
GW Hayduke
-
Posts
1705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by GW Hayduke
-
-
40 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
That's anecdotal based upon your own assumptions and biases. Especially since the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially, and predominantly in urban areas. Â
I get it. You believe gun ownership has been exploding exponentially.Â
Rural decline isn’t antecdotal. It’s an attempt to provide context/reasoning behind either a stagnate gun ownership or a declining ownership rate. I.e., rural life has more uses and needs related to firearms.Â
-
31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Please don't take the disingenuous route by trying to make the intellectually dishonest analogy between seat belts and speed limits to a national gun registry.
Are you going to explain how that was disingenuous or intellectually dishonest? An analogy is a comparison between two things for purpose of explanation. My analogy showed how a complex problem was dealt with in the US through a multi-pronged approach. How is that disingenuous or dishonest?
-
4 minutes ago, bernorange said:
Â
Â
* sigh *
How about not posting ad hominems when someone posts a source you don't like. Are people so afraid of their own competence in sorting out bias and facts from propaganda that they can't even read and think for themselves when presented with a link? If there is a problem with the information I posted, by all means highlight the issue and I will have no problem acknowledging any errors in fact, logic etc. Absent any issue based criticism, I don't appreciate ad hominems used in an attempt to shut down a discussion though. That's lazy and weak sauce.
You misunderstood. The source is biased. They publicly state their agenda. The bolded phrase is prima facie evidence of their bias. The bias is not, in and of itself, a cause to dismiss them from the discussion. The bias colors the reasoning for not disclosing important information about the underlying data though. It's the data itself which is problematic.Â
Why resort to straw men? I have been very clear with my language and that's not what I've said, implied or insinuated. I get that you are hyper-partisan on this issue much like Guapo is with (anti-)abortion, but you don't need to do that.
Hmmmm it’s Ad hominem when I note the large amount of fake science from the industry but it’s ok for you to disregard data from the university of Sydney?   There isn’t a justification for that. Also, I did address your source in my final paragraph concerning ownership so don’t be a troll and make things up through fake accusations.Â
It isn’t a big deal that the gun industry pushes fake science. This isn’t surprising. The tobacco industry and oil industry all pushed fake science to push their agenda and maximize profits. It’s what industries do. People shouldn’t be surprised or offended by this.
Let’s be clear from your perspective gunammo.com is a good source but the university of Sydney is bad and biased. You are free to believe all that.
You are free to state I’m using a strawman, without describing any evidence of such. I stated in simple, clear form what I believed your position was. You are free to restate your position. I restated your position because it was jumbled, unclear, and threw together bits of seemingly random information.Â
Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.
You are also free to believe that I am hyper partisan - whatever that means.
To address your npr article referencing the pew study that showed a decline since 1993, I recommend you go back and read my comment, note my discussion and evidence concerning the surge in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that, then go back to the pew article and click the link for the updated information - also linked below. Note the new headline, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.”Â
-
12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
How many of these are gang related? How many are utilizing legally obtained firearms? These homicides are accompanied by a litany of other illegal activities, so reconcile how utilizing punitive measures (fines, registration) is going to impact this at all?
Hmmm. Are we past the point where we argue whether there is a problem and have now moved to argue whether there is anything we can do about the problem?
We are talking about a complex problem that will require a multi-pronged approach at addressing. The best analogy is how we lowered the rate of traffic fatalities through inspections, licensing, registrations, safety requirements for vehicles and roadways, etc.
-
5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
There is a glaring issue here I'm hoping you recognize. First, these polls have no verification mechanism. With such a hotly debated topic, every gun owner I've ever known refuses to answer these. They are not "refusing to answer" (which make up about 7% of the polled responses), they simply say "no". With a little less than half answering (46%), that leaves a huge majority of households out there that are simply not participating. Â
If you want harder evidence, look at the spike in concealed parry permits. Then reconcile this will gun sale numbers, and the politicized nature of the subject. Even in states like IL that show GSS survey results decreasing, you see FOID applications skyrocketing. Â
Sure. There are issues with surveys. However, surveys across time are the best way to understand trends. The idea that gun occupancy hasn’t been increasing isn’t surprising since cities are growing while rural areas have either been decling or stagnant.Â
The FOID data is for one state and could be the result of a host of local issues.
-
43 minutes ago, bernorange said:
So I finally found a little bit of time this morning to read through the country by country stats that GW has posted several times in this thread as a justfication for more gun control. The numbers are all pulled from gunpolicy.org ( a publication maintained by the University of Sydney). I cannot find on the site a clear description of where they are sourcing their numbers or doing any analysis of the same before comparing. I'm pretty sure they don't because it would highlight just how meaningless it would render the comparisons and that's not the purpose of the site. That site is designed to promote gun control/confiscation. Here's a look at the bias of the principals at work on that site (emphasis mine):
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region
http://www.gunpolicy.org/about
GW, as I mentioned several pages back, they are using disparate sources for their numbers and the underlying data is not collected/tracked the same across all jurisdictions. You really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from comparing different varieties of fruits and vegetables.
I understand you aren’t comfortable comparing rates of firearm-related violence across countries because you perceive the source to be biased even though the source is maintained by an academic institution. If academic institutions aren’t appropriate, do you consider sources from the gun industry, such as NRA or ammoland.com as non-biased? Also, if academic sources aren’t appropriate, what sources are appropriate to compare the US to other countries? I get that the gun industry doesn’t like the data.
Even if you choose not to believe that the US’s rate of firearm violence is on par with third world countries (without any evidence to support that belief) because you don’t trust the Sydney School of Public Health, you still have to rectify another source that shows the US’s rate of overall homicides are also on par with third world countries. That source is from the UN.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Â
-
2 minutes ago, bernorange said:
I don't know about the "probability of gun violence", but the incidence of (overall) gun violence has been in decline for over a decade now (already posted source for this a while back in this thread) even through the record number of gun sales (as measured by NICS requests) in recent years.
.
Please don’t source from ammoland.com. There is too much fake science being pushed from the gun industry.
I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” Neither of these two statements are accurate however.
First let me say, if true (though it isn’t) that firearm violence has been declining, we still as a society have a responsibility lower our rates of gun violence, since we as a country have rates on par with third world countries. Please review the below table and sort by overall or by homicides.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Second, gun violence has not been in decline for a decade now. During the 80s and early 90s, rates of homicides and homicides by firearms both surged as a result of the drug war, crack cocaine, and other reasons. That surge dropped in the late 90s to its current level due to a range of factors including tough on crime strategies and some would argue removing lead from gasoline. Since the late 90s, the rate of both homicides and homicides by firearms have been relatively flat.Â
For a trend between 1997 and 2016 of overall homicides, see the below table and note the column concerning murder and no negligent manslaughter rate. The trend is relatively flat.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1
For a trend in homicides by weapons type, see page 27, figure 42 showing homicides by weapon type. This only shows data up to 2008 but does show the crack-cocaine surge in 80s and 90s and the plateau since late 90s.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
-
48 minutes ago, XYZ said:
The republic was already heading toward a cliff, Trump or no Trump. There are no statesmen, only corrupt politicians trying to steal as much as possible for themselves and their friends.
BoTh SiDes aRe tHe SaMe is a meme for a reason.Â
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:
So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me.Â
“It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. “
Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own.Â
If your guns are legally owned like you said and registered and licenced then warnings, fines, etc. wouldn’t be relevant.
-
20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:
No one on the left has argued for a gun free country. No one on the left has called for taking the guns of law abiding citizens.Â
Yeah. This argument seems to be a strawman IMO. No one is wanting someone to give up their past time. No one is wanting to keep hunters from having guns. I think this argument tends to be the result of identity politics, the “responsible gun owner” vs the “gun grabbers” and the slippery slope thing. The issue IMO is the “responsible gun owner” should see themselves as responsible citizens, willing to take steps to make society safer. Steps such as licensing, registering, selling back firearms they don’t want to register, etc.Â
-
24 minutes ago, Chrispy said:
Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck.Â
Ah yes. Nice move. The classic we-are-different-from-them-so-we-should-throw-our-hands-in-the-air fallacy. This one conveniently forgot about the development of boats and planes and conveniently ignored the fact that weapons move in the opposite direction.Â
-
35 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:
The genie back in the bottle argument is nonsense.Â
It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline.Â
And no, you’re not going to get all the guns back. Just like you can’t stop all crime, but you will reduce the availability, and therefore the  probability of gun violenceÂ
Â
The genie back in the bottle idea is what you described. It will take years and multiple buy back events. Australia used this approach and was successful.Â
-
14 minutes ago, XYZ said:
The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.
And when I say “ban” I really mean heavily regulating like we do with fully automatic weapons
-
9 minutes ago, XYZ said:
The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.
It would be a huge undertaking without a doubt. IMO we would ban certain firearms that we deem too dangeruous and offering little value to society, like your mention of semi-auto rifles. We would also institute a registration/licencining system to slow the rate of new firearms entering the population. We would institute a nationwide buy-back program focused on removing whichever firearms we want removed, maybe just unlicensed/unregistered firearms. Folks would have the option of registering or selling back their firearms.
-
A
-
10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
No policy or social movement is going to “solve” this problem anytime soon.  This is a long term public health crisis.
 We can only hope to treat some of the symptoms in the short term with nominal legislation.
Long term, we need a cultural/educational paradigm shift when it comes to mental health awareness.
Â
There might be an issue with defining the propblem. Lots of people think of it as only mass shootings. Our high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings should be dealt with; however, there is much more deaths/harm that result from our high nationwide rate of firearm-related deaths.
We have a nationwide rate on par with third world countries. If you haven’t yet, I invite you to explore the below list and see where the US compared. Sort by overall or homicide. Note where our peers like Canada, Australia, and Europe rank at.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would agree that the problem is complicated and will require a multi-pronged approach to solve; however, any proposed solutions that do not include strong gun control and an effort to lower the number of firearms in our population has little chance of making a meaningful change IMO
-
2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:
What cracks me up about this whole debate about defending against tyranny of the government is that we are watching this administration push further and further into authoritarianism. And those that support him ARE the gun nuts. Looks like this precious militia is failing us. If the Founders truly meant the 2nd Amendment to be a fail safe against tyranny, then it is obviously a failure. So what’s the point of it anymore? We have constant mass shootings AND the militia is complicit with an authoritarian leaning piece of shit administration.Â
Yeah, it’s a failure.Â
Nice point. Firearms aren’t going to prevent tyranny. This isn’t colonial times. You aren’t going to reverse a zoning board decision with your AR. You aren’t going to pistol whip the tax man because you feel your taxes are too high.Â
The rule-of-law, a free and honest press, an informed and educated electorate, and our democratic processes are our protection against tyranny. Firearms don’t have a role in that
-
7
-
-
15 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:
I like how there are all sorts of explanations (with no solutions) like mental health, video games, bullying, etc. Â There are plenty of mentally ill people. Â There are plenty of people who have been picked. Â Plenty of people who have played video games.
At the end of the day, all of these shooters are white guys with easy access to guns.
Yes. Any strategy will need to address firearms if there is to be any hope to lower our rate of firearm violence and decrease the magnitude/frequency of mass shootings.Â
Australia’s approach to addressing their problem was effective.
“In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.”
-
8 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:
And I haven't looked at the research, but does it show that people in other countries are trying to kill themselves as much as people in the United States, but they aren't as successful? Honest question.
I don’t have a full answer to that question. I am familiar with a study that looked at the trends before and after Australia reformed their gun laws.  They found “a statistically significant acceleration in the prexisting downward trend for firearm suicides.” And “There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods of suicides.” However, I would like to see more on this topic
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:
Not a personal friend, but a friend of a friend killed himself by slicing his own jugular with a bowie knife. Not arguing against some gun reform, I think its needed. Just saying that is only part of the picture and figuring out why so many people are suicidal is probably a relevant pursuit as well. But people would rather argue back and forth over guns than have difficult discussions about underlying reasons.
Sure. We want to mimize our rates of overall deaths. I think folks have established a strong link between access to a firearm and rate of suicide success
-
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.
IMO we as a society should be interested in lowering our rates of overall deaths, overall deaths from firearms, homicides from firearms, and suicides from firearms.
Too often I see folks say that we don’t need gun reform because most firearm-related deaths are from suicides. This is a dishonest point that doesn’t acknowledge that our society wants to lower suicide rates in addition to homicide by firearm rates. There is evidence that shows access to a firearm increases risks of successful suicides.
-
16 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:
No, those are all examples of restrictions for any type of firearm purchase, whether it's a handgun, a bolt-action hunting rifle, or an AR-15.
The Brady Act mandated that FFL dealers run background checks on their buyers. At first, the law applied only to handgun sales, and there was a waiting period (maximum of five days) to accommodate dealers in states that did not already have background check systems in place. Those dealers were to use state law enforcement to run checks until 1998, when the NICS would become operational and come into effect. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled against the five-day waiting period, but by 1998 the NICS was up and running, administered by the FBI, and applied to all firearms purchases from FFL dealers, including long guns.
Also, why shouldn't a "relatively normal person without a record" be able to purchase a handgun? -- provided none of the other examples of restrictions I gave apply. That certainly describes me!
I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a gun lol. I’m defining a problem in the US, high rates of firearm violence and high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings, and that we should take a multi-pronged approach to minimize and mitigate.
One of those approaches has to do with how we regulate firearms.
-
10 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:
This isn't accurate. Felony convictions are the most common restriction, but you can also be restricted for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, unlawful drug use/addiction, mental health, being a fugitive, dishonorable discharge from the military, open warrants, unlawful immigration status, etc.
In fact, mental health care providers, police departments and family members can request for individuals to be placed into the NICS database for any number of documented reasons.
I'm for strengthening background checks and making sure people don't slip through the cracks -- which is exactly what happened in some of these mass shootings -- but to say it's as simple as checking age and felony status is way off.
You are correct. I believe the restrictions you mention are for the purchase of a handgun and for a concealed handgun license. Even so, it isn’t very restricted for handguns IMO. If you are a relatively normal person without a record, you can get a handgun.Â
-
55 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
This isn't remotely close to being true. There has never been more guns/ammo in this country - and yet homicide/gun crimes are at decade-low levels. And access? You used to be able to walk into any hardware/outdoor store in the country and walk out with any platform they sold. Only restriction was age. Or just get one from a catalog. Most school had guns in them. Shooting/marksmanship classes. Guns in vehicles. Unlocked gun cases in homes.Â
These isolated school shootings are unique and modern. Columbine was the sub-5 minute mile. Ever since that horrible tragedy, we've seen a torrent of copy-cat killers. Meticulous, planned attacks on soft targets these little lunatics know can be pulled off successfully. And now we're seeing IED's. This is just the start. Â
I mis-quoted my above comment and didn’t include you.
Mass Shootings
in Cloak Room
Posted · Edited by GW Hayduke
Why the continued fake accusation that I did not address you gunsammo.com source? I’m giving you an opportunity to correct this.
From my ititial comment “Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.“
Suggest you stop with the fake outrage and fake accusations. There is no need to be so sensitive. Your source was addressed by indicating that “ownership trends” is the proper metric and I referred you to and described two sources that compete with your gunsammo.com source.
FYI: restating a position into a clear simple form is not moving a persons position and is not a strawman. I even noted that my statement of your position with a lead up of “I believe you are trying to show..” to be honest about restating your position, thus giving you the courtesy of correcting your position. I gave you that courtesy a second time. I’ll give you a third opportunity. Â
Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.”  (this is your cue to restate your position or accept that position. Suggest you not whine about strawman again.)