|
Liquid Communism posted:Source your numbers. Given that there have been at most about 320 murders per year in the US with rifles of all types and calibers, and on average about 10 police officers a year are killed with rifles of all types. I would suggest that 4.4% number is being used to seem much larger than it actually is, as given the number of officers killed that would represent a single officer per year or less. Either that, or the study is conflating .223 with .22LR, and as you can probably tell by the below example, they are very different rounds with similar diameters. It's an extremely common cheap round that goes in a fuckton of extremely common cheap guns, dude, and it can absolutely kill you. What part of this is hard to believe Back in the day before they got effectively legislated out of existence, the go-to murder guns were lovely little Jennings and Lorcin .25s, .22s, and .32s, cause they were tiny and cheap as hell and would put someone down if you unloaded into their back at point-blank range. Now there's a hintillion old Glocks and Smiths getting offloaded en masse by every police department as they move on to the next biggest thing, so those tend to be what shows up with bodies on them. Terminal ballistics were never the primary factor.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
To clarify a little more, criminals love small, cheap, easily concealed calibers. They also tend to just use what's common, so popular calibers/models are always heavily represented in crime statistics. .22LR is an intersection of those two points. The even less effective .25 and .32 calibers are pretty popular too. Sure, lethality might be lower, but any caliber can kill, and for most criminal uses dropping the other guy instantly is a lot less important than for people looking for self-defense. Meanwhile, legal pushes if anything continue to mostly focus on big scary calibers that are great for range toys, terrible for crime, like the one here that categorizes handguns over a certain weight as assault weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This point is completely incorrect and clearly meant to appeal to the moronic "Hehe, 22 just bounces off leather and can't do poo poo" dick measuring tough guys love to do (though I would not accuse you of being that tough guy, but rather just buying the BS internet tough guys put out about 22's because occasionally their penetration with the first shot is stopped). The name of the game with criminal weapons is either cheap, disposable, and small (ie, 22, 25, 32, 9mm) or so common that they're easy to steal. I've lived in poor rural areas where people (illegally) hunt deer and boar with .22s (both WMR and LR). You don't buy a 1000 dollar handgun just to have to toss it a couple weeks in after you shoot someone. You buy stolen guns or you get a lovely low caliber gun from whatever source you can. quote:I also love people claiming 22 is a useless round for a killing or mass shooting. They should probably talk to the deadliest modern American mass shooter Cho, about using a 9mm and a 22. mugrim posted:Regardless of reporting laws, do you believe the current standard should be "If we can't find the paperwork in three days, oh well!"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Regardless of reporting laws, do you believe the current standard should be "If we can't find the paperwork in three days, oh well!"? What's wrong with that standard? Gun ownership is something currently defined as a constitutional right, and consequently it isn't something that should be beholden to endless bureaucratic delays (especially given the ample opportunity for bad faith actions via the simple expedient of underfunding/understaffing the regulatory mechanism that imposes prior restraint on exercise of those rights). While you can quibble with the exact period of time, there is nothing wrong with the notion that state agencies need to adhere to concrete timelines to execute their duties, and that if they are incapable of doing so they shouldn't obstruct the presumably lawful activities of the citizenry. For a modern records system I don't think 3 days is a particularly unreasonable time period at all. LGD fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
LGD posted:What's wrong with that standard? You mean other than Dylan Roof having a gun he otherwise would not have? That seems like a pretty big negative if you ask me. I'm not quite sure firearms ownership convenience though retailers is more important than ensuring that criminals get their hands on guns. Dead Reckoning posted:It's not moronic though, because the post was responding to the position that guns only exist as weapons of war or are designed to kill people. It's certainly possible to kill someone with a .22lr, and it makes frequent appearance in police reports due to its ubiquity, but from a pure design standpoint it's hilariously sub-optimal for killing anything larger than a gopher. Depends what you mean by sub optimal. Dollars per dead person it's the most efficient round on the market (save maybe the .25 or .38, but it's in the running), and considering the high necessity of needing to dispose of weapons you use for criminal purposes, that's a pretty optimal advantage to have. There's a wide array of cheap models that are easy to dispose of without having to cry over losing a ton of money. It's highly accurate, especially when fired repeatedly. It's just as scary as any other gun but most hand guns are easy to hide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
if a persons solemn oath is enough to vote, its good enough for a gun. after all the pen is mightier than the sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
mugrim posted:You mean other than Dylan Roof having a gun he otherwise would not have? That seems like a pretty big negative if you ask me. I'm not quite sure firearms ownership convenience though retailers is more important than ensuring that criminals get their hands on guns. A mass shooter potentially being stopped because he was also coincidentally a kid who got high at the mall doesn't exactly point a shining path towards a system that works, man If we put everyone who drives a mile over the speed limit on indefinite house arrest that'd probably stop a ton of murders
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Already did, go back to the post, it's on the last page of the pdf. It is an older number, but this idea that having a 22 can't be for killing people is hilariously false. Not that cheap. In fact, you can get a lovely 9mm for about the same price as a lovely .22, thanks to the wonderous people at Hi-Point who will sell you a perfectly good 9MM semi-automatic brand new for $155 MSRP. mugrim posted:Regardless of reporting laws, do you believe the current standard should be "If we can't find the paperwork in three days, oh well!"? I don't have that much trouble with it. Less than 1% (700,000 out of over 100,000,000) of all NICS checks return a fail. That means there is a much greater probability of waiting periods simply being an unnecessary inconvenience for lawful sportsmen than any kind of deterrent to criminals. That possibility can be even further reduced by actually acting on known straw purchases and prosecuting people who knowingly provide arms to prohibited purchasers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
LGD posted:What's wrong with that standard? Gun ownership is something currently defined as a constitutional right, and consequently it isn't something that should be beholden to endless bureaucratic delays (especially given the ample opportunity for bad faith actions via the simple expedient of underfunding/understaffing the regulatory mechanism that imposes prior restraint on exercise of those rights). While you can quibble with the exact period of time, there is nothing wrong with the notion that state agencies need to adhere to concrete timelines to execute their duties, and that if they are incapable of doing so they shouldn't obstruct the presumably lawful activities of the citizenry. For a modern records system I don't think 3 days is a particularly unreasonable time period at all. That would be true if it was the only legal way to purchase a firearm. As it is not, the right is not denied, simply one venue of that right. Hell, even if it was, I have to register to vote a month before elections even begin, that kind of makes three days seem like chump change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
mugrim posted:That would be true if it was the only legal way to purchase a firearm. As it is not, the right is not denied, simply one venue of that right. it's "any venue that runs a background check" so i think you might find sort of an inconsistency in treating that like it's nbd
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Let's break the system that tracks and identifies known criminals and violent crime risks so nobody can or wants to use it, cause then it might trip up random teenagers who might happen to be giant assholes
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
mugrim posted:That would be true if it was the only legal way to purchase a firearm. As it is not, the right is not denied, simply one venue of that right. Well, assuming your state allows private face-to-face transfers, and you can find someone willing to sell you the gun you want for a reasonable price in your area, and you don't want to buy a gun from across any state lines. Of course, that then creates a much larger market for private sales, one which criminals will be more than happy to take advantage of, which is rather at cross purposes. mugrim posted:Hell, even if it was, I have to register to vote a month before elections even begin, that kind of makes three days seem like chump change. Hrm, I'm a bit spoiled, Iowa's one of the 11 states that allow election-day registration, so voting is a matter of showing up. I expect that to become country-wide before too long. Cali and Illinois have added it this year. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Let's break the system that tracks and identifies known criminals and violent crime risks so nobody can or wants to use it, cause then it might trip up random teenagers who might happen to be giant assholes If the system is so effective, perhaps we make it required for ALL sales? You can't have it both ways. It either works and should be done for all sales, or it doesn't work in which case who gives a gently caress? Do you think Private peer to peer sales should be allowed without a background check? Liquid Communism posted:Well, assuming your state allows private face-to-face transfers, and you can find someone willing to sell you the gun you want for a reasonable price in your area, and you don't want to buy a gun from across any state lines. Of course, that then creates a much larger market for private sales, one which criminals will be more than happy to take advantage of, which is rather at cross purposes. Most states allow it, a few don't, in which case that's a states rights issue, they can bring it to the supreme court. If private sales are clearly what criminals want, what if we negotiate. Keep the three day requirement for background check so if results don't come back in the allotted time it's a-ok, but it's required for every single sale? Liquid Communism posted:Hrm, I'm a bit spoiled, Iowa's one of the 11 states that allow election-day registration, so voting is a matter of showing up. I expect that to become country-wide before too long. Cali and Illinois have added it this year. You foresee a constitutional amendment coming down the pike? No loving way you get the votes for that. Nothing is seen as unconstitutional about being forced to file at least a month early to vote, so I don't see how owning a gun would not qualify for that same scrutiny. Liquid Communism posted:Not that cheap. In fact, you can get a lovely 9mm for about the same price as a lovely .22, thanks to the wonderous people at Hi-Point who will sell you a perfectly good 9MM semi-automatic brand new for $155 MSRP. My local pawn shops routinely have 22 revolvers and semi-autos for under 100. Gun shows in my area do about the same as well. Hell, even High point has a cheaper 38 or 380 option somewhere. It also doesn't address recoil. A lovely 22 fires a whole lot better than a lovely 9, especially if the name of the game is lots of shots in a short period. It's not the 'greatest' but a 9mm is unneeded unless you got a stolen one. A lovely 380, 25, or 22 will do just fine, typically for cheaper on the average. iirc the cheapest one on the retail market is a 380 of some kind that retails for a hundred bucks (Cobra or something?), but since mid low 22s get resold a ton, it's easier to find them in peer to peer sales. Liquid Communism posted:I don't have that much trouble with it. Less than 1% (700,000 out of over 100,000,000) of all NICS checks return a fail. That means there is a much greater probability of waiting periods simply being an unnecessary inconvenience for lawful sportsmen than any kind of deterrent to criminals. That possibility can be even further reduced by actually acting on known straw purchases and prosecuting people who knowingly provide arms to prohibited purchasers. Which is probably why private sales should be regulated too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:The UK murder rate rose after the bans that followed the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres (it wasn't until 2010 that murders dropped below pre-Hungerford levels), and gun crime in general rose year-on-year for almost two decades: Yeah this dumb argument gets trotted out in every gun control thread. What's being shown in your graphs are crime rates recorded by the British police. What isn't mentioned is that in Britain recording practices were significantly altered in 1998, and again in 2002, in such a way that recorded crime went up on both occasions. If you look at the data from the Crime Survey for England and Whales, which hasn't significantly altered the way it records data, you actually see a downward trend in violent crime starting in 1995: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Which is probably why private sales should be regulated too! Again, you're pushing for additional bureaucracy and delays to exercising a constitutional right. I don't particularly mind private sales being run through NICS, but that depends on NICS not representing an undue delay or cost imposed on the buyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Guns are absolutely necessary- have you seen how many minorities there are in the US now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Again, you're pushing for additional bureaucracy and delays to exercising a constitutional right. Still less time than me exercising my right to vote, so it's within the scope of time we accept for people to have to prepare and wait for the most fundamental of rights. Afterall, if I have to plan out a month ahead of time whether or not I will vote, it seems rather odd that 4 days is a line in the sand. Liquid Communism posted:I don't particularly mind private sales being run through NICS, but that depends on NICS not representing an undue delay or cost imposed on the buyer. Being required to is the key. I'd be fine with publicly subsidizing it on the cost end. Calling 3 days "Undue delay" seems a bit of a stretch. Even a week is relatively fast. But sure, 3 days, but all purchases required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
mugrim posted:If the system is so effective, perhaps we make it required for ALL sales? You can't have it both ways. It either works and should be done for all sales, or it doesn't work in which case who gives a gently caress? I don't need to argue that everything that is not prohibited must be mandatory at all, actually, that's stupid. The NICS system works fine, bumbling staties failing to report criminals in a timely manner aside, but is presently limited to FFLs, who are non-universal enough to not be an effective or legal sole avenue for a constitutionally protected right. for those counterrevolutionaries who care about human rights and all. I think NICS should be open to everybody; i think it oughta be mandatory for private sales except that the well of a registry has been so thoroughly poisoned by moral-panic idiots looking for a sweet campaign ad the only scenarios where a reopened one is on the table involve Falkor the Luck Dragon and a gem that grants wishes, but I understand why the FBI isn't exactly volunteering to support that. I don't think the drug user question belongs on there let alone is key to rooting out secret race warriors gone reefer-mad on suboxone, but it also doesn't matter much. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I don't need to argue that everything that is not prohibited must be mandatory at all, actually, that's stupid. The NICS system works fine, bumbling staties failing to report criminals in a timely manner aside, but is presently limited to FFLs, who are non-universal enough to not be an effective or legal sole avenue for a constitutionally protected right. for those counterrevolutionaries who care about human rights and all. I think NICS should be open to everybody; i think it oughta be mandatory except that the well of a registry has been so thoroughly poisoned by moral-panic idiots looking for a sweet campaign ad the only scenarios where a reopened one is on the table involve Falkor the Luck Dragon and a gem that grants wishes, but I understand why the FBI isn't exactly volunteering to support that. I don't think the drug user question belongs on there let alone is key to rooting out secret race warriors gone reefer-mad on suboxone, but it also doesn't matter much. So would you support it being mandatory for all sales?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Calling 3 days "Undue delay" seems a bit of a stretch. Even a week is relatively fast. But sure, 3 days, but all purchases required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's a loving computer. It isn't like some guy answers the phone and he has to run downstairs to the garage and then drive over to a giant Indiana Jones style warehouse where an owl fetches the records for him. If the FBI can't design a computer system that works quicker than 3 days it's their own loving fault. This same logic applies to voting, yet people don't flip their poo poo nearly the same way they do about guns because they have to register ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
mugrim posted:So would you support it being mandatory for all sales? provided it's available for private, person-to-person sales not choked through the rear end-backwards FFL system, sure. while we're in fantasy land I'd get a little more ambitious, though, how about a comprehensive secondary-school-level training program equivalent to driver's ed so bubba can't use a gun until he's made at least dimly aware it's not a funny joke to point it at people and pull the trigger just cause he thinks it ain't loaded, bigger more comprehensive CCC to guarantee employment for all who want it, striking of all victimless crimes with full amnesty and record expungement for those currently incarcerated under them, and a fully funded public school system everyone comes out of knowing how to cook, drive, shoot, do their taxes, perform basic home maintenance, fact-check, do first aid, resolve interpersonal conflicts, put on a condom, and self-calm A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This same logic applies to voting, yet people don't flip their poo poo nearly the same way they do about guns because they have to register ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I kind of do FYI but if you're cool with disenfranchising people that's on you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Still less time than me exercising my right to vote, so it's within the scope of time we accept for people to have to prepare and wait for the most fundamental of rights. Afterall, if I have to plan out a month ahead of time whether or not I will vote, it seems rather odd that 4 days is a line in the sand. I honestly don't care what you'd be fine with, the question is if it will pass strict scrutiny as the least restriction required to serve a compelling government interest. There is no compelling government interest in making gun purchases more time consuming and difficult given that use of the NICS system does not, as indicated by the failure rates, catch any significant number of prohibited purchasers, nor is there any compelling evidence that a waiting period has any effect on crime rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:How is a short waiting period disenfranchisement? And if you think repeated efforts to stretch the deadline for registration out further and further from election day aren't about disenfranchising minority voters I've got a bridge to sell you. Edit: Double negative. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This same logic applies to voting, yet people don't flip their poo poo nearly the same way they do about guns because they have to register ahead of time. They ought to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
I think an important thing for our foreign readers to note about ammochat and the mental state of the American gun owner is that .22 and most if not all other types of ammunition are moderately to extremely hard to find in this country because gun owners by at least the tens of thousands have been snatching up and hoarding every whiff of it in preparation for a variety of paranoid fantasies up to and including the racial holy war
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think an important thing for our foreign readers to note about ammochat and the mental state of the American gun owner is that .22 and most if not all other types of ammunition are moderately to extremely hard to find in this country because gun owners by at least the tens of thousands have been snatching up and hoarding every whiff of it in preparation for a variety of paranoid fantasies up to and including the racial holy war
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think an important thing for our foreign readers to note about ammochat and the mental state of the American gun owner is that .22 and most if not all other types of ammunition are moderately to extremely hard to find in this country because gun owners by at least the tens of thousands have been snatching up and hoarding every whiff of it in preparation for a variety of paranoid fantasies up to and including the racial holy war Well, that and, in usual American fashion, a bunch of people seized upon the panic of the shortage as a good chance to short a commodity and bought up bunches of it (and AR-15 rifle parts) to resell once the price has peaked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Giving regular people a right to own things that only exist to kill other people seems like an incredibly stupid idea. tumblr.txt posted:If guns "only existed to kill other people" no-one would make any rifles in 22lr. mugrim posted:This point is completely incorrect and clearly meant to appeal to the moronic "Hehe, 22 just bounces off leather and can't do poo poo" dick measuring tough guys love to do (though I would not accuse you of being that tough guy, but rather just buying the BS internet tough guys put out about 22's because occasionally their penetration with the first shot is stopped). The name of the game with criminal weapons is either cheap, disposable, and small (ie, 22, 25, 32, 9mm) or so common that they're easy to steal. I've lived in poor rural areas where people (illegally) hunt deer and boar with .22s (both WMR and LR). You don't buy a 1000 dollar handgun just to have to toss it a couple weeks in after you shoot someone. You buy stolen guns or you get a lovely low caliber gun from whatever source you can. You have missed my point. I never said that .22 rounds can't kill people. They can, but so can a sharpened stick. They are nowhere near optimal for the job. The original comment by Nopantsjack was that guns "only existed to kill other people". Let's pretend you are the lead designer at Deathstick Industries, and it's your job to make the MurderGun9000 rifle, designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Given a bazillion choices why would you pick 22lr as the cartridge of choice? It's not like it's going to cost more to make it in .22 magnum which has marginally higher lethality and still negligible recoil. There are plenty of low recoil cartridges that would job the job way better than a 22lr. So, as a firearms designer, why would you make the MurderGun9000 fire 22lrs, when it's sole purpose is to kill people? tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
mugrim posted:If the system is so effective, perhaps we make it required for ALL sales? You can't have it both ways. It either works and should be done for all sales, or it doesn't work in which case who gives a gently caress? mugrim posted:This same logic applies to voting, yet people don't flip their poo poo nearly the same way they do about guns because they have to register ahead of time. mugrim posted:Depends what you mean by sub optimal. Dollars per dead person it's the most efficient round on the market (save maybe the .25 or .38, but it's in the running), and considering the high necessity of needing to dispose of weapons you use for criminal purposes, that's a pretty optimal advantage to have. There's a wide array of cheap models that are easy to dispose of without having to cry over losing a ton of money. It's highly accurate, especially when fired repeatedly. It's just as scary as any other gun but most hand guns are easy to hide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 13:11
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:You have missed my point. I never said that .22 rounds can't kill people. They can, but so can a sharpened stick. They are nowhere near optimal for the job. Because they're cheaper and still get the job done for less cost and more people can then use them. For a lot less you could buy cheap ammo in bulk and go nuts. Buying one really expensive gun and a small assortment of expensive ammo doesn't seem like the best way to kill as many people as you can. Guns were historically created to kill other people, that is their function though they have been adapted for hunting and sport. A lot of people who don't need them tend to want them because they've become a symbol of power and freedom. What I don't get is why people are so against so much as waiting a little extra time on their status symbols if it means preventing even one mass shooting tragedy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Because they're cheaper and still get the job done for less cost and more people can then use them. For a lot less you could buy cheap ammo in bulk and go nuts. Buying one really expensive gun and a small assortment of expensive ammo doesn't seem like the best way to kill as many people as you can. Indeed as a serial killer saving maybe $20 in ammunition costs for my murder spree is a huge priority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Guns were historically created to kill other people, that is their function though they have been adapted for hunting and sport. quote:What I don't get is why people are so against so much as waiting a little extra time on their status symbols if it means preventing even one mass shooting tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 14:47
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:Indeed as a serial killer saving maybe $20 in ammunition costs for my murder spree is a huge priority. That's twenty dollars you can spend on more ammo. The price difference between the two ammo types discussed is more than twenty dollars, at least it was on all the places I looked up. Dead Reckoning posted:Why are guns special in this regard compared to rockets or RADAR? Because a clearly unstable person can't go out and get a rocket in less than a week without anyone giving a poo poo about what they would do with it, then go on to kill as many people as they possibly can with it. But I guess shootings and gun related violence doesn't happen so a minor inconvenience is just too much to ask. Got to have those guns ASAP for all that soldiering in a first world country.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Don't call guns status symbols, because they're not. They're toys. Once you understand this things become clearer. Imagine the infantile nerd rage over being told they can't have a toy right now and you have an accurate assessment of the genesis of their resentment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Because a clearly unstable person can't go out and get a rocket in less than a week without anyone giving a poo poo about what they would do with it, then go on to kill as many people as they possibly can with it. quote:But I guess shootings and gun related violence doesn't happen so a minor inconvenience is just too much to ask. Got to have those guns ASAP for all that soldiering in a first world country. For the record, I'm not going to accept even a minor inconvenience unless it can be plausibly explained what problem it solves that the government has a compelling interest in regulating (so not, "It's just common sense!") and only if you're willing to apply the same standard of utility to everything else in society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
You say minor inconvenience to gun owners like it's a bad thing. I doubt that anyone quit smoking specifically as a result of having to be 15 feet from an entrance, but hopefully it was a contributing factor in their choice to end engaging in a pointless and destructive activity
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Yeah this dumb argument gets trotted out in every gun control thread. What's being shown in your graphs are crime rates recorded by the British police. What isn't mentioned is that in Britain recording practices were significantly altered in 1998, and again in 2002, in such a way that recorded crime went up on both occasions. If you look at the data from the Crime Survey for England and Whales, which hasn't significantly altered the way it records data, you actually see a downward trend in violent crime starting in 1995: Thank you very much for proving my point exactly. The Hunger ford ban did nothing to stop crime that was rising, and the Dunblane ban did nothing to start a decline that was already falling. Besides, there's again the fact that murders rose following both bans, even accounting for the distorting effect of Shipman - and one mad doctor killed more than 10 Dunblanes, so I guess we should ban GPs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:19
|
|
