Gun Home

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Home

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Who What Now posted:

Alternatively, what's everyone's favorite gun?

There are so many to choose from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12YzarXHB2Q

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 03:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 19:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

crabcakes66 posted:

It has been dropping worldwide. Ours is still abnormally high compared to developed countries though.

What is the criteria to be considered a developed country exactly? Even if we limit the selection to high HDI counties with low crime rates, there is still significant variability in the degree of restriction of private firearms ownership within that set, and that degree of restriction has essentially zero correlation to overall homicide rate.

Mirthless posted:

why could that be though

it's almost as if we have more of something, proportionally, than europe has

Even if you delete firearms from the dataset, our proportional homicide rate is still higher.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 18:22

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rakosi posted:

But doesn't America disqualify itself from having an opinion on research and comparative study of gun violence being used in the debate because they banned it?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

There is no ban on gun violence data collection. The FBI and CDC publish numbers every year. The ban is on using federal money to fund partisan research.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 19:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

What? Prove this.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill that everyone claims banned gun violence research is: "That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." (Pg 245.) The CDC's interpretation is: "In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms." Nothing in that passage bans research, just advocacy. It was put in place because some researchers receiving money from the CDC were in fact engaged in advocacy.

There is no law against state and private agencies researching or promoting whatever they want.

VVV EDIT: I believe that would be covered under the anti-lobbying act.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 27, 2015

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 20:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

That doesn't make it partisan, however, the NRA and Legislative branch made a subtle hint that they would defund an entire agency if their reports showed negative effects from firearms.

I'm sorry, that's not partisan.

THIS. This is partisan. From the party that has a legacy of having poor views of science, yet suddenly they know what is scientific and what is not?

That money was restored with the final passage of the bill, although it was earmarked for community health initiatives.

Regardless, "a lobbying group said some things, and then their ally put some fairly benign language in an appropriations bill" is a biiiiiig walk back from, "America banned research on gun violence," which is what Rakosi (and others) have asserted.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 20:42

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

It was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research. C'mon man.

I think you need to re-think what counts as partisan if a group that openly advocated that Obama was a Muslim and promoted other wacko conspiracy theories including that Obama was going to come seize all firearms gets to decide what sort of community violence issues the CDC can and cannot talk about.

Apologies, TBI. Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere that the NRA has a veto over CDC publications and research, just that they provide information to the NRA about what research they are doing. Which the NRA would probably FOIA if they didn't.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2015 20:51

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rakosi posted:

You're the side on the defense, I think. Because you've not offered one argument for having guns unrestricted in the manner they are currently that can't be digested into nationalist "It's are rights!!!".

LeeMajors posted:

Instead of stamping your feet and crying that "nobody's going to tell ME what to do!" , why don't you provide some compelling reasoning for private citizens having unfettered access to incredibly lethal and concealable weapons?

That's not how it works though. If you're going to argue that I shouldn't be allowed to do something, you have to provide a compelling, affirmative case why I shouldn't. Screeching "you don't need that" doesn't cut it. So far, all you've offered is the position that western European countries have slightly lower homicide rates than the United States, and that western European countries have more restrictive laws about civilian firearms ownership than the United States, and then jumped directly to the conclusion that more restrictive laws about civilian firearms ownership causes lower homicide rates. Unfortunately, that falls apart when one looks at countries like Russia, Brazil, and the Philippines that have strict laws about civilian firearms ownership, but higher homicide rates than the United States.

Rakosi posted:

Just out of curiosity; if you have seen the footage of those two reporters getting blasted (or any previous publicized shooting incident), do you immediately think "acceptable losses for my rights"?

I've never understood this guilt by association thing. Do you think people should break down in tears every time they start their car or have a beer because 8,000 people a year have to die in drunk driving collisions in order for them to have their rights?

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 00:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

various cheeses posted:

Does every thread in D&D get this amount of vitriol or is it just gun.txt?

The Israel/Palestine thread is basically a screaming hellmouth of bile and vitrol, except My Imaginary GF plays the role of Tezzor.
Cops & Criminals gets pretty heated.
I think the half the Australia Politics thread got banned one time.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 00:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rakosi posted:

You are so full of facetious strawmans.

You don't have a "slightly" higher gun homicide rate than European countries, you are off the scale. New Orleans is almost equal to Honduras, per 100,000, for gun homicide. Honduras is the country with the most gun homicides in the world. Country-wide, you average out many, many times more likely to die from gun violence. I think it's about 20 times more likely than in my country, in Europe.

Russia, Brazil and the Philippines do not exactly have the same professional police forces or controlled borders that Europe and the US do, do they? You can't seriously be trying to compare the USA to them in a gun debate with the aim of making a point that the USA isn't that bad, can you?

