OT: Question for US peeps.

[Laughing Cow]

Hi All.

This is about a controversial topic, so lets keep it civil.

Do you need a Firearm licence to buy Bullets in the USA??

The reason for this is that in a recent Newpaper article I read that the Japanese Police attributes the low gun crime rate not so much to regulations of guns but of Bullets.

If you want to buy Bullets you need to show your Gun licence and can ONLY get Bullets for your Gun type.

They also said that most japanese mobsters are lousy with their guns and can't hit anything further than 3 yard away.
It is attributed to the fact that they cannot get bullets for their illegal guns and thus lack practice in using them.

Just curious, what your opinions are about this type of cotnrol.

[Oso]

don't know about everywhere but not in NC.

kinda interesting point.

still...

if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

It's not that dang hard to buy anything short of full auto and if
I looked hard enough that probably wouldn't be all that hard.

sh it, look at the casualty rate of a single can of pepper spray.

IT'S NOT THE FRIKKIN WEAPON !!!!

[Royal Dragon]

I have a freind that has an AR-15, and I know where to get him the full auto kit if I wanted one. It's not that expensive.

[Laughing Cow]

Oso.

Firearms in Japan been "illegal" since WW II.
You can get a licence but it is hellish difficult for a rifle, never mind a handgun.

Most Sports shooters are either from the police or Military.
Those Guns are sctrictly controlled and only issued for patrol and collected afterwards. All Bullets need to be accounted for too.

Yes, Japan has illegal Firearms too, the majority of them are modified "non-firing" Guns that are sold there.

Thus it is much easier than lets say in the states to control the roughly 500.000 registered firearms.

Just some info.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
I have a freind that has an AR-15, and I know where to get him the full auto kit if I wanted one. It's not that expensive.

I am talking over the counter legal purchases of Bullets, casings, powder, firing caps, etc.

Not the back-alley, out of the trunk deals.
;) ;)

[Oso]

ok LC, point granted. This has been said before so I can't take
credit for it. But considering that I am at least above average
in my ability to handle myself hth or with handheld, non projectile
weapons; I will gladly live with the removal of all guns from the
planet. That puts me, and most of us here, at an extreme
advantage and I like that idea.

but, as I live in the US I dasn't really care about the gun
control laws of other countries, guns are part of the US
and probably always will be. There are far too many of them
to effectively remove from circulation. Therefore, I feel that the
average citizen must NOT be made to jump through too many
hoops in order to be able to protect themselves from the
criminal who will always have access to them.

[Oso]

IMO, full auto is a waste of ammo and basically good for
suppresive fire mostly.


I will point to the magnificant movie "Cherry 2000'' where
our heroin takes out the helicopter (I think) with single shot
accuracy for proof of this truism. :D

[Laughing Cow]

Oso.

I am NOT advocating that the USA should do as Japan does.
I couldn't care less how many Guns you guys got sticking out of your clothing.

OTOH, I am worried about your WMD though.
;)

My point is simply that control of the bullets, etc seems to be more effective than control of the Guns.

FWIW, I see the whole pro-gun thingy like the Cold-War nuclear thingy.
I need a bigger gun than the criminal has, which in turn makes him buy a bigger gun, which means I need another bigger gun and the saga continues.

And in the meantime the Gun manufacturer is smiling all the way to the Bank.

Kinda remind me of a Tom & Jerry movie.

Naah, keep your guns, but keep them the hell away from me and my loved ones.

[Xebsball]

I speak for here, dunno on USA.
But if people cant get legal, they get it illegal anyway.
About 110% of the bad guys get it about 200% of their weapons and ammo illegal, so regulating the bullets would make no difference.

[Oso]

This has been said before so I can't take
credit for it. But considering that I am at least above average
in my ability to handle myself hth or with handheld, non projectile
weapons; I will gladly live with the removal of all guns from the
planet. That puts me, and most of us here, at an extreme
advantage and I like that idea.

that's what I think should happen.


BUT, not going to happen in the US.

SO, I want mine.

You are correct and I agree that it is an arms race sort of thing.
But, I don't see myself living anywhere else but here and I'm not
a pacifist so if the proper response is shooting back then I want
to be able to shoot back as effectively as the other guy.
It is a trap of sorts, I agree but I'm not going to give up
advantage.


OTOH, I am worried about your WMD though.

lost me but I'm on my 3rd bourbon/ginger


As far as the manufacturer smiling all the way to the bank...
well, that's the status quo in the good ol' US of A. We'uns
here at the bottom get stuck alls th' time by the big bidness
so nothing new or extraordinary there.

[joedoe]

Is a gun protection against a gun though? Don't get me wrong, I think that guns are a fact of life in the USA, but do you think that having a gun protects you from other guns?

I agree with LC - controlling access to ammo is probably more effective and realistic than trying to control access to guns themselves. And no matter what you do the crims are always going to be able to get hold of both :(

[Oso]

oh yea,

the whole regulating of the powder etc.

a shotgun round is way simple to make.

