Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

scienceroboticspunk
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(or in NJ, USA)

Re: Gun Control

Postby scienceroboticspunk » Fri May 03, 2013 7:14 pm UTC

What is the point of avoiding shooting a firearm if you are getting one for target shooting. If you mean avoid shooting one in a confrontation that is a different story. This is a quote I have read on Reddit that applies to concealed carriers, obviously the situation in a tad different in home defense.
Disclaimer: I'm sure this is a cross-post from somewhere, but it's worth it to read.
As a gun owner, you have to be cool-headed, more-so than the police ever have to be. And you do not ever run around pretending to be the police while carrying a gun because then, shit like this can happen. You do not start shit, act aggressively, flip the bird, roll your eyes, talk shit, or even raise your voice. To anyone. Ever.
A combat instructor (who happened to be Buddhist and a Marine) once said to me: "From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego. " "You do all this because if you are the one to start a fight, by default that fight now has a gun in it, and if you start losing, you're going to pull it and kill him. And even if you don't go to jail because you could convince the jury that it was self-defense, you're going to have to live with the fact that you could have saved someone's life and yet you let your ego kill someone." "You are not the police, so don't act like them. Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police, you do not have the training, the continuum of force policy, or a union plus free lawyers protecting you if you screw up."
ed: He also said: "but after backing down and trying to apologize, if at any time you then feel your life or that of a loved one is in danger, put three rounds into his [cardiothoracic] vault, call the police, give a statement, go home, and sleep like a baby. You did all you could for your attacker, and he was the one that made the final decision...
... to kill himself."
Cross-post aside; make sure you take the responsibility of carrying a weapon seriously. All of our rights depend on it. DO NOT give chances to people when your life is in danger, but DO NOT let your ego, or your pride kill someone.
Edit: returned post to original content.
Edit 2: People have been adding that you shouldn't talk to the police up front, but should in fact get a lawyer. I have to agree with this recommendation. Don't let your adrenaline make you do silly things. Keep your head level, and lawyer up (while remaining respectful to LE personnel).

I am not sure if deescalation is taught at CC courses, it probably should be, but I do not think that training should be mandatory for every gun owner since not all of them plan on carrying. I think deescalation through talking should be a mandatory thing in high school but not just pertaining to firearms. There are a lot of things I wish was taught in the schools system but are not but that should be left to a different thread.
these are words
type, type, type

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 03, 2013 8:36 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:someone foolish enough to ignore such basic safety procedures and laws when giving a gun to a four year old
You mean that there are conditions under which it's all right to allow access to guns to a 4 year old?


That was mostly for emphasis. Following basic safety procedures get MORE important when dealing with younger kids. They're important for everyone, of course, but the fact that you're also throwing a kid into the mix that obviously doesn't have the maturity to seek out appropriate safe behavior for himself is a factor that makes the parents look worse.

That said, it is technically possible to have a four year old shoot safely. However, it does involve an adult being *right there* to basically hold the gun for the kid and make sure nothing happens. In fact, basically all kids start out shooting under close adult supervision. However, obviously, "here, have a gun, keep it in the corner" is nothing like that, and is horribly negligent.

leady wrote:
I am however a member of the Shorinji Kempo movement here in the uk; a Japanese nationalist zen Buddist movement that teaches a potentially lethal martial art. I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.


that is rather bizarre, because what you are saying is that lethal self defence is fine so long as you are bigger, faster and spend months (years) training.


I don't have a problem with people practicing martial arts, but it makes the training issue much larger indeed. In any practical sense, the frequency with which you need to defend your life is fairly low in any modern, developed country. Spending gobs of time solely to defend yourself eventually becomes a poor time investment. Now, if you're also after other benefits, like being physically fit...go nuts. Martial arts can be a great workout. However, you're just not likely to see martial arts suddenly become a universal thing in a modern day society.

LaserGuy wrote:[*]30% of Americans believe that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. That breaks down by 18% Democrats, 44% Republicans.


Huh. Larger than I would have expected. I do not think any such event will arise in the next few years. Obviously, as time-lines get longer, my ability to confidently predict the future will decrease, but given the stability of our society, I don't think it's plausible that we'll get to a revolution in only a few years.

Of course, this is a good thing, and we should value that stability and work to preserve it.

LaserGuy wrote:[*]25% of Americans who believe that there is some sort of cover-up going on related to the Sandy Hook shooting (the authors imply that some people believe it was faked) in order to advance a political agenda.[/list]


Cover-up isn't exactly the right word, IMO...there was some bad reporting, and definitely some different reporting between different agencies. IMO, this is unlikely to be some sort of planned, coordinated thing than a simple result of news agencies jumping on the latest info without vetting. We saw similar, even more obvious mishaps of this nature with the boston events. Of course, some politicians have intentionally mis-represented what happened when it happens to suit their agenda, but again, that's hardly unique to this case, nor is likely coordinated.

Do I believe that people lied about things where it would advance a political agenda? Sure. Happens all the time.
Was it faked? Unfortunately, no. I *wish* it were a fake, but that seems wildly implausible.

I suspect that the large number of people answering "neither" means that the poll did a bad job of categorizing folks' views.

Frimble wrote:1) If you pick up a weapon (be it gun or knife) suddenly you are able to kill everyone and anyone. No-one without a lot of training is going to be able to stop you and even if they have training the odds are not in their favour. The only thing that can stop someone with a gun for sure is someone with another gun. Preferably a longer ranged gun. (I know about disarming techniques but you have to be very very close to do that). It takes a certain kind of discipline to learn the martial art in the first place and if you are angry your technique deteriorates. Most people get board of the constant repetition. There is no easy way to learn it.


First, review the Tuller drill. Yes, having a gun is generally an advantage. Having a longer ranged one...not so much. Almost ALL conflicts happen at fairly close range. We don't actually have arguments escalate into urban sniper battles.

Additionally, being able to tolerate boredom is not a great metric for determining someone's mental state in other ways. Someone might well be perfectly capable of getting angry and also of repeating given tasks quite a lot.

Frimble wrote:2) You have to be extremely close to someone to hurt them with your bare hands or feet or elbows or whatever. You will be able to appreciate evey bit how much you are hurting them. Very few people I think would be desensitised enough to actually kill someone that way.


Again, shootings tend not to happen at extreme ranges. Yeah, an AR might be able to be effective 600 yards away...but actual violence normally happens at remarkably close ranges. Conversational distances. Killings overwelmingly do happen at very close, personal ranges. The connection of range with desensitization is one I see a lot, but it always comes from theory, not from data.

Frimble wrote:3) It lowers the stakes, killing someone unarmed is hard. It gets easier the more you train but it's still not an easy thing to do you are more likely to cause unconsciousness than actual death unless you continue to do damage after the person has fallen.


No, it's not. In fact, a lot of the training you do with martial arts is how to avoid accidental injury. Additionally, causing unconciousness is a Bad Thing in real life. It ain't like the movies where you punch someone in the head, and they get knocked out, and suffer no ill effects later. Beatings can and do cause deaths, both instantly, and years later from the damage sustained in the process.

Frimble wrote:4) This one is hard to explain to someone who hasn't trained in the martial arts but basically as soon as you take a step forwards that allows you to hit someone you have already put yourself at a significant disadvantage in the coming fight by allowing them to react. The only way to negate this is to attack them from behind.


