Dumb arses and guns...
Hmmm
I am at the stop lights with my two sub 5 yo children. The light changes to green and I move off. I see a truck coming and there is no way it will stop.
I can a) stop and give up my right of way
or
b) assert my right and show that barstard for running a red light by allowing him to kill my two children and cripple me.
One would hope that having a right does not negate the ability to apply reason and common sense which is very uncommon nowadays due to people specifically saying I have a right. This appears to remove any, as already stated, justification for acting responsibly.
We are not talking cars and alcohol, but if you wish. The US has tried prohibition didn't work. Why because we are our own worst enemy. Humanity seems bent on harming itself and it is a cultural thing. Prohibiting alcohol, why? Because it caused harm but people said its my right to get drunk and cause harm (yep that makes a lot of sense). Its a drug so why do we ban other forms of drugs? We have laws for driving drunk, disturbing the peace etc to try and limit the alcohol fuelled damage. Cars, we have speed limits and other laws. We have stop lights, why because people cannot obey simple rules ( I know some one will say to ease traffic congestion but is comes back to basics). I remember the introduction of seat belts. People were very against having to wear seat belts after never having had them let alone wear them. Very much a cultural thing but after two generation its accepted.
What does this mean, basically we need protection from ourselves, particularly I would suggest as sub 30 yo and in some societies all our life.
The right to bear arms. Go for it but please do not try to justify the obvious danger involved in doing so, especially by saying I'm protecting myself against my "gernvmint"
I am at the stop lights with my two sub 5 yo children. The light changes to green and I move off. I see a truck coming and there is no way it will stop.
I can a) stop and give up my right of way
or
b) assert my right and show that barstard for running a red light by allowing him to kill my two children and cripple me.
One would hope that having a right does not negate the ability to apply reason and common sense which is very uncommon nowadays due to people specifically saying I have a right. This appears to remove any, as already stated, justification for acting responsibly.
We are not talking cars and alcohol, but if you wish. The US has tried prohibition didn't work. Why because we are our own worst enemy. Humanity seems bent on harming itself and it is a cultural thing. Prohibiting alcohol, why? Because it caused harm but people said its my right to get drunk and cause harm (yep that makes a lot of sense). Its a drug so why do we ban other forms of drugs? We have laws for driving drunk, disturbing the peace etc to try and limit the alcohol fuelled damage. Cars, we have speed limits and other laws. We have stop lights, why because people cannot obey simple rules ( I know some one will say to ease traffic congestion but is comes back to basics). I remember the introduction of seat belts. People were very against having to wear seat belts after never having had them let alone wear them. Very much a cultural thing but after two generation its accepted.
What does this mean, basically we need protection from ourselves, particularly I would suggest as sub 30 yo and in some societies all our life.
The right to bear arms. Go for it but please do not try to justify the obvious danger involved in doing so, especially by saying I'm protecting myself against my "gernvmint"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does this mean, basically we need protection from ourselves,
One day, maybe, one person will be able to logically and sensibly explain to my why, in the case of guns alone, everyone picks on the inanimate object yet gives a pass to cars, cars/alcohol, knives, hammers, tobacco and a whole host of other objects/things that require human intervention to make them dangerous... But guns must be banned because they wake the voices in our heads...
Cars/alcohol/knives etc are rarely used to conduct a massacre. Although a gun is an inanimate object it purpose is to kill, not transport, carve the meat, get drunk/high. Even if it is possible to use them (cars/knives)for the purpose of killing it is not the objects sole purpose to do so.
Interesting debate.
I've seen the pro gun lobby put forward the argument that guns don't kill people - people kill people.
If that is indeed what you believe, why can you not go down to the local hardware store and buy some Comp B or det cord and blasting caps? They are extremely useful for felling trees (and used by a suitably trained person arguably safer than a chainsaw), also useful for removing rocks in an excavation etc. Why have these been banned form sale to the general public?
How about a beehive charge? Sure, as a large shaped charge it could probably blow a hole through the front of the presidential limousine and clean out through the back, but it would make putting fencing holes in rocky ground dead easy (so should be sold next to the post hole shovels by that reasoning alongside the quick set cement).
Grenades are very effective fishing implements too (seen that done), why can I not pull into my local fishing store and pick up a 6 pack of M26's along with my ice and landing net?
