OT: Shooting in Oregon Mall

[elocomotive]

I don't think it was evolver that said it.

I definitely said fuck you a couple times today. I'm hot under the collar. My apologies to 46. I definitely said it to him and it was undeserved. I said it earlier and it was deserved though. Somebody tried to say "don't talk about a gun control" - a couple people actually. And that is ridiculous to me. When is it more appropriate and important to talk about than now?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Are you coming to this conclusion by thinking they could shoot themselves? Or be involved in an accident?

The guns I own, and have owned serve one purpose, and that is hunting. I don't see how that makes me more likely to be shot, other than accidentally

Hunters make up one portion, but so do people living in rough neighborhoods, people who make enemies (public defenders, private eyes, bail bondsmen, intelligence agents, police officers). Non gun owners are probably more risk averse, in general. They may have controlled for it in the analysis. i am not sure. I am just saying it should be considered.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

BTW, welcome to like half of my lecture and recitation sessions.....

Insert anything:

smoking and cancer

gum disease and myocardial infarction

prions and vCJD

yay.....

 

[evolver115]

I don't think it was evolver that said it.

Thank you for clearing that up. Definitely not my style

I definitely said fuck you a couple times today. I'm hot under the collar. My apologies to 46. I definitely said it to him and it was undeserved. I said it earlier and it was deserved though. Somebody tried to say "don't talk about a gun control" - a couple people actually. And that is ridiculous to me. When is it more appropriate and important to talk about than now?

It was you Eloco! I'm getting buzz bombed by the bird for something you did!

 

[elocomotive]

At the risk of sounding condescending again, if you own a gun, you are also more likely living in a situation that would lead you to be shot.

Well you prick!!

I'm not sure if that's true. People who bought gas masks after 9/11 lived in places that were VERY unlikely to be the subject of a terrorist attack, while few people in places likely to be attacked bought them. I remember seeing the news on it and thinking, 'bin Laden isn't desperate to destroy Casper, Wyoming you dumb hicks.'

Guns escalate situations where nobody has or intended to use a gun to situations where people use guns. Where are you talking about? What stats show that? From what I know/experience, people that live in the "hood" where the drug murders go down don't usually have gun because if you live in that area, it's because you are barely making rent. That kind of crime won't change with gun control (not much at least), I agree there. But most other situations would improve I think - spree killing, spousal/relationship homicide, felony murder, etc.

 

[elocomotive]

It was you Eloco! I'm getting buzz bombed by the bird for something you did!

I owned up to it AND apologized! See, good people in this world.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I do agree that guns escalate situations, especially spousal situations.

 

[evolver115]

I owned up to it AND apologized! See, good people in this world.

Yes there are. More good than evil, anyway

Good nite all. My thoughts are for the families who are suffering tonight.

 

[puckhead]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there is a problem with gun violence in America. There is. The disagreement seems to be in how to:

1. reduce the amount of available guns
2. keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable or criminally inclined
3. reduce overall gun deaths

yeah, the stat was just pretty staggering to me.

I can only speak for how it works up here, where we still have the occasional issue (Eaton Centre in Toronto earlier this year for example - 6 shot, 1 dead), but certainly to a much lesser extent. There are still lots of gangs shooting each other up, but as long as the targeted hits keep to themselves (and their aim is true), that's somewhat of a lesser societal concern.

there was a bit of an uproar when there was a firearms registry in Canada about 7 or 8 years ago. Hunters swore up and down that step 1 was registry, and the eventual step 2 was confiscation. Which of course never happened. So that was supposed to be a big step in finding out where all of the guns were situated. And I think - if a gun wasn't registered, it was deemed illegal.

In order to own a gun, you need a possession license. Again, this keeps tabs on where the guns are.
In order to acquire a gun (and ammunition), you need a Posession / Acquisition License, the requirements are a bit more stringent. Pass a background check, and take a safety course administered by the RCMP. 5 year renewal. this keeps tabs on where the NEW guns are, and more importantly, where the ammunition is going.
I'm sure there is an underground firearm economy, but any time a gun pops up that isn't properly in the system, it can be confiscated. Anytime someone on the list fucks up, their license can be revoked as well.

The system is expensive as fuck, but it gives means to somewhat control the weapons, ammunition, and people who would use them.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I am as heavily opposed to the hard core gun owners as i am to the people who want to completely ban them. The slippery slope argument has always bothered me. I have no issue with regulations and background checks. I do have a problem with flat out banning guns, more for practical purposes than anything else.

I also don't think a 7 day waiting period is step 1 to Gestapo.



....and I am beat and off to bed.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

Right now I can walk down the street to the local pawn shop & buy a gun for 50 to 100 bucks. No background check, no questions about whether or not I know how to use it. It's that easy.

 

[elocomotive]

Thanks to all for the discussion. I learned some things tonight about guns...and a little about dinosaurs.

G'nite.

 

[dare2be]

Thanks to all for the discussion. I learned some things tonight about guns...and a little about dinosaurs.

G'nite.

Don't forget, you also learned the difference between smiles and grimaces.

 

[Comeds]

I definitely said fuck you a couple times today.

Thanks to all for the discussion. I learned some things tonight about guns...and a little about dinosaurs.

G'nite.

Third world manners man. Nice you owned up to it. Anyway - Pterodactyl is pretty cool, huh?

 

[elocomotive]

For 46 when he gets online next time, #8 and #9 both suggest gun control can be effective in reducing homicide.

 

[elocomotive]

Don't forget, you also learned the difference between smiles and grimaces.

We may have learned a little more about smiles, but I don't think we'll ever know what the hell Grimace is, who is ironically always smiling...

 

[elocomotive]

Third world manners man. Nice you owned up to it. Anyway - Pterodactyl is pretty cool, huh?

My favorite is the brontosaurus!!

 

[puckhead]

We may have learned a little more about smiles, but I don't think we'll ever know what the hell Grimace is, who is ironically always smiling...

he's supposed to be a splooge of milkshake.
which creates its own nightmares.



more staggering statistics:
Gun deaths in 1 yr: Finland 17, Australia 35, England/Wales 39, Spain 60, Germany 194, Canada 200, US 9,484. Undeniable.

 

[blindbaby]

he's supposed to be a splooge of milkshake.
which creates its own nightmares.



more staggering statistics:
Gun deaths in 1 yr: Finland 17, Australia 35, England/Wales 39, Spain 60, Germany 194, Canada 200, US 9,484. Undeniable.

Really, that too is pretty crappy.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

For 46 when he gets online next time, #8 and #9 both suggest gun control can be effective in reducing homicide.

This blog has been going around all day now.

#8 indicates that fewer guns = fewer homicides. I do not debate that. I never have in this argument. I am saying that the literature that I cited earlier suggests that gun control laws do not decrease the amount of guns in a statistically significant way. In fact the articles specifically point that out. Gun crime did not go down significantly, because the number of guns did not go down.

#9 is interesting but once again it is very difficult to use group level data (in this case state level) to evaluate individual level risk. The south also has the highest level of poverty, for example. It is interesting. I need to pull up the article and look at it.

For the record, I also see flaws in all of the papers that I cited. They tend to look at small timeframes. I would like to see follow ups at 10, 20 years. Maybe it takes that long to see any significant drops. Violence levels as a whole are way the hell down since the 80s and 90s, so evaluating violence rates are tough, since that will overwhelm measures. There ARE ways to control for that but it is more work, and a lot of times researchers just don't have the funding or labor to do it.

One question you may ask is why are so many group level studies done if they are brought into question. Well, they are a lot easier to do and require much less funding and they ARE important. They can show overall trends, but you have to be very careful assigning causation with regards to them. In actuality, you can't technically assign causation because of issues of temporality, but you can see associations that can be used to justify further investigation. You can use these associations to go the CDC or NIH for funding to conduct longitudinal studies that better evaluate risk. I am sure that this kind of research is being done right now. The research (much like mental health research) was not a major public health focus for the longest time but it has emerged and is getting a lot more attention now, which is good.