Gun Control

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Stats (correlations partial and semi partial, chi squares, ANOVAs, Factorials, Regressions-nested and non nested comparisons, and comparisons across populations and criteria, discriminant functions and their same comparisons as regression, path analysis) are very important in psych research and are something that I at least think I'm good with.

 

But those stats don't mean anything if we don't have control. It's definitely possible (and rather simple) to with the data given control for all other variable measured statistically. It's called a multiple semi partial correlation. Is that proof? No, but it's suggestive, and when we have no other data, we have to take that as good enough.

[zoogs]

But, I also know that properly motivated people with bad or criminal intentions will still acquire these items with or without laws banning them.

 

This never stops any other laws from coming into effect, though. Bad guys will break every law out there - that doesn't mean don't have laws.

 

High capacity mags are something I don't see as a critical right, and certainly as BRI noted before, anybody trained enough can just switch mags and keep firing relatively quickly. What they do though is lower the barrier for any wannabe killer to really shoot up a place.

 

The best thing in a situation like that would be to have a well trained gun toting citizen at the ready not some law that the criminal is just going to ignore.

 

That one might've been tough, period, in the dark theater even for a hypothetically well-trained citizen. I don't think getting rid of high-cap mags will put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage here, though.

 

On the statistics side all of social science feels a whole lot more iffy than research in the physical sciences, for reasons tschu and BBXII have mentioned. There's obviously some value still in the research (and indeed, what else can we rely on?) but it can be pretty tricky to draw solid conclusions, and arguments made using said research are often subject to partisanship.

[carlfense]

I guess I'm sort of on the fence on this issue. On one hand I do not see a real need for anyone to have high capacity magazines or assault type weapons that are better suited for killing people than any sporting use. But, I also know that properly motivated people with bad or criminal intentions will still acquire these items with or without laws banning them.

First, I agree that the 90s style AWB seemed completely ineffective. That said, it's difficult to argue that it would be easier (or as easy) for a criminal to acquire an illegal weapon than a legal weapon.

 

And that means , with new gun laws, the people who we don't want to have them will, and the only people it will discourage will be those with law abiding tendencies.

It means that everyone will be discouraged from obtaining them. Illegal weapons would likely be more expensive and come with the additional costs of significant risk of incarceration.

 

Explain how words written on paper (laws) really have any effect on a person such as the Aurora CO theatre shooter.

You'll always find exceptions. Discrete examples don't prove much but I'll play along with your hypothetical. The Aurora, CO shooter decides that he's going to shoot up a theater. He goes to buy an illegal AR-15 and a few illegal high capacity magazines. The purchase is an undercover sting operation and the would be shooter is arrested and prosecuted. He finds it difficult to shoot up the theater from jail without a firearm.

 

The best thing in a situation like that would be to have a well trained gun toting citizen at the ready not some law that the criminal is just going to ignore. I guess I'm still in favor of limiting access to items that are primarily geared toward killing many, fast and also more thorough and effective background checks but it just concerns me that we, in effect, will be placing law abiding citizens at more of a disadvantage rather than limiting those with criminal intentions.

Criminals can and do ignore laws. That's undeniable but it's an extremely weak point. Murderers will still ignore laws against murder so we shouldn't have laws against murder, right?

 

Finally, I (and the vast majority of the country, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc.) agree that we need more thorough and effective background checks. I think that is a better avenue for reducing gun violence than somewhat arbitrary bans on types of weapons.

 

What would you propose to limit only people with criminal intentions? I don't know how you could tailor a law to only apply to "criminals."

[Enhance]

More specifically, and back to the Second Amendment, the law was created in a time of war, as an act of war, to protect citizens from opposing forces during a time where we had no well-organized army. The need for the Second Amendment is significantly less dire today than it was in the late 18th century.

 

I disagree with this very strongly. The second amendment, nor any part of the constitution, were not created so that the federal government could bequeath to its citizens privileges on a per-need basis.

 

It's there to protect naturally existing rights from being denied by an authoritarian regime, which governments, unchecked, are in position to be. It's not a 'wartime law.'

 

Of course, it goes without saying that M240s and Abrams tanks didn't exist back in those days.

 

I do think we need less guns of certain types out there though. I think government buyback programs have been tried some places to good effect.

I disagree, on the grounds that the make-up of our country has changed dramatically since this law was written, to the point that it doesn't apply.

 

We no longer live in a time of isolated villages that need to protect themselves. We no longer live in a time where Farmer Joe a few fields over will need to drop everything he's doing on a whim, pick up his musket and defend his country. And when the law was written, it clearly referred to simple arms like rifles and pistols, without fully understanding the possibility of weapons we'd have in the future (something you point out). Nobody is suggesting citizens own tanks and artillery, but the law simply doesn't apply today like it did 200 years ago.

 

Those people that believe the founding fathers would approve of our current gun situation is a very poor generalization. And while you have a point - the law was put in place to protect it's citizens from an overbearing government - I still anchor that it has little application to today's world. The British are not coming (which is undeniably one of the reasons the law was written, aka a wartime law) and we no longer have reason to fear the frontier.

 

We have too many guns and too much violence. And people that cling to the Second Amendment as justification for why we need guns are severely misunderstanding it's purpose, in my opinion, of course.

[rawhide]

The internetz, TV, cellphones, drones and global terrorism didn't really exist back then either.

 

Let's let the DOJ, LEO Depts use unregulated wiretips, snoop programs and drones to patrol the country. That would help decrease crime proactively rather than reactively. Since illegal search and seizure meant boots on the ground; door to door stuff way back then. Then the only people bitchin' will be the people with something to hide.

 

I'm not sure using the "back then" defense is going to work or if it's justified, make it across the board. just sayin'

[knapplc]

Why is common sense so hard to find in this discussion? What should be a rational and reasonable conversation turns into gibberish and obfuscation the moment people start to think "they're taking away my guns!"

[carlfense]

Why is common sense so hard to find in this discussion? What should be a rational and reasonable conversation turns into gibberish and obfuscation the moment people start to think "they're taking away my guns!"

I don't know . . . but it's frustrating. At least in an abortion debate if one side believes that it's murder I can understand the emotional block . . . but I don't understand the emotional attachment when it's a chunk of metal/plastic/wood.

[zoogs]

I disagree, on the grounds that the make-up of our country has changed dramatically since this law was written, to the point that it doesn't apply.

 

We no longer live in a time of isolated villages that need to protect themselves.

 

Ehhhh, I think we mostly agree on this issue at large, but I do think it's necessary to be a stickler on this point.

 

Rights aren't granted by law, they're protected by it. Laws don't provide for the people, they limit what the government is or isn't allowed to do.

 

The right to bear arms is a fundamental private property right that is timeless, not a wartime proviso. You're right though that the amendment draws special attention to the importance of a militia to security, but that by no means is the only reason for the right to exist and be recognized. Without this right, it really would come down to 'they're taking away my guns!', which would be a distracting and fruitless discussion about something that won't happen.

 

The meat of it though, where you and I surely agree, is that those rights are not utterly limitless and there is definitely such a thing (given the advance of technology) as goods that require regulation or prohibition.

[rawhide]

Why is common sense so hard to find in this discussion? What should be a rational and reasonable conversation turns into gibberish and obfuscation the moment people start to think "they're taking away my guns!"

Why is common sense so hard to find in this discussion? What should be a rational and reasonable conversation turns into gibberish and obfuscation the moment people start to think "they're taking away my guns!"

I don't know . . . but it's frustrating. At least in an abortion debate if one side believes that it's murder I can understand the emotional block . . . but I don't understand the emotional attachment when it's a chunk of metal/plastic/wood.

I know; ain't it a P.I.T.A.

[Blackdeuce]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

[carlfense]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

*cough*

[knapplc]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

[Junior]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

No we don't make alcohol illegal, but, as Jon Stewart once mentioned, we do enact more strict drunk driving laws, launch national awareness campaigns, and stigmatize drunk driving in the hopes that we can (and did) bring down the rates of drunk driving around 66% in around 20 to 30 years.

 

Given that, why is it that GUNS are the one thing that people won't allow anyone to make ANY sort of attempt to regulate?

 

http://www.thedailys...r---gun-control

[rawhide]

What do you mean by any attempt to regulate guns? Previous bans(that didn't work). There are all kinds of state(varies) regulations in place. Many much more restrictive than the Feds. You make it sound like Yeehaw, come one pardners, lets head to town and shoot the place up.

 

Oh, let's see; New York, Colorado come to mind

 

Didn't Connecticut already have a ban in place?

 

More regulation Merika f#*k Yeah

[Junior]

What do you mean by any attempt to regulate guns? Previous bans(that didn't work). There are all kinds of state(varies) regulations in place. Many much more restrictive than the Feds. You make it sound like Yeehaw, come one pardners, lets head to town and shoot the place up.

 

Oh, let's see; New York, Colorado come to mind

 

Didn't Connecticut already have a ban in place?

 

More regulation Merika f#*k Yeah

 

Gun laws in individual states are effectively meaningless. How many patrolled and regulated borders do you have to cross to get from, say, Wisconsin to Illinois? Or from Nebraska to New York? Chicago is a common one that I've seen mentioned by the gun toters. "Well Chicago has strict gun laws and still has a lot of murders!" Yea, and there's no border patrol at the city limits preventing you from going to Wisconsin, buying a gun, and driving to Chicago. Gun laws have to be made at the FEDERAL level for there to be any sort of progress made.

 

Again, yes, previous bans didn't work, and if at first you don't succeed... F*#% it? An ill-conceived assault weapons ban in the 90s means we can never make another law trying to regulate firearms? That seems logical. ANY attempt at regulation, to even require universal background checks, is met with cries of "trampling the second amendment". It's absurd.