percent of the felons surveyed said they avoided committed crimes when they knew the victim was armed, 40 percent also avoided it when they thought he was armed. (this was referenced on a website, but I'm providing the source documentation for it).
-----------------------

If we really want to do something about the problem of murder, we should go to the source, and it's not guns. It's gangs, according to the FBI. Highlights below are mine.
Quote:
Of those surveyed 30 percent of law enforcement officials report the majority of gang-related crime in their jurisdiction is committed with firearms. Law enforcement officials in 65 jurisdictions nationwide report gang-related offenses committed with firearms account for at least 95 percent of crime in their areas.
Approximately 40 percent (234) of law enforcement officials surveyed claim that gangs in their jurisdiction partake in weapons trafficking. Officials in at least 69 jurisdictions - including those in Arizona, California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia - indicated that gang involvement in weapons trafficking is severe
And those weapons do not come from legal owners. The come from Mexico through the drug cartels.

Thus, my belief that in the US, gun control is the worst way to go about lowering crime in the US, especially homicides. Passing stricter laws only shackles the lawful gun owners, when the problem is criminals getting guns illegally and then using them illegaly (and usually, on each other, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994).
__________________
I've thrown [the ancient story of] Bel and the Dragon on as well; it looks short... and idolatrous dragons still almost count as dragons
~Marsupial

Last edited by Joe's Nemesis; 10-10-2015 at 07:54 PM.
Joe's Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 08:41 PM   #1273
Russano
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 602
I'm always a little leary of any statistic that seems to cutoff Top "whatever number" at a weird uneven number. Top 11 of the top 26 seems like you are cutting off numbers at whatever helps make the case of a certain position.
Russano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 09:02 PM   #1274
Jon
Administrator
The Ḑ͉͙̫̑̂ͮ̎̍͒̽̉̆̀ͅȇ̱̯̘̖̾͐͐͂͢m̴̢͙̟̤̤̝̍ͫ͂̏̒́͘o̒n
 
Jon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,094
Send a message via Skype™ to Jon
Boys and their toys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Journal
FBI’s National Instant Background Check System shows gun sales hit a record high for the fifth month in a row with 1,795,102 prospective gun owners processed in September.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/c...article/446160
__________________
FFN Profile || WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB || Patronus

"Jon's fics are kinda like children in a way.
Bright, pretty, smart—children that any father would kill to have.
And he just tells them he needs to buy a pack of cigarettes."

—Lungs, 2015
Jon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 09:57 PM   #1275
newageofpower
Professor
 
newageofpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Ugh. Today has been shit.😢

@Scrubb

Do you really accept the 1:44 ratio? If even 1% of DGUs end in shots fired, we'd exceed the FBI UCR 'justified homicides' by five-fold.

There are studies by Kleck and others (admittedly, very old studies) with estimates that anywhere between 5.6% to 13% of DGUs end with an attacker shot; which would imply a minimum ratio of of nearly 1:3 (assuming we remove suicides from the equation) and a maximum ratio closer to 5:1 (which, seems unlikely, as crime would become ludicrously hazardous and we'd be seeing a dramatic decrease in crime).

Awaiting your input on this.


@Jon

IIRC, Obama was called Gun Salesman of the Year when he was first elected. There was not only a record increase in Gun sales, but people who always wanted to 'one day shoot a gun' and decided to do it now.

Years down the line, these new entries to the firearms culture keep buying weapons, ammo, and introducing recreational shooting or self-defense carry to their friends, which feeds yet another cycle of growth...

It could be said Obama had revitalized shooting culture more than the NRA could have ever hoped to.
__________________
Because.
newageofpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 10:45 PM   #1276
Joe's Nemesis
Order Member
High Score: 2,058
 
Joe's Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 879
High Score: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by newageofpower View Post
Ugh. Today has been shit.��

@Scrubb

Do you really accept the 1:44 ratio? If even 1% of DGUs end in shots fired, we'd exceed the FBI UCR 'justified homicides' by five-fold.

There are studies by Kleck and others (admittedly, very old studies) with estimates that anywhere between 5.6% to 13% of DGUs end with an attacker shot; which would imply a minimum ratio of of nearly 1:3 (assuming we remove suicides from the equation) and a maximum ratio closer to 5:1 (which, seems unlikely, as crime would become ludicrously hazardous and we'd be seeing a dramatic decrease in crime).

Awaiting your input on this.
No, because I'd guess (and just a guess, with no stats to back up) that not even that many DGUs end in shots fired. ON top of that, based on one of the studies I provided, there's the preventative element "I thought they had a gun, so I didn't even attempt it" element as well. While not technically a DGU, being prepared for DGU prevented a crime the gun owner according to those criminals.