...sort of. Some martial arts are reactionary. When I did Akido, being on the defensive was kind of what you did, since it was based around training reactionary fighting. When I did TKD*, it was much less focused on such things, and sometimes, being on the offensive was very helpful, since if your opponent was too busy reacting via blocks, etc, he couldn't actually get to a position of striking back.

In fact, LOTS of approaches center on getting inside your opponents OODA loop, essentially attacking more rapidly than they can cope with.

Additionally, in many situations, the attacker has the advantage because of expectations. Outside of the class, you are not generally mentally prepared to be attacked at absolutely any time. The attackers initial attack can be completely unexpected, even if not from behind. You might not recognize that guy X just decided to mug you, for instance. Sure, situational awareness is a good thing to train, but in actual practice, we are not aware of all things going on all the time. It's nigh on impossible.

It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.


This sounds like a convincing argument for concealed carry. Personally, I'd rather not be attacked at all. If I am attacked, I am less concerned with what they have than with what I have. It is significantly easier to train to use one thing than to train yourself to defend against anything.

Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?


I'd take the rifle attacker any day in a civilian setting. People carrying around rifles are kind of obvious as hell. He's going to immediately attract undesirable attention. Being shot by either one is pretty much a terrible day for me...there really isn't much difference there, so the primary difference is how fast I and others will notice him, to reduce my risk of being shot first.

Ormurinn wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...


Nah. We license drivers and mandate training, and we have no shortage of people who are reckless with cars. People seem to assume that mandates will be effective, but in practice...results vary at best. Plenty of mandates are ignored routinely, even when enforcement is attempted(consider speeding laws).

Now, training IS good...but the idea that adding a mandate to training will automatically make it better is very questionable.

LaserGuy wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:With guns, my 5'11", 190lb. male self has no significant advantage of the 5'1", 105lb. female or the 5'10", 180lb. arthritic old man in a self defense scenario. You know that saying, "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal?" It's pretty much true. Societies have only become more equal and just as military technology has advanced. Trying to revert to physical strength and brawn as the primary mode of self defence is... backwards, to me, and that's as someone who's spent a decent amount of time practicing Judo.


This argument works both ways though: It greatly increases the number of people who have the capacity to victimize you, and greatly increases the risk of serious harm of any encounter.


In the particular case presented again, I would argue that this is unlikely true. If you're a 180lb arthritic old man, just about anyone can have the capacity to victimize you, and the risk of serious harm is pretty great regardless of means. Seriously, falling down is a major risk to the elderly, let alone a fistfight.

There IS additional risk to the attacker by adding the firearm. I do not consider that a downside.


As for de-escalation training...yes, I've seen caution advised in every firearm training class I've ever seen. De-escalation training is good, and I would argue that it's something EVERYONE can use, not just firearm owners. Incidentally, in the only real self-defence like scenario I've had(door kicked in), I managed to solve the issue with words and what not. There was a gun in reach, definitely, but it never had to be drawn. I think that's likely the case a lot of the time. Given that she had a razor, I suspect that someone who reacted by fighting instead of de-escalating would have likely experienced a worse overall encounter, regardless of if they had a gun or not.

Alexis wrote:I think a lot of places do have hunter safety classes as part of high school.


In MN, I took a standard hunter safety class at age 12, as you do there. Range was in the basement of the high school. Took the .22 rifle there for the final day to shoot, as did everyone. That was...1995, I think? 94 or 95. Nowadays, they've been so demonized that such programs have been mostly discontinued. Safety training as part of the educational process has mostly vanished thanks to implementations of the gun free zone concept.

That level of safety training was good and acceptable. However, as Sardia pointed out, I worry about plans that are meant as obstacles. The gun control advocates in my state's legislature had no qualms about openly stating that their goals were to reduce the number of people with guns, safety be damned. That attitude can quickly poison an otherwise reasonable idea.



*I'm not an expert in either art, but I did dabble with taking classes for a coupla years.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Fri May 03, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
leady wrote:
I am however a member of the Shorinji Kempo movement here in the uk; a Japanese nationalist zen Buddist movement that teaches a potentially lethal martial art. I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.


that is rather bizarre, because what you are saying is that lethal self defence is fine so long as you are bigger, faster and spend months (years) training.


I don't have a problem with people practicing martial arts, but it makes the training issue much larger indeed. In any practical sense, the frequency with which you need to defend your life is fairly low in any modern, developed country. Spending gobs of time solely to defend yourself eventually becomes a poor time investment. Now, if you're also after other benefits, like being physically fit...go nuts. Martial arts can be a great workout. However, you're just not likely to see martial arts suddenly become a universal thing in a modern day society.


I said potentially lethal. I know maybe one or two reasonably reliable (for me) ways to kill someone if both of us are unarmed. I know a lot more ways than that to disable someone if both of us are unarmed.

Times I could have reasonably used martial arts 2. Times I actually did use martial arts: 0. It's a hobby much like shooting. It just happens to have self defence possibilities.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 03, 2013 8:55 pm UTC

Pretty much. It's fine if you're into that hobby, but it's very unlikely to actually become vastly more popular solely because it has SD applications. It's not really a viable replacement for shooting, since someone who likes the one might well not like the other. Or even be able to do the other.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:This argument works both ways though: It greatly increases the number of people who have the capacity to victimize you, and greatly increases the risk of serious harm of any encounter.


In the particular case presented again, I would argue that this is unlikely true. If you're a 180lb arthritic old man, just about anyone can have the capacity to victimize you, and the risk of serious harm is pretty great regardless of means. Seriously, falling down is a major risk to the elderly, let alone a fistfight.

There IS additional risk to the attacker by adding the firearm. I do not consider that a downside.


No, what I meant was, given the availability of firearms, it provides comparable advantages to attacks. An eight-year old unarmed child soldier is not a terribly dangerous person; an eight year-old child soldier with an AK-47 is extremely dangerous. With equal access to firearms, your 180lb arthritic man has just as much capacity to be the aggressor--therefore the number of possible attackers increases exponentially because everyone has equal potential to be a threat to you.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Fri May 03, 2013 11:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?


I'd take the rifle attacker any day in a civilian setting. People carrying around rifles are kind of obvious as hell. He's going to immediately attract undesirable attention. Being shot by either one is pretty much a terrible day for me...there really isn't much difference there, so the primary difference is how fast I and others will notice him, to reduce my risk of being shot first.
Didn't we establish that rifle rounds impact at above 1000 lbs per square inch while a handgun round generally only impacts as between 350 and 450 lbs per square inch? Rifles are terribly worse. Handgun wounds are very survivable thanks to modern medicine rifle wounds are still giant blood faucets.

Ormurinn wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.


You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...


Nah. We license drivers and mandate training, and we have no shortage of people who are reckless with cars. People seem to assume that mandates will be effective, but in practice...results vary at best. Plenty of mandates are ignored routinely, even when enforcement is attempted(consider speeding laws).

Now, training IS good...but the idea that adding a mandate to training will automatically make it better is very questionable.[/quote]Driving is an excellent example because there are plenty of questionable drivers. Everything Jules suggested sounded great but the effect of that sort of training would be pretty low without making training requirements unnecessarily restrictive.

