This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Gun Control Thread

1101113151653

Comments

  • That "country" viewpoint is heavily skewed toward a certain subsegment of rural life that is definitely not universal.
  • edited February 2013
    Please expound on that point.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • Please expand on that point.
    Umm...

    Not every rural community in the US is like that?

    It's a gross and oddly specific generalization?
  • edited February 2013
    That "country" viewpoint is heavily skewed toward a certain subsegment of rural life that is definitely not universal.
    Depends on where you mark the breakpoint between urban and rural. The author clearly describes a very rural setting where police are part time and your nearest neighbor is miles away. He is not describing suburbs.

    There also are more rural areas like what the author describes in the US than there are metropolitan areas in the US.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • While I don't agree with every point he makes, he does put into words something that isn't said very often in the current debate.
  • edited February 2013
    I was hoping for references to particular bits of the essay. I think that these statements in particular apply to a significant portion of rural U.S. cultures:

    In the country, you have a much lower level of gun violence and a fairly low level of violent crime. Part of this is because people are spread out and you can ignore those you don't like. Also everyone is armed. Everyone. Where I grew up, a typical house has a pistol, a shotgun and a few rifles. Rifles and shotguns are used for hunting, pistols are used for self defense. You don't see as much random violence… which is generally the source of real fear.
    "Everyone" is an exaggeration, but if you live in a rural area it is probable that one or more of your neighbors ("country neighbors," mind) is a gun owner. As of 2001 gun owners were a majority In Alabama, Alaska, Arkinsas, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North and South Dakota, and West Virginia. Georgia, Iwoa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin are all within the 40%-49% ownership range. Rates of ownership are significantly lower on islands, like Hawaii or Rhode Island, or in states with major metropolitan areas, like New York or California. What's more, violent crime is consistently less common in rural areas.
    In the rare instance someone comes to a house in the country for mischief, they are rarely foolish enough to come alone (there is a saying "Trespass in someone's backyard and you may end up in their garden.") If they come, they come in groups.
    This is applicable to the same areas which were referenced in that last point. Trespassing is a gamble. People who trespass for the sake of "mischief" bring friends to even the odds.

    In the country, there might be 1 police officer covering 10-20 square miles. And he's often only hired for part time duty. You don't know when the police will show up or how they will react… as they very rarely need to do more than talk to people or hand out speeding tickets. In the country, you assume you will need to sort out the issue yourself.
    This is common sense.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • Rates of ownership are significantly lower on islands, like Hawaii or Rhode Island, or in states with major metropolitan areas, like New York or California.
    Um... Rhode Island isn't an island.
  • edited February 2013
    Rates of ownership are significantly lower on islands, like Hawaii or Rhode Island, or in states with major metropolitan areas, like New York or California.
    Um... Rhode Island isn't an island.
    Technically it is an island... because the full name of the state is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." The "Rhode Island" in the name actually refers to what is now commonly called Aquidneck Island, and it's where Newport is located. Aquidneck Island is a real, honest-to-goodness island and its legal, official name is still "Rhode Island." The rest of the state falls under the whole "Providence Plantations" part.

    Of course, if you're talking about the entire state, then yeah, the entire state itself isn't an island.
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • Rates of ownership are significantly lower on islands, like Hawaii or Rhode Island, or in states with major metropolitan areas, like New York or California.
    Um... Rhode Island isn't an island.
    Technically it is an island... because the full name of the state is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." The "Rhode Island" in the name actually refers to what is now commonly called Aquidneck Island, and it's where Newport is located. Aquidneck Island is a real, honest-to-goodness island and its legal, official name is still "Rhode Island." The rest of the state falls under the whole "Providence Plantations" part.

    Of course, if you're talking about the entire state, then yeah, the entire state itself isn't an island.
    I know, but he was listing state names so I assumed that he was referring to the state.
  • I know, but he was listing state names so I assumed that he was referring to the state.
    Yeah. I was just being a pedantic ass for some reason. :P
  • If we can create new laws that actually do help, then lets do it but can we also repeal the ones that don't? Especially some NFA crap. If my rifle has a 15 inch barrel I get thrown the fuck in jail or have to pay $200 and do a shitload of paperwork but if its 16 inches I'm just fine. AR Pistol? Good to go! Throw a stock on it, and its an EVIL SHORT BARRELED RIFLE.
  • Why is anyone anywhere ever allowed to carry a gun around in public.
    Every 13 seconds, an american uses a legally-owned firearm in an act of self defense. That's nearly 2.5 million a year.

    Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
  • If we can create new laws that actually do help, then lets do it but can we also repeal the ones that don't? Especially some NFA crap. If my rifle has a 15 inch barrel I get thrown the fuck in jail or have to pay $200 and do a shitload of paperwork but if its 16 inches I'm just fine. AR Pistol? Good to go! Throw a stock on it, and its an EVIL SHORT BARRELED RIFLE.
    Or another example - Wood stock SKS with a 10-round magazine? 100% legit good times yo! Same SKS with a polymer stock, pistol grip, and 30 round magazine? Now it's illegal, despite being identical in both function and operation.
  • It's kinda depressing how we keep going from one set of ineffectual laws to the other, the only difference being the party that championed them.