If we were to take this argument to ridiculous extreme why can you not buy a vial of VX, Sarin or Anthrax? There must be some use for these products in mass extermination of pest animals?
Why have authorities worldwide argued that these items not be for sale at the local supermarket/hardware store? Because they are too damn dangerous, and you cannot plan on everybody being rational and right thinking all the time (let alone the true crazies).
I am ex infantry in the Australian Regular Army (marksman qualified), grew up with fireams all through my youth, went hunting regularly for pig, roos and rabbits (my old man had around 30-40 guns), and do not by any means hate firearms. The thought of thermobaric munitions being used on a battlefield gives me a chubby - but I cannot for the life of me see any scenario bar a professional animal culler needing anything more than a lever or bolt action weapon - and anything more than 8-10 rounds in a magazine.
Some of the arguments being put forward here are frankly disturbing - the number of people killed because a kid found the weapon in the top drawer and shot his/her brother are legion (no i don't have stats to back this up but I'm sure its more than 1 - and 1 is too many). I am very close to someone who nearly blew his brother in half- killing him - fooling around with the 'snake gun' (for those non Australians, many rural properties had an old shotgun near the back door in case a venomous snake decided that it preferred your home to the bush). Many gun supporters will point out the the reason the own a weapon is for self defence - and that their kids could never get to it because it is locked in a gun safe with a key or combination required to get access located in the shed/garage/basement/workshop/home office. The irony is that I'm not sure too many home invaders are sporting enough to send a letter or text message 10 minutes before arriving so the owner can unlock the gun safe, load the weapon and get all of their loved ones safely away so they don't get hit in any crossfire.
For a weapon to be truly useful in self defence it needs to be close - quite a few soldiers in combat zones are killed by UD's simply because living with loaded firearms around is dangerous and that's highly trained military personnel - let alone some numby with a Glock. It was drummed into us on the 6 week master coaches course at the infantry school that the most dangerous weapons to your own troops in the inventory were the hand grenade, anti-armour weapons (particularly those with a Back Blast Danger Area) and perversely the pistol. The problem with pistols is they tend to get waved around like flyswats and can be hard to clear jams and cycle the actions for those who are not strong enough (some women) - then you see barrels pointed around everywhere. If it happens on the range, you can bet it will happen at home.
sarcasm on/ I find it unbelievable that the best idea to settle the issue of a mentally disturbed madman arriving with multiple semi-automatic firearms at schools is to have armed guards. To protect you should have overmatch, so that would mean an LSW such as a Minimi or similar. To cover all possible entries and contingencies (toilet breaks meal breaks etc) a couple of armed guards - properly trained armed guards would needed. Cost anybody? Nope I cannot see anything wrong with having a gunfight in a corridor with a belt fed weapon with kids the other side of thin wooden walls either..../sarcasm off.
This argument that the second amendment was there so that the people could overthrow the government is bunkum nowadays too. Back when that amendment was written up there was a chance that the people (who would actually have some firearm skills) could take on the army such as it was back then. Given the size of the US military since WWII there is no way any civilians would be able to take on their own government and hope to win. The most effective weapon today against the government is the media and the internet - far more damaging and effective than small arms.
Face it America, its not a solution to the problem (there will always be crazies that manage to get hold of weapons, a car, a knife or poisons etc) but at least it will hopefully limit the damage that could be done if you banned semi-automatics, and limited magazine capacities. That seems to most of the rest of the world the logical thing to do - you don't need to ban all firearms just the semi-autos and large magazines (and I'd probably throw in pistols too and any revolver with more than 6 shots in the cylinder).
I've seen the pro gun lobby put forward the argument that guns don't kill people - people kill people.
If that is indeed what you believe, why can you not go down to the local hardware store and buy some Comp B or det cord and blasting caps? They are extremely useful for felling trees (and used by a suitably trained person arguably safer than a chainsaw), also useful for removing rocks in an excavation etc. Why have these been banned form sale to the general public?
How about a beehive charge? Sure, as a large shaped charge it could probably blow a hole through the front of the presidential limousine and clean out through the back, but it would make putting fencing holes in rocky ground dead easy (so should be sold next to the post hole shovels by that reasoning alongside the quick set cement).
Grenades are very effective fishing implements too (seen that done), why can I not pull into my local fishing store and pick up a 6 pack of M26's along with my ice and landing net?
If we were to take this argument to ridiculous extreme why can you not buy a vial of VX, Sarin or Anthrax? There must be some use for these products in mass extermination of pest animals?
Why have authorities worldwide argued that these items not be for sale at the local supermarket/hardware store? Because they are too damn dangerous, and you cannot plan on everybody being rational and right thinking all the time (let alone the true crazies).
I am ex infantry in the Australian Regular Army (marksman qualified), grew up with fireams all through my youth, went hunting regularly for pig, roos and rabbits (my old man had around 30-40 guns), and do not by any means hate firearms. The thought of thermobaric munitions being used on a battlefield gives me a chubby - but I cannot for the life of me see any scenario bar a professional animal culler needing anything more than a lever or bolt action weapon - and anything more than 8-10 rounds in a magazine.
Some of the arguments being put forward here are frankly disturbing - the number of people killed because a kid found the weapon in the top drawer and shot his/her brother are legion (no i don't have stats to back this up but I'm sure its more than 1 - and 1 is too many). I am very close to someone who nearly blew his brother in half- killing him - fooling around with the 'snake gun' (for those non Australians, many rural properties had an old shotgun near the back door in case a venomous snake decided that it preferred your home to the bush). Many gun supporters will point out the the reason the own a weapon is for self defence - and that their kids could never get to it because it is locked in a gun safe with a key or combination required to get access located in the shed/garage/basement/workshop/home office. The irony is that I'm not sure too many home invaders are sporting enough to send a letter or text message 10 minutes before arriving so the owner can unlock the gun safe, load the weapon and get all of their loved ones safely away so they don't get hit in any crossfire.
For a weapon to be truly useful in self defence it needs to be close - quite a few soldiers in combat zones are killed by UD's simply because living with loaded firearms around is dangerous and that's highly trained military personnel - let alone some numby with a Glock. It was drummed into us on the 6 week master coaches course at the infantry school that the most dangerous weapons to your own troops in the inventory were the hand grenade, anti-armour weapons (particularly those with a Back Blast Danger Area) and perversely the pistol. The problem with pistols is they tend to get waved around like flyswats and can be hard to clear jams and cycle the actions for those who are not strong enough (some women) - then you see barrels pointed around everywhere. If it happens on the range, you can bet it will happen at home.
sarcasm on/ I find it unbelievable that the best idea to settle the issue of a mentally disturbed madman arriving with multiple semi-automatic firearms at schools is to have armed guards. To protect you should have overmatch, so that would mean an LSW such as a Minimi or similar. To cover all possible entries and contingencies (toilet breaks meal breaks etc) a couple of armed guards - properly trained armed guards would needed. Cost anybody? Nope I cannot see anything wrong with having a gunfight in a corridor with a belt fed weapon with kids the other side of thin wooden walls either..../sarcasm off.
This argument that the second amendment was there so that the people could overthrow the government is bunkum nowadays too. Back when that amendment was written up there was a chance that the people (who would actually have some firearm skills) could take on the army such as it was back then. Given the size of the US military since WWII there is no way any civilians would be able to take on their own government and hope to win. The most effective weapon today against the government is the media and the internet - far more damaging and effective than small arms.
Face it America, its not a solution to the problem (there will always be crazies that manage to get hold of weapons, a car, a knife or poisons etc) but at least it will hopefully limit the damage that could be done if you banned semi-automatics, and limited magazine capacities. That seems to most of the rest of the world the logical thing to do - you don't need to ban all firearms just the semi-autos and large magazines (and I'd probably throw in pistols too and any revolver with more than 6 shots in the cylinder).
Last edited by Mk 1; 23rd Jan 2013 at 12:34. Reason: fixing spelling errors
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I'm wasting my typing with americans, but for others
It's simple to my way of simple thinking, a gun is very easy and efficient and semi-auto are even more efficient.
knives, blunt objects, strangulation and including suicide attempts of hanging, drug overdose etc isn't as efficient and you have a higher survival rate.
It also seems that crims arm themselves to the same or more that they think their victim could be.
This is shown in armed holdup stats, guns used in hold-up has reduced to insignificant levels in australia after all guns had to be locked up, I assume because the shops and banks don't have guns handy, so crims just don't need the extra sentence if they get caught.
where as crim on crim gun stats are much migher, drugs etc.
