• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

Nessie said:
I don't think you should feel shame. You should see what criminals and the mentally ill can get up to with a car! No driver feels shame because of their activities.
Click to expand...

The point was that driving is largely a necessity of the modern world, whereas gun ownership isn't.
 
The problem with the poll is that it didn't properly define "protect gun ownership" or "gun control". There's a whole ocean of opinions on the matter, and presenting it as a dichotomy is flawed methodology at best.
 
joesixpack said:
Well this is really a shot in the dark, but I'd suspect it reflects the rural background of the population in the midwest. And what of Western states? Larger still?

Really though, I think I need to see the methodology, the actual question that was being asked by the survey to make a more informed guess.
Click to expand...

Move to South Dakota, it has the lowest amount of gun crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

In the UK gun ownership is higher in rural areas where guns have an important job to do with vermin control. So support for guns would be higher in such an area, especially if gun crime is low.
 
Explorer said:
The extract is from the link, copied and pasted. You obviously don't trust me, but you don't know me either, so I forgive you.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-control-statistics/
Click to expand...

It isn't that I don't trust you. You are asking, essentially, why such and such percentage of chickens crosses the road and the other percentage doesn't.

The info required in order to determine a reason for the chickens:

What joke we're in.
When we started watching the chickens, and when we stopped.
The demographics of the chickens who did vs the chickens who didn't.
The margin for error (because moving chickens are hard to count).
Whether or not the chickens had crossed roads before, according to self reporting.
What the opening was - ie; What we did to either urge them to cross the road, or to not, or if we just placed them in front of a road and watched.

Trust has nothing to do with it.
 
Unfortunately, the link doesn't answer any of those questions, and therefore extrapolating reasons from it is impossible.
 
Explorer said:
The extract is from the link, copied and pasted. You obviously don't trust me, but you don't know me either, so I forgive you.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-control-statistics/
Click to expand...

I think there are some outright false claims made on that link. One thing I see is a requirement for handgun registration in WA. I'm pretty damned certain that this is false for every definition of "register" that I've ever heard. One must pass a background check, and must also apply to the sheriff for a concealed permit, but owning a pistol requires no registration to my knowledge.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The problem with the poll is that it didn't properly define "protect gun ownership" or "gun control". There's a whole ocean of opinions on the matter, and presenting it as a dichotomy is flawed methodology at best.
Click to expand...

The question may have been simply "Do you want to protect gun ownership?"

Most poll questions can have an "Ah but... answer!", so they have to be simple. The same question would have been asked no doubt in all regions, so I go back to my question, why the large difference in those two regions, especially when the other two regions were rather similar?
 
Nessie said:
Move to South Dakota
Click to expand...

The population of South Dakota is heavily armed because of fears of an invasion by Red Canada's puppet state, the hard-line Stalinist North Dakotans. All Southern Dakotans are members of the SDDF (South Dakota Defense Forces) from age 18 to 30, then as reservists to the age of 60. Each household is equipped with a full platoon's weapons and ammunition, many homes also keep artillery, tanks, or military aircraft. It's a tense and uneasy peace across the DMZ, but the crime rate is very low.
 
Nessie said:
Though give guns to people who are more inclined to be violent and the guns will become inextricably linked to the levels of death. The Scots are pretty violent to, thank God we do not do guns like you do....
Click to expand...

Given the choice, a Scot will cudgel someone rather than shoot them. Bullets cost money, they aren't reusable and we all know how cheap you guys are.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
I feel persecuted for my hobby over what criminals and the mentally ill do.

This is not a new feeling.

I have no idea why I would feel any shame.
Click to expand...

Previous comments in this thread advocate making the idea of private firearm ownership 'social unacceptable' in order to gradually suppress a perceived gun culture.

You are simply experiencing the desired effect of this agenda.

Some responsible, conscientious, law abiding firearm owners are metaphorically starting to "drink-the-Kool-Aid"...
 
Very disappointed I only received evasions re my question on the statistics, however imperfect they may or may not be. I was hoping for at least a few theories that could be developed, but ho hum, I guess I'll take my question elsewhere.
 
Noztradamus said:
When Bible Believing Christians demand a say in how biology is taught in schools, a great many people ridicule them.

When it comes to guns, those same people feel free to demand the same say, with equal lack of knowledge, understanding, or thought.

Kevin, you miss this 14 guns stolen in naval base theft November 30th, 2012

(sorry I haven't found a more recent case, but they occur all the time.)

I'm sure the Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels would be delighted to add gun ranges to the one stop shop list of military and police armouries.
Click to expand...

What exactly is being argued here?

You do not make your argument explicit, forcing me to guess, but you must have some argument in mind because you're accusing me of lack of knowledge, understanding, or thought, you're accusing me of missing something and your buddy BStrong is cheering you on.

It must be something like "forcing people to keep their guns locked up at the range will not reduce gun-related deaths, because the Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels will just steal them".

However that would be an incredibly dumb argument. People can't deliberately or accidentally shoot their family members or each other if their guns are at the range. (Nor for that matter if said guns have been stolen by Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels). It adds an additional layer of difficulty for spree killers and an additional chance to get caught and stopped if they have to stop at the gun range and illegally smuggle their weapons off the range before they can go on a killing spree.

Your argument would only make the slightest lick of sense in a universe where the one and only gun-related issue we were concerned about was keeping guns out of the hand of the Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels. That's just not the universe we live in though, and in any case we have special branches of the police to deal with Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels.

Bandidos, Comancheros, Four Aces, Gypsy Jokers, Muslims, and Rebels aren't a problem best dealt with just by gun control laws, they're a problem for the police who deal with organised crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom