Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: Gun Control
(16-06-2013 08:07 AM)Bob Loblaw Wrote:  
(16-06-2013 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  I would like to note that Our Founder, Seth, has a concealed carry permit and carries a gun.
Really? wow my view has now changed and I will now start rallying the troops to change our concealed gun laws here in CanadaNo not the Facts or stats I was looking for but thanks for that valuable bit of information

You're welcome.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Gun Control
(16-06-2013 07:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  He also lives in Oklahoma under constant threat of tornadoes. Drinking Beverage That doesn't mean I have to value that choice either.

It was a simple statement of fact, a data point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2013, 12:05 PM
Re: Gun Control
I'm aware he is a gun advocate, so are a lot of my family. I don't know what to do with this data.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-06-2013 12:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm aware he is a gun advocate, so are a lot of my family. I don't know what to do with this data.

Some might tell you to put it in your pipe and smoke it. Big Grin Not me. No

The only point is that there are reasonable and intelligent people on all sides of the issue.

And I say 'all sides' because it is multidimensional.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: Gun Control
(13-06-2013 08:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Another bit I meant to add to the bit about alcohol too, we have a defined age limit that is based off of brain development for the right to consume alcohol. Consumption below that age means that the consumer and the supplier are held legally responsible.

Guns? Hell, the gun industry makes guns specifically designed for kids.
[Image: Guns-for-kids-e1367597345473.jpg]

Sporting goods equipment usually comes in kids sizes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:53 AM
RE: Gun Control
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-...r-problem/

I got the issue the other day and I am moving through the above article as well as this one that talks about "The Sandy Hook Effect."

I'll start with the former article first.


Mr. Hillshafer makes a lot of good points in his article, and highlights a couple of key issues that surround the gun issues and mass murders in particular. Some of his observations I found most interesting are (and I'll keep it brief as you can read his article yourself):
"While the killer occasionally died at the hands of an angry mob (1%), rarely did an armed civilian kill an attacker (0% in the U.S., 1 recorded incident in Israel where an armed student killed an attacker), and unarmed heroic civilians who charge the attacker frequently got killed."

That's not really all that surprising for the most part. The bit I found interesting was the underlined portion. A civilian stopping a mass murder with a weapon by shooting and killing them is nonexistent in the US. There was however the Gabrielle Gifford's incident where he highlights this:
"For example, Joe Zamudio20 was legally carrying a concealed handgun in Arizona one day when he heard gunshots. He ran toward the gunfire and saw a man with a handgun in a malfunction condition on top of another man, shouting, “I’ll kill you, you motherf****r. I’ll kill you.” Leaving his weapon in the holster Zamudio grabbed the man’s wrist and instructed him to put down the weapon, which he did. The man was Roger Sulzgeber, who in addition to retired Army Colonel Bill Badger and Patricia Maisch,21, 22 saved many lives by tackling Jared Loughner after Loughner’s weapon malfunctioned approximately one minute20, 23 after opening fire."

Mr Zamudio had a gun on him and helped restrain Loughner, but never need take it from his holster. The point here (as he makes further along too) is that proper training and assessment of the situation can prevent unnecessary use of a firearm and unnecessary loss of life or injury.

The concept is simple, people carrying a concealed weapon should have training like that of police. I don't mean the physical aspect, but the assessing of situations so as to prevent escalation of incident. This is further highlighted by several other stats. Chiefly:
"A recent study by Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra at Texas A&M University indicates that an extra 600 homicides occur in the U.S. each year because of these laws.25, 26 Why might this be? Of the 13,756 homicides counted in the 2009 FBI27 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data, 3,368 (24.4%) were started because of “Other Arguments” (an argument not over money or property). This is more than all the 2,051 (14.9%) “Felony Homicides”28 and 1,495 (10.9%) “Non-Felony Homicides”29 (excluding “Other Arguments” listed above and the 1,996 or 14.5% of “Non-Felony Not Specified”). That means that alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and gangs combined killed fewer people than arguments did in the U.S. in 2009. The only category with more homicides is “Unknown,” which could mean unsolved, solved enough for the detectives to get an arrest and move on to the next case, or fully solved but poorly documented (Figures 11 and 12)."

