Would you support an asbolute ban on all guns?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Here's another more recent study done by Georgetown University. It estimates defensive uses at 1.6 million annually
2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned
This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional
papers.ssrn.com
"Low end" in what respect? Size? yes. Ability to kill? No.
Yes, because that's what they were told. They were sold the theory that it will wound and not kill, thereby taking 3+ guys out of the fight (the wounded guy, and the two guys dragging him back to cover), and that the wounds would instill fear and terror in the enemy. Turns out in practice that this didn't happen. Instead, survivability from the wounds went down because, as I stated, it does far more internal damage than the previous .30 cal rounds did. Sometimes horrendous, painful wounds, which was also demoralizing from the screaming, but still killed people them all the same. Which is why you don't see those complaints anymore.
Besides, my experience was that Canadian soldiers only complained until they got their hands on it and realized how much lighter is was then the FN. Not to mention by then it's effectiveness was already established so no one was still parading that "wounding only" nonsense anymore.
Did you miss the "outside 100 meters" part? Also not sure what your point is. Are you saying if it goes through some body armour then it's unfair to say body armour "may pose a problem"? I would argue if any armour could be an issue, then that wording is fine. Sounds like you're just trying to nitpick to justify your crappy argument to me. Regardless, IIIA isn't that thick. Some cops I know wear IV on daily patrol, and the rest are at least III.
5.56x45 NATO's closest relative is the .223 Remington, as it was designed from it, but it is not a .223. Compare the two and you'll see why one is used for war and the other is used for civilians. Start with the chamber pressure and go from there. To pretend they're anything alike in any way except size is to show ignorance.
You shat the bed when you spoke misinformation calling out misinformation, and I'm correcting your misinformation to prove your entire line of debate is nonsense. But at no point have a addressed support for a ban, and I'm not going to defend or bring up a point I never made.
So you quoted this paragraph, but did you read it? It literally says what I told you it did. It (edit: by which I mean the portion you quoted, not necessarily this paragraph) also says Kleck claimed there was a ton of DGU/year, it doesn't say if those results are valid. In fact, it flat out says it can't validate them. "further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies
and to confirm or discount earlier findings." "Confirm or discount", as in "we aren't confirming or discounting, merely identifying priorities".
Last edited:
It was a survey, which presents the same problems the surveys from the 90s do. You're asking the average gun owner to make a judgement call on whether their weapon was used defensively or not with no critical eye to weather it was necessary. Of even more note is that the survey stated it did not matter if the gun was fired or not.Here's another more recent study done by Georgetown University. It estimates defensive uses at 1.6 million annually
2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned
This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professionalpapers.ssrn.com
So an 80-year old gun nut may have been using an ATM at 11pm, seen a black guy walking towards him, and because he's racist brandished his weapon causing a potentially innocent passerby to run away, and called it a DGU.
Broad surveys with weak definitions do not produce valid data.
No matter what I would show you you're just looking for any excuse to discount the findings , which are multiple, independent and scientifically valid. There are over 450 million legal guns in the hands of Americans today. 45% of US households have a gun on the premises.82.5M Americans personally own a gun and 66%-88% of them say they do so for self-defense. If even just 1% used their gun in self defense that would be over 600,000 incidents annually.
Considering I have never said I favoured a ban, this is you attempting to extrapolate from invalid data, the same that happens in this unscientific surveys. You can say there are multiple (true, there were 3 in the 90s and 1 in 2020, all of which were voluntary surveys, which is not scientific), that they are independent (questionable), and that they are scientifically valid (they are not, by virtue of the fact that they are voluntary surveys), but that doesn't mean valid conclusions can be drawn.
First you need to understand the data. And as I've demonstrated, the criteria of the survey makes it clear the data is questionable and potentially biased.
It doesn't come down to whether guns were used defensively, it comes down to if they needed to be used defensively. The only gun use that most Canadians would accept as valid would be the case where the use of a gun saves a life that would otherwise be lost. But American surveys include all uses, even where there was no potentially dangerous situation, or to preserve property and not life. And by definition, to me, "self defense" is about preserving life, not stopping theives.
