Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Michael Everett   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:50 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

Tenshinai wrote: :cry:
And this is exactly why guns should not be sold to anyone, always kept safely stored and NOT handed to children unless under constant oversight.
thinkstoomuch wrote:Which works wonderfully when the kid is attacked in my brother's 40 acres by a coyote.
Still not understanding the full implications of your philosophical positions, I see.
Wharever,
T2M
Tenshinai wrote:Oh i understand them perfectly, as fortunately i´m not a fanatical idiot.

Why am I reminded of a certain scene from the book Freehold?
"Well, our studies show-"
He was cut off again. "Of course they do. Your studies show whatever you want them to show. But empirical data-"
This time McCormick interrupted. "Yes, well that whole empirical thing is what we're here about. The days of empirical rule are over."


Coyote attacks (and bear etc) do occur in certain areas of America. Guns are one of the cheapest way of preventing said attacks without wiping out the entire species. But in order to prevent said attack, the gun must be carried. It does no good locked in a super-secure-fifteen-padlocks gun cabinet.

The key (as far as I can see) is education! Catch the kids young and tell them that guns are tools that can be used, but must be used carefully! Teach all school-age children the rules of gun safety and regularly drill them on it. Slam down hard on anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime (say, punishment for crime + X years for using firearm in course of crime). Slam down hard on those who commit a crime alongside someone who uses a gun.
Between education and punishment, society should be able to get people thinking about guns rationally.
Guns are tools. Specialized tools, but tools nonetheless.
And when someone uses a tool, they need to learn how to use it correctly first and what sort of jobs it should be used for.

Interestingly, if you're within ten feet of someone who pulls out a gun, you've actually got a better chance of survival attacking them than running away, especially if you are using bare hands or a knife. Just remember to push the barrel to one side.
Seriously.People who attack with guns tend to forget that they have feet, knees, elbows, a forehead and (usually) another hand to use. Stop them from hitting you with the gun and they generally don't adjust in time to stop you applying a knee to a place that'll stop anyone not wearing a cup.
A similar thing happens with knife-users, as I know from experience.
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.
(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:19 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Those areas are much more numerous than is generally understood by those not living in the US. For example, I have seen coyotes in Denver. We have prairie dogs and rabbits all over our greenbelts and parks. So long as there are enough small game for them, they don't attack people. They do attack dogs and fences are not nearly the barrier they appear to be. The problem is much worse when the homes are outside the city and fenced animals are much easier prey than jackrabbits and prairie dogs.

I have a friend living in one of the mountain communities that walks his dogs armed with a pistol. He has seen bears and coyotes frequently enough to take precautions. If he feels at risk, won't youngsters be equally at risk?

I see coyotes regularly when I walk my dogs. My wife's lapdog represents a snack for one of them. We don't live outside the city.

Michael Everett wrote:
Tenshinai wrote: :cry:
And this is exactly why guns should not be sold to anyone, always kept safely stored and NOT handed to children unless under constant oversight.
thinkstoomuch wrote:Which works wonderfully when the kid is attacked in my brother's 40 acres by a coyote.
Still not understanding the full implications of your philosophical positions, I see.
Wharever,
T2M
Tenshinai wrote:Oh i understand them perfectly, as fortunately i´m not a fanatical idiot.

Why am I reminded of a certain scene from the book Freehold?
"Well, our studies show-"
He was cut off again. "Of course they do. Your studies show whatever you want them to show. But empirical data-"
This time McCormick interrupted. "Yes, well that whole empirical thing is what we're here about. The days of empirical rule are over."


Coyote attacks (and bear etc) do occur in certain areas of America. Guns are one of the cheapest way of preventing said attacks without wiping out the entire species. But in order to prevent said attack, the gun must be carried. It does no good locked in a super-secure-fifteen-padlocks gun cabinet.

The key (as far as I can see) is education! Catch the kids young and tell them that guns are tools that can be used, but must be used carefully! Teach all school-age children the rules of gun safety and regularly drill them on it. Slam down hard on anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime (say, punishment for crime + X years for using firearm in course of crime). Slam down hard on those who commit a crime alongside someone who uses a gun.
Between education and punishment, society should be able to get people thinking about guns rationally.
Guns are tools. Specialized tools, but tools nonetheless.
And when someone uses a tool, they need to learn how to use it correctly first and what sort of jobs it should be used for.