Quote:
@Jon

IIRC, Obama was called Gun Salesman of the Year when he was first elected. There was not only a record increase in Gun sales, but people who always wanted to 'one day shoot a gun' and decided to do it now.

Years down the line, these new entries to the firearms culture keep buying weapons, ammo, and introducing recreational shooting or self-defense carry to their friends, which feeds yet another cycle of growth...

It could be said Obama had revitalized shooting culture more than the NRA could have ever hoped to.
I said a few times (tongue firmly in cheek) that I wanted an investigation into Obama's financial holdings, expecting he had tremendous amounts of stock in different gun manufacturers and ammunition companies.

---------- Post automerged at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russano View Post
I'm always a little leary of any statistic that seems to cutoff Top "whatever number" at a weird uneven number. Top 11 of the top 26 seems like you are cutting off numbers at whatever helps make the case of a certain position.
I was actually going for the top and bottom 10, but realized I counted Washington DC. So I went with 11 on both sides.

Either that, or I was getting a spinal tap.

---------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Hmm, How about DSU? Defensive Sword Use. I guess that guy picked the wrong house.
__________________
I've thrown [the ancient story of] Bel and the Dragon on as well; it looks short... and idolatrous dragons still almost count as dragons
~Marsupial

Last edited by Joe's Nemesis; 10-10-2015 at 11:40 PM.
Joe's Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 11:43 PM   #1277
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,675
DLP Supporter Donor Star
So, Scrubb, if you have identified NICS as the only successful (in your opinion) component of US gun control legislation that simultaneously keeps people you don't want buying guns from buying them while retaining your ability to buy as a law-abiding owner, do you not think that that alone warrants its strengthening, as we discussed earlier?

By the way, I entirely agree with you on the subject of gangs, although you should also include the narcotics trade. They are tangentially connected, of course, but still largely separate problems.
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2015, 11:49 PM   #1278
Joe's Nemesis
Order Member
High Score: 2,058
 
Joe's Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 879
High Score: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Revan View Post
So, Scrubb, if you have identified NICS as the only successful (in your opinion) component of US gun control legislation that simultaneously keeps people you don't want buying guns from buying them while retaining your ability to buy as a law-abiding owner, do you not think that that alone warrants its strengthening, as we discussed earlier?

By the way, I entirely agree with you on the subject of gangs, although you should also include the narcotics trade. They are tangentially connected, of course, but still largely separate problems.
I brushed by the narcotics trade, but it's well documented in the link. You're exactly right, and is a big deal in that they're responsible for pushing a lot of guns into the US illegally.

As for NICS, I would like to see it expanded, but probably not in the same ways you might. For instance, I'd like to see it opened up so private citizens can voluntarily use it when selling a gun. Currently, it's illegal for them to use it. Furthermore, if a private citizen is buying a gun from another private citizen, they can't even do it at a gun store and ask for help with NICS, as it puts the dealer at risk to lose his license.

I'd like to see all of that change before there's any mandating going on.
__________________
I've thrown [the ancient story of] Bel and the Dragon on as well; it looks short... and idolatrous dragons still almost count as dragons
~Marsupial
Joe's Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 10-11-2015, 12:02 AM   #1279
Darth_Revan
Secret Squirrel
 
Darth_Revan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Empire City
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,675
DLP Supporter Donor Star
So, for example, if we were to require all private sales to go through a licensed dealer, who could perform that check and account for the sale, while simultaneously extending them legal protection so they can keep their dealers license (I'm assuming you mean against a tort claim?), you would support it?
__________________

Peace is a lie, the greatest lie there is. The truth is strife. Struggle. Pain. Suffering.

And from that turmoil, power. The power to bend the universe to my will.

- Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith
Darth_Revan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2015, 07:12 AM   #1280
Gwyll
Sixth Year
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berkshire, UK
Gender: Male
Posts: 177
One thing I have been thinking of, and don't know if it has been brought up yet. Pro-gun side argues that having guns available lowers the amount of crimes committed.
This should mean the opposite should also be true, and now I don't know any statistics/specifics, in countries where they implemented strict gun controls, do we have details on how the overall crime statistics changed after gun control?
Gwyll is offline   Reply With Quote

Tags
sticky


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official NBA discussion thread. Havoc Real Life Discussion 19 11-09-2008 01:20 AM
Official MLB Discussion Thread 2008 Xiph0 Real Life Discussion 104 11-01-2008 12:20 AM
Official NFL Discussion Thread 2008 Voice of the Nephilim Real Life Discussion 3 09-14-2008 10:52 PM
The Mechanics of Spells discussion thread Kerrus General Discussion 36 02-22-2008 02:26 PM
Official GoF movie discussion thread! Midknight General Discussion 130 01-10-2006 03:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.