Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

[Norjagen]

the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.

(Image)

or it could be that since changing people is hard and we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly), we should do the easier thing. because solving the problem is better than wishing for a pony.

Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.

Methinks that isn't much of a difference.

Can't say anything for that chart, as I have no idea where it comes from, or where they got their figures, and no context is given.

I can say that this chart
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_16_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_by_population_group_2011.xls
comes from the FBI, and breaks down violent crime rates, as a whole, per 100,000 residents, by population group.
If you look at the "Rate" sub section under the "Violent Crime" column, you'll see that Group I, which encompasses cities of 250,000 or more, has a violent crime rate of 754.5 per 100,000.

This is in comparison to every other category, with suburban areas coming in at 252.1, Nonmetropolitan counties at 180.8 and everything else in-between.

The murder rate for those large cities is 10.1, compared to 2.9 in the suburbs.

The forcible rape rate in the cities is 294.8, compared to 57.7 in the suburbs and 14.2 in non-metropolitan areas.

Time and again, the big cities top every other category in violent crime; not just in total, but per capita. To be fair, their rates are coming down. For the most part. Chicago is set to break its murder record this year. (again)

If you're so certain that reducing access to guns works, and that this isn't a cultural issue, then maybe you should let the folks at the CDC know.

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent:

Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings:

Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results:

Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.

evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

Overall, too few studies of CAP (Child Access Prevention) law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent.

The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students.

On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence.

In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

Sounds to me like the CDC couldn't draw any real conclusions at all.

Or, perhaps you'd prefer a study recently published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy?

Since 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms
and very few murders involve them.

Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates
stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998 ‐2004 (the latest figure available for
Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize
the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now ‐ independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.
Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current ‐ day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
(Image)

Full study here, should you wish to peruse it.

To reiterate...

we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly),

No, I don't think you know that very solidly at all. You clearly think you do, but you don't.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

[Tule]

Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

The gun murder rate in the US is actually WAY higher than it should be for the gun ownership rate it has.

In 2004-2005:
43% of US households had access to a firearm, 38% of Finnish households, 29% of Swiss households, 26% of Norwegian households and 24% of Icelandic households.

The gun murder rate per 100.000 inhabitants in those countries in 2005?
4.18 in the US, 0.21 in Finland, 0.64 in Switzerland, 0.11 in Norway and 0.34 in Iceland.

In the US, each 1% increase in household gun ownership rates causes an increase in gun murder rates of 0.097/100.000
In the other countries combined the same number is almost 10 times lower. Each 1% increase in gun ownership rates results in a gun murder rate increase of 0.011/100.000 inhabitants.

If we look at handguns only, the difference is even bigger.

Each 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates in america causes 0.145 homicides/100.000 residents, in Norway and Finland (No info was available for Switzerland and Iceland) The same rate was 0.007/100.000 for every 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates. 21 times lower.

source 1 (page 279)
source 2 (Homicide data can be fond on each country's portfolio.)

[Norjagen]

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

The gun murder rate in the US is actually WAY higher than it should be for the gun ownership rate it has.

In 2004-2005:
43% of US households had access to a firearm, 38% of Finnish households, 29% of Swiss households, 26% of Norwegian households and 24% of Icelandic households.

The gun murder rate per 100.000 inhabitants in those countries in 2005?
4.18 in the US, 0.21 in Finland, 0.64 in Switzerland, 0.11 in Norway and 0.34 in Iceland.

In the US, each 1% increase in household gun ownership rates causes an increase in gun murder rates of 0.097/100.000
In the other countries combined the same number is almost 10 times lower. Each 1% increase in gun ownership rates results in a gun murder rate increase of 0.011/100.000 inhabitants.

If we look at handguns only, the difference is even bigger.

Each 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates in america causes 0.145 homicides/100.000 residents, in Norway and Finland (No info was available for Switzerland and Iceland) The same rate was 0.007/100.000 for every 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates. 21 times lower.

source 1 (page 279)
source 2 (Homicide data can be fond on each country's portfolio.)

