Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Shooting


Retired

Recommended Posts

I understand the fear about firearms but firearms are not the problem and gun control is not the answer.

 

Nice, France: 87 killed with a truck

Oklahoma city: 168 killed with a homemade bomb

Paris: 130 killed with guns and bombs in a place where firearms are strictly regulated

9/11: 2996 killed with airplanes acquired with box cutters

 

Those are just a few examples.

 

The problem is there are all varieties of bad people out there and no matter what you try to restrict they always seem to find a way. knife, gun, truck, bomb, etc.

 

My point about regulating ammonium nitrate used in bombs is that there have been no deaths that I can find in the US since Oklahoma City, and that is probably due to regulation (or guns and vehicles are easier).

 

Another point about guns is that more guns result in more gun deaths, and the data backs that up. But your point is well taken and backed up by this data.

Murder rate by country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You still haven't refuted anything I have said. You also have not explained how more strict gun control would change violent crime in America. There are well over 300 million firearms in America. You can't confiscate them all, and the ones you could confiscate would not be the ones the possessed and used by criminals.

 

I have provided data that shows guns do not make us safer. I have also pointed out that Australia and the UK have effectively and dramatically lowered their rates of gun death via control measures. All of this is measurable.

 

What I am asking is actually very simple. Please provide some data that shows how guns make us safer as a society. That should be easy, no?

 

And while you are at it, please respond the previously posted graphic with an actual explanation. If guns are not the problem (and I am more that willing to entertain that possibility) please explain to me why we are far and away the number one country for gun murder. There must be a reason. I am listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1507112687[/url]' post='1884750']

Apparently there was lots of ammo, though he only fired for about 10 minutes. It appears many of the guns had modified stocks to get auto capability. These are for some reason legal and available in the US... those may have been the different sounding bursts you mentioned.

 

CNN: "He had an arsenal of weapons, including bump-fire stocks found in the hotel, which is a legal device that enables a shooter to fire bullets rapidly, similar to an automatic rifle. Paddock had outfitted 12 of his firearms with the bump stocks, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "

 

Yea, I'm still learning about this case. I've never heard of bump stocks before till today. Hickok who tests guns says they've been around less then 10 years. Guess that shows I've never followed that or I'm getting too old? So I had to look it up, I thought how in the world do you make a semi auto rifle fire as fast as a full auto? Guess it works off the recoil of the rifle. Another way to get around a class 3 stamp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1507218552[/url]' post='1884970']

Fully automatic weapons are not currently illegal, they're just more tightly regulated than others.

 

I can't think of a single example of a legally owned full auto weapon that has been used in a mass shooting, or any shooting, in the US. There may be one but I doubt it. They have all been modified illegally by the criminal.

 

As for the bump fire stocks, those are clearly a way around the restrictions placed on full auto weapons and those should be banned simply because they are specifically designed to skirt around other exiting laws.

 

I couldn't agree more. I don't even know how I missed that scene when they came out? Never heard of a bump stock till today. Was wondering what everyone kept talking about. Actually I heard of the bump stock talk on the news but thought now way you can make a semiauto fire as fast as a fullauto. Just an illegal way of getting around the existing laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess it works off the recoil of the rifle. Another way to get around a class 3 stamp?

 

So it would seem. It is not clear yet whether any of the weapons in the room would have required the Class 3 or if he possessed that level of legality. Perhaps that information will become available in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

B35KUv9l.jpg

 

This graph really says it all. What would cause such a stark difference? Availability.

 

If someone is hell bent on mass murder then they can accomplish it with banned weapons, trucks, airplanes, etc., as has been shown.

If someone snaps for whatever reason, having it available nearby drastically increases the chance that it will be used. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Never heard of a bump stock till today. Was wondering what everyone kept talking about. Actually I heard of the bump stock talk on the news but thought now way you can make a semiauto fire as fast as a fullauto. Just an illegal way of getting around the existing laws.

 

I hadn't heard of them either, but here's a little vid of the Bumpfire stock in action. Certainly acts like full auto.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gWrthH2OK4&has_verified=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've made my position about guns abundantly clear but at the same time I had never heard of, nor seen in action, one of these 'bump stocks'. Now that I see one in action (admittedly I fast forwarded through the spoken part to see it actually work), I think these should be yanked from the market. Whether or not people should be 'allowed' to own a full auto isn't even being discussed...those rules were put in place by the National Firearms Act of 1934, whether anyone agrees with that act or not. If someone does want to own a full auto, there are procedures that can be followed so that person can do so. This device is clearly and blatantly manufactured to work around the law, and as such, has no place.

 

I once owned a small 22 semi-auto pistol that had a distorted breech face and would go full auto, meaning all 6 rounds would be dumped in a split second on one squeeze of the trigger. I was violating the law by even owning that gun, even though the only reason it was full auto was because of a mechanical defect, not by any intentional modification. I sent it back to the factory and they rebuilt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are kind of cool, but the way I was brought up, having to carry a gun means you're a sissy. My dad had been shot when he was a kid and he was a tail gunner on a dive bomber and I guess he had enough of the gun thing cause we never had any in the house. I was more into hanging out with friends and playing sports. [thumbup] [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hunting rifle that I haven't used in 17 years and my wife has a handgun that she keeps for self defense. I don't understand the need to have 80 guns and all the corresponding ammo etc but then again, why do I need 80 some guitars. . . I don't oppose having guns but I don't see the need for insane arsenals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I once owned a small 22 semi-auto pistol that had a distorted breech face and would go full auto, meaning all 6 rounds would be dumped in a split second on one squeeze of the trigger. I was violating the law by even owning that gun, even though the only reason it was full auto was because of a mechanical defect, not by any intentional modification. I sent it back to the factory and they rebuilt it.

