SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Limiting magazine capacity, Common sense?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 593
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:35 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach to reducing gun violence.  Where is the evidence?

Some points to consider:

1) The previous AWB set the limit to 10 rounds, and there is no evidence that the AWB had any significant impact on gun violence.
2) Mass shootings, the only crime that has the potential to be impacted by a limit, are extremely rare, and the frequency is not increasing.
3) It only takes approximately 2 seconds to eject and insert a magazine
4) The deadliest mass shooting in US History was carried out with multiple 10 round magazines
5) Multiple guns are just as deadly as a single gun with higher capacity
6) Magazine capacity can easily be mechanically altered
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
OverUnder Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There is no evidence to support this but at the end of the day as long as you "feel good" about what you have done isn't that what really matters.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12395
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

OK, if magazine capacity is not the answer to firing multiple bullets into a crowd, how about we just ban all semi-automatics?  Nothing with a magazine at all.  Then, we can ban speed loaders for revolvers.  Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start.  How does 1 sound?  Sure, the bad guy could just carry more firearms, but if each of them is a single shot, that bad guy would be loaded down with weight.  

--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 593
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm)
QUOTE
Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start.

Again, how will this reduce gun violence?

Is the basis of the argument that since we must do something, we will try anything?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12395
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).  

--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm)
QUOTE
OK, if magazine capacity is not the answer to firing multiple bullets into a crowd, how about we just ban all semi-automatics?  Nothing with a magazine at all.  Then, we can ban speed loaders for revolvers.  Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start.  How does 1 sound?  Sure, the bad guy could just carry more firearms, but if each of them is a single shot, that bad guy would be loaded down with weight.  

So much for common sense

When you start scrambling that hard you are only underlining how weak your argument really is

Why don't we just cut off everyones left hand....that will make it harder to aim AND reload

But if you want to limit all weapons to single shot then have at it

Start with the police...always good to set a good example


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Perhaps we should just limit the numbers of crazy people...that would be a good start

--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 593
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).  

I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society.

But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 2:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 22 2013, 12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Perhaps we should just limit the numbers of crazy people...that would be a good start

I agree.

It is a sad fact that private health insurance companies and public social services decided 30 years ago that mental health did not have parity with physical health issues in the US. As a result, mental health issues are largely untreated and swept under the rug in the US. The mentally ill and their families cannot afford the high cost of the treatment and medications.

So in the US, a lot of mentally ill people like Adam Lanza, just do without the treatment that they need. Then we are all surprised when a person who suffers from mental illness does something horrible - like a mass shooting or pushes someone off a subway platform.

It is true that the mentally ill in other countries DO horrible things too. But in the US, there are MANY times more horrible crimes committed by the mentally ill - because they are can't afford the treatment and the medicines.

The reporting of mental illness to the existing background check system is erratic is also a factor.  But the fact that the private medical insurance and public social services systems do not make it possible for many to seek treatment to begin with is a much bigger factor.

In summary, addressing mental illness in the US would prevent many - probably most - of these horrible mass shootings - as well as other crimes committed by "crazies".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8239
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 11:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

n/m
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE

(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).  

I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society.

But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.

Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away"

feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply"

Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze

Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out :laugh:

In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country.

New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number

How smart does that sound???

The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general

Bad Combination


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19003
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 8:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The legislation being passed is weak and watered down, so it won't really have any impact at all.

In a crowded theater, a small homemade grenade would probably be much more effective.  People who want to commit mass murder will just get a bit more creative.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3871
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 9:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am)
QUOTE

(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE

(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).  

I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society.

But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.

Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away"

feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply"

Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze

Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out :laugh:

In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country.

New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number

How smart does that sound???

The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general

Bad Combination

Bab lets try something new. How about you offering what restrictions on firearm's owners you would approve of. Any at all?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 9:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am)
QUOTE

(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE

(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).  

I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society.

But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.

Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away"

feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply"

Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze

Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out :laugh:

In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country.

New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number

How smart does that sound???

The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general

Bad Combination

America's weak gun laws arm the Mexican drug cartels to the teeth and then you highlight how ineffective Mexico's gun laws are as a reason for maintaining Americas joke gun laws and enforcement.

Do you ever actually think?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 1:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:59 am)
QUOTE
The legislation being passed is weak and watered down, so it won't really have any impact at all.

In a crowded theater, a small homemade grenade would probably be much more effective.  People who want to commit mass murder will just get a bit more creative.

If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks

And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24254
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 1:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 24 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:59 am)
QUOTE
The legislation being passed is weak and watered down, so it won't really have any impact at all.

