Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[andysayshi]

The number of US mass shootings that have been stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years...?

Zero.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Certainly, in the incident in this TV spot someone could just run and crash tackle the gunman. But it's satire - it's not meant to reflect a real scenario. And anyway, relying on the heroics of innocent bystanders is not a viable approach to crime prevention or crime response.

 

[Durango95]

The number of US mass shootings that have been stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years...?

Zero.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Certainly, in the incident in this TV spot someone could just run and crash tackle the gunman. But it's satire - it's not meant to reflect a real scenario. And anyway, relying on the heroics of innocent bystanders is not a viable approach to crime prevention or crime response.

The number of violent crimes which have been stopped by an armed civilian...inestimable. They don't keep statistics on what could have been a criminal act. Mass shootings, as bad as they are, are a very small number of violent crime deaths per year in this country. Those that plan mass shootings think it out to the end which usually ends in suicide.

 

[andysayshi]

The number of violent crimes which have been stopped by an armed civilian...inestimable. They don't keep statistics on what could have been a criminal act.

Most reputable studies have found this to be a myth. If you exclude the debunked studies of John Lott and Kleck/Gertz, there has never been a study that proves this true. Of course, if the NRA didn't lobby to prevent Government agencies from studying gun violence, we might know a lot more about Americans with guns. But the NRA have paid plenty of money to ensure such studies never happen.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

 

[Rolyo85]

The number of violent crimes which have been stopped by an armed civilian...inestimable. They don't keep statistics on what could have been a criminal act. Mass shootings, as bad as they are, are a very small number of violent crime deaths per year in this country. Those that plan mass shootings think it out to the end which usually ends in suicide.

"What if" is just as bad a reason to keep a law as it is to repeal it. We don't know how many crimes the existence of guns have prevented since - as you pointed out - there's no way to measure that. But we do know how many crimes guns are responsible for.

 

[Centexfarmer]

*sigh*

9 tirades and counting.

6 posts soft deleted, and partridge in a pear tree.




~

I like the ad because it illustrates what hasn't been presented in this discussion thus far; a "limited magazine round" gives those with less firepower, a chance to reload and fire back.

Was listening to the left wing taxpayer/publicly/socialists funded National Public Radio the other day, and it was pointed out that the shooter who killed children, a Federal Judge, and who put a bullet in the brain of Arizona Congresswoman Gifford, wasn't taken down until he had to stop and reload.

Richard Gatling understood that principle, except that he seemed to have been thinking that the more carnage he could invoke, it might end the Civil War more quickly.

Still not clear whether or not that was from "Ancient Aliens" from the History Channel.

But I digress.

The real debate, the legislation that's REAL, isn't about taking everyone's guns away but limiting the size and the scope of the magazine from whence the person firing the gun can reload, and increasing the chance of those being fired at to respond and/or stop the person from firing at them.

That ad truly illustrates that in my opinion, and is the point that I got from it.

Why am I one of the few to have picked up on that?

 

[JayHawk]

That was an amazing show of hypocrisy. Up until now, Democrats have been dead set against opening the NICS to private sellers; now they want it mandatory.



Add another to the ignorant group in the ad. Once again I'll point out that kids in caves with only basic tools make AK-47s over open fires, high school students have made bolt-action hunting pieces in school shop, and people make their own rifles of all sorts in their home shops. The real flaw in that ad is that people will think exactly as you did above, engaging in pure fantasy.

The flaw in the system is not the availability of firearms, it's to whom they're available. Specifically, people who have clearly shown themselves to be a danger to the public should be flagged in the NICS, plus weapons when not in us should be stored so no one else can use them, either. One of my worst nightmares is someone else using one of my firearms to do harm, which is why the few times I've been required to leave one where someone else could theoretically get at it, I've disabled the piece so it's just a chunk of metal. I can't wrap my mind around how anyone would be so irresponsible as to leave their weapons where someone else can just walk off with them, especially when mass shooters have found that an easy source of implements (heck, I'm designing a hidden wall compartment so the safe for my disabled weapons isn't even visible).

Yeah but you can't fucking mail order a fire tempered AK... I can be an assault force in three days ... because I have Amazon prime... fives days without....

If I had attended the last KC gun show I could be an arsenal in an hour... a single hour.

let me ask you this Kuli... have you ever been angry for a part of a day and then gotten over it?

Plus the premise is entirely flawed. Increased coverage of the background check DOES NOT reduce the availability of weapons just the availability for criminals to acquire weapons.

Now that the cowards who call themselves leaders of their people have decided to relinquish their governing responsibility to legislate, I sincerely hope that they are shoved out of office and folks who ACTUALLY want gun control... not just background checks, show up and enact laws that do take weapons from hands. FUCK them.

This is where we gain traction... Remember 2010? where we lost our asses due to inactivity? This next year must be non-stop attack ads against the 46 cowards. This sint a throw the bums out as in anyone idea... this is throw the cowards out who fail to act for their people.

/end rant.

 

[chance1]

I think what the ad shows best is that what has changed is people -- everyone in that office was both ignorant and a fucking coward.

I LOVE THIS RESPONSE

the ad is about:

the ignorant and cowardly office workers

hehe

sometimes it's good just to reiterate what someone else has said/written just so it can metabolize

the point of the ad is that the guy couldn't reload - which is why i mentioned why it'd been grand if this was the weapon of choice for adam lanza - many innocent kids saved

it's the magazine size

course that was deleted by a certain mod who then took credit for the magazine argument

since my post was deleted ....... hard for me to defend myself

but it was there

i swear

that rhymes btw

 

[JayHawk]

chance to reload and fire back.


The real debate, the legislation that's REAL, isn't about taking everyone's guns away but limiting the size and the scope of the magazine from whence the person firing the gun can reload, and increasing the chance of those being fired at to respond and/or stop the person from firing at them.

My technology commentary was centered around the idea of limited capacity, almost zero misfire rate, and ease of reload transition.

Hence the technological advancements in weapons.... but you know guns nutters will say that he could easily carry four or five loaded rifles in... O_O

 

[Durango95]

Most reputable studies have found this to be a myth. If you exclude the debunked studies of John Lott and Kleck/Gertz, there has never been a study that proves this true. Of course, if the NRA didn't lobby to prevent Government agencies from studying gun violence, we might know a lot more about Americans with guns. But the NRA have paid plenty of money to ensure such studies never happen.




http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

You cite no unbiased studies. I use the term loosely. Anything can be proven when using faulty data. Nice try. Ideologues are so predictable.

 

[andysayshi]

You cite no unbiased studies. I use the term loosely. Anything can be proven when using faulty data. Nice try. Ideologues are so predictable.

"I'm not listening" is not a rebuttal.

The facts speak for themselves. In US states where there are tighter gun restrictions, there are less gun deaths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bul...ougher-gun-laws-report-fewer-gun-deaths/14642
http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/

In countries with tighter gun restrictions, there are almost always less gun deaths.
http://au.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

There's no ideological motivation reporting facts. If my sources are so biased, can you provide data from a reputable source that counters it? I'll note that the Mother Jones article linked to above cites statistics from more than 30 sources. Are they all biased? What would be the value in all these sources releasing biased studies?

 

[MisterB]

]"I'm not listening" is not a rebuttal.

It is too a rebuttal. Remember, he's an attorney...

 

[Rolyo85]

You cite no unbiased studies. I use the term loosely. Anything can be proven when using faulty data. Nice try. Ideologues are so predictable.

If anything can be proven, where is the refuting of the numbers from my link?

 

[CowboyBob]

The gun nuts most against strict background checks are the ones who probably wouldn't pass one. It's no wonder why they're against stricter gun laws.

 

[chance1]

Pat Twomey - conservative senator Pennsylvania who co sponsored the background check bill with Joe manchin his dem counterpart from pro gun WVA ....

Said today on morning joe that the pro gun supporters wrote letters and called their elected official like 10:1 giving the appearance or reality that they had more juice

Sad

 

[Durango95]

Why does anyone reference the sites they do? It is because they say what you want to hear. I can reference sites all day long that reinforce my position. You will simply reference more sites that make the claims you want. When there is such an obvious difference in the same data there is obviously bias on both sides. I honestly have looked for just factual data and have found none. I would usually rely on the FBI stats but that is no longer valid under this current administration.

There is one thing that all those on the current President's bandwagon fail to mention. There are no provisions in any of the proposed gun laws which address criminality. None of the proposed laws would have actually prevented the Sandy Hook shooting if they had been in place prior to the event.

