Well that's simply not true. Though, there are far too many that do I'll give you that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Well that's simply not true. Though, there are far too many that do I'll give you that.
Even the article cited specifically states they do not have causation, only correlation.
To put it in perspective
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
There is as tight of a correlation between US spending on science and technology as there is with suicides by strangulation and hanging.
When a study says they do not have causation - there is a damn good reason they say it.
Alternatively - everyone here is ready to give up alcohol, right?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/
To put it in perspective
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
There is as tight of a correlation between US spending on science and technology as there is with suicides by strangulation and hanging.
When a study says they do not have causation - there is a damn good reason they say it.
Alternatively - everyone here is ready to give up alcohol, right?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/
Linkstrikesback
Member
It's an amendment. It can be amended. Any serious gun control law would mean amending that. As a dirty European, this has always struck me as such a strange argument. Well, yeah, things that were legal before become illegal when a law against them is passed. That's how laws work.
Well then congrats on being part of the group that is more interested in yelling at people rather than having an actual discussion with people of differing opinions.
So since I ride a motorcycle everyday, and careless car drivers are the number one cause of motorcycle related fatalities, everyone who refuses to give up their car to make me safer is an asshole.
As an aside; I also wouldn't give up my guns just because the gubbment said so. Read 1984.
Hmm...
Bungee jumping is not potentially lethal to anyone but the jumper. Scuba diving is not potentially lethal to anyone but the diver.
Owning a gun, unlike your other examples, is not potentially lethal to people beyond just the gun's owner.
By this logic we should just not have any regulation right? Nothing should be outlawed? I mean if we take the position that everything is operator error, why should we ever ban or regulate anything?
Coffee Dog
Banned
You keep saying this as if there's a discussion to be had.
After a certain point, the evidence becomes so overwhelming and obvious that it's either about accepting it or denying it. This deserves about as much discussion as Muslim deportation or trying to ban gay or interracial marriage, or climate change denial.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Ban all guns except for those specifically for hunting and keep those hunting weapons at a county armory when not in use.
Only allow members of the National Guard and State Guards to possess firearms in the home. When taken to the Supreme Court, hopefully a fully stacked liberal court will side with the law thus reinterpreting the Second Amendment to only apply to "well regulated militias" and definitively define militias as the National and State Guards rather than also the adult male population.
Only allow members of the National Guard and State Guards to possess firearms in the home. When taken to the Supreme Court, hopefully a fully stacked liberal court will side with the law thus reinterpreting the Second Amendment to only apply to "well regulated militias" and definitively define militias as the National and State Guards rather than also the adult male population.
DrGonzo615
Banned
The NRA is the one blocking any legislation. NRA=/= All gun owners. Most gun owners are actually in favor of increased background checks.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Then he/she should blame the Republican who came up with the idea. Obama is not a complete dummy. If people want to give him and his spouse protection, then he's not going to veto that.
A 30 year correlation between an object and its intended results is a pretty damn good one.
There's other studies that have found similar, and you'd have more of them if research hadn't been shut down precisely for finding the obvious.
Hellwarden
Member
Bingo.
Gun owners are not holding up legislation.
It's the NRA.
Don't say all gun owners are pieces of shit or anything, when they want things more stringent.
It's needlessly insulting.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
And also, like I stated in a later post and in several before as well, guns are instruments for killing. I'm not disputing that. If you were keeping up with the thread you would have also seen that my post was more about asking him for proof of his claims when he was asking others for the same. Don't cherry pick my posts please.
Ryan242004
Member
Facebook has nothing to do with it, I'll just leave this here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-restores-lifetime-secret-service-for-former-presidents/
There are members of congress who also disagreed with it as well because of cost reasons which is why it was cut back to 10 years in the first place.
as someone who is pretty hardcore anti-gun, the compromise position i'd be willing to take would be licensed shotguns and bolt-action rifles only. no open carry, no concealed carry, no handguns, no semi-auto or full auto weapons at all.
you can have your hunting/target shooting hobby gun and your home self-defense gun (in spite of all data showing you're more likely to die by gun violence with a gun in your home, but whatever). i just don't see any reason for the rest of it. the drastic increase in CCW permits over the last few decades hasn't resulted in a rash of heroic citizens defending themselves and others from miscreants, and in fact it just seems irresponsible and stupid to ever draw and use a pistol in public. in any dangerous situation in which you are not literally john mcclane in die hard a CCW will not do you any good and will probably just result in you being shot by the cops.
you can have your hunting/target shooting hobby gun and your home self-defense gun (in spite of all data showing you're more likely to die by gun violence with a gun in your home, but whatever). i just don't see any reason for the rest of it. the drastic increase in CCW permits over the last few decades hasn't resulted in a rash of heroic citizens defending themselves and others from miscreants, and in fact it just seems irresponsible and stupid to ever draw and use a pistol in public. in any dangerous situation in which you are not literally john mcclane in die hard a CCW will not do you any good and will probably just result in you being shot by the cops.
You asked for proof that guns were dangerous to other people, like it was some outrageous claim to make that demanded thorough statistical evidence, then said both in the post I quoted and elsewhere that guns are, indeed, dangerous. I'm not cherry picking anything. My point is, why ask in the first place?
Okay, then don't have the discussion. The status quo will continue in that case. Personally I'd like for some stricter gun control measures to help keep guns out of unsafe hands, but since the discussion is supposedly meaningless, I guess I'll just go about my day. Maybe pick up some ammo after work and test out my new AR-15. That okay with you?
Coffee Dog
Banned
The status quo will continue because there are more people that agree with you, yeah, but the fact that's your defense as opposed to anything of substance is the most troubling part.
I mean, you are talking about spite buying ammunition because of internet arguments. If that's what makes you feel safe then don't let me stop you, I might get shot lol.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
When people say handgun are they just talking about semi-autos or are they including revolvers. Because I'm a revolver sort of person and not sure if I'm included in the insults.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
You're making determinations based on research that I'm not sure exists. While some of my examples are usually individual sports (Bungee jumping and parachuting), the others are not as clear-cut. Motorcycling largely takes place on public roads while SCUBA and mountain climbing are often performed in groups. I've not seen research on the increase or decrease in risk of doing those sports with others.
Again, there is nothing that a motorcycle can do that a car cannot that is necessary to performing the function of transportation. Motorcycle riding is 100% a hobby and, coming from someone who has ridden for over a decade, is on an anecdotal level far more dangerous to my well-being than any firearm I've ever owned or operated. There isn't a day that I take a motorcycle on the road that I don't anticipate and avoid a near miss, whether it's someone taking my right-of-way, someone drifting into my lane because they're not paying attention, or someone nearly rear-ending me because they're texting.
I'm not sure why you continue to repeat my position with disbelief as it's rather common among the American population. There are any number of hobbies and activities in our lives that, if banned, would result in less lives lost.
Once again, motorcycles are absolutely potentially lethal to people beyond the owner. If I were to barrel through traffic at 100+ MPH, as certain assholes are known to do on motorcycles, I would be risking both my life and the lives of those around me. A 400lb motorcycle going 100MPH has more than enough kinetic energy to annihilate a small vehicle.
So everyone turn their fire on the NRA, not argue amongst each other and create the us against them false dichotomy which the NRA actively encourages, and which these threads always descend into.
Provoked just as much by pro-gun posters misrepresenting other's comments along absolutist terms as those actually calling for that out of sheer frustration.
The NRA is playing both sides, is the enemy of both, and needs to be cut out of the equation completely.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Just gonna go out on a limb here and say that other countries somehow don't have mass motorcycle accidents every day
Like seriously how are you even arguing this
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
For reference here are Canada's gun control laws
And the UK
Apparently you can own handguns for personal use with restrictions on barrel length? Euro Gaf/ Canada Gaf can correct me if they want.
Edit: With a license of course.
And the UK
Apparently you can own handguns for personal use with restrictions on barrel length? Euro Gaf/ Canada Gaf can correct me if they want.
Edit: With a license of course.
What discussion? The evidence is overwhelming. He is right on that point.
Though for someone trying to play the above it angle, to then go on and finish your post with an obvious attempt to inflame is rather poor form.
It would be like responding to someone who is telling a climate skeptic that the evidence is overwhelming and the person saying, well, since you don't want to have the discussion, fine, Im gonna go "coal roll" around town. Is that ok with you?
The issue is that the study is too general to be of use in terms of determining specific policy. The ban on the studies is fairly frustrating - I've heard that the CDC (or the gov't agency in charge of the study) was caught sort of cherry picking stats - but there are plenty of other institutions (and go outside the country if you have to) - that can do research if you're worried about that. Hell, get like 10 or so places to do those studies, then lock 'em all in a room and make 'em figure it all out together.
It's also frustrating seeing everyone fight over long rifles and outright banning, for instance, when the issue is honestly handguns and common sense freaking gun control. Also; it doesn't help that people have lumped gun control into the culture war, making it impossible to accomplish anything sane, and that there are a fair amount of gun-control advocates who don't really understand anything about guns. (and, similarly, pro-gun advocates who don't realize that sane gun-control laws would basically make their lives easier, not harder)
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/
I would assume actual legislation coming from Obama will be a fair bit better; he's grown up around enough rural areas to understand the nuance and the middle ground.
i feel this entire digression is kind of pointless because motorcycles aren't any more dangerous to people who don't drive one than cars. motorized transportation is generally dangerous but is also a practical necessity in modern life, guns aren't.
if it were a basic requirement to own some kind of gun then i think you could make the argument for tricked-out hobbyist firearms the same way you can for crotch-rockets, but you can't. it's not really comparable.
this is disingenuous when most gun owners say they disagree with the NRA but in practice are totally apathetic and only spend their time arguing with gun control proponents while benefiting from the NRA's insane policies. you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Then maybe you should engage the people who agree with me and try to find compromise. The belief that your opinion is the only one that matters isn't really helpful. Gun owners acknowledge the statistics, but so do people who drive motorcycles or drink alcohol. People believe that the benefits of these activities outweigh the risk, and statistics don't change that unless they show a major upward trend in deaths. Whether something is "worth the risk" or not is always based on opinion.
Also, actually I just want to test my new AR-15 for function, but by all means be afraid of someone on the Internet for no reason.
My point is that if you don't think there's a discussion to be had, then you shouldn't have any problem with the status quo and people you disagree with going about their business. I'm not arguing against any facts or statistics, but how much people value those facts and statistics when weighing whether something is worth it or not varies greatly, and you have to be willing to engage with people who differ in that regard if you want anything to get done. Otherwise you're just yelling at clouds.
Studies can be disputed, to ban them entirely just says you are afraid of what they will find. Would you have trusted the tobacco industry on the benefits and worth of research?
The NIH was banned as well after a study found carrying a gun led to you being 5 times more likely to be shot.
The bans on research are indefensible, it's a public health and safety issue just like smoking, driving, and everything else gun ownership gets compared to.
It's just the actions of a vested industry, and the self-interest of politicians.
The One and Done
Member
An Obama thread. An Obama Gun thread. Actually pleased that more people haven't baited.
He is desperately clinging to a false equivalency to defend his precious weaponry.
i don't think its that easy. I don't think the NRA listens to its members, i think it mostly or only listens to gun manufacturers. They are a lobbyist group for the corporations that make guns.
As a gun owner myself, i'm totally ok with background checks on 100% of guns. Close the gunshow loophole. and lets go from there.
Dreadnought
Member
I think we need to ban handguns, automatic, and semi-automatic rifles. I'm in favor of keeping bolt-action rifles and shotgun. What absolutely must be done is getting rid of loopholes and making it harder to aquire guns. I can't believe how twisted the U.S is in the western world when it comes to things like this.
I just realized I overlooked your post on it on the last page (or the page before), but yes, you're right.
It probably does (I'm not sure how you would measure that anyway), but compounding the problem is the NRA only really represents a minority of gun owners, doesn't it?
Like the Tea Party, it's another case of the tail wagging the dog.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
The entire line of discussion was about the question of whether or not I would ban a hobby to save lives. I wouldn't. I never made the claim that motorcycles are globally responsible for as many deaths as firearms: that would be a strawman concocted by the guy you quoted.
DrGonzo615
Banned
I agree completely.
I only see people arguing about outright gun bans. I think almost everybody is in agreement about increased background checks. The NRA never comes out and says "oh well theres legislation that would slightly increase the background check time and would also check mental health." No, they come out and say "OMFG they're gonna steal your guns!"
They know how to rile up their constituents and there is usually so much noise on the issue that the average gun owner probably doesnt even know whats actually being proposed.
it's that easy when people i talk to (including on gaf) claim to be against NRA policy while paying membership dues.
there needs to be public pressure to discourage membership. they can't exert as much influence on politics if they don't have as many citizens holding a stake in their organization.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Oh, I can't wait to hear some of the reactions to this.
if gun owners are basing outrage on ignorance then that is their own fault and no one else's. it's not that hard to grasp what is actually being proposed by a legislator.
True. When you ban studying something, it is generally because one does not want the answer.
I'm surprised we haven't had more private / academic studies funded, to be honest. (on both sides). I suspect if you took out those who live in a typically rural area in terms of gun ownership (in many rural areas, especially on farms, guns are an absolute necessity to protect your crops & herd); you'd get a lot more clarity on where the issues lie.
I think the biggest issue is that this may be a situation where trying to take guns back is closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. Even if you pulled an Australia; it would leave something like 100 million guns in the country; and since our border / import control is somewhere between bad and terrible - I'm not sure we can replicate the level of black market control Australia has. (Also, dear lord where would we find the money for this). Hence my current leaning towards what Obama's proposed in the past (shutting down the obvious shit, reaping the benefits of that, and then taking a step back, assessing the situation, and moving forward)
To say there is a discussion to be had about the statistics in support of gun control is to essentially argue with someone acting willfully ignorant. The evidence is overwhelming. Hence why I brought up the climate change analogy. That while not to the same strength, anyone claiming there is a major discussion to be had because no stats show anything about gun control puts the person on that end of the argument in the same willfully ignorant position as climate deniers.
As to the cost benefit analysis. Yeah, I can't see it. Explain to me what about easily owning guns for hobbyist purposes outweighs the cost to human lives. I really want to hear you make that case.
DrGonzo615
Banned
You could say this about any issue. Sure its not that difficult to find but how many Americans just go off what one of the major cable news networks say about any given issue/legislation?
Im totally in agreement that we need a better informed electorate but this is where we are right now.
You continue to try and equivocate that banning guns for hobbyist purposes is on the same level of banning motorcycles. That if you are willing to ban one for being used for hobbyist purposes that you have to be willing to ban the others because they are essentially the same thing. It isnt. You are engaging in false equivalencies.
appaws
Banned
They do this on purpose of course, create that false belief. Its not a surprise that people fall for the propaganda of those who want to take away individual rights.
This could be the into to a new Harry Turtledove novel about the collapse of the United States.
Love ya, Piggus...but do you really think that you can "compromise" on "common sense regulations" with the gun banners and after it is done they will just stop and call it a day? What do you think will happen after the semi-auto ban, when someone kills people with a bolt gun or a pump shotgun.
Noblesse Oblige talked about how he likes revolvers, and how he is a "revolver" sort of guy? So do you think that you are ok with going after people's rights as long as they leave revolvers alone? And how long do you think that would last after the semi-autos were gone...? They they will say you are a bad person when some whacko kills someone with a revolver.
What I find frustrating is that yes, gun owners have decided to take part in a social contract that says "Yes, I'm okay with there being more gun murders and more gun suicides. I find these losses of life acceptable in the pursuit of my hobby."
However, non-gun owners are subjected to the consequences of this social contract against their will.
However, non-gun owners are subjected to the consequences of this social contract against their will.
- Status