Fallout: Massacre @ Cinema 9

[TomServo92]

 

 

So please do tell how we get 9mm's pointed at every head of every potential criminal at all times? Most of us have seen the news and web footage of clerks shooting robbers but people still rob stores. A majority of us have heard about someone who has shot and killed an intruder in their house and yet there are still home invasions. The reality of our world is that 99 percent of people have or do live with a "can't happen to me" state of mind and criminals are no different. Use any analogy you want, from cars to drinking and driving to unprotected sex we live with the fact that the odds might not be in our favor, so it's hard for me to believe that crime will stop because people don't want to play the odds. We live with the odds that we are not one of the 30 ish people injured unintentionally everyday by a firearm, or the one of many who will be injured or killed driving to work. May i suggest that in a world where you can not linger on the potential, that we can not expect that potential guns are not likely to bring a wholesale deterrent to gun crime?

 

Found this in a quick google search:

 

In a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, economics researcher John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate decrease of 8.5%, rape rate decrease of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2012 by TomServo92

[grbeck]

On a side note, I was reading the 2009 statistical study done by Charles Branas, which suggested gun owners were more likely to suffer injury during resistance than non-gun owners and a subsequent critique of the study by Gary Kleck, who offered up his own studies in the third person which is highly amusing. Next I was able to find critique of Mr. Klecks work by peers which leads me to believe that we do not have true handle on the issue of guns in America and what exactly happens and why.

 

If I recall correctly, the Branas study was flawed by the fact that households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested, five times more likely to have a household member who used illegal drugs and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight at home.

 

In other words, these household were populated with people who already had serious problems - and these problems were more likely to result in them becoming a victim of a homicide. A homicide is more likely to occur in these households, regardless of the presence of a firearm. Remove the firearm, and the victim probably would have been stabbed or beaten to death. This study does not prove that merely possessing a firearm will increase the chance that a person will be murdered. (Also, given these facts, one wonders if the people in these household were entitled to legally own ANY firearm.)

 

It would the same as including people convicted of drunk driving or vehicular homicide to "prove" that easy access to an automobile by members of the household endangers all members of that household.

Edited August 8, 2012 by grbeck

[xr7g428]

Langdad, You need to visit west Texas. Not much to look at really, but you meet the most polite people you have ever encountered. On a stretch of Texas two-lane if you pull up behind slower moving traffic they (locals) will almost invariably move to the shoulder to let you pass. This may have something to do with virtually every pick-up being equipped with a fully stocked gun rack. An armed society is a polite society. There is very little gun voilence in the area, but the coyotes are pretty nervous.

[Langston Hughes]

Langdad, You need to visit west Texas. Not much to look at really, but you meet the most polite people you have ever encountered. On a stretch of Texas two-lane if you pull up behind slower moving traffic they (locals) will almost invariably move to the shoulder to let you pass. This may have something to do with virtually every pick-up being equipped with a fully stocked gun rack. An armed society is a polite society. There is very little gun voilence in the area, but the coyotes are pretty nervous.

 

Surprisingly enough, I have spent plenty of time in Texas and for the most part didn't like it. The weather was nice enough, but the whole Texas ego thing was way to much to handle. Perhaps you would like to visit Canada where the people are just as nice and for the most part are unarmed. An unarmed society is a polite society too, imagine that.

 

But if you wish to discuss how a general lack of people makes for less crime I bet we could figure out that armed or unarmed rural areas are basically much less likely to have crime. That would generally eliminate your suggestion that they are polite out of fear. Well, you didn't say that, but that is the take away from your point. That people in west Texas are nice to other people because they could decide to shoot you. I find that a lousy way to live, to believe that people would be polite and nice because there are guns around and you don't want to set anyone off. It's also a shitty thing to say about the people of West Texas who might be polite and nice even if you were unarmed.