I will agree that there are some that should not have access to weapons. We just disagree on who that is. The current President seems to think law abiding citizens should be scrutinized and subjected to endless screenings for gun possession. He also seems to have the position that criminals should have unfettered access to weapons as is extrapolated from the DOJ data on illegal gun possession prosecutions.

If you side with the president you want criminals to have guns and law abiding citizens to be defenseless.

 

[Rolyo85]

Actually, there AREN'T conflicting numbers. Or at least the gun lovers' side is yet to provide them.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm noticing the deafening silence.

 

[Rolyo85]

I'm noticing the deafening silence.

I thought I'd finally gone full blown Beethoven. Glad it's not just me.

 

[vater292]

After all these threads on guns and such, and seeing as I am posting more lately. I just wanted to comment on this. I think this add is, a bit unrealistic. The laws have changed with the time as the guns have. Now have the laws changed with the society in mind; truthfully, no I don’t think they have. I do think it is too easy to get a gun, because frankly there are a lot of people out there that do not have any business having a gun. As a gun owner myself they are strictly for range shooting, and that is it. When not at the range my guns and ammo are locked up separately. The issue with our gun laws is people that do not have the proper knowledge and respect for the weapons they are buying, can easily buy them and do what they want with them.

Point in case I grew up in Indiana. When I turned 18 and still a senior in high school, I had my concealed carry. Now I got it simply because you needed to have a license to be able to legally transport handguns to the range. What need would an 18 year old high school student have for a concealed carry? I should not have been allowed to be accepted for that license truthfully. Indiana has a license strictly for transport but since it was available I figured what the hell I will get my CCL. I had no desire to actually carry a handgun on me. The reason being I don’t really want to shoot anyone, just don’t.

Going back to what Kul had said about the people in the office being cowards. I got to say I personally disagree. While we are humans and can have rational thought, in a situation like that for a lot of people the brain will revert to simpler thinking of "fight or flight". In a situation like that if possible the most common reaction will be flight, its self preservation. Now if pushed to protect oneself directly, it will can go back to the fight or flight, but the possibility for fight is increased. I personally don’t look at it as cowardly.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[andysayshi]

Why does anyone reference the sites they do? It is because they say what you want to hear. I can reference sites all day long that reinforce my position.

You've been asked repeatedly to reference a reputable data source that supports your position. You have not. That doesn't just mean linking to sites, it means linking to DATA from REPUTABLE SOURCES.

I would usually rely on the FBI stats but that is no longer valid under this current administration.

So Obama has forced the FBI to falsify or edit 40 years of gun violence statistics? Wow, he is the most amazing President ever, if that's true.

Why is it that gun advocates are almost ALWAYS paranoid about the police and/or Government conspiring against them ??

None of the proposed laws would have actually prevented the Sandy Hook shooting if they had been in place prior to the event.

Perhaps not. But the FACT is that, of the 143 weapons used in all the mass shootings in the US in the past 30 years, 48 would be outlawed by the proposed 2013 Assault Weapons ban. 42 of them had high capacity magazines, and we KNOW from several of the most recent mass shootings that if the shooter has to pause to reload it is very likely he will be stopped during that pause. Which is the point made by this TV spot.

The current President seems to think law abiding citizens should be scrutinized and subjected to endless screenings for gun possession.

Endless? That's utter bullshit. The requirement for background checks varies from minutes to a maximum of ten days, depending on the state. Expanding it to cover buyers at gun shows and private sales has the overwhelming support of the US population. And better background checks have been proven to reduce gun crime, primarily because background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminal.

He also seems to have the position that criminals should have unfettered access to weapons as is extrapolated from the DOJ data on illegal gun possession prosecutions.

I don't really know what you mean by this sentence, but the reality is, and the facts prove it so, that the best way to keep guns out of criminals hands is to tighten regulations and perform background checks. I'm glad you mentioned the DoJ. Their National Crime Victim Survey, the most extensive crime analysis in the US, has verified for years that the gun lobby's (and your) claims about defensive gun use is completely overstated.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense

If you side with the president you want criminals to have guns and law abiding citizens to be defenseless.

No, if you are against background checks and tighter gun laws relating to safe use and storage, you are actually helping more criminals get guns.