Durango P-51 Crash - Med Tests Show Pilot Was Stoned on Marijuana

ircphoenix said:
Sorry. Anarcho-libertarians that say "laws don't work because criminals don't obey them" have a flawed basis for their logic to begin with.




I can certainly see that argument. But I can also certainly see that extremely onerous gun regulation does have a chilling effect on gun crime. People like to point to gun regulation in Chicago as being an example of failed gun legislation... reality is that the guns are coming from immediately next door where the rest of the gun regulations in Illinois aren't nearly the same as Chicago's laws. But saying that gun laws don't work is ludicrous. How many fully automatic weapons are used in gun crime? And how much of a pain are they to acquire? 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
A well thought out opinion. I still think the whole gun debate is diverting attention from the underlying issues in our society that I really wish we could address. I would enjoy to discuss it further but I don't want to close the thread

:-/
 
Mason said:
According to THIS a stolen gun was found.
Click to expand...

Between the gun on the ground and the pic of him standing there with the pantleg hiked up above the ankle holster, I have no reason to doubt the police assertion that he was holding a gun.

2100167952.jpg

(pic hotlinked from Haaretz. Somehow I can't attach any pictures right now)


Also, note how pixelated the footage from the vest camera is. His gun was an older Colt Mustang which is a .380 pocket pistol that measures 4x5.5x0.75in. This could easily hide in a hand and I am not suprised that you can't make out the gun in the body cam footage. The dash-cam footage otoh is shot at an angle with reflections and distortion from the windshield.
 
Last edited:
ircphoenix said:
Sorry. Anarcho-libertarians that say "laws don't work because criminals don't obey them" have a flawed basis for their logic to begin with.
Click to expand...

Except for all the examples where they didn't and don't.

But it's also pretty silly of me to even reply to that, considering there's plenty of rational people who aren't deserving of any title like "anarcho-libertarian" who also know this.

The name calling gives away your bias. But the statement needed it because if you said "people" or "fellow Citizens" as the noun, you knew the sentence would fall flat as untrue.

The planned and conditioned emotional response of using the label was required to give it a false sense of gravity. Pavlov would be proud.
 
ircphoenix said:
I can certainly see that argument. But I can also certainly see that extremely onerous gun regulation does have a chilling effect on gun crime. People like to point to gun regulation in Chicago as being an example of failed gun legislation... reality is that the guns are coming from immediately next door where the rest of the gun regulations in Illinois aren't nearly the same as Chicago's laws.
Click to expand...

France has onerous gun laws, all over the whole country, but it didn't stop the terrorists from shooting the place up.

People who want to obtain guns illegally will always find a way, even if they have to make them in their basement or garage. Onerous restriction on law abiding citizens won't stop the criminals.
 
Mason said:
France has onerous gun laws, all over the whole country, but it didn't stop the terrorists from shooting the place up.

People who want to obtain guns illegally will always find a way, even if they have to make them in their basement or garage. Onerous restriction on law abiding citizens won't stop the criminals.
Click to expand...
Wait... So if a law doesn't stop ALL crime, then it is worthless?
 
denverpilot said:
Except for all the examples where they didn't and don't.

But it's also pretty silly of me to even reply to that, considering there's plenty of rational people who aren't deserving of any title like "anarcho-libertarian" who also know this.

The name calling gives away your bias. But the statement needed it because if you said "people" or "fellow Citizens" as the noun, you knew the sentence would fall flat as untrue.

The planned and conditioned emotional response of using the label was required to give it a false sense of gravity. Pavlov would be proud.
Click to expand...
Giving away my bias was my intention. Anarchists masquerading as libertarians are fun to watch.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
A well thought out opinion. I still think the whole gun debate is diverting attention from the underlying issues in our society that I really wish we could address. I would enjoy to discuss it further but I don't want to close the thread

:-/
Click to expand...
I appreciate solid arguments based on logic and reason. Which is why I replied to your post in kind. I replied to the other posts as those posts deserved. :D
 
The one cop's bodycam records great footage of his right ear. WTF kind of placement is that?
 
ircphoenix said:
Sorry. Anarcho-libertarians that say "laws don't work because criminals don't obey them" have a flawed basis for their logic to begin with.