Edit:
To the depersonalization, with murders in particular and crimes not motivated by profit in general: they are usually committed by people known by the victims so they are already personal and the introduction of a gun doesn't drastically increase the likelihood of the instigation of crime.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat May 04, 2013 1:16 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:No, what I meant was, given the availability of firearms, it provides comparable advantages to attacks. An eight-year old unarmed child soldier is not a terribly dangerous person; an eight year-old child soldier with an AK-47 is extremely dangerous. With equal access to firearms, your 180lb arthritic man has just as much capacity to be the aggressor--therefore the number of possible attackers increases exponentially because everyone has equal potential to be a threat to you.


In practice, we don't actually have a problem with armies of 8yr old soldiers here in the US. Nor with old arthritic men going on killing sprees.

The group that actually commits crime is overwelmingly the group that pretty much has the ability to with or without a gun. Males in the 15-30 range tend to have a wildly disproportionately share of violent crime. Young children and the elderly, not so much.

Fire Brns wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?


I'd take the rifle attacker any day in a civilian setting. People carrying around rifles are kind of obvious as hell. He's going to immediately attract undesirable attention. Being shot by either one is pretty much a terrible day for me...there really isn't much difference there, so the primary difference is how fast I and others will notice him, to reduce my risk of being shot first.
Didn't we establish that rifle rounds impact at above 1000 lbs per square inch while a handgun round generally only impacts as between 350 and 450 lbs per square inch? Rifles are terribly worse. Handgun wounds are very survivable thanks to modern medicine rifle wounds are still giant blood faucets.


Rifles generally go faster, but I still don't want to get shot. I'm going to prefer what I see as the fight that gives me the best chance of not getting shot at all. If a would-be attacker is using a rifle, odds are very good that someone's gonna notice that before he gets to me at all. Rifles are fantastic for defense, but they do pretty poorly for criminal attacks due to concealability.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Sat May 04, 2013 2:25 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Rifles generally go faster, but I still don't want to get shot. I'm going to prefer what I see as the fight that gives me the best chance of not getting shot at all. If a would-be attacker is using a rifle, odds are very good that someone's gonna notice that before he gets to me at all. Rifles are fantastic for defense, but they do pretty poorly for criminal attacks due to concealability.
I'd still probably go with the handgun because it has a low enough accuracy and power that even if I was hit I would probably live. Surviving a rifle really relies on the not getting hit part and most people don't have the lightning response time to threats necessary to not get hit.

Getting a rifle to a target isn't hard, using a duffel bag as long as you don't have to cross a security perimeter is sufficient.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat May 04, 2013 2:33 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Rifles generally go faster, but I still don't want to get shot. I'm going to prefer what I see as the fight that gives me the best chance of not getting shot at all. If a would-be attacker is using a rifle, odds are very good that someone's gonna notice that before he gets to me at all. Rifles are fantastic for defense, but they do pretty poorly for criminal attacks due to concealability.
I'd still probably go with the handgun because it has a low enough accuracy and power that even if I was hit I would probably live. Surviving a rifle really relies on the not getting hit part and most people don't have the lightning response time to threats necessary to not get hit.

Getting a rifle to a target isn't hard, using a duffel bag as long as you don't have to cross a security perimeter is sufficient.


Takes a lot longer, and is a lot more conspicuous, to pull a rifle out of a duffel bag (or to carry a duffel bag around) than to pull a handgun out of your waistband.
Omni.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat May 04, 2013 3:42 am UTC

Pretty much. I'm aware that well trained people can use a breakdown AR or similar from a small bag or what not pretty quickly...but your random street thug is more on the level of "point gun, pull trigger". Often for very loose definitions of point. Street violence is different from say, military roles, and thus you see somewhat different weapon usage.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat May 04, 2013 3:43 am UTC

Yep. If gangsters were concerned about actual marksmanship they wouldn't fire their handguns at a 90 degree angle, one handed, with their arms chickenwinged.

Chickenwinging is for longguns.
Omni.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat May 04, 2013 4:14 am UTC

"In practice, we don't actually have a problem with armies of 8yr old soldiers here in the US. Nor with old arthritic men going on killing sprees.

The group that actually commits crime is overwelmingly the group that pretty much has the ability to with or without a gun. Males in the 15-30 range tend to have a wildly disproportionately share of violent crime. Young children and the elderly, not so much. "
You're only considering violent crime. That's not the only source of problems that are gun-related . The problems we talk about are urban guns, and suicide with guns (paired often with mental illness and guns). Everything else is just about how you get it done. (background checks, research, enforcement changes.) The other half of the gun control debate is putting out conspiracy theory fires.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat May 04, 2013 5:51 am UTC

"Urban guns" - I fail to see how a gun in an urban place is any more or less significant than a gun in a rural place. If by urban gun problems you mean people taking guns and committing violent crimes in urban environments, yes, that's a problem, but that's a problem because it's violent crime, not because it's urban or rural.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that everyone should have the right to die if they desire. Which means I don't tend to think of suicide as something we should inherently try to stop - yes, we should have programs that say "You don't need to end it - there is help" but I draw the line at actually stopping someone who is committed to ending their life from doing so. You can tear away at the commitment, but don't stop the action.
Omni.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Sat May 04, 2013 3:23 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:We license drivers and mandate training, and we have no shortage of people who are reckless with cars. People seem to assume that mandates will be effective, but in practice...results vary at best. Plenty of mandates are ignored routinely, even when enforcement is attempted(consider speeding laws).

Now, training IS good...but the idea that adding a mandate to training will automatically make it better is very questionable.

Driving is an excellent example because there are plenty of questionable drivers. Everything Jules suggested sounded great but the effect of that sort of training would be pretty low without making training requirements unnecessarily restrictive.
That mandatory training makes things much better is NOT questionable.
Car traffic would simply be plenty of times worse without it.

And saying that something would have little effect without unnecessary requirements is... I have no polite adjective here.
If the requirements are what makes the training have a significant effect, that makes those requirements pretty necessary.
Last edited by jules.LT on Sat May 04, 2013 3:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat May 04, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:"In practice, we don't actually have a problem with armies of 8yr old soldiers here in the US. Nor with old arthritic men going on killing sprees.

The group that actually commits crime is overwelmingly the group that pretty much has the ability to with or without a gun. Males in the 15-30 range tend to have a wildly disproportionately share of violent crime. Young children and the elderly, not so much. "
You're only considering violent crime. That's not the only source of problems that are gun-related . The problems we talk about are urban guns, and suicide with guns (paired often with mental illness and guns). Everything else is just about how you get it done. (background checks, research, enforcement changes.) The other half of the gun control debate is putting out conspiracy theory fires.


The claim I was challenging was one specific to self defense. He was trying to claim that attackers become more numerous with guns.

Conspiracy theories would not seem to be relevant. Do I think that a number of politicians would love to ban all guns? Sure. It's one of those things they tend to say outright on occasion. In addition to the politicians who have actually said so, I'm sure there are at least some who are savvy enough to not blurt such a thing out. No conspiracy theorizing is required. They are fairly open about their aims.

