View Full Version : What Do Academics Think of guns?
The Academics who actually research the issue of guns? Not the PhDs in theater arts who are anti gun, but Economists and Criminologists who spend their entire careers ojectively examining the cost/benefits of guns?
Guess Who is Pro-Gun? Survey of College Professors Shows Surprising Views on Gun Ownership
Academia is generally viewed as a liberal bastion, but one survey finds that despite their broad political leanings, college professors who have studied the impact of guns on society believe ownership of firearms makes the country safer.
The academic survey by Gary A. Mauser, a professor at Canada’s Simon Fraser University Beedle School of Business, and U.S. economist John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, finds that the attitude of academics actually corresponds with that of the general public.
“Prior to the 1990s, the debate was about how bad guns were,” Lott told TheBlaze. “Since that time, the debate among economists and criminologists has moved to how large the benefits are. That has coincided with a change in public opinion.”
The study narrowed the survey to professors of economics and criminology.
Lott, who has taught at Yale University, the University of Chicago and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”
The survey found that professors provide pro-gun answers on almost every response. But there was a consistent split with economists being more pro-gun than criminologists.
Academics overall believed by a 40-point margin that concealed handgun permits reduced murder rates. Among economists, that was a 12-1 margin, but only 2-1 among criminologists.
But on a key question, the two disciplines differ, as 83 percent of economists believe guns are more frequently used for self-defense than for crime, while 51 percent of criminologists think guns are more often used in the commission of crime.
Cont:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/12/guess-who-is-pro-gun-survey-of-college-professors-shows-surprising-views-on-gun-ownership/
Study:
Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns: Crime, Suicides, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws
Abstract:
Economists and Criminologists have very different models of human behavior. A total of 74 out of all 130 academics who published peer-reviewed empirical research on gun issues in criminology and economics journals responded to our survey. That was a 57% response rate. Looking at their views on their views on deterrence and regulations generally, our survey finds that these two groups have very different views on gun regulations that vary in systematic, predictable ways. Our survey results are consistent with those predictions and statistically significant. While economists tend to view guns as making people safer, criminologists hold this position less strongly. Combining all the economists and criminologists together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self-defense than in crime; gun-free zones attract criminals; guns in the home do not increase the risk of suicide; concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American; and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. All those results are statistically significant. The survey of economists was conducted from August 25th to September 12th 2014. The survey of criminologists was conducted from May 29th to June 14th 2015.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728123
daddyusmaximus
02-22-16, 18:17
Never would have guessed that...
Perhaps those pro-gun economics professors should be talking to the Chamber of Commerce about their anti-gun stance. :(
In the last 30 years, the US homicide rate has fallen by over 50%, and the gun homicide rate has fallen too, while the number of guns in America has sky-rocketed to over 300 million. Research shows that states with higher levels of household firearms ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide, and overall homicide. This explains why Britain, a nation with many strict gun control laws, has a much, much lower firearm homicide rate than the US. The truth is, firearms are several times more deadly than other commonly available weapons such as knives, clubs, sticks, etc.
In the US, random mass shootings are at an all-time high. We can blame poor parenting, the media, prescription drugs, but the truth remains: High capacity magazines and readily accessible semi-automatic firearms allow shooters to stack up the body count when they go on a rampage. Of course, the guns are not to blame, but they too often are the tool of choice of the shooters. Would we be looking at 6 dead in MI if the perpetrator had used a knife? Most likely not.
Robust firearm registration coupled with enforceable UBCs, firearm licensing, mandatory training, strong commitment laws (gun violence protection orders), strict laws prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of multiple DUIs, violent misdemeanors, and controlled-substance misdemeanors, and greatly increased funding to mental health would all drastically lower the rate of gun violence in the US. If the aforementioned are in place, it would be sensible to ease restrictions of all NFA firearms (including machine guns) to qualified law-abiding citizens. My proposal is robust, constitutional, and would allow citizens access to more firearms, while keeping firearms away from those who should not have them (and that's quite a few).
In the last 30 years, the US homicide rate has fallen by over 50%, and the gun homicide rate has fallen too, while the number of guns in America has sky-rocketed to over 300 million. Research shows that states with higher levels of household firearms ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide, and overall homicide. This explains why Britain, a nation with many strict gun control laws, has a much, much lower firearm homicide rate than the US. The truth is, firearms are several times more deadly than other commonly available weapons such as knives, clubs, sticks, etc.
