How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- kołdry
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Are rifles used to kill, sure, I agree they do. But there are more than 5 million AR-15s alone and between 300 million and 400 million guns in the US depending on the estimate used. Only a few of those were used to kill and tragic as it was, most of those boiled down to people with mental issues that shouldn't have had the gun, several of them were stolen, only a couple were legally purchased by someone under 21 (making the age increase irrelevant), only 2 in the last 5 years used a bump stock (making that irrelevant).
if removing weapons made people safer then Chicago, New York City and Washington DC would be the safest cities in the world since weapons are virtually outlawed. Instead they are among the highest, largely because, only criminals can carry guns because they don't care about the law. FYI, DC's crime rate is going down due in part to the loosening of restrictions of owning and possessing a weapon in the district.
if removing weapons made people safer then Chicago, New York City and Washington DC would be the safest cities in the world since weapons are virtually outlawed. Instead they are among the highest, largely because, only criminals can carry guns because they don't care about the law. FYI, DC's crime rate is going down due in part to the loosening of restrictions of owning and possessing a weapon in the district.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
There was a recent case in the USA when a boy brought a gun to school, showed it off to his friends and accidentally shot someone. What was a boy doing with a gun? Does the NRA argue thst it wouldn't have happened if all his friends had guns too?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Were do you think most illegal guns come from? Legal guns sold illegally - restricting guns in one area w/o restricting them in surrounding areas is unlikely to have much of an effect one way or another. Those cities have high crime rates most likely for reasons other than guns (gee, if we could fund some research on the question, maybe we'd have some answers, but no thanks, thanks to the NRA). For example, your claims about DC's crime rate and gun restrictions is bullshit. Gun laws in DC were relaxed only recently. But the homicide rate has been on a steady decline since... 1992 or so (and no, it hasn't accelerated recently). Correlation is not causation, but here even the correlation doesn't match up.Kumioko wrote:Are rifles used to kill, sure, I agree they do. But there are more than 5 million AR-15s alone and between 300 million and 400 million guns in the US depending on the estimate used. Only a few of those were used to kill and tragic as it was, most of those boiled down to people with mental issues that shouldn't have had the gun, several of them were stolen, only a couple were legally purchased by someone under 21 (making the age increase irrelevant), only 2 in the last 5 years used a bump stock (making that irrelevant).
if removing weapons made people safer then Chicago, New York City and Washington DC would be the safest cities in the world since weapons are virtually outlawed. Instead they are among the highest, largely because, only criminals can carry guns because they don't care about the law. FYI, DC's crime rate is going down due in part to the loosening of restrictions of owning and possessing a weapon in the district.
- Johnny Au
- Habitué
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
- Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
- Actual Name: Johnny Au
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
The Toronto Star once did an investigation about the source of guns used in Toronto's homicides. Turns out that most were acquired in cities along the I-75.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
This is an obvious one, really; gun-related casualties in the USA won't decline substantially until effective new controls are imposed nationally. The only question is how many more people have to die before at least a 10-point majority of voters treat opposition to gun control as a deal-breaker for candidates.
That's going to be really, really hard, because even if it seems like progress is being made in terms of media depictions and opinion polling, there will still be people who go into the voting booth thinking the population remains just a wittle teensy-weensy bit too high.
That's going to be really, really hard, because even if it seems like progress is being made in terms of media depictions and opinion polling, there will still be people who go into the voting booth thinking the population remains just a wittle teensy-weensy bit too high.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx. But this is a national majority. Because of way that the Congress is elected and gerrymandering, this doesn't translate into a legislative majority.Midsize Jake wrote:This is an obvious one, really; gun-related casualties in the USA won't decline substantially until effective new controls are imposed nationally. The only question is how many more people have to die before at least a 10-point majority of voters treat opposition to gun control as a deal-breaker for candidates.
That's going to be really, really hard, because even if it seems like progress is being made in terms of media depictions and opinion polling, there will still be people who go into the voting booth thinking the population remains just a wittle teensy-weensy bit too high.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
You're right. Honestly there are few issues more divisive in the US than Gun rights/controls right now. This is one of the few things that has the potential to cause a 2nd civil war in America. If the Government for example mandated a nationwide ban on weapons (I know it'll never happen, just theoretically) or even a restriction that is viewed as over reaching, you could see a lot of states west of the Mississippi leave and create their own Western United States. One of the reasons the numbers are so high in support of stricter gun controls is because a large percentage of the US population is East of the Mississippi (also within 300 miles of a coast line) and the Eastern US (especially the New England NE area) are more supportive of gun control. When you get to the Western states like Montana down to Texas, the Government is going to have to send the National Guard in and shoot them to take their guns away.Midsize Jake wrote:This is an obvious one, really; gun-related casualties in the USA won't decline substantially until effective new controls are imposed nationally. The only question is how many more people have to die before at least a 10-point majority of voters treat opposition to gun control as a deal-breaker for candidates.
That's going to be really, really hard, because even if it seems like progress is being made in terms of media depictions and opinion polling, there will still be people who go into the voting booth thinking the population remains just a wittle teensy-weensy bit too high.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Right, but I guess what I meant there is that there's a difference (apparently a big one) between merely being in favor of stricter gun laws vs. treating opposition to stricter gun laws as a dealbreaker for an election candidate. As far as the latter is concerned, I don't think we're anywhere near 50 percent, and it's probably more like 35 percent. That percentage will grow as the number of 10-plus-victim massacres increases though, which is why the smart move for the NRA might (at some point) be to accept restrictions on military-grade weapons as long as handguns, shotguns, and non-automatic hunting rifles continue to be easier to get than beer or cold medicine.Volunteer Marek wrote:There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws...
I'm not disagreeing with you as to this specific point, but I guess I should point out that the tendency to immediately assume that "the government" actually wants to confiscate all guns, of any description whatsoever, is a big reason why the problem has grown to the point of people threatening violence over it.Kumioko wrote:If the Government for example mandated a nationwide ban on weapons (I know it'll never happen, just theoretically) or even a restriction that is viewed as over reaching, you could see a lot of states west of the Mississippi leave and create their own Western United States.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
I don't think the government as a whole does, but I do believe there are some in the government, for a variety of reasons, that do. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, I'm just saying that there are people in positions of government in DC that would like to not have armed citizens.
I also wonder about the statement "There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws...". That statement seems pretty straightforward but also is very vague. I think everyone agrees that changes could be made, whether that's raising the minimum age to buy a gun, banning bump stocks or whatever, it's just that no one really agrees on what to do. So saying 60% of people are in favor, really they could say 90% because almost everyone thinks there is something that can be done, but it still doesn't tell us much. How many were surveyed to come up to that number, what's the demographics, where were they at, etc.? Those details matter...a lot, when considering the various elements of cases like this. You can easily manipulate the outcome of a survey by asking the questions in a certain area, demographic or in how the questions are asked. Surveys can be tailored, rather easily, to slant towards whatever outcome you want.
It's also worth noting that every time they mention a gun restriction of any kind people run out and buy more guns, ammunition and accessories. The best salesman for the gun makers are the reporters on the news talking about people restricting access to weapons.
I also wonder about the statement "There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws...". That statement seems pretty straightforward but also is very vague. I think everyone agrees that changes could be made, whether that's raising the minimum age to buy a gun, banning bump stocks or whatever, it's just that no one really agrees on what to do. So saying 60% of people are in favor, really they could say 90% because almost everyone thinks there is something that can be done, but it still doesn't tell us much. How many were surveyed to come up to that number, what's the demographics, where were they at, etc.? Those details matter...a lot, when considering the various elements of cases like this. You can easily manipulate the outcome of a survey by asking the questions in a certain area, demographic or in how the questions are asked. Surveys can be tailored, rather easily, to slant towards whatever outcome you want.
It's also worth noting that every time they mention a gun restriction of any kind people run out and buy more guns, ammunition and accessories. The best salesman for the gun makers are the reporters on the news talking about people restricting access to weapons.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Isn't a large part of the problem that many people think that they need guns to defend themselves against the Federal government? That would make any weakening by the NRA on the most powerful weapons difficult, as these are exactly what you need if the army attacks you.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Last edited by Poetlister on Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Maybe some but most want to protect themselves from other people, to hunt or just to shoot targets. Relatively few even think about the government doing anything.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
It's a Gallup survey. That should be enough to dismiss your "concerns".Kumioko wrote:I don't think the government as a whole does, but I do believe there are some in the government, for a variety of reasons, that do. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, I'm just saying that there are people in positions of government in DC that would like to not have armed citizens.
I also wonder about the statement "There already is a 60% majority in favor of stricter gun laws...". That statement seems pretty straightforward but also is very vague. I think everyone agrees that changes could be made, whether that's raising the minimum age to buy a gun, banning bump stocks or whatever, it's just that no one really agrees on what to do. So saying 60% of people are in favor, really they could say 90% because almost everyone thinks there is something that can be done, but it still doesn't tell us much. How many were surveyed to come up to that number, what's the demographics, where were they at, etc.? Those details matter...a lot, when considering the various elements of cases like this. You can easily manipulate the outcome of a survey by asking the questions in a certain area, demographic or in how the questions are asked. Surveys can be tailored, rather easily, to slant towards whatever outcome you want.
It's also worth noting that every time they mention a gun restriction of any kind people run out and buy more guns, ammunition and accessories. The best salesman for the gun makers are the reporters on the news talking about people restricting access to weapons.
As to states West (uh, why not the South? ... again) of the Mississippi "seceding", that's just nuts. Nobody's gonna secede. And we're talking restrictions not confiscation or outright bans here.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
If the fanatically pro-gun states other than Texas seceded, would anyone else mind?Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
It would have a huge effect, yes.Poetlister wrote:If the fanatically pro-gun states other than Texas seceded, would anyone else mind?Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Check the economic agriculture/farming maps about where the US sources its food.Poetlister wrote:If the fanatically pro-gun states other than Texas seceded, would anyone else mind?Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
- Earthy Astringent
- Banned
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:16 am
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
This is getting off topic. We aren’t here to talk about the AR15 and other weapons, but rather to criticize Wikipedia articles about these weapons and in particular the batshit crazy editors, regardless if they are pro or anti gun.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Care to give an example? Cuz it sounds like you're just making shit up again.Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
The non-fanatical people in those states for one. And there are a lot actually. Maybe not a majority but enough that it wouldn't be right to let them sink with the rest of the neo-Confederacy if it ever came to that.Poetlister wrote:If the fanatically pro-gun states other than Texas seceded, would anyone else mind?Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Well, I guess it depends on what you determine as South. If you include states like Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana as south, then yes I would say they would as a whole be against a ban on guns, or even a severe restricting of them.Volunteer Marek wrote:Care to give an example? Cuz it sounds like you're just making shit up again.Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
The reality is, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong proponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority, we can see that by the volumes of weapons being purchased every year.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Conversely, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong opponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority.Kumioko wrote:The reality is, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong proponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Actually, to be fair to Texas, it is the only state (with the exception of maybe California) that has all of the things it would need to be a thriving country of it's own. They have a huge population, strong state culture, strong economies for farming, oil, minerals, cattle, shipping, IT, etc. If you look at their Texas state military it's something like 25, 000 people. They also include a lot of important bases such as Fort Worth, Corpus Christi, Fort Hood, Randolph AFB, etc.Volunteer Marek wrote:The non-fanatical people in those states for one. And there are a lot actually. Maybe not a majority but enough that it wouldn't be right to let them sink with the rest of the neo-Confederacy if it ever came to that.Poetlister wrote:If the fanatically pro-gun states other than Texas seceded, would anyone else mind?Kumioko wrote:I do think several of the southern states would be against a gun ban as well. The problem with the restrictions as many of them are currently drafted is they are overly broad, kinda like Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions so it leaves a lot of doubt in peoples mind about where that would stop.
So for Texas, if it were to break away, it might actually be good for the state and if it were to do so, you would likely see several around it like Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada join it. It would absolutely be contentious, it would likely create a war and it would be all around bad for everyone.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Lol. Well I can provide links to the Census that shows the population of the US is roughly 360 million and links to multiple sources that shows the number of weapons owned by those people is equal to or greater than the total population. Granted there are people who don't own a weapon and people who own dozens or even hundreds, but there are a lot of weapons. Doing a little more research it looks like several sites report between 30-50% of the population of the US own a weapon (likely higher since a lot of people don't report it).Poetlister wrote:Conversely, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong opponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority.Kumioko wrote:The reality is, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong proponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority
Now gun ownership is on decline, but it's still pretty high, as I said, in the states west of the Mississippi. A quote I found here:https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/46201746 ... e-numbers
and that seems to validate my statements that the NE corridor of the US is more inclined to go with a ban on weapons than southern and western states.Fewer than 6 percent of households in Delaware and Rhode Island have guns, compared with more than 50 percent in Arkansas, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Now this isn't the best reference, but it shows a lot of percentages for states in one place and those seem to line up to the refs I can find showing individual states. But just to give you a general idea of the percentages of gun owners by state: https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-pe ... ns-3325153
Another references that shows the percentages by state is here: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-owne ... ate-2015-7
So to be fair, the graphics show that it would appear a majority of Americans don't own a weapon, however, we also know that a lot of people don't register their weapons, a lot of weapons don't have to be registered...criminals don't for sure and certainly aren't included in the graphics. So the graphic is good as a general guide, but can't be assumed to be totally accurate either.
- AndyTheGrump
- Habitué
- Posts: 3193
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: AndyTheGrump (editor/heckler)
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
In other words, the statistics you like are right, and the ones you don't are wrong. A very convincing argument...
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
That's how statistics work!AndyTheGrump wrote:In other words, the statistics you like are right, and the ones you don't are wrong. A very convincing argument...
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Definitely getting off-topic, but it also does seem as though the edit-warring, at least for now, has devolved (if not "settled") into a "civil POV-pushing" contest over whether or not to include a passage to reassure AR-15 detractors about how they're used in a low percentage of gun crimes compared to handguns. At the moment, this has been made into a one-sentence subsection under "Criminal use," beneath the other subsection on "Mass shootings."Earthy Astringent wrote:This is getting off topic. We aren’t here to talk about the AR15 and other weapons, but rather to criticize Wikipedia articles about these weapons and in particular the batshit crazy editors, regardless if they are pro or anti gun.
If it were my website, I'd have to say that's a reasonable approach to take. I can certainly understand the impulse to remove that subsection and revert attempts to insert that same material elsewhere, but if they're definitely going to have a subsection on "Mass shootings" there, I don't think it can hurt to point out that most shootings are not mass shootings and don't involve military-grade weapons.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
The fallacy here is to assume that anyone who owns any sort of gun is strongly against any sort of ban or restriction.Kumioko wrote:Lol. Well I can provide links to the Census that shows the population of the US is roughly 360 million and links to multiple sources that shows the number of weapons owned by those people is equal to or greater than the total population. Granted there are people who don't own a weapon and people who own dozens or even hundreds, but there are a lot of weapons. Doing a little more research it looks like several sites report between 30-50% of the population of the US own a weapon (likely higher since a lot of people don't report it).Poetlister wrote:Conversely, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong opponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority.Kumioko wrote:The reality is, although a very vocal group, the ones who are strong proponents of bans or severe restrictions are the minority
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Not at all. But assuming everyone who doesn't own one does is also a fallacy as is the argument that the US would be better off without them. Let's remember that the school shooting happened in a gun free zone, so if they are willing to break one law, then stealing a gun if they couldn't buy one or finding another way isn't much of a stretch.
If a teenager robs your house by breaking down the door with a sledgehammer, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again:
1) Buy a stronger door, with a better lock and install an alarm system
2) Stand in the front yard or in front of the Capital building with a sign demanding it be illegal for people to buy sledgehammers, or demand they be over 21 to do so
If a teenager robs your house by breaking down the door with a sledgehammer, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again:
1) Buy a stronger door, with a better lock and install an alarm system
2) Stand in the front yard or in front of the Capital building with a sign demanding it be illegal for people to buy sledgehammers, or demand they be over 21 to do so
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
This is still too much binary thinking for my taste, personally. I don't own a gun (yet?) and I only want to see restrictions on military-grade weapons, plus a restoration of the restrictions on people with mental illnesses that Trump recently rescinded. It literally has nothing to do with whether or not I want to own a gun, it actually has everything to do with my having seen the difference in the sheer power of military-style weapons, and also my extensive reading on the subject of behavioral psychology. I also know that no solution will be perfect and that doesn't stop me from supporting those restrictions - on that point, I suspect I'm now in the majority as far as the US is concerned.Kumioko wrote:...assuming everyone who doesn't own one does is also a fallacy as is the argument that the US would be better off without them.
FTFY on your misleading-analogy fallacy.If a teenager robs your house by destroying the door with a bazooka, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again:
1) Buy a stronger door, with a better lock and install an alarm system
2) Stand in the front yard or in front of the Capital building with a sign demanding it be illegal for people to buy bazookas, or demand they be over 21 to do so
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Not really better because Bazooka's are already illegal. To me and a lot of other people I think is the definition of what constitutes a military grade weapon. That has never been clarified and a lot of the language from people who are trying to outlaw "military-grade" weapons are so vague that it includes weapons that aren't. My point in that statement was that we should be blaming the individual for the action, that the tool they used. If the Florida shooter would have used his car and drove it down the hallway would they be talking about banning cars? Nope. How about if he used a Ryder truck full of fertilizer like Timothy McVeigh? Would they be banning fertilizer or Ryder trucks? Nope. It's really no different here
Calling an AR-15 a military grade weapon is like calling a hunting rifle a sniper rifle just to make it sound more scary and for shock effect.
As for some of those restrictions, raising the age to 21 of who can buy a weapon is probably going to pass but to me is irrelevant because the amount of 18-21 year olds buying weapons is pretty small anyway. Banning bumpstocks is also fine by me because they are useless garbage accessories that no real gun owner wants or needs anyway. At the end of the day, what they need to do is find out why these people are doing these actions; find out why the police and FBI failed to do anything when they had the opportunity and find out why this kid didn't get mental help when he needed it rather than be turned away. Those are the important questions that no one seems to be asking.
Calling an AR-15 a military grade weapon is like calling a hunting rifle a sniper rifle just to make it sound more scary and for shock effect.
As for some of those restrictions, raising the age to 21 of who can buy a weapon is probably going to pass but to me is irrelevant because the amount of 18-21 year olds buying weapons is pretty small anyway. Banning bumpstocks is also fine by me because they are useless garbage accessories that no real gun owner wants or needs anyway. At the end of the day, what they need to do is find out why these people are doing these actions; find out why the police and FBI failed to do anything when they had the opportunity and find out why this kid didn't get mental help when he needed it rather than be turned away. Those are the important questions that no one seems to be asking.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Okay then, let's try it this way:Kumioko wrote:Not really better because Bazooka's are already illegal.
The point isn't whether or not bazookas are illegal, the point that it's just as bad an analogy when you state it from the opposing perspective, and oh-by-the-way, getting past a locked door isn't the thing we're concerned with. The thing we're concerned with is being shot, from distance, by a random lunatic while you're innocently going about your daily business. If you're walking down the street and someone 50 feet away from you suddenly pulls a sledgehammer out of his jacket and starts yelling loudly that he's going to kill you with it, but doesn't actually move toward you, I'd say your chances of survival are still reasonably good, right? Probably good enough that you shouldn't have to worry about it to the point where you're demonstrating outside the Capitol building for sledgehammer-control legislation.If bazookas were legal and a teenager robs your house by destroying the door with a bazooka, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again...
What I'm saying is that guns are a special case. They're like Wikipedia in that way - analogies are almost always flawed, sometimes to the point where they become silly or even offensive.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Surely the correct analogy isKumioko wrote:If a teenager robs your house by breaking down the door with a sledgehammer, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again:
1) Buy a stronger door, with a better lock and install an alarm system
2) Stand in the front yard or in front of the Capital building with a sign demanding it be illegal for people to buy sledgehammers, or demand they be over 21 to do so
3) Buy a bigger sledgehammer so you can smash the teenager's head in or at least threaten to do so.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Johnny Au
- Habitué
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
- Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
- Actual Name: Johnny Au
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
FTFY to make the misleading-analogy fallacy more fallacious.Midsize Jake wrote:Kumioko wrote:FTFY on your misleading-analogy fallacy.If a teenager robs your house by destroying the door with a nuclear missile, which option is more likely to make sure it doesn't happen again:
1) Buy a stronger door, with a better lock and install an alarm system
2) Stand in the front yard or in front of the Capital building with a sign demanding it be illegal for people to buy nuclear missiles, or demand they be over 21 to do so
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
I found this article very interesting https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... _text_free
Some key points:
*50% of the guns in United States are owned by ... 3% (no, that's not missing a zero) of population
*Since 2008 the number of households that own guns has stayed the same, but the total number of guns out there has exploded. Basically, it's that lunatic 3% that's bought up all the extra guns since 2008
*This 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income. Interestingly, these dudes are non-religious and in fact, finding religion seems to dampen their enthusiasm for guns.
*The election of a black man as President of United States caused an explosion of gun purchases among this demographic. And racial resentment and fear of "those people" taking over is explicitly (going by interviews with subjects) what motivated these purchases.
*The correlation between extreme gun ownership, extreme opposition to any kind of gun control and racism has increased significantly in recent years.
*The motive to buy all these guns is also associated with some kind of hero complex. These dudes really believe that they're gonna find themselves in some situation where some "bad guy" threatens their neighbors or families and thanks to their gun they will rush in and save the day. What actually happens is that often those guns end up killing their family members due to accidents, suicides and family disputes (a woman is five times more likely to be killed by her husband if there is a gun in the home, then if there isn't)
I don't have a problem with guns. No more than I have a problem with, say, cars. I do have a problem with that 3% of wackos that is not just shutting down any reasonable gun policy, but also debate on the subject, and which appears to have less than benign motives.
Some key points:
*50% of the guns in United States are owned by ... 3% (no, that's not missing a zero) of population
*Since 2008 the number of households that own guns has stayed the same, but the total number of guns out there has exploded. Basically, it's that lunatic 3% that's bought up all the extra guns since 2008
*This 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income. Interestingly, these dudes are non-religious and in fact, finding religion seems to dampen their enthusiasm for guns.
*The election of a black man as President of United States caused an explosion of gun purchases among this demographic. And racial resentment and fear of "those people" taking over is explicitly (going by interviews with subjects) what motivated these purchases.
*The correlation between extreme gun ownership, extreme opposition to any kind of gun control and racism has increased significantly in recent years.
*The motive to buy all these guns is also associated with some kind of hero complex. These dudes really believe that they're gonna find themselves in some situation where some "bad guy" threatens their neighbors or families and thanks to their gun they will rush in and save the day. What actually happens is that often those guns end up killing their family members due to accidents, suicides and family disputes (a woman is five times more likely to be killed by her husband if there is a gun in the home, then if there isn't)
I don't have a problem with guns. No more than I have a problem with, say, cars. I do have a problem with that 3% of wackos that is not just shutting down any reasonable gun policy, but also debate on the subject, and which appears to have less than benign motives.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
This could be another problem. They spend so much on guns that they don't have enough money. That's obviously bad for them. Could it drive some of them to armed robbery?Volunteer Marek wrote:This 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income.
That could reflect the sort of men who buy guns. If they didn't have a gun, they might use a knife or a hammer.(a woman is five times more likely to be killed by her husband if there is a gun in the home, then if there isn't)
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
That could reflect the sort of men who buy guns - not "own guns". There's plenty people who own guns. These are the "own a ton of guns" 3% people.Poetlister wrote:This could be another problem. They spend so much on guns that they don't have enough money. That's obviously bad for them. Could it drive some of them to armed robbery?Volunteer Marek wrote:This 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income.That could reflect the sort of men who buy guns. If they didn't have a gun, they might use a knife or a hammer.(a woman is five times more likely to be killed by her husband if there is a gun in the home, then if there isn't)
If they didn't have a gun, they might use a knife or a hammer - they would, but only 1/5 as much. Guns are just a convenient way of killing others. This is also why suicides go up with gun ownership. If you have the impulse to kill yourself or somebody else and you don't have the lethality of a gun at your disposal, you might cool down or hesitate and not do it. But with an access to a gun, the impulse quickly turns into action and deadly outcome.
One of the annoying things about these discussions is how the pro-gun folks (not you) take all sorts of pains to exclude the fact that guns are just more lethal - indeed that's their whole point - then other forms of weapons.
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
well if you go back and look at the links i provided that show the percentages by state you'll see that it's a lot higher than 3%. I'm not sure where that 3% came from, but it's complete horseshit.
Also, the idea that 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income is also a complete fallacy. Sounds like someone is just making shit up to