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

Putting that aside, I don't see the point in measuring firearm homicides, because people are equally dead no matter the means of murder. It also neatly sidesteps questions of method substitution. In all homicides, New Orleans had a 57.6 per 100,000 homicide rate in 2011, while Honduras clocked in at 90.4 per 100,000. That's stretching the definition of "almost equal" pretty far. It's a little unfair to use New Orleans as an example, since New Orleans is one of the most dangerous cities in the entire world and has had an annual murder rate at least seven times the national average for the past 30 years. To balance that out, Lincoln, in terrifying, gun infested Nebraska (88 privately owned guns per 100 people according to one study), had half the homicide rate of Norway. All this really tells me is that the United States is a pretty diverse place, and that laws about gun ownership have minimal effect on homicide rates.

Also, I would put forward that, if a professional civil service, effective institutions, and overall wealth are sufficient to disrupt the effects of strict restrictions on firearms ownership, the effect was not that strong to begin with.

quote:

That doesn't answer my question. If you could choose between the current high gun homicide rate in America, or your right to bear arms, which would you choose? Don't dodge it this time.

Do you mean like, if some Ifrit offered to cut our crime rate down Icelandic levels, but only if I could never own guns again, would I go for it? Hell yeah, I'd take that deal. Unfortunately, I oppose further restrictions on private firearms ownership, not because I don't care about crime, but because I don't think they have significant impacts on the problems the purport to solve, especially relative to other solutions.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 01:02

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

LeeMajors posted:

I'm going to explain this in the most remedial terms so you fucks can understand it:

Guns exist purely for the purpose of killing other people and make deadly violence as easy as pulling a trigger. It is different than other methods of homicide because it is far, far, far easier to exact significant deadly violence with a minimum of effort. It is okay to legislate to make murder as difficult as possible--especially in regards to items that exist only for the purpose of killing.

Goddrat.

LeeMajors posted:

Alcohol and drugs serve a purpose other than killing and can be used in a safe responsible manner. Their very existence is not defined by causing severe injury and death.

And seriously? Slippery slope?

Hey, let's save everyone some time and recap the last thread.

Pro-Skub: You say guns are only designed for killing, but Olympic target rifles and fine over/under shotguns are designed and used almost exclusively for sport. Much like the vast majority of guns sold.
Anti-Skub: It is impossible to separate guns from the fact that they are designed to kill things, no matter what you use them for.
Pro-Skub: How is this different from rockets or RADAR, both designed as weapons of war?
Anti-Skub: Those can be used for things that aren't killing.
Pro-Skub: Like sports or amusement or commercial purposes? Should Estes rockets be illegal? Should hunting?
Anti-Skub: Any sports with guns are just practice for killing.
Pro-Skub: The same could be said for many sports. Boxing, judo, kendo, javelin?
Anti-Skub: Guns were designed make killing a point-and-click affair. They are totally unique in this and cannot be compared to anything else.
Pro-Skub: So is designer's intent or what the item is ultimately used for the quality that matters?

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 01:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Play posted:

This is why the drugs that do these things are illegal. I'm guessing that wasn't your point though? Or are you arguing that access to hard drugs should be completely unrestricted like guns? Heck let's ruin as many lives as possible. Murder, drugs, mayhem, 666

I wouldn't be holding up our prohibition on mind-altering drugs as an example of successful social policy that we should be emulating.

Rakosi posted:

Hmmm, something is telling me that what you said isn't what I said. Either your reading comprehension is bad or mine is. I guess we should let the thread decide.

Well, it's either that or you're arguing that dying from being shot is worse than being killed by a drunk driver.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Aug 28, 2015

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 01:30

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

LeeMajors posted:

When the item in question is primarily designed to kill and is party to a incredible amount of efficient deaths, it warrants legislative attention.

But if it just incidentally kills people, that's okey-dokey?

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 01:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rakosi posted:

You can't shoot up a classroom with a bow and arrow.

You are being really, really intellectually dishonest about the killing power of these weapons.

Before we go any further, is it what something was designed for, or what something is used for that matters?

Because RADAR and most space boosters were literally designed to facilitate massive numbers of deaths.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 01:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 19:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

radical meme posted:

3) I worked with a lady who was out one night with her boyfriend. They came home to his house just in time to meet a burglar coming out of her boyfriend's front door. The burglar shot her boyfriend in the chest with the boyfriend's gun that he had stolen from the nightstand next to her boyfriend's bed. Her boyfriend lived.

This is why the government should make gun safes tax deductible. A common-sense step to encourage those with guns to store them safely and keep them out of the hands of criminals.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2015 09:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Home