In the US, random mass shootings are at an all-time high. We can blame poor parenting, the media, prescription drugs, but the truth remains: High capacity magazines and readily accessible semi-automatic firearms allow shooters to stack up the body count when they go on a rampage. Of course, the guns are not to blame, but they too often are the tool of choice of the shooters. Would we be looking at 6 dead in MI if the perpetrator had used a knife? Most likely not.
Robust firearm registration coupled with enforceable UBCs, firearm licensing, mandatory training, strong commitment laws (gun violence protection orders), strict laws prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of multiple DUIs, violent misdemeanors, and controlled-substance misdemeanors, and greatly increased funding to mental health would all drastically lower the rate of gun violence in the US. If the aforementioned are in place, it would be sensible to ease restrictions of all NFA firearms (including machine guns) to qualified law-abiding citizens. My proposal is robust, constitutional, and would allow citizens access to more firearms, while keeping firearms away from those who should not have them (and that's quite a few).
Your proposal is far from constitutional. I've not got the time to pick it apart piece by piece at the moment.
Your proposal is far from constitutional. I've not got the time to pick it apart piece by piece at the moment.
DC vs. Heller explicitly allows restrictions on the 2A, and some, BUT NOT ALL, are mentioned in the opinion. My proposed restrictions would allow you to buy an M4A1, as long as you meet the legal requirements. Most would argue an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual firearm when compared to handguns, and an AWB is very likely constitutional, as is a hi-cap mag ban. I'm willing to strike a compromise. It's just a matter of time before the US adopts regulations similar to those in Europe. Further, amending the 2A, or removing it all together, is not out of the question either.
Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos-
ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi-
tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.
DC vs. Heller explicitly allows restrictions on the 2A, and some, BUT NOT ALL, are mentioned in the opinion. My proposed restrictions would allow you to buy an M4A1, as long as you meet the legal requirements. Most would argue an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual firearm when compared to handguns, and an AWB is very likely constitutional, as is a hi-cap mag ban. I'm willing to strike a compromise. It's just a matter of time before the US adopts regulations similar to those in Europe. Further, amending the 2A, or removing it all together, is not out of the question either.
What is wrong with you? Seriously... :blink:
What is wrong with you? Seriously... :blink:
The writing is on the wall.
Here is an article wherein the attorney makes a good argument for why hi-cap mag bans are probably constitutional:
A federal district court has refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Sunnyvale, California’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. (Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014).) A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/06/are-laws-limiting-magazine-capacity-to-10-rounds-constitutional/
wildcard600
02-22-16, 19:50
What is wrong with you? Seriously... :blink:
Just put them on ignore, it will save yourself alot of headache and hopefully if no-one responds to the BS posts they will just go away.
Meh...."criminologists" have to justify themselves.
If no criminals existed, no need for "criminologists"
But people will always need a form of capital. I've brushed elbows with some LE "braintrust" in my day. They may be all for keeping their Model 19 or Glock from their "long gone" patrol days but don't think anyone else "needs" them lest they "take the law in their own hands".
I've heard it all and seen at least half it. 'Broken Windows', 'Community Outreach', etc.
But at the end of the day if you look easy; you get taken advantage of.
Ever see The Day After? Where the missiles are on the way and the Air Force guys are ordered to wait for evac choppers. The missiles will hit them long before the first chopper gets in Radar O'Reilly range.
That's what 911 is. A placebo. Proactive police work is frowned upon. So...
A weapon in hand trumps a cop 25 minutes out. He may be a hard MFer coming in like the Guns of the Navarrone or a dumbass. And....you're gonna count on him? Even if he makes it?
At least Economists understand quantative value.
Pretty simple. Gun now or cop maybe.
Meh...."criminologists" have to justify themselves.
If no criminals existed, no need for "criminologists"
But people will always need a form of capital. I've brushed elbows with some LE "braintrust" in my day. They may be all for keeping their Model 19 or Glock from their "long gone" patrol days but don't think anyone else "needs" them lest they "take the law in their own hands".
I've heard it all and seen at least half it. 'Broken Windows', 'Community Outreach', etc.
But at the end of the day if you look easy; you get taken advantage of.
Ever see The Day After? Where the missiles are on the way and the Air Force guys are ordered to wait for evac choppers. The missiles will hit them long before the first chopper gets in Radar O'Reilly range.
That's what 911 is. A placebo. Proactive police work is frowned upon. So...
A weapon in hand trumps a cop 25 minutes out. He may be a hard MFer coming in like the Guns of the Navarrone or a dumbass. And....you're gonna count on him? Even if he makes it?
At least Economists understand quantative value.
Pretty simple. Gun now or cop maybe.
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
Individuals that own cars are at a significantly greater risk of being in a car accident than individuals that don't own cars.
Sadly Lott does not have a good reputation in academia due to some previous questionable research methodology that could not be substantiated when his data was reviewed by other researchers. I wish it were not the case.
Sadly Lott does not have a good reputation in academia due to some previous questionable research methodology that could not be substantiated when his data was reviewed by other researchers. I wish it were not the case.
I think the idea that "All people who have X for an occupation believe..." is a flawed premise. It's like suggesting all cops are "pro gun" or "anti gun." It's like saying all "rape victims" will automatically become "pro gun" because they will now understand they could have prevented their rape. Sounds reasonable, but the truth is people aren't always reasonable and regardless of their experience or occupation some will be "pro gun" and some will be "anti gun" no matter what.
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
I've thought about it. Families that shove shotguns up home invader ass and dole out 12 ga. enemas like free EBT tend to get raped and murdered exponentially less than households that don't.
BTDT. Hoodrats don't break into certain homes for a reason. Not even in packs. Unless they know they can take 'em like it's a prissy woman by herself or just kids or something.
It's a microcosm of human mores. Some countries never get invaded for good reasons. And especially not by pissants.
If it would take a Marine Fireteam and possibly mortars to get into your house then you'll statistically never been home invaded by cruising thugs.
If you drive a Prius, act bougie, and look like a fag then you'll probably get the business.
Pretty simple. Not hard..
mkmckinley
02-22-16, 21:54
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
Maybe you should look up the terms correlation, causation, and confounding variable amigo. Seems to reason that households in more dangerous areas would be more likely have a gun to defend themselves. Sure, they're more likely to die of homicide or including firearm-related homicide but that doesn't mean the gun in the household is causational.
Criminologists are basically just a flavor of sociologist. All of the sociology classes I've taken have been taught and attended by largely left-leaning folks so it's no surprise that, on average, criminologists tend to support disarmament.
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
That is funny considering the majority of the people who are victims of homicide are not your average firearm owner. The majority are criminals, or associated with criminals. If your logic was true then you would be seeing obituaries for members on here and TOS on damn near a daily basis but nope, those obituaries are coming from crime ridden dumps. That correlation does not equal causation previously mentioned is called a fallacy known as post hoc, look it up. Types of fallacies are often used by people with weak arguments; see politicians.
Having earned two graduate degrees and done a couple stints teaching in universities, let me assure you that handgun possession is socially unacceptable in academia. Yes, some own firearms for home defense but do not advertise the fact. The farther north one travels, the more he will encounter negative feelings about owning guns. While a doctoral student, I flatly never discussed the topic or shared my interests with others. I wanted no grief from anybody on my dissertation committee who may have had different views. If you teach on a tenure track in a major college/university, advocating for the 2nd amendment will ruin your career 99 out of 100 times. And don't say the assault rifle word. Oh. Another career ending topic is crime if one mentions race statistics. The egg heads can't refute the stats but will hate you for quoting them and then label you racists, reactionary, and next they will stick their thumbs up each others' asses and sing "We Shall Overcome".
I've thought about it. Families that shove shotguns up home invader ass and dole out 12 ga. enemas like free EBT tend to get raped and murdered exponentially less than households that don't.
BTDT. Hoodrats don't break into certain homes for a reason. Not even in packs. Unless they know they can take 'em like it's a prissy woman by herself or just kids or something.
It's a microcosm of human mores. Some countries never get invaded for good reasons. And especially not by pissants.
If it would take a Marine Fireteam and possibly mortars to get into your house then you'll statistically never been home invaded by cruising thugs.
If you drive a Prius, act bougie, and look like a fag then you'll probably get the business.
Pretty simple. Not hard..
Lived in District 13 Ft. Lauderdale for several years. There are only a few other districts that were worse. I was the ONLY house in a four block radius that was never broken into or robbed. There was a reason. In a single year I had more "held at gunpoint" instances on my property than some of the cops who responded.
