Guns, ammunition, rednecks, liberals, Gun Fabricators, and the Constitution

[Melchiah]

Landing party from a U boat? Holy shit we need to ban home school. Did man and dinosaur walk together on the earth 5,000 years ago as well? I'm laughing my ass off here.

I've tried to be civil with you, but at this point I have to inform you that you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. Stop taking a shit all over everyone who says something you don't like. You don't have the post count nor the longevity here to be calling everyone who responds in this thread an idiot.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

.50 BMG created in 1910 entered service in 1920.

Hi. .50 Cal BMG is a is a mounted machine gun. The .50 cal rifle is not.

.50 BMG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the rifle was created long after the mounted machine gun. I highly doubt private citizens would be asked to monitor the beaches with .50 cal BMG's during WW2.
What a fucking moron.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I've tried to be civil with you, but at this point I have to inform you that you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. Stop taking a shit all over everyone who says something you don't like. You don't have the post count nor the longevity here to be calling everyone who responds in this thread an idiot.

There's a difference between being hostile to someone saying something I don't like, which I'm not doing as evidenced by my civil debates on the subject; and my responses to tools like you and FNH making things up to fit your argument or saying completely not-factual things that can be double checked with Google and a double-digit IQ.

[FNH]

There's a difference between being hostile to someone saying something I don't like, which I'm not doing as evidenced by my civil debates on the subject; and my responses to tools like you and FNH making things up to fit your argument or saying completely not-factual things that can be double checked with Google and a double-digit IQ.

what did I make up? that .50 caliber firearms didn't exist until after WWII? oh wait that was you. And before you go into the retarded previous argument about uboats or whatever it was, no I was not supporting that argument, I was just stating your inaccuracy about firearms.

[Beckwin]

the pro-gun argument has sunk to arguing about Nazi u-boats.

godwin'd

jesus christ

[archibaldcrane]

the pro-gun argument has sunk to arguing about Nazi u-boats.

godwin'd

jesus christ

It looks to me that once the crime and murder statistics over the past 10 years were posted, people ran out of stuff to say and started grasping at straws.

[Melchiah]

There's a difference between being hostile to someone saying something I don't like, which I'm not doing as evidenced by my civil debates on the subject; and my responses to tools like you and FNH making things up to fit your argument or saying completely not-factual things that can be double checked with Google and a double-digit IQ.

Except you do little else besides spew your garbage at anyone who argues the other side, ignore relevant points, and blow off sources as being unreliable, all while giving no source material yourself.

Jesus Christ you are an awesome troll. You keep suckering me in, and I keep biting. I can sum up your entire argument in the phrase "lol ur an idiot", because that seems to be your signature with every post.

Civil debates... you've spoken civilly to the people on the fence or the ones who agree with you. Everyone else you've insulted multiple times. Grow up.

[Melchiah]

Here's another documented source for Finesse to take a shit on:

Kennesaw, Georgia

"As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. "

Summary: Georgia town with a crime rate above the national average per 100,000 passes an ordnance requiring each homeowner to own and maintain a firearm. The crime rate subsequenty plunged below the rate of the year in which the ordnance was passed.

My conclusion: If this indicates that gun-owning citizenry decreases crime, and somewhere else there is a study that argues the opposite, it is silly to draw a conclusion from either one about the effect of gun bans on crime rates. All it takes is one exception to bust a rule.

[archibaldcrane]

It suggests even more to me that people taking a serious and informed interest in gun ownership gives them a sense of responsibility. Guns are not something to be treated lightly, and it appears that the residents of this town were "grounded" a bit by their gun ownership.

edit: except that article is crap, statistically

[Tristam]

Here's another documented source for Finesse to take a shit on:

Kennesaw, Georgia

"As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. "

Summary: Georgia town with a crime rate above the national average per 100,000 passes an ordnance requiring each homeowner to own and maintain a firearm. The crime rate subsequenty plunged below the rate of the year in which the ordnance was passed.

My conclusion: If this indicates that gun-owning citizenry decreases crime, and somewhere else there is a study that argues the opposite, it is silly to draw a conclusion from either one about the effect of gun bans on crime rates. All it takes is one exception to bust a rule.

Just want to point out that that's not a "study", it's an article from worldnutdaily about a town.

[Melchiah]

I didn't call this a study, and if anyone is able to find factual evidence that argues to the contrary regarding the crime rate, and more specifically the 0 murder rate over the last 25 years in that town, I'd happily concede the point. This happened to be the first article I googled.

[Melchiah]

From Wiki:

Wikipedia

"On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.

Reports of resulting burglary-rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.[3] Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners of America). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban. [4]. These statistics are in turn disputed because the report in question lacked important considerations such as proportions for the population and growth over time.

Current statistics indicate that Kennesaw's crime rate[6] is lower compared to surrounding cities like Marietta[7], Smyrna[8], Alpharetta[9], or Atlanta[10]."

Regardless of Gary Kleck's political views, a drop of 89% in crime statistics and a 0 murder rate since the enaction of the law is information that's pretty hard to spin. I'm not saying there IS a correlation, I'm saying there isn't a good enough set of statistics to draw a correlation and write it in stone. Australia bans guns, their crime rate goes down, Kennesaw requires gun ownership by law and their crime statistics dissappear, and they have a 0 murder rate since the introduction of the law. You have information that argues both ways, thus the best conclusion you can draw is that a correlation between private gun ownership and crime/murders is inconclusive.

Edit: More sources:

Reuters

[archibaldcrane]

Man Confesses Murder, Kills Himself - 11Alive.com | WXIA | Atlanta, GA

Article about a murder/suicide in Kennesaw in 2007. That WorldNetDaily article is crap, basically, as much as I'd like it to be true.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime....nesaw&state=GA

Here's FBI crime stats showing a murder in 2003 as well. It looks like a safe town, but not "0 murders" safe.

I remember back when I was a teenager, my hometown of Madison (city of 200,000) went an entire 365 days without a murder. That was pretty sweet.

[Suited Aces]

Article about a murder/suicide in Kennesaw in 2007. That WorldNetDaily article is crap, basically, as much as I'd like it to be true.

That murder was 7 months after the worldnet article.

[Tristam]

In a highly polarizable issue like this, sad to say, google can be your worst enemy.

Pubmed ftw.
Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds.
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D.

Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: In the United States, only motor vehicle crashes and cancer claim more lives among children than do firearms. This national study attempts to determine whether firearm prevalence is related to rates of unintentional firearm deaths, suicides, and homicides among children. METHODS: Pooled cross-sectional time-series data (1988-1997) were used to estimate the association between the rate of violent death among 5-14 year olds and four proxies of firearm availability, across states and regions. RESULTS: A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal non-firearm violence. CONCLUSION: A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.


And of course, the inescapable australia conclusions:

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings.
Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M.

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. [email protected]
CONCLUSIONS: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

[Melchiah]

Very well, one murder in 25 years. It's not 0, but it's still a far cry from the crime statistics in that Illinois town that banned guns completely. So still, we're seeing that drawing a conclusion on the effect of gun ownership on crime statistics from crime statistics is a fool's errand.

[Melchiah]

CONCLUSION: A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.

That's a pretty small portion of the population to be included in a study. Also, if we are going to do this, we should throw out unintentional firearm deaths, and suicides, for the following reasons: Unintentional deaths are exactly that, unintentional. We are discussing the effect of gun ownership on crime and murder rates. Suicides are out for the same reason. A person wishing to commit suicide, for real, not an attempt for attention, will do so with a gun, a razor blade, or a tall building, or a car and a garden hose, or a length of rope. Those deaths, while intentional, are not crimes against other people. I think if we limit the firearm deaths in our studies to homicides only, we'd find a very different result. Those two things just skew the statistics because it's more deaths you can stack in your data pile, and they just aren't relevant to crime and murder rates.

[Rammses]

Here's another documented source for Finesse to take a shit on:

Kennesaw, Georgia

"As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. "

Summary: Georgia town with a crime rate above the national average per 100,000 passes an ordnance requiring each homeowner to own and maintain a firearm. The crime rate subsequenty plunged below the rate of the year in which the ordnance was passed.

My conclusion: If this indicates that gun-owning citizenry decreases crime, and somewhere else there is a study that argues the opposite, it is silly to draw a conclusion from either one about the effect of gun bans on crime rates. All it takes is one exception to bust a rule.

Why the hell do you ask us to bring you studies and factual evidence when you yourself quoted a simple article that takes no other factors into consideration (the obvious one being the criminals in the region prefer the tiny effort of being criminal 5 minutes the other direction instead) and can't be applied on a national level - which is what this thread is about. The difference between neighbouring towns and neighbouring nations is pretty big.

[Tristam]

That's a pretty small portion of the population to be included in a study. Also, if we are going to do this, we should throw out unintentional firearm deaths, and suicides, for the following reasons: Unintentional deaths are exactly that, unintentional. We are discussing the effect of gun ownership on crime and murder rates. Suicides are out for the same reason. A person wishing to commit suicide, for real, not an attempt for attention, will do so with a gun, a razor blade, or a tall building, or a car and a garden hose, or a length of rope. Those deaths, while intentional, are not crimes against other people. I think if we limit the firearm deaths in our studies to homicides only, we'd find a very different result. Those two things just skew the statistics because it's more deaths you can stack in your data pile, and they just aren't relevant to crime and murder rates.

Wait, you want to throw out the data for the entire 5-14 year old population of the country as outliers yet cite the example set by one town as data?

That is NOT equivalence, it only shows that when presented with studies and data that disagree with your conclusion, you're prone to disregard it.

Also fine, if a higher rate of suicide doesn't concern you, whoop de doo, but you're also making a judgement about the worth of life right there. You don't think it's reasonable to try and prevent suicide? But realize that that study wasn't just suicides, it was also homicides and unintentional deaths.

edit just go to pubmed and look at abstracts, the silly little articles that I cite aren't nearly indicative of the breadth of literature on the subject.

[Rammses]

A person wishing to commit suicide, for real, not an attempt for attention, will do so with a gun, a razor blade, or a tall building, or a car and a garden hose, or a length of rope.

Those who shouldn't have commited suicide but had a moment of poor judgment are also just as likely to jump off a building as pulling a trigger yeah? No. Gun access is very much a problem concerning suicides. I agree that suicide rates shouldn't be mixed with homicide rates though.