Further evidence that there are other cultural issues at work that are driving the violence in this country.

[Free Soviets]

Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.

Methinks that isn't much of a difference.

...
Time and again, the big cities top every other category in violent crime; not just in total, but per capita. To be fair, their rates are coming down. For the most part.

the change in rates is what you got wrong initially. the bigger the cities, the greater the decrease in crime. new york and los angeles' rates are down more than 75% from the peak. fuck, even barely-hanging-on detroit has improved a bunch.

Chicago is set to break its murder record this year. (again)

no it isn't. hell, its not even going to be the worst in the past 10 years, let alone what it was in the '90s at the height of the lead-poisoning problem.

Or, perhaps you'd prefer a study recently published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy?

... For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
(Image)

Full study here, should you wish to peruse it.

haha. the paper that couldn't even get its murder rates straight. no, luxembourg did not have a murder rate 9 times higher than germany in 2002. not even close. but what's an order of magnitude between friends, right?

no wonder this 'study' was published in a non-peer reviewed conservative student paper.

mauser is such a hack that he even got luxembourg wrong on literally the same page where he also got it right and specifically noted that the old number was wrong in this paper:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploaded ... -rates.pdf

i think the real question is, why do pro-gun 'researchers' suck at research? these jokers can't handle stats, kleck would have us believe that burglary victims used a gun in self-defense more than 100% of the time, and lott straight forged an entire survey.

To reiterate...

we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly),

No, I don't think you know that very solidly at all. You clearly think you do, but you don't.

true or false: fully automatic weapons are exactly as easy (or easier) to get now as they were before the 1986 ban on new ones.
true or false: fully automatic weapons were used by criminals exactly as often (or more) after the 1934 national firearms act as they were before it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Time and again, the big cities top every other category in violent crime; not just in total, but per capita. To be fair, their rates are coming down. For the most part.

the change in rates is what you got wrong initially. the bigger the cities, the greater the decrease in crime. new york and los angeles' rates are down more than 75% from the peak. fuck, even barely-hanging-on detroit has improved a bunch.

Chicago is set to break its murder record this year. (again)

no it isn't. hell, its not even going to be the worst in the past 10 years, let alone what it was in the '90s at the height of the lead-poisoning problem.

Or, perhaps you'd prefer a study recently published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy?



Full study here, should you wish to peruse it.

haha. the paper that couldn't even get its murder rates straight. no, luxembourg did not have a murder rate 9 times higher than germany in 2002. not even close. but what's an order of magnitude between friends, right?

no wonder this 'study' was published in a non-peer reviewed conservative student paper.

mauser is such a hack that he even got luxembourg wrong on literally the same page where he also got it right and specifically noted that the old number was wrong in this paper:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploaded ... -rates.pdf

i think the real question is, why do pro-gun 'researchers' suck at research? these jokers can't handle stats, kleck would have us believe that burglary victims used a gun in self-defense more than 100% of the time, and lott straight forged an entire survey.

To reiterate...

No, I don't think you know that very solidly at all. You clearly think you do, but you don't.

true or false: fully automatic weapons are exactly as easy (or easier) to get now as they were before the 1986 ban on new ones.
true or false: fully automatic weapons were used by criminals exactly as often (or more) after the 1934 national firearms act as they were before it.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/27/c ... z2fyl1STdY

Guns are a wash.

[Free Soviets]

more later, but this now

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

those numbers are wrong:
the high one is kleck, and his number are impossible and nonsensical.
the lower end of that probably is accurately reporting the amount of times people claim they used a gun defensively, but studies that have looked at what the people claiming defense say happened reveal that a huge percentage of those were actually illegal uses that escalated the situation (pulling the gun on somebody who is merely verbally arguing with them, etc).
the best we can figure, the actual number is closer to 70k legitimate defensive gun uses per year, compared to approximately 420k victims of firearms violence (2008 was the low year for it, and the actual number was 380k-ish victims).

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

more later, but this now

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

those numbers are wrong:
the high one is kleck, and his number are impossible and nonsensical.
the lower end of that probably is accurately reporting the amount of times people claim they used a gun defensively, but studies that have looked at what the people claiming defense say happened reveal that a huge percentage of those were actually illegal uses that escalated the situation (pulling the gun on somebody who is merely verbally arguing with them, etc).
the best we can figure, the actual number is closer to 70k legitimate defensive gun uses per year, compared to approximately 420k victims of firearms violence (2008 was the low year for it, and the actual number was 380k-ish victims).

How is merely pulling out a gun in a conflict "illegal"? I suppose according to you people should turn the other cheek? Or at most seek verbal retribution? No thank you. Instead of doing that and running the risk of escalating the conflict, I'd rather pull out a gun, no matter how shocking that may sound to the hoplophobics. "What if he has a gun too?", you might ask. Well, what then? He'll just pull his gun out too and then we'll part ways. Unless he's up for a shootout, that's the most he will be able to do.

There is this very simple fact that a lot of people can't grasp, apparently. The higher the risk a person has to take in order to act in a certain way, the less likely it is for him to act as such. It's common sense, really. In an armed society the risks one has to take in order to commit a crime are far higher than in an unarmed society.

Let's exemplify:

CASE A - Unarmed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up beaten, with a few bruises and possibly a concussion, or beating Y with Y going to the police and X having to suffer the legal consequences of battery. With limited risks, X chooses to go along with his penis-compensating course of action.

CASE B - Armed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up shot, possibly with internal bleeding or sepsis following, or shooting Y with Y going to the police (..or not) and X having to suffer the legal consequences of homicide/attempted homicide. With this level of risk, X accepts the fact that he has a small penis and doesn't act on Y because he isn't fucking mental.

Easy, see?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The gun murder rate in the US is actually WAY higher than it should be for the gun ownership rate it has.

In 2004-2005:
43% of US households had access to a firearm, 38% of Finnish households, 29% of Swiss households, 26% of Norwegian households and 24% of Icelandic households.

The gun murder rate per 100.000 inhabitants in those countries in 2005?
4.18 in the US, 0.21 in Finland, 0.64 in Switzerland, 0.11 in Norway and 0.34 in Iceland.

In the US, each 1% increase in household gun ownership rates causes an increase in gun murder rates of 0.097/100.000
In the other countries combined the same number is almost 10 times lower. Each 1% increase in gun ownership rates results in a gun murder rate increase of 0.011/100.000 inhabitants.

If we look at handguns only, the difference is even bigger.

Each 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates in america causes 0.145 homicides/100.000 residents, in Norway and Finland (No info was available for Switzerland and Iceland) The same rate was 0.007/100.000 for every 1% increase in household handgun ownership rates. 21 times lower.

source 1 (page 279)
source 2 (Homicide data can be fond on each country's portfolio.)

Further evidence that there are other cultural issues at work that are driving the violence in this country.

Which compound the problems inherent to gun ownership.

You do realize that things can have multiple causes, yes?

[Bezombia]

CASE A - Unarmed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up beaten, with a few bruises and possibly a concussion, or beating Y with Y going to the police and X having to suffer the legal consequences of battery. With limited risks, X chooses to go along with his penis-compensating course of action.

CASE B - Armed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up shot, possibly with internal bleeding or sepsis following, or shooting Y with Y going to the police (..or not) and X having to suffer the legal consequences of homicide/attempted homicide. With this level of risk, X accepts the fact that he has a small penis and doesn't act on Y because he isn't fucking mental.

Easy, see?

Because obviously firearms are the only lethal weapons that exist in the universe.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

So not having the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is a badge of pride for you?

You have failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your argument.

If you think that, I'm not convinced you understand how structural arguments work.

PDF has not failed to do so.[/quot]e
Actually, yeah, s/he has. Everything posted has been either objectively incorrect, irrelevant, or dishonestly interpreted.

That's called the human condition, and no matter how far in you push your fingers into your ears to block out the sound of reality, it ain't goin away.

So now you're also willfully ignorant of a vast body of anthropological research that contradicts the assumptions underlying this supposed "argument" you've made?

Completely subjective. Also, so fucking what if it's capitalist?

Capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian and oppressive mode of socioeconomic organization.

Rights do not necessarily equal freedom. A feudal lord's "right" to extract labor from his serfs, for instance.

Except, we ain't taking about a feudal lord's rights. We're talking the right of law abiding citizens. In this case, rights do equate freedom.

Apparently, "abstractions" aren't something you quite grasp.

[Tule]

Further evidence that there are other cultural issues at work that are driving the violence in this country.

Which compound the problems inherent to gun ownership.

You do realize that things can have multiple causes, yes?

The problems inherent with gun ownership are insignificant in the absence of the confounding factors, considering how much recreational shooting raises the quality of life of countless people and the questionable morality of gun bans, as gun ownership is by itself a victimless crime.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Which compound the problems inherent to gun ownership.

You do realize that things can have multiple causes, yes?

The problems inherent with gun ownership are insignificant in the absence of the confounding factors, considering how much recreational shooting raises the quality of life of countless people

At what cost?

and the questionable morality of gun bans, as gun ownership is by itself a victimless crime.

No, it's not.

The mere knowledge that someone has a weapon can in itself make some feel compelled to avoid engaging in perfectly valid and legitimate behavior that one knows that the weapon-possessor nonetheless disapproves of.

If a gay man's neighbor is openly homophobic and, while he never makes overt or implicit threats, the gay man also happens to be aware that the neighbor owns several weapons, the gay man might feel like his own safety requires him to avoid holding hands with his partner while walking down the street, kissing goodbye on the front porch, etc.

If you think weapons possession is acceptable, you hate freedom. It's really that simple.

[Bezombia]

If a gay man's neighbor is openly homophobic and, while he never makes overt or implicit threats, the gay man also happens to be aware that the neighbor owns several weapons, the gay man might feel like his own safety requires him to avoid holding hands with his partner while walking down the street, kissing goodbye on the front porch, etc.

Clearly it's my fault that you're uncomfortable around weapons.

[Spirit of Hope]

The problems inherent with gun ownership are insignificant in the absence of the confounding factors, considering how much recreational shooting raises the quality of life of countless people

At what cost?

and the questionable morality of gun bans, as gun ownership is by itself a victimless crime.

No, it's not.

The mere knowledge that someone has a weapon can in itself make some feel compelled to avoid engaging in perfectly valid and legitimate behavior that one knows that the weapon-possessor nonetheless disapproves of.

If a gay man's neighbor is openly homophobic and, while he never makes overt or implicit threats, the gay man also happens to be aware that the neighbor owns several weapons, the gay man might feel like his own safety requires him to avoid holding hands with his partner while walking down the street, kissing goodbye on the front porch, etc.

If you think weapons possession is acceptable, you hate freedom. It's really that simple.

I could make the same argument about freedom of speech. After all even without those weapons if the homophobic neighbor made openly insulting remarks whenever he saw the gay man holding hands with his partner, the gay man may feel compelled to not hold hands or kiss his partner.

You are honestly stretching pretty far for how passively owning guns is a threat to another individual.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The problems inherent with gun ownership are insignificant in the absence of the confounding factors, considering how much recreational shooting raises the quality of life of countless people

At what cost?

and the questionable morality of gun bans, as gun ownership is by itself a victimless crime.

No, it's not.

The mere knowledge that someone has a weapon can in itself make some feel compelled to avoid engaging in perfectly valid and legitimate behavior that one knows that the weapon-possessor nonetheless disapproves of.

If a gay man's neighbor is openly homophobic and, while he never makes overt or implicit threats, the gay man also happens to be aware that the neighbor owns several weapons, the gay man might feel like his own safety requires him to avoid holding hands with his partner while walking down the street, kissing goodbye on the front porch, etc.

If you think weapons possession is acceptable, you hate freedom. It's really that simple.

No, I'm sorry, what you just described there is this thing called paranoia, which is said person's problem, not the world's problem. It is not our moral responsibility to make special little snowflakes happy.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

CASE A - Unarmed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up beaten, with a few bruises and possibly a concussion, or beating Y with Y going to the police and X having to suffer the legal consequences of battery. With limited risks, X chooses to go along with his penis-compensating course of action.

CASE B - Armed society:

X has a very small penis. Being cursed by nature and all, X feels the need to compensate for his tiny dick. Walking on the street one day, X comes across Y. X doesn't like Y's face and wants to prove "something". The worst case scenario that can now follow is either X being the guy who actually ends up shot, possibly with internal bleeding or sepsis following, or shooting Y with Y going to the police (..or not) and X having to suffer the legal consequences of homicide/attempted homicide. With this level of risk, X accepts the fact that he has a small penis and doesn't act on Y because he isn't fucking mental.

Easy, see?

Because obviously firearms are the only lethal weapons that exist in the universe.

I take it that I got my point across nonetheless.

[Bezombia]

Because obviously firearms are the only lethal weapons that exist in the universe.

I take it that I got my point across nonetheless.

No you didn't, because your point is very flawed and rides on the idea that only firearms can be used to kill people, and that Y will not be killed if X does not have a firearm, which is not only blatantly untrue but is downright dangerous to assume.

[Paddy O Fernature]

If you think weapons possession is acceptable, you hate freedom. It's really that simple.

Bluthism, at it's finest right there.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

If you think weapons possession is acceptable, you hate freedom. It's really that simple.

Bluthism, at it's finest right there.

Funny how critical and structural analysis is cause for ridicule by those who fail to grasp it.

[Blasveck]

Bluthism, at it's finest right there.

Funny how critical and structural analysis is cause for ridicule by those who fail to grasp it.

It would be really nice Bluth if you could provide some real world evidence and statistics regarding your arguments.

Sure, you can claim that weapons ownership is an infringement on liberty.

But it's irrelevant. We're talking about how weapons ownership affects the safety of everyone.

[Chernoslavia]

I never could figure out that unrestricted gun access will magically prevent some imaginary dictatorship from forming in the United States government.

This has been answered before in another thread, looks like you guys are running out of excuses to restrict guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Funny how critical and structural analysis is cause for ridicule by those who fail to grasp it.

It would be really nice Bluth if you could provide some real world evidence and statistics regarding your arguments.

I tend not to make the sorts of arguments where those things are terribly relevant, because they don't interest me that much. Wonkery is boring. Critical analysis is fun.

[Blasveck]

It would be really nice Bluth if you could provide some real world evidence and statistics regarding your arguments.

I tend not to make the sorts of arguments where those things are terribly relevant, because they don't interest me that much. Wonkery is boring. Critical analysis is fun.

Then at that point we're just arguing for nothing, because as much as you want to argue that weapons ownership is an affront on personal liberty, it doesn't have much effect in the real world.

[Chernoslavia]

I tend not to make the sorts of arguments where those things are terribly relevant, because they don't interest me that much. Wonkery is boring. Critical analysis is fun.

Then at that point we're just arguing for nothing, because as much as you want to argue that weapons ownership is an affront on personal liberty, it doesn't have much effect in the real world.

In the real world criminals still get guns in authoritarian states like California and New York.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I take it that I got my point across nonetheless.

No you didn't, because your point is very flawed and rides on the idea that only firearms can be used to kill people, and that Y will not be killed if X does not have a firearm, which is not only blatantly untrue but is downright dangerous to assume.

How exactly does it "ride" on that? All it rides on is that the higher the risk, the lower the occurrence, which I assume is common sense.

It's not just about firearms. The basic point is that the higher the level of general arming ( and willingness to actually use said weapons ), the graver the consequences of violent behavior. From a criminal's perspective, his risks are higher regardless of who actually gets hurt. If he gets hurt, he'll get hurt worse in an armed society ; if his victim gets hurt, he faces far heavier legal consequences in an armed society.