Interestingly, if you're within ten feet of someone who pulls out a gun, you've actually got a better chance of survival attacking them than running away, especially if you are using bare hands or a knife. Just remember to push the barrel to one side.
Seriously.People who attack with guns tend to forget that they have feet, knees, elbows, a forehead and (usually) another hand to use. Stop them from hitting you with the gun and they generally don't adjust in time to stop you applying a knee to a place that'll stop anyone not wearing a cup.
A similar thing happens with knife-users, as I know from experience.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by smr   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:57 pm

smr
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:18 pm

1) Mass Shootings happen in countries where weapons are banned. Now, 1st pov shooter games make it easier to kill people by desensitizing people to shooting at human targets.


Tenshinai wrote:
smr wrote:Let's get to the root of the gun violence.

In no particular order:

1. Graphic violent movies
2. 1st pov shooter games
3. Domestic violence
4. Criminal history
5. Chemical abusers
6. Alcohol abusers
7. Mental illness


:lol:

You do realise that 1 and 2 exists in nations with barely any shootings? And that nations where either or both are banned(more or less), do not have drastically less gun violence or violence.

And that all those DO exist everywhere.

If instead you look at limits on gun ownership, you find that the more restrictive, generally the place has less gun violence.
Correlation isn´t exact, but the trends are definitely following gun restriction levels to a drastically higher degree than they follow any point in your list.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Michael Everett   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:18 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

smr wrote:1) Mass Shootings happen in countries where weapons are banned. Now, 1st pov shooter games make it easier to kill people by desensitizing people to shooting at human targets.

That's similar to the correlation between murder and ice cream.
As ice cream sales rise in America, so does the murder rate.
Does this mean that Ice Cream should be banned?

Again, it boils down to the education of the young. Children start out as self-centered, narcissistic, greedy idiots. It's up to society to train them out of it. If they do, great. The dangerous ones are those that A) refuse to learn, B) fail to be taught or C) are taught wrongly (such as the so-called Progressive Teaching methods aka never tell the kid that they're wrong as it'll ruin them for life).
B and C can be overcome while A is the most dangerous and needs to be watched for.

People generally need more than computer games to desensitize them to reality, they must be on the emotional slippery slope to begin with. If the inclination isn't there and being nourished, games'll have no effect. If they do have an effect, social interaction tends to counter it. The more interaction, the greater the counter effect.
That's why most killers are loners or live in philosophical echo chambers. If they didn't, they would find it far, far harder to psych themselves up for a killing spree.
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.
(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by thinkstoomuch   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:40 pm

thinkstoomuch
Admiral

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: United States of America

Tenshinai wrote:
Oh i understand them perfectly, as fortunately i´m not a fanatical idiot.



I would disagree asuming one size fits sll solution and imposing on all othets is fairly fanatical from my point of view.

We have already established that you have no real clue about the US but you think your eay is hest.

My brother has had a firearm hanging by the door for the past 30-40 years. Amazingly enough no person has died.

Face it you are a fanatical Statist.

You know what you know and thats all there is to it.

Hell I don't own a firearm or have a CC permit either yet some how I am fanatical.

Whatever,
T2M
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?”
A: “No. That’s just the price. ...
Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games"
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by thinkstoomuch   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:56 pm

thinkstoomuch
Admiral

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: United States of America

Someone asked a while back about stats for the times when a civilian stops a mass killing and when the police do.

From Larry Corriea's blog.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/ ... ol-repost/

"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started."

No idea where he got that stat ... but there is one answer anyway.