I can certainly see that argument. But I can also certainly see that extremely onerous gun regulation does have a chilling effect on gun crime. People like to point to gun regulation in Chicago as being an example of failed gun legislation... reality is that the guns are coming from immediately next door where the rest of the gun regulations in Illinois aren't nearly the same as Chicago's laws. But saying that gun laws don't work is ludicrous. How many fully automatic weapons are used in gun crime? And how much of a pain are they to acquire? 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Fully autos are not used because of cost, most gun crimes invlove cheap firearms, any idea what a MP5 sells for? Well out of reach of most inner city scum, out of reach for lots of working folks too.

And laws work for law abiding folks, which is why it's funny to watch the nutters like Nancy and Berry think that folks who are willing to break our biggest law (murder) care about a additional gun charge.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Of course tougher gun laws would help.
Click to expand...

Have to ask, where are the studies to back that up?

I think the majority of serious studies have failed to show an effect. Of course, one has to study particular laws.

But for example, the Brady Bill, responsible for background checks, is thought to have had no effect in reducing violent crime.

Same for the assault weapons ban when it was in effect.

It strikes me that proposing to deprive people of the ability to own certain pieces of personal property to be used for self defense should be backed by clear and compelling data. It just isn't there.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Have to ask, where are the studies to back that up?

I think the majority of serious studies have failed to show an effect. Of course, one has to study particular laws.

But for example, the Brady Bill, responsible for background checks, is thought to have had no effect in reducing violent crime.

Same for the assault weapons ban when it was in effect.

It strikes me that proposing to deprive people of the ability to own certain pieces of personal property to be used for self defense should be backed by clear and compelling data. It just isn't there.
Click to expand...
Because a certain powerful lobby has paid their benefactors in Congress to forbid the study of exactly that since 1997.
 
ircphoenix said:
Because a certain powerful lobby has paid their benefactors in Congress to forbid the study of exactly that since 1997.
Click to expand...

Those studies are not forbidden. They just can't be paid for with health research dollars. An entirely reasonable restriction as it is not a health but a law enforcement isssue.
 
ircphoenix said:
Because a certain powerful lobby has paid their benefactors in Congress to forbid the study of exactly that since 1997.
Click to expand...

There actually have been many studies of these various effects. They just haven't been paid for by the Federal government. See for example the two I mentioned earlier.

Have a look at the CDC report which was produced at the administration's request after the Newtown murders, though. Even it's abstract is quite interesting. It doesn't find much evidence for gun control restrictions decreasing violence though, so hasn't been much quoted in the media.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
How did congress forbid those studies?? That sounds like chemtrail territory :fingerwag:
Click to expand...

The Dickey Amendment in 1997 specifically said "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." LITERALLY SAYS that the CDC is not allowed to 'advocate or promote gun control.' So IF they do the research, and IF that research says gun control is a good thing, they've violated their authorization bill and are subject to being defunded.

weilke said:
Those studies are not forbidden. They just can't be paid for with health research dollars. An entirely reasonable restriction as it is not a health but a law enforcement isssue.
Click to expand...

The amount of funding to the CDC was reduced by the EXACT amount they used for researching gun violence in 1996. And the CDC even has a division specifically called "Injury Prevention and Control." Part of the CDC's mandate is to research and figure out ways to prevent injuries. But they're not allowed to do any studies on gun control's effects on diminishing injury and death in the US. And seeing as people are injured and die from guns, it falls under their purview. They did a bevy of research on fatal traffic collisions and the changes they recommended were part of the reason traffic fatalities continue to decline in this country.


PeterNSteinmetz said:
There actually have been many studies of these various effects. They just haven't been paid for by the Federal government. See for example the two I mentioned earlier.

Have a look at the CDC report which was produced at the administration's request after the Newtown murders, though. Even it's abstract is quite interesting. It doesn't find much evidence for gun control restrictions decreasing violence though, so hasn't been much quoted in the media.
Click to expand...

The report they prepared was a list of research priorities and questions they propose to answer in a 3-5 year period. It says directly in the report "The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States." The report is even titled “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." But, here's the good part, the CDC needs funding in order to answer the questions proposed in the initial study. Funding that was removed from their appropriations request in 2014, 2015, 2016, and will probably be cut in their proposed budget for next year.
 
Last edited:
ircphoenix said:
The amount of funding to the CDC was reduced by the EXACT amount they used for researching gun violence in 1996. And the CDC even has a division specifically called "Injury Prevention and Control." Part of the CDC's mandate is to research and figure out ways to prevent injuries. But they're not allowed to do any studies on gun control's effects on diminish injury and death in the US. And seeing as people are injured and die from gun control, it falls under their purview. They did a bevy of research on fatal traffic collisions and the changes they recommended were part of the reason traffic fatalities continue to decline in this country.
Click to expand...

If gangbanger A shoots gangbanger B because he stands at the wrong corner, it is not an issue of 'injury prevention'. It is an issue of law enforcement.
If you want to draw an analogy to traffic collisions the correct analogy is 'how many people have been intentionally run over', not the number of accidental injuries. BTW, accidental firearms injuries have decreased since 1997, all without the benevolent overlords spending money on it. Sure, there is the occasional shooting range accident, reloading misadventure or acts of stupidity, but the idea that modern firearms are somehow accident prone is simply not supported by facts.
 
weilke said:
If gangbanger A shoots gangbanger B because he stands at the wrong corner, it is not an issue of 'injury prevention'. It is an issue of law enforcement.
If you want to draw an analogy to traffic collisions the correct analogy is 'how many people have been intentionally run over', not the number of accidental injuries. BTW, accidental firearms injuries have decreased since 1997, all without the benevolent overlords spending money on it. Sure, there is the occasional shooting range accident, reloading misadventure or acts of stupidity, but the idea that modern firearms are somehow accident prone is simply not supported by facts.
Click to expand...
What was the statistic that got the NRA mad at the CDC? Oh. That's right. The statistical likelihood of a homicide occurring in a home is dramatically higher when a gun is in that home.

The analogy towards vehicles isn't necessary and is false anyway. The idea is to study all deaths and injuries by guns and see if there are steps that can be taken to limit those... just as for cars it is to study all injuries and deaths involving cars.
 
ircphoenix said:
What was the statistic that got the NRA mad at the CDC? Oh. That's right. The statistical likelihood of a homicide occurring in a home is dramatically higher when a gun is in that home.
Click to expand...

Geese have two legs.
My sister has two legs.
So follows, my sister is a goose.

The analogy towards vehicles isn't necessary and is false anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't complain to me. You brought up that analogy!
 
Your analogy is what I was calling fallacious.

And while correlation != causation, it is funny that any further research on the matter was stopped because of the potential implications.
 
ircphoenix said:
What was the statistic that got the NRA mad at the CDC? Oh. That's right. The statistical likelihood of a homicide occurring in a home is dramatically higher when a gun is in that home.
Click to expand...

The problems with that report, assuming you are referring to the Kellerman study, were several fold.

1. It is sort of like saying that we look into the refrigerators of obese people and found they had a statistically higher likelihood of having diet sodas. Therefore, diet sodas cause obesity.

2. It did not actually study whether the guns which were in the home were the ones used in the homicides.

3. It was based on a very small number counties and matched control counties. The conclusions did not appear to hold up on a broader basis.

Given these problems, the Kellerman study has been fairly widely criticized in the research community. I believe the authors themselves have acknowledged it has been over-interpreted by people repeating this sound-bite statistic.

