American Gun Laws

[Washington Resistance Army]

The right is to defend yourself with the 9mm.

This makes me think of this famous quote I once heard:

"Gun-lovers are kind like this, if a kid throws a rock at another kid, a liberal would probably take that rock away. Like a normal teacher would right? Well a gun-lover would give everyone a rock and teach them how to throw it at each other."

That quote is retarded for a number of reasons. Mainly because the kid has already thrown the rock so you can't take it away and the kid could just pick another up off the ground.

It doesn't quite work that way with guns, despite whatever stereotypes you might have heard.

[Big Jim P]

And the only reports that more guns equals more crimes come from the leftists and anti-gun biased media. Even in the face of a current strong negative correlation.

Let's set a start date for these record setting gun sales (I'm asking you to since you brought them up) and see when, in relation to them, crime started falling throughout the US (Which, for reference, was in 1992) and maybe we can see how accurate this is.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/seco ... cides-down

[Beaucoup]

If we have a problem with gun violence, then I say we purge.

Anyone up for a purge? Let off some steam?

[Texas and the Southwest]

There have been incidents in the U.S. where there was a public shooting and an armed citizen has protected and saved other civilians by killing/wounding the shooter.

This does not invalidate the statement.

It proves that some shootings could be stopped by citizens owning guns.

[Vassenor]

If we have a problem with gun violence, then I say we purge.

Anyone up for a purge? Let off some steam?

I thought the point of that movie was to demonstrate that it doesn't work that way.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Gun licenses? Down here in Texas? Guns are not licensed here, and yes, I mean properly trained by an adult. Look back a few pages and you will see that several of us have been shooting since we were very young. In my case, since I was six or so.

Right I forgot you're texan. Sorry about that. But then again, I didn't think it was that lax there. Like I know about the open carry movement, but that was about it.

Hey, on the topic of training, I'm curious of what you think of the idea of marksmanship/gun saftey classes in high schools? I remember that used to be a thing somewhere, or atleast if I recall from a thread a long time ago.

Some Connecticut high schools still have firearms teams.

[Lavochkin]

This makes me think of this famous quote I once heard:

"Gun-lovers are kind like this, if a kid throws a rock at another kid, a liberal would probably take that rock away. Like a normal teacher would right? Well a gun-lover would give everyone a rock and teach them how to throw it at each other."

That quote is retarded for a number of reasons. Mainly because the kid has already thrown the rock so you can't take it away and the kid could just pick another up off the ground.

It doesn't quite work that way with guns, despite whatever stereotypes you might have heard.

You're thinking too hard. It's just supposed to represent the irony of giving someone something that they themselves received.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That quote is retarded for a number of reasons. Mainly because the kid has already thrown the rock so you can't take it away and the kid could just pick another up off the ground.

It doesn't quite work that way with guns, despite whatever stereotypes you might have heard.

You're thinking too hard. It's just supposed to represent the irony of giving someone something that they themselves received.

That also isn't how it works. You don't magically get given a gun if you're a victim of firearms violence.

[Vassenor]

This does not invalidate the statement.

It proves that some shootings could be stopped by citizens owning guns.

Having a gun does not suspend your fight-or-flight responses.

[Big Jim P]

If you look back a few pages you will see sources concerning the current record-setting gun sales and the falling crime rate. Now I know that correlation =/= causation, but the gun-grabbers try to use a more guns = more crime correlation to justify their support for gun control, when that correlation does not exist.

Aye, I know that, but that doesn't really condone using their same tactics. In my eyes both sides are lowered in my esteem every time they do, and I don't really feel like supporting either side.

As for my support for open or Constitutional carry, open carry is legal in many states, and Constitutional carry in a few, including a couple that only recently instituted Constitutional carry. Now with the media anti-gun bias, and the gun-grabbers penchant for distorting facts, if there was a negative impact (the "blood in the streets" argument that the gun grabbers bring out every time carry restrictions are eased), then it would be all over the news. It is not, so I conclude there is little or no negative impact.

I'm not really sure that's your conclusion to make. What I'm thinking of are more subtle impacts. A heavier presence of guns on the street might have psychological effects on the population. Granted, that's conjecture and I haven't taken the time to look up source material on that, so you're not really obligated to accept that as a legitimate concern.

My belief is further strengthened by the fact that the "blood in the streets" warning has not once come to pass since Florida went to shall issue in 1987, and the gun-grabbers started using the argument.

I think I've said this before in another thread, but I think those heavy gun control advocates are hindering their own goals by being so irrationally hardcore. I think combining the findings of studies on different gun control measures with some realistic/prospective thinking would really go a long way.

I will agree with you in one area: the extremists on BOTH sides hurt their own goals. Had it not been for open carry extremists here in Texas, we would have had Constitutional Carry passed in the last Legislative session.

[Neu California]

Let's set a start date for these record setting gun sales (I'm asking you to since you brought them up) and see when, in relation to them, crime started falling throughout the US (Which, for reference, was in 1992) and maybe we can see how accurate this is.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/seco ... cides-down

To which I respond with one of ASB's posts earlier in the thread, where he explained things so much better than I could have:

That is a interesting concept indeed. Still, my charts prove that increased gun ownership don't increase gun crime.

Well, no. actually, they don't. Let me bring up another chart for you, similar to the other ones I posted:

This is the tail end of the longer-term chart of American childhood lead levels and violent crime. Compare it now to your chart:

Do you notice how the decline in crime rates slows beginning in the late 1990's, to the point where it pretty much flattens out, yet lead levels keep on falling sharply? If lead and crime correlate as closely as they have historically, why didn't crime rates fall much more sharply starting sometime around 1999-2000?