Have fun,(I am in W. Texas in between the rain anyway)
T2M
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?”
A: “No. That’s just the price. ...
Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games"
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Spacekiwi   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:25 pm

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

Not sure where he got his info from, but I did manage to find some data from the fbi regarding shootings:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents


https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

Some interesting figures:


They recorded 160 mass shootings between 2000-2013.
486 killed, 557 injured. average 3 dad and 3.5 injured.
On average, of these shootings, median dead and injured, not including shooter, was 2 each.
10% were started against family members, and another 10% were started because of grievances against partners/ex-partners.
57% of shootings finished because the shooter was finished, either committing suicide, stopped shooting, or left.
13% of shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians restraining the shooter.
in 3% of these shootings, civilians returned fire, resulting in 1 suicide, 1 injury and 3 deaths.
2 further incidents were stopped by off duty police.
in 28% of incidents is gunfire exchanged between police and the shooter. 25 shooter deaths, 9 injuries, 9 suicides, 2 surrenders.
Overall, 40% of shooters ended shooting because of suicide.
24.4% occured at educational institutes, 45% at business locations, 10% at govt facilities.
42 shooters had links to the businesses they shot up, either through employment(past or present) or via relationship.
No school shootings were stopped by civilians, and 10/27 school shooters commuted suicide.
Overall, the conclusion of shooting was more likely to be from the shooter finishing than unarmed civilians (57% v 13%), and unarmed responses were 4 times more common than armed responses, including that of off duty police.


So for every case of an armed civilian responding to a shooter, it is 17-18 times more likely that the shooter concludes their mission as opposed to being stopped by the public.
If his numbers are right, while a civilian response may have reduced casualties, this may be due to the lack of incidents to draw proper statistics from. I would really hesitate about drawing statistics from a pool of 5 cases over 14 years.



Hope this proves useful for some. I will see if i can find more govt data later on, to see if i can find a bigger data pool for study.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Someone asked a while back about stats for the times when a civilian stops a mass killing and when the police do.

From Larry Corriea's blog.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/ ... ol-repost/

"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started."

No idea where he got that stat ... but there is one answer anyway.

Have fun,(I am in W. Texas in between the rain anyway)
T2M
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:55 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3610
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

It is a matter of appropriateness. I grew up on a sheep and cattle station (ranch) in the Australian outback. Had a 22 at 10 years, and full access to heavier guns by 15. Many memories of routinely riding a horse with a carbine in a saddle holster and a pistol on my hip as a mid teen. We had dingo packs, several of the top five deadliest snakes and other nasties to deal with.
That was (and still is) appropriate, but does an average urbanite, in a country where a single gun crime makes national headlines, need to have a gun? No.
As to whether I would feel the need to have a weapon in some parts of the USA that have insane gun crime levels, I don't know. Probably not, because a gun doesn't come with a shield, and generally makes you less cautious as you feel falsely protected.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Donnachaidh   » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:22 pm

Donnachaidh
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

No scientifically valid study has ever shown a statistically valid link between video games and violence.

As a conservative rough guesstimate that leads to easy math, 5% of the US population routinely played video games. That works out to about 14,505,000 people (using the 2003 US population estimate). According to spacekiwi's data there were 160 mass shootings in the US between 2000 and 2013. Assuming every single perpetrator of a mass shooting was among those that routinely play violent video games. That works out to (roughly) 1 in 90,656 or 0.0011%. Literally less than 1%. That alone indicates there's likely a problem with your assumptions.

So please, stop blaming video games. Also stop blaming guns. The issue with gun violence isn't the guns, it's the violence.

People need to learn to deal with situations without resorting to violence more than they need to not have guns. If you remove guns people will use other weapons (or items as weapons such as pipe or boards) or their bare hands. Solve the underlying cause of the violence instead of just trying to limit access to the tool used to commit the violence.

smr wrote:1) Mass Shootings happen in countries where weapons are banned. Now, 1st pov shooter games make it easier to kill people by desensitizing people to shooting at human targets.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:28 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3610
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I'd agree that there is no statistical link between video games and violent acts. Sure many violent people do watch violent video games, but that's not surprising. People are drawn to what they already like.

As to mass murder and availability of guns, it is statistically obvious that the one developed country that has free access to guns has far and away the highest incidence of mass murder. Depending on your definition of mass shootings, one authority lists 298 in the USA in the first six months of 2015. To murder multiple people without guns is difficult and requires brains and endeavour. With auto or semiauto guns, any dope can do it easily.
Top

Return to Politics