OT: More GUNS

[Eagle Road]

No, it's less credible because it's not a credible new site. It provided terrible data that didn't include labels. It proudly claims its bias. It writes shit "articles" that use buzzword and bogeymen.

Journalists and news sites answer to more people than biased web sites.

And I'm not knocking blogs - they can be great, but they can also be terrible and misleading. The Free Republic is the latter and proven by that article. If they were so concerned with the real data, why didn't they show the numbers it took me 10 minutes to find, plot and upload for you?

If you would take a second, and click on the link I PROVIDED at the bottom of the page for that particular article, you WILL SEE the charts labeled, the reason they were not carried over on my post was that for whatever reason my browser will not load them when copied.

[Greenstealth]

Instead of constantly involving yourself in every thread that even brushes the edge of gun control, why don't you go out and make a difference? You spend much time on here trying to tell everyone (and show them with graphs and statistics) about your stance on guns. Guns can hurt things (people) and there are a lot of them in this country. Instead of droning on and on, why don't you actually do something about it? Start a movement. Change the country for the better in your eyes, endlessly posting charts and statistics on here probably isn't going to do much aside from making me genuinely feel bad for you.

[The Ref]

First of all, Australia did not pass a gun BAN. So the article you reference is bogus right from the start.

And that's the gun nutz bogeyman. You equate gun regulation with gun bans. That in itself informs the rest of us how you think. All or nothing.

[The Ref]

You have to forgive ref, he's a little dumb. As far as drunk driving goes, the easiest solution is to get rid of cars errr alcohol, wait what?

The hallmark of the feeble mind is that when you disagree with someone, you consider them stupid. Anybody we know?

[WeflyHigh]

Sheep

[Eagle Road]

First of all, Australia did not pass a gun BAN. So the article you reference is bogus right from the start.

And that's the gun nutz bogeyman. You equate gun regulation with gun bans. That in itself informs the rest of us how you think. All or nothing.

So the Government charts and statistics are bogus? Now who is "all or nothing"?

Understand something, I personally own just one gun, a first series Winchester that was inherited from my Grandfather.

I really would have no problem with more gun regulation, as long as, and try and follow along here, it is ONLY used as a means to make sure the right people have access to guns.

If said regulation would lead to listing or cataloging those gun owners for reasons of harassment or forfeiture then yes, that I have a problem with.

Before you tell me that would never happen, please look up the article I posted the other day on a person with a ccw permit that was stopped, searched, and detained, and he DID NOT even have a gun, any gun, with him.

The sole reason he was stopped was because he had an out of state car/plate, that when run brought up a code that this person had a ccw permit.

If this action does not reek of an invasion of privacy and at the very least this individuals rights being infringed upon, then you and I have nothing else to discuss, you have already been brainwashed to the point of no return, in the future, enjoy your number and your "cage".

THERE is your Boogeyman.

[Mt Iggle]

I see the study saying that these kinds of shooting have not increased over 20 years, just the media hype has increased.

You guys all live in a different world from me, and don't seem to realize there are different worlds out there, so I will have no more comment.

[TerpEagle]

Instead of constantly involving yourself in every thread that even brushes the edge of gun control, why don't you go out and make a difference? You spend much time on here trying to tell everyone (and show them with graphs and statistics) about your stance on guns. Guns can hurt things (people) and there are a lot of them in this country. Instead of droning on and on, why don't you actually do something about it? Start a movement. Change the country for the better in your eyes, endlessly posting charts and statistics on here probably isn't going to do much aside from making me genuinely feel bad for you.

Huh?

1) My actions here don't limit my actions elsewhere.

2) Discussion here is a method of change. I'm offering an opinion and facts that I find in an effort to educate and make a point. Again, that doesn't limit my actions away from this message board.

3) You seem to find yourself in these threads quite often as well yet instead of offering an opinion or anything useful one way or another you typically attack people on a personal level rather than their ideas and the merit of them.

So what's the deal? Got anything interesting to add or just ad hominem attacks that don't make any sense?

[TerpEagle]

If you would take a second, and click on the link I PROVIDED at the bottom of the page for that particular article, you WILL SEE the charts labeled, the reason they were not carried over on my post was that for whatever reason my browser will not load them when copied.

I did click. I clicked it from the comments section that a reader had to ask for. It still doesn't mean the post itself wasn't poor and obfuscating.

[Riccardo]

Simplistic analysis

More guns, more gun violence in the US? Facts do not support that conclusion. Gun homicides and non-fatal gun violence is down significantly in the US, even though there are more guns than ever.

"One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[TerpEagle]

More guns, more gun violence in the US? Facts do not support that conclusion. Gun homicides and non-fatal gun violence is down significantly in the US, even though there are more guns than ever.

"One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

Look at the data. There are more guns per person in the US than other developed nations and there are more gun related deaths. The relationship compared to other countries is the same. The US just has more. The graph is clear.

And gun proponents seem to just focus on homicides. Total gun deaths are what I'm talking about. Its a numbers game. More guns = more deaths by gun.

[Riccardo]

The data for the US is clear, your fallacy is comparison to other countries

Look at the data. There are more guns per person in the US than other developed nations and there are more gun related deaths. The relationship compared to other countries is the same. The US just has more. The graph is clear.

And gun proponents seem to just focus on homicides. Total gun deaths are what I'm talking about. Its a numbers game. More guns = more deaths by gun.

Irrelevant. The issue is us, not them. And the issue is gun violence - total gun deaths includes suicides, which skews the data. The facts are there are more guns, less gun violence, so your simplistic relationship fails. Better gun control and better law enforcement is what is required to continue to reduce gun violence. Need to get more guns out of the hands of violent people. That's what the US data shows quite clearly.

[TerpEagle]

Irrelevant. The issue is us, not them. And the issue is gun violence - total gun deaths includes suicides, which skews the data. The facts are there are more guns, less gun violence, so your simplistic relationship fails. Better gun control and better law enforcement is what is required to continue to reduce gun violence. Need to get more guns out of the hands of violent people. That's what the US data shows quite clearly.

Skews the data?!? What the fuck?

Suicides are most definitely part of the issue. More guns make any sort of gun related death easier and more common. Suicides and accidents are the most dangerous aspects of owning a gun.

You are willfully ignoring that to make your point in the face of data that shows a direct correlation between number of guns and number of deaths.

[Greenstealth]

Huh?

1) My actions here don't limit my actions elsewhere.

2) Discussion here is a method of change. I'm offering an opinion and facts that I find in an effort to educate and make a point. Again, that doesn't limit my actions away from this message board.

3) You seem to find yourself in these threads quite often as well yet instead of offering an opinion or anything useful one way or another you typically attack people on a personal level rather than their ideas and the merit of them.

So what's the deal? Got anything interesting to add or just ad hominem attacks that don't make any sense?

There was no reason to feel attacked. Relentlessly posting your shit on here about guns to the same audience over and over and over and over again makes no sense. You want me to add to this thread? How about, people are going to shoot people with guns and hurt other people regardless of how many times it's brought up on igglephans.

[Riccardo]

You assume, incorrectly, that if guns magically disappear

So do suicides. Fantasy land. Even including suicides, your argument doesn't hold water. Gun death rate per 100,000 was 14 in the 1980s and early 1990s. If more guns = more gun deaths the rate should be 20 by now, instead it is 10. Your model fails.