Even if your 600k number is valid (and there's no reason to assume that 1% number is, you just pulled it out of your ass), how many are necessary to preserve life? 1/6th? 1/10th? Less?
I can tell you my dad was a cop for almost 40 years and never once drew his gun. Plenty of cops I know are in the same boat. So I don't see any reason to assume there's wide spread need for civilians to draw theirs.
Last edited:
Just having guns around the house can be dangerous. Lots of accidental shootings, not to mention it makes it easier for people to commit suicide. But then again, I guess anyone who is going to kill themselves will find a way.
For me personally, I would be terrified to have a gun in the house.
For me personally, I would be terrified to have a gun in the house.
And I have never had a reason to.
Cunning linguist above is arguing as if its no big deal being hit by a 5.56 round and he'd just walk it off if it happened. Like wut?
@DinkleMouse articulates it better.
Last edited:
The Flemish Peace Institute published a report after analysing multiple studies (that weren't voluntary surveys) and found substitution of method in suicides doesn't happen.
Specifically, they looked at the rates of suicides in countries both before and after gun control laws were changed. What they found is that when a country stiffened gun control, the rates of gun suicide went down significantly but there was no statistically significant increase in any other method of suicide, and overall suicide rates dropped roughly by the same amount gun suicides did. Likewise, when gun control laws were loosened, gun and overall suicide rates want up with no statistically significant decrease in any other form of suicide.
They hypothesize that gun suicide is more prevalent for specific people (probably men) in crisis, and that other forms of suicide either require preparation or may require a specific situation. For example, the chances that someone who would shoot themselves is in a tall building, on a high floor, with windows that open, during the onset of the crisis is small. And getting to a building or situation that might make that viable gives time to think and cool down. But they were only saying there may be potentially explanations, not that they were true. All they were able to do was conclude that more guns equals more suicide and less guns equals less suicide and that if there are less guns people don't seem to use other methods.
It makes a lot of sense. Just seems to easy and tempting to shoot onself to get rid of the pain.
My point, since you missed it, is that since you brought up armour, basically all centrefire rifle cartridges will do that depending on distance and armour rating. If III-A, which is what is normally what front line LEO'S are issued, will be pierced by 5.56/.223; it will be pierced by .30-06 soft points or any other "socially acceptable" hunting cartridges.
.223 is what will be commercially, widely available to the public and would be functionally similar enough for the sake of the discussion; but ultimately moot as we've seen successful shootings with pistol calibres. The alleged preference for ARs in mass shootings is irrelevant to the discussion; it's preference is more tied to its popularity than its lethality.[/QUOTE]
Do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? Its clear to me you are highly in favor of banning guns (or severely limiting them). You can argue all you want about unscientific surveys done by partisans, having guns in the hands of legal owners is a tremendous deterrent to crime. Other than surveys I don't think that there is another method of gathering data on this since police agencies don't keep data on these incidents.
Why is it just necessary to preserve life? What about stopping an assault, a rape or a robbery? These are all serious as well.
What isn't disputed is that there are over 450 million legal guns in the hands of Americans. In 2021 there were 48,830 gun related deaths in the United States. 20,958 were homicides, 26,328 were suicides, 537 were legal intervention, 549 were accidental and 458 were undetermined. Less than 10% (approx. 2,096) of guns used in homicides were obtained legally. Banning legal guns will not materially reduce homicide rates.
That all being said I support universal background checks and mandatory gun training. A person shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun within an hour, or a day. Unless specific circumstances warrant it.
I personally am a decent shot and I am not at all terrified of guns. Here is what's terrifying though.
Imagine having a gun in the house and waking up in the middle of the night and seeing a thief stealing your lawn chair.
This is probably as close as it's going to ever get in terms of having a confrontation where a gun can theoretically be used if you live in Canada.
What the fuck are you going to do though? Shoot a bum over a fucking lawn chair?
No matter what you do, if you use your gun, you would have been way better off financially and legally and morally if you just slept through it and bought another chair.
Then why bother having a gun in the first place? Because NRA says it means freedom?
Oh, if I only had realized distance mattered and clarified in my comment that I was talking about more than 100 meters. Oh wait, I did. In fact, I suspect I've managed to debunk all your other claims which is why you're clinging to at least sound like you know what you're talking about here. I'm not buying it. It is not a "weak" round. It is a military-grade cartridge designed for warfare, and no matter how much you try to lump it in with "any other socially acceptable hunting cartridge", it's not.
It is not functionally similar enough. C77 and .223 Remington are very different. I'll say it again, they are the same in dimensions only, and share no other similarities.
Last edited:
Strange. It's not clear to me. It's a complex issue with no simple answer and I'm not convinced a ban would be effective. But hey, I guess you know my thoughts better than I do.
The problem is that studies take funding. For social issues, that usually means lobbies, be they pro or con. So we have NRA on one hand and groups like Everytown on the other. And lo and behold, contradicting information.
Perhaps if Congress would unshackle the CDC and give them public money to study it we'd get a semi-decent, unbiased study. But we don't. We have one CDC report frequently taken out of context that says, "You know what we really need? A shit ton more research."
I'll give you rape, but that's it. If more guns means more people dead, then putting more guns out there to stop cars getting stolen is not something that should be done.
if all guns were banned, where would these illegal guns come from? In Canada they come from the US. But if the US got over their gun fetish and banned them, where would they come from? Mexico? Maybe. In large numbers? Unlikely. And every time a gun was used and the person caught, the number of guns in circulation would go down. In theory, eventually there would be so few they would be prohibitive expensive to be used in regular crimes. And if you're robbing stores at knifepoint rather than gunpoint, body counts are likely to go down.
So it might work. But the problem is we have no idea what the results would be of a complete ban. We can't even guess. Because all we have are unscientific voluntary surveys.
And for the record, just because I think the studies are shit doesn't mean I think the conclusions are wrong. It just means i think the studies are bad. I actually don't know if defensive gun uses are very high or very low. I know my own experiences and those of my acquaintances imply they should be rare, but anecdotal evidence isn't scientific anyway. A broken watch is still right twice a day. So bad studies may still be producing data that reflects reality... We just have no way of knowing.
We have a thread where one guy was told, basically to "shut up" because he was "spreading misinformation". I'm just pointing out the pro-gun side had a shit ton of it too, and this thread is full of it.
What we know for a sure about the effects of gun laws on society is very very little.
I'd argue no circumstances warrant it. My biggest complaint however, if I was an American, would be the unregulated nature of private sales, which is how so many legal guns become illegal to begin with.
Last edited:
I'm not lumping it in with "socially acceptable hunting cartridges" I'm saying it's less powerful than those cartridges; which will also certainly penetrate armour and kill children. Despite that, it's being singled out and demonized as a "military assault round" to sway the ignorant masses.
Sure, there are differences and because civilian cartridges aren't subject to the Hauge Declaration, are offered commercially with expanding projectiles. But what's more likely that shooters do their mass shootings with M855 or commercially available .223 Remington loads?
I haven't seen it posted yet, but I doubt the Tennessee shooter +P 9mm loads.
The only reason to bring up the loose military connections is for the purpose of fear mongering.
No, it's ballistics characteristics are vastly different. But hey, you know better than me and all those other vets that talk about how absolutely devastating it is I guess.
Not relevant. I literally replied to you because you were being a dick and telling someone he was spreading misinformation when your comments were full of bullshit. What's "more likely" has no bearing. Besides, you're the one who brought up 5.56.
Then why bring up 5.56 at all? It was you, afterall, who first mentioned it and called it "5.56/.223", which, again, is nonsense because they are not even close to being the same. There's like comparing a C7 and an AR15; they are completely different beasts and you'd probably bitch about misinformation and tell people they don't know what they're talking about if they did it. I'm also not sure how you think the military connections of 5.56 is "loose". It was designed specifically and exclusively for military use. Hardly a "loose" connection.
Addendum, if you're going with "they're not functionally similar enough", you could say the same about the AR-15 and M4.
I do. Don't you? Though I'd argue the AR15 is closer to an M4 than .223 Remington is to 5.56x45 NATO.