So I think it is fairly appropriate for serious researchers to be concerned with this type of research being broadly promoted to the public.

Any other studies you would suggest show that gun control laws work?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
The problems with that report, assuming you are referring to the Kellerman study, were several fold.

1. It is sort of like saying that we look into the refrigerators of obese people and found they had a statistically higher likelihood of having diet sodas. Therefore, diet sodas cause obesity.

2. It did not actually study whether the guns which were in the home were the ones used in the homicides.

3. It was based on a very small number counties and matched control counties. The conclusions did not appear to hold up on a broader basis.

Given these problems, the Kellerman study has been fairly widely criticized in the research community. I believe the authors themselves have acknowledged it has been over-interpreted by people repeating this sound-bite statistic.

So I think it is fairly appropriate for serious researchers to be concerned with this type of research being broadly promoted to the public.

Any other studies you would suggest show that gun control laws work?
Click to expand...
And see... I'm not suggesting that the Kellerman study is anything other than a single study that is essentially a single data point. My annoyance is that because of that one study, all future study can't be done to either expand upon that research or refute it.

I think there's a miscommunication here where the belief is that I'm anti gun. I own several. Because I like guns. But I also value research and potential solutions to problems. If the research is done and says gun control laws don't work, then so be it. I just think it is absurd that there's a congressional prohibition on research.

I do think that finding out where guns used in crimes are coming from is a worthy goal, and exploring ways of preventing that access is good. I'm fairly certain one can like guns and like limited gun control without demanding that either a) everyone be armed at all times or b) all guns should be banned forever.
 
ircphoenix said:
I do think that finding out where guns used in crimes are coming from is a worthy goal, and exploring ways of preventing that access is good.
Click to expand...

There is no law that restricts DOJ from funding studies of this law enforcement issue.
Btw. that question has been answered a couple of times. For the most part they are stolen or trafiked in violation of existing law. No, they don't come from 'the internet' or 'a walmart in indiana'.
 
ircphoenix said:
... I'm not suggesting that the annoyance is that because of that one study, all future study can't be done to either expand upon that research or refute it.
Click to expand...

Let's be precise here. There is a prohibition on using federal tax dollars by a single federal agency. There is no general prohibition and there have been many subsequent studies on the subject, they just haven't been paid for by the CDC.

ircphoenix said:
If the research is done and says gun control laws don't work, then so be it.
Click to expand...

I think that is what an objective view of the many studies which have been performed would suggest. But it really is best to discuss specific policies and studies.

Which studies do you suggest indicate that gun control reduces violent crime? Let's discuss those - I think that is the way to actually understand the issues.

ircphoenix said:
I do think that finding out where guns used in crimes are coming from is a worthy goal, and exploring ways of preventing that access is good.
Click to expand...

We know that 93% of firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally. So any effect of policies on the remainder is unlikely to affect more than 7% of crime with firearms. That potential good has to be weighed against the negative effects of gun control policies, including costs of enforcement, monetary and human, as well as other potential impacts, such as preventing victims from defending themselves effectively.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Which studies do you suggest indicate that gun control reduces violent crime? Let's discuss those - I think that is the way to actually understand the issues.
Click to expand...

Well this one, (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) for instance, notes a correlation between higher numbers of firearms laws and lower numbers of firearms deaths, both suicide and homicide.

The FBI data suggests higher incidences of aggravated assault with firearms in states with fewer gun laws (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-22).

70% of the homicides in this country are from the barrel end of a firearm.(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

But that is all correlation. Those states with fewer gun laws also tend to have higher poverty rates and overall crime rates. It'd be nice to see hard data which attempts to separate some of the other possible causative reasons for high gun violence

PeteNSteinmetz said:
We know that 93% of firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally. So any effect of policies on the remainder is unlikely to affect more than 7% of crime with firearms. That potential good has to be weighed against the negative effects of gun control policies, including costs of enforcement, monetary and human, as well as other potential impacts, such as preventing victims from defending themselves effectively.
Click to expand...