I think the idea that "All people who have X for an occupation believe..." is a flawed premise. It's like suggesting all cops are "pro gun" or "anti gun." It's like saying all "rape victims" will automatically become "pro gun" because they will now understand they could have prevented their rape. Sounds reasonable, but the truth is people aren't always reasonable and regardless of their experience or occupation some will be "pro gun" and some will be "anti gun" no matter what.
True. Having been in academia for close to 12 years, I've encountered a wide variety of pro-gun and anti-gun people. Some of my friends and colleagues are left-leaning and pro-gun; even left-leaning friends who are into black rifles and interested in MGs.
I've thought about it. Families that shove shotguns up home invader ass and dole out 12 ga. enemas like free EBT tend to get raped and murdered exponentially less than households that don't.
BTDT. Hoodrats don't break into certain homes for a reason. Not even in packs. Unless they know they can take 'em like it's a prissy woman by herself or just kids or something.
It's a microcosm of human mores. Some countries never get invaded for good reasons. And especially not by pissants.
If it would take a Marine Fireteam and possibly mortars to get into your house then you'll statistically never been home invaded by cruising thugs.
If you drive a Prius, act bougie, and look like a fag then you'll probably get the business.
Pretty simple. Not hard..
True, however you better own a very good (i.e. TL30 and up) safe if you ever go out of town. People openly knowing you are into guns makes you a potential target for home burglary while you are at work, on vacation, out of the home, etc..
Maybe you should look up the terms correlation, causation, and confounding variable amigo. Seems to reason that households in more dangerous areas would be more likely have a gun to defend themselves. Sure, they're more likely to die of homicide or including firearm-related homicide but that doesn't mean the gun in the household is causational.
Criminologists are basically just a flavor of sociologist. All of the sociology classes I've taken have been taught and attended by largely left-leaning folks so it's no surprise that, on average, criminologists tend to support disarmament.
This is a paper written by the coauthor of OP's paper.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Actually it seems that you both may be wrong and that basically Endur nailed it. According to this paper, in the U.S., households in more dangerous areas are actually much less likely to have a gun to defend themselves and that the presence of firearms only increases the likelihood of a firearms related suicide, but not of a suicide in general. Furthermore, while it is true that the person most likely to murder someone with a gun is a person that they know, those people are almost never two law abiding citizens and one of the most commons ways that they know each other is from committing crimes together. It's long and dense, but I think we're up to it. The footnotes are worth reading.
ETA: Looked into the source a bit further and it is from a student reviewed journal with a Conservative/Libertarian political slant at Harvard, rather than a peer reviewed journal as I had first thought.
This is a paper written by the coauthor of OP's paper.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Actually it seems that you both may be wrong and that basically Endur nailed it. According to this paper, in the U.S., households in more dangerous areas are actually much less likely to have a gun to defend themselves and that the presence of firearms only increases the likelihood of a firearms related suicide, but not of a suicide in general. Furthermore, while it is true that the person most likely to murder someone with a gun is a person that they know, those people are almost never two law abiding citizens and one of the most commons ways that they know each other is from committing crimes together. It's long and dense, but I think we're up to it. The footnotes are worth reading.
ETA: Looked into the source a bit further and it is from a student reviewed journal with a Conservative/Libertarian political slant at Harvard, rather than a peer reviewed journal as I had first thought.
That was an excellent piece and I thank you for posting it. I will use that going forward in my classes. I am studying criminal justice and most of the statistics and theories on crime will draw you the conclusions in that piece but do not outright say so. I was surprised that they did not mention how the UK complies their crime statistics to make it appear their crime is lower than it is, considering how detailed they got.
In the last 30 years, the US homicide rate has fallen by over 50%, and the gun homicide rate has fallen too, while the number of guns in America has sky-rocketed to over 300 million. Research shows that states with higher levels of household firearms ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide, and overall homicide. This explains why Britain, a nation with many strict gun control laws, has a much, much lower firearm homicide rate than the US. The truth is, firearms are several times more deadly than other commonly available weapons such as knives, clubs, sticks, etc.
In the US, random mass shootings are at an all-time high. We can blame poor parenting, the media, prescription drugs, but the truth remains: High capacity magazines and readily accessible semi-automatic firearms allow shooters to stack up the body count when they go on a rampage. Of course, the guns are not to blame, but they too often are the tool of choice of the shooters. Would we be looking at 6 dead in MI if the perpetrator had used a knife? Most likely not.
Robust firearm registration coupled with enforceable UBCs, firearm licensing, mandatory training, strong commitment laws (gun violence protection orders), strict laws prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of multiple DUIs, violent misdemeanors, and controlled-substance misdemeanors, and greatly increased funding to mental health would all drastically lower the rate of gun violence in the US. If the aforementioned are in place, it would be sensible to ease restrictions of all NFA firearms (including machine guns) to qualified law-abiding citizens. My proposal is robust, constitutional, and would allow citizens access to more firearms, while keeping firearms away from those who should not have them (and that's quite a few).
A few points (I will look up the specific sources tomorrow):
1) Britain has had a lower homicide rate even before their draconian gun controllaws were enacted. This suggests something cultural and not related to firearms.
2) How are you defining mass shootings? Also, if the # of mass shootings is up, but the total # of people killed is down, doesn't that suggest that overall things are improving?
3) Of said mass shootings, isn't it pertinent that most of them happen in "gun free zones"?
4) Knife attacks do happen. See China. Also, the # of people who use guns to defend themselves must be factored into any analysis of gun ownership.
5) Mandatory training? Who sets the standards? Don't you see massive room for shenanigans here, similar to may issue CCW laws?
6) I am (along with probably everybody here) with you on making NFA ownership easier for regular peaceful citizens, but firearms licensing is not Constitutional. The Constitution does not authorize that power to the government, not for general ownership, nor for concealed carry. The Supreme Court can rule that the words mean whatever they want them to mean, but the Constitution does not support that.
DC vs. Heller explicitly allows restrictions on the 2A, and some, BUT NOT ALL, are mentioned in the opinion. My proposed restrictions would allow you to buy an M4A1, as long as you meet the legal requirements. Most would argue an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual firearm when compared to handguns, and an AWB is very likely constitutional, as is a hi-cap mag ban. I'm willing to strike a compromise. It's just a matter of time before the US adopts regulations similar to those in Europe. Further, amending the 2A, or removing it all together, is not out of the question either.
Again, SCOTUS is not the Constitution. The AR-15 is hardly dangerous and unusual, having been in existence for 50+ years, produced by the 100's of millions worldwide, in civilian hands and in service in numerous militaries and police agencies.
As for hi cap mag bans, the Constitution does not authorize the government this power either. The words "shall not be infringed" mean what they mean, regardless of what 9 unelected lawyers say.
As for compromise, remember that you are dealing with the Left. They aren't in it to compromise. They are in it to win - and by winning that means complete disarmament of non-elite, non-connected/wealthy peasant citizens.
We will gain nothing by compromise. We will only lose.
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
A few things:
1) Like someone already pointed out, the same applies to households with cars and motor vehicle accidents, as well as households with swimming pools being more likely to have drowning deaths. Hardly surprising, but not an argument for taking those things away.
2) Also consider that households with guns have those guns because they are at higher risk in the first place (whether from geographic location or lifestyle/associations). People with pacemakers are more likely to die of heart problems than people without pacemakers - i.e. the pacemaker is not the cause, but merely more likely to be present in at-risk individuals.
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
Silly people in possession of a keyboard and an internet connection are at significantly greater risk of posting something inane on the internet. :rolleyes:
This is a paper written by the coauthor of OP's paper.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Actually it seems that you both may be wrong and that basically Endur nailed it. According to this paper, in the U.S., households in more dangerous areas are actually much less likely to have a gun to defend themselves and that the presence of firearms only increases the likelihood of a firearms related suicide, but not of a suicide in general. Furthermore, while it is true that the person most likely to murder someone with a gun is a person that they know, those people are almost never two law abiding citizens and one of the most commons ways that they know each other is from committing crimes together. It's long and dense, but I think we're up to it. The footnotes are worth reading.
ETA: Looked into the source a bit further and it is from a student reviewed journal with a Conservative/Libertarian political slant at Harvard, rather than a peer reviewed journal as I had first thought.
It might not be peer reviewed but it is accurate and in line with my studies.
It might not be peer reviewed but it is accurate and in line with my studies.