    Seriously some of the testimony at the senate hearings were downright bewildering. Does anyone ells get the felling no one in power is listening to ANYONE ells on the subject?
  • If we can create new laws that actually do help, then lets do it but can we also repeal the ones that don't? Especially some NFA crap. If my rifle has a 15 inch barrel I get thrown the fuck in jail or have to pay $200 and do a shitload of paperwork but if its 16 inches I'm just fine. AR Pistol? Good to go! Throw a stock on it, and its an EVIL SHORT BARRELED RIFLE.
    Or another example - Wood stock SKS with a 10-round magazine? 100% legit good times yo! Same SKS with a polymer stock, pistol grip, and 30 round magazine? Now it's illegal, despite being identical in both function and operation.
    If we can create new laws that actually do help, then lets do it but can we also repeal the ones that don't? Especially some NFA crap. If my rifle has a 15 inch barrel I get thrown the fuck in jail or have to pay $200 and do a shitload of paperwork but if its 16 inches I'm just fine. AR Pistol? Good to go! Throw a stock on it, and its an EVIL SHORT BARRELED RIFLE.
    Or another example - Wood stock SKS with a 10-round magazine? 100% legit good times yo! Same SKS with a polymer stock, pistol grip, and 30 round magazine? Now it's illegal, despite being identical in both function and operation.
    Its not looking too good for the "Assault Weapons" ban though so we shouldn't have to worry too much about that, hopefully.

  • Damn impressive visualization based on data on U.S. Gun Murders. http://guns.periscopic.com/
  • My girlfriend is alarmed at how little regulation there is of firearms. :P
  • Damn impressive visualization based on data on U.S. Gun Murders. http://guns.periscopic.com/
    Now apply this graphic to cars, doctors, and heart disease.

    Could have does not mean would have.
  • Lol, stolen years, the points of death falling down like blood drops. Truly, their message is powerful in it's subtlety. I am in awe.
  • That is a shitty fucking website. It offers all those different filters, but only displays them as lines, no numbers. Very annoying to me.
  • edited February 2013
    One of my Venezuelan students is writing about gun control. In planning her essay she made the assumption that there was some sort of psychological test you had to take before you could buy a gun in the US. The look on my students' faces when I told her there wasn't was priceless.
    Post edited by Ruffas on
  • Damn impressive visualization based on data on U.S. Gun Murders. http://guns.periscopic.com/
    I had some issues with their "stolen years" and the way they calculated it. Also according to their own sources there were 8,775 firearm murders in the US (not 9,595 as they claim). But I want to thank you for posting this. It allowed me to look into their sources and find the Uniform Crime Report page, which I did not know existed from the FBI. They have tables for most crime, and those tables can be downloaded and calculated. Such as in 2011 there were 8,583 firearms murders, and 4,081 murders with other weapons. Or in 2010 there were 4,221 non firearm murders. Also it is interesting to see how many people were killed without any weapon (745 in 2010, 728 in 2011). This UCR site is going in my bookmarks.

  • Yes, but anyone who made that point is stupid. They kill more people than RIFLES, and only rifles. Which is why an assault weapons ban is a useless gesture. You need much stiffer regulation of HANDGUNS to curb the general gun violence of the country.
  • In 2011 6,220 people were killed with handguns. 2,363 with all other weapons combined including deaths of unknown weapon (I love this UCR page). It is clear that handguns kill more people. But handguns are not a smart target for anti-gun advocates after District of Columbia v. Heller. Assault rifles are not only scary looking, but do not enjoy the protection of supreme court decisions. If you want to get guns off the street, they are the easiest target.
  • Easy and worthless. Banning assault rifles will change nothing statistically speaking.
  • Easy and worthless. Banning assault rifles will change nothing statistically speaking.
    Not worthless. It will net significant voter support for the senator who manages to get it passed.
  • But they're not even ON the street so it's a useless move that doesn't help but with which they can say "I don't see any assault weapons! The ban must have worked!"
  • Easy and worthless. Banning assault rifles will change nothing statistically speaking.
    Not worthless. It will net significant voter support for the senator who manages to get it passed.
    Disagree, said senator would also garner the ire of the NRA and any Republicans in that state. Net result would be neutral.
  • edited February 2013
    Easy and worthless. Banning assault rifles will change nothing statistically speaking.
    Not worthless. It will net significant voter support for the senator who manages to get it passed.
    Disagree, said senator would also garner the ire of the NRA and any Republicans in that state. Net result would be neutral.
    Firstly, such a senator would likely have already lost that portion of the population through other stances like being against creationism in schools or any of a bunch of other issues that are important to your die hard NRA types.

    Secondly, managing to move that type of bill thorough would give the politician in question a reputation for being effective in getting legislation passed. Even if their overall polarity remained the same that sort of reputation is damned valuable.

    Post edited by Drunken Butler on
Sign In or Register to comment.