This is interesting and important because the most gun deaths on a yearly basis, are easily preventable if the people implementing the use of the gun had used their fists instead of their weapon in the argument. Or better still, not escalated the argument to such a point in the first place.

In the end, Mr. Hillshafer makes several suggestions that include changes in age of acquisition of gun, age for full liability of a gun, surrogates for those underage to be held accountable too, insurance, training, and better mental healthcare. I'm down with that.

I'll read the other article and give my opinion on it too here in a few. Especially since the conversation seems to have died so suddenly on this thread.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Gun Control
Now, that second article I linked in my previous post, this one written by Micheal Shermer. I enjoyed this article too and found it to be quite similar to the previous one. This article is a bit more geared towards looking at the longer term trends and the longer term causes of the decline in violence in society. It doesn't really end with any measures specifically addressing gun control, but does asses that gun control is one of the measures that need be implemented to bring about some necessary changes to continue the trend of decreasing violence. Specifically, he supports the legislation put forth by Carolyn McCarthy saying that "...The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, and it would prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 bullets (the maximum now is 100).46 That seems reasonable to me, and hunters who claim otherwise can give their game a more sporting chance of escape— if you can’t nail them in 10 rounds they deserve to live."

I tend to agree with him on this. I disagree however when he says that the US is too dissimilar from Australia for the measures they took to be effective here however. I agree with the objections he has as to our differences when he says "The population is much smaller and more homogeneous, and the number of guns already in circulation is orders of magnitude smaller, and the “gun culture” there is nothing like it is in America." I just don't think these are significant enough to generate a substantial difference. And the latter point about the gun culture, is a reflection of the issue that is at hand. One I think that will change in the coming decades. If only because weapons themselves will become more and more obsolete if technology continues to advance as it is. I mean to say that, wars in the future may be fought largely in cyberspace and protection will become less about caliber and more about information security. In very much the same way that the invention of a teleporter would make cars obsolete. But, I digress.

I think Shermer hits the nail pretty squarely on the head at the end when he outlines a few bullet points as to how to reduce violence further. These are:
"-The rule of law and property rights.
-Economic stability through a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system.
-A reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country.
-Freedom of speech, the press, and association.
-Mass education.
-Protection of civil liberties.
-A robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states.
-A potent police for protection from attacks by other people within the state.
-A viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws.
-An effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.59"


Within these, I think the message of amending gun laws is obvious and straightforward and coupled with the previous article, a good move towards reducing violence.

That is, not only improving the military and police, but ensuring that those that keep guns for personal defense are not only properly trained with how to use the weapon but also WHEN.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Gun Control
(24-06-2013 08:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-...r-problem/

The concept is simple, people carrying a concealed weapon should have training like that of police.

1) no they should NOT be trained like cops, as they are NOT police officers and should be deterred from acting like a police officer. CCW permit holders are trained in the use and limitations of deadly force.

2). Even if they were trained as such, that doesn't mean much as the average police officer is a lousy shot with a firearm. Even some SWAT officers flat out suck at marksmanship, even in benign conditions. The reason: most cops don't practice with their firearms and only have to qualify with their sidearm annually. Qualification, generally means ten shots at a silhouette target at 10 yards, achieving a score of 70 or better. The only thing that's kept most of these Barney Fifes alive in gunfights is that the criminals suck even worse!

3). This is a difficult problem to study correctly as you need identical situation where deadly force was needed in exactly the same way. Real life is much more complicated than that and the correct move is not always well defined. The best you can say is continue to train and develop the skills, tactics and mindset for a gunfight and when the time comes, you will probably make the right move.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
24-06-2013, 01:19 PM
Re: Gun Control
You cut off my suggestion in your quotation. They should be trained as police are in the discriminatory use of their firearm. That is, it isn't necessary in all cases. And I also say they need training on how to use it too.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Gun Control
(24-06-2013 01:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You cut off my suggestion in your quotation. They should be trained as police are in the discriminatory use of their firearm. That is, it isn't necessary in all cases. And I also say they need training on how to use it too.

They already are. I'd suggest you take a concealed weapons course sometime.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: