How Easy it is to Buy a AR-15 in South Carolina

heropsycho says...

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

harlequinn said:

But the next question is, will this stop criminal or crazy people from getting a gun?...

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

newtboy says...

You did say he didn't provide peer reviewed evidence, which was in there.

I'm calling the quora article non peer reviewed and off topic at best, and somewhat intentionally misleading, but not necessarily intentionally factually incorrect....but clearly written poorly and with bias. Many of the charts were unlabeled as to what country the stats are from, much less the data source, and the conclusions they drew were questionable.

The others, unavailable without paying...I'll read them if you pay. ;-)

Suicide is homicide, and counts since it's a crime. I had that argument with my brother about school killings last week.

I agree, that was horrible data (within 15%?!), and disingenuous to say "similar magnitude"...I wouldn't have said that, but I didn't write it. Still, the data is telling if imprecise.

It's impossible to be definitive about societal changes with so many factors involved, but the clear correlation is there if not proof of causation. Had they claimed certitude, you would know they're liars. The theory of psychohistory is far from complete, so predicting exactly what drives the actions of societies is still a guessing game at best..

Yes, if, as it seems, those other studies have to average the data over multiple years to make decades long slopes to make their point, but individual year data contradicts it, or intentionally not focus on firearm deaths and/or injuries when discussing efficacy of firearm laws, they're not being fully honest, outright liar might be a bit far....or not.

Comparing different cultures, especially Australia to Nz (or Canada to US) is often meaningless. When your culture doesn't produce a problem, legislation isn't needed to solve it. Talking about Canada to address the USA's gun problem is just time wasting, not useful. We aren't going to become them, so their solutions (not being violent nuts) won't work here. Nice if it would, but how do you legislate sanity into a culture?

harlequinn said:

I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.

Perception of programming versus the reality

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.

newtboy said:

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

newtboy says...

You're kidding, right? You dismiss snopes which clearly you didn't read since you claimed he offered no peer reviewed data that was included there, but you link quora.com and snidely tell me to read twice?! Lol.

From quora.com "Quora is not a source of information or an editor of information. Quora is a forum, just like yahoo answers. So basically Quora is neither credible and neither not credible."

Not so good, absolutely not peer reviewed, but I read it anyway....and I note it repeatedly misleadingly shows OVERALL homicide rates, not the topic (firearm homicides), except at the very end to claim looking at just firearm homicide rates when discussing firearm laws and their efficacy is dumb because murder is murder, and to try to pretend the trend hadn't reversed and shot up for years before the law change at the fastest rate on the chart, and reversed sharply again shortly afterwards, instead claiming a relatively steady decline (I guess hoping we won't look closely at the graph).
Looking at just firearm homicide rates seems to tell a different story.

The other two you mentioned weren't linked, so I bothered to search out the first to find it's behind pay walls, so unavailable...not wasting my time twice. I'll have to assume they're the same caliber.
You claim you personally produced some peer reviewed studies, what about them? You must have them available for free where they were reviewed and published, no? So far, you aren't convincing.

harlequinn said:

The industry financially supporting the NRA doesn't mean the NRA "work for" the industry. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.

"You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you?"

Yeah, 4 posts up from yours. I'd read it twice to prevent yourself from making another error.

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

newtboy says...

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

harlequinn said:

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

The industry financially supporting the NRA doesn't mean the NRA "work for" the industry. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.

"You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you?"

Yeah, 4 posts up from yours. I'd read it twice to prevent yourself from making another error.

newtboy said:

No, I don't accept that because their stated purpose is no longer their actual, clear purpose. I quit when I noticed the shift in focus, I was a long time member and learned to shoot in an NRA sponsored course. Check where the money comes from, you'll see who they work for. It's not membership dues, it's industry donations....or at least was when I left.
.
You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you? He did, and you dismiss them off hand while still offering none, while continuing to make extraordinary claims that demand evidence.
I will say, his limited data wasn't extremely convincing either, but was far better than none.... a decade of data surrounding the law change might be enlightening. Got it? I'll change my tune if you convince me, but that takes verifiable data, not just dataless contentions or baseless claims.

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

newtboy says...

No, I don't accept that because their stated purpose is no longer their actual, clear purpose. I quit when I noticed the shift in focus, I was a long time member and learned to shoot in an NRA sponsored course. Check where the money comes from, you'll see who they work for. It's not membership dues, it's industry donations....or at least was when I left.
.
You mentioned there were studies, but still didn't list any or any data, did you? He did, and you dismiss them off hand while still offering none, while continuing to make extraordinary claims that demand evidence.
I will say, his limited data wasn't extremely convincing either, but was far better than none.... a decade of data surrounding the law change might be enlightening. Got it? I'll change my tune if you convince me, but that takes verifiable data, not just dataless contentions or baseless claims.

harlequinn said:

No. While we're both wrong about their primary purpose (which after looking it up on their website is education and training people in firearms use), their other purpose is (from their about page):

"as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

How powerful assault-style rifles lead to devastating wounds

newtboy says...

Ok, then rimfire isn't assault weapon ammo. You're mixing up topics, adding confusion for nothing on topic....
....and the data massively contradicts your contention that any normal handgun is more powerful or faster than assault weapons, which are 7.62x39 and .223, both over 3 times the power of .357 magnums and beat .44 magnums handily.

To be honest, .50 AE pistols do actually appear to have slightly more power than .223 caliber rifles, I had to look them up separately as they weren't listed, but they are far slower, and a .50 cal bmg has around 7.5 times more power, and desert eagles in the AE .50 configuration aren't normal pistols.

harlequinn said:

Ah no. I didn't misquote this.

Go to the 16 second mark thank you very much.

Including rimfire was to point out that just because it is a rifle doesn't mean it is more powerful than a handgun.

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

Vox - It’s not you. Phones are designed to be addicting.

Sheriff Rips NRA - You’re Not Standing Up For Victims

hatsix says...

So... having an armed guard didn't deter this shooter... and this shooter, unlike many others, did not have a death wish, he went peacefully once found.

It's impossible to know how many shootings ARE deterred by armed guards.

But, we can know how many school shootings were stopped by armed guards... My quick search shows one shooting was stopped by an armed guard just days after, but nobody seems to have any statistics on how many armed guards stop shootings... If you're going to make the assertion that "guards are effective at engaging threats", you need to show numbers. Certainly, with as many politicians who want this to be the solution, and with the monumental rise in school shootings over the last decade, there should be someone, somewhere, capturing metrics on this sort of thing.

My position: Schools have a hard time paying teachers a reasonable salary... I doubt they're going to be getting top-of-the-line security guards... They'll be hiring retired, ex-military cooks who've had weapon training but never been shot at.

harlequinn said:

The narrow case (one guard failing to execute his duty) does not negate the broad case (that guards are effective at deterring and engaging threats).

I can't believe I have to point this out. On videosift no less. I'm flabbergasted.

"Destroys". Hyperbole of 2017.

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Final Performance

Joel Kinnaman - Scandinavians Hate Trump

How powerful assault-style rifles lead to devastating wounds

bobknight33 says...

I've always thought Assault-style rifles are just rifles.. no more no less... Just looks like it belongs to a soldier.

This video suggests that assault-style rifles are worse than hand guns.. Not necessary is the AR15 more deadly than a 9MM or 357?

Would think mass and velocity / distance are the key things to think about when doing damage to a body.



I don't own a weapon and never did.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon