Yet another shooting thread

[Elixir]

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

Or even with a .22 or a .45 handgun.

On the other hand, something like a 30-06 bolt action with a scope would have been a far better choice than an intermediate range weapon such as the AR15.

Yup. Just goes to show how irrational Murka’s gun fetish types have become.
I blame it on the Crooks dad; we’d be rid of the scourge had he made a more sensible choice.

 

[Derec]

Sure, but did his dad own one?

That was my point. He used it because it was convenient, not because AR15s are some superweapons that are too dangerous to be allowed to be in civilian hands.

 

[Derec]

That is one of the stupidest use of statistics I have ever seen. One can easily say being alive makes you statistically more dangerous than a person with any firearm.

It was obviously tongue in cheek in the way I phrased it, but the fact remains that more people get punched and kicked to death than get killed with a rifle of any kind.

Contrary to the claims made by some (e.g. Elixir).

 

[laughing dog]

That is one of the stupidest use of statistics I have ever seen. One can easily say being alive makes you statistically more dangerous than a person with any firearm.

It was obviously tongue in cheek in the way I phrased it, but the fact remains that more people get punched and kicked to death than get killed with a rifle of any kind.

Contrary to the claims made by some (e.g. Elixir).

Doubling down on the stupid does not make it smarter.

 

[Derec]

And yet HFF are very small numbers compared to all firearms.

HFF?

 

[Derec]

Doubling down on the stupid does not make it smarter.

I linked to FBI uniform crime report in post #368. You continue to double down on ignorance by denying facts.

 

[Gospel]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

 

[ZiprHead]

And yet HFF are very small numbers compared to all firearms.

HFF?

Hands feet fists.

 

[laughing dog]

Doubling down on the stupid does not make it smarter.

I linked to FBI uniform crime report in post #368. You continue to double down on ignorance by denying facts.

The obvious point is that fact is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that it is s fact. It gas as much relevance to any discussion about gun control as the fact that shooters with functional eyesight are more numerous than blind shooters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

Criminals use handguns because they can be concealed. It's pretty hard to bring a rifle to a robbery.

Other than cost rifles are no harder to obtain than handguns. They can even be easier.

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

 

[barbos]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

Are you suggesting taking hands out of criminals? So medieval of you.

 

[bilby]

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

By changing the environment in which rule breakers must operate.

The problem with the idea that regulations will not reduce crime is that the vast majority of countries observably have reduced gun crime by regulating firearms.

When observation and hypothesis are in conflict, observation always wins.

If you cannot understand the causal mechanism, that only speaks to your lack of understanding, not to the lack of a mechanism.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

Criminals use handguns because they can be concealed. It's pretty hard to bring a rifle to a robbery.

Other than cost rifles are no harder to obtain than handguns. They can even be easier.

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

Yes, why bother enforcing the laws when criminals will just break them anyway?

 

[Gospel]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

Criminals use handguns because they can be concealed. It's pretty hard to bring a rifle to a robbery.

Other than cost rifles are no harder to obtain than handguns. They can even be easier.

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

Yes, why bother enforcing the laws when criminals will just break them anyway?

Even back in the "good ole" Wild West days of the US, between the 1860s and 1890s, there were gun laws in place. You couldn't even stroll into town without checking your firearm! Imagine that—folks back then had stricter gun laws, and here we are today with people crying about our candy ass gun laws.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

By changing the environment in which rule breakers must operate.

The problem with the idea that regulations will not reduce crime is that the vast majority of countries observably have reduced gun crime by regulating firearms.

When observation and hypothesis are in conflict, observation always wins.

If you cannot understand the causal mechanism, that only speaks to your lack of understanding, not to the lack of a mechanism.

You continue to focus specifically on gun crime. What counts is the results, not the means!

And look in a mirror--your crackdown on guns only caused a blip, your murder rate quickly returned to it's baseline pattern of decline with no lasting change. Perhaps you had a beneficial effect on mass shootings, but a look at US data says defensive uses clearly exceed mass shootings. Thus the reasonable conclusion is that you probably made the country less safe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm fairly certain that if rifles were as freely available as hands without many obstacles to obtaining them, like background checks and $$$, those statistics would be different. I'm convinced that more regulations on firearms in general could lead to a decrease in homicides involving guns in general. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: And also everyone being free to roam around with rifles like we are with hands.

Criminals use handguns because they can be concealed. It's pretty hard to bring a rifle to a robbery.

Other than cost rifles are no harder to obtain than handguns. They can even be easier.

And the problem with the idea that regulations will reduce crime is that the vast majority of crime is committed with guns that were not obtained legally in the first place. How are regulations supposed to change the behavior of people who are already breaking the rules?

Yes, why bother enforcing the laws when criminals will just break them anyway?

A law that's just going to be broken is worse than not having a law.

Laws should not exist for the sake of laws. Laws should exist to produce a beneficial effect.

 

[bilby]

You continue to focus specifically on gun crime.

Yeah, because jay-walking and DUI are not the topic.

FFS.

 

[bilby]

And look in a mirror--your crackdown on guns only caused a blip, your murder rate quickly returned to it's baseline pattern of decline with no lasting change.

I have never had the authority to crack down on guns.

Perhaps you had a beneficial effect on mass shootings,

Then that crackdown did exactly what it was suppised to.

but a look at US data says defensive uses clearly exceed mass shootings.

A look at the data says the US is utterly different from the rest of the OECD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Americans kill each other three times as often as Canadians do, and Canada is second only to the US amongst OECD nations.

Defensive uses of firearms are generally immoral, as the use of lethal force is typically unnecessary for defence, and represents a massive (indeed, outside the US, criminal) over-reaction.

 

[bilby]

A law that's just going to be broken is worse than not having a law.

Which is why we should legalise armed robbery.

I guarantee you that there will continue to be armed robberies, despite any legal measures to try to eliminate them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And look in a mirror--your crackdown on guns only caused a blip, your murder rate quickly returned to it's baseline pattern of decline with no lasting change.

I have never had the authority to crack down on guns.

You in the plural sense--Australia.

Perhaps you had a beneficial effect on mass shootings,

Then that crackdown did exactly what it was suppised to.

But note that in the US at least trading no mass shootings for no self defense would make people less safe.

Defensive uses of firearms are generally immoral, as the use of lethal force is typically unnecessary for defence, and represents a massive (indeed, outside the US, criminal) over-reaction.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.