Gun Control...

[Vapymid]

Yes, but umbrellas don't deter rain from falling, do they?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

They do keep it off of you though, and you can always share with others...

 

Do you know of a way to stop the rain from falling permanently?

 

 

[EDIT] Just in case anyone is wondering, this is my pistol... The Ruger SR40c.

Has 9 round magazines (pictured) and 15 round mags. (the underslung Crimson Trace® laser costs $150, and is the cheapest one that fits a Picatinny rail)

Fires Smith & Wesson .40 caliber rounds, currently loaded with 135 grain COR®BON high-velocity JHP. (Jacketed Hollow Point, 1325fps - 526 ft/lbs) FMJ can go through Kevlar armor and still have plenty of killing force on the other side. The hollow points have the same performance as the larger .45 ACP hollow points, yet more will fit in a magazine.

The only actual firing it has seen is 100 rounds of 165-grain Federal® Range.Target.Practice, and 100 rounds of PMC® Bronze 165-grain FMJ-FP, (Full Metal Jacket - Flat Point) all used for initial break-in.

I have seen videos of guys using the 9mm version of this to beat out Glocks in competitions, and these are 1/3 the price.

 

[EDIT] Switched out the 135 grain COR®BON JHP for 180gr Remington® UMC FMJ-SWC.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

Additional argument...

 

L_-N9_tnWBo

[Vapymid]

Do you know of a way to stop the rain from falling permanently?

 

I would have hidden and denied any knowledge of it if I knew - I like rain! But one can always go and live in Dubai if they want to avoid the rain...

 

Anyway, rain/umbrella is not a direct analogy to gun/crime (but is a good illustration of causality)

 

Your gun is nice. Way more upmarket than the one I used to practice my shooting (here is a typical example):

A bit rough in the finish, isn't it?

 

The girl did not impress me, though - bla, bla, bla, reading a canned speech written by a squad of lawyers, all the arguments already beaten to death and the usual "won't you think of the children" and "if you take my guns away I will have nothing else to do" emotional blackmail thrown in for good measure.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Actually, that speech was written solely by her, and if that's what you got out of it, you didn't listen to what she said.

 

As for the Makarov, one of the worst pistols ever adopted as a standard sidearm by any military force IMO. At least you've fired one though. The Makarov is actually larger than mine, but mine'll beat it in almost every way.

[Vapymid]

Nah, I listened to all of it but I'm immune to this kind of propaganda and it's full of holes anyway. There is only one point she got right - you can't eliminate crime caused by systemic economic and social problems by gun control laws.

 

Makarov one of the worst pistols? Yes, definitely. But also one of the cheapest and the Soviet military doctrine considered it very unlikely that a front line officer will survive on the battlefield long enough to actually need his sidearm

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Ah, see therein lies the problem with people like you, you are so thoroughly brainwashed as to consider it propaganda. Please, point out the holes.

 

Yeah, but that just illustrates the lunacy of Soviet military doctrine... Look at the most successful militaries in the world, all have some of the best sidearms available for their officers/soldiers. (even back before guns, but then it was daggers)

[Vapymid]

Lunacy? Maybe... or perhaps pragmatism.

 

As for the holes -

 

- The use of correlations without investigating causality: Chicago, IL, strictest gun laws, highest gun crime, committed with unregistered guns - we already discussed this. More likely, adding more guns to Chicago slums will just increase the gun crime. Also, the UK example you quoted earlier - one of the strictest gun laws in the world, one of the lowest rates of gun crime - her conclusions are inconsistent with that.

 

- Guns will be too expensive for the poor to legally buy - that can only be a good thing, really...

 

- Guns are needed to put pressure on the Government - as we discussed there is no evidence the US Government gives a damn about that.

 

- Stricter gun laws would mean no "decent" education opportunities for her or children like her - oh, dear, my heart bleeds!

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

More likely, adding more guns to Chicago slums will just increase the gun crime.

Where is your evidence supporting this conclusion?

[Vapymid]

Well, you asked for holes - I gave you holes.

 

In the video, it's her proposition, so she should be the one proving her argument. So far, she has not done so.

 

If it is was a scientific peer review, she would have had to go and address the issue of causality in her arguments and then either concede or further prove her theory. However, this is a political theatre and not a scientific process and the purpose of this is not to find the truth but to generate some emotional tools to bash their opponents with.

 

Such political debates go a bit like this: "Hey, her argument does not make sense!" - "What!? She is an innocent child, you are taking her only pride and joy away - you are not thinking about children!" - "Look, he is a heartless monster - he wants to leave our girls vulnerable and without means to defend themselves!" - Next moment the argument is turned into "If you are not with us - you're a paedo, praying on defenceless children!"

 

This is very common now everywhere - children are being used as a political weapon just like in USSR people would use Grampa Lenin if they are stuck in an argument...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

And yet you did not address any of the issues, just did a generalized "I don't have to listen because I don't like what is said" argument. Do you have anything that contradicts her conclusions?

 

By the way, claiming that the originator has to prove their findings for it to be considered "scientific" has been disproved by the theory of evolution crowd, and by the big bang theory crowd time and again. (neither are proven, but both crowds consider them scientific, including many so-called scientists)

[Vapymid]

No! I said - I listened!

 

I was not convinced - that's all...

 

Actually, let me tell you my working theory or hypotheses, rather. I think the relationship between gun crime (I mean both crime with intent and accidents due to negligence etc.) and gun controls is as follows:

 

- No gun controls, wide distribution of fire arms among general population = maximum gun crime (the Wild West scenario);

- As controls are introduced, initially, the stricter they are, the lower the gun crime;

- Until the crime level reaches a certain minimum value (determined by prevailing socio-economic factors);

- Further tightening of gun controls will not decrease the gun crime;

- Until the gun controls become so strict that people, who would otherwise get a legal weapon, resort to black market sources;

- Once that point is reached the gun crime will be increasing somewhat.

 

I am not going to waste my time gathering and analysing data to see if this is true or not - no one's going to pay me for that, after all. But my gut feeling is that if someone were to study the issue objectively and thoroughly, that's what they would find.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it... Until you have proof to support it, don't go saying that my proof doesn't count just because it doesn't fit with your opinion.

[Vapymid]

It doesn't work like that. I don't necessarily need to believe your arguments just because I don't intend to prove an alternative.

 

You are also entitled to your opinion, but if your arguments are not convincing - they are not convincing, regardless if there are alternative theories or not.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

So it's all right for me to say that anything you provide for proof that supports your point of view is completely wrong, simply because it doesn't fit with my idea of how the world should work? I can do that if you really want to do that kind of argument...

[Vapymid]

You are mixing objective and subjective notions together. My problem with the statistical arguments presented by that poor girl is that she fell into a typical "correlation = causation" fallacy - a well known mistake. This is objective, in as much as it is a part of the established body of knowledge of a scientific discipline - statistics.

 

If she'd done something to properly analyse her data, like a Granger causality test, for example, and her findings supported her implication that strict gun laws are causing high gun crime rates in Chicago - it might have convinced me.

 

Statistics used in political context are almost always messed up and one should distrust any number-quoting seen on TV as a matter of course.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

So you're saying you have no evidence that anything she said is false?

[Vapymid]

No, I'm just saying that the evidence she presented was not convincing.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Ok, I'm glad you at least have your opinion.

[ThePest179]

I think these people sum up the situation fairly.