 

I had a cheap 22 pistol that did the same thing to include a broken safety. I immediately destroyed the thing, much to dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a CDC study done under the Obama administration that concludes there is no evidence that gun control laws effect crime rates:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...ml/rr5214a2.htm

 

Here is some data from the U.S Dept of Justice that shows that defensive uses of firearms annually is much greater than homicides:

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

 

There is a lot more out there if you care to look at it objectively.

 

Anyway, I'm done with this. Like I said before, we are not convincing each other so it's a pointless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first link says this “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)”

 

The second link doesn’t work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the way I was brought up, having to carry a gun means you're a sissy...

 

Now you see this is where it all goes bad. This has been a fairly polite discussion so far. Now we get people engaging in childish insults. Sad.

 

By the way, I have trained with lots of active duty and former military and law enforcement officers all of whom carry. Trust me, they're not sissies.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=94&v=SGpDVCkhtD4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first link says this "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

 

The second link doesn't work

 

here's another try on the second link:

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm someone who's had people in my life die because, seeing as guns are outlawed in Sweden, only outlaws carry guns (and lots of them), here are my two cents.

 

Take the "Batman" shooting. What fit in that theater - 200 people? Even if ten of those were mentally sketchy, and one was the shooter, chances are the remaining 189, including the ten who had a scrip for Prozac and ten Xanax, would have incapacitated the shooter - had they carried guns.

 

As I understand, as it stands we know very little as to the shooter's motivations. I read somewhere that various rock stars mentioned he must've been on psychotropic drugs.

 

Lemme tell all yis all - what-EVAH! I think the reason a lot of the no-apparent-motive shooters were on psych meds were they were ****ed up to begin with, and thus had a greater propensity for violence, meds or no meds.

 

I don't mean to say psych meds facilitate violence - what I'm saying is the opposite. I think we'd have MORE mass shootings without psych meds. But not everyone responds to medication, I understand.

 

It's gotten grimmer out there - and over here. I wish I could buy a gun legally. (I'm not going to buy a gun illegally.)

 

My condolences to the victims and their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a CDC study done under the Obama administration that concludes there is no evidence that gun control laws effect crime rates:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...ml/rr5214a2.htm

 

First, thanks for providing some data. [thumbup] And yes I am glad to look at it objectively.

 

And yes, the CDC study is a good piece of meta-analysis (They are studying the studies in other words). What they found, unfortunately, was not that gun laws are effective or ineffective but rather that there weren't enough US gun laws to study them effectively! They tried to use as many state and city laws as possible (The Brady Bill, the DC laws, etc) but they are so few the data is inconclusive.

 

So yeah, in summary, studying gun laws in the US is difficult because there are so few. It's hard to study what is not there. (See key findings column of the table in the study you referenced). Interesting bit of meta-analysis though. [thumbup]

 

atyQ0zrl.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What they found, unfortunately, was not that gun laws are effective or ineffective but rather that there weren't enough US gun laws to study them effectively!

 

 

That is not what the study found. You need to read it again. It doesn't say anything about a insufficient quantity gun laws contributing to their conclusions. It says that there are problems with data and methods used in other studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is some data from the U.S Dept of Justice that shows that defensive uses of firearms annually is much greater than homicides:

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

 

I have pored over this document for some time and cannot find where it demonstrates what you say it does. Feel free to point me in the right direction, but I think you are misreading something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have pored over this document for some time and cannot find where it demonstrates what you say it does. Feel free to point me in the right direction, but I think you are misreading something.

 

No I'm not. It's in there. I said the data presented shows defensive uses of firearms was greater than homicides for the period studied. I think you are misreading something, just like you did on the other paper! msp_thumbup.gif

 

83,000 defensive uses annually. 10,600 homicides annually (averaged over the period studied)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what the study found. You need to read it again. It doesn't say anything about a insufficient quantity gun laws contributing to their conclusions. It says that there are problems with data and methods used in other studies.

 

Yes, it certainly references flaws in data collection. But in nearly every instance it first states: "Evidence insufficient because of small numbers of studies".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

83,000 defensive uses annually. 10,600 homicides annually (averaged over the period studied)

 

Now I see what you did... It was the way you presented the data that didn't make sense to me. You left out the big number.

 

In the period of 1987-1992 there were an average of 667,000 hand gun crimes per year, and 10,600 of those 667,000 crimes were murders. In that same period there were 82,500 defensive uses of firearms annually in the 667,000 crimes.

 

Or in list form...

 

1982-1992 we averaged per year:

 

667,000 gun crimes

82,500 defensive uses of guns in those crimes

10,600 murders in those crimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small number of studies is not the same as lack of sufficient number of laws.

 

Fair point. I implied a causation that isn't provable. However, they did study a small number of laws, and I think part of the reason for that is there are few to begin with. Insufficient is admittedly opinion on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...