It's smoothbore so you don't need to worry about anything
but and explosive compound of some sort (old blackpowder
is easy to make) and some hard pointy bits to put inside it.

crude yes, but people died plenty in the revolutionary and civil
wars from stuff as crude.

[Laughing Cow]

Oso.

Ever refilled your own Bullets??

[joedoe]

Fair point.

[morbicid]

guns dont kill people...bullets moving really fast do

[Xebsball]

morbicid is precisely correct

[Oso]

LC, not personally no but I have watched a fair amount of
reloading.

as you pointed out, Japan has illegal guns created out of
non firing guns available on the open market. It isn't much of
a stretch of the imagination to realize that the same would
happen here, probably taking us back 200 years in the technology
but still effective.


ok, done for the night....

[Mr.Binx]

I've been shot at by all sorts of different firearms in this crazy state, but I've never fired one. :rolleyes: My father used to have a plethora of automatic weapons in the house before he keeled over. Crazy @#$! had over 2,000 crate-rounds of 9mm ammunition at any given time. :rolleyes: What's scary is that it doesn't take jack-squat to get a gun license in this country.

[StarBoy]

There is no regulation regarding the sale of powder, ammunition, or casings in the US. The only restrictions are on the firearms themselves, and really only for pistols. It's kinda funny, now that I think about it. I'd have to jump through so many hoops just to get a 9mm, but if I wanted at fully automatic AK-47, I just need to buy a civilian issue (anywhere) and get a conversion kit at a gun show.

Furthermore, it's even possible to get a silencer in this country. Though with all the government hoops you have to jump through, you might as well build one yourself.

I have reloaded my own ammunition before, though I only do it for revolvers. The reason being that when I reload my own casings, I overload (more powder=more power) For automatics and rifles, there are too many sensitive mechanical parts that could be damaged from the extra recoil. I've done it for a .22LR and it was kinda fun. I've done it once, and only once for a .357 Magnum, and I'll never do it again. The kick from that was just insane.



This has been said before so I can't take
credit for it. But considering that I am at least above average
in my ability to handle myself hth or with handheld, non projectile
weapons; I will gladly live with the removal of all guns from the
planet. That puts me, and most of us here, at an extreme
advantage and I like that idea.


I have to disagree with this one. Yes, I am a competent martial artist that could probably hold myself in a brawl, but the times when one might need a firearm is going to be nothing like a barfight. In a town near where I lived, there is a shopping plaza. A couple left one of the stores late at night and was kidnapped at gunpoint buy two men. The boyfriend was restrained at gunpoint and forced to watch the other kidnapper rape the girlfriend (who also had a gun).

Realistically, if that was me (or anyone really), all the Kung Fu in the world would still get me (and probably her too) killed. I could probably take out one of the guys before the other one kills me. With a firearm, I'd still might be taken out, but I'm sure I'd get the both of them in the process.

Granted, it's an extreme example, but if the process of getting a permit and carrying a firearm could prevent that from happening just once, it's more than worth it.

Furthermore, I don't have the numbers on hand, but most violent crimes using firearms are committed with illegal firearms. And controlling ammunition really won't help because then people will start buying illegal ammunition from the people they buy their illegal firearms with.

Obviously, I'm against gun control and any government action that could result in taking away our right to bear arms. I mean, this is in the Bill of Rights, the big 10, and if we let the gov't take this away, what's next? *cough cough* Brave New World *cough cough*

[Radhnoti]

From personal experience, I disagree with the idea that criminals and law abiding citizens who own guns are in some kind of "arms race". The typical criminal owning a gun probably has a cheap pistol that they haven't gotten around to pawning yet. Most gun owners I know are VERY proud of their...often expensive, firearms. You are not going to see the typical crackhead running around with a H&K Mark 23...

Studies indicate that between 800,000 and 2.5 million people use a gun defensively and legally in a year. That up to 2.5 million people who didn't have to worry about the other guy being bigger/stronger/badder. "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." - is the old saying I believe.
From the "National Crime Victimization Survey" (92-98):
"For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun."- Gary Kleck

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

[Oso]

starboy, I think you missed the point of the quote.

I would love for all guns to magically disappear.

if ALL guns disappeared then I would have advantage over
a much wider majority of people inclined to commit crimes.

your example gives the baddies the guns but not you. the points
I made last night basically say that BECAUSE baddies are going
to ALWAYS have guns then I want mine as well.

Where's Eulerfan when you need her???

It is highly unlikely that 2 unarmed people would be able to take
me and my girlfriend captive. She would take one out and I would
take the other out.:D



radhnoti, I don't think the cost or quality of the weapons was the
point. Just that more criminals are using guns so more law
abiding citizens are gun owners due to an increase in the number
of guns in the hands of criminals.

