Gun control

Tuco_sl said:

Please point me to where anyone has said in this thread that if you have a gun nobody can shoot you. Because that's the stance that Kreugen chose to argue against.

Click to expand...

That's a very specific point, but it's not the argument people are making, and that's not the argument he is attacking. Perhaps it is his fault for failing to articulate clearly, but the point being made by the pro-gun crowd is that more guns will result in less gun crimes/deaths/violence, either through a deterrent effect, or through the "good guy" with a gun stopping the "bad guy" with the gun before tragedy can happen.

In this case, you have 2 good guys with guns who obviously know a great deal about guns, who lost their lives to 1 bad guy with a gun -- a bad guy who they themselves armed. Not only does this serve as a counter to the "more guns prevent gun violence" argument, it also lends support to the opposite argument -- that more guns bring about violence AS A DIRECT RESULT from those added guns.

Your sampling methods are flawed soysauce.

Using that as an argument is just as valid as using some random stabbing as evidence that banning guns would have no impact or whatever. Isolated incidents are just that.

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

Your sampling methods are flawed soysauce.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is an isolated incident. It isn't meant as some conclusive proof of one theory or the other. But if you want to analyze this argument in a vacuum, then those are the arguments being made.

By the way, while this incident is quite isolated and can't serve as conclusive proof, the FACTS are what makes it so compelling. You have a decorated vet who probably knows more about guns than 99.99% of the general population, who works with veterans with PTSD, who STILL made a mistake in his judgment and handling of guns that resulted in his death. No one on these forums can claim to be more knowledgeable than this guy, but if he can still make a mistake and die from it, what does that tell you ?

Tuco_sl said:

Yep. I'd love a comprehensive graph that showed firearm incidents at gun-dense zones (gun shows, firing range) vs firearm incidents at gun-free zones vs incidents at other locations like businesses/homes etc.

Click to expand...

You probably won't be able to find anything like that. Any researcher worth his salt will tell you the data is inconclusive, partly because the data doesn't exist. The government can't even do research on gun crimes because of the NRA's powerful lobbying powers.

Source

Current state of gun legislation:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

Note that even in the Senate, where the democrats have control, the prospects of an AWB seems pretty bleak. Then when you have to consider that any AWB must pass both chambers of Congress, including a Republican held House where feinstein's AWB is all but certain to be dead on arrival, you realize that any chances of an AWB passing is very close to zero. "Assault riffles" aren't going anywhere.

Tuco_sl said:

Please point me to where anyone has said in this thread that if you have a gun nobody can shoot you. Because that's the stance that Kreugen chose to argue against.

Click to expand...

Holy fuck you are being dense. Yes, I was 100% serious in every way and not at all making a joke in reference to how (as I already fucking said) so fucking often when someone is a victim of any sort of crime people immediately say "if that person had a gun THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED" Not "it may not have happened" or "it may have played out differently", just flat out conviction that having a gun on hand would have prevented everything.

Like, you know, RIGHT HERE:http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.p...ll=1#post90020

(what would have stopped the husband from taking the gun first? Do you expect people to walk around their own homes with their guns strapped to their waist, really?)

You must never ever read fark or reddit or anything other than fohguild if you don't think the kinds of posts I'm making fun of don't pop up every third reply in such threads. Ever scan a CNN comment section? Ho-ly shit.

Gun threads are always full of people who come in and spew their fantasy about using their 30 round mags to gun down a 100-man home invasion team consisting of bad guys from Kung Fu on the NES that run towards them with their arms up in the air in a long line. Sure, this thread is free of that - but step outside into the real world and OH MY GOD. I only wish this was ridiculous hyperbole. It isn't by much. The fact that this thread has very little of that makes it exceptional. So, we can all pat ourselves on the back for being mostly reasonable.

Here's another one I was reading last night. Someone posted a .gif of this in FSR and I was curious about the source, so I found the video and hey look, comments section loaded with "if the victim had a gun.." and a handful of people pointing out "if the CRAZY FUCK in the video had a gun, this would have been a really short video"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYm9vCPLoG4

Tuco_sl said:

I don't really have much to say to that except that the fantasy about a 100-man home invasion team was hilarious and that counter-arguments to arguments not presented here aren't very useful.

Click to expand...

HOLY FUCK I JUST LINKED IT FOR YOU

Kedwyn_sl said:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ne...mself-p/nWDX8/

Shot himself but strangled the kids. Left the wife alive to suffer the loss. Can't even imagine but wish the wife had a gun and had gone to the range a few times to know how to use it. He might not of been able to strangle the kids while she watched helpless. Hear commotion, grab piece see him strangling the kid and pop him a few times in the back.

Piece of shit.

Click to expand...

Since you missed it the first time and then chose to ignore it when I linked it again just now. That was why I posted the link here in the first place. The argument was presented, I mocked it. I even apologized for mocking it.

Also, equal opportunity hater:http://kotaku.com/5981327/hundreds-o...this-is-my-gunfucking lol

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

You probably won't be able to find anything like that. Any researcher worth his salt will tell you the data is inconclusive, partly because the data doesn't exist. The government can't even do research on gun crimes because of the NRA's powerful lobbying powers.

Source

Click to expand...

Of course the data fucking exists. It is just the location of each shooting which is a matter of public record. Any private entity could do the leg work.

The fact that the anti-gun Nazis haven't summarized such data is probably because they know the results will not support the conclusion they want to push on the public.

General Antony_sl said:

Of course the data fucking exists. It is just the location of each shooting which is a matter of public record. Any private entity could do the leg work.

The fact that the anti-gun Nazis haven't summarized such data is probably because they know the results will not support the conclusion they want to push on the public.

Click to expand...

Doing research to shape public policy is within the purview of the government. Said research takes money. Therefore, it should be the government's job to do said research. Private entities have little interests in spending millions of dollars funding research that doesn't result in capital returns. But even if research IS funded by pro-gun or anti-gun lobby groups, such research is often viewed with skepticism because of the obvious conflict of interest and the likelihood of bias permeating the research. Somehow I doubt a study conducted by the Brady campaign would sway the opinions of someone like yourself.

In comparison, research conducted by a governmental body without an agenda, while still not perfect, is likely to be less biased and more reliable.

aychamo_aycono_sl said:

Are trusts only for making NFA weapons?

Click to expand...

You can use a trust to have Class III weapons, ect transferred to you without the restrictions of transferring them to yourself.

I will be using this method here shortly when I purchase my suppressor.

Honest question, not trolling at all. Why do you want a suppressor? Just for fun/collecting purposes, or do you have a specific thing in mind you want one for? I don't think they can be/would be useful for hunting or anything?

Every gun should come with a suppressor in the box. Better for everyone involved in any shooting activity and the people that live close to them.

Where are you going to be shooting that sound is that big of a concern, though? I'm assuming if you shoot in your backyard or something, you've got a pretty good amount of space, and it seems like a non-factor at a range or similar.

It's for your own ears mostly.

It's also helpful in areas that have noise laws and such.