It's simple to my way of simple thinking, a gun is very easy and efficient and semi-auto are even more efficient.
knives, blunt objects, strangulation and including suicide attempts of hanging, drug overdose etc isn't as efficient and you have a higher survival rate.
It also seems that crims arm themselves to the same or more that they think their victim could be.
This is shown in armed holdup stats, guns used in hold-up has reduced to insignificant levels in australia after all guns had to be locked up, I assume because the shops and banks don't have guns handy, so crims just don't need the extra sentence if they get caught.
where as crim on crim gun stats are much migher, drugs etc.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF Fan
"This is shown in armed holdup stats, guns used in hold-up has reduced to insignificant levels in australia after all guns had to be locked up, I assume because the shops and banks don't have guns handy, so crims just don't need the extra sentence if they get caught."
That is the biggest load of crap out.
The reason armed bank and building society hold ups fell is because the banks got smarter and put up drop down or fly up screens in all the banks plus solid windows between the teller and the customer plus a heap less cash was being driven around so a lot less cash was available to be grabbed.
Crims still carry guns around, just look what goes on in Sydney and Melbourne for starters.
"This is shown in armed holdup stats, guns used in hold-up has reduced to insignificant levels in australia after all guns had to be locked up, I assume because the shops and banks don't have guns handy, so crims just don't need the extra sentence if they get caught."
That is the biggest load of crap out.
The reason armed bank and building society hold ups fell is because the banks got smarter and put up drop down or fly up screens in all the banks plus solid windows between the teller and the customer plus a heap less cash was being driven around so a lot less cash was available to be grabbed.
Crims still carry guns around, just look what goes on in Sydney and Melbourne for starters.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and shops? do they have these screens which some banks still dont have?
the crime stats are available and instead of being abusive, show me I'm wrong and gun armed crime is the same as it was Australian Institute of Criminology - Home
and I said "where as crim on crim gun stats are much migher, drugs etc."
ps, a quick look and 13% of armed holdups use or claim to have in their possession a gun
page 5 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/A/...EFE%7dmr15.pdf
page six has the banking armed robbery which rates up with the others, seems the crims don't know about the screens
also from when I was trying to get some sense into gun-nuts
"Robberies involving firearms dropped to 5% of all robberies in 2005, firearms were used in 30% of all robberies back in 1993 "
http://web.archive.org/web/200708301...2/tandi269.pdf
a 47 % decrease in annual numbers of firearms related deaths between 1991 and 2001
tell me again how decent gun laws don't work
the crime stats are available and instead of being abusive, show me I'm wrong and gun armed crime is the same as it was Australian Institute of Criminology - Home
and I said "where as crim on crim gun stats are much migher, drugs etc."
ps, a quick look and 13% of armed holdups use or claim to have in their possession a gun
page 5 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/A/...EFE%7dmr15.pdf
page six has the banking armed robbery which rates up with the others, seems the crims don't know about the screens
also from when I was trying to get some sense into gun-nuts
"Robberies involving firearms dropped to 5% of all robberies in 2005, firearms were used in 30% of all robberies back in 1993 "
http://web.archive.org/web/200708301...2/tandi269.pdf
a 47 % decrease in annual numbers of firearms related deaths between 1991 and 2001
tell me again how decent gun laws don't work
Last edited by JSFfan; 23rd Jan 2013 at 07:10.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AA
And guns don't provide that. Once again:
I doubt many people plan to kill their family. What having a gun does is allow it to escalate very quickly to a death. Once more, from the same study:
In the case of guns, I'd suggest it's more that we need protection from others.
No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.
YMMV, but I'm not planning on wiping out my wife and kid... Something I could do quite easily, with my bare hands, all while giving her a two minute head start to call the police.
Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun.
Last edited by PTT; 23rd Jan 2013 at 08:22.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk 1, welcome. Thank you for an excellent first post!
You'll find the 2nd amendment people around here are good guys & completely rational as long as their gun isn't on the line
You'll find the 2nd amendment people around here are good guys & completely rational as long as their gun isn't on the line
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You'll find the 2nd amendment people around here are good guys & completely rational as long as their gun isn't on the line
"
and it's not some do gooder from the Netherlands trying to take or restrict
a US citizens freedom on how to live away without actually putting anything
of his own on the line
"and it's not some do gooder from the Netherlands trying to take or restrict
a US citizens freedom on how to live away without actually putting anything
of his own on the line
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and it's not some do gooder from the Netherlands
take or restrict a US citizens freedom on how to live away without actually putting anything of his own on the line
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finestkind:
This argument has been so used it is threadbare yet it is utterly irrelevant. The purpose of any tool does not make it spring up and act on it's own. It takes a person to load it, make it ready, point it and pull the trigger. Without all those affirmative actions the gun is just a paperweight, another tool.
As an aside, the purpose of a bow is to kill too but no-one cares to try to ban bows... yet.
PTT:
I know you are relying heavily on that study of yours but really, upon further reflection, the study itself is statistically insignificant. It samples 388 households. In 2011 there were, (per the US Census Bureau), more than 132 million "housing units". I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that the 388 households are highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the 132 million. In fact, with such a small sample, it would be very easy for someone to cherry pick certain regions during certain time periods to prove a point while appearing to be trying to make an honest attempt at fairness. So, I'm sorry, (well, I'm not really - but I'm told it's polite to say it
), but I can't accept the conclusions that your study makes.
To everyone:
I've been arguing this since Newtown and have come to the conclusion that unless you live in the USA and are subject to it's laws your opinions are just that, opinions, and they have no bearing on how America will deal with it's issues. If you are subject to US law and don't like the 2nd Amendment then again that is an opinion you are entitled to. The facts are though that Harry Reid is highly unlikely to bring a vote to the floor of Barry's proposed bans/controls because he knows that in 2014 he has already vulnerable Democrat Senators up for election. Enough of them to risk control of the Senate. While you might think that is purely political it is, but it is also a realization of the fact that those Democrats would be voted out by people that don't agree with bans/controls. Furthermore, the House is highly unlikely to vote for said bans/controls. If your reaction to that is that it is those nasty Republicans vindictively blocking Barry's greatness then you need to remember that the Republicans have a majority in the house because people voted for them to be there - ie: they rejected the Democrat alternative.
This morning the predominantly Republican House of the State of Michigan is voting on two gun bills. One is to make the registration of guns in MI confidential so the silliness that occurred with newspapers publishing the names and addresses of gun owners in the aftermath of Newtown can't happen in MI. The other is a law making any gun or ammunition manufactured in MI exempt from Federal Law. Michigan is not the only state doing this. The states are doing this because the Feral Government is overstepping it's constitutional power that is, by the Constitution, retained by the States themselves or "the People".
In short, the American people know and understand the risks and responsibilities that come with the Second Amendment and they are happy to keep that freedom as is.
Although a gun is an inanimate object it purpose is to kill, not transport, carve the meat, get drunk/high.
As an aside, the purpose of a bow is to kill too but no-one cares to try to ban bows... yet.
PTT:
I know you are relying heavily on that study of yours but really, upon further reflection, the study itself is statistically insignificant. It samples 388 households. In 2011 there were, (per the US Census Bureau), more than 132 million "housing units". I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that the 388 households are highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the 132 million. In fact, with such a small sample, it would be very easy for someone to cherry pick certain regions during certain time periods to prove a point while appearing to be trying to make an honest attempt at fairness. So, I'm sorry, (well, I'm not really - but I'm told it's polite to say it
), but I can't accept the conclusions that your study makes.To everyone:
I've been arguing this since Newtown and have come to the conclusion that unless you live in the USA and are subject to it's laws your opinions are just that, opinions, and they have no bearing on how America will deal with it's issues. If you are subject to US law and don't like the 2nd Amendment then again that is an opinion you are entitled to. The facts are though that Harry Reid is highly unlikely to bring a vote to the floor of Barry's proposed bans/controls because he knows that in 2014 he has already vulnerable Democrat Senators up for election. Enough of them to risk control of the Senate. While you might think that is purely political it is, but it is also a realization of the fact that those Democrats would be voted out by people that don't agree with bans/controls. Furthermore, the House is highly unlikely to vote for said bans/controls. If your reaction to that is that it is those nasty Republicans vindictively blocking Barry's greatness then you need to remember that the Republicans have a majority in the house because people voted for them to be there - ie: they rejected the Democrat alternative.
This morning the predominantly Republican House of the State of Michigan is voting on two gun bills. One is to make the registration of guns in MI confidential so the silliness that occurred with newspapers publishing the names and addresses of gun owners in the aftermath of Newtown can't happen in MI. The other is a law making any gun or ammunition manufactured in MI exempt from Federal Law. Michigan is not the only state doing this. The states are doing this because the Feral Government is overstepping it's constitutional power that is, by the Constitution, retained by the States themselves or "the People".
In short, the American people know and understand the risks and responsibilities that come with the Second Amendment and they are happy to keep that freedom as is.
From 500N: and it's not some do gooder from the Netherlands trying to take or restrict a US citizens freedom on how to live away without actually putting anything of his own on the line
On another mainly military forum many others from all around the world seem to give similar opinions to the ones expressed by keesj et al. These are serving or ex-serving members of long experience - a group you would think is fairly well qualified to speak on the matter including a few 'specials' (ex SAS). consensus is that a semi or full automatic weapon is brilliant on the battlefield, but for hunting at home, is like buying a semi trailer to take a couple of bags of rubbish to the tip - ie overkill.
I see you live in Australia - we did put something on the line after the Port Arthur Massacre - namely our own Semi-automatic weapons - the world didn't stop, the sun still came up the next day and there has not been a massacre since. My hunting weapons changed from a Ruger 10/22 to A Brno no2 bolt action for the bunnies and a Sako .223 and Ruger No1 replaced the Mini 14.
More training was the cry back in the 1980's yet the bloke who committed the Hoddle St Massacre in '87 was a very well trained former classmate at RMC Duntroon. Well trained enough that he was hitting crossing targets on motorcycles. He was 'sane' enough to be a defence force member and to be selected as an officer cadet - yet he flipped, which goes to prove that it is simplistic to say you just need to keep the guns away from the nutters.
The current spike in shootings is gang related - thankfully the good news for the rest of society is that they tend to target opposing gangs (usually drug related). It's unfortunate that criminals will always find guns.
On another mainly military forum many others from all around the world seem to give similar opinions to the ones expressed by keesj et al. These are serving or ex-serving members of long experience - a group you would think is fairly well qualified to speak on the matter including a few 'specials' (ex SAS). consensus is that a semi or full automatic weapon is brilliant on the battlefield, but for hunting at home, is like buying a semi trailer to take a couple of bags of rubbish to the tip - ie overkill.
I see you live in Australia - we did put something on the line after the Port Arthur Massacre - namely our own Semi-automatic weapons - the world didn't stop, the sun still came up the next day and there has not been a massacre since. My hunting weapons changed from a Ruger 10/22 to A Brno no2 bolt action for the bunnies and a Sako .223 and Ruger No1 replaced the Mini 14.
More training was the cry back in the 1980's yet the bloke who committed the Hoddle St Massacre in '87 was a very well trained former classmate at RMC Duntroon. Well trained enough that he was hitting crossing targets on motorcycles. He was 'sane' enough to be a defence force member and to be selected as an officer cadet - yet he flipped, which goes to prove that it is simplistic to say you just need to keep the guns away from the nutters.
The current spike in shootings is gang related - thankfully the good news for the rest of society is that they tend to target opposing gangs (usually drug related). It's unfortunate that criminals will always find guns.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
I must say that in reading various bits and pieces re the States
in the US passing laws, they have been 1. very quick off the mark
and 2. Very clever in the way they are going about it.
Hence my pst prior to this a few pages back that quite a few
states were passing laws and IF Barry tries to bring things in,
the states will just write new laws.
And that is of course before anyone even starts to challenge any
new Fed laws in the Supreme Court which is another thing he will
have to contend with.
PTT
"I have family on your side of the pond."
As in Australia where I am or the US
(assuming you thought I was in the US ?)
"What makes you think we all have nothing on the line? "
As AA says, unless you live in the US, you have nothing
but an opinion that doesn't matter.
I must say that in reading various bits and pieces re the States
in the US passing laws, they have been 1. very quick off the mark
and 2. Very clever in the way they are going about it.
Hence my pst prior to this a few pages back that quite a few
states were passing laws and IF Barry tries to bring things in,
the states will just write new laws.
And that is of course before anyone even starts to challenge any
new Fed laws in the Supreme Court which is another thing he will
have to contend with.
PTT
"I have family on your side of the pond."
