Las Vegas Terror Attack

[ShockCrazy]

You've posted five links in this thread. Two of them are relevant and support your particular stance, whereas three of them are akin to me going to moveon.org and supporting my position with links from dailycaller and brietbart. So yes, excuse me why I ignore those, and focus on the fact that your initial forey into this thread was a wall of speculative text, sans paragraph breaks and such, but yet you call me out for a lack of substance.

I knew Vox would get disputed but if you bothered clicking it, it actually links to studies. None of the other links are remotely objectionable. I called you out for not posting any supporting research not for quality. Also I find it hilarious you attack my speculation when I think most who read me on this board would agree I put a lot of effort into citing my points.

[boltforge]

Congrats on underlining that number of guns owned is up. I have said that again and again. That is not an indicator of ownership being up(people can own more than one gun shockingly enough). And the link I posted above indicated that also with other referring research as links in it of the number of guns going up while the number of owners has gone down because the average number of guns owned by a gun owner has increased from 4 to 6.6 or 8 depending on the study.

Here is household gun ownership https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-a-firearm/.

So, households with guns have basically been stable around 40% of homes in the US for awhile. While gun murder has been cut in half.

NOTE: my personal belief on why murder has dropped ... the internet. Most murders are crimes of emotion and opportunity. With the rise of the internet people have been able to vent emotionally online or just kept busy surfing away on their phones and computers. So they haven't gone out a-murdering. Just a idea. Save a life ... argue on Shockernet.

[ShockCrazy]

Here is household gun ownership https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-a-firearm/.

So, households with guns have basically been stable around 40% of homes in the US for awhile. While gun murder has been cut in half.

NOTE: my personal belief on why murder has dropped ... the internet. Most murders are crimes of emotion and opportunity. With the rise of the internet people have been able to vent emotionally online or just kept busy surfing away on their phones and computers. So they haven't gone out a-murdering. Just a idea. Save a life ... argue on Shockernet.

Yeah that's what I've seen. The link you sent had a pay wall sadly. It does look similar to what I have seen with other studies, stable past 20ish years, after having a decline from 50's, 60's and 70's rates.

[SHOCKvalue]

I didn't ignore them you said an inverse relation ship with gun ownership I said it is false because it is. Deaths have declined but as has ownership. I disputed your point. And proved you wrong. You have yet to provide evidence of gun ownership increasing. Again NOT THE NUMBER OF GUNS OWNED, the number of people who own guns.

You understand how intellectually silly this mountain top is for you, right?

I cite (with more than one respectable link) that there are many more guns out there than at any time in US history, contrasted by the fact that gun deaths are down something like 50% in the past 20-30 years, and you're fixated on guns per household or household ownership or per person? Because?

*If you favor that more checks should be put on firearm purchases (meaning: potentially less people able to buy them - via expanded background checks, closing of the gun show loophole, and such), then the vast majority of the country (something like 90%) is with you. This is what you are arguing, essentially. Few here would argue with you on that.

*Alternatively, if you favor restrictions that limit the type of guns available (and by basic logic, total volume in circulation), then you are arguing for that position in spite of the fact that neither causation or correlation exits, statistically. This is what I'm arguing.

Ergo, we need to work on keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, and not fixate on whether or not a gun is black plastic or has a pistol grip.

[jdshock]

Everyone keeps calling it "gun deaths" but I believe the statistics everyone is citing relate to gun homicide rates. Am I wrong about that?

If not, that's a pretty big difference. Overall gun deaths would also include suicides and accidental deaths. The only thing I've ever seen on that topic is the following:

[SHOCKvalue]

I knew Vox would get disputed but if you bothered clicking it, it actually links to studies. None of the other links are remotely objectionable. I called you out for not posting any supporting research not for quality. Also I find it hilarious you attack my speculation when I think most who read me on this board would agree I put a lot of effort into citing my points.

...if you don't say so yourself.

You have been a member of this board for over seven years, and on-average post roughly one post per six days. I would speculate you don't even register with the major of regular posters here; I know I personally don't know you from Adam, in a shockernet poster context. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it does make your supposition... odd.

[ShockCrazy]

You understand how intellectually silly this mountain top is for you, right?

I cite (with more than one respectable link) that there are many more guns out there than at any time in US history, contrasted by the fact that gun deaths are down something like 50% in the past 20-30 years, and you're fixated on guns per household or household ownership or per person? Because?

*If you favor that more checks should be put on firearm purchases (meaning: potentially less people able to buy them - via expanded background checks, closing of the gun show loophole, and such), then the vast majority of the country (something like 90%) is with you. This is what you are arguing, essentially. Few here would argue with you on that.

*Alternatively, if you favor restrictions that limit the type of guns available (and by basic logic, total volume in circulation), then you are arguing for that position in spite of the fact that neither causation or correlation exits, statistically. This is what I'm arguing.

Ergo, we need to work on keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, and not fixate on whether or not a gun is black plastic or has a pistol grip.

My entire point was that you made a false statement that was misleading and implied that more guns = less crime. Guns per household because if guns deter crime or are used in self defense it is irrelevant if I own 1 or 10. It only matters if I own one and if it is with me. Owning 10 guns doesn't make you practically more safe or deter crime more than one does. I am not arguing about types of weapons. I am familiar with guns have fired them, yes the media does stupid things when talking about AR's(yes that's a manufacturer not an assault rifle), or other weapons that "look" scary. I think there should be restrictions on type available IE automatics that are already banned, but has a grandfather clause(I would argue we just need to work on pulling these out of the market entirely), also there should be restrictions on the modifications such as bump stocks or trigger cranks even with license. Automatics and the emulation of automatics, while fun, serve no practical purpose and really have no business in the hands of private citizens.

[ShockCrazy]

...if you don't say so yourself.

You have been a member of this board for over seven years, and on-average post roughly one post per six days. I would speculate you don't even register with the major of regular posters here; I know I personally don't know you from Adam, in a shockernet poster context. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it does make your supposition... odd.

I actually lurked before beginning to post this year.

[SHOCKvalue]

My entire point was that you made a false statement that was misleading and implied that more guns = less crime.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and it is not misleading or factually incorrect in the slightest: There are more guns in circulation every year that passes, yet the gun homicide rate continues to go down and has been cut in half in the past 20-30 years. Sources in support of this include Pew, the Washington Post, and the Federation of American Scientists.

[boltforge]

Everyone keeps calling it "gun deaths" but I believe the statistics everyone is citing relate to gun homicide rates. Am I wrong about that?

If not, that's a pretty big difference. Overall gun deaths would also include suicides and accidental deaths. The only thing I've ever seen on that topic is the following:

About 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide and we have been talking about killing other people or preventing people from killing others. Not about killing ourselves. And least I have been.

[jdshock]

About 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide and we have been talking about killing other people or preventing people from killing others. Not about killing ourselves. And least I have been.

To clarify, the statistics most people have been talking about are gun homicides, which also do not include accidental deaths. I am not so certain that the data includes "preventing people from killing others." If I shoot someone to prevent them from killing me, that's not a homicide, so I don't know if it would count in the data. It all just depends on the specific data being collected.

I'm just saying, let's not say "gun deaths are inversely correlated with the number of guns owned in the US" unless that's what the data specifically shows since that's a pretty big difference (as you mentioned, the data cited so far excludes at least 2/3rds of gun deaths).

[ShockCrazy]

About 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide and we have been talking about killing other people or preventing people from killing others. Not about killing ourselves. And least I have been.

I think that's been the main discussion. Although there is definitely likely a correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership/laws that could be discussed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6345a10.htm The leaders in suicide rate generally have more lax gun laws, and more restrictive states less suicide. Now there are definitely likely other factors in play as well, but I imagine the appeal/desire for suicide greatly decreases when you don't have a gun and either have to use another more painful process or go through the process of owning one. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

[boltforge]

I think that's been the main discussion. Although there is definitely likely a correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership/laws that could be discussed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6345a10.htm The leaders in suicide rate generally have more lax gun laws, and more restrictive states less suicide. Now there are definitely likely other factors in play as well, but I imagine the appeal/desire for suicide greatly decreases when you don't have a gun and either have to use another more painful process or go through the process of owning one. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

Suicide studies across cultures shows that suicide is a beast of its own. Irregardless of guns or no guns. Many cultures with the fewest guns have way higher suicide rates than ours (ex: Japan).

I think most people would agree on ...

1. Suicide type is directly proportional to what is most capable on hand to kill yourself. Be it guns, drugs, rope, tall buildings, or whatever.

2. Accidents are directly proportional to what is around you. Be it cars, stairs, tubs, guns, or whatever. More guns = more gun accidents. More cars = more car accidents.

So the data for both doesn't help or hurt gun laws.

BUT, crime is inversely proportional to the presence or threat of force. More force = less crime. It's why we increase police presence at large events. Why they openly carry rifles in Times Square. Why criminals in prison have all said that they avoid areas where their victims could kill them. And rapists run away from women with guns.

[jdshock]

2. Accidents are directly proportional to what is around you. Be it cars, stairs, tubs, guns, or whatever. More guns = more gun accidents. More cars = more car accidents.

I'm not going to argue with the rest of the post right now, but is your stance that suicide and accidents are analogous? You're arguing that if a person weren't committing suicide with a gun they'd be committing it with a knife, right? Which, I guess is a fine argument. I don't know the stats on it, but it at least seems somewhat logical.

But why would a car, stairs, tub, or whatever be mutually exclusive with gun accidents? Are you arguing that if we decrease gun accidents we would see an increase in car accidents? If yes, I would love to hear the logic behind it. If no, then it's totally relevant to the discussion.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

It is clear what they meant by arms. The same arms that the federal government could use against it's citizens. That means that I should be able to purchase the same "arms" the federal government equips the U.S. military with. The founding fathers intended for the states to have well-regulated militias. Militias are just citizens that form together and bring their personal "arms" as their weapons. The founding fathers did not expect the people to use a musket to challenge a federal force armed with automatic weapons. Well-regulated does not mean rules and laws. It means well maintained, in good working order.

Wait, what? You think the 2nd amendment should allow us to purchase tanks, battleships, and F-16s?

This is why common sense must be used when interpreting and applying laws written 200 years ago.