In a crowded theater, a small homemade grenade would probably be much more effective.  People who want to commit mass murder will just get a bit more creative.

If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks

And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline

Yea, cuz the movie is that good where no one will see someone walk into a theater with lengths of chains, locks, and a five gallon can of gas.

You FAIL.


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 17
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16494
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 1:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

With all due respect Zeke hit the nail on the head. By reducing gun consequence you unequivocally reduce/limit "violence."

As to "silly laws" Bill: Why does this country have the irrefutably worst problem with guns in the developed world? Could it be existing "silly laws?"


--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8239
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 2:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 24 2013, 10:22 am)
QUOTE
If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks

And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline

Nutballs just seem to have greater infatuations with firearms than they do with gasoline and matches.

Why...some nutballs are so infatuated with firearms that they would refuse to live in a state that enacts a law they disagree with!  :laugh:
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10076
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 2:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

markinOhio said
QUOTE

The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach to
reducing gun violence.  Where is the evidence?

Some points to consider:

1) The previous AWB set the limit to 10 rounds, and there is no evidence that the AWB had any significant impact on gun violence.
2) Mass shootings, the only crime that has the potential to be impacted by a limit, are extremely rare, and the frequency is not increasing.
3) It only takes approximately 2 seconds to eject and insert a magazine
4) The deadliest mass shooting in US History was carried out with multiple 10 round magazines
5) Multiple guns are just as deadly as a single gun with higher capacity
6) Magazine capacity can easily be mechanically altered


Ok so in a previous thread I quoted the following


4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and
found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This
holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....print=1

The above in turn was based on this source

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

I also quoted the following


5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and
other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,”
explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in
place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths
are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample
sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states
that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage
requirements for guns (-.48).”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....print=1

which was based on public policy analyst and economist(PHD from columbia) Richard Florida
and his work in the following link

http://www.theatlantic.com/nationa....54

Mark's reaction to those links was that they not credible, unscientific with essentially no
evidence without explaining how its not unscientific, no evidence and not credible

Ok lets juxtapose the illogical standard he set above with the standard he sets for himself
like for example in the above.

Mark starts of his OP with

The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach
to reducing gun violence.  Where is the evidence?


So Mark asks for evidence but then precedes to make 6 assertions NONE of which Mark gives
ANY evidence in support of those 6 assertions.

So clearly Mark has two sets of standards when it comes to evidence and proof. One set for
himself where he gets to make assertions without evidence and then another set for those
who disagree with his positions where even they present substantial evidence he will dismiss
it as not credible. There is another words for this. It usually starts with an H.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 3:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This country is certainly no safer because of the silly laws

In fact, the areas with the most silly laws like NYC, DC, And Chicago are definitely  less safe

Most firearms deaths are the results of criminals killing each other

So making more crap illegal may be the worst thing you can do


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Three Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1031
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 6:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm)
QUOTE
OK, if magazine capacity is not the answer to firing multiple bullets into a crowd, how about we just ban all semi-automatics?  Nothing with a magazine at all.  Then, we can ban speed loaders for revolvers.  Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start.  How does 1 sound?  Sure, the bad guy could just carry more firearms, but if each of them is a single shot, that bad guy would be loaded down with weight.  

Ok, so bad guys import thousands of kilos of cocaine totally against the law but making 30 round magazines illegal will ensure few to none are brought into the country by criminals?

Remember Mexico our neighbor to the south.  Firearms are nearly impossible for a law abiding, non politically connected citizen to own.   Where is the correlation you suggest between prohibitions and reduced crime?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 6:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Feb. 23 2013, 9:16 am)
QUOTE
America's weak gun laws arm the Mexican drug cartels to the teeth and then you highlight how ineffective Mexico's gun laws are as a reason for maintaining Americas joke gun laws and enforcement.

Do you ever actually think?

Actually, it's a little higher up the food chain; It's called Eric Holder and DoJ Operation Fast and Furious with Obama's blessing. These types of "operations"  have been arming the cartels for decades.

--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8239
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 6:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Three @ Feb. 24 2013, 3:09 pm)
QUOTE
Remember Mexico our neighbor to the south.  Firearms are nearly impossible for a law abiding, non politically connected citizen to own.   Where is the correlation you suggest between prohibitions and reduced crime?

Statistically, we'd be less likely to be murdered in Mexico than in the US:

"According to FBI crime statistics, 4.8 Americans per 100,000 were murdered in the US in 2010. The US State Department reports that 120 Americans of the 5.7 million who visited Mexico last year were murdered, which is a rate of 2.1 of 100,000 visitors. Regardless of whether they were or weren’t connected to drug trafficking, which is often not clear, it’s less than half the US national rate."

Source
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 577
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 8:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Feb. 24 2013, 2:42 pm)
QUOTE

5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.



Dennis, I dispute this.

One measure of stricter gun control he uses is assualt weapon restrictions. There are 7 states with assault weapon restrictions(source). Here are the 2010 gun murder rates, per 100,000 population,  for each of these states (source):

California         3.4
Conneticut        2.7
Hawaii              0.5
Mass.                1.8
New Jersey        2.8
NY                    2.7
Virginia             3.1

Now here is a list of states WITHOUT assault weapons restrictions where gun murder rates are less than or equal to 1 per 100,000:

Idaho              
Iowa
Maine
Minnisotea
New Hampshire
N. Dakota
Oregon
S. Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

I would have to conclude that state laws restricting assault weapons have nothing to do with the states' gun murder rates.

----George
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6219
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 8:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Lots of the so-called gun friendly states are not all that friendly. State like Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and other "gun-friendly" states micro manage concealed carry to the point it becomes meaningless.  In m,any of those states you can't carry in a church, a bar, within 150 feet of a polling place, a medical facility, a sporting event, or even a local government office.  One of those states even prohibits carry in a private residence unless you have specific permission to do so.

In New York a concealed carry permit gives you the right to carry everywhere except on school property.  Of course, as in all states, the owners of any particular property can property can specifically prohibit weapons.  So, for example, the state parks (but not the state forest lands) prohibit handguns.

Most upstate towns have no prohibition on concealed carry in government offices.  Do that in Georgia and you go to jail under state law.

But I'd rather have 7 on my hip than 30 locked in my car.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3871
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 10:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Feb. 24 2013, 8:51 pm)
QUOTE
 In m,any of those states you can't carry in a church, a bar, within 150 feet of a polling place, a medical facility, a sporting event, or even a local government office.  One of those states even prohibits carry in a private residence unless you have specific permission to do so.

What kind of a lunatic would think a person should carry in any of those places?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10076
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 12:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Feb. 24 2013, 8:06 pm)
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ Feb. 24 2013, 2:42 pm)
QUOTE

5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.



Dennis, I dispute this.

One measure of stricter gun control he uses is assualt weapon restrictions. There are 7 states with assault weapon restrictions(source). Here are the 2010 gun murder rates, per 100,000 population,  for each of these states (source):

California         3.4
Conneticut        2.7
Hawaii              0.5
Mass.                1.8
New Jersey        2.8
NY                    2.7
Virginia             3.1

Now here is a list of states WITHOUT assault weapons restrictions where gun murder rates are less than or equal to 1 per 100,000:

Idaho              
Iowa
Maine
Minnisotea
New Hampshire
N. Dakota
Oregon
S. Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

I would have to conclude that state laws restricting assault weapons have nothing to do with the states' gun murder rates.

----George

Couple things. The correlation was for specifically 'ban assault weapons' not just 'assault
weapon restrictions'. Second the criteria wasn't just for Assault weapons ban but other
criteria looked at. Third those stats were from 2007 not 2010. Fourth  they were from
firearm deaths which include murders but not only murders. 5th you've selectively included
states that don't have assault weapons restrictions with a particular murder rate while
leaving so many more than have much higher murder rates

For example here are the top 10 in murder rates for states in 2011

Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0
New Mexico 7.5
Maryland 6.8
South Carolina 6.8
Alabama 6.3
Michigan 6.2
Arizona 6.2
Missouri 6.1
Tennessee       5.8

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Of those 10 states with the highest murder rate ONLY maryland has some kind Assault weapons
restriction and in Maryland's case that is only partial on handguns. Geez. Selectively choose
the states with no assault weapons restrictions that have the lowest murder rates while
ignoring the top 10 murder rate states in which the vast vast majority of those don't have
an assault weapons restriction laws? I mean come on.

Oh and I don't know the specifics of how they came up with those stats but it could have
been very possible to compare the years before and after the Assault weapons ban


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 577
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 4:07 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Dennis,
Of course I listed the states with low gun murder rates and no assault weapons restrictions; this shows that assault weapon restrictions have nothing to do with gun murder rates. Some states with no restrictions have lower rates than states with restrictions, and some states without restrictions have higher rates. This suggests that the assault weapon restrictions have no bearing on gun murder rates.

You wrote that the study compared states with assault weapon "bans," not "restrictions," to states without. Which states have all-out bans? I couldn't find any on the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Only NY would have a ban, by virtue of the magazine capacity limitation, but this is the 2013 law. Every other state had restrictions, but not an all-out ban (except maybe Hawaii; the article did not give the details of their law).

You wrote that the study included all gun deaths, not just murders. But the statement you posted read: "Staes with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence." Besides Murder, what is considered death by gun related violence. Are you calling accidents and suicides violence?

You wrote that other criteria than the assault weapon restrictions were used in the study. But if the assault weapon criterion is meaningless, why include it?

You complained that the study was from 2007 and I used 2010 data to refute it. I bet that if I could find the 2007 data or those from any other recent year there would not  be much difference---they would still show state assault weapon restriction have no bearing on gun murder rates, and that other factors must be behind the numbers.

----George
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10076
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 5:23 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

george of the j Said
QUOTE

Dennis,
Of course I listed the states with low gun murder rates and no assault weapons restrictions;


of course you listed the states with the low murder rate because that was the only way
you could make your case. You have to look at the totality of all the states.  The only
logical way it would make sense to look at only a small subset if you were trying to
contradict the argument that there is a perfect negative -1.00 correlation between
banning assault weapons and firearm deaths but the study I cited didn't make that argument
not did I.

george of the j Said
QUOTE

this shows that assault
weapon restrictions have nothing to do with gun murder rates.


No it doesn't. What kind of warped logic is that you think you can draw that kind of conclusion
based on small sample size that shows what you want it to show? Once again you can't selectively
look at a small subset of data just so it makes your case while you ignore the rest. The rest which
once again includes the 10 top murder rates for states of which every state in that top 10, with
the slight exception of Maryland, doesn't havce assault weapons restrictions.

george of the j Said
QUOTE

Some states with no restrictions have lower rates than states with restrictions, and some states without restrictions
have higher rates. This suggests that the assault weapon restrictions have no bearing on gun murder rates.


but yet for the top 10 murder rate for states only Maryland had any kind of assault weapons restrictions and
that was only partially

Oh ya and the study used other criteria than just "assault weapons ban"

george of the j said
QUOTE

You wrote that the study compared states with assault weapon "bans," not "restrictions," to states without. Which
states have all-out bans? I couldn't find any on the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Only NY would
have a ban, by virtue of the magazine capacity limitation, but this is the 2013 law. Every other state had restrictions,
but not an all-out ban (except maybe Hawaii; the article did not give the details of their law).


THe wiki link you used even says
For instance, some US stateS have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

thats plural

also according to the following link there are seven states with assault-weapons bans


New York is one of only seven states that have assault-weapons bans in place, according to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.


http://online.wsj.com/article....52.html

george of the j Said
QUOTE

You wrote that the study included all gun deaths, not just murders. But the statement you posted read: "Staes with
stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence." Besides Murder, what is considered death by
gun related violence. Are you calling accidents and suicides violence?


They are not? If you read one of the links where this comes from it stated


The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include
accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.


http://www.theatlantic.com/nationa....54

george of the j Said
QUOTE

You wrote that other criteria than the assault weapon restrictions were used in the study. But if the assault weapon criterion is meaningless, why include it?


Its not meaningless. You say its meaningless.  From the above link you can find the following


Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small,
we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require
trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).


george of the j Said
QUOTE

You complained that the study was from 2007 and I used 2010 data to refute it


Complained? What? No. By that argument you must be complaining to

I noted that you used 2010 data while the study used 2007

george of the j Said
QUOTE

I bet that if I could find the 2007 data or those from any other recent year there would not  be much difference---they would still show state assault weapon restriction have no bearing on gun murder rates, and that other factors must be behind the numbers.


You haven't shown it with the 2010 #'s. You had to selectively use a small subset to make
your case while ignoring the fact that top 10 states with the highest murder rate all had
NO assault weapons restrictions with the slight exception of Maryland.

Beyond that refute the following


Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small,
we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require
trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).


Do you contest those are legitimate #'s?

If so refute them.

cite sources as reliable as the following that refutes the following

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24254
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 7:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Feb. 24 2013, 1:05 pm)
QUOTE

(BillBab @ Feb. 24 2013, 10:22 am)
QUOTE
If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks

And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline

Nutballs just seem to have greater infatuations with firearms than they do with gasoline and matches.

Why...some nutballs are so infatuated with firearms that they would refuse to live in a state that enacts a law they disagree with!  :laugh:

Fee to use indoor shooting range = $10

Cost of tracer rounds = $30

Burning down the shooting range with tracer rounds = priceless

Linky Linky


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
88 replies since Feb. 22 2013, 12:35 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Limiting magazine capacity
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions