So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
Shorter barrels reduce muzzle velocity. When the military went from the 20inch to 14.5 inch barrels, the round lost about 600-800 meters per second of muzzle velocity. Counterintuitively, this increases over-penetration of the round, making it less lethal because the yaw and fragmentation of the bullet is reduced. Basically, the bullet just goes straight through unless it hits something vital, it’s not always immediately lethal.
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
I don’t care what you call it: Assault rifle, AR-15, M4, assault style weapons, metal dick extenders, it doesn’t matter. They are not weapons of defense. They are weapons of war designed to kill people in the quickest, most efficient way possible, not protect rural farmers from animals.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I do think these discussions should put more focus on disarming the state
The argument is always that the militarization of the police is necessary because of the wide availability of increasingly powerful and deadly firearms on the streets.
Stands to reason that if those firearms are removed from the streets, so too is the justification for all this ridiculous, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary equipment and armament.
No, that isn't going to stand to reason at all
The justification was bullshit to begin with, so I understand where you're coming from.
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I do think these discussions should put more focus on disarming the state
The argument is always that the militarization of the police is necessary because of the wide availability of increasingly powerful and deadly firearms on the streets.
Stands to reason that if those firearms are removed from the streets, so too is the justification for all this ridiculous, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary equipment and armament.
No, that isn't going to stand to reason at all
The justification was bullshit to begin with, so I understand where you're coming from.
One of the ways you can tell is that cops as a demographic are usually not strong advocates for gun control
+3
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Like legit green, or environmentally friendly compared to the depleted uranium shells the Abrams uses?
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I do think these discussions should put more focus on disarming the state
The argument is always that the militarization of the police is necessary because of the wide availability of increasingly powerful and deadly firearms on the streets.
Stands to reason that if those firearms are removed from the streets, so too is the justification for all this ridiculous, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary equipment and armament.
No, that isn't going to stand to reason at all
The justification was bullshit to begin with, so I understand where you're coming from.
One of the ways you can tell is that cops as a demographic are usually not strong advocates for gun control
Doesn't surprise me, when your entire worldview is constructed around taking the law into your own hands.
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Like legit green, or environmentally friendly compared to the depleted uranium shells the Abrams uses?
They removed the lead and replaced it with steel.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
There's a good chance an AR15 loaded with .223 will do more tissue damage than a military rifle, since hollow-points are banned in military use by Geneva Convention but are very much available on the civilian market. (This is actually defensible; a hollow-point is far less likely to blow through a couple walls and hit someone uninvolved in the neighboring apartment.)
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
When you consider that the Zone Rouge in France is still uninhabitable a century after the First World War, I’ll take it as a plus. For example, there are areas around Ypres where the top soil is literally 15% arsenic.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
+6
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
I don't live in the US and I don't want to lessen the horror and tragedy of the events that keep happening there but I honestly can't wrap my mind around this.
Late last year there was a break in at my home while we slept. When I went to go investigate the noises my wife heard I was attacked by the intruder wielding the pry bar he had used to gain entry. Luckily he was clearly terrified just like me and I wasn't injured and he ran away and managed to escape.
There were two thoughts that stuck with me over the next few weeks that I just couldn't shake. The first was a general feeling of being emasculated, which I do get is stupid. The second one which really spooked me for a long time was that if I lived in the US I would probably be dead right now. A person came into my home when it was occupied and was willing to attack the people within, throw a gun into that mix and it only gets worse. I kept thinking about how even if I had a gun and could have gotten access to it I would probably still have been killed. I guess what I'm trying to say is I really really do not understand the home defence mindset at all, to the point of it being upsettingly frustrating.
There is a happy ending to the story. I discovered because of this event the sound dampening properties of our house are so good I can now turn up the TV more to play xbox late at night.
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
An association that is more valid is the relationship between the number of firearms per capita and gun related violence.
What if there were a strategic arms reduction in the United States and set limits on the amount of hardware you can own, possibly a tiered system with rigorous qualifications? There would necessarily be no grandfathering as quickly reducing the arms concentration would be the whole point.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides.
There is a significant difference in suicides and death by accidental firearm discharges. Firearm homicides are often sorted per population, which means America's actual probably gets diluted due to the vast population/size compared to smaller countries. This doesn't change the fact no other generally western country has had 250 mass shootings in a single year.
Which is easily statistically significant.
It's also the thing nobody else that bans guns has a problem with.
Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
I don't care what you do or don't find compelling about facts.
If you haven't noticed, there isn't a lot of room for people to care if you find other peoples deaths "compelling" or not.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability")
Essentially there is nothing that stops people massing weapons that kill people routinely.
This is why it happens routinely. Will continue to happen routinely and why, in 3 months or whatever when this is being done again, you'll still be making these inane arguments.
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
Firstly, Australian data is focused on studying Australia. To suggest that the Australian data has any relevance here, you'll first have to show that Australian homicides involving guns and gun ownership are in anyway comparable to American homicides involving guns and gun ownership.
Secondly, "we already have laws regulating guns" is a meaningless statement when all of this is currently occurring with existing regulation and the overwhelming majority of this country feels that the current regulations are insufficient. You're constructing a strawman by suggesting that any further regulation is going to lead to some sort of "undue burden" on your precious fucking civil rights.
Lastly, I hope you understand that "I find these losses an acceptable price" is a sentiment that most of us in this thread finds abhorrent, and if you think it's "bad faith" of us to call it such, well too fucking bad.
So, I was a bit suspicious of the whole 'well actually the statistics show no relationship between legislation and firearm homicides!' thing, so I looked into it a bit. These links may or may not lead to paywalls, but you can at least get the abstracts off of them, and possibly search around for author-provided free copies with the info within.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
So, I was a bit suspicious of the whole 'well actually the statistics show no relationship between legislation and firearm homicides!' thing, so I looked into it a bit. These links may or may not lead to paywalls, but you can at least get the abstracts off of them, and possibly search around for author-provided free copies with the info within.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
I read the second paper. Of the hypotheses tested, the significant value was the ratio of the decreasing rate of suicide in the 18 years prior to enactment of the law to the 20 years after. The trend ratio, not the step change ratio, is what I'm interested in since it looks like death rates have steadily gone down in the past four years and in fact were going down prior to the enactment of the law.
The negative slope of the pre-law line in gun related suicides is 0.970 per 100,000 per year. The negative slope of the post law line is 0.952 per 100,000 per year. This is the significant value over all other firearm death related comparisons - homicide and homicide (nonmass) were not significant, and I don't give "trended toward significance" a moment's thought. I also noted that non-firearm related homicides and suicides also trended downwards.
The trend ratio of post-law to pre-law suicide rates was 0.981. In other words, a 2% decrease in the rate of firearm related suicide per year was found to be unexplained by random variation. That doesn't seem like a huge effect size, but compound interest helps make it more interesting: it's like if your retirement investment had a 2% convenience fee that went away.
However, the significance of the non-firearm suicide and homicide death difference in trends suggests to me that a lot more was going on in 1996 to reduce overall deaths than a single firearm law. Perhaps the change in rates of death is due to that.
As for the difference in mass shootings, Australia went from an average of 0.72 mass shootings per year to 0 mass shootings per year. I can't really comment on statistics because there are not enough degrees of freedom to do hypothesis testing that would be any good.
In summary, there was a significant effect from something that happened around the year 1996 on all types of death (except firearm homicide), but the actual significant difference found was a pretty small effect. It's still there, it's just small. It's not conclusive to me that the law itself did most of the heavy living - I'd say that due to the overall change in non-firearm death trends as well, Australian society may have most of the credit for the changes occurring around 1996.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So, I was a bit suspicious of the whole 'well actually the statistics show no relationship between legislation and firearm homicides!' thing, so I looked into it a bit. These links may or may not lead to paywalls, but you can at least get the abstracts off of them, and possibly search around for author-provided free copies with the info within.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
I read the second paper. Of the hypotheses tested, the significant value was the ratio of the decreasing rate of suicide in the 18 years prior to enactment of the law to the 20 years after. The trend ratio, not the step change ratio, is what I'm interested in since it looks like death rates have steadily gone down in the past four years and in fact were going down prior to the enactment of the law.
The negative slope of the pre-law line in gun related suicides is 0.970 per 100,000 per year. The negative slope of the post law line is 0.952 per 100,000 per year. This is the significant value over all other firearm death related comparisons - homicide and homicide (nonmass) were not significant, and I don't give "trended toward significance" a moment's thought. I also noted that non-firearm related homicides and suicides also trended downwards.
The trend ratio of post-law to pre-law suicide rates was 0.981. In other words, a 2% decrease in the rate of firearm related suicide per year was found to be unexplained by random variation. That doesn't seem like a huge effect size, but compound interest helps make it more interesting: it's like if your retirement investment had a 2% convenience fee that went away.
However, the significance of the non-firearm suicide and homicide death difference in trends suggests to me that a lot more was going on in 1996 to reduce overall deaths than a single firearm law. Perhaps the change in rates of death is due to that.
As for the difference in mass shootings, Australia went from an average of 0.72 mass shootings per year to 0 mass shootings per year. I can't really comment on statistics because there are not enough degrees of freedom to do hypothesis testing that would be any good.
In summary, there was a significant effect from something that happened around the year 1996 on all types of death (except firearm homicide), but the actual significant difference found was a pretty small effect. It's still there, it's just small. It's not conclusive to me that the law itself did most of the heavy living - I'd say that due to the overall change in non-firearm death trends as well, Australian society may have most of the credit for the changes occurring around 1996.
Something like...Australian society deciding that mass shooting atrocities are worse than being able to play bang bang in the woods with their toys?
So, I was a bit suspicious of the whole 'well actually the statistics show no relationship between legislation and firearm homicides!' thing, so I looked into it a bit. These links may or may not lead to paywalls, but you can at least get the abstracts off of them, and possibly search around for author-provided free copies with the info within.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
I read the second paper. Of the hypotheses tested, the significant value was the ratio of the decreasing rate of suicide in the 18 years prior to enactment of the law to the 20 years after. The trend ratio, not the step change ratio, is what I'm interested in since it looks like death rates have steadily gone down in the past four years and in fact were going down prior to the enactment of the law.
The negative slope of the pre-law line in gun related suicides is 0.970 per 100,000 per year. The negative slope of the post law line is 0.952 per 100,000 per year. This is the significant value over all other firearm death related comparisons - homicide and homicide (nonmass) were not significant, and I don't give "trended toward significance" a moment's thought. I also noted that non-firearm related homicides and suicides also trended downwards.
The trend ratio of post-law to pre-law suicide rates was 0.981. In other words, a 2% decrease in the rate of firearm related suicide per year was found to be unexplained by random variation. That doesn't seem like a huge effect size, but compound interest helps make it more interesting: it's like if your retirement investment had a 2% convenience fee that went away.
However, the significance of the non-firearm suicide and homicide death difference in trends suggests to me that a lot more was going on in 1996 to reduce overall deaths than a single firearm law. Perhaps the change in rates of death is due to that.
As for the difference in mass shootings, Australia went from an average of 0.72 mass shootings per year to 0 mass shootings per year. I can't really comment on statistics because there are not enough degrees of freedom to do hypothesis testing that would be any good.
In summary, there was a significant effect from something that happened around the year 1996 on all types of death (except firearm homicide), but the actual significant difference found was a pretty small effect. It's still there, it's just small. It's not conclusive to me that the law itself did most of the heavy living - I'd say that due to the overall change in non-firearm death trends as well, Australian society may have most of the credit for the changes occurring around 1996.
Something like...Australian society deciding that mass shooting atrocities are worse than being able to play bang bang in the woods with their toys?
Perhaps. The fact that voluntary buyback was a continuing force despite the existing mandatory buyback suggests that Australians viewed firearms (and perhaps homicide and suicide) differently at around 1996, which persisted to the end of data collection. This is all conjecture since I don't have survey data or anything like that. And again, I can't say anything definite regarding mass shootings because that data is hard to statistically measure.
Or it could be that the law was the primary cause. It's all theorycraft from here on out.
I reiterate, though, manage your expectations. I cannot say whether similar gun legislation in the US will have the same effect on mass shootings or even firearm homicides because that effect has not been verified. I worry that if my hunch is right, without a nationwide epiphany, we cannot count on replicating Australia's results, even if such a law is passed. That's not my argument, just a possibility.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The guiding star of the gun movement for at least as long as most of us have been alive is to never give an inch. The leaders of the movement are absolutely fanatics, in every sense of the word. The fact that there exists a hostility to the idea that people are coming around to "Fuck all guns actually"...
Well that's what has been sown.
There's been moments in time over the last four decades that could have saved a lot of pain and the gun lobby wasn't interested.
Oh well, guess we'll hit the tipping point sooner or later.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+14
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's like the analogy people have used multiple times in the thread: If Sally keeps taking the football away, eventually you solve the issue by not bothering to play by their rules and you just take the football entirely away from Sally.
It's like the analogy people have used multiple times in the thread: If Sally keeps taking the football away, eventually you solve the issue by not bothering to play by their rules and you just take the football entirely away from Sally.
I do think its important to actually look at the caliber of these AR/AR-style weapons as playing a major role in these shootings.
Like I said, 5.56x45 NATO was designed specifically as a military cartridge. When the US military introduced the M16 in 5.56 during Vietnam soldiers reported seeing enemies just drop like a ragdoll whenever they were hit. The rounds design gives it a very high chance to yaw, or upset, as it hits the target. Basically it tumbles and fragments through the body on impact creating a massive internal cavity and pulverizes bone or organs. It is an incredibly lethal round. There was an article I read at one point by a doctor who operated on (I believe) victims of a spree shooting and they were basically saying that getting shot with an AR is not like getting shot by anything else. I'll see if I can find it as I get time.
.223 is a lower pressure load but has the same dimensions and functionality as 5.56. You can shoot .223 out of a rifle chambered in 5.56 but you cannot shoot 5.56 out of a rifle chambered in .223.
Interestingly enough, per wikipedia, a lot of the criticism of the round comes from it's supposed lack of lethality which is likely due to the US adopting the M4 carbine. The M4 carbine is 14.5" barrel rifle and thus generates less power as opposed to the original 20" barrel of the M16. Civilian AR patterned rifles are 16" or longer. So, if I'm understanding correctly civilian weapons may be more deadly than what our Marines are carrying.
Tl;dr everything about the AR-15/AR pattern rifles was designed to kill human beings and there is basically no argument that can be made, in my mind, that they serve any other purpose and thus have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of civilians.
I’m still catching up on this thread, but I lurk a lot of the gun control threads. This post here is probably the most accurate post on internal and terminal ballistics I’ve ever read on PA.
Thumbs up man
I believe this is the article @Juggernut is referring to.
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
Firstly, Australian data is focused on studying Australia. To suggest that the Australian data has any relevance here, you'll first have to show that Australian homicides involving guns and gun ownership are in anyway comparable to American homicides involving guns and gun ownership.
Secondly, "we already have laws regulating guns" is a meaningless statement when all of this is currently occurring with existing regulation and the overwhelming majority of this country feels that the current regulations are insufficient. You're constructing a strawman by suggesting that any further regulation is going to lead to some sort of "undue burden" on your precious fucking civil rights.
Lastly, I hope you understand that "I find these losses an acceptable price" is a sentiment that most of us in this thread finds abhorrent, and if you think it's "bad faith" of us to call it such, well too fucking bad.
To be absolutely clear, I did not accuse anyone of arguing in bad faith. I was addressing the accusation that I was arguing in bad faith.
Late last year there was a break in at my home while we slept. When I went to go investigate the noises my wife heard I was attacked by the intruder wielding the pry bar he had used to gain entry. Luckily he was clearly terrified just like me and I wasn't injured and he ran away and managed to escape.
If you had a gun in your hand do you think you could have used it, considering the burglar had the element of surprise and was fully awake?
The problem Americans have is that given that a lot of criminals are armed, they feel pressure to keep up the arms race. I don't think American burglars are as often armed as people suppose, because unarmed burglary carries a much lesser penalty than murder.
So, I was a bit suspicious of the whole 'well actually the statistics show no relationship between legislation and firearm homicides!' thing, so I looked into it a bit. These links may or may not lead to paywalls, but you can at least get the abstracts off of them, and possibly search around for author-provided free copies with the info within.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
I read the second paper. Of the hypotheses tested, the significant value was the ratio of the decreasing rate of suicide in the 18 years prior to enactment of the law to the 20 years after. The trend ratio, not the step change ratio, is what I'm interested in since it looks like death rates have steadily gone down in the past four years and in fact were going down prior to the enactment of the law.
The negative slope of the pre-law line in gun related suicides is 0.970 per 100,000 per year. The negative slope of the post law line is 0.952 per 100,000 per year. This is the significant value over all other firearm death related comparisons - homicide and homicide (nonmass) were not significant, and I don't give "trended toward significance" a moment's thought. I also noted that non-firearm related homicides and suicides also trended downwards.
The trend ratio of post-law to pre-law suicide rates was 0.981. In other words, a 2% decrease in the rate of firearm related suicide per year was found to be unexplained by random variation. That doesn't seem like a huge effect size, but compound interest helps make it more interesting: it's like if your retirement investment had a 2% convenience fee that went away.
However, the significance of the non-firearm suicide and homicide death difference in trends suggests to me that a lot more was going on in 1996 to reduce overall deaths than a single firearm law. Perhaps the change in rates of death is due to that.
As for the difference in mass shootings, Australia went from an average of 0.72 mass shootings per year to 0 mass shootings per year. I can't really comment on statistics because there are not enough degrees of freedom to do hypothesis testing that would be any good.
In summary, there was a significant effect from something that happened around the year 1996 on all types of death (except firearm homicide), but the actual significant difference found was a pretty small effect. It's still there, it's just small. It's not conclusive to me that the law itself did most of the heavy living - I'd say that due to the overall change in non-firearm death trends as well, Australian society may have most of the credit for the changes occurring around 1996.
Something like...Australian society deciding that mass shooting atrocities are worse than being able to play bang bang in the woods with their toys?
Australians can and do play bang bang in the woods with guns. Hunting guns are legal.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
If you had a gun in your hand do you think you could have used it, considering the burglar had the element of surprise and was fully awake?
Absolutely not. I was just awake, not wearing my glasses and best of all in my underpants.
This is always the problem I see with guns as self-defense. You need a good line of sight and some warning to use a gun effectively. In your situation, karate lessons would have probably worked better! (glad it worked out OK for you.)
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Like legit green, or environmentally friendly compared to the depleted uranium shells the Abrams uses?
They removed the lead and replaced it with steel.
Yeah, it is an all steel round which has a few secondary effects:
1. Overpenetration is even more of a problem than just a steel tip round, which is good for military purposes, not so good for civilian purposes (using these will probably get you banned from an indoor range, probably with a repair bill for their backstop).
2. Steel is much lighter so to get equivalent ballistic performance they have to load them hot as shit, so they are hard on rifles.
So essentially an AR15 loaded with .223 will be easier to shoot but offer comparable tissue damage to the targets (especially since non military personnel are all but guaranteed to not have on body armor) as NATO 5.56?
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Like legit green, or environmentally friendly compared to the depleted uranium shells the Abrams uses?
They removed the lead and replaced it with steel.
Yeah, it is an all steel round which has a few secondary effects:
1. Overpenetration is even more of a problem than just a steel tip round, which is good for military purposes, not so good for civilian purposes (using these will probably get you banned from an indoor range, probably with a repair bill for their backstop).
2. Steel is much lighter so to get equivalent ballistic performance they have to load them hot as shit, so they are hard on rifles.
Don’t forget the detachable, blunt metal slug, so that when you get hit by one bullet, it’s actually two bullets hitting you with a supersonic cavitation to your insides.
It’s why the new round doesn’t need to rely on muzzle velocity for extreme yaw to cause fragmentation, it now does it regardless. Also, the steel core can pierce light armor vests more effectively as well.
Like I said, this bullet is engineered for the sole purpose of efficiently killing as many people in as little time as possible by design.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It never occurred to me that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of suicides. I guess if you believe this there's really no compromise, especially since we've had decades of common sense reforms shot down or sabotaged such that anything less than a full repeal of the second amendment appears toothless now.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
How many suicides are conducted with rifles?
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
Handguns are what causes most gun violence in the US, Rifles are just what cause the most amount of gun violence in one sitting. Maybe both should be heavily restricted.
I do think its important to actually look at the caliber of these AR/AR-style weapons as playing a major role in these shootings.
Like I said, 5.56x45 NATO was designed specifically as a military cartridge. When the US military introduced the M16 in 5.56 during Vietnam soldiers reported seeing enemies just drop like a ragdoll whenever they were hit. The rounds design gives it a very high chance to yaw, or upset, as it hits the target. Basically it tumbles and fragments through the body on impact creating a massive internal cavity and pulverizes bone or organs. It is an incredibly lethal round. There was an article I read at one point by a doctor who operated on (I believe) victims of a spree shooting and they were basically saying that getting shot with an AR is not like getting shot by anything else. I'll see if I can find it as I get time.
.223 is a lower pressure load but has the same dimensions and functionality as 5.56. You can shoot .223 out of a rifle chambered in 5.56 but you cannot shoot 5.56 out of a rifle chambered in .223.
Interestingly enough, per wikipedia, a lot of the criticism of the round comes from it's supposed lack of lethality which is likely due to the US adopting the M4 carbine. The M4 carbine is 14.5" barrel rifle and thus generates less power as opposed to the original 20" barrel of the M16. Civilian AR patterned rifles are 16" or longer. So, if I'm understanding correctly civilian weapons may be more deadly than what our Marines are carrying.
Tl;dr everything about the AR-15/AR pattern rifles was designed to kill human beings and there is basically no argument that can be made, in my mind, that they serve any other purpose and thus have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of civilians.
I’m still catching up on this thread, but I lurk a lot of the gun control threads. This post here is probably the most accurate post on internal and terminal ballistics I’ve ever read on PA.
Thumbs up man
I believe this is the article @Juggernut is referring to.
Posts
Shorter barrels reduce muzzle velocity. When the military went from the 20inch to 14.5 inch barrels, the round lost about 600-800 meters per second of muzzle velocity. Counterintuitively, this increases over-penetration of the round, making it less lethal because the yaw and fragmentation of the bullet is reduced. Basically, the bullet just goes straight through unless it hits something vital, it’s not always immediately lethal.
The military uses a new, and much more deadly, round now designed for the 14.5 inch barrel. I don’t believe it’s available for civilian use and hope it never is, this bullet is very, very good at not only killing, but also going through soft structures (houses, tempered glass, etc) and killing the targets behind it with minimal loss in accuracy.
I don’t care what you call it: Assault rifle, AR-15, M4, assault style weapons, metal dick extenders, it doesn’t matter. They are not weapons of defense. They are weapons of war designed to kill people in the quickest, most efficient way possible, not protect rural farmers from animals.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The justification was bullshit to begin with, so I understand where you're coming from.
Based on a few minutes of googling around, this ammo type is privately available in very limited quantities, of pretty questionable sourcing, but it's also way expensive per round compared to most comparable bullets (like ten times more) and explicitly illegal in at least CA
“Fun” Fact: The M855A1 (the new round) was purposely designed to be environmentally friendly. That’s reaching across the aisle, right?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
One of the ways you can tell is that cops as a demographic are usually not strong advocates for gun control
Like legit green, or environmentally friendly compared to the depleted uranium shells the Abrams uses?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Doesn't surprise me, when your entire worldview is constructed around taking the law into your own hands.
They removed the lead and replaced it with steel.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/18/us/three-potential-attacks-foiled/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Wow, congress should really get on passing gun control quick
So would any of those charges stick?
The first guy had illegal large capacity magazines, but the others didn't indicate that they had anything illegal.
And their reported threats were kinda vague, i.e. no specific target, location, or date.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
There's a good chance an AR15 loaded with .223 will do more tissue damage than a military rifle, since hollow-points are banned in military use by Geneva Convention but are very much available on the civilian market. (This is actually defensible; a hollow-point is far less likely to blow through a couple walls and hit someone uninvolved in the neighboring apartment.)
When you consider that the Zone Rouge in France is still uninhabitable a century after the First World War, I’ll take it as a plus. For example, there are areas around Ypres where the top soil is literally 15% arsenic.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
Late last year there was a break in at my home while we slept. When I went to go investigate the noises my wife heard I was attacked by the intruder wielding the pry bar he had used to gain entry. Luckily he was clearly terrified just like me and I wasn't injured and he ran away and managed to escape.
There were two thoughts that stuck with me over the next few weeks that I just couldn't shake. The first was a general feeling of being emasculated, which I do get is stupid. The second one which really spooked me for a long time was that if I lived in the US I would probably be dead right now. A person came into my home when it was occupied and was willing to attack the people within, throw a gun into that mix and it only gets worse. I kept thinking about how even if I had a gun and could have gotten access to it I would probably still have been killed. I guess what I'm trying to say is I really really do not understand the home defence mindset at all, to the point of it being upsettingly frustrating.
There is a happy ending to the story. I discovered because of this event the sound dampening properties of our house are so good I can now turn up the TV more to play xbox late at night.
An association that is more valid is the relationship between the number of firearms per capita and gun related violence.
What if there were a strategic arms reduction in the United States and set limits on the amount of hardware you can own, possibly a tiered system with rigorous qualifications? There would necessarily be no grandfathering as quickly reducing the arms concentration would be the whole point.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There is a significant difference in suicides and death by accidental firearm discharges. Firearm homicides are often sorted per population, which means America's actual probably gets diluted due to the vast population/size compared to smaller countries. This doesn't change the fact no other generally western country has had 250 mass shootings in a single year.
Which is easily statistically significant.
It's also the thing nobody else that bans guns has a problem with.
I don't care what you do or don't find compelling about facts.
If you haven't noticed, there isn't a lot of room for people to care if you find other peoples deaths "compelling" or not.
Essentially there is nothing that stops people massing weapons that kill people routinely.
This is why it happens routinely. Will continue to happen routinely and why, in 3 months or whatever when this is being done again, you'll still be making these inane arguments.
Firstly, Australian data is focused on studying Australia. To suggest that the Australian data has any relevance here, you'll first have to show that Australian homicides involving guns and gun ownership are in anyway comparable to American homicides involving guns and gun ownership.
Secondly, "we already have laws regulating guns" is a meaningless statement when all of this is currently occurring with existing regulation and the overwhelming majority of this country feels that the current regulations are insufficient. You're constructing a strawman by suggesting that any further regulation is going to lead to some sort of "undue burden" on your precious fucking civil rights.
Lastly, I hope you understand that "I find these losses an acceptable price" is a sentiment that most of us in this thread finds abhorrent, and if you think it's "bad faith" of us to call it such, well too fucking bad.
Also not sure if this is deliberate but NSDFRand is not referring to mass killings, but rather overall homicides. He is likely referring to this paper: (British Journal of Criminology)
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/3/455/566026
Essentially, it finds that gun homicides were already decreasing, suicides did decrease as a result of the NFA, and their ARIMA model couldn't track non-firearm homicides well.
What he is not mentioning is the additional writing on mass-killings: (Journal of the American Medical Association)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2530362
This finds a pretty obvious decrease in mass killings, and also looks at mean annual rates of firearm deaths in Australia (with an extra decade or so worth of data). It finds an obvious decrease in mass firearm deaths, but also a decrease in firearm homicides. Now, the obvious rebuttal is that this study does not look at trends pre-NFA and so the result could be skewed by pre-existing trends prior to implementation of the NFA. This study does also look at rates (though honestly I would have preferred they did use ARIMA) and also finds an overall increase in the rate of reduction of firearm deaths.
So, on the whole, evidence points towards a mild additional decrease in the rate of firearm deaths, a consensus in the decrease in firearm suicides (which form the majority of intentional firearm deaths), and a fairly obvious reduction in the number of mass shootings.
Overall, for a social policy, pretty conclusive stuff. Pretty compelling argument for gun control, when the rational for the counter-argument is that this will curb your ability to mount an armed insurrection.
I read the second paper. Of the hypotheses tested, the significant value was the ratio of the decreasing rate of suicide in the 18 years prior to enactment of the law to the 20 years after. The trend ratio, not the step change ratio, is what I'm interested in since it looks like death rates have steadily gone down in the past four years and in fact were going down prior to the enactment of the law.
The negative slope of the pre-law line in gun related suicides is 0.970 per 100,000 per year. The negative slope of the post law line is 0.952 per 100,000 per year. This is the significant value over all other firearm death related comparisons - homicide and homicide (nonmass) were not significant, and I don't give "trended toward significance" a moment's thought. I also noted that non-firearm related homicides and suicides also trended downwards.
The trend ratio of post-law to pre-law suicide rates was 0.981. In other words, a 2% decrease in the rate of firearm related suicide per year was found to be unexplained by random variation. That doesn't seem like a huge effect size, but compound interest helps make it more interesting: it's like if your retirement investment had a 2% convenience fee that went away.
However, the significance of the non-firearm suicide and homicide death difference in trends suggests to me that a lot more was going on in 1996 to reduce overall deaths than a single firearm law. Perhaps the change in rates of death is due to that.
As for the difference in mass shootings, Australia went from an average of 0.72 mass shootings per year to 0 mass shootings per year. I can't really comment on statistics because there are not enough degrees of freedom to do hypothesis testing that would be any good.
In summary, there was a significant effect from something that happened around the year 1996 on all types of death (except firearm homicide), but the actual significant difference found was a pretty small effect. It's still there, it's just small. It's not conclusive to me that the law itself did most of the heavy living - I'd say that due to the overall change in non-firearm death trends as well, Australian society may have most of the credit for the changes occurring around 1996.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Something like...Australian society deciding that mass shooting atrocities are worse than being able to play bang bang in the woods with their toys?
The Prime Minister who spearheaded this after Port Arthur was John Howard. A conservative politician. That's not happening in America.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/01/john-howard-port-arthur-gun-control-1996-cabinet-papers
Perhaps. The fact that voluntary buyback was a continuing force despite the existing mandatory buyback suggests that Australians viewed firearms (and perhaps homicide and suicide) differently at around 1996, which persisted to the end of data collection. This is all conjecture since I don't have survey data or anything like that. And again, I can't say anything definite regarding mass shootings because that data is hard to statistically measure.
Or it could be that the law was the primary cause. It's all theorycraft from here on out.
I reiterate, though, manage your expectations. I cannot say whether similar gun legislation in the US will have the same effect on mass shootings or even firearm homicides because that effect has not been verified. I worry that if my hunch is right, without a nationwide epiphany, we cannot count on replicating Australia's results, even if such a law is passed. That's not my argument, just a possibility.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well that's what has been sown.
There's been moments in time over the last four decades that could have saved a lot of pain and the gun lobby wasn't interested.
Oh well, guess we'll hit the tipping point sooner or later.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Lucy. Sally was trying to mack on Schroeder
I believe this is the article @Juggernut is referring to.
To be absolutely clear, I did not accuse anyone of arguing in bad faith. I was addressing the accusation that I was arguing in bad faith.
If you had a gun in your hand do you think you could have used it, considering the burglar had the element of surprise and was fully awake?
The problem Americans have is that given that a lot of criminals are armed, they feel pressure to keep up the arms race. I don't think American burglars are as often armed as people suppose, because unarmed burglary carries a much lesser penalty than murder.
Australians can and do play bang bang in the woods with guns. Hunting guns are legal.
Absolutely not. I was just awake, not wearing my glasses and best of all in my underpants.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
This is always the problem I see with guns as self-defense. You need a good line of sight and some warning to use a gun effectively. In your situation, karate lessons would have probably worked better! (glad it worked out OK for you.)
Yeah, it is an all steel round which has a few secondary effects:
1. Overpenetration is even more of a problem than just a steel tip round, which is good for military purposes, not so good for civilian purposes (using these will probably get you banned from an indoor range, probably with a repair bill for their backstop).
2. Steel is much lighter so to get equivalent ballistic performance they have to load them hot as shit, so they are hard on rifles.
Don’t forget the detachable, blunt metal slug, so that when you get hit by one bullet, it’s actually two bullets hitting you with a supersonic cavitation to your insides.
It’s why the new round doesn’t need to rely on muzzle velocity for extreme yaw to cause fragmentation, it now does it regardless. Also, the steel core can pierce light armor vests more effectively as well.
Like I said, this bullet is engineered for the sole purpose of efficiently killing as many people in as little time as possible by design.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
How many suicides are conducted with rifles?
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
That is the one, yes. Thanks.