[Langston Hughes]

Found this in a quick google search:

 

I've read the research and I've read the criticism of it. Would you be a darling and quick google those for us, so we could conclude that after we take all the variables into account that 5% is not a large enough number to consider it an effective deterrent. If you as a parent only managed to get your son to do 5% less meth would you consider what you did good enough. He's still a meth addict so you haven't solved the problem nor have you made a significant statistical dent in his usage.

[TomServo92]

 

 

I've read the research and I've read the criticism of it. Would you be a darling and quick google those for us, so we could conclude that after we take all the variables into account that 5% is not a large enough number to consider it an effective deterrent. If you as a parent only managed to get your son to do 5% less meth would you consider what you did good enough. He's still a meth addict so you haven't solved the problem nor have you made a significant statistical dent in his usage.

 

What a ridiculous comparison. We're talking about 5% (and I would argue that number even being correct) fewer crimes being committed. So out of every 100 PEOPLE, that's 5 fewer being assaulted, raped, or murdered. Go ask those people if they are statistically insignificant.

 

By the way, one thing that came out Lott's work that all have agreed on is that concealed carry in no way increases crime. So what's the reason for not allowing it again?

[grbeck]

By the way, one thing that came out Lott's work that all have agreed on is that concealed carry in no way increases crime. So what's the reason for not allowing it again?

 

That is the main point. Even if there is no consistent proof that it causes a decrease in crime...if it doesn't cause the public, high-noon shoot-outs and crime sprees predicted by opponents - and every serious researcher agrees that it doesn't - why not allow it?

Edited August 8, 2012 by grbeck

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

You've never met someone who wasn't deterred by a firearm. The physical presence of one or the mythical possibility of one? Again i would suggest that most people who live in "shall issue" states realize that anyone may have a weapon and that has not stopped crime at all. People are still getting shot, robbed, carjacked, mugged and other assorted violent crimes. Potential weapons are not a significant crime deterrent, the reality of daily crime is proof of that.

Maybe mythical where you live, but we shoot people here. In my small neighborhood of about 200 houses, 2 different perps were killed in attempted home invasions this past year. One guy tried to rob the local gas station and his head ended up in two different zipcodes. Edited August 8, 2012 by Versa-Tech

[TomServo92]

Maybe mythical where you live, but we shoot people here. In my small neighborhood of about 200 houses, 2 different perps were killed in attempted home invasions this past year. One guy tried to rob the local gas station and his head ended up in two different zipcodes.

 

I know several people that scared off potential attackers just by reaching for their concealed weapon. Most criminals don't want complications. An armed potential victim is a severe complication.

[Trimdingman]

May I suggest that you might want to visit this web-sight?

http://www.stand2pee.com/

 

Now that i got that out of the way, if only all crime would pay for infrastructure, education, provide defense and the same general well being that we have in America, I think we wouldn't need a police force at all.

 

I would hope that you understand one thing here, that my life and I have lived through presidents of both parties is damn good. The majority of us here argue about how do we clean up the edges and make our lives 10 percent better or so. I doubt any of us are the ultra rich or ultra poor so it's the margins we focus on and I believe that despite our differences that we do actually see things as primarily good with a little TLC needed.

 

My thought is that this idea doesn't apply to you. I'm at a loss for why and to be perfectly honest sometimes I wonder if it's all an act. But if it is true, how and why do you see the world so jaded and suspiciously?

 

Would your life be better if you could earn a good living working twenty hours a week? That is what would happen if we got rid of unnecessary government. We would have more time to get educated, travel, write, enjoy nature. You think your life is good because you see worse, and you don't know anything else. If you go to work every day and put in long hours to pay high taxes to the government, you don't have a life. You are a slave.

[Langston Hughes]

What a ridiculous comparison. We're talking about 5% (and I would argue that number even being correct) fewer crimes being committed. So out of every 100 PEOPLE, that's 5 fewer being assaulted, raped, or murdered. Go ask those people if they are statistically insignificant.

 

By the way, one thing that came out Lott's work that all have agreed on is that concealed carry in no way increases crime. So what's the reason for not allowing it again?

 

You seem to have me mistaken for someone who opposes concealed weapons. That takes us away from the crux of the debate or at least my points on it, that concealed weapons are not the end all be all that it's supporters suggest it is. They do stop some crime and they do effect some people, but on the grand scale they are not the statistical deterrent that you or others think they might be. Your own statistics show that.

 

It's not a matter of whether or not one person is significantly important to themselves, it's a matter of discussing the concept of crime reduction in true manner, not clouded by anecdotal beliefs. If you wish to say that concealed carry stops 8 percent of all crime and that is worth keeping it around for then that is a plausible premise, but the thought that concealed weapons are a major deterrent is false in every measure of the word major.

[TomServo92]

 

 

You seem to have me mistaken for someone who opposes concealed weapons. That takes us away from the crux of the debate or at least my points on it, that concealed weapons are not the end all be all that it's supporters suggest it is. They do stop some crime and they do effect some people, but on the grand scale they are not the statistical deterrent that you or others think they might be. Your own statistics show that.

 

It's not a matter of whether or not one person is significantly important to themselves, it's a matter of discussing the concept of crime reduction in true manner, not clouded by anecdotal beliefs. If you wish to say that concealed carry stops 8 percent of all crime and that is worth keeping it around for then that is a plausible premise, but the thought that concealed weapons are a major deterrent is false in every measure of the word major.

 

I never said they were the "end all be all" but the contribution of CC (and gun ownership in general) should not be discounted, especially since it does not cause an increase in violent crime (which is one of the fallacious arguments used by anti-gun groups). It's just one of many tools that can be used to fight crime.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TomServo92

[Langston Hughes]

Maybe mythical where you live, but we shoot people here. In my small neighborhood of about 200 houses, 2 different perps were killed in attempted home invasions this past year. One guy tried to rob the local gas station and his head ended up in two different zipcodes.

 

Am I to believe that you really wanted to show evidence to support my theory, and that two other gun right supporters "liked" that you did it? I believe we should get that out of the way first. While I am glad that people defended themselves as I think we all have a right to, I don't think that offering up that there was attempted crime in your community after someone had used a firearm to stop one attempt shows that firearms are a good deterrent. And I believe that we are still talking about deterring crime correct? I take it that you see where i'm coming from. You suggested that you shoot people in your small community and yet after the first shooting there were still attempted criminal action. That lends credence to my premise that the "mythical possibility" as I called it in one post or "potential guns" as I called it another is not effective enough to be considered a deterrent. Please don't get stuck on the word mythical as all I'm saying is that a gun in the hand is worth two possibles, or something like that. Perhaps i could have said it in such a way that you might have taken better, but the idea is the same if you use the word, possible, potential or even mythical possibility. The reason i used mythical is solely because that is what the premise of concealed weapons as a deterrent relies on, that at any moment someone may have a concealed firearm and be capable of using it to stop you from engaging in criminal activity. This premise relies on a heavy dose of myth as we know that not nearly enough people are armed to stop all crime, so we talk up the times someone did in order to make it more likely than it might be. In order to make concealed carry as effective as can be, you need to train and arm more people and/or you have to make sure that everyone knows about the times when someone did stop a crime using their firearm.

[the_spaniard]

Just to throw some levity into this debate, have a go at what this poindexter ended up with when he tried to order a TV off Amazon.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/man-orders-tv-online-recieves-semiautomatic-assault-rifle-instead/2012/08/10/b3a467fa-c0e8-4f0b-bbb2-c17b7ee53b50_video.html?tid=video_carousel_5

 

Personally I would have kept the Sig and changed my zip code. Thats a nice rifle. Wow that tattoo makes him one. scary. dude.

 

Sorry couldn't resist. :beerchug:

[Trimdingman]

Law abiding citizens should have the same rights as criminals. Criminals carry concealed weapons. Guns are a fact of life, and trying to control them costs many billions in taxpayer money and creates a lucrative crime industry and police corruption. The government should forget about guns. They are just making things ten times worse. We now have maximum crime and corruption. What we are doing is not working, just causing mayhem and poverty. Legalize guns and drugs, and you can cut the size of government in half, and greatly reduce taxation. You would see prosperity and near elimination of violence and criminal activity.

 

Which would give you more incentive to be honest in your transactions? Would it be the bulge under the client's jacket, or the knowledge that your crooked lawyer has a legal loophole to cover up your dirty deeds? Laws protect criminals more than they protect honest citizens. We need to eliminate laws, not make more. Laws make the government more powerful, and the people weaker. Take power away from the feds, and give it to local municipalities. That way the society in which you live will reflect more closely the way you want to live.

 

If the government was run like a religion, and had to depend on voluntary donations, how big do you think it would be? It would be exactly as big as we want it to be. Would that be bigger or smaller than it is now? I think it would be a lot smaller.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Trimdingman

[fmccap]

He had thousands of rounds of ammunition and exposives and assault rifle.

[Ron W.]

Cap, most people wouldn't know the differance between a machine gun and a sub-machine gun let alone a full auto from a semi-auto.

[fmccap]

Cap, most people wouldn't know the differance between a machine gun and a sub-machine gun let alone a full auto from a semi-auto.

I take that as most people don't know what they are talking about when they come to the knee jerk reactions about things also. Could that be why most don't work?

[the_spaniard]

Deleted.

Edited August 13, 2012 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

I take that as most people don't know what they are talking about when they come to the knee jerk reactions about things also. Could that be why most don't work?

 

It's still an assault rifle. A sports car is still a sports car even if it has a governor or is limited by the computer to slower speeds right? I do like the picture though, I hate the weapon myself. Any of ya here remember SPORT?

 

And I'm not sure but a majority of my firearms don't come with either large flash suppressors/silencers on them. Just saying.

[Trimdingman]

 

At least it would not be a concealed weapon. If you walked into a crowd carrying that, you could get mistakenly shot; like wearing a deer costume in the woods during hunting season.

[goinbroke2]

You sure like to debate semantic's don't you lang/dad/whoever? Having been in the position of "assaulting" I can tell you, a single shot rifle is not what you want. That said, does it look like one? yup...and that's about it. A two door car with a spoiler on the back is a pony car too I suppose?

It's based on and is supposed to look like an assault weapon...but that's just it. Put a kit-car together that resembles a ferrari but has a vw engine and try and convince people your driving a supercar...

[Langston Hughes]

You sure like to debate semantic's don't you lang/dad/whoever? Having been in the position of "assaulting" I can tell you, a single shot rifle is not what you want. That said, does it look like one? yup...and that's about it. A two door car with a spoiler on the back is a pony car too I suppose?

It's based on and is supposed to look like an assault weapon...but that's just it. Put a kit-car together that resembles a ferrari but has a vw engine and try and convince people your driving a supercar...

 

You know what, I'm going to give you this one. It's only fair that you want to change the traditional definition of an assault rifle, especially since conservatives are so for changing the definition of marriage. Your right i was arguing semantics and i shouldn't have. We all know that an AR-15 is just a rifle and gay marriage is just marriage.

[xr7g428]

You know what, I'm going to give you this one. It's only fair that you want to change the traditional definition of an assault rifle, especially since conservatives are so for changing the definition of marriage. Your right i was arguing semantics and i shouldn't have. We all know that an AR-15 is just a rifle and gay marriage is just marriage.

 

Fail.

 

So you think that making a semi-automatic rifle in black turns it into an assault rifle? LOL!

[cal50]

Fail.

 

So you think that making a semi-automatic rifle in black turns it into an assault rifle? LOL!

 

 

Yes.

The black color makes it more scary AND deadly. Similar to when the stupid ban stipulated removal of a bayonet lug.

That one detail alone prevented hundreds of drive by bayonettings (if thats a word).

 

Debating gun control is a great way to see how some people think or lack of thinking. Take a group of largely liberal & stupid people as in Chicago add any weapon, knife, bat, rock,fists, etc. and watch them kill and maim each other.

 

Thins the herd........