Page 45 of 140

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:28 pm
by Shoju
Brekkie wrote:Seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding of what "semi-automatic" means, and a misconception that "assault weapons" are somehow fundamentally different from other weapons and can somehow be banned independently.


Well, in reference to what I've used the terms as:

Semi-Auto - A weapon, that once loaded, needs charged once, and then each independent pull of the trigger will fire a shot, without need to recharge/cock the weapon.

Assault Weapon - I'm using it in terms of weapons like the Bushmashter .223 (now famous from the aftermath of the Newtown shooting), The Ar-15, weapons modeled on the AK Platform, etc... Obviously, this is a loose term. Do you included a Bull Pup .22 rifle in Assault Weapons? Is a 9mm Carbine Rifle an Assault Weapon? The term assault weapon can be pretty ambiguous, even if you just try and get a definition by using laws in the U.S. Even Wikipedia mentions the ambiguity that can be associated with the term in it's opening paragraph on the "Assault Weapon" page.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:34 pm
by Brekkie

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:50 pm
by Koatanga
Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.

Removal:

A: You have a handgun. Someone comes and takes it from you. You don't have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. If you did someone would take it from you. You don't have a handgun.

Restriction:

A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.

Does anyone but me not see a difference between confiscating legally owned property and removing the ability to purchase same?

I am struggling to see how the two are equated.

And where, exactly, in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to bear any kind of arms you feel like? Because that sounds a lot more like entitlement talking than Constitution.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:13 pm
by bldavis
it never says what kind of arms you can bear...just you can bear arms
(there is more but i dont remember it off the top of my head...something about militia too)

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:56 pm
by Fivelives
Second Amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The states ratified a different version, but it's basically the same except a few commas are removed so it reads better.

I'd personally define an "assault" weapon as any semi-automatic weapon that can be converted to fully automatic using an aftermarket conversion kit. Banning something like that would affect the weapons that most people commonly assume are assault weapons (including the AR-15, M-4, AK-47, and a few others that aren't quite as popular in the US), while leaving plinkers, semi-automatic shotguns, competition guns and almost every handgun alone. Seems fair, even if I would have to hand in a few of my guns (I went to a gun show here and bought a Hello Kitty AR-15, among a few others - hilarity ensued).

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:16 am
by Koatanga
Fivelives wrote:The states ratified a different version, but it's basically the same except a few commas are removed so it reads better.

I'd personally define an "assault" weapon as any semi-automatic weapon that can be converted to fully automatic using an aftermarket conversion kit. Banning something like that would affect the weapons that most people commonly assume are assault weapons (including the AR-15, M-4, AK-47, and a few others that aren't quite as popular in the US), while leaving plinkers, semi-automatic shotguns, competition guns and almost every handgun alone. Seems fair, even if I would have to hand in a few of my guns (I went to a gun show here and bought a Hello Kitty AR-15, among a few others - hilarity ensued).

Assault rifles make the headlines, but only a small fraction of the gun murders are committed with them.

But then that's what people do, isn't it? Look at the money that got spent chasing down the culprits of 9/11 which killed around 5000 Americans, vs the money spent fighting HIV, which kills 3 times that many Americans every year. Or mental health - some 40,000 Americans kill themselves each year. Cancer - half a million people every year. Heart disease accounts for another half a million.

Headlines get action. Individual deaths don't. 6000+ people killed by handguns every year and nobody wants to do anything about it. People get livid if you want to reduce the number of handguns in circulation. But for the fraction of the 300 rifle murders that are caused by assault weapons, people are willing to give up Hello Kitty.

How odd we are.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:16 am
by Nooska
Thats because you can never eliminate every single incident, what you can do is try to reduce the amount of incidents and the number of deaths per incident.
Without statistics at t his poit, I'm betting that the average assault weapon incident (I'm not making any specific distinction on AW here) has more deaths than the average handgun incident. Actually I'm betting that handguns only ever kill a few persons per incident - at most the amount of people in a residence, and on average is somewhere between 1 and 2. Making a dent in lethality of incidents with regard to handguns is very hard as long as they are allowed. What you can do is limit the lethality of firearms related incidents by reducing the amout of incidents and the possibility of incidents in the higher average casualty/incident cases.

An now that the 2nd Amd. got brough it, please note the first sentence, which sort of sets the whole reason for the amendment - "A well regulated miltia" - make special note of the word regulated here. Lets look at the second part "being necessary to the security of a free state" - in other words the second amendment isn't about being able to overthrow a tyrant, but to be able to participate in the militia when called up to defend the state - against foreign aggressors - like, say, the king of England invading.

Yeah that sort of also sets the terms of what arms can be and can't be infriged upon - if it isn't needed in the well regulated militia (I'm thinking the closest thing in the US to a milita would be the national guard units), it can be banned - the framers of the constitution and the 2nd amendment had no way of envisioning weapons beyond muskets/rifles and cannons - and cannons wasn't something you had a right to have back then.
A milita has never been expected to be armed as well as a regular unit, so not even arms approaching what regular units have are necessary for a militia - second amendment, read strictly and in context of the time of framing, does not protect the private citize in regards to having weapons unless part of the militia, it does not protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen (though I have yet to hear anyone arguing that hunter should have their weapons banned as well), and it does not provide for defense against the state, but rather of the state - so a central depot where you could have your weapons and get them in case you are called up would be alright in terms of the second amendment.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:32 am
by KysenMurrin
Koatanga wrote:Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.

[...]

Restriction:

A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.

C: You have a handgun. The restrictions on sale of handguns are changed, your license is re-evaluated, and it is found that you should not have been given a handgun. Your handgun is taken away. You don't have a handgun.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:17 am
by Fivelives
The problem with this argument is that it goes nowhere. So it's a safe promise to make: "if you ban my guns, I'll turn my guns in" is like telling someone you'll do something "when hell freezes over".

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:54 am
by Shoju
Brekkie wrote:http://bradtaylorbooks.com/2012/12/a-simple-primer-on-assault-weapons/


Thank you for this link Brekkie. This is what I was clumsily trying to get at, and the author makes the same point that I was trying. Magazine capacity is a really big deal, and it would have made a difference.

I wonder if it would be possible to ban tactical packages? I know. That is sort of splitting hairs to a point, but here is my thought. If we remove the "tactical" weapons from the equation, We could take some of the bite out of the "accessorizing" that you could put into a weapon. Rail Systems, offer the ability to add "Grenade Launcher" type apparatus, Multiple Optical units, Mag Carrying devices, etc... Is it enough on it's own? No. Is it mildly superfluous? Probably, but it will address a few things that could be an issue. Without a tactical Rail system, Extra Magazines aren't within reach.

Limit Magazine capacity, and outright ban drum magazines. My 9mm has a 12 round magazine. My .22 has a 5 round magazine. My dad's 12 gauge has a 5 round internal system. Giving up the 12 round, and going to a 10, or even 8 round capacity magazine on my 9mm, doesn't diminish the use of the gun when I carry it while fishing, or while hunting. The only problem that it gives me, is when I go to the range with friends, I'll be swapping out the mag more often. An acceptable sacrifice. Magazines themselves aren't that expensive, all things considered.

Flash Suppressors, "Silencers", and threaded muzzle Brakes. There is no normal reason that a private citizen needs a flash supressor, or a silencer. I'm unsure how I feel about Muzzle Brakes. A Springfield 9mm that I've been looking at has a self contained muzzle brake, which does increase the ability to stay on target with a weapon by reducing recoil, or "kick". There are other Muzzle Brakes that are attachable (threaded) to weapons. I'd be interested in hearing what Brekkie has to say about them. I've not had much interaction with them, but it seems like it could be another place where you could make a dent into killings.


Koatanga wrote:Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.


The entitlement is not what is leading to people dying. People pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger is what is killing people. Trying to paint it as something else is sort of insulting to those gun owners who actually own a weapon and treat it responsibly, like a deadly weapon, that can, you know, kill people. My "entitlement" to own my weapons hasn't caused the death of anyone. Unless you are trying to say that my "entitlement" to own weapons is responsible for Aurora Colorado, Oregon, or Sandy Hook, at which point, I'll just tell you that you're an idiot.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.
Removal:
A: You have a handgun. Someone comes and takes it from you. You don't have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. If you did someone would take it from you. You don't have a handgun.
Restriction:
A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.
Does anyone but me not see a difference between confiscating legally owned property and removing the ability to purchase same?
I am struggling to see how the two are equated.
And where, exactly, in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to bear any kind of arms you feel like? Because that sounds a lot more like entitlement talking than Constitution.


Well, let me see if I can make some sense out of the thoughts running through my mind. By restricting the sale, and not completely banning, you are in fact, making the hand gun a more desired item. The Black Market for the gun will increase. The crime related to GETTING the handgun will increase. Whatever gains that you make in crime by removing "New Guns" from the market, will have to be weighed against the crimes that are taking place now to get the Old Handguns that are already in circulation. I don't think that it's a good idea to replace one type of crime with another type of crime, especially when we can't be sure that the new type of crime that is introduced will be less bloody or deadly.

I'm also not 100% convinced that the majority of Gun Crime in the United States is committed by a person who goes to the gun store and purchases a weapon through normal legal means.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:49 am
by Nooska
@Shoju, I think the "Entitlement leads to killings" is an argument based on the "entitlement of gun owners to own guns", which leads to all these killings (I don't recall a single one of the mass killings thats been reported over here not being with legally bought weapons - correct me if I'm wrong) - opposing argument being that if gunowners didn't "feel entitled" and gave up thier guns "for the safety of the populace" / "for the common good" there wouldn't be all these guns out there to commit thes spree killings with.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:17 am
by Shoju
Nooska wrote:@Shoju, I think the "Entitlement leads to killings" is an argument based on the "entitlement of gun owners to own guns", which leads to all these killings (I don't recall a single one of the mass killings thats been reported over here not being with legally bought weapons - correct me if I'm wrong) - opposing argument being that if gunowners didn't "feel entitled" and gave up thier guns "for the safety of the populace" / "for the common good" there wouldn't be all these guns out there to commit thes spree killings with.


I just find that argument to almost Strawman. I mean, would we then go ahead and argue that if the populace of China just gave up their right to own Knives, and Hatchets, and Hammers, that their school assaults would just stop too?

I understand that's kind of a trite thing to say. I do. But simply saying that because someone wants to do something, and someone else is abusing / destroying with the same thing, we should just ban it, just doesn't sit well with me. It's one of the few things where I have sort of Republican streak.

And actually, the Mall Shooting last week was done with a Stolen Rifle. Columbine was done with guns that the teenagers obviously didn't own, Aurora Co was carried out by Mail Order (which, while legal, is a pretty large loophole), I could go on, but I found this. interesting article and Map, that details what guns were obtained legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... otings-map

62 Mass Shootings Since 1982.

Guns obtained
49 guns obtained legally
12 illegally
1 unknown

Half of those were done by people who exhibited clear signs of Mental illness Prior to the shootings, less than 20% showed now signs, the rest were "unclear"

What I would like to do if I had more time, is take a look at the 29 or so handgun only assaults, and find out 2 things.
1. How many used High capacity Magazines. I was trying to do this, but I'm working, and can't devote my undivided attention. It looked like ~10-12.
2. How many of the Hand Guns were purchased legally.
3. How many of the Hand Guns were used by people who exhibited Mental Health Problems before the shootings.

Like I've been saying from my first post. Gun Control, and Banning Guns alone, is NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:48 am
by Klaudandus
I think the worst part is that people forget the 1927 bombing.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:32 am
by Shoju
Klaudandus wrote:I think the worst part is that people forget the 1927 bombing.


Or the Christmas Day 1984 Bombing of an Abortion Clinic in Florida.
Actually... none of the Abortion Violence is listed on there.... weird.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:53 am
by Brekkie
Shoju wrote:
Brekkie wrote:http://bradtaylorbooks.com/2012/12/a-simple-primer-on-assault-weapons/


Thank you for this link Brekkie. This is what I was clumsily trying to get at, and the author makes the same point that I was trying. Magazine capacity is a really big deal, and it would have made a difference.

I wonder if it would be possible to ban tactical packages? I know. That is sort of splitting hairs to a point, but here is my thought. If we remove the "tactical" weapons from the equation, We could take some of the bite out of the "accessorizing" that you could put into a weapon. Rail Systems, offer the ability to add "Grenade Launcher" type apparatus, Multiple Optical units, Mag Carrying devices, etc... Is it enough on it's own? No. Is it mildly superfluous? Probably, but it will address a few things that could be an issue. Without a tactical Rail system, Extra Magazines aren't within reach.

Limit Magazine capacity, and outright ban drum magazines. My 9mm has a 12 round magazine. My .22 has a 5 round magazine. My dad's 12 gauge has a 5 round internal system. Giving up the 12 round, and going to a 10, or even 8 round capacity magazine on my 9mm, doesn't diminish the use of the gun when I carry it while fishing, or while hunting. The only problem that it gives me, is when I go to the range with friends, I'll be swapping out the mag more often. An acceptable sacrifice. Magazines themselves aren't that expensive, all things considered.

Flash Suppressors, "Silencers", and threaded muzzle Brakes. There is no normal reason that a private citizen needs a flash supressor, or a silencer. I'm unsure how I feel about Muzzle Brakes. A Springfield 9mm that I've been looking at has a self contained muzzle brake, which does increase the ability to stay on target with a weapon by reducing recoil, or "kick". There are other Muzzle Brakes that are attachable (threaded) to weapons. I'd be interested in hearing what Brekkie has to say about them. I've not had much interaction with them, but it seems like it could be another place where you could make a dent into killings.


Here's my take on weapons accessorizing.

Ultimately, most of the stuff you listed sucks. No one who knows what the hell they are doing uses that crap. Having lots of Tacti-cool bullshit on your weapon may make you feel super 1337, but the reality is that having some crazy rail system with three different optics and a laser red dot and a silencer and a flashlight and clips for magazines all just adds up to you having a cumbersome, excessively heavy weapon that you will quickly get tired and not be able to keep upright. Particularly if you haven't explicitly trained those muscles.

All that stuff is very impressive to airsoft nerds, but really has very limited utility that is completely overshadowed by the increased weight.

So, in my opinion, by all means! Let them pile all the crazy crap on their weapons they like!
Yeah, add a silencer! It's not like they actually make your shots anywhere remotely silent in real life, and they often reduce muzzel velocity.
Yeah, put on all kinds of targeting gadgets! Aiming in on victims who are 10 feet in front of you will be actaully made more difficult with some rediculous 10x maginifying scope of overcompensation.
Yeah, let them strap all the extra mags to the weapon its self that they'd like! It means that attempting to reload will be complex and time consuming. Instead of smoothly grabbing a mag from a pouch or a cargo pocket with the support hand, now they are bending over and fumbling with their weapon its self.

Drum magazines with very high capacity are pretty much the same deal. The big capacity mags are disgustingly unreliable and prone to constant jamming. In fact, that is exactly what happened in Aurora; the shooter had to ditch his big 100-round drum mag because it kept jamming. That's why we dont use them in the military. Plus there's the weight issue again. Rounds weigh quite a lot. Ammo is heavy. The more ammo you are attaching to your weapon at one time, the more difficult it will be to wield effectively.

The real danger when it comes to magazine are the military-standard 30-round ones. They contain enough rounds to not have to be changed frequently, while being reliable and lightweight. Capping magazines at a capacity of 10 would make a big difference.

As for muzzle breaks and other fancy stuff like that.... meh. At the ranges we are talking about here, none of that really makes a difference either way.
Frankly, if we are dealing with a shooter that knows a lot about weapons, there's not a whole lot we can do with measures like these. They will find a way to min/max. What the objective should be is making someone who is just a average joe who happened to snap one day but has no particular weapons proficiency be less deadly as a baseline.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:46 pm
by Shoju
And I'll take your word for it. The most "accessorizing" that I've done to any of my firearms was a nice scope on my .22, and a cheesy detachable laser sight on my 9 that I used.... 3-4 times at the range. Like you said, it made the weapon feel different. I just attributed it to being a cheap laser on a cheap gun.

I'm all for smaller mag sizes. Like I said, I have never come across a situation where my 9mm would be less efficient with 10 instead of 12. If I ever did get into a position where I need those other 2 bullets, I'm probably dead anyway. I'd gladly turn in the 12 round mags in exchange for 10 round mags, or for $ off 10rd mags.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:14 pm
by Koatanga
There were 300-odd killings committed with rifles/shotguns. For the sake of argument, let's assume all of them were committed with assault rifles in mass murders averaging 10 deaths per incident. I stipulate that those numbers are completely whack - no way were all of those done with assault rifles - but I am trying to bump the number up to make it somewhat more impressive. I think in reality there are 2-3 incidents per year. Anyway, that's 30 incidents.

I agree that with handgun murders, a lot of them will be single-person slayings, with a handful of multiple-victim incidents. Or at least that's what the cop shows on TV teach me. So of the 6000 handgun murders, let's say the average kill count is 2 victims per incident, for a total of 3000 incidents.

3000 vs 30. And we want to focus on the 30 instead of the 3000? Seriously?

This is like sharks. They are big and scary so people want to do things about them, but on average they kill fewer people per year than vending machines.

So I think there needs to be some thought into why the vast majority of incidents and deaths are by handgun. I suggest it is because they are easily portable and concealable. So let's get rid of the portable/concealable - gradually, over time, without violating anyone's property ownership rights through arbitrary confiscation.

And yes, I am happy with forcing handguns to be more valued by cutting off sales of them. I am happy to foster an entire black market for them. This is because there's no way a black market could possibly supply more handguns to the population than are currently being supplied by gun shops. If the goal is to reduce the number of handguns out there, then that is achieved by moving sales from legitimate gun shops to black markets.

The black market exists anyway and anyone who can't buy a legitimate handgun can already get one, so it makes absolutely no difference to the availability of handguns to people who already can't pass gun ownership restrictions.

I think the idea of the black market being fed by midnight shipments of guns stuffed into teddy bears from Russia is a bit of a fantasy. In reality, many of the guns on the black market have been stolen from peoples' homes during robberies, or taken from dad's sock drawer and sold to get some drugs.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:46 pm
by Shoju
Koatanga wrote:There were 300-odd killings committed with rifles/shotguns. For the sake of argument, let's assume all of them were committed with assault rifles in mass murders averaging 10 deaths per incident. I stipulate that those numbers are completely whack - no way were all of those done with assault rifles - but I am trying to bump the number up to make it somewhat more impressive. I think in reality there are 2-3 incidents per year. Anyway, that's 30 incidents.

I agree that with handgun murders, a lot of them will be single-person slayings, with a handful of multiple-victim incidents. Or at least that's what the cop shows on TV teach me. So of the 6000 handgun murders, let's say the average kill count is 2 victims per incident, for a total of 3000 incidents.

3000 vs 30. And we want to focus on the 30 instead of the 3000? Seriously?

This is like sharks. They are big and scary so people want to do things about them, but on average they kill fewer people per year than vending machines.

So I think there needs to be some thought into why the vast majority of incidents and deaths are by handgun. I suggest it is because they are easily portable and concealable. So let's get rid of the portable/concealable - gradually, over time, without violating anyone's property ownership rights through arbitrary confiscation.

And yes, I am happy with forcing handguns to be more valued by cutting off sales of them. I am happy to foster an entire black market for them. This is because there's no way a black market could possibly supply more handguns to the population than are currently being supplied by gun shops. If the goal is to reduce the number of handguns out there, then that is achieved by moving sales from legitimate gun shops to black markets.

The black market exists anyway and anyone who can't buy a legitimate handgun can already get one, so it makes absolutely no difference to the availability of handguns to people who already can't pass gun ownership restrictions.

I think the idea of the black market being fed by midnight shipments of guns stuffed into teddy bears from Russia is a bit of a fantasy. In reality, many of the guns on the black market have been stolen from peoples' homes during robberies, or taken from dad's sock drawer and sold to get some drugs.



But you are missing the point where a black market needs a source. And what's the more reliable source? Invading the homes of the populace, or a convoluted scam of getting them across the border.

You are still trading one crime for another.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:41 pm
by Koatanga
So you foresee a stoppage in handgun sales causing roving bands of thugs breaking into random houses on the off chance they have a handgun around to steal?

Seems a bit far-fetched.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:03 pm
by KysenMurrin
Question: In the "getting them across the border" scenario, where are the Mexicans getting their guns from? I thought the got a lot of theirs from the US?

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:57 pm
by Fridmarr
Koatanga wrote:So you foresee a stoppage in handgun sales causing roving bands of thugs breaking into random houses on the off chance they have a handgun around to steal?

Seems a bit far-fetched.

And to think that not many posts ago, you were critical of a strawman argument of your position...good grief.

In any event, I'm not particularly in favor in the reduction of handgun accessibility to the overwhelmingly law abiding people that usually buy them, while at the same time doing nothing about the volume of existing weapons or even the sale of other weapon types.

I still think the only viable solution is technology. I think there are some things on the margins that can be influenced by gun control laws, but very minimally. The combination of technology and legislation enforcing its use and increased responsibility when it's not used can have a long term effect.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:18 am
by Koatanga
His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:33 am
by Brekkie
Koatanga wrote:His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.


[Citation Needed]

Actual Stats

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:38 am
by Fridmarr
Koatanga wrote:His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.
That's just you picking one chunk of his comment, exaggerating it 100 times over, and ignoring the rest. Thus the obvious strawman.

What he's saying is that if you make selling those guns illegal, then all you will accomplish is setting up a larger black market where people either steal the guns (and yes it will happen) or illegally smuggle them. In any event it was actually you who said:
Koatanga wrote:In reality, many of the guns on the black market have been stolen from peoples' homes during robberies, or taken from dad's sock drawer and sold to get some drugs.


So I guess it's only silly depending on which point you are trying to make? I mean if that has proven itself to be a viable way to get guns, and you either want guns or the now much increased money from the guns...then how exactly would it not be a motivational factor?

Several of the sources I've read list the percentage of households with guns around (ironically) 47% though obviously an exact number for that will be difficult. However, there are certainly parts of the country where it's obviously much higher. Where I grew up it would likely be 90%, with most homes having several.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 am
by fuzzygeek
In the midst of the endless circlejerking about handgun control and arguing policies that no one here will effectively make a whit difference, a reminder to do something this holiday (and every fucking day) that can and will make a measurable impact: make sure neither you nor anyone you party with drives drunk.

Since 1982 there have been about 400 deaths in "mass shootings" (cite found via google). For comparison, in 2010 there were 10,228 deaths involving a drunk driver.

This is just in the US; I don't know what world-wide statistics are, but youtube footage of Russian dash cams suggest horrible things happening there too.

Hope you and yours have a safe holiday.