By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Gun Control: A Survey of the Police.

 

What are your views on gun control?

Im a communist, so I like gun control 66 51.16%
 
Im a freedom loving, cons... 62 48.06%
 
Total:128
killerzX on 12 November 2013
Torillian said:
Kasz216 said:

Additionally, Lott's research isn't really wrong or weird. It just defines mass shootings slightly differently then the FBI's way of doing it to make it more scientifically useful.

The usual classification is any shooting that kills four or more people. Which isn't really a useful classification because if you'll note the report Torillian posted you see a lot of "Mass shootings" are "family annihilator" murder suicides and shootings resulting in people fleeing the police.

Not really similar to the type of people who plan to go into a public place and just start shooting random people until they are stopped or killed.


Additionally, you'll note they don't consider Navy yards and such gun free zones. Even though they are, because you can't actually posses guns inside the navy yards or other military bases.

Soldiers with guns patrol the outsides, but that's like argueing a school isn't a gun free zone because the police patrol by it.

 

It's not really done in a weird way.  So much as in the way of somebody who would run an expierment to see something would phrase things.   

The question being "Are people who mass shoot aquantinces/strangers in a murder/suicide type situation more likely to pick places in which guns are not expected."


But the navy Yard doesn't fit that description at all.  You can't just discount the armed guards there, so you can't say "oh he picked that place because he knew to expect less resistance, because in fact he was in a shoot out with armed guards before police arrived.  You can say that he wouldn't expect to see random civilians with weapons, but you can't say that he'd be less likely to come across someone with a gun because that's exactly what armed guards are.  

And no, you can't say that it's the same as a school because the police don't have checkpoints throughtout a school with weapons ready.  If you had a school that had as many armed guards as the Navy Yard then yes I think it would be disingenuous to call such a place a "gun free zone".  It's an "armed civilian" free zone but it is certainly not a gun free zone.  

if you have ever been to a military base, you'd realize just how little they are actually gaurded. there are sentrys at the gate. and thats about it. its basically the same as an other town or city with a police force.



Around the Network
Torillian on 12 November 2013
killerzX said:

if you have ever been to a military base, you'd realize just how little they are actually gaurded. there are sentrys at the gate. and thats about it. its basically the same as an other town or city with a police force.


I lived in military bases off and on throughout my entire childhood, and I think you really can't just ignore the sentries at the gate as well as the military police presence being equated to that of standard town with police.  We'll have to just disagree on this point, but I find it hard to think of a base where you have to show an armed guard ID just to get in as some hippy love-in where someone would expect to be able to attack without repurcussions.  



...

deskpro2k3 on 12 November 2013

We don't need Gun Control, we need Bullet Control.

increasing the price for ammo is what they should do.

100 dollars per bullet. That way if someone got shot, you'll know they did something to earn it.

It'll also force people to get jobs.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
MDMAlliance on 12 November 2013
Kasz216 said:
outlawauron said:
chapset said:
take this with a grain of salt, if you score to high on your IQ test you can't join the police force.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-for-being-too-intelligent/

Duh. They want people to follow orders and enforce laws.


Actually the real reason... that was upheld in court, was that being a police officer was boring as fuck and therefore someone with a genius level intellect would get bored... and it's expensive to make a police officer.


I wasn't really going to comment back in here since I know how it would end and I would rather not waste my time on it, but I did want to comment on the fact that it seems like you're giving a pretty low standard to the word "genius" as I wouldn't say an IQ of 125 is "genius" level.  I already know my IQ is higher than that.  Does that make me a genius?



Kasz216 on 12 November 2013
impertinence said:
Kasz216 said:
impertinence said:
 

Here's a qustion.

Have you read any gun research recently?

If you had, you'll note Lott's research is pretty much always the very first thing mentioned in the literature review.

The can't provide raw data complaint, is the only thing you mentioned that was a true complaint against him... yet you conviently left out the fact that that's a complaint with basically every professor at his school because they all lost their data after a hardware crash.

Hell the biggest counterpoint to him has been Levitt.  Who actually is against gun control now, suggests RTC pretty much has no effect on anything, gun control doesn't have any effect on anything and suggesting it also doesn't work.  Instead he suggests mandatory enhancements for crimes committed with guns.

Academic reality can, and often does, vary from random stuff you might find on internet article comment sections or silly biased websites.

Again, I recommend looking into John Lott a little closer. I have seen enough here to know that I am engaged with a nitpicker who'll keep coming back until the end of time with new tidbits of knowledge freshly harvested from the internet and present it as common knowledge that you've done extensive research about. I have no interest in stroking your ego so you can pretend that you know this soooo much better than anyone else. So far you've displayed a lack of understanding of the critisism against Lott, misrepresented the 'facts' around those critisisms, completely missed the stance of his critics and dismissed several of the issues people have with his research.

I know what you will be coming back with here, so I will direct this to other people who might read this reply and have an actual interest in finding out something about this issue rather than a pathological need to be right and have the last word: Do yourselfs a favor and look into the many questionmarks that are associated with John Lott's integrity as a reasearcher and what his agenda could possibly be. Then keep in mind that with the highly polarized gun debate that any critisism against Lott will also most likely carry a certain level of bias itself. Then, armed with that knowledge look at the lists and research quoted from John Lott and decide for yourself if you should take his findings at face value, or if it's better to double check his claims for yourself. My personal preference is to always double check claims that seem to be overwhelmingly obvious, and that strategy has served me well so far, but as always; to each his own.


So in otherwords.  No.  No you haven't... and you've done no research on the subject.

It's not like Lott is some solitary scientist.

The scinetiifc consensus pretty much alway finds decrease in violent crime or no effect...  you can nash your teeth, wail and cry bias but it's just a fact.

Even if you consider him bias, that doesn't really discount pretty much every other sceintist out there... who all pretty much replicate the same findings. (or find no relation to guns and violence.)

and no.  It's not looking up new things on the internet.  It's having done the research a long time ago.  Reading research articles is a hobby of mine. 

I generally don't hold opinions on things until after i've looked at the research.

I generally only use google to pull up past articles so that other people can review them.

 

Hell though, lets use google to find something i haven't read before.  A metastudy on right to carry laws for example.

econjwatch.org/file_download/234/2008-09-moodymarvell-com.pdf

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime.
Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a
dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase
crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws
increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their
own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they
would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue
laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law
will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis
extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years
of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and
correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase
in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the
decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar
to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

 

That's actually more onesided then I remembered.

Pretty bad really.

All you seem to be able to produce is vague claims without a source, and no counter data... i'm not sure how you expect people to take you seriously.

 



Around the Network
-CraZed- on 12 November 2013
Leadified said:
-CraZed- said:
Leadified said:
While I think some of these results are ridiculous such as arming teachers with firearms, and how poorly I think the government is treating this. Trying to install gun control programs such as the ones that exist Australia or here in Canada would be a disaster.


Why is allowing teachers to carry firearms "ridiculous?" So we can use firearms protect our money, our government officials our planes and buildings or even our national parks with guns but not out children? Heck, if we can't trust our teachers to carry a firearm why would we trust them to even be near our children?

If a locality wants to allow teachers the ability to carry a concealed firearm, I for one am all for it.


Would you trust your boss to carry around a gun while at work? I wouldn't, not unless I can carry around my own gun as well. What gives special rights to teachers to carry around guns and not the children attending the school, or should we allow teachers easily abusable power and turn the school system into even more of a jail system? The line has to be drawn somewhere and that line is educators should have no business with firearms on the job.

Yes, yes I would. I trust millions of Americans every single day to carry guns on their person. Just like I trust millions of Americans to wield other deadly weapons like cars while I drive my own car and carry my own concealed firearm.

Millions of people are carrying guns every single day and yet millions of people aren't running around shooting each other every day. More people are causing roadway deaths with their cars.

The line needs to be drawn at gun control advocates leaving gun rights alone lest they give up their other constitutionally protected freedoms such as talking out of their bums or being allowed to be secure in their shanties.



-CraZed- on 12 November 2013
Torillian said:
killerzX said:

if you have ever been to a military base, you'd realize just how little they are actually gaurded. there are sentrys at the gate. and thats about it. its basically the same as an other town or city with a police force.


I lived in military bases off and on throughout my entire childhood, and I think you really can't just ignore the sentries at the gate as well as the military police presence being equated to that of standard town with police.  We'll have to just disagree on this point, but I find it hard to think of a base where you have to show an armed guard ID just to get in as some hippy love-in where someone would expect to be able to attack without repurcussions.  

LOL how old are you, 15? When I entered the military most military bases were OPEN posts. Meaning there were NO guards or sentries or checkpoints to get into a base and even if there was a sentry they were glorified traffic cops as they basically looked to see you had a base sticker on your window and waved you through. Heck, Fort Bragg which is home to the 82nd, some Ranger and SF units and even Delta (though those guys had small gated compounds) had NO checkpoints to get around the base proper. The freeway terminated right in the middle of the base!

Not until 9/11 did military bases go to CLOSED. Even after 9/11 base security is really a joke. There are so many avenues of entry for someone with nefarious purpose to get onto base a wreak havoc. If not for the intermittent MP or SP patrol bases are just smaller versions of any cities 'security.'

And no you wouldn't be able to attack without repercussion but you could do a lot of damage before being stopped. There have been several of these types of incidents in the past. The naval yard and Fort Hood are only the most recent.



Torillian on 12 November 2013
-CraZed- said:
Torillian said:
killerzX said:

if you have ever been to a military base, you'd realize just how little they are actually gaurded. there are sentrys at the gate. and thats about it. its basically the same as an other town or city with a police force.


I lived in military bases off and on throughout my entire childhood, and I think you really can't just ignore the sentries at the gate as well as the military police presence being equated to that of standard town with police.  We'll have to just disagree on this point, but I find it hard to think of a base where you have to show an armed guard ID just to get in as some hippy love-in where someone would expect to be able to attack without repurcussions.  

LOL how old are you, 15? When I entered the military most military bases were OPEN posts. Meaning there were NO guards or sentries or checkpoints to get into a base and even if there was a sentry they were glorified traffic cops as they basically looked to see you had a base sticker on your window and waved you through. Heck, Fort Bragg which is home to the 82nd, some Ranger and SF units and even Delta (though those guys had small gated compounds) had NO checkpoints to get around the base proper. The freeway terminated right in the middle of the base!

Not until 9/11 did military bases go to CLOSED. Even after 9/11 base security is really a joke. There are so many avenues of entry for someone with nefarious purpose to get onto base a wreak havoc. If not for the intermittent MP or SP patrol bases are just smaller versions of any cities 'security.'

And no you wouldn't be able to attack without repercussion but you could do a lot of damage before being stopped. There have been several of these types of incidents in the past. The naval yard and Fort Hood are only the most recent.

Fun fact, you can look up someone's age on here instead of just being a douche about it.  I'm 28, thanks for asking.  

The base I lived in in Germany always had checkpoints at the entrance that would not let you in unless you had a military ID.  I remember because we were warned not to go off of the base without one as it would be a chore to get back in.  That would be around 1995.

Honestly though dude, I'm leaving this conversation, and you can find someone else to talk down to.  



...

MikeRox on 12 November 2013

I'm obviously a communist according to the poll. I live in the UK which has had pretty strong gun restrictions since our last school shooting and am quite happy with it that way. Shotguns and Rifles are about all you can have, and that's now with very strict background checks and the proper paperwork. Sure we still have shootings and weapons in the wrong hands, but it's nowhere near as prominent.

For info, Dunblane was in 1996 so we're at 17 years now. Maybe the US will enjoy longer periods between such incidents if they became communist too.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

joora on 12 November 2013
Goatseye said:
13.9% believe pop culture and video games are responsible for violence
only 4.4% believe it's easy access to guns

Wow.


This. 

The distribution of answers on that question is quite amazing. I guess blame the parents can work for anyting... In 24 hrs of being a parent, most people work 8-12hrs, sleep 6-8 , so they can overseer their children in that period from after coming from work to falling into bed tired as hell. With the easy availibility of mature content on the TV, internet and other media, parents have either a choice either of becoming a dictator figure or not having control when they are out of house. With almost every american teen TV series demoting parent and teacher figures as silly, not in the touch with the real world and laughable, and celebs promoting a whole range of noble qualities (like that nice girl hannah montana :) ), it's really not hard for kids to grow out messed up. Add an increased popularity and acceptance of divorces, and there you go.

Yep, definately parents are the one to blame.

Disclaimer: I'm not a parent :)



.