Before citing it, it is worth it to look up some of the criticism from what are considered more "legitimate" academic sources as I'm sure your opposition will. Some of it is legitimate criticism, they don't control for other violence factors such as poverty and alcohol use and when those other factors are controlled for, households with guns are more violent, but when you control for those things does it leave a significant enough sample size to conclude that gun control can be effective? That's not really addressed by the critics. Much of the criticism is a red herring, claiming the article concluded that more guns equals less crime, then attacking that idea when the authors emphatically state that they cannot draw that conclusion. Finally some of it is downright misleading such as complaints that the authors use second world countries as points of comparison to first world countries while completely ignoring the comparisons that the authors make between like countries in Scandinavia and countries such as Germany, England and France. The critics don't seem to attack the numbers though, just the methodology and so while you can't draw the conclusion that more guns equal less crime from this paper (as the authors very clearly state) it certainly does cast a lot of doubt on the idea that less guns are not inherently equals less crime.
Check out Akhil Amar of Yale. An academic by any measure and seems to understand the 2nd amendment.
Don't get me wrong, you won't like everything he says or how he says it... but I was encouraged by several of his presentations that all of academia is not lost.
Most would argue an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual firearm when compared to handguns
The test isn't vs handguns. It's solely if a weapons is both dangerous and unusual. It's a given that an AR-15 is dangerous. I mean, it's literally made to kill and/or destroy things (be it hogs, coyotes, paper, or communists) very efficiently.
But it needs to be both dangerous AND unusual. How can a weapon in use by almost every law enforcement agency, every branch of the US Military, and the most common long gun in U.S. civilian hands, be anything close to "unusual"?
7.62 you are so far off especially on the mass shooting per capita it's not even funny, we rate number 11 in mass shooting deaths per capita. Here is the latest statistics as of Dec 2015. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
And to add to that, changing the laws to restrict gun ownership is not going to deter criminals. The reason why is simple, IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO MURDER PEOPLE, yet they do it, they will just find another way. I'd rather see mass shooting on TV as opposed to bombs going off in the street
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Dist. Expert 26
02-23-16, 12:23
I'm seriously getting to the point where I don't want to read GD threads because 7.62 is allowed to post here. Every thread he posts in is instantly derailed while everyone tries to refute his BS.
Back on topic, it would be nice if these pro gun professors could help tone down the liberal indoctrination at universities, but I have yet to see any hint of conservative opinions at my college. Perhaps they're too scared of being fired to speak out.
I'm seriously getting to the point where I don't want to read GD threads because 7.62 is allowed to post here. Every thread he posts in is instantly derailed while everyone tries to refute his BS.
Back on topic, it would be nice if these pro gun professors could help tone down the liberal indoctrination at universities, but I have yet to see any hint of conservative opinions at my college. Perhaps they're too scared of being fired to speak out.
Agreed on both points.
For sure they are afraid to speak out. When I was a student I was immediately chastised and ridiculed for having any opinion counter to the leftist group think my professors espoused and the class ate up.
I received worse grades after having a few debates in classes and owning the teachers and other students. Although my work was quality and of the same caliber as before I spoke up against their BS opinions they preached as gospel. I learned to pick my battles.
It must be even worse for someone getting paid by the system. It really is terrible. Liberals are all "equal this, equal that" until it comes to their opinions; dissent and facts getting in the way of controlling minds pisses them off to NO END and they lash out in the usual hateful fashion they always seem to chastise others for utilizing...
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
What "magic" does a firearm possess that suddenly turns one homicidal or suicidal? Statistics DO lie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What "magic" does a firearm possess that suddenly turns one homicidal or suicidal? Statistics DO lie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Firearms don't make people more suicidal or homicidal.
Firearms make a suicidal or homicidal person much more likely to succeed. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Wow. This is not the conversation I expected to be having with senior members of M4C.
I heard a new term recently that I think fits here. "Butter" example "I believe in the 2A 'BUT'...." Those people are Butters.
Also I dont see how the AR15 is considered more dangerous thatn other guns and it damn sure isnt unusual. Rifles in general make up a very small percentage of homicides in the US. AR15s make up a hug percentage of overall rifles sold in the US.
Wow. This is not the conversation I expected to be having with senior members of M4C.
I heard a new term recently that I think fits here. "Butter" example "I believe in the 2A 'BUT'...." Those people are Butters.
Also I dont see how the AR15 is considered more dangerous thatn other guns and it damn sure isnt unusual. Rifles in general make up a very small percentage of homicides in the US. AR15s make up a hug percentage of overall rifles sold in the US.
The test isn't if the AR15 is more dangerous than other guns. It's not a test if it's dangerous to the user. It's only if it's dangerous. Period.
I'd venture few would want a non-dangerous firearm, because that would be a non-functional firearm.
The test is dumb, but the firearm must be both dangerous and unusual. As I mentioned earlier, you'd have to be desperately grasping at straws in the bottom of a barrel to make an argument that the AR15 is unusual.
Firearms don't make people more suicidal or homicidal.
Firearms make a suicidal or homicidal person much more likely to succeed. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Correct.
The 7.62 post stated the mere existence of a firearm in household exposed the occupants to far greater incident of homicide and/or suicide.
There are other statistically important issues at play here.
I can't believe I'm arguing about his absurdity, I wish he'd put his tin foil hat back on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When someone says 'dangerous and unusual' I think of nerve gas or an atomic bomb.
As anarchistic as I am about getting to own whatever one wants....I can see the reasoning behind not wanting people to have nerve gas or atomic bombs. Insofar that there are no governments I trust with such things.
I can theoretically keep a Lahti or a Paladin arty piece at my crib and it would hurt no one.
But the sheer amount of upkeep on NBC does make them most unusual. Hell, nukes are only 71 years old. Longarms have existed since the 15th century or so.
"Looking scary and shooting really fast" is actually pretty common and has been for at least a century or more.
And I agree, some M4C elements are being almost challenging contrary. Not just different points of view or different moral barometers (i.e. we ain't all gonna agree on everything and don't have to). But drive by posts of just totally controversial statements with nothing behind them except to kill a thread or be contrarian.
It actually does get annoying and not even in a fun way.
Just saying
And I agree, some M4C elements are being almost challenging contrary. Not just different points of view or different moral barometers (i.e. we ain't all gonna agree on everything and don't have to). But drive by posts of just totally controversial statements with nothing behind them except to kill a thread or be contrarian.
It actually does get annoying and not even in a fun way.
Just saying
I think of it as a form of mental retardation. It makes a lot more sense when you consider that possibility.
Dist. Expert 26
02-23-16, 20:53
I think of it as a form of mental retardation. It makes a lot more sense when you consider that possibility.
Whatever phrasing you choose, such statements are bringing M4C down to the level of Facebook or Youtube arguments. This forum has a post requirement to stop such stupidity before it gets the chance to start, but unfortunately in this case that isn't enough.
sevenhelmet
02-23-16, 21:00
Interesting OP, Will... I was reminded of an economics prof I had in undergrad who carried 100% of the time (in NYC and on a federal military installation... I have absolutely no idea how he pulled that off). His suit used to fly back and expose his holster and pistol grip when he got excited and started gesturing about something.
Good to have a reminder not every college prof is a liberal.
SeriousStudent
02-23-16, 21:21
.....................
And I agree, some M4C elements are being almost challenging contrary. Not just different points of view or different moral barometers (i.e. we ain't all gonna agree on everything and don't have to). But drive by posts of just totally controversial statements with nothing behind them except to kill a thread or be contrarian.
It actually does get annoying and not even in a fun way.
Just saying
Feel free to use the Report Post button.
Correct.
The 7.62 post stated the mere existence of a firearm in household exposed the occupants to far greater incident of homicide and/or suicide.
There are other statistically important issues at play here.
I can't believe I'm arguing about his absurdity, I wish he'd put his tin foil hat back on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im pretty sure they're measuring people killed, not attempts (and failures).
What "magic" does a firearm possess that suddenly turns one homicidal or suicidal? Statistics DO lie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Statistics don't lie. But they may be cherry picked to lead people to draw incorrect conclusions, which is where the phrase comes from. For example, are the guns legal? Are the owners law-abiding? Does this include self defense and police shootings that are legal? People don't understand the population a study may represent. What is the culture of the population?
Take the middle east vs America - what are the crime rates? What are the laws? How are the laws enforced? There are too many variables to account for imo.
Statistics don't lie. But they may be cherry picked to lead people to draw incorrect conclusions, which is where the phrase comes from. For example, are the guns legal? Are the owners law-abiding? Does this include self defense and police shootings that are legal? People don't understand the population a study may represent. What is the culture of the population?
Take the middle east vs America - what are the crime rates? What are the laws? How are the laws enforced? There are too many variables to account for imo.
This. Raw numbers dont tell the whole story. Because if more guns actually equaled more murders then the South and Midwest would be blood baths.
In 2014 the state of Arizona (the most gun friendly state in the union) had a population of 6.7 million people and 390 murders. The city of Chicago (very strict gun laws and low legal ownership) had a population of 2.7 million people and had over 400 murders (441 total homicides including LE and self defense killings).
Individuals in a household wherein there are firearms are at a significantly greater risk of dying from homicide or suicide than individuals in gun-free households. I'll give you some time to re-think that one...
If you are trying to make this point in earnest I would ask you why you own any firearms (which you presumably do), or why you post on this board.
Seriously, there was once a study done (I believe in Chicago) that said people were far more likely to be killed by people whom they know than by unknown criminals. Anti-gunners used this as a talking point against firearm ownership.
However, killed by people who know each other includes gangmembers killing other gangmenbers and rival gangmenbers, criminals killing other criminals in disputes, drug dealers ripping off customers and vice-versa. I believe the typical murder victim in the study had a criminal record.
Moose-Knuckle
02-24-16, 02:16
Campus carry is being fought tooth & nail by the leftists in academia here. It's law but they are all scrambling to circumvent it via legalese.
When someone says 'dangerous and unusual' I think of nerve gas or an atomic bomb.
As anarchistic as I am about getting to own whatever one wants....I can see the reasoning behind not wanting people to have nerve gas or atomic bombs. Insofar that there are no governments I trust with such things.
I can theoretically keep a Lahti or a Paladin arty piece at my crib and it would hurt no one.
But the sheer amount of upkeep on NBC does make them most unusual. Hell, nukes are only 71 years old. Longarms have existed since the 15th century or so.
"Looking scary and shooting really fast" is actually pretty common and has been for at least a century or more.
And I agree, some M4C elements are being almost challenging contrary. Not just different points of view or different moral barometers (i.e. we ain't all gonna agree on everything and don't have to). But drive by posts of just totally controversial statements with nothing behind them except to kill a thread or be contrarian.
It actually does get annoying and not even in a fun way.
Just saying
This is a good point.
I would also add that nuclear bombs and nerve gas are different from firearms in an important sense. The former causes mass, widespread, indiscriminate destruction, whereas the latter can be aimed/targeted at individuals. In the 2A context, firearms can (and were used) to fight tyrannical agents without killing entire cities in the process. I don't know if nuclear arms/nerve gas could accomplish the same.
On the other hand, I am not opposed to the use of nuclear arms in extreme cases (such as when dealing with psychotic, relentless evil like that of the Japanese Empire of WWII), nor to possessing them as deterrence to nuclear annihilation from enemies who are nuclear-capable.
I hope that made sense.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand.
If you are trying to make this point in earnest I would ask you why you own any firearms (which you presumably do), or why you post on this board.
Seriously, there was once a study done (I believe in Chicago) that said people were far more likely to be killed by people whom they know than by unknown criminals. Anti-gunners used this as a talking point against firearm ownership.
However, killed by people who know each other includes gangmembers killing other gangmenbers and rival gangmenbers, criminals killing other criminals in disputes, drug dealers ripping off customers and vice-versa. I believe the typical murder victim in the study had a criminal record.
The studies he is referring to are pointed out by a Harvard professor in retort to the paper that I posted earlier. They indicate that when controlling for a ton of other factors up to and including alcohol consumption, the presence of a firearm increases the risk by something to the tune of 114%. The next time I have a lot of time I intend to find and read this study, though it can be difficult obtaining peer reviewed articles for free. It was a peer reviewed study though, so there may very well be something to that. Even if that is 100% factually correct though, when all other things are controlled for is that enough people left to have a real impact on crime?
That being said, believing that guns put you at risk and still owning them is not, as some are implying, ridiculous. Perhaps he believes that for his situation, knowing the people in his household, he is more likely to need it for self defense. Perhaps he understands the risks, but simply enjoys shooting sort of how some people ride motorcycles. Perhaps he understands the risks and believes that an armed populace is the key to maintaining a free nation and has decided that is more important. Maybe he carries one for his job. I've gone around in circles with 7.62 before myself. Hell, I wanted to throw a rock at my computer when we were arguing about the state of judicial interpretation and assault weapons bans, but just because someone is open to the idea that guns, which were invented for killing, may make it easier to kill or more likely that someone will kill, doesn't mean they can't also be gun enthusiasts or supporters of the second amendment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.