Guns

[TheButterZone]

Someone needs to take some drywall to a range at night and film the rounds coming out the other end on highspeed. Maybe the drywall dust was ignited by the bullets?

[1713598620]

1713598620

[1713598620]

1713598620

[myrkul]

This firsthand account may be interesting to tinfoil hatters:
http://aloha.pk/index.php?topic=849.msg6202;boardseen#new

[tinfoil]

It could have been those wussy little snap-pops, thrown on the ground. I've used them in the dark before, and that sounds about right. Small pops, blooms of white light.

[/tinfoil]

Or, it could have been legit ricochets.

[Mike Hearn]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.

I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.

I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.

[Taz]

How about if all registered weapons are required to contain a chip,
which holds a unique code linking it to it's owner,
it can be detected from a distance.

Scanners are available to anyone interested,
but owners database is available only to authorities.

Scanner users can filter out their own weapons and those they know,
Plus it detects weapons where they shouldn't be (ie: banks),
Detected weapons are indexed for later reference.

Authorities can detect when a weapon is nearby (ie: pulled over vehicle),
Find stolen or lost weapons and the owners of misused weapons,
If aware of nearby weapons can quickly detect if they are registered.

It wouldn't solve all problems but might be a start towards a safer world.

[cryptoanarchist]

How about if all registered weapons are required to contain a chip,
which holds a unique code linking it to it's owner,
it can be detected from a distance.

Scanners are available to anyone interested,
but owners database is available only to authorities.

Scanner users can filter out their own weapons and those they know,
Plus it detects weapons where they shouldn't be (ie: banks),
Detected weapons are indexed for later reference.

Authorities can detect when a weapon is nearby (ie: pulled over vehicle),
Find stolen or lost weapons and the owners of misused weapons,
If aware of nearby weapons can quickly detect if they are registered.

It wouldn't solve all problems but might be a start towards a safer world.

Are you joking, or really this naive?

[imanikin]

You said:

Today is why regular citizens of America need to be able to carry firearms.

And then you admitted:

It seems unfortunate to me that even though most of Colorado citizens are privileged to have the legal right to carry firearms, (most people in the world don't have that right) none of the ones at the scene availed themselves of the opportunity to be able to defend themselves or others...

I'm not seeing this as demonstrating how lenient gun laws are the solution.

I stand corrected: Today is why regular citizens of America need to be are able to carry firearms. 

Furthermore, there are reports that Cinemark theaters have a long-standing "No Firearms except law enforcement" policy. How ironic that would be if true...   

If one looks carefully at the list below that you provided, if i understand it right, it shows no correlation between permissiveness of the gun laws and gun death statistics.

I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:

For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.

Bases on that, seems to me that even in the US states where one sees a correlation, the American experience suggests the null hypothesis (due to chance) with regard to gun-death rate/"gun-law permissiveness" correlation. 

I find the statistics below interesting. A google search returned this result: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50

#7, Alabama
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 27th out of 50

#8, Nevada
Gun deaths per 100,000: 16.2
Permissive gun laws: 22nd out of 50

#11, Kentucky
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.4
Permissive gun laws: 5th out of 50

#12, West Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.8
Permissive gun laws: 25th out of 50

#13, Tennessee
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 31st out of 50

#15, Idaho
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 2nd out of 50

#19, North Carolina
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.3
Permissive gun laws: 28th out of 50

#20, Florida
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 41st out of 50

#21, Kansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.5
Permissive gun laws: 14th out of 50

#23, Texas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 32nd out of 50

#24, Michigan
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.9
Permissive gun laws: 39th out of 50

#25, Maryland
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.1
Permissive gun laws: 44th out of 50

#27, Pennsylvania
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 40th out of 50

#28, Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 35th out of 50

#29, Utah
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9.5
Permissive gun laws: 18th out of 50

#30, Vermont
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

#32, North Dakota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.9
Permissive gun laws: 15th out of 50

#34, Maine
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.1
Permissive gun laws: 9th out of 50

#37, Nebraska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8
Permissive gun laws: 19th out of 50

#38, South Dakota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 6.5
Permissive gun laws: 16th out of 50

#40, California
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

#41, New Hampshire
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.9
Permissive gun laws: 26th out of 50

#42, Minnesota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 6.6
Permissive gun laws: 36th out of 50

#44, Iowa
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.3
Permissive gun laws: 38th out of 50

[imanikin]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.

I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.

I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.

I think you are right in saying that "if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting..." I think that would include the original shooter in this case.  

If you read the Armed Citizen column i mentioned earlier, in most cases criminals flee as soon as they start getting return fire.

Like them, this guy was shooting as long as he was not in danger; as soon as the armed police showed up, he gave up!

The statistics are far from clear.    I think they have more to do with the socio-economic situation in a given country than gun laws. Check the gun laws of the countries that are above the US on the homicide rate list.

Seems that i remember some notable random massacres in countries with really strong gun laws...  

Can someone from Switzerland substantiate that most males of military service age are required to keep an automatic military "assault rifle" in their houses? Even the Americans don't allow former soldiers to do that!

Why don't we hear about more Swiss mass murders, if the availability of high-capacity guns, and "assault weapons" is really their cause?

[cryptoanarchist]

Has anyone stopped to think how an unemployed med student managed to afford $20K-30K worth of gear?!?

Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.

IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP

[myrkul]

Has anyone stopped to think how an unemployed med student managed to afford $20K-30K worth of gear?!?

Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.

IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP

One of two possibilities:
1) Nutjob buys lots of guns, shoots people. Result: TIGHTER GUN LAWS!!!111oneone!!!

2) Absolutely fake publicity stunt/false flag event. Result: TIGHTER GUN LAWS!!!111oneone!!!

Bonus: Probable crack-down on Cos-players, since he claimed to be the Joker, the enemy of Batman (even though he was kitted out more like Bane)

[FirstAscent]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.

I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.

I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.

Libertarians have never let data, facts, knowledge and statistics get in the way of their ideology. Never.

[vampire]

I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:

For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.

Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:

 #1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!

[FirstAscent]

I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:

For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.

Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:

 #1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths. DUH!

His selectivity was a serious indication that he has no idea of how to evaluate data or visualize a graph of the two plots together. Pretty pathetic, huh?

He also "forgot" to look at almost all the states.

[FirstAscent]

Note also that we have a conspiracy theorist in here. Pretty funny. As usual, he's a libertarian.

[myrkul]

I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:

For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.

Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:

 #1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!

Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.

[FirstAscent]

I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:

For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50

California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50

So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.

Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:

 #1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!

Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.

That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.

Your post is an utter fail.

EDIT: And it appears desperate.

[vampire]

Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.

I.E. Guns ownership wouldn't make any difference on the crime rate.

[myrkul]

That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.

Your post is an utter fail.

EDIT: And it appears desperate.

50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?

Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.

I.E. Guns ownership wouldn't make any difference on the crime rate.

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

[FirstAscent]

That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.

Your post is an utter fail.

EDIT: And it appears desperate.

50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?

Funny! You don't even understand how to view data. You are the one guilty of not using the 50 samples. You're trying to use one sample from the 50 as being indicative of the 50. You need to use all 50 as one aggregate piece of data. I actually thought you were educated enough to understand that. Now I know better.

Why don't you go back to your so very productive discussion with cryptoanarchist, where you two devout AnCaps can solve all the real issues of the world. *laughs*

[myrkul]

That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.

Your post is an utter fail.

EDIT: And it appears desperate.

50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?

Funny! You don't even understand how to view data. You are the one guilty of not using the 50 samples. You're trying to use one sample from the 50 as being indicative of the 50. You need to use all 50 as one aggregate piece of data. I actually thought you were educated enough to understand that. Now I know better.

Why don't you go back to your so very productive discussion with cryptoanarchist, where you two devout AnCaps can solve all the real issues of the world. *laughs*

Anyone want to graph the data on that list for FA, so he can see what I'm talking about? Apparently he doesn't understand the phrase "the numbers are all over the place" I gotta do some errands, but if it's not been done by the time I get back, I'll throw a graph together real quick.

[vampire]

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.