As in Australia where I am or the US
(assuming you thought I was in the US ?)
"What makes you think we all have nothing on the line? "
As AA says, unless you live in the US, you have nothing
but an opinion that doesn't matter.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that the 388 households are highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the 132 million.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AA
Just so I am entirely clear, you are rejecting the study because:
1. You think the 388 households is too few to be a representative sample, and
2. You think the sample could have been cherrypicked.
As to point 1, that's rubbish. Anyone with any education in statistics knows full well how useful a sample size is depends on the statistical power required (in this case, is it big enough to reject the null hypothesis). In fact, the study specified that of all the risk factors included only 6 had sufficient statistical power with the sample sizes given. To quote the study (again):
Just for the sake of education, margin or error is easily calculated. If the population is 132,000,000 and the sample size is 388 then the margin of error is 4.98%. Since the risk factor was 270% then the bounds for that are roughly 265-275% compared to the 100% for the control case. As you can see, the wide gap between the lower bounds of the risk factor and the control group means that there is ample statistical power to reject the null hypothesis.
Regarding point 2, the study specified exactly where the statistics were taken from and in what years. Given that the actual study took place in 1993 and the sample was from dates up to 1992 I think that any suggestion of cherrypicking by date is desperate and/or foolish: it's simply the most recent data. Regarding cherrypicking by area, not only were the areas chosen all at the same or better poverty levels than the majority of the US (meaning that the crime rate was probably relatively low due to the correlation between poverty and violent crime), but they also weren't those areas which you thought would be "cherrypick" areas (North Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington DC). Basically, it used the most recent data from fairly affluent areas of the US.
Now if you are actually accusing the study of being cherrypicked then it is for you to provide some evidence that it has been - to reject it on the basis that it might have been cherrypicked is intellectually dishonest.
In short, your rejection is based on your lack of understanding of statistics (which is fine - not many people actually understand much about statistics) and possibly an unsubstantiated accusation. You're rejecting it because you don't like the conclusion, not because you can actually show it to be incorrect or otherwise flawed.
I fail to see the relevance of this point. What exactly are you trying to say and what bearing does it have to do with the discussion itself?
My observation is otherwise
@ 500N
I meant US. Apologies for mislocating you
That's a VERY different thing to having nothing on the line. I have family on the line, but I have no voting rights in the US.
This "you don't live in the US so why do you care" thing is a massive red herring. It's a debate: trying to shut it down on the basis that some of us don't live there is cowardly.
@ keesje
It's Confidence Interval. 95CI means that if the study were carried out 20 times then 19 times the result would be within the range given - exactly what you would expect with probabilities, since there are always statistical outliers.
PTT:
I know you are relying heavily on that study of yours but really, upon further reflection, the study itself is statistically insignificant. It samples 388 households. In 2011 there were, (per the US Census Bureau), more than 132 million "housing units". I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that the 388 households are highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the 132 million. In fact, with such a small sample, it would be very easy for someone to cherry pick certain regions during certain time periods to prove a point while appearing to be trying to make an honest attempt at fairness. So, I'm sorry, (well, I'm not really - but I'm told it's polite to say it ), but I can't accept the conclusions that your study makes.
I know you are relying heavily on that study of yours but really, upon further reflection, the study itself is statistically insignificant. It samples 388 households. In 2011 there were, (per the US Census Bureau), more than 132 million "housing units". I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that the 388 households are highly unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the 132 million. In fact, with such a small sample, it would be very easy for someone to cherry pick certain regions during certain time periods to prove a point while appearing to be trying to make an honest attempt at fairness. So, I'm sorry, (well, I'm not really - but I'm told it's polite to say it ), but I can't accept the conclusions that your study makes.
1. You think the 388 households is too few to be a representative sample, and
2. You think the sample could have been cherrypicked.
As to point 1, that's rubbish. Anyone with any education in statistics knows full well how useful a sample size is depends on the statistical power required (in this case, is it big enough to reject the null hypothesis). In fact, the study specified that of all the risk factors included only 6 had sufficient statistical power with the sample sizes given. To quote the study (again):
Kellermann's team found only six variables that were strong enough to be included in the final model.
What that means is that, because the sample size is only 388, only those 6 particular risk factors caused a big enough difference to be able to reject the null hypothesis. With larger sample sizes it is likely that more risk factors would be strong enough to be included in the model, but given that there were only 388 included in the study then they could not have been.Just for the sake of education, margin or error is easily calculated. If the population is 132,000,000 and the sample size is 388 then the margin of error is 4.98%. Since the risk factor was 270% then the bounds for that are roughly 265-275% compared to the 100% for the control case. As you can see, the wide gap between the lower bounds of the risk factor and the control group means that there is ample statistical power to reject the null hypothesis.
Regarding point 2, the study specified exactly where the statistics were taken from and in what years. Given that the actual study took place in 1993 and the sample was from dates up to 1992 I think that any suggestion of cherrypicking by date is desperate and/or foolish: it's simply the most recent data. Regarding cherrypicking by area, not only were the areas chosen all at the same or better poverty levels than the majority of the US (meaning that the crime rate was probably relatively low due to the correlation between poverty and violent crime), but they also weren't those areas which you thought would be "cherrypick" areas (North Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington DC). Basically, it used the most recent data from fairly affluent areas of the US.
Now if you are actually accusing the study of being cherrypicked then it is for you to provide some evidence that it has been - to reject it on the basis that it might have been cherrypicked is intellectually dishonest.
In short, your rejection is based on your lack of understanding of statistics (which is fine - not many people actually understand much about statistics) and possibly an unsubstantiated accusation. You're rejecting it because you don't like the conclusion, not because you can actually show it to be incorrect or otherwise flawed.
I've been arguing this since Newtown and have come to the conclusion that unless you live in the USA and are subject to it's laws your opinions are just that, opinions, and they have no bearing on how America will deal with it's issues.
In short, the American people know and understand the risks and responsibilities that come with the Second Amendment and they are happy to keep that freedom as is.
@ 500N
I meant US. Apologies for mislocating you
As AA says, unless you live in the US, you have nothing but an opinion that doesn't matter.
This "you don't live in the US so why do you care" thing is a massive red herring. It's a debate: trying to shut it down on the basis that some of us don't live there is cowardly.
@ keesje
It's Confidence Interval. 95CI means that if the study were carried out 20 times then 19 times the result would be within the range given - exactly what you would expect with probabilities, since there are always statistical outliers.
Last edited by PTT; 23rd Jan 2013 at 14:01.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Second. The amendment gives the right to bear arms. It says nothing about ammunition. Let people have as many guns as they wish, just severly restrict the sale of ammunition.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT:
I'm well aware of the basics of statistics having been married to a statistician for several years in the past. I'm also aware that polling prior to Presidential elections selects a sample size in the 1000-1500 region and is often quite wrong so I'll continue to reject the study's findings if that's ok.
Then, Sir, your powers of observation are lacking. The 2nd Amendment is alive and well and living in the USA and there is not much Barry and his cohorts are going to do about it.
Mighty Gem's post is a perfect example of why I say what I did. He demonstrates not only an ignorance of the 2nd Amendment but also a limited level of reading comprehension. He then, on the basis of such inadequate understanding recommends it's repeal. He further demonstrates his limited grasp of the language by stating that, (I paraphrase), arms = guns so control the ammunition when various dictionaries concede that arms = both weapons and ammunition.
One can only hope that he was being facetious when he posted.
I'm well aware of the basics of statistics having been married to a statistician for several years in the past. I'm also aware that polling prior to Presidential elections selects a sample size in the 1000-1500 region and is often quite wrong so I'll continue to reject the study's findings if that's ok.
My observation is otherwise
I fail to see the relevance of this point. What exactly are you trying to say and what bearing does it have to do with the discussion itself?
One can only hope that he was being facetious when he posted.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm well aware of the basics of statistics having been married to a statistician for several years in the past.
Maybe you should talk to your (presumably ex) wife about it then, since it's not you who has the qualifications and it's clearly not you who understands statistics.
I'm also aware that polling prior to Presidential elections selects a sample size in the 1000-1500 region and is often quite wrong
I'll continue to reject the study's findings if that's ok.
Then, Sir, your powers of observation are lacking. The 2nd Amendment is alive and well and living in the USA and there is not much Barry and his cohorts are going to do about it.
Your last point doesn't address my question at all. What relevance does your the fact that we have no voting power in the US have to do with our opinions?
Last edited by PTT; 23rd Jan 2013 at 15:28.