Although, over the last 20 years you have seen in increase in the
quality of weapons deployed by LEO's as a direct result of what
the criminals were using against them. The ol' 6 shot .38 is mostly
a thing of the past. But, I'm not a cop so I might be mistaken.

[StarBoy]

starboy, I think you missed the point of the quote.

I would love for all guns to magically disappear.


I'd have to reflect on it for quite a while to be sure, but I think I agree with you there.



Although, over the last 20 years you have seen in increase in the
quality of weapons deployed by LEO's as a direct result of what
the criminals were using against them. The ol' 6 shot .38 is mostly
a thing of the past. But, I'm not a cop so I might be mistaken.


That's really personal opinion. I know that some departments were carrying Glocks a while back. I have shot Glocks before, along with 9mms made by Ruger, S&W, H&K, and I think even Sig-Sauer if I remember correctly. The Glock was the worst of all of them. Not just accuracy, but also comfortability. If you look at the handle of a Glock, you'll notice that its angle to the barrel is more obtuse than any other pistol. It feels funny and shoots funny. Many of my friends feel the same way. I'd take a .357Mag (one of firearms previously issued to LEOs) any day over a Glock. I happened to notice that some of the Glock using depts. switched to S&W 9mm and .45s not long after instituting Glocks. Though I don't know what they're going to do next considering S&W is going out of business (therefore no new supply).

[Oso]

starboy, I was referring to the last 2 decades or so, my adult
life. others here are older and have a greater range of
experience. I'm sorta guessing yours may be narrower.
no slam there, just that in the late 70's early 80's it was
mostly revolvers. No reason either since the 1911 has been
available as a service revolver since, huh 1911 or so.

I can't quote anything specifically but I know I've read or seen
articles about LEO's needs for higher capacity weapons due to
the baddies using increasingly better guns.

[StarBoy]

others here are older and have a greater range of
experience. I'm sorta guessing yours may be narrower.


I don't mean to sound snotty, but I seriously doubt that. I have extensive experience with everything (pistols, rifles, ARs) but shotguns, though I do know shotgun basics.



just that in the late 70's early 80's it was
mostly revolvers


That's what I was talking about. I'd prefer a .357Mag (it's a revolver that was carried in the 70s and 80s) over a Glock anyday. Higher capacity? I'm not so sure about that. A .357Mag holds 6 rounds, a .45 auto holds about 8 on average (and that's what a lot of LEOs carry). Two extra shots in exchange for a lot less stopping power? Then you have the 9mm line. Though there are many other options than the Glock, some of them are higher quality and less expensive. If they wanted to save a few bucks (and most depts. do), they should have gave them all something from Ruger P-series. They shoot better, last longer, and cost less. They are also American-made, so I was surprised US depts. passed them over. Furthermore, when the US depts that did drop Glock switched. I'm surprised some of them picked S&W over Ruger. Don't get me wrong, S&W makes some great firearms, but Ruger's firearms are of comparible quality.

[Oso]

starboy, I was not trying to be snotty either but merely
suggesting that between your youth and my inexperience
there were others here who could provide better data


I believe the argument still favors higher capacity with a lot of
depts opting for the .40 as a middle ground between the 9mm
and the .45.

your preference for a 6 shot magnum is just that.

[red5angel]

"I have a freind that has an AR-15, and I know where to get him the full auto kit if I wanted one. It's not that expensive."


Royal Dragon, I could show him how to make it full auto without the kit in about 30 seconds....

Starboy, what state do you live in? Typically it is just as hard to get a any fire arm, regardless of what it is, buit there are plenty of ways to get them through the unusual channels. Also, so you know, silencers are federally controlled and absolutely illegal for civilian use.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns for alot of reasons, however, I do think that their should be haftier restrictions and a better way to go about approving guns for people who want to buy them. Right now the airline pilots are going to have to go through psychological screening as well as a criminal background check, I think personally that should go for everyone.

[Oso]

Right now the airline pilots are going to have to go through psychological screening as well as a criminal background check, I think personally that should go for everyone.

I agree. If you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't have
any objection to a screening of some sort.

[eulerfan]

Gun deaths from 2000. This is from the CDC.


10,801 in homicides
16,586 in suicides
776 in unintentional shootings
270 in legal interventions, and
230 in undetermined events

~58% of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Most probably, those people would have found another way to off themselves were guns unavailable.

I am WAAAAAY more worried about our health care system than I am about gun control.

[Oso]

I wonder how that stacks up against deaths from automobile
collisions or other accidental death statistics.

[red5angel]

I personally would like to see the numbers on how many people choke to death on jello each year...

[eulerfan]

Well, then, go find out:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Have fun
;) :D

[Oso]

http://www.peter.ca/society3.html


http://filebox.vt.edu/vizlab/digstat/automobile.txt


http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_by_firearm.htm



that was a quick search and I just skimmed it but it sure seems
like we need to ban all doctors.

[eulerfan]

2,804 dead from medical care.

[red5angel]

I got nothing on jello related deaths:confused:

[Radhnoti]

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates)
-data compiled by National Safety Council
All Auto - 43,000
Falls - 16,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids - 11,700
Drowning - 3,900
Fires, burns - 3,600
Suffocation by ingested object - 3,400
Firearms - 600
Poisoning by gases, vapors - 400
All other causes - 14,500

Red5, Oso, I think that the main problem pro-gun activists have with requiring testing would be the fear that a later (gun-hostile) administration would use/change the requirements to (in effect) enact gun control. In my opinion, our government isn't in a position to "allow" us to own guns...if we follow their rules. It's a right, same as free speech, free press and choice of potato chip. The less power we allow the government to take, the better off we'll all be.

[eulerfan]

I hate to break it to you but free speech and free press are not absolute. You are not allowed to say or print whatever you want. You can be punished for saying and printing certain things.

Look at the church of Scientology. They sued a guy who was saying bad things about them on a MESSAGE BOARD! Can you imagine that? Going to court for some tripe you spouted on KFO?

[red5angel]

I don't think gun "control" is a bad thing, we have it now since they usually atleast do a background check for a gun license. I would be fore more stringent laws as well, but not a ban on owning guns.
Of course I think to drive we should have more stringent testing laws, along with having children...

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by red5angel
Of course I think to drive we should have more stringent testing laws, along with having children...

Can I get an 'amen'?

AMEN!!!

:D

[StarBoy]

starboy, I was not trying to be snotty either but merely
suggesting that between your youth and my inexperience
there were others here who could provide better data


I never thought you were being snotty. I was just trying to point out that while I may be relatively young, I'm rather experienced in this area.



I believe the argument still favors higher capacity with a lot of
depts opting for the .40 as a middle ground between the 9mm
and the .45.


The .40 is no middle ground. Note that the 9mm is equal (in diameter) to a .38 (not a .38 special, but a .380 auto) the only difference being that it is a longer round (ergo more powder). There is a .02 difference in the caliber. I'm not sure if LEOs use JHP or FMJ rounds, but my guess is on FMJs (better penetration). The muzzle velocity for a 9mm round is approximately 380 m/s while the .40 is about 300 m/s. That is a huge sacrifice for a .40, and for what? A insignificant increase in caliber? The .45, on the other hand, has a muzzle velocity of somewheres around 240 to 250 m/s (depending on the weight of the bullet). It will have about 2/3 the penetration of a 9mm. for a significant increase in caliber.

And like I said, "higher capacity" is not a factor if the officer is carrying a .45. At best, you'll fit 8 rounds into a .45 (Ruger P-97), though 7 is also a common capacity, and this is compared to the 6 rounds of a .357. Not only that, but those one or two extra rounds will have much less stopping power and penetration than a .357 round.

The 9mm, on the other hand, is a different story. There is a huge difference in capacity. For a LEO issue 9mm, the capacity would hover somewhere around 15-16 rounds. Much better than the 6 of a .357 Mag revolver. Even better, the 9mm has a slightly higher muzzle velocity which equates to better penetration. Furthermore, you have to look at it practically. In some firefights LEOs would get involved in, you'll have perps behind cover and sometimes 6 rounds just won't cut it. If I have a perp ducked behind a mailbox, I'd rather take 3 quick shots off with a 9mm and still have 80% of my ammo left, then to take 3 slow shots (recoil) with a .357 Mag and be down to 50%. Furthermore (unlike the .357 Mag) if you hit a perp with a 9mm, there will still be something left to handcuff. :D

And that brings us back to the Glock, which I think was the worst choice for LEOs, and I already talked about that.


Starboy, what state do you live in?

I'm in NY, but I usually live in CT, and I do all my shooting there. I don't have any hassle with my "hobby" as I know many people in various areas of the legal system. Even still, with no connections, getting a pistol permit really isn't that difficult if you go through the proper channels.



Also, so you know, silencers are federally controlled and absolutely illegal for civilian use.


That's actually untrue. There is a procedure that any civilian can go through in order to obtain a proper tax stamp along with authorization to possess and even use a silencer. Of course, for obvious reasons, the government is not too forthcoming with this information. If you want it, you really have to dig.

Also, look at it this way, H&K's US division produces a USP tactical which is available for civilian purchase and use. If you notice, it has a threaded barrel (for a silencer). It certainly isn't a collectors weapon, and that should tell you right there that it's possible.

If you don't believe me (and I expect you won't), do the digging yourself.



Right now the airline pilots are going to have to go through psychological screening as well as a criminal background check, I think personally that should go for everyone.


That already does go for everyone if you're trying to get a permit to carry (at least in CT and many other "liberal" states). It's a real pain in the ass process. They do a full background check, you get fingerprinted, psych eval, and an interview with a high ranking LEO. Though, one of my friends is from the southwest (AZ), and the laws are a lot more lax there. However, if you look at the UCRs (or really any other data set), you'll notice a higher violent crime rate involving firearm useage in the states where there are more restrictions on firearm useage. I'm not saying that these are related, merely that imposing more restrictions isn't going to significantly affect the crime rate.