But HOW are they obtained illegally? Are they illegally obtained from residential burglaries? Unlocked cars? Vehicle smash burglaries? Straw man purchases? Fell off a truck? Smuggled into the country? And are there possible ways of lowering the amount of guns that get "repurposed" for violent crime?

I'm not one that is willing to just accept it as a cost of gun ownership that 20 elementary school kids have to get slaughtered so that I'm minimally inconvenienced.
 
Ok let's go through these points one at a time. First the two easy ones:

ircphoenix said:
The FBI data suggests higher incidences of aggravated assault with firearms in states with fewer gun laws (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-22).
Click to expand...

Is there data there regarding the number of firearms laws and that correlation? I missed it.

ircphoenix said:
70% of the homicides in this country are from the barrel end of a firearm.(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)
Click to expand...

This particularly says nothing about how to reduce violent crime and whether gun control would work - does it?

I'll review the other study later.
 
Norman said:
@ircphoenix

I hope you are aware the the gun control advocates cherry pick their "data" to advocate their cause.
Click to expand...

Oh. Absolutely. But that's not a sin limited to one side. Which is unfortunate. There's a dearth of legitimate unbiased information out there in regards to highly charged subjects... and even when there *is* widespread scientific consensus on anything, it's dismissed as unreliable if it doesn't conform with someone's preconceived notions.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Ok let's go through these points one at a time. First the two easy ones:

Is there data there regarding the number of firearms laws and that correlation? I missed it.

This particularly says nothing about how to reduce violent crime and whether gun control would work - does it?

I'll review the other study later.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does not say anything about how to reduce violent crime. Like I said, the information I provided was just correlation. No comprehensive studies on reducing gun violence. It's just correlation. Which, again, is part of the problem. It's tough finding good data that is just... data. Everything out there is politically charged one way or the other and heavily editorialized.

And let me just say that I sincerely appreciate the fact that you haven't made personal attacks or snide comments. I appreciate the back and forth without needing to resort to childish games and stamping of feet.
 
ircphoenix said:
Well this one, (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) for instance, notes a correlation between higher numbers of firearms laws and lower numbers of firearms deaths, both suicide and homicide.


The FBI data suggests higher incidences of aggravated assault with firearms in states with fewer gun laws (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-22).
Click to expand...

So how exactly do firearms cause people to assault each other with knives and personal weapons ?

Maybe the underlying factor is 'higher rate of crime' and 'higher rates of violence', not how many pieces of legislation have been passed.

But that is all correlation. Those states with fewer gun laws also tend to have higher poverty rates and overall crime rates. It'd be nice to see hard data which attempts to separate some of the other possible causative reasons for high gun violence
Click to expand...

And all that can be studied. But it is not a disease.

But HOW are they obtained illegally? Are they illegally obtained from residential burglaries? Unlocked cars? Vehicle smash burglaries? Straw man purchases? Fell off a truck? Smuggled into the country?
Click to expand...

All of the above.

And are there possible ways of lowering the amount of guns that get "repurposed" for violent crime?
Click to expand...

How about we start repurposing the people committing the crimes, maybe we need to worry less about the tools in their hands ?

I'm not one that is willing to just accept it as a cost of gun ownership that 20 elementary school kids have to get slaughtered so that I'm minimally inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

Biggest massacre of school children in the US was committed without use of a firearm.
 
Well long and short, it's a right, not a privalge, there is no debate, no talking about it, no negotiations, it's a right, clear and simple.

I don't understand why this right is debated so much, you don't hear about people trying to limit the right to free speech, or undue search and seizure, double jeopardy, etc.

If you don't want to exercise your right, that's your right too, but where your rights stop is when you try to take others rights, that's also where the 2nd comes into play, it's what gives all the other rights teeth.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top