By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances

Those definitions for cleared seem too brad and also the crimes are not specific so we don't know if the "clear" rate for gun specific related crimes.

#TooBrad indeed.

That said, I don't really consider this to be a good argument. There has to be some logical reason why firearm homicides would be cleared significantly more than non-firearm homicides in order for this to really be a valid counter-point. This effect would have to be even more pronounced given that over 70% of homicides are committed with firearms.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any logic implying that trend and you haven't pointed out anything. If anything, due to how guns allow individuals to commit a crime without high participation in a scene (that is, there is often not a struggle or other evidence in firearm homicides), I would expect firearm homicides to have lower clear rates than other types of homicides.

Further, the discrepancy would have to be quite large in order to really have an impact on the discussion, because you were making the argument that unsolved gun crimes are not a large problem.

I generally refer to this argument as the "imperfect source fallacy", which basically says that while the source does provide valid information relevant to the topic at hand, because it does not specifically address every intricacy of the argument, it is invalid. It is a poor argument because it refuses to apply logic to the situation in order to make reasoned inferences and basically attempts to shut down an argument without providing any actual rebuttal.

jason1637 said:

1. If there was a background check the shooting probably would have not happened in teh first place so there is no need for a gun registry.

2.If the shooter got away they probably took the gun with them and if they left it you could look at the dna on the weapon to find who they are. No I don't think if someone sold a gun is valuable information since they didn't do the actual shooting.

That isn't how background checks work.

Also, I'll ask you again, do you know how likely it is for a usable DNA profile to be developed from a firearm?



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

Those definitions for cleared seem too brad and also the crimes are not specific so we don't know if the "clear" rate for gun specific related crimes.

#TooBrad indeed.

That said, I don't really consider this to be a good argument. There has to be some logical reason why firearm homicides would be cleared significantly more than non-firearm homicides in order for this to really be a valid counter-point. This effect would have to be even more pronounced given that over 70% of homicides are committed with firearms.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any logic implying that trend and you haven't pointed out anything. If anything, due to how guns allow individuals to commit a crime without high participation in a scene (that is, there is often not a struggle or other evidence in firearm homicides), I would expect firearm homicides to have lower clear rates than other types of homicides.

Further, the discrepancy would have to be quite large in order to really have an impact on the discussion, because you were making the argument that unsolved gun crimes are not a large problem.

I generally refer to this argument as the "imperfect source fallacy", which basically says that while the source does provide valid information relevant to the topic at hand, because it does not specifically address every intricacy of the argument, it is invalid. It is a poor argument because it refuses to apply logic to the situation in order to make reasoned inferences and basically attempts to shut down an argument without providing any actual rebuttal.

jason1637 said:

1. If there was a background check the shooting probably would have not happened in teh first place so there is no need for a gun registry.

2.If the shooter got away they probably took the gun with them and if they left it you could look at the dna on the weapon to find who they are. No I don't think if someone sold a gun is valuable information since they didn't do the actual shooting.

That isn't how background checks work.

Also, I'll ask you again, do you know how likely it is for a usable DNA profile to be developed from a firearm?

Eh I guess you're right. I really hear about shootings cases not getting resolved so it's possible that a lot of them don't get cleared. But it would be better if the rates were more specific because there's a chance that gun related crimes have a higher solve rate. Like you pointed out they make 70% so it's probably not that liekely.

Yeah that's how background checks work. They look at someone's criminal history and check if they're mentally ill.

I was reading through this summary of a study conducted https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208120842.htm. They couldnt give a percentage or a liekly hood but the methods the way the discussed different methods make it sound like the likelihood for them to gather dna information is high.



This famous photo has been restored and colourized. Taken circa 1931-1932 (differing according to sources), Hitler plays his first violent videogame leading him toward violence and racism and is now known to be the primary cause of World War II.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

#TooBrad indeed.

That said, I don't really consider this to be a good argument. There has to be some logical reason why firearm homicides would be cleared significantly more than non-firearm homicides in order for this to really be a valid counter-point. This effect would have to be even more pronounced given that over 70% of homicides are committed with firearms.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any logic implying that trend and you haven't pointed out anything. If anything, due to how guns allow individuals to commit a crime without high participation in a scene (that is, there is often not a struggle or other evidence in firearm homicides), I would expect firearm homicides to have lower clear rates than other types of homicides.

Further, the discrepancy would have to be quite large in order to really have an impact on the discussion, because you were making the argument that unsolved gun crimes are not a large problem.

I generally refer to this argument as the "imperfect source fallacy", which basically says that while the source does provide valid information relevant to the topic at hand, because it does not specifically address every intricacy of the argument, it is invalid. It is a poor argument because it refuses to apply logic to the situation in order to make reasoned inferences and basically attempts to shut down an argument without providing any actual rebuttal.

That isn't how background checks work.

Also, I'll ask you again, do you know how likely it is for a usable DNA profile to be developed from a firearm?

Eh I guess you're right. I really hear about shootings cases not getting resolved so it's possible that a lot of them don't get cleared. But it would be better if the rates were more specific because there's a chance that gun related crimes have a higher solve rate. Like you pointed out they make 70% so it's probably not that liekely.

Yeah that's how background checks work. They look at someone's criminal history and check if they're mentally ill.

I was reading through this summary of a study conducted https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208120842.htm. They couldnt give a percentage or a liekly hood but the methods the way the discussed different methods make it sound like the likelihood for them to gather dna information is high.

Do you think that nobody commits crimes who doesn't have a disqualifying criminal history?

As for your study, the unfortunate thing about it is that it isn't actually about DNA. So thats a bit awkward...

But to answer my own question, in my experience, less than 5% of firearms produce a usable DNA profile.



the-pi-guy said:

Even in countries where they supposedly banned all guns like Australia, there's still gun ownership.  People still own guns for sport.  

People in Australia don't just own guns just for sport... Farmers use them for their livelihood, some people are collectors... And so on.

But yeah, there seems to be the false idea in the USA that gun legislation equates to the banning of all guns, which is so far removed from reality.

jason1637 said:

It's really not that hard and you would not need cameras everywhere. Almost every store has a camera and the person probably crossed by a street camera. It probably take a little bit more time but thats a fair trade off.

You are missing the point... It doesn't matter how many cameras you have when you have a few million vehicles that look identical.

There is simply no guaranteed owner identification of vehicles without number plates... And that is before we step on the emergency services issue.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network

I'm curious how many of the guns being bought are currently bought at a store vs online or from a private individual.

The reason I bring this up is stores already do require a background check (it does seem odd to me that other methods don't as well though)



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Both Sides 2.0



Baalzamon said:
vivster said:

1. How is that illegal? Aren't there also voter registries and a registry of licensed drivers?

4. Some hobbies cost money, there is no reason why a dangerous hobby like playing with guns shouldn't be expensive and heavily regulated. The freedom of owning a cheap gun does not trump the freedom of not getting shot. Without trying to sound bigoted, poor people are the last people I would like to make it easier for to own guns.

6. Correct. the limit should be 2.

9. Depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime, not having the right to own a gun anymore seems like a good idea. Call it extra punishment for being an asshole.

10./11. It is fair to assume that if someone is willing to break the law by owning an illegal firearm, he's also willing to break the law otherwise. For example by using the gun inappropriately.

If I believe gun owners correctly, they will only use their firearms for sport, which makes it a hobby. There are no special protections for hobbies. Owning a weapon designed for mass killing isn't a right, it's a privilege and people should pay for that privilege like every other person for their hobbies. At this point fucking drones are more regulated than guns.

A colleague of mine is a fan of guns and he uses them for sport. I'm pretty sure here in Germany all of these policies are in effect and that is absolutely fine. Fans of guns will jump these hoops for their hobby and everyone else will feel a lot safer.

What is your logic to the proper amount of guns being 2? Most people who own guns own more than 2 for a reason.

I own a shotgun for deer hunting (regular season does not allow rifles south of a specific line in our state).

I own a 223 rifle that I've used largely for fun range shooting, as well as prairie dog hunting (impossible with a shotgun as you need to be 200-300+ yards away)

I own a 22 rifle that I've used a LOT for small game hunting. Neither the 223 or the shotgun are reasonable for these methods of hunting. The 223 would make the entire squirrel/small animal explode. The shotgun doesn't have near the accuracy required for this type of hunting.

I also own a muzzleloader, as there is a late deer season where this is the only type of gun allowed. It's intended to be very difficult as you get only 1 shot.

I've taken gun safety courses (as all hunters in the state have), all of my guns have required a background check. This doesn't even mention that the majority of mass shootings could easily have occurred even if each person only had 1 gun.

As mentioned in the first list, it's perfectly fine to extend that limit via an additional license if the owner can prove that it's necessary.

As far as I'm concerned no civilian ever should be in possession of any form of gun unless needed for their profession, so 2 for normal use is already a huge compromise.

And I'm gonna say it again because it's so much fun to say: The right to own guns does not trump the right to not get shot. Owning guns should be a privilege and an exception, you know, like in every single country in the world except for a certain one that apparently still lives in the 1700s.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

the-pi-guy said:

>suggesting that I'm attempting to either justify a mass shooting or oppose gun reform

My post was not suggesting any such thing.  

I was only talking about some of the complexities of media.  

>Sorry I've weirded you out by not sticking to the script here, rape and misogyny are personal topics for me that I think the nation should discuss and

They're important issues for me too.

>I'm not convinced that the left is actually any less sexist than the right.

I'm aware you think that.  There's absolutely plenty of sexism by people who happen to be leftists/liberals.  

People who think women are private property tend to be conservatives though.  

I think you're right and wrong. My assessment is:

-Right wing misogyny is the belief that women should be the private property of individual men (e.g. fathers).
-Left wing misogyny is the belief that women should be the public property of all men (e.g. prostitution, pornography, surrogacy, beauty pageants, etc.)

In other words, it's essentially the difference between Mike Pence's conservative Christian view of women and how he refuses to even be seen alone with one who isn't his wife and all that and Donald Trump's polar view of women; Donald Trump, who pressured his latest wife to appear do a nude photo shoot for a major magazine, that sort of thing, so obviously doesn't mind sharing. (Trump HAD been a lifelong left wing Democrat before this decade, it may be worth remembering. Also the former owner of a strip club, beauty pageants, a family inheritance originating from his grandfather's brothel in New York, etc. etc.)

From his membership in a pornogrind band and left wing politics generally, we can gather that the Dayton shooter embraced the left wing version.



RolStoppable said:

Why do you conclude a sexist motivation when the nine victims consisted of five males and four females?

The most interesting tidbit of information regarding Dayton is that the shooter's sister was among the victims. Maybe she was involved in the situation that triggered the conviction to go through with a plan that the guy has had for a long time; and because she annoyed him somehow, she became the primary target of the shooting. It would be quite the coincidence that the location was chosen randomly and that the shooter's sister was randomly among the victims. More likely that the shooter snapped after he already had a long history of mental problems, and his sister was the person who was the last straw. No political, racial or sexist motivations.

The Dayton shooting has the making of an amok run. "I hate you all, nobody cares about me, I'll teach you a lesson." - The shooter wore a mask and a bulletproof vest, but I don't think that he planned to not die on that day. Rather he wanted to be in better control of his own fate and that means killing himself after he had completed what he had come to do. However, the police took him down within seconds.

I'm reminded of an article written by Stephen Asma, which opened with this point:

"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."

In other words, resentment of girls or women is almost always at least an ingredient in mass shootings, including both the recent El Paso massacre and the Dayton one. We can see that factor in the backgrounds of both men. It's one of the few things that ties them together, given how different their larger worldviews were.

It's also worth pointing out that Elliot Rodger's victims didn't wind up being mostly female either, but that didn't alter the fact that his motivation to kill was hatred of women, did it? The mass shooter is not always the most rational person in the world and often blames other men for his lack of sexual fulfillment too. The fact that, between the two hit lists that Conner Betts made in school, the "rape list" for girls who refused his advances was the first one strikes me as significant, personally, as does one of the bands that he performed for (as I've already mentioned).

Regardless though of whether resentment toward girls and women for not satiating his constitutional and natural right to a girlfriend and/or sex was his primary motivation for terrorizing Dayton or only a contributing factor hanging out there in the background, the fact is that it's relevant either way.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 08 August 2019