Ralith, suicide ends up being a complex area for me...Im not fully decided on it. I think people do have a right to end their life, sure. However, I feel that this decision is often not undertaken rationally. People decide to kill themselves because of depression or other mental illness often enough. It's one thing to understand a person with a terminal illness deciding to end the pain, but it's quite another to see a young fellow with a promising life fall victim to mental illness and attempt suicide(happened to a friend of mine). I'm not sure just where to draw the line here. T

However, I do agree that suicide is not just an urban issue. Thus, I don't see how one would connect it merely to urban guns.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat May 04, 2013 4:12 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:"Urban guns" - I fail to see how a gun in an urban place is any more or less significant than a gun in a rural place. If by urban gun problems you mean people taking guns and committing violent crimes in urban environments, yes, that's a problem, but that's a problem because it's violent crime, not because it's urban or rural.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that everyone should have the right to die if they desire. Which means I don't tend to think of suicide as something we should inherently try to stop - yes, we should have programs that say "You don't need to end it - there is help" but I draw the line at actually stopping someone who is committed to ending their life from doing so. You can tear away at the commitment, but don't stop the action.

The majority of violence with guns happen in an urban environment but are surrounded by rural areas. I guess a more accurate way of saying this is that urban areas have stricter gun controls but are hampered by laxer gun rules in the surrounding rural areas. I didn't want to bring up the GOP democrat divide that the urban/rural thing represents. Are you claiming that gun violence isn't statistically significantly different from rural areas vs urban? Or are you claiming that gun controls laws are the same as we cross from urban to rural areas?

The reason suicide and guns is a problem is because guns are too good at what they do, and you have a misunderstanding of how suicide works. This isn't someone who's dying slowly in misery and he's chosen a gun instead of having a doctor administer a lethal dose of morphine. Before guns were widespread, how would someone kill themselves? Eat a bunch of pills/poison or suffocate yourself in some way. This takes a while, and the guy either fails or changes his mind. A good hospital can save them a large percentage of the time if he fails. Guns are too good, you shoot yourself once and the death rate is pretty high, 90% IIRC. The reason you're wrong about how suicide works is this isn't a constant thing. If you extend the time it takes from suicidal though to action from 5 minutes to 1 hour, the thought goes away. I'm quoting from memory here, the percentages are off by a bit.
@Tyndmyr
Ok, I'm being unfair when I characterize the major distrust gun supporters have as conspiracy theorists. More accurately I'd say the distrust is getting in the way of governance. Edit: I didn't link suicide with urbanism, I said the biggest problems with guns is suicide and urban gun violence.
Last edited by sardia on Sat May 04, 2013 6:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat May 04, 2013 6:28 pm UTC

Gun violence follows violence in general in being higher in urban areas. However, I'd argue that your point about urban area's having laws that are hampered by surrounding rural areas is... wrong. Chicago. Huge suburban sprawl. Entire state has pretty harsh gun laws because of it. It tries completely outlawing any sort of firearm, in essence. Still lots of gun violence.

I will, however, cede the point on suicide. I just have this intrinistic thing against restricting people from being able to end it, if they truly wish to.
Omni.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Sat May 04, 2013 10:44 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:We license drivers and mandate training, and we have no shortage of people who are reckless with cars. People seem to assume that mandates will be effective, but in practice...results vary at best. Plenty of mandates are ignored routinely, even when enforcement is attempted(consider speeding laws).

Now, training IS good...but the idea that adding a mandate to training will automatically make it better is very questionable.

Driving is an excellent example because there are plenty of questionable drivers. Everything Jules suggested sounded great but the effect of that sort of training would be pretty low without making training requirements unnecessarily restrictive.
That mandatory training makes things much better is NOT questionable.
Car traffic would simply be plenty of times worse without it.

And saying that something would have little effect without unnecessary requirements is... I have no polite adjective here.
If the requirements are what makes the training have a significant effect, that makes those requirements pretty necessary.

Except mandatory training has minimal effect on driving fatalities. The CDC even recognizes that and promotes parents making sure their children learn how to safely drive. The most comprehensive driver's education (graduated licensing programs) only has a decrease in driving accidents of 39% in teens with only an 11% decrease in fatalities (page 13 btw).

When I say unnecessarily restrictive I mean keeping people who should be allowed to own guns from owning guns. Mostly because legislation is more "arbitrary and getting one's name on historic legislation" and less "facts and reducing social, political, and economic costs".
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat May 04, 2013 11:35 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:Gun violence follows violence in general in being higher in urban areas. However, I'd argue that your point about urban area's having laws that are hampered by surrounding rural areas is... wrong. Chicago. Huge suburban sprawl. Entire state has pretty harsh gun laws because of it. It tries completely outlawing any sort of firearm, in essence. Still lots of gun violence.

I will, however, cede the point on suicide. I just have this intrinsic thing against restricting people from being able to end it, if they truly wish to.

Where is Chicago? At the border of Indiana and Wisconsin. Are you claiming there's no interstate trade? The actual answer is a lot more complicated, but it's not a cut and dry "Chicago has gun control, and they don't work."

Fireburns is making a false equivalence. You're saying that mandatory training A is bad because it doesn't work. The CDC encourages training B. Therefore all mandatory training is bad. Why can't we just improve our training? Additionally, I have a problem with your claim that "unnecessarily restrictive" things are bad. You're already making a value judgement by saying it's unnecessary. Which you then get to freely chain into anything restrictive is also bad. Now if you got good evidence that part x of legislation Y is bad because a, b, and c...Then we have a serious debate.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Sun May 05, 2013 2:34 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Except mandatory training has minimal effect on driving fatalities. The CDC even recognizes that and promotes parents making sure their children learn how to safely drive. The most comprehensive driver's education (graduated licensing programs) only has a decrease in driving accidents of 39% in teens with only an 11% decrease in fatalities (page 13 btw).

When I say unnecessarily restrictive I mean keeping people who should be allowed to own guns from owning guns. Mostly because legislation is more "arbitrary and getting one's name on historic legislation" and less "facts and reducing social, political, and economic costs".
Your sources pretty much defeat your point:

first link: "Experts now are gathering evidence to show that good driver's ed programs make a difference"
second link: "the main cause of teen crashes is driver inexperience"
third link: "The most restrictive graduated driver licensing programs are associated with reductions of 38% and 40% in fatal crashes and injury crashes, respectively" (the 11% figure includes less restrictive licences).

"People who should be allowed to own guns" are those who prove that they can be trusted with one. That is to say that they've passed a background check, have learned how one is supposed to act with a gun and have convinced an examiner that they won't freak out or lash out when the situation arises.
Last edited by jules.LT on Sun May 05, 2013 2:45 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sun May 05, 2013 2:39 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:Gun violence follows violence in general in being higher in urban areas. However, I'd argue that your point about urban area's having laws that are hampered by surrounding rural areas is... wrong. Chicago. Huge suburban sprawl. Entire state has pretty harsh gun laws because of it. It tries completely outlawing any sort of firearm, in essence. Still lots of gun violence.

I will, however, cede the point on suicide. I just have this intrinsic thing against restricting people from being able to end it, if they truly wish to.

Where is Chicago? At the border of Indiana and Wisconsin. Are you claiming there's no interstate trade? The actual answer is a lot more complicated, but it's not a cut and dry "Chicago has gun control, and they don't work."

Fireburns is making a false equivalence. You're saying that mandatory training A is bad because it doesn't work. The CDC encourages training B. Therefore all mandatory training is bad. Why can't we just improve our training? Additionally, I have a problem with your claim that "unnecessarily restrictive" things are bad. You're already making a value judgement by saying it's unnecessary. Which you then get to freely chain into anything restrictive is also bad. Now if you got good evidence that part x of legislation Y is bad because a, b, and c...Then we have a serious debate.

Really? You are attempting to convince some 'Gun Nut' that training and education is important?
Well; Don't bother.

Would you like a perspective?
The Military has high gun use.
The Military requires each person to train and pass tests of competence.
The way I understand it; Nothing, Not even a potato peeler is used without training and testing.

So; it is a pleasant waste of time to type about Training with Firearms and about why Jack Ass from US Somewhere does not need to train?

Any Jack Ass that does not train is at a disadvantage when confronted with individuals that have trained.
I have seen a great many guns and I have seen some Jack Asses.

A drunk Jack Ass is not always funny.
A drunk Jack Ass is less funny. At The Time.

Later; That drunk Jack Ass can seem funny.
I told you about the Jr. High School Teacher that was all dressed up like a Biker. Right?
He had a Harley Davison motorcycle. The Bike completed his outfit.

Yep. The Bike, The Leathers, The Gun; All paid for with Government Money.
He was the kind of Guy that would puff himself all up and say, "No one ever Gave me anything. I Earned it!"

I think he was a Government paycheck cashing Sissy.
He like many others have to have the complete outfit from Leathers to Gun.
Like little boys with Hobby Horse, hat, gun and holster.

That Jack Ass was explaining how cool he was while drinking around a campfire.
Jack Ass nearly Shot my bike!

Well; As we all know: 'A miss is as good as a mile.'

Our women and men that have spent time inside the Military have usually trained and passed a Firearms course.

I am not on either side of your debate.
Gun Laws? pfft. Laws are only words.

Training? No. Don't train. All gun people! Listen Up!
"You do not need to educate nor train! If you can figure out how to get the bullets into the machine, then you are Good!"

Why? Because most of everything is nothing.
The ones that don't know how to shoot will shoot something or someone important by accident once in a while.
The rest of the time they shoot their mouths more than they shoot guns.

We like it that way. Right?

Don't learn shit! The more a Jack Ass knows the more dangerous it is.
A trained Jack Ass can make the leap to Asshole fast.

An untrained Jack Ass often dies a Jack Ass.
(So, sweet. How his mother loved him.)

Assholes don't have many Real Friends.
Assholes are Not usually charming.

Asshole know they are Assholes.
Most seem to be betting on being the Biggest Asshole of All.

That is a bad bet. Just when I think I have met the Biggest Asshole of All,
Someone out does him.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun May 05, 2013 2:40 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:Gun violence follows violence in general in being higher in urban areas. However, I'd argue that your point about urban area's having laws that are hampered by surrounding rural areas is... wrong. Chicago. Huge suburban sprawl. Entire state has pretty harsh gun laws because of it. It tries completely outlawing any sort of firearm, in essence. Still lots of gun violence.

I will, however, cede the point on suicide. I just have this intrinsic thing against restricting people from being able to end it, if they truly wish to.

Where is Chicago? At the border of Indiana and Wisconsin. Are you claiming there's no interstate trade? The actual answer is a lot more complicated, but it's not a cut and dry "Chicago has gun control, and they don't work."


Of course there's interstate trade...but if your case that lack of ready availability decreases deaths holds true, then one would expect to see a significant effect. After all, a suicidal person who has to hop in his car and drive across state lines, well...is that not exactly what you believe lowers suicide rates?

Unfortunately, Chicago has the highest teen suicide rate in the nation.

Fireburns is making a false equivalence. You're saying that mandatory training A is bad because it doesn't work. The CDC encourages training B. Therefore all mandatory training is bad. Why can't we just improve our training? Additionally, I have a problem with your claim that "unnecessarily restrictive" things are bad. You're already making a value judgement by saying it's unnecessary. Which you then get to freely chain into anything restrictive is also bad. Now if you got good evidence that part x of legislation Y is bad because a, b, and c...Then we have a serious debate.


Well, here's the issue. Just because Training A is good doesn't mean it's equally good if mandatory. Consider your experiences in school. Now, I doubt any of us would question the value of education, but some people manage to get fairly little from it because they don't really want to be there. Some of them manage to shuffle on through all the same, but without really making any attempt to learn anything beyond the minimum to pass, and afterward, pay little attention to what they've learned, forgetting most of it. Hell, those students may even make it more difficult for interested students to learn, due to disruptions, occupying additional teacher time, or what have you.

Training that someone wants and values is vastly more useful than unwanted training that is viewed as a burden. Making something mandatory is not a panacea, and cannot be assumed to be helpful as a policy. One must consider the culture. Consider Europe. In most European countries, access to alcohol is comparatively easy from a US perspective. We have dry counties, higher minimum age limits, much more restrictive carding laws, god knows how many religious prohibitions and limitations. Yet, when it comes to drunk driving, we do kind of a lot of it. A lot of those limits don't help at all. In fact, some actively hurt, because now, people are driving drunk FURTHER. Of course, Europe generally has a much healthier attitude about booze than we do. Less religious hang-ups. Less binge drinking culture.

Fostering such a culture may be harder than coming up with yet another prohibitionary idea, but it's far, far better in the long run.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Sun May 05, 2013 2:49 am UTC

It would only be mandatory for those who want to own a gun.
There's the motivation.

I know people can be pretty motivated to get their driver's licence.

(Ironically, drinking before 21 and before we get a driver's licence means we get more experience/"training")
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Sun May 05, 2013 3:17 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Except mandatory training has minimal effect on driving fatalities. The CDC even recognizes that and promotes parents making sure their children learn how to safely drive. The most comprehensive driver's education (graduated licensing programs) only has a decrease in driving accidents of 39% in teens with only an 11% decrease in fatalities (page 13 btw).

When I say unnecessarily restrictive I mean keeping people who should be allowed to own guns from owning guns. Mostly because legislation is more "arbitrary and getting one's name on historic legislation" and less "facts and reducing social, political, and economic costs".
Your sources pretty much defeat your point:

first link: "Experts now are gathering evidence to show that good driver's ed programs make a difference"
second link: "the main cause of teen crashes is driver inexperience"
third link: "The most restrictive graduated driver licensing programs are associated with reductions of 38% and 40% in fatal crashes and injury crashes, respectively" (the 11% figure includes less restrictive licences).

"People who should be allowed to own guns" are those who prove that they can be trusted with one. That is to say that they've passed a background check, have learned how one is supposed to act with a gun and have convinced an examiner that they won't freak out or lash out when the situation arises.

1. Good drivers ed programs with a minimum of 100 hours behind the wheel show a reduction of 10% to 12% fewer crashes. Kind of why we have pilots do 700 hours, the best training is experience. It was pointing out the importance of parental involvement which ties into the next link.
2.The main cause is recklessness due to demographics. Teens are just inherently reckless. Parents can drill safety into their kid's heads because us primates have some nice imprinting instincts.
3. Ok I misread that, a few dozen pages will do that. 40% under the most restrictive training. But the normal average for programs showed the 11-19% for what breaks down to basically a year of supervised training.

Again I'm not inherently against testing. I just doubts it's effectiveness.
How do we test if someone would freak out in a situation? Do we have a guy with a mask and a prop gun mug him and see how he reacts? How about having them crawl under barbed wire while someone fires live rounds above their head?
Studies show that even a good number of trained but untested military personnel don't fire their weapons in combat. It's nigh impossible to prepare people for the type situations in which a gun would need to be fired and having comprehensive training won't improve that in a meaningful way. We can hope to drill some basics into people's heads and hope that when they are hopped up on panic hormones at least two lines of logic flow through their head.

A knowledge and proficiency test that requires a 97% correct answer rate and gets retaken every year I could get behind where it has simple answer questions. Basics where the answers to the questions are "Do not escalate the situation and assume a nonthreatening stance" and "make sure the gun safety is on and the gun is unloaded when not in use".
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun May 05, 2013 3:23 am UTC

Nah, that's only a motivation to pass, not quite the same thing as a motivation to learn. And that's only if they care about being legal. The ones who don't, well...it's pretty hard to drive a car without a plate without getting caught, but guns are a lot less visible. The illegal ones mostly get noticed after a crime gets committed with them, which is a bit on the late side.

I agree that drinking before driving is probably for the best. That said, describing it as "training" is a bit unusual. Probably accurate enough, mind you, just not exactly the same as the mandatory training being talked about here. More of...learning the culture and informal training.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Sun May 05, 2013 3:40 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Nah, that's only a motivation to pass, not quite the same thing as a motivation to learn. And that's only if they care about being legal. The ones who don't, well...it's pretty hard to drive a car without a plate without getting caught, but guns are a lot less visible. The illegal ones mostly get noticed after a crime gets committed with them, which is a bit on the late side.
As a matter of accident prevention a 20 page booklet that is illustrated in black and white would be plenty. Having just a requirement of memorization of the guidelines during the 3 day waiting period* for a gun owner would be enough that when they are holding the firearm they feel that tugging in the back of their mind if they are doing something wrong. It just shouldn't be a intentionally restrictive test that anyone can actually fail and failing a subsequent one shouldn't be grounds for seizure of firearms.

*I don't support the idea of the three day waiting period but if we are going to have it we might as well do something in that window besides twiddling our thumbs.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sun May 05, 2013 4:34 am UTC

Tyndmyr, you're confusing the flow of guns from Indiana and Wisconsin with suicide rates + guns. Those are two separate topics. I didn't want to discuss further if Ralith didn't offer anything to say.
Now that you brought it up, this is the only useful thing I managed to google in 5 minutes.
http://il.nami.org/2011%2012%20IVDRS%20 ... abrief.pdf
It examines suicides in IL and provides a quick comparison against the US, along with break down by type, gender, and race. The timeline is 2005-08 so it doesn't account for the increase that's in the news as of 2012. That said...
First, IL has a lower suicide rate than the US overall, 8 vs 11 per 100,000. Second, rural counties have twice the suicide rate of urban counties. That doesn't directly connect to guns & suicide, it's just an observable phenomenon. They also break down suicide type by firearms, suffocation of any sort, and poisoning as the three main types. Interesting factoid, white + males + middle age are more likely to suicide, usually with a firearm, in IL for this time period.


Edit: @ scienceroboticspunk
While your post about how to deescalate and avoid conflict when you have a gun is very important, I'm not sure how widespread that opinion is. You have a sliding scale of avoid conflict completely, to treat a gun carefully but if you fuck with me I'll shoot you, and all the way to near hyperbolic I'll pull a gun on any moving shadow/provocation.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Sun May 05, 2013 7:22 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:1. Good drivers ed programs with a minimum of 100 hours behind the wheel show a reduction of 10% to 12% fewer crashes. Kind of why we have pilots do 700 hours, the best training is experience. It was pointing out the importance of parental involvement which ties into the next link.
2.The main cause is recklessness due to demographics. Teens are just inherently reckless. Parents can drill safety into their kid's heads because us primates have some nice imprinting instincts.
3. Ok I misread that, a few dozen pages will do that. 40% under the most restrictive training. But the normal average for programs showed the 11-19% for what breaks down to basically a year of supervised training.

Again I'm not inherently against testing. I just doubts it's effectiveness.
Good driver's ed courses give 40% crash reduction. And the number of hours criterion they used was 30 hours minimum, not 100 and an intermediary license of 6 months, not a year.
And the 40% figure was all over the very same half-page conclusion you got your own figure from, so yeah, you "misread".
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sun May 05, 2013 11:53 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:1. Good drivers ed programs with a minimum of 100 hours behind the wheel show a reduction of 10% to 12% fewer crashes. Kind of why we have pilots do 700 hours, the best training is experience. It was pointing out the importance of parental involvement which ties into the next link.
2.The main cause is recklessness due to demographics. Teens are just inherently reckless. Parents can drill safety into their kid's heads because us primates have some nice imprinting instincts.
3. Ok I misread that, a few dozen pages will do that. 40% under the most restrictive training. But the normal average for programs showed the 11-19% for what breaks down to basically a year of supervised training.

Again I'm not inherently against testing. I just doubts it's effectiveness.
Good driver's ed courses give 40% crash reduction. And the number of hours criterion they used was 30 hours minimum, not 100 and an intermediary license of 6 months, not a year.
And the 40% figure was all over the very same half-page conclusion you got your own figure from, so yeah, you "misread".

Seems like silliness, to me.
Do I Like every Jack Ass armed to The Teeth? No!

Not a Damn Thing I can Do about it.
So; Encourage them to Know What They Are Doing? No! No! Let them figure it Out! One Stupid Mistake at a time.

Do You Know Anything about Guns? Do You Think You Know Everything about Guns?
Why? Because, Your Daddy had One?
I am Good With That. No Arguement from Me. Nope.

My Mom had a Car. She had a lot of Cars in Her Life.
It ran in The Family. I like Cars, too.

My Mom shot a Car. My Mom shot a lot of Cars.
She Practiced. Just for fun. Everyone did.

Not me. I did not like shooting Cars.
I like playing with Cars. I'll shoot a Car to be Social.

If you will Play with me, we can Play Your Game Your way.
Do not Shoot My Car. I hate that.

Have you seen the Decals? So, funny. Decals that look like bullet holes.
Easy for You to Laugh. ok. I laugh, too. Maybe, I need some of Those.

What do Bullet Holes from The Inside look like. They look a little different.

Shooting cars is a Bad Idea. Not when My Mom did it. Everyone was Shooting Cars.
It is Not Socially Acceptable to shoot Cars, now. Even Idiots know that. Some are So patriotic.

Those are The Ones. Do Not Tell Them One Thing.
How do I open it? (shrug.)
What size shell goes in here? (shrug.)
Do not tell Those Guys Anything!
Fire Arm Safety? No!

I looked at The Numbers. You Look at The Numbers.
I know what Those Numbers said to me.

To me the Numbers said, "The damage goes out in concentric circles."
Yep. Seems to be True, too.

A Well Educated AND Well Trained Person, might live.
Idiots? Well IQ is only part of The Story.

Idiots that Learn On The Job. Have Concentric Circles.
The people close sustain the Most Damage.

People at a distance get hit, from Time to Time.
The closer You are to that Gun, the more At Risk you are.

Do not tell Them one thing. Nothing. They are Smart.
The idiot says his Daddy had a Gun. So; He should have a Gun.

What do You Think? If I am Driving I don't want The Idiot Shooting.

So, What do I do? Find Someone Smart. Crap.
There are Other ways to Kill Road Signs and MailBoxes.

What do you shoot at? It is possible to practice on Road Signs and MailBoxes and other stuff, like Cars.
It was Not Always Frowned on. Well; Some People are such KillJoys.

I knew a Guy that was being Hunted. Yep. vigilantes were After Him.
He Killed One too Many MailBoxes. See? That MailBox was a Work of Art! How Dare He!