I hate to break it to you but free speech and free press are not absolute. You are not allowed to say or print whatever you want. You can be punished for saying and printing certain things.


That is unfortunate. That's all I can say. There are plenty of people I disagree with, but I never would hope them to no longer be allowed to express themselves or their opinions.



Look at the church of Scientology. They sued a guy who was saying bad things about them on a MESSAGE BOARD! Can you imagine that? Going to court for some tripe you spouted on KFO?


Well, in this country you can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not a judge throws the case out of court is another story. Do you have more information on this though? I'm interested.

[red5angel]

Starboy, no offense but I have a hard time buying that silencers can be made legal. I know for a fact it is under federal law. I will go ahead and look into it and see what I can find out. Also, the threaded barrel thing doesn't hold a lot of wight, most rifles sold that have automatic cousins can be made fully automatic with very little work, but that doesn't mean automatic weapons are any more legal.

As for the psych eval thing, I know here in Minnesota they do't do it, just a background check. The permits to carry or conceal might be different but to buy is pretty easy.

[Radhnoti]

The "Bill of Rights":

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html

My own summary of the Big Ten:

We have religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, peaceable assembly and Government petition.
Freedom to bear arms.
No quartering of soldiers in homes. (This one might still hold true, with no provisions.)
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Capital crimes require a grand jury, no double jeopardy, not forced to witness against yourself, no taking anything without due process of law or just compensation.
A speedy and public trial, refutation of witnesses and free legal counsel.
A jury can be called upon for any case exceeding $20. Meaning, if we all had the guts, speeding tickets would be a thing of the past. :D
No excessive bail, fines or punishment.
Just because we (the founders) lay out THESE rights, don't assume they are the ONLY rights U.S. citizens have.
We want the federal government's power to be SERIOUSLY limited, so don't let "it" have anything we haven't offered in the Constitution. All others powers of government should reside in the states and the PEOPLE.

If any of our rights are infringed upon, it is not because the founders of our government wanted it to be that way. It's because we were not vigilant in preserving what we were guaranteed. It's always: "Well, it would just make sense to limit THIS..." or, " anyone SHOULD be willing to do THIS if they have nothing to hide..." or "it's just a small concession, and it will make a group of folks feel better/safer".

Freedom and liberty isn't ever taken away wholesale, it's chipped at and rationalized away...until it's so weak and puny it's no longer worth fighting over.

[pvwingchun]

And like I said, "higher capacity" is not a factor if the officer is carrying a .45. At best, you'll fit 8 rounds into a .45 (Ruger P-97), though 7 is also a common capacity,

A few years ago Para Ord came out with a double stack double action semi auto .45 for the LEO. Could be wrong I am not sure I still have the back issue of Guns and Ammo.

As for gun control and laws, we need to enforce the laws on the books and not make more. We could probably even repeal a few of the duplicitious ones. The laws need to be streamlined to protect the citizen who wants to own a gun for legal firearm activities.

Personally I don't trust the CDC stats, statistics can be manipulated to represent whatever the presenter determines. One thing graduate level stats taught me was how to manipulate the numbers to my benefit. I would rather see the raw numbers and make my own determinations.

In AZ it is pretty easy to get a CC license. 2 days of class half at the range and the other half in the classroom learning the laws.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by StarBoy
Well, in this country you can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not a judge throws the case out of court is another story. Do you have more information on this though? I'm interested.

Okay, I went and looked it up. Apparently, the charge was copyright infringement. I hadn't said in my earlier post what the charge was but I was thinking it was libel or something. I misremembered. However, if you are interested because that church is just freaky-deaky, here's a link to an article about it:

http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html

Also of interest:

http://www.xenu.net/

They have a Time article posted about the church here:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

COS tried to sue Time after that article.

[Radhnoti]

Scientology.

Of interest to me is the...accusation?...that at the highest levels Scientologists are taught that all people on Earth are inhabited by souls of denizens of another galaxy. It seems some galactic overlord killed billions of his own citizens in horrible ways, and to achieve true happiness you have to deal with what happened to you in that other body.

No word yet on whether that galaxy's U.N. felt use of force was justified in attempting to remove him from power...but, I do recall reading that Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn felt he was being badly misrepresented by the current U.S. administration.

;)

Bow to me! I shall tie all OT political posts into one!

:o

[StarBoy]

A few years ago Para Ord came out with a double stack double action semi auto .45 for the LEO.


Yeah, I recall this, but I personally have not seen the double stack much in the northeast. There are still issues with regard to penetration and stopping power for that caliber.



Personally I don't trust the CDC stats, statistics can be manipulated to represent whatever the presenter determines. One thing graduate level stats taught me was how to manipulate the numbers to my benefit. I would rather see the raw numbers and make my own determinations.


When I'm talking about the UCRs and the CDC stats, I'm talking about raw numbers and percentages. I've taken plenty of graduate stats too, and it's not the difficult to see the truth through the fluff. You're right in that the numbers can be manipulated, but when I'm looking at the numbers, I also get the numbers from the pro-gun control biased sources, and most of them say pretty much the same thing. That crimes with a firearm are usually committed with an illegal firearm. Besides, I've seen the numbers myself, and you simply can't deny this fact.

And this is coming from sources like Ceasefire, who (and I'm sorry if anyone belongs) but are the craziest bunch of zealots I've ever seen. Many of the members (particularly at the higher levels) are parents who lost a kid because they were too stupid to buy a trigger lock. Don't tell me there's no bias there.

While I do agree that there needs to be some laws in place to keep firearms from being abused, I am more concerned with having my rights infringed upon. It all goes back to crimes being committed with illegal firearms. No laws can stop that...

[Oso]

starboy, I bow to your superior amount of time to post.:)

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by eulerfan
Okay, I went and looked it up. Apparently, the charge was copyright infringement.

It was. It's difficult to sue someone for libel, but much easier to sue for copyright infringement, particularly under the DMCA. Scientology has taken full advantage of this. They've always held copyrights on their internal "holy scriptures". otherwise they'd have had a hard time convincing people to pay astronomical amounts of money to be part of the 'inner circle'. The charge against the fella in question wasn't that he'd libelled or slandered the church, it was that he'd posted copyrighted sections of their "Holy writ" on the message board, as I recall.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by pvwingchun
Personally I don't trust the CDC stats, statistics can be manipulated to represent whatever the presenter determines. One thing graduate level stats taught me was how to manipulate the numbers to my benefit. I would rather see the raw numbers and make my own determinations.

Starboy said it already but I'm going to say it again.

The CDC stats are raw numbers.

There's no ARIMA, not alpha, no p-value, just how many people died of....

Not a sample. The whole ****ed population. What's not to trust?

[pvwingchun]

When I'm talking about the UCRs and the CDC stats, I'm talking about raw numbers and percentages.
Understand. The original post did not say these were raw numbers.


I've taken plenty of graduate stats too, and it's not the difficult to see the truth through the fluff.
True for the people who understand this, unfortunately many don't see past the fluff.


You're right in that the numbers can be manipulated, but when I'm looking at the numbers, I also get the numbers from the pro-gun control biased sources, and most of them say pretty much the same thing. That crimes with a firearm are usually committed with an illegal firearm. Besides, I've seen the numbers myself, and you simply can't deny this fact.
True law abiding gun owners rarely commit the crime.
While I do agree that there needs to be some laws in place to keep firearms from being abused, I am more concerned with having my rights infringed upon. It all goes back to crimes being committed with illegal firearms. No laws can stop that...
100% agree.


There are still issues with regard to penetration and stopping power for that caliber.

This can be an issue with any caliber when the intended target is drugged up.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by FatherDog
The charge against the fella in question wasn't that he'd libelled or slandered the church, it was that he'd posted copyrighted sections of their "Holy writ" on the message board, as I recall.

I didn't mean to sound uncertain. All information is in that article I posted.

On another note, that fu(ker Stanhope cancelled his houston gig.

[StarBoy]

starboy, I bow to your superior amount of time to post.

Funny, but I have the day off. :D



Understand. The original post did not say these were raw numbers.


I didn't say they were raw numbers in the original post because anyone who knows what the CDC and UCR reports are should know it's raw numbers.



True for the people who understand this, unfortunately many don't see past the fluff.


It kind of goes hand in hand. By learning the methods in stats, you also learn how to see past the fluff (or lie with numbers). Anything I report here is pretty much fluff free. In fact, I usually try to use sources from the opposing viewpoint to curb biases (hence the CeaseFire reference).



This can be an issue with any caliber when the intended target is drugged up.


That's really only if the perp is on PCP. A crackhead, smackhead, or pot head would take the same amount of shots to go down as if they were clean.

[pvwingchun]

I didn't say they were raw numbers in the original post because anyone who knows what the CDC and UCR reports are should know it's raw numbers. I respectively disagree on this point, no one puts out truly raw numbers, there is always a bias, somewhere. Keep in mind that I am not that familiar with the CDC and UCR reports. I don't make a habit of reading them so thanks for the info.


It kind of goes hand in hand. By learning the methods in stats, you also learn how to see past the fluff (or lie with numbers) I repeat, "true for the people who understand this, unfortunately many don't see past the fluff," or understand even basic statistical methods, they take what is spoon fed to them as true....


That's really only if the perp is on PCP. A crackhead, smackhead, or pot head would take the same amount of shots to go down as if they were clean. Once again I repeat, this can be an issue with any caliber when the intended target is drugged up. We will disagreee here also because someone whacked out will take more before going down, I don't care what the drug is, anything that numbs the senses, even alcohol, will change that persons perception of pain and what the body feels, thereby impacting stopping power, unless the shot is a clean kill shot.