One explanation could be increasing gun ownership rates. It MIGHT be that the ever-increasing number of guns floating around the American landscape are actually BOOSTING the crime rate, but because environmental lead has been plunging steadily since 1970, the overall crime rate has FALLEN because the positive correlation of lead with crime is having a much greater impact on the country than the negative effect of having more guns.

IOW, if gun ownership rates weren't spiking, the overall crime rate would be even lower than it is now.

The thing is, we can't know if this is the case because we don't have good data. Yet the point remains: Where multiple variables are changing at the same time (because notice that we haven't considered the militarization of municipal police forces and/or "broken window" policing in any of this, so there's ANOTHER variable), we really can't draw good conclusions. The lead-to-crime relationship looks good because it exists over a very long period of time any appears to be present across many different countries (not to mention the fact that it's based a hypothesis derived from solid medical observation). Other assertions look far less certain.

BTW, could you use less biased sources than that in the future? Reading through that one made my head hurt greatly

[Gauthier]

It proves that some shootings could be stopped by citizens owning guns.

Having a gun does not suspend your fight-or-flight responses.

But it sure starting to feel like guns are required as documented proof of humanity and citizenship, i.e. if you don't have a real gun you're not human and you're not a citizen therefore anything that happens to you is deserved.

[Lavochkin]

You're thinking too hard. It's just supposed to represent the irony of giving someone something that they themselves received.

That also isn't how it works. You don't magically get given a gun if you're a victim of firearms violence.

Again thinking too hard. The logic for gun-rights is flawed. Giving more of something that causes something, doesn't reduce it. If you have the number 1 and you want to equal 0, you aren't going to add 1. And it doesn't matter if it magically appears or not. If guns restrictions are lifted, then there will be more guns.

[Texas and the Southwest]

It proves that some shootings could be stopped by citizens owning guns.

Having a gun does not suspend your fight-or-flight responses.

"I'm getting shot at and have no weapon" vs "I'm getting shot at and I have a gun"

[Occupied Deutschland]

That also isn't how it works. You don't magically get given a gun if you're a victim of firearms violence.

Again thinking too hard...

Apparently a common problem among gun-nuts and ammosexuals.
*ba-dop-bop-ba-dop-bop* HEY!

[Vassenor]

Having a gun does not suspend your fight-or-flight responses.

"I'm getting shot at and have no weapon" vs "I'm getting shot at and I have a gun"

People with guns can still instinctively default to "flight".

[Washington Resistance Army]

That also isn't how it works. You don't magically get given a gun if you're a victim of firearms violence.

Again thinking too hard. The logic for gun-rights is flawed. Giving more of something that causes something, doesn't reduce it. If you have the number 1 and you want to equal 0, you aren't going to add 1. And it doesn't matter if it magically appears or not. If guns restrictions are lifted, then there will be more guns.

And it's kind of impossible to get it to equal zero at this point and there isn't nearly enough support for the number to be zero. In the past few months for each month something like 20 million guns have been sold, I'd say we're past the PNR.

[Lavochkin]

Again thinking too hard...

Apparently a common problem among gun-nuts and ammosexuals.
*ba-dop-bop-ba-dop-bop* HEY!

"If the bible said 1+1=3, I wouldn't question it. I would instead try to find out why it says that instead"
-Said by a real pastor

[Texas and the Southwest]

"I'm getting shot at and have no weapon" vs "I'm getting shot at and I have a gun"

People with guns can still instinctively default to "flight".

Without weapons flight is the ONLY option. With weapons they can choos to defend themselves.

[Lavochkin]

Again thinking too hard. The logic for gun-rights is flawed. Giving more of something that causes something, doesn't reduce it. If you have the number 1 and you want to equal 0, you aren't going to add 1. And it doesn't matter if it magically appears or not. If guns restrictions are lifted, then there will be more guns.

And it's kind of impossible to get it to equal zero at this point and there isn't nearly enough support for the number to be zero. In the past few months for each month something like 20 million guns have been sold, I'd say we're past the PNR.

Wow, talk about overthinking. Fine, if you had 3 and you were trying to get to 2, you wouldn't add 1.

Seriously though, have you considered a profession in philosophy?

[Vassenor]

People with guns can still instinctively default to "flight".

Without weapons flight is the ONLY option. With weapons they can choos to defend themselves.

I'm pretty sure I can bull rush you without needing a gun.

[Northern Freikur]

It proves that some shootings could be stopped by citizens owning guns.

Having a gun does not suspend your fight-or-flight responses.

1: You bring nothing to a gun fight

2: You bring a gun to a gun fight, along with about 5 - 10 friends who are all against one person

Choose the more preferable situation, 1 or 2?

[Lavochkin]

People with guns can still instinctively default to "flight".

Without weapons flight is the ONLY option. With weapons they can choos to defend themselves.

You can still technically die and defend yourself at the same time. Your brain knows that as well, that why if the intruder has a shotgun, you wouldn't instinctively go toe-to-toe armed with a pistol.

[Vassenor]

And besides, how many of you would actually be able to shoot effectively under a full scale adrenaline hit that accompanies danger like that?

[Ordenburg]

Without weapons flight is the ONLY option. With weapons they can choos to defend themselves.

I'm pretty sure I can bull rush you without needing a gun.

One person rushing will most likely die, get 20 people, and a maybe only a few will die. Have 1 with a gun, and no additional people need to die.