But can't everything be nerdy, even guns? Or even ARGUING about guns?
That was what this thread was for before crazy mofo starting shooting up the place with greater frequency. We had a long debate on the merits of the AR vs. AK.
And for the record, I'm cool with a re-enactment of the federal assault weapons ban. 10 round magazine limits are very reasonable. Registration (much like cars) would not be a bad idea.
Interesting how he knows to tell the conspiracy nuts and other whackjobs to shut the fuck up and get off YouTube, but doesn't make the connection that those are the mentally ill people that need the treatment he was talking about just seconds ago.
Interesting how he knows to tell the conspiracy nuts and other whackjobs to shut the fuck up and get off YouTube, but doesn't make the connection that those are the mentally ill people that need the treatment he was talking about just seconds ago.
That's because a lot of people don't grasp the strong connection between conspiracy theorists and mental illness. They tend to think "That guy believes some dumb shit" rather than "That guy might potentially be a little mentally unstable", at least until they get to be seriously, seriously hardcore.
EDIT: The big take-away from that study: 13 mass shootings in Aus. between 1978 and the massacre in '96, but none after it.
Except for the one that happened after it, which the report completely omits, despite it occurring in the period that it covers(in 2002, to be precise), namely, the Monash university shooting. The reason being, because despite being attempted, only two people were killed, with five injured before the gunman was stopped(by some bloody brave students who charged an armed gunman and tackled him to the floor), and the traditional cut-off is at least four deaths. I guess "Attempted" only counts in the courtroom.
I recall when that paper came out, the media lit up like mad about it, and more than a few people got in trouble for failing to note that Mr Simon Chapman is actually a notable anti-gun lobbyist, along with being a sociologist specializing in public health particularly regarding the tobacco industry. One of the specific examples I was taught about, when learning about journalistic ethics, interestingly enough.
It should also be noted that a senate inquiry uncovered that this particular study was fast-tracked by the journal Injury Prevention, and that the peer review process was completely bypassed, and that the data interpretation varies quite a bit from other studies using the same data - so, appropriately sized grain of salt.
It should also be noted, for completeness, that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research showed little to no effect on violence, nor did the (in 2005) rising gun ownership have any effect either way.
In fact, the head of said organization, Don Weatherburn, had quite a good comment on the subject when questioned - "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."
Though it must be noted, this was the year BEFORE Mr Chapman's study, so take that for what it's worth, I suppose.
There are some other interesting facts - Most of our firearm related deaths are suicides, despite the gun ban the suicide rate has remained relatively steady - interestingly, as firearm suicides fell, hanging suicides rose in such a way to indicate method substitution. The vast majority of guns used in crime are unregistered, illegal firearms. Homicides did not really decline in any way that would suggest stricter gun laws have helped, only firearms related homicides have fallen. Gun theft was always rare, but only a tiny fraction of firearms are stolen, and only a fraction of those are ever used in crimes at a later time.
I could go on, but I think even three was pushing it, I think you get my point.
So, despite what Thane was attempting to portray, It's not so clear-cut of either an issue or a result.
Also, since I've been wanting to say it for the last few hundred words and let's face it, you'd think it was out of character for me not to:
Chapman is a fucking hack with both an agenda and a clear conflict of interest, and you should give his paper exactly as much credence as the papers of any other author who felt it necessary to side-step the academic review process on their way to publication, and then not actually mention either that or his conflict of interest to anybody.
Like someone mentioned earlier, the permissiveness of gun laws does not have a direct correlation to crime in general, America and Switzerland are relatively permissive and yet they have wildly different crime rates, and it is the same between Great Britain and Japan who have very strict gun laws.. Gun crime may fall, but stricter laws are no guarantee of dropping crime rates. Still it is interesting to read that study and hear the other side of things.
Churba, there's really only one statistic that is relevant to this discussion: no mass killings since Port Arthur. The Monash shootings, I'll grant, were terrible and should be treated very seriously for the purposes of this debate, but I'd argue it was only because he could only get access to mostly small-calibre pistols that there weren't more fatalities. So, with regard to the study, I'll accept that it has its flaws, but you can't argue with the fact that mass shootings have all but ended in this country, which was the biggest point of the gun laws.
I promise I'm not trying to score points here, this is a gut reaction to something horrible, something I feel utterly helpless about, where the only thing I can do is share information with any Americans who'll listen, and maybe they'll see that there is hope that another atrocity can be, if not avoided, either minimised or delayed by stricter gun control laws. I was angered to read your twitter post disparaging the people who tweet for or against gun control. You don't seem to get that it's not always about scoring political points (Mike Huckabee is a notable exception), but instead it comes from a genuine place of passion and conviction, both pro and anti. While I respect (but disagree with) someone who argues that gun control is not the way to prevent another incident like this, I absolutely can not respect the position of someone who shits on the discussion in its entirety, as you did.
Also, Churba, don't make me defend the policies of John Howard again. Now I need to shower. Eurgh.
And mass shootings account for 0.4% of all murders in the US by any method. So... maybe we should tackle driver safety before mass shootings?
The 24 hour media spectacle including graphics, music, round the clock coverage, interviews with crying children asking them how many gunshots they heard, and eventually a celebrity name for the killer certainly don't help.
You guys seem to think that we can only address one problem in the entire world at a time, and that it has to be the worst possible problem.
Something's fucked in the US, and we need to fix it. We know the current system doesn't work. Let's try something different. I'm fine with banning guns to see how it shakes down.
No all I'm saying is that if the police force had unlimited resources to deal with all crimes then we wouldn't have much crime. And I think Muppet is saying that while mass shootings are horrible, they're so infrequent that what limited resources police forces and the government DO have can probably solve a more common problem, like traffic fatalities which kill more people in a day than any mass shooter could ever hope to in their wildest and wettest dreams.
Not to say we can't dedicate resources to try and remove the causes of mass shootings, but said cause doesn't happen to be guns.
It's a common mistake to confuse causation and mode. That doesn't excuse the mode.
Yes. I'm all for removing the ability to get the mode from those who might find the cause, but let's not let insane people be the reason we can't have nice things.
Yes. I'm all for removing the ability to get the mode from those who might find the cause, but let's not let insane people be the reason we can't have nice things.
Who says guns are nice things? Who says they're even relevant in modern civilian society?
Yes. I'm all for removing the ability to get the mode from those who might find the cause, but let's not let insane people be the reason we can't have nice things.
Who says guns are nice things? Who says they're even relevant in modern civilian society?
They are still excellent self-defense tools in capable, trained hands.
Its not about the inability to address many things at once. Its that realistically, we don't. The ubiquitous outcry over these deaths is appropriate but it's very frustrating that its denied the victims of our bloated military and misguided foreign policy when that problem is FAR larger.
Comments
Also,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
And for the record, I'm cool with a re-enactment of the federal assault weapons ban. 10 round magazine limits are very reasonable. Registration (much like cars) would not be a bad idea.
EDIT: The big take-away from that study: 13 mass shootings in Aus. between 1978 and the massacre in '96, but none after it.
I recall when that paper came out, the media lit up like mad about it, and more than a few people got in trouble for failing to note that Mr Simon Chapman is actually a notable anti-gun lobbyist, along with being a sociologist specializing in public health particularly regarding the tobacco industry. One of the specific examples I was taught about, when learning about journalistic ethics, interestingly enough.
It should also be noted that a senate inquiry uncovered that this particular study was fast-tracked by the journal Injury Prevention, and that the peer review process was completely bypassed, and that the data interpretation varies quite a bit from other studies using the same data - so, appropriately sized grain of salt.
It should also be noted, for completeness, that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research showed little to no effect on violence, nor did the (in 2005) rising gun ownership have any effect either way.
In fact, the head of said organization, Don Weatherburn, had quite a good comment on the subject when questioned - "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."
Though it must be noted, this was the year BEFORE Mr Chapman's study, so take that for what it's worth, I suppose.
There are some other interesting facts - Most of our firearm related deaths are suicides, despite the gun ban the suicide rate has remained relatively steady - interestingly, as firearm suicides fell, hanging suicides rose in such a way to indicate method substitution. The vast majority of guns used in crime are unregistered, illegal firearms. Homicides did not really decline in any way that would suggest stricter gun laws have helped, only firearms related homicides have fallen. Gun theft was always rare, but only a tiny fraction of firearms are stolen, and only a fraction of those are ever used in crimes at a later time.
The other thing Thane neglected to mention is that no consenus has actually been reached on the topic. For example, as a counterpoint to Mr Chapman's article, there is this study from 2008, that suggests that the stricter laws and NFA buyback did not actually have any serious impact on firearm deaths. And actually follows proper academic protocol.
However, to provide a counterpoint to my own counterpoint just to make things fucking difficult - A study suggesting that the NFA DID actually reduce deaths, particularly suicides.
Think we can go for three? Fuck it, let's have a try - Here's ANOTHER paper saying that it didn't help that much.
I could go on, but I think even three was pushing it, I think you get my point.
So, despite what Thane was attempting to portray, It's not so clear-cut of either an issue or a result.
Also, since I've been wanting to say it for the last few hundred words and let's face it, you'd think it was out of character for me not to:
Chapman is a fucking hack with both an agenda and a clear conflict of interest, and you should give his paper exactly as much credence as the papers of any other author who felt it necessary to side-step the academic review process on their way to publication, and then not actually mention either that or his conflict of interest to anybody.
Kids, man... kids.
*sigh*
I promise I'm not trying to score points here, this is a gut reaction to something horrible, something I feel utterly helpless about, where the only thing I can do is share information with any Americans who'll listen, and maybe they'll see that there is hope that another atrocity can be, if not avoided, either minimised or delayed by stricter gun control laws. I was angered to read your twitter post disparaging the people who tweet for or against gun control. You don't seem to get that it's not always about scoring political points (Mike Huckabee is a notable exception), but instead it comes from a genuine place of passion and conviction, both pro and anti. While I respect (but disagree with) someone who argues that gun control is not the way to prevent another incident like this, I absolutely can not respect the position of someone who shits on the discussion in its entirety, as you did.
Also, Churba, don't make me defend the policies of John Howard again. Now I need to shower. Eurgh.
The 24 hour media spectacle including graphics, music, round the clock coverage, interviews with crying children asking them how many gunshots they heard, and eventually a celebrity name for the killer certainly don't help.
Rhetorical question.
Something's fucked in the US, and we need to fix it. We know the current system doesn't work. Let's try something different. I'm fine with banning guns to see how it shakes down.
Not to say we can't dedicate resources to try and remove the causes of mass shootings, but said cause doesn't happen to be guns.