I did the exact same thing and was likewise disappointed. Sadly, not every joker sets up their own perfect punchline.
2 Likes
Uzi come, uzi goâŚ
Except that the right to be armed is a foundational aspect of our nation. ( I know, pesky details )
'Twas hyperbole. She still killed someone, however, and my initial query still stands.
LOL! Heminwayâs thoroughly discredited efforts are the very essence of anecdotal. There isnât an honest researcher that doesnât openly admit that the quality of the information available doesnât show what he is saying at all. Police reports are notoriously inaccurate and Heminway used newspaper accounts written from those reports which, given the near complete ignorance that almost every journalist has on the subject, leads to a near exponential decrease in the accuracy of the information. Also, by any credible definition DGUs (defensive gun uses) are vastly under-reported as they many times do not lead to firearms usage and are generally not reported in the news which leads to a huge skew if you use newspaper accounts for your sole source of informationâŚa fact Iâm sure Heminway is aware of and counted on given his poor and discredited research on firearms in the past. Heminway is the very epitome of a âresearcherâ who starts with the conclusion he wishes to reach and who then discovers how to define the available information to confirm his beliefs.
Almost choked on my beer. The plain, unvarnished ignorance that comes out of the anti-gun crowd during Congressional testimonies is amazing. US District Attorney Walsh from Colorado admitting that although there were over 80,000 failed background checks where persons provided false information, of which only 44 were prosecuted, was one of those âanecdotesâ brought up when he was testifying that we need to expand background checks, he was rightfully informed of the numbers (he was unaware of them) and why he needed an expanded law when he wasnât actively prosecuting the failed background checks already occurring. The anecdotes are on the side of the anti-gun crowd, the actual numbers favor the pro-gun stance. Thatâs why it always devolves into a âthink about the childrenâ or âif it saves one lifeâ emotional cry from the anti side. Apparently, âif it saves one lifeâ doesnât count for those whose lives are saved by the presence of a gun.
You should proofread better, that sentence was completely contradictoryâŚbut I know what you were trying to say. I suppose that since the New York Times and Salon ignored the Kleck survey (link) and all of John Lottâs extensive research on the subject (link), you felt no need to actually read any of their work which thoroughly disagrees with Heminwayâs periodic, poorly sourced hatchet jobs financed by organizations which fund anti-gun research.
So the bald faced fact that greatly increased gun control in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia did not lead to decreased violent crime and murder (violent crime in the UK in fact increased greatly and occurs at four times the rate as in the US), yet increased concealed carry permissions and record firearms sales in the US occurred during the same time we continued a downward trend to 40-year lows for violent crime and murder according to FBI/DOJ statistics? (link)
Really? Salon.com is your reference for this? Apparently the CDC didnât get the memo and did a study last year which disagrees with just about every point you have tried to make, you might want to read it.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (CDC)
If you rely on seriously flawed studies, you might believe that. While there may be a correlation, there is a huge amount of evidence that there is no causation between firearm possession and some form of harm. The Heminway study doesnât differentiate between legal and illegal possession and treats gang related shootouts the same as a homeowner protecting their family. When you remove drug crime related shootings from the mix, suddenly gun possession isnât all that risky anymore but researchers like Heminway keep them in because they have a narrative to push. Apparently, engaging in violent criminal activities is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than owning guns for sport and self-defense but you wouldnât get that info from Heminway. Statistically, concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit criminal homicide than a law enforcement officer. Give the CDC report a read and file Heminwayâs bought and paid for propaganda someplace appropriate.
1 Like
What a surprise! Your profile photo has a picture of someone (presumably you) proudly brandishing a gun. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the evidence that fits with the narrative you prefer.
I get the impression that no matter what citations I come up with you will find a way to rationalize your way back to a pro gun stance. I went for news articles (Salon, etc) again because Iâm going for brevity. I just donât have the energy to have a citation war with you. But I will link at least to a succinct critique of that Kleck survey you fund so authoritative. (Ref)
Itâs true that CDC just start studying gun violence again, the quality of which sadly is rather poor. I spose they are rusty since they havenât been allowed to since 1996 when congress (coaxed by the NRA) enacted a law banning such research. Obama had to use an executive order just to investigating the topic once more. Even so there is little money available for such studies. (Ref)
I wonder why the NRA would object to scientific research on the topic in the first place? For purely innocent reasons Iâm sure.
In any case, youâve clearly made up your mind. You pick out pro-gun stats like a pro, and I just donât have the time or energy to have a citation war with you.
Iâll find a study thatâs underfunded and imperfect, but still seems to indicate an alarming trend. Youâll find a well funded Cato Institute study custom tailored to refute it. Whatâs the point? You wonât change my mind, and I wonât change yours.
Maybe someone else in this thread wants to have this argument.
P.S. What kinda gun you got there? Looks like quite the clip. How many bullets does it take to defend your home from a criminal? A shotgun or hunting rifle wouldnât be good enough? You really need what appears to be a semi-automatic weapon? You expecting a standoff with the ATF or something?
4 Likes
Itâs an AK variant of some kind with a 30 round magazine. And odds are he didnât buy it for defense or government overthrow, but for recreation.
Fun fact - even though âself defenseâ is the talking point many people use in a pro-gun argument because it is both a valid one, and it is hard to tell someone âno, you canât protect yourselfâ, MOST guns are used for sport and recreation.
Thatâs right, somehow people figured out that these devices, which are only good for killing people, are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot targets with. So whether it is informal plinking of steel targets, bullseye or bench rest precision shooting, or the more action orientated and ever popular 3 Gun competitions, millions of Americans (and other nationalities) use guns just like the one in the picture to punch holes in paper and knock down steel targets.
Furthermore, while the rifle in the picture may look all scary, and I guess has the potential to be more dangerous than some other guns, they make up a small minority of gun crime. So you really donât have to fear them, as most of them belong to responsible people who just like to shoot targets and look good doing it.
You understand that guns were invented for killing right? Automatic weapons such as the AK were made for killing people, lots of people, very quickly. When did it become an acceptable form of recreation to play with military grade firearms?
There are so many forms of recreation that donât involve using something made for killing.
If you absolutely insist on using a weapon as a toy, isnât a rifle or shotgun sufficient? Itâs certainly sufficient for self defense, itâs certainly sufficient for hunting. Playing with military equipment intended for warfare is just gratuitous.
Call me crazy but âitâs a hell of a lot of funâ is not a good enough reason to allow the public casual access to military hardware.
That kid who shot up that theater in Aurora was able to acquire a lot of military grade hardware because âsportsmanâ huff and puff and insist the founding fathers intended for them to have banana clips and the automatic triggers. One wonders if 12 people would have died that day if he only had access to rifles/shotguns made for hunting game.
Iâm sure land mines can be lots of fun too, but there are many practical reasons only militaries are supposed to have them.
1 Like
I really can not stand this line of illogical reasoning. Letâs not look at something as it is being used, but let us just surmise what they might be used for and then demonize them. Like shoes - they COULD have a bomb in them. Take them off.
HmmâŚ
Lots of other things were made to kill: knives, swords, bows and arrows, large rockets, Nitroglycerin, etc. And yet all of these items found peaceful applications. Pit Bulls were bred to be fighting dogs - thatâs all they are good for, right?
As for âmilitary hardwareâ let me draw the distinction that the AK pictured in the other userâs icon is most likely not fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and illegal in some states. Yes, if you are wealthy or a Class III dealer (or both) then you can own and operate a full auto weapon. There are ranges who will rent them out for that. But never fear, anyone who has a legal full auto weapon has been thoroughly checked out by the ATF. IIRC, the only case of a legal full auto weapon being used in a crime in the last 50 years was actually from a cop and a police issued weapon.
Youâre making arbitrary distinctions and knee jerk reactions. Just because you have a few high profile abusers doesnât justify demonizing the millions of lawful users. All that âmilitary grade hardwareâ is used in a minority of crime, while cheap handguns kill the most people in gun crimes. And again, that guy didnât have a full auto either.
The NSA would like to restrict your rights because, hey, there are bad people out there. The TSA gets to feel us up because an improbable terror plot actually worked. Iâm sorry but I canât rationalize the condemnation of something when there are only a small number of abusers and MILLIONS of people hurting no one.
Fun fact - founding father were down with private ownership of cannons. Yeah, the most powerful weapons of the times were often bought by the rich who lent them out for wars. In fact you can still buy and operate old school cannons with out a license or anything, though with out the exploding shells.
Citation? Are you sure youâre not thinking of side-loading SMGs like the STEN?
I thought the shooting sideways trend originated with Menace II Society, where a character holds a pistol sideways to reach over a counter to shoot a cowering shop owner, after which (right-handed) wannabe gangstas adopted the pose without regard for the hot brass flying up into their faces.
Different shooting sideways. The Menace II/thug side shooting is done when brandishing a hand gun to apparently look fashionable and threatening. Recoils gonna make that gun hit you in the head a lot of the time when fired, or so I hear from family in law enforcement and emergency medicine (and also just from looking where and how the gun is commonly held). And likely has its origins in exactly that sort of media depiction.
Waetherman and I are referring instead to the entirely more practical practice of holding a sub machine gun (and not a hand gun or machine pistol) sideways while firing. So that the muzzle climb caused by the recoil causes the line of fire to travel horizontally instead of vertically. So you sort of cut in a straight line at chest high through a group of people rather than firing most of your rounds above one guys head. I donât have a specific citation unfortunately, since its been a great long time since Iâve really given a shit about such things. But Wikipedia has a half way decent summation that mentions both:
If Iâm remembering the few times I looked it up (after seeing the maneuver in a few WWII movies and gangster flix) American soldiers were taught to do this for the end of WWI into the beginning of WWII until it was discarded in favor of aimed and controlled bursts. Iâve really only seen it associated with Uzis in terms totally radical 80âs action movies and this one dude I know who was definitely involved in secret underground Ninja death fights and told me the Uziâs well known and somewhat frightening recoil was intentional and specifically designed to cut d00dz in half. GUITAR SOLO
1 Like
an accident?
One? Hmmmm. Bullshit.
The version Iâve heard is that the side-aiming is actually beneficial if youâre robbing convenience stores Menace-II-Society style: it is a lot easier (given the constraints of the human wrist) to stick your arm over the counter and aim the gun down at people cowering on the ground if you hold the gun horizontally, and not vertically. I believe this is what @L_Mariachi is alluding to.
Yeah, thatâs what I was getting at. I feel a little bad for calling the fictional Asian clerk âcoweringâ but OTOH you really shouldnât bring anyoneâs mama into the conversation like that. I mean, how had that guy survived running a liquor store in South Central so long with such poor judgement?
Itâs a good question. I have no research to point to.
Itâs worth remembering that the 2nd amendment is about killing people, not about target shooting, hunting or home defense. Whether or not you agree with the SC that the 2nd amendment is intended to grant an individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia is another matter.
1 Like
Wow, sounds like there is a lot of care that needs to be taken with a pasttime like this. Sounds like you needs to be a highly competent, responsible person who has proven their ability and willingness to attain vast amounts of specialized knowledge to ensure safety in order to prevent grievous injury and death. Sounds like if any part of these requirements were to fall short, quite serious consequences would occur. Almost like something that would need to be tightly regulatedâŚOr wait, maybe we should just let the market sort out which gun ranges are safe through Yelp reviews, Yelp reviews that have an uncommonly high rate of the characters âR, I and Pâ in the subject line for a private businessâŚ
6 Likes
Yes, I believe we call that âChekhovâs Correlationâ
3 Likes
You said it for me: Well-regulated militia. It says nothing about so you can play with them for fun.
2 Likes
Whatâs interesting is that itâs the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that explicitly spells out why it is there, yet its âreal purposeâ is probably debated more endlessly than anything else in the Constitution.
3 Likes