Well; He was Smart. Still; He saw The Box not The Art. Those Women, really, let him Have It.
I was not There the Day they caught up with Him. Poor Guy. He was Sheepish for a while.

He was like the Kid that did not shoot Clouds, Anymore.
oh. The most damage to stationary targets was done by large caliber River Rocks.
When Launched from a Moving Automobile, They carry a punch.

Crunch The Numbers. Large River Rock beats MailBox.
Bullets leave an artistic Flair. Both are Frowned on.

The Americans want a Civil War? Or; The Americans want to Feel Powerful?

My Mom shot a Car out of Anger. She had practiced in fair humor.
She fired in Anger. My Mom was Nice! Everyone has a breaking point.

What will you have in Your hand when You reach that Breaking Point?
A Gun? And; Who will be standing There, Yelling at You?

A Stranger? Your Mom? It won't be My Mom. See?
The Numbers were good and I still like them.

Concentric Circles. Concentric Circles.
You live Your Lie. I'll keep an eye on My weapon.

Misfires happen a lot. Even for the Experienced.
If Your weapon has never misfired, you are Not experienced.
THAT is an Experience! I don't care for it.

Damage Control! Help! Help! umm. don't help.
Just, do not Help The Gun People. They are fine.

Help All Others First. The Gun People can take care of Themselves.
Have you ever met a clumsy white Person with a Gun?
I did. eeww.

The Police drop Their Cell Phones and Their Coffee.
Those are trained Professional! Week-End Warors? (fuck)

Let me Know if I am shot. Let me Know if you are shot.
I'll do something about it. Depends on where you are shot.
I might not be able to do Much. Laugh. I might laugh with you.

Sometimes People laugh while they are Dyeing.
It's True! Sometimes Cats purr while they are Dyeing.

Ask a Vet. They will tell you.

So; Classes? No! Don't take a Class!
You don't need it, Bud.
You know everything there is to know, Now.
I have faith in You!

umm. I'll be over there far away, or so close you can't hit me without shooting yourself.
Running away from Gunfire is Tricky.

How do you do it?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon May 06, 2013 4:23 am UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, you're confusing the flow of guns from Indiana and Wisconsin with suicide rates + guns. Those are two separate topics. I didn't want to discuss further if Ralith didn't offer anything to say.
Now that you brought it up, this is the only useful thing I managed to google in 5 minutes.
http://il.nami.org/2011%2012%20IVDRS%20 ... abrief.pdf
It examines suicides in IL and provides a quick comparison against the US, along with break down by type, gender, and race. The timeline is 2005-08 so it doesn't account for the increase that's in the news as of 2012. That said...
First, IL has a lower suicide rate than the US overall, 8 vs 11 per 100,000. Second, rural counties have twice the suicide rate of urban counties. That doesn't directly connect to guns & suicide, it's just an observable phenomenon. They also break down suicide type by firearms, suffocation of any sort, and poisoning as the three main types. Interesting factoid, white + males + middle age are more likely to suicide, usually with a firearm, in IL for this time period.


Sure, but gun restrictions in Chicago are generally much stricter than the rest of IL. There's a huge culture gap between rural IL and chicago(much as exists here in rural maryland vs baltimore). Of course, the urban factor ends up affecting just every variable here, from suicide rate to political party to gun ownership, so I'm gonna have to crunch some more numbers to get any reliable results beyond "people in cities kill themselves more".

So, in the interest of fair reporting on notable events in gun politics, I must unfortunately give you this event. Buncha pro-gunners. Already over 1,200 RSVPed attending. Planning to march on washington. So far, nothing out of the ordinary, this happens all the time. The kicker here? They plan to march carrying loaded weapons. Look, I get July 4th off, and normally, I'd be totally down for a pro-gun event, but for this one? I'm gonna be far away grilling or something. I want no part in that clusterfuck.

Edit: @ scienceroboticspunk
While your post about how to deescalate and avoid conflict when you have a gun is very important, I'm not sure how widespread that opinion is. You have a sliding scale of avoid conflict completely, to treat a gun carefully but if you fuck with me I'll shoot you, and all the way to near hyperbolic I'll pull a gun on any moving shadow/provocation.


It's extremely common in training. This is partially due to it being a focus of training for both military and police, and current/former mil/police have huge influence on gun culture...both from sheer numbers of them in there, and because there is a strong undercurrent of esteem for those jobs within it. Veterans in particular are generally regarded in a positive light, and it's extremely common for firearms instructors to be former mil.

Now, that said, in any sufficiently large group, you have the guy who likes to talk a lot of shit, but doesn't actually know much about the topic. In the gun community, these guys do exist, described by the derogatory moniker "mall ninja", which originates with one of the most brilliant pieces of trolling found on the internet. If you've got some time to kill and that's your kind of humor, it's definitely worth looking up.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Mon May 06, 2013 4:48 am UTC

Uhhh I got the opposite result with suicides rates in urban vs rural. I read it as Rural areas have HIGHER suicide rates. Can we get a 3rd source/study?

Yea, I'm doing a 4th of July grilling + beer with some buddies of mine. We're debating where and how to grill. One guy has a propane setup but his house is a total mess. The other guy plans to get a cheap charcoal grill. Honestly, I'm quite divided between the two. I really like effect of charcoal, but it's hard to deny the convenience propane grants.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Mon May 06, 2013 4:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Uhhh I got the opposite result with suicides rates in urban vs rural. I read it as Rural areas have HIGHER suicide rates. Can we get a 3rd source/study?


Food for thought.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 07, 2013 2:30 am UTC

Have not gotten around to researching the suicide data in more detail, Im afraid, though it certainly deserves it. I do believe that source in particular had some discussion earlier...and I definitely had some reservations about cherry picking due to the extremely suspect way in which they selected boundary conditions for their data. However, even if we toss that out, the topic of suicide is still a legit one to investigate.

However, I'm a 'lil busy atm. Apparently, Defense distributed made a gun that made the entire world freak out, and every reporter in the world is calling me since I know the subject. It's a big development...but not for the reason they think it is. It's not undetectable as such...it's still firing a standard round, metal case, metal bullet, using a metal nail as the firing pin. It doesn't take a ton of metal to set off a metal detector...I know that forgetting my belt on while walking through one at the airport results in a beep. Now, of course, there's millimeter wave/standard frisk for passengers, and x-ray for luggage, and any of those will detect even a 100% plastic gun. So, the undetectable aspect really isn't important at all.

What IS important is that it's cheap. If it works(Gonna take a few days to print it out and hit the range to validate that), it means that anyone with a 3d printer can kick out a gun for under $50. Sooner or later, someone is gonna decide that they like money, and build a business around this. It probably won't involve quite so many plastic parts, but really, buying nails and the like from the local hardware store is hardly a financial burden. Last time a similar development happened(replica pot-metal guns to replace banned inexpensive imports), those running the companies got sued a lot, but made giant piles of money all the same and are now wildly successful. We're gonna see us some cheap handgun proliferation.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Gun Control

Postby Frimble » Tue May 07, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

I read about this one. I don't like the sound of it as it will probably mean more illegal guns here in the UK.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Alexius » Tue May 07, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

Frimble wrote:I read about this one. I don't like the sound of it as it will probably mean more illegal guns here in the UK.

Ammunition is pretty strictly controlled here, though. You need a licence to buy it, and I think that for anything other than shotgun shells you have to store it securely and account for what you use.

Not to mention that, as handguns are illegal, I imagine there are fairly few legitimate importers of pistol ammo- and most rifle calibres would blow up a 3D-printed gun (the Defense Distributed gun blew up with 5.7x28, which I think is a fairly small rifle cartridge as these things go). I suppose there's always .22LR, and there are a few rifles that fire other less powerful cartridges- I think one of my friends owns a .38 carbine.

While it's another source of illegal guns, I don't think it would mean that many more compared to smuggling or converting replicas or blank-firing guns.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Tue May 07, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

I'm still not sold on the economy of rapid-protoype still guns, at least in the "think of the criminals" way, if only for that fact that they are single shot.

Back prior to the run on the guns, you could buy a decomissioned AK47 online for $250-$350, shipped to you doorstep. Since the reciever is cut in two, its not a 'gun'. Buy with it a new set of rivets ($10). and a flat piece of sheetmetal in the rough shape of a reciever ($30). None of these are regulated. WIth a litte ingenuity, a press, a file, and something to crush the rivets with (all available with Harbor Freight), you can have a fully functional, fully legal (provided you don't sell or transfer it) 7.62x39 semiautomatic AK in MD, no paperwork. Only restriction you have to watch out for is that you don't have more than 10 imported "parts", as the AK has 16 parts, you just replace 6 (reciever is one, hammer/trigger/disconnector is 3 more and cheap, then pick 2 more).

There are cheap ways to get more effective, undocumented, weapons, and that's doing it legally.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 07, 2013 3:40 pm UTC

It isn't really a replacement for quality firearms...or even mediocre firearms, if we're being honest. It's the potential for it to be on par price-wise with a cheap stun-gun or even pepper spray...most people probably don't actually want to build a gun themselves, or even repair one...but if one is available sufficiently cheaply over the counter, they could be immensely popular for getting shoved in a purse or similar.

I don't think they're really going to be a big deal for the people who shoot all the time...no plastic barrel is ever going to be cost effective against a proper metal one, because the lifespan is just so very much shorter...but for people who will need to shoot very rarely, it might work out nicely.

That said, I'm building mine with a metal barrel sleeve, because that'll let me do some serious destruction testing on the rest of the parts.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Wed May 08, 2013 12:06 am UTC

"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby stevey_frac » Wed May 08, 2013 3:01 am UTC

I see little in that study that's all that interesting.

Apparently, overall violent crime has continued it's slow inexorable decent, regardless of any policy decisions. Also, black males between between 18-24 are the most likely perpetrators of gun homicide... Or at least, the most likely to be convicted of such... Hardly ground breaking.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Wed May 08, 2013 2:21 pm UTC

scienceroboticspunk wrote:What is the point of avoiding shooting a firearm if you are getting one for target shooting. If you mean avoid shooting one in a confrontation that is a different story. This is a quote I have read on Reddit that applies to concealed carriers, obviously the situation in a tad different in home defense.
Disclaimer: I'm sure this is a cross-post from somewhere, but it's worth it to read.
As a gun owner, you have to be cool-headed, more-so than the police ever have to be. And you do not ever run around pretending to be the police while carrying a gun because then, shit like this can happen. You do not start shit, act aggressively, flip the bird, roll your eyes, talk shit, or even raise your voice. To anyone. Ever.
A combat instructor (who happened to be Buddhist and a Marine) once said to me: "From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego. " "You do all this because if you are the one to start a fight, by default that fight now has a gun in it, and if you start losing, you're going to pull it and kill him. And even if you don't go to jail because you could convince the jury that it was self-defense, you're going to have to live with the fact that you could have saved someone's life and yet you let your ego kill someone." "You are not the police, so don't act like them. Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police, you do not have the training, the continuum of force policy, or a union plus free lawyers protecting you if you screw up."
ed: He also said: "but after backing down and trying to apologize, if at any time you then feel your life or that of a loved one is in danger, put three rounds into his [cardiothoracic] vault, call the police, give a statement, go home, and sleep like a baby. You did all you could for your attacker, and he was the one that made the final decision...
... to kill himself."
Cross-post aside; make sure you take the responsibility of carrying a weapon seriously. All of our rights depend on it. DO NOT give chances to people when your life is in danger, but DO NOT let your ego, or your pride kill someone.
Edit: returned post to original content.
Edit 2: People have been adding that you shouldn't talk to the police up front, but should in fact get a lawyer. I have to agree with this recommendation. Don't let your adrenaline make you do silly things. Keep your head level, and lawyer up (while remaining respectful to LE personnel).

I am not sure if deescalation is taught at CC courses, it probably should be, but I do not think that training should be mandatory for every gun owner since not all of them plan on carrying. I think deescalation through talking should be a mandatory thing in high school but not just pertaining to firearms. There are a lot of things I wish was taught in the schools system but are not but that should be left to a different thread.

Yes. You are correct.
Some of our schools are doing an amazing job.

Considering the Social Conditions, some of our schools are doing an amazing job.
I am not certain. There are young people learning To Be People inside those buildings.

Facts. Yes. The Young people learn Facts.
What Facts do The Young learn at School?
Spoiler:
I visited a School. It was a delightful experience.
They seem to have a Program/Policy in place.

They look for The Good in each other.
It is a wonderful Game. The Girls get Tetras.

I have no idea what The Boys get.
Maybe, The Boys don't get 'beat up';
That's something.


Back to Guns. Yes. Self Control is such a good idea.
Self Control is the Last Item on a List I have.

Spoiler:
Love; Joy
Peace; Patience
Kindness; Goodness
Faithfulness; Gentleness
And;
Self Control

It would Not hurt you to Memorize Them.
I Might.

Do you understand those words?
I think they are paired up correctly.

Faithfulness when not paired with Gentleness becomes Blind Loyalty.
Noting wrong with a little Blind Loyalty; in The Dark!

Faithfulness with Gentleness is nearly what I was Taught. I like Faithfulness paired with Gentleness.

I was Taught: "It takes Great Strength to be Gentle."

It's True! When a person that is not strong picks up another person, it can hurt both of them.

When Two strong people pick up a third person, Hardly anyone ever gets hurt.


Gun Safety and Gun smithing could be on TV!
Many educational things could be on TV.

TV is Escalation Education, now.
It could teach a Class in De-Escalation.

Remember good old Mr. Rodgers?
I did not understand him.

I still liked to watch him change his clothes.
He would not get away with That, today.

Making little kids watch him change clothes. Pfft.

Some little kids have a rough time with putting on Socks.
Did you know that? Do you remember learning to put on Socks?
Spoiler:
Socks were not so hard for me.
Shoes on correct foot was a little more Tricky.

The first time I put my own shoes on, I did it Wrong.
I told my brother, "My shoes are too small."
He fixed it.

He was always getting 'bright' ideas.
He decided I should learn how to do it.

We went into The Living Room.
He explained it to me.

We looked at my feet and my shoes.
We looked at his feet and shoes.

Almost All shoes have a Left and a Right.
He explained it. I have gotten it Wrong as an Adult.
It takes, but a moment to Trouble Shoot.


What is The Point? Who is Raising The Young?
The School has them for six hours, three to five days a week for 8 months, times years in school.
Math. They learn Math. Not all; Some.

Gun Safety? And; De-Escalation?
Can't Hurt. It is not like the idea of Firearms is Foreign.
The Children see Guns on TV. Right?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlgaeSea and 14 guests