In fact, I usually try to use sources from the opposing viewpoint to curb biases (hence the CeaseFire reference). This is a good thing to do it shows everyone involved both sides of the coin and allows them to make their own decisions.

[Mr.Binx]

When you have such an easy, impulsive, untrained way to spit death at someone... what'd you expect? Let me jump back to the original question: Bullets or guns be the cause of death? Easy enough to alleviate blame from sentience, toss it on the war-inert environment, and state such a question eh? More specific answers might be found on the Human nature... (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20291) thread regarding violence. ;) Heh... I'm being an ass. I'll shutup now. :p

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by pvwingchun
I respectively disagree on this point, no one puts out truly raw numbers, there is always a bias, somewhere. Keep in mind that I am not that familiar with the CDC and UCR reports. I don't make a habit of reading them so thanks for the info.


Once again, the CDC is reporting raw numbers. They aren't making predicitons about the future. They are not trying to figure out what is happening in the population by working with a sample. They don't need to. With possible, rare exceptions, every death is recorded in the U.S. They have the rare opportunity of using the whole population. And that is what they report.

So, if you think their numbers are not accurate, it wouldn't be a bias so much as a lie.

[pvwingchun]

So, if you think their numbers are not accurate, it wouldn't be a bias so much as a lie. I understand this is a raw number, I did not say they weren't accurate. The number is biased because there is no context for which to put those numbers into except the one given. If they say there were,

10,801 in homicides from guns in 2000,

then I do not doubt that number but I want to see the breakdown or "raw numbers". That number leads the anti-gunners to run screaming. I want to know how many were committed with legal guns, stolen weapon, etc. the "raw numbers"..

I do not consider 10801 to be a raw number, which it is, but it is not the "raw number" that I am looking for. I consider it a compilation of several categories of raw numbers.

Do you understand where I am coming from.

We are going to disagree on the meaning of raw number here but that is ok.

Once again thank you for "enlightening" me on the CDC reports. :D

[Liokault]

eulerfan






Look at the church of Scientology. They sued a guy who was saying bad things about them on a MESSAGE BOARD! Can you imagine that? Going to court for some tripe you spouted on KFO?


Thats worrying....Hope chris Reave didnt read the little joke I made about him.

[StarBoy]

I respectively disagree on this point, no one puts out truly raw numbers, there is always a bias, somewhere. Keep in mind that I am not that familiar with the CDC and UCR reports.

Well, believe it or not, people do put out raw numbers...a lot. It's when they are used for research that they become biased (i.e. academic publications). All numbers put out by the CDC, DOL, and DOC (among many other government organizations) are actually raw numbers.



I repeat, "true for the people who understand this, unfortunately many don't see past the fluff," or understand even basic statistical methods, they take what is spoon fed to them as true....


Well, that's their problem. Besides that, people who don't know stats, shouldn't talk stats.



Once again I repeat, this can be an issue with any caliber when the intended target is drugged up.


This really isn't the case. Any shot will disable a drugged up perp. The only exception is if the perp is using PCP. Believe it or not, a bullet has more stopping power against a perp under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. Both drugs handicap the users balance and even a single shot can floor them. The same applies to all narcotics and depressants. Amphetamines don't really have an effect unless it's PCP.

Just curious, what is your educational background in this area?



Do you understand where I am coming from.


I think that what you call a raw number is what statisticians call a derived statistic (which is actually kind of the opposite of a raw number). There is a big difference. If you want to know how organizations like CeaseFire figure out a way to bias the raw numbers, I could tell you, but not for quite some time as it would take a decent amount of work and I'm already working on a project that consumes most of my time.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by pvwingchun

I do not consider 10801 to be a raw number, which it is, but it is not the "raw number" that I am looking for. I consider it a compilation of several categories of raw numbers.

Do you understand where I am coming from.

We are going to disagree on the meaning of raw number here but that is ok.

Once again thank you for "enlightening" me on the CDC reports. :D

Okay, so you agree that they are raw numbers, just not the raw numbers you are looking for. I can agree to that. It isn't biased just because it isn't the number you are looking for.

They aren't even trying to make a point or an argument, here. How can there be bias?

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by eulerfan
I didn't mean to sound uncertain. All information is in that article I posted.


Sorry; I was at work and about to go to a meeting, so I didn't click through.



On another note, that fu(ker Stanhope cancelled his houston gig.

Tell me about it. I'm in Jersey; the closest he's getting to me this year is North Carolina. :mad:

[pvwingchun]

eulerfan

Okay, so you agree that they are raw numbers, just not the raw numbers you are looking for. I can agree to that. It isn't biased just because it isn't the number you are looking for. OK so you understand where I am coming from.

IMO there is bias in everything and everyone, you can't avoid it. There is not necessarily bias in the number but in how it is gathered, interpretted and presented. For example define homicide, and does the person or persons who determined it was a homicide, define it the same.

starboy

Well, believe it or not, people do put out raw numbers...a lot. It's when they are used for research that they become biased (i.e. academic publications). All numbers put out by the CDC, DOL, and DOC (among many other government organizations) are actually raw numbers. Once again I disagree and we are going to disagree on this, true it is a raw number but there are numbers behind these numbers that were used to arrive at this number. Do you understand where I am coming from.


Well, that's their problem. Besides that, people who don't know stats, shouldn't talk stats. True but people look at them and don't understand how they were arrived at they only see the number. They don't understand that a question was framed in a certain manner to get the desired result. It is unfortunately what happens and we are not even talking about people talking stats.


This really isn't the case. Any shot will disable a drugged up perp. The only exception is if the perp is using PCP. Believe it or not, a bullet has more stopping power against a perp under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. Both drugs handicap the users balance and even a single shot can floor them. The same applies to all narcotics and depressants. Amphetamines don't really have an effect unless it's PCP. Anything that alters a persons perception of reality alters how they are effected by it, including gunshots. I realize that balanc is compromised but if you don't feel it it has no effect on you.


I think that what you call a raw number is what statisticians call a derived statistic (which is actually kind of the opposite of a raw number). There is a big difference. I know.


If you want to know how organizations like CeaseFire figure out a way to bias the raw numbers, Thanks but I know how this is done also.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by pvwingchun
eulerfan
OK so you understand where I am coming from.

IMO there is bias in everything and everyone, you can't avoid it. There is not necessarily bias in the number but in how it is gathered, interpretted and presented. For example define homicide, and does the person or persons who determined it was a homicide, define it the same.


The person who determined it homicide is the person who checked, 'homicide' on the death certificate and that's where they got the information. So, they go by that person's definition. The legal definition. However, they do state that they exclude 'justifiable' homicide.


This database contains information from death certificates filed in state vital-statistics offices and includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners.


Homicide - injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill, by any means. Excludes injuries due to legal intervention and operations of war. Justifiable homicide is not identified in WISQARS.

That's from the CDC. They define their terms, tell you how they gathered the data and allow you to present it to yourself in whatever manner you see fit. The option to only see the homicides is independant of the cause of death. You can't really see which homicides were commited with illegally obtained fire or water in which to drown somebody, can you?

You claimed that you didn't trust the CDC stats because bias was possible. You also say that there is bias in everything and everyone. So, you don't trust anything or anyone?

Just admit it. You can trust the CDC stats.

In as much as you can trust anything.

[StarBoy]

Once again I disagree and we are going to disagree on this, true it is a raw number but there are numbers behind these numbers that were used to arrive at this number. Do you understand where I am coming from

Yes, and I am trying to correct you. For the most part, the CDC, UCR, and US Census (and therefore the DOL) don't compute anyderived statistics. They provide the raw data for other agencies and organizations to compute derived statistics. Honestly, the data does not get any more accurate and unbiased than that.



They don't understand that a question was framed in a certain manner to get the desired result.


What does other people's ignorance have to do with the issue?



Anything that alters a persons perception of reality alters how they are effected by it, including gunshots. I realize that balanc is compromised but if you don't feel it it has no effect on you.


I have to correct you again. Unless you are on PCP you will feel it, and it will hurt, a lot. The only exception to pain tolerance would be a smackhead, but a strung out smackhead under the influence doesn't exhibit the same violent and erratic behaviors that someone under the influence of PCP would. Ergo, stopping power remains the same. Which is another innaccuracy in your assertions. You're not differentiating between stopping power and subjective self-assessment of injury and pain. Though in the end (barring a perp on the effects of PCP) it's irrelevant. I've personally studied this during undergrad and have plenty of friends who are police officers that would say the same thing.

You never answered me on one question. What kind of education do you have that would lead you to these false perceptions?

[pvwingchun]

Yes, and I am trying to correct you. For the most part, the CDC, UCR, and US Census (and therefore the DOL) don't compute anyderived statistics. They provide the raw data for other agencies and organizations to compute derived statistics. Honestly, the data does not get any more accurate and unbiased than that. We disagree on this bottom line. I know what I have learned and you now what you have learned. That is what makes America great, a diversity of opinions and how we view things.


What does other people's ignorance have to do with the issue? Everything. That is the point.


I've personally studied this during undergrad and have plenty of friends who are police officers that would say the same thing. Ditto plus a wife and mother who have spent plenty of time in ER's, once again you have learned what you have learned and I have learned what I have learned. You have one perception and I have another. Subjective self-assessment of injury and pain effects stopping power according to everything I have learned, read and observed.

Anyway good debate I am off to a NASCAR weekend.

[StarBoy]

We disagree on this bottom line. I know what I have learned and you now what you have learned. That is what makes America great, a diversity of opinions and how we view things.


I think there's a big difference between having an opinion and being misinformed. Besides, you've never indicated where you actually "learned" any of this.