Global cooling

mac · Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 3361

As usual, tehno asks a sensible question and mrgybe trolls. Techno--it is unfortunate that we have both troglodyte timber folks and paranoid enviros, because forests need to be managed. But it is difficult to find a middle ground, and particularly hard to clear brush if there are a lot of homes in the second growth and fire staff are too small to manage controlled burns.

On guns, it was one of Diane Feinstein's finest moments. The bill expired and most are now too afraid the NRA to try anything. Ignore mrgybe's lure--the purpose of some level of gun control is not to stop gun violence--thaqt is impossible even with a full ban, much less with what the Supreme Court has said. The purpose is to reduce violence, consistent with the second amendment--and if you check the statistics, it worked. Oh, that's right, the far right doesn't check the facts.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 2181

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 2975 Location: at a computer

I'm sorry I confused you, I was just trying to make a political analogy about hardened stances, and chose gun control. My mistake .... Carry on global cooling.....

mac · Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 3361

So desparate to be right, and only half so. Half witted? Mrgybe makes one claim that is essentially irrelevant, and another that is pretty much wrong. But I take it as promising that he supports reasonable gun control. Here's a few facts.

There has been a large study that looked at the impact of the assault weapon ban (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf) and it concludes that the bans success in reducing crime has been mixed. Assault rifles are relatively rarely used in crime, and the ban did not include large magazines--which are much more frequently used in crime. The effectiveness of the ban had mostly to do with the reduction in use of assault pistols.

Others, including Feinstein in her recent editorial in the Chronicle, and http://smartgunlaws.org/ (citing Fallis and Grimaldi, and using Virginia data) conclude that the ban was effective.

There has been a drop in overall crime and violence. It is a very long term trend, and is related to the age of the population. Well documented in many sources, discussed at length--and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But it is not the fifth time mrgybe has grabbed a random fact to bolster a position taken without much thought.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 2181

Thank you for confirming my earlier post. The facts are quite simple.......in States where gun ownership is up, violent crime rates are down. Overseas, the UK essentially banned private ownership of guns in 1997. In the four years to 2001, violent crime nearly doubled. A similar story can be told in other jurisdictions.

In a perfect world, no one would have guns. This is not a perfect world. The horse is out of the barn. There are millions of guns in circulation. Disarming law abiding citizens does not deter criminals from gun ownership. The vast majority of studies confirm that gun controls do not result in a reduction in crime. This from a Cato Institute Study...

The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 2154

When I first went to Belize in the 70s gun ownership was banned. Ammo too. There were an average of 2 1/2 murders a year. Two with knives and 1/2 with poison.
This year there are 100+ murders in a small population.Two with knives and 100+ with guns.
All we had to do to change from one of the lowest murder rates in the world to one of the highest was to allow gun ownership.
I completely support the Second Amendment as written.
NRA members have a rewrite of that Amendment that they support as part of the gun manufacturers organisations efforts to overturn the Constitution.
THEY REMOVED THE PART ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP IN A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA, so they could sell guns to guys like the Colorado shooter.
Remember guns don't kill people.
Psychos with easy access to guns kill people.

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 2154

Americans enjoy the highest rate of deaths from gunshot wounds in the first world. Most from friendly fire.
Instances of a civilian stopping a violent crime with a private weapon are very rare. If a mugger comes up on you in a dark place with a weapon and you have a concealed pistol do you really think you can get it out and shoot him before he pulls the trigger?
Try it with a small child as the mugger. He can shoot you twice while you fumble for your holster.
NRA expressions like take all our guns away and disarm the population are ideas proposed only by them.
Another is the notion that if any gun laws are written then the floodgates will open and they will take away all our rifles.
There have been gun laws a long time in the US, including that ban on assault rifles. Did it result in the disarming of the civilian population in the hundreds of years we have had gun laws on the books? Where are those floodgates the NRA is so fond of?

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 2154

Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).
.....non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.....

....Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US....
GT is at much less risk of getting shot simply by being outside the USA where gun ownership has supposedly made us so safe from gun crimes.
Not.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 2181

........and your solution?

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 2154

My favorite solution is to follow the constitution but the NRA money has gained control of that document and rewrites it in whatever way sells the most guns. Wide publication of the amount of money that group uses each year to buy our government would be a good start.
To buy an assault weapon, a bazooka,a flame thrower, large bombs, etc you merely should show the pressing need for one.
Sales outside of "well organized militias" would drop to zero.
Just because we are buried in guns does not mean we should go deeper underwater, just like waves.
In my youth if you were under psych care like that guy and ordered an UZI and 6000 rounds you would get a visit from the sheriff instead of the tools of a murderers trade.