Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 16, 2013, 03:22 PM   #451
Lord Blackadder
macrumors G4
 
Lord Blackadder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sod off
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
I don't think there is a "good" reason for either side's argument here to be honest.

You're right that if this 50 year old lady, or any gun owner really, is responsible, correctly trained and competent, that there is no good reason to prevent them from owning whatever legal gun they choose.

On the same token however, if they don't really have a legitimate use for the weapon other than "exercising their rights", there's not really a good reason to own a military-style rifle either.
It's not a discussion of whether there is a reason to own a gun; it is, or should be, a discussion over how best to balance gun ownership and public safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Personally I think Obama should be taking that $500 million dollars he just earmarked for his new gun initiatives and dump it in to biometric smart gun R&D. I mean, we're on an Apple forum, and we see all of the crazy new technologies that Apple and the other tech companies have been coming out with the past few years. We have the technology available where we could make this happen, but it's not going to be cheap.
I'm not against "smart guns". but they won't have any impact on the 200+ million guns that are already legally owned (not to mention those illegally owned). I'm afraid technology is not going to get us out of this one.
__________________
Oh, God, God, God! What on earth was I drinking last night? My head feels like there's a Frenchman living in it. - Edmund Blackadder
Lord Blackadder is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 03:25 PM   #452
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You're right that if this 50 year old lady, or any gun owner really, is responsible, correctly trained and competent, that there is no good reason to prevent them from owning whatever legal gun they choose.
Even in communist Britain Mrs Moneypenny regularly goes shooting...

And she's a 50 year old woman.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 03:36 PM   #453
miloblithe
macrumors 68020
 
miloblithe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington, DC
I wanted to refute one of the original sources cited by the OP in this thread:

Quote:
No Correlation Between Gun Control Laws and Violent Crime Rates: http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation...t-crime-rates/
This blog post uses particularly bad analysis to substantiate the claim that there is no correlation between gun control laws and violent crime rates. To "prove" this, the author uses a statistical package to compute a -0.01335 correlation coefficient between violent crimes per capita and gun control laws, using each state's gun law scores from the Brady Campaign’s annual report. This kind of correlation analysis is a kind of first step investigation into data that assumes that, in terms of the outcome of interest (violent crime per capita), the states differ in no ways other than gun control laws--an assumption that seems ludicrous once you realize it's the basis of the author's argument.

I took the data and plugged it into STATA to see what would happen if I started adding co variates that seemed likely to have an impact on a state's crime rate. The first one I chose was the percentage of the population living in an urban area (source= http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0029.xls). I then ran a simple linear regression using violent crimes as the outcome. What did I find? Controlling for the percentage of the population that is urban, for each additional point a state receives on the Brady score, there is a drop of 0.0325 violent crimes per 1,000 people (p=0.058). Meaning what? That if each state had gun laws as tough as California's (81 on the Brady scale), that would cut their violent crime rate by about 2.5 crimes per 1,000 people over where they would be with a 2 score (such as states like Kentucky and Louisiana have). Pretty impressive when you consider that the average rate among the states is only 4.1 violent crimes per 1,000.

Now, does my analysis sound too simplistic? It's only taking into account the Brady gun control score and the percentage of the population that's urban. I agree. It is too simplistic, but it's better than Ferdinand Bardamu's blog post for sure. Want me to improve it? Suggest other co variates I should add to the model and point me to a reputable source for the data. I'm happy to plug them in.
miloblithe is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:11 PM   #454
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
...On the same token however, if they don't really have a legitimate use for the weapon other than "exercising their rights", there's not really a good reason to own a military-style rifle either...
Is there any difference between owning a fine French walnut stock semi-auto rifle and owning a "military style" rifle? If you answer yes, does this difference make the "military style" rifle more lethal? If yes, how?

Is there any reason for having to demonstrate a need or use prior to owning a legal product?

If I collect firearms, is wanting to add something to my collection a valid need or use?

Even if I don't collect firearms, is wanting to own a specific legal firearm a valid need or use?

Is there some supreme authority that determines what a "valid" need or use is?

What path are we going down here?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:24 PM   #455
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post

It all depends on your definition of anarchy really. There are multiple definitions.

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

Deregulation of many of the things that I described would be pretty close to #1, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to #2.
I think you're stretching to try and fit the definition. Our society isn't completely regulated in all aspects, so if you're going to use that loose of a definition, then we're in an anarchy already.

But that's not what anarchy means, it means a society without government or law, completely. Though those are abstract terms anyway.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:44 PM   #456
NightGeometry
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Is there any difference between owning a fine French walnut stock semi-auto rifle and owning a "military style" rifle? If you answer yes, does this difference make the "military style" rifle more lethal? If yes, how?
One interesting reason why there may be a reason (and i think it is a valid reason, but it may not be)... A walnut stock weapon has aesthetic properties a "military style" rifle may not do - therefore an owner *may* have it because it looks nice. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

If that is reasonable, then the owner of the "military style" weapon is more likely to have it as a tool, and the "military style" *seems* to indicate that the use of that tool is going to be informed by it's style.


I do appreciate that there is an aesthetic to military styling. An owner may get it for purposes of display, but, I would argue, someone wishing to show off with modern military styling is quite possibly more likely to use the weapon, as a weapon.


I wouldn't necessarily push the above point, but on the face of it it appears to be valid, thus seems to be a possibility that a "military style" rifle may be more dangerous than a lovely sumptuous walnut stock weapon.

Last edited by NightGeometry; Jan 16, 2013 at 04:46 PM. Reason: EDIT - stupid repeated words "to be to be"
NightGeometry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:45 PM   #457
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Is there any reason for having to demonstrate a need or use prior to owning a legal product?
There are government restrictions on loads of "legal" products from food to cars.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:57 PM   #458
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGeometry View Post
One interesting reason why there may be a reason (and i think it is a valid reason, but it may not be)... A walnut stock weapon has aesthetic properties a "military style" rifle may not do - therefore an owner *may* have it because it looks nice. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

If that is reasonable, then the owner of the "military style" weapon is more likely to have it as a tool, and the "military style" *seems* to indicate that the use of that tool is going to be informed by it's style.


I do appreciate that there is an aesthetic to military styling. An owner may get it for purposes of display, but, I would argue, someone wishing to show off with modern military styling is quite possibly more likely to use the weapon, as a weapon.

I wouldn't necessarily push the above point, but on the face of it it appears to be valid, thus seems to be a possibility that a "military style" rifle may be more dangerous than a lovely sumptuous walnut stock weapon.
That is such twisted and painfully contorted logic that I am not able to even comment on it!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
There are government restrictions on loads of "legal" products from food to cars.
Government restrictions on their use or their purchase?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:58 PM   #459
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Government restrictions on their use or their purchase?
Of course.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 04:59 PM   #460
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Of course.
Huh? That was a multiple choice question... A or B?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:00 PM   #461
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Government restrictions on their use or their purchase?
Both.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:04 PM   #462
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Both.
Sorry to be so uninformed... could you please enlighten me on government regulation directed towards any purchase restriction (since this is the topic of conversation) for any food, cars, or other legal product?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:19 PM   #463
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Sorry to be so uninformed... could you please enlighten me on government regulation directed towards any purchase restriction (since this is the topic of conversation) for any food, cars, or other legal product?

Age requirements for beer, alcohol and cigarettes. There are still places where alcohol sales are restricted to certain days and/or times. Some OTC meds require ID and a record of the purchase. We have all kinds of regulations about importing and exporting legal items.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:34 PM   #464
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Age requirements for beer, alcohol and cigarettes. There are still places where alcohol sales are restricted to certain days and/or times. Some OTC meds require ID and a record of the purchase. We have all kinds of regulations about importing and exporting legal items.
OK. You are correct. Perhaps I should have qualified...

Are there any regulations restricting purchase based upon some ethereal value such as "need"?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 08:03 PM   #465
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Sandy Hook MAYBE could have been prevented if people didn't ignore all the warning signs of a mentally ill kid who's mother had a mini-arsenal in her home and took her mentally ill kid shooting all the time.
The problem is, there seems to be no other evidence that the shooter could have been classified as "mentally ill". He may have had Asperger's, but that is not mental illness, rather a socialization development issue. It is not entirely clear that there were any useful warning signs to ignore – non-psychotic persons will do whatever they can to appear normal because, well, that is what everyone else prefers.

The only certain precursor so far is the fact that the shooter had ready access to guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckANerve View Post
There is only one thing that could have prevented the tragedy and that would have been an armed person in the school.
You cannot ignore the psychology of an armed guard. To the kind of person who would go on a rampage, it is quite likely that sentries would be viewed not as a deterrent but as a challenge to overcome. Making schools into stalags is exactly the wrong approach to dealing with these kind of actually quite rare events.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 08:36 PM   #466
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Ok, so then let's look at things from a pragmatic point of view shall we?

What does limiting magazine capacity accomplish?
It limits the number of bullets that can be fired before reloading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
How does a folding stock facilitate *at near automatic firing*?
I didn't say "folding stock". I said "sliding stock".

Please view the follow video ...




Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
And what would you put in place of a button release, and why?
I don't know what I'd put in place of a button release.

But my answer to the second part of your question is, to slow the speed at which one could reload their weapon.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 09:09 PM   #467
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
It limits the number of bullets that can be fired before reloading.



I didn't say "folding stock". I said "sliding stock".





I don't know what I'd put in place of a button release.

But my answer to the second part of your question is, to slow the speed at which one could reload their weapon.
Please note that not all stocks (sliding, collapsible, telescopic) are the same as that piece of crap "slide fire" stock.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 09:22 PM   #468
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Please note that not all stocks (sliding, collapsible, telescopic) are the same as that piece of crap "slide fire" stock.
I don't believe I was under that impression.

But thanks for the heads-up.

EDIT: I'm curious why you describe that "slide fire" stock as a "piece of crap".

Is it because a semi-automatic rifle can now be made into a machine gun?

Or is it because it's not made well?

Last edited by citizenzen; Jan 16, 2013 at 09:51 PM.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 10:53 PM   #469
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I don't believe I was under that impression.

But thanks for the heads-up.

EDIT: I'm curious why you describe that "slide fire" stock as a "piece of crap".

Is it because a semi-automatic rifle can now be made into a machine gun?

Or is it because it's not made well?
In the post that I responded to, you specifically said "sliding stocks." Which are not the same as a slide fire stock. I just wanted to make that clear.

I have not heard good or bad regarding build quality. Some people like them, some do not.

A slide fire will not convert a semi-automatic into a machine gun. The trigger is still being pulled for each round fired, it just increases the rate of trigger pull.

It is an overpriced ($300+) gimmick.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 11:23 PM   #470
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
It is an overpriced ($300+) gimmick.
So are Vegematics.

Yet people still buy them.

Go figure.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 11:58 PM   #471
Blue Velvet
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Note that those who criticise gun control or banning advocates for not knowing what they're talking about when it comes to the ins and outs of weaponry and ammunition, suddenly become experts when discussing mental illness.
Blue Velvet is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 12:43 AM   #472
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet View Post
Note that those who criticise gun control or banning advocates for not knowing what they're talking about when it comes to the ins and outs of weaponry and ammunition, suddenly become experts when discussing mental illness.
And you're surprised, my dear?
leekohler is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 12:53 AM   #473
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Regulations on who should possess firearms... YES. Mandatory competency testing utilizing firearms prior to ownership... YES. Magazine capacity limitations... YES.

"Assault weapons" ban... Absurd, non-effective, emotional feel good silliness.
A magazine capacity limitation is equivalent to an "Assault Weapons" ban. It is in fact the most contentious part of an AWB.

I agree that an AWB is absurd, non-effective, emotional feel good silliness--but a magazine capacity restriction is the same thing.

If you limit the magazine capacity of an AR-15 to 10 rounds, there's no difference between it and any other semi-automatic hunting rifle of the same caliber in overall functionality--except that the hunting rifle is potentially more accurate.

The facts are very, very simple. Good people don't kill people with anything, not guns, not knives, not open windows or frozen fish. Bad people or crazy people do--and statistically speaking, even most of them don't actually kill anyone.

As a sane person with high ethical and moral commitments, I can say confidently that if I were to possess guns, tanks, tomahawk cruise missiles or whatever the case might be, I wouldn't hurt anyone with them--because I don't have any desire to hurt anyone. (nor do I have any desire to own tanks or tomahawk cruise missiles)

A crazy person or a criminal might seek to do someone harm.

At the end of the day, we are not children. We are grown adults who are supposedly free individuals. Just because one kid in the class does something bad doesn't mean it's ok to punish everyone.
Mak47 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 AM   #474
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet View Post
Note that those who criticise gun control or banning advocates for not knowing what they're talking about when it comes to the ins and outs of weaponry and ammunition, suddenly become experts when discussing mental illness.
So by your logic, because I'm not an expert in mental health I can openly advocate banning crazy people--like you can openly advocate banning guns.

I don't know the details of various mental illnesses, what the specific dangers are, or how they can be treated properly. I don't know what makes one affect the brain one way and another affect the brain in another way--but that's ok. I can still openly advocate banning crazy people.

But wait, I have to seem reasonable right? I'll just advocate banning the really crazy people--the "Assault" crazy people.

But which ones are those? Which crazy people are the most dangerously crazy? I could answer that question logically if I had any practical knowledge on the subject, but I don't, so I'll just go with advocating a ban on the ones that sound the craziest.

Schizophrenia -- That sounds pretty whacked out to me. Banned.
Malingering -- I'm sure those people are ok, no notable suffixes. Not Banned.
Pyromania -- Whoa. Nobody needs that around. Banned.
Premature Ejaculation -- Holy crap that sounds scary. Banned.
Trichotillomania -- Totally, totally insane. Banned.
Anorexia Nervosa -- Wow. Sounds pretty dangerous. Banned.
Fregoli Delusion -- Eh. I'm sure it can be handled reasonably. Not Banned.
Intermittent Explosive Disorder -- Yeah, that one's gotta go. Banned.

If I would actually walk around advocating this would I sound like an idiot? Yes, yes I would. As does anyone who advocates extreme measures involving things they know nothing about.

Last edited by Mak47; Jan 17, 2013 at 01:14 AM. Reason: typo
Mak47 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 01:54 AM   #475
wvuwhat
macrumors 65816
 
wvuwhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
I may or may not own multiple guns.

I may or may not have voted Obama in the last two elections.

I don't need a 30 round mag, nor an assault rifle to take down a home intruder. Or, go hunting. Shotgun with buckshot is all I need.



But, please don't forget this motion includes: a Doctor able proclaim you a risk when you come to him with serious mental problems, 30 Mil for school's to "develop emergency response plan's," and background checks for every gun buyer.

I wish I were a screwed up guy with mental issues who could bypass anything and get my gun without a background check at a Gun Show without school's paying for a emergency plan.

No matter your political affliction, America is better off with stricter gun control.
wvuwhat is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gun Control Spam Mail. justperry Politics, Religion, Social Issues 21 Mar 9, 2013 11:56 AM
Gun control... 1080p Politics, Religion, Social Issues 8 Jan 16, 2013 01:40 PM
You are a gun control hypocrite if... glocke12 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 63 Jan 4, 2013 03:53 PM
More gun control law proposals.... PracticalMac Politics, Religion, Social Issues 81 Dec 24, 2012 02:15 PM
Fact based musings on battery life jmxp69 iPhone 0 Oct 1, 2012 04:24 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC