Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbingjones
Trad climber
grass valley,ca
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:49am PT
|
If you think guns are the problem then you are an idiot.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:33am PT
|
Great....
Now an Arizona sherrif has authorized armed volunteer "posses" to patrol Arizona schools...
Can you imagine "Bubba," armed to the teeth, walking around your child's school armed with an assault rifle? That thought alone would be enough for me to home-school my children.
Gun nuts are crazy. It's time we divided America into the Sane and Insane, build a big fence, and keep the insane gun nuts out of our communities.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:41am PT
|
If you think guns are the problem then you are an idiot.
well, I don't think guns per se are the problem
but, some kinds of guns seem to be "a" problem, like the easy availability of full scale assault weapons that are simply not necessary for home defense but cool to own/shoot
in addition, I think that a gun "culture" in this country that is glorified in video games, movies etc also contributes to the problem
and JohnE?
I agree that simply passing more legislation does not in itself make things safer
but would you agree that IF large clips and military assault weapons WERE banned say some 20 years ago that right NOW they would not be as easy to get ahold of, and IF they are not so easy to procure then is it likely THAT would save lives?
if your answer is yes that makes basic sense, then why not ban them right now, have the governments offer cash for them, and MAYBE in 20 years down the road lives would be saved?
Isn't it better to do something than take the easy route by criticizing other's suggestions, while offering nothing constructive oneself?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:55am PT
|
Your allusions to "Dixie" and the confederate flag really piqued my curiosity. I've noticed the odd confederate flag down there. Whats up with that? How the hell can anybody be proud of that?
I made an observation about the local culture and you assume that I am proud of it?
These are the same visigoths that put swastikas outside my house. Screw Godwins Law, it really happens here. WTF makes you think I am "proud" of it?
Or do you?
I came here for the rocks not the culture.
But a lot of them have seen me shoot and, though backstabbers, they stay out of my face for the most part.
if there is a reduction it will be restricted to the worst weapons of mass destruction, guns which damage potential far outweighs whatever utilitarian benefit they hold
What? Like my Bushmaster? Do you even know what a 3 Gun Competition is?
Who decides what is utilitarian? Somebody like Bloomberg who doesn't like black guns?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:17pm PT
|
Just making an observation about the locals.
They are not likely to give up their guns easily.
To many the flag is coded racism, another thing many locals are not likely to give up easily.
But the sun is out and I have a bunch of drums loaded.
Catcha later.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
|
care to take a guess at how many more murders there would be in Chicago without restrictive gun laws, Ron?
pretty big population in Chicago, right? maybe a couple thousand instead of a couple hundred?
Ron A, can you also explain why the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also the states with the least handgun murder rates?
Like say Massachusetts, toughest gun laws and the lowest gun murder rate?
or how about Nevada way up on the list of gun deaths and with very loose gun laws
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
or say Alaska, where everyone has a couple guns also being the state with the highest gun death rate in the nation
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
|
Ron - some things to think about when looking at crime rates is to consider how the rates are calculated. The crime rates in that link are generated by:
(# of crimes/population of state)*100,000.
Perfectly legitimate way to do it and it's done widely.
Let's look at DC. Highest on the list in terms of crimes per 100,000. DC had a population of just over 617,000 people (in 2011). Not really that big a population at all, and that is not surprising as DC is smaller than a 10 mile by 10 mile area.
Keep in mind though that every work day LOTS and LOTS of people commute into DC to work and dine and be entertained. And everyday, a zillion tourists descend on the city to see the sights. While in DC, some become victims of crime. Those crimes go into the numerator of the rate per 100,000. Yet the denominator remains 617k because that is the number of people who RESIDE in the city. This in part leads to a really high rate. But that is driven in part by the fact that there is a small population which doesn't accurately reflect the # of people who are potential victims there each day.
A better (but impossible denominator) would be to have the # person hours daily. This would better reflect the number of crimes over the number of people available to be victimized. And the rate in DC would drop considerable.
NYC suffers from the same issue. Many people commute into the city, but those visiting are not reflected in the denominator.
In most places, large parks have the HIGHEST rate of crime in the city. This is because there is very small populations of people living in a census tract that contains a large park (e.g., Memorial Park in Houston). Yet everyday there are tons of folks there daily. And where there are people, there is crime. Yet, the population remains the same small number.
Hope that makes sense.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:58pm PT
|
You more guns = more safety people are nuts. You need to seek a mental health professional.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:21pm PT
|
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:39pm PT
|
When the facts refute what I want so badly to believe....
why then the first thing I do is try real hard to "question the source of the facts"
and then when that does not work then I cherry pick through the facts and try real hard to find something, anything, even if unrelated, to post about, as IF that refuted the facts
but most of all, I just don't give a god damn about facts (truth)
and I will continue to believe what I want to believe anyway, truth and facts be damned
because there is no way in hell I am ever going to admit I am flat fuking wrong
get it yet?
that's the way I ROLL baby
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:46pm PT
|
Dec 28, 2012 - 10:24pm PT
"D.C. has the lowest rate of legal gun ownership per capita, and the highest gun murder (and all murder) rate, by far. Kentucky, the most armed state, has a murder rate per capita that is sabout 2/3 that of California, the most restrictive state for gun ownership."
Sources, please, or you're wasting your time, and ours. Only wingnuts take anecdotal evidence seriously. You quoted a WSJ editorial this morning that you claimed said gun murder rates had doubled in Britain - and it said nothing of the sort.
The only time I'm wasting is my own, since the statement is common knowledge. Since, apparently, Mr. Hedge is unaware of these facts:
Crime rates:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
Gun ownership:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/15/states-with-the-most-legal-guns-in-2012.html
A very simplified but accurate summary of the lack of correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates by state:
http://www.objectobot.com/?p=476
Our good Mr. Hedge has yet to explain how mere legislation will change the United States from a society where there are almost as many guns in circulation as there are people, to one like the countries whose total firearms in civilian hands are small and severely restricted.
John
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:48pm PT
|
Where do the stolen guns used in crimes come from? Seriously... they were manufactured, distributed, and sold legally by someone... somewhere... right? There isn't a secret gun factory somewhere pumping out Glocks with serial numbers scratched off, are there. Set me straight, because I really don't know where guns come from. If you say Mexico, do you mean to say S&W is making and/or selling that many guns in Mexico, even though we KNOW they come into the US illegally? That seems irresponsible.
Maybe if the owner was required to insure them and be held to a higher standard of responsibility before given the right to own something capable of such destruction, they won't get stolen as much... or reported stolen as much? You know, there are still places in the USA where it is ILLEGAL to keep any record of who owns guns. How easy do you think it is to "lose" a few guns that you legally acquired and "find" a few grand? You don't think stricter regulations might slow that down a little?
The absurd false equivalence between guns and cars provides an interesting juxtaposition, I think:
We (as a society) agree that EVERYONE who legally operates a VEHICLE MUST take a minimum of 30 hours of DRIVER'S ED and HAVE INSURANCE. We have drunk driver check points in an attempt to protect the innocent from the irresponsible. Safety violations are addressed with fines, classes, and revocation of your license depending on the severity. This undoubtedly keeps us safer while we participate in what many of us unfortunately consider a necessity.
But to own a GUN specifically designed to KILL, and capable of killing dozens of people in a public place in a matter of minutes, you have to wait 10 days and spend about 1hr doing paperwork. There are no serious mental health exams, no periodic renewals with psych evaluations, no insurance, no safety checks, and no penalties for safety violations that potentially threaten the lives of others. That just seems irresponsible and illogical.
I'm not saying we should ban guns... well, maybe the ones capable of killing dozens of innocent people before our responsible CCW citizens can act... I'm just saying we should give the issue some serious thought.
I found this interesting: http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/12/gun_control_is_as_much_a_part.html
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:00pm PT
|
DC is also a tiny spec within 50 miles of West Virgina, the state with the 5th highest gun ownership rate in the country. The surrounding states also have reasonably high gun ownership rates.
The population of DC fluctuates between 600,000 people to over 1,000,000 million people ON A DAILY BASIS. Do you think that might have something to do with it? How can any cities restrictions or regulations be effective when the population nearly doubles on a daily basis?
Comparing Kentucky to any state or city with high population densities is silly.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:07pm PT
|
That seems reasonable, Bruce. I think the concern I have involves the process, because it's not clear a priori that society will be safer in the meantime.
In particular, restricting legal gun ownership would seem to give those who own guns illegally a greater advantage over the general population. I'm not sure what empirical evidence exists or how one would go about estimating whether this is a serious issue or a non-issue. Crimpie -- help!
There's also the libertarian issue involved in the Second Amendment, of course, but that issue seems much less amenable to rational discourse.
Again, I have never owned a firearm, so my only stake in this fight is as an ordinary citizen, but any prescription for what to do in America needs to address what happens during the process. If we need to re-fight the Civil War to achieve dramatically lower gun ownership I, for one, say that's not worth the price.
John
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:07pm PT
|
Interesting that you mention the "rate" - being per 100,000 Crimpie,, certainly a broad and unreliable figure for those living in areas plagued by gun violence. A breakdown County by county would be more accurate no?
The FBI regularly reports rates per 100,000. The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses rate per 1,000 because it will create easy-to-understand whole numbers. The factor doesn't really matter and is usually selected on the basis of ease of understanding.
For example, if I told someone that the rate of crime in the US is .20 crimes per 1,000, they usually freak out because it's hard for them to understand intuitively what .20 crimes per 1,000 means. They will ask, what is .20 of a crime? (.20 is a made up number).
So, the FBI uses 100,000 as the factor because it results in whole numbers for the rates.
It's easier for someone to understand what 20 crimes per 100,000 people means versus .20 crimes per 1,000 persons means.
edit: You can get crime rates by county from the FBI Ron.
Here is the state by state link: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_state_by_city_2011.xls/view
By large city in NV: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table8statecuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_nevada_by_city_2011.xls
You can see Carson City here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table10statecuts/table_10_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_nevada_by_metropolitan_and_nonmetropolitan_counties_2011.xls.
Here's a fun one - murder by weapon used by state: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Mots of these tables offer counts. To compare one group to another you'll need to convert to rates to account for differential population sizes.
DOUBLE DOG EDIT: Keep in mind also that the populations used in denominators have nothing to do with citizenship. It only has to do with the number of folks who reside in a place.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:08pm PT
|
Norton,, because you post some "study" doesnt make it factual.. Not by a long shot.
wrong, Ron
whether YOU like it or not, we live in a world of facts and truth
and you god damn right a reputable posted study/analysis beats the living crap out of personal opinion
bullshit on gut instinct opinion, I'll take full truth from reputable sources all day long, as would damn near any intelligent thinking person
and when I am proven wrong, I admit it, learn from it, and move on
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:13pm PT
|
And for every study , there is an equal and opposite study out there.
GOD I fuking hate that argument. It is the most illogical, uneducated, and unproductive thing anyone could ever say. Science and statistics are not religion and opinions.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:18pm PT
|
I think that federal gun laws are kind of stupid. If you live in Nevada, and like shooting up old cars in the desert, then the Nevada laws should be different than the NYC laws.
If you simply bird and deer hunt, like me, you need a rifle and a shotgun, neither of the tactical variety. Put a gun lock on them and hide them in the attic. The risk of getting attacked and needing the guns in my city vs. the risk of having an available handgun at home don't weigh up.
Bad guys have no problem finding guns, and fortunatly they tend to shoot each other. That said, a concealed carry permit in the ghetto is probably the first place that a person needs a firearm for self defense.
I have my share of friends with massive gun safes, whole rooms devoted to reloading, etc. I wish I could say that it is for Sporting Clays, which is super fun, but they don't. Half of them are so whacky that they horde ammo just in case Obama sends in the smurf U.N. Troops.
Face it. We are never going to make a single dent in collecting all of the firearms out there, and it isn't a clear cut issue to begin with.
I think that assault rifles and pistols with big mags should be heavily regulated when sold. I think that they need to put the Brady background check into gun shows.
I can go to any gun show and buy huge mags. For self defense, an assault rifle is not a great firearm. Most of these murders take place at point blank range. A rifle bullet is simply unweildy in tight situations compared to a pistol.
Even during the assault weapons ban, old guns had been grandfathered in, so big mags and the riles themselves were legal to buy and sell if they had been manufactured before the ban date. The new legislation sounds much the same.
There are some places in this country that are so dangerous walking down the street that you almost need a gun.
There are other places where guns are tools and not really for self defense.
Example: I found it really odd to see AR-15's all over Alaskan Bush villages. They prefer a small caliber to not waste meat, and the .223 will poke a hole in an animal just fine, even a bear.
That and the AR platform is now wildly popular for hunting. I even checked in to buy one for Alaska. My shotgun is no good for meat gathering in an emergency. The AR is, and it is also short enough to swing around the tent (although there are shorter weapons).
I have zero desire to own a handgun. The only purpose for a handgun is to kill people, and I don't plan on that. One time I did the deed with a woman who turned out to be "not quite yet divorced." Her husband was kind of whacky. Despite being an accountant, he had actually killed somebody previously.
Scared the sh#t out of me, but I just set the shotgun next to the door and next to me in bed for a couple of months. Other than that, I've never feared for my life. I've feared of getting my lights punched out, but actually shooting someone is like getting hit by a meteor. Low odds.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:20pm PT
|
"Let's look at DC. Highest on the list in terms of crimes per 100,000. DC had a population of just over 617,000 people (in 2011). Not really that big a population at all, and that is not surprising as DC is smaller than a 10 mile by 10 mile area."
"Keep in mind though that every work day LOTS and LOTS of people commute into DC to work and dine and be entertained. And everyday, a zillion tourists descend on the city to see the sights. While in DC, some become victims of crime. Those crimes go into the numerator of the rate per 100,000. Yet the denominator remains 617k because that is the number of people who RESIDE in the city. This in part leads to a really high rate. But that is driven in part by the fact that there is a small population which doesn't accurately reflect the # of people who are potential victims there each day."
Does that suffice?
Not entirely. While it certainly shows an upward bias, it doesn't demonstrate whether there is an adjustment that would make that rate more in line with those of other areas. Also, it's worth noting that Virginia is ranked 30th out of 51 in the rate of legal gun ownership, and Maryland 45th, so it's not at all clear that the surrounding area differs all that much in legal gun ownership from DC.
The fact remains that there appears no statistically significant correlation of homicide, crime or gun-related crime rates to gun ownership by state in the US. That's why you foreign examples are irrelevant.
Well, it's climbing time, so I'll take this us later.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!