Author Topic: Gun violence the new normal  (Read 2435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lucca

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2019, 12:14:18 pm »
Does anyone here have any scientific evidence that looser gun laws or higher gun ownership  do not result in less gun violence? Like a before and after legislation comparison?

Additionally, what about the kind of gun being used? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a gun that is small enough to easily conceal or that can fire more than a handful of times before reloading is unnecessary for both defending yourself and for hunting. So de we really need handguns or semi-automic guns for any non-illicit purpose?

As for the claim that violent media is the cause, anyone have any scientific evidence behind that either?

Offline AnneK

  • *
  • Posts: 2,292
  • Reputation: +6/-0
  • Gender: Questioning
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2019, 12:18:20 pm »
First let's address a definition problem.  Semi-automatic and automatic are different things.  The first goes bang once when you pull the trigger no matter how long you hold that trigger down, the second is a machine gun.  Machine guns in the USA have been very tightly regulated since 1934. 

I am aware of the difference and I am also aware that it's fairly easy to convert some semi automatic guns to full.  There was also that bump stock that was in the news, not that long ago, after another mass shooting, where one was used.
I'm a 66 year old male who has been thinking about SRS for many years.  I also was a  full cross dresser for a few years.  I wear a bra, pantyhose and nail polish daily because it just feels right.

Started HRT April 17, 2019.

Offline Haley Conner

  • *
  • Posts: 543
  • Reputation: +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2019, 12:26:38 pm »
@kaygee don't forget that there can also be a round in the chamber, so it can still be loaded even after the clip is removed.

Offline kaygee

  • Mademoiselle💃
  • ****
  • *
  • Posts: 276
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • A very stable genius.🤪
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2019, 12:28:10 pm »
Does anyone here have any scientific evidence that looser gun laws or higher gun ownership  do not result in less gun violence? Like a before and after legislation comparison?

Additionally, what about the kind of gun being used? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a gun that is small enough to easily conceal or that can fire more than a handful of times before reloading is unnecessary for both defending yourself and for hunting. So de we really need handguns or semi-automic guns for any non-illicit purpose?

As for the claim that violent media is the cause, anyone have any scientific evidence behind that either?

I'd say a gun that is small enough to easily conceal or that can fire more than a handful of times before reloading is unnecessary for both defending yourself and for hunting.

Huh?

That statement seems contradictory.

Even if it's not, you seem to imply that there is a one-size-fits-all for self defense and another one-size-fits-all for hunting.
Give me ambiguity... or give me something else.

-Patrick… somebody

Offline MICHELLE B

  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Reputation: +1/-0
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2019, 12:30:06 pm »
I am aware of the home guard.  I am not aware of shipping guns to England, though guns were collected in England for that purpose.  As the U.S. was neutral, until Pearl Harbor, it would have been illegal, under international law, for the U.S. to send those weapons.  In fact, Canadian trains, carrying troops or weapons, were not allowed to use the Canadian Pacific railway line that passed through Maine, as that would also violate the law.  Roosevelt bent the rules a bit with Lend Lease, where he'd park aircraft, etc. near the border, where they could be "found" and taken over the border into Canada.  He also loaned Britain some obsolete warships, in exchange for naval bases in Newfoundland (then not yet part of Canada) and Bermuda.

Unless someone can come up with some evidence, I have to consider that gun collection to be "alternative fact" created by the pro gun crowd.

This is a fact I have known for over 50 years, the collection operation was taught in history class on WW2.
IIRC, they first wanted bolt action rifles in .303 Brit., then US 30/06.
Second level, any rifle of a different caliber if there was a minimum of 200 round to go with it.
These rifles were collected and owners recorded by the NRA.
The guns were then shipped to New York for loading on a ship.
The entire operation was civilian(with gov approval).
The British gov. promised to return them after the war, but never did.

Those ships you mentioned were Clemson and Wickes class WW1 four stacker destroyers that were badly needed for anti submarine work.
Those ships were on the edge of obsolescence, they were converted from coal burners to bunker oil and had ASW updates.
The US was still using the at the time for maritime patrol,
later for training crews for newer ships such as the Fletcher class..

Just for interest, One of those four stacker's fired the first shot on Dec. 7, 1941, and sunk a Jap mini sub at the entrance to Pearl Harbor. They sunk it with a deck gun!
That US destroyer was the USS Ward.

Offline AnneK

  • *
  • Posts: 2,292
  • Reputation: +6/-0
  • Gender: Questioning
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2019, 12:38:00 pm »
Quote
They sunk it with a deck gun!

Was that gun registered?   ;)
I'm a 66 year old male who has been thinking about SRS for many years.  I also was a  full cross dresser for a few years.  I wear a bra, pantyhose and nail polish daily because it just feels right.

Started HRT April 17, 2019.

Offline Lucca

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2019, 12:38:37 pm »
I'd say a gun that is small enough to easily conceal or that can fire more than a handful of times before reloading is unnecessary for both defending yourself and for hunting.

Huh?

That statement seems contradictory.

Even if it's not, you seem to imply that there is a one-size-fits-all for self defense and another one-size-fits-all for hunting.

I'm saying that I don't think a gun needs to be concealable or fire more than a few rounds in order to be effective for either self-defense or hunting. Ergo, small handguns (dangerous because they can be concealed) or semi-automatics (dangerous because they can fire many rounds without being reloaded) don't have a non-illicit civilian use.

Additionally, I'm aware of the difference between semi-automatics and automatic, but semi-automatics can still fire awfully fast. Something that can fire multiple times per second for many seconds is really only good for shooting large numbers of people quickly, which shouldn't be necessary in a self-defense scenario.

Offline AnneK

  • *
  • Posts: 2,292
  • Reputation: +6/-0
  • Gender: Questioning
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2019, 12:41:59 pm »
I'm saying that I don't think a gun needs to be concealable or fire more than a few rounds in order to be effective for either self-defense or hunting. Ergo, small handguns (dangerous because they can be concealed) or semi-automatics (dangerous because they can fire many rounds without being reloaded) don't have a non-illicit civilian use.

HEY!!  You need to pack a piece for protection, when you go to church!   ;)
I'm a 66 year old male who has been thinking about SRS for many years.  I also was a  full cross dresser for a few years.  I wear a bra, pantyhose and nail polish daily because it just feels right.

Started HRT April 17, 2019.

Offline kaygee

  • Mademoiselle💃
  • ****
  • *
  • Posts: 276
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • A very stable genius.🤪
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2019, 01:17:45 pm »
I'm saying that I don't think a gun needs to be concealable or fire more than a few rounds in order to be effective for either self-defense or hunting. Ergo, small handguns (dangerous because they can be concealed) or semi-automatics (dangerous because they can fire many rounds without being reloaded) don't have a non-illicit civilian use.

So concealability makes a firearm more dangerous?

In the early 70s I had a job which took me into all parts of the city, day and night.

At the behest of my boss I purchased a pistol; my choice was S&W Model 39, 9mm, with an 8 round clip.

Back then, it was difficult to get a CCP, but I applied for it, to one court or another. I had to justify my request. I claimed, accurately, I believe, that if you open carry, an assailant will first relieve you of your firearm, then continue with the assault or robbery. I got the permit; I carried in a shoulder holster under my coveralls; and thankfully never needed it.

Because I'm just about the worst marksman in the world, I definitely would have needed multiple rounds!



More recently, ~6 years ago, there was a persistent and credible threat in my life. (The aforementioned brother-in-law)
I didn't want to carry the big clunky S&W, so I purchased a Beretta Nano. Four round clip, IIRC. Fit nicely in my purse. Again, I got a CCP, and carried it unloaded for about 2 weeks, until
a. I was used to having it in my purse, and
b. I was qualified on it (Basically the ability to empty the clip without shooting myself in the foot.😬)

I don't see how the 9 round capacity S&W was more dangerous than the palm-sized Beretta.
Give me ambiguity... or give me something else.

-Patrick… somebody

Offline Lucca

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2019, 01:29:02 pm »
Well, maybe I'm wrong about concealability; if there are any studies on the efficacy of safety of concealed vs. open firearms, I'd love to hear them. I certainly don't think semi-automatics have a use other than as mass-murder machines, though.

Offline AnneK

  • *
  • Posts: 2,292
  • Reputation: +6/-0
  • Gender: Questioning
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #50 on: August 07, 2019, 01:31:38 pm »
Quote
I don't see how the 9 round capacity S&W was more dangerous than the palm-sized Beretta.

I think the issue is large capacity enables someone like that guy in Dayton, El Paso, etc., to kill more people.  I believe that guy in Dayton might have been able to carry well over 200 rounds in the guns/magazines he was carrying.  It's hard to shoot up 20 - 30 people, when you have only 5 or 6 rounds in your gun.
I'm a 66 year old male who has been thinking about SRS for many years.  I also was a  full cross dresser for a few years.  I wear a bra, pantyhose and nail polish daily because it just feels right.

Started HRT April 17, 2019.

Offline itsApril

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • Reputation: +19/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #51 on: August 07, 2019, 02:18:00 pm »
Does anyone here have any scientific evidence that looser gun laws or higher gun ownership  do not result in less gun violence? Like a before and after legislation comparison?

Here's a start: Simon Chapman is an emeritus professor at the Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney. He has carefully studied the impact of legislation that greatly limited the private possession of firearms in Australia following a spectacularly awful massacre in 1996.


Sydney Morning Herald
By Simon Chapman
Updated March 13, 2018

https://www.smh.com.au/national/study-shows-nra-is-wrong-about-aussie-gun-laws-20180312-p4z41i.html

"Tens of thousands of us must have told incredulous Americans when we travel over there or they travel here about what happened after John Howard changed our gun laws in 1996. Just 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 died and another 23 were seriously injured, the Australasian Police Ministers' Council adopted the National Firearms Agreement.

"The centrepiece of the law reforms was the outlawing from civilian ownership the rapid-firing, mass-killing machines that armed forces carry.

"In 2016 with two colleagues, I published a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association where we told the world that 20 years on, Australia had not had a single mass shooting. In the 18 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre, we’d had 13 where five or more (not including the perpetrator) were killed.

The New Yorker named our evaluation of the impact of the new laws as one of five most notable medical research reports of 2016.  Today, 22 years on, Australia still has not experienced a mass shooting. Nada. Zilch.

* * *

". . . Using the eye-watering mathematics used to test the likelihood of rare events being truly rare (insurance companies have long used these techniques to assess risk and set premiums), we tested the “null” hypothesis that the rate of mass shootings in Australia in the 18 years before the 1996 law reforms remained unchanged in the 22 years afterwards. We set out to see if the obvious, was indeed obvious.

"We concluded the probability of this 22 year absence occurring following the pattern in the preceding 18 years was about 1 in 200,000. That’s odds slightly worse than a ticket holder winning first prize in the NSW $5 jackpot lottery: 1 in 180,000. Or as I once heard a famous statistics professor telling a gormless student “about the same odds of winning if you didn’t have a ticket”.

"Over the 18 years prior to 1996, mass shootings occurred here at a rate of about three every four years. Had they continued at this rate then, under our rare events model, the expected number of mass shooting incidents since 1996 would by March 2018 have been 16.3. John Howard’s historic leadership in implementing our gun law reforms therefore seems likely to have averted some 16 mass shootings in this country."
-April

Offline itsApril

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • Reputation: +19/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2019, 02:37:14 pm »
First let's address a definition problem.  Semi-automatic and automatic are different things.  The first goes bang once when you pull the trigger no matter how long you hold that trigger down, the second is a machine gun.  Machine guns in the USA have been very tightly regulated since 1934.

What you say is quite true.  But in practice, that doesn't make much difference in a mass shooting.  The shooter in Dayton, Ohio last week was armed with a semi-automatic rifle using military-caliber ammunition with a hugely extended magazine capacity.

Using that, he killed nine people and wounded some 20 more in an attack that Dayton police say lasted LESS THAN ONE MINUTE.  So the fact that his rifle wasn't fully automatic seems like cold comfort.
-April

Cindy

Re: Gun violence the new normal
« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2019, 05:03:42 pm »
 :police:

I think that this topic has run its course here.

I would hope that one day that the people of the USA find a way to manage their problem with weapons.

I think further discussion on the topic is best suited for other social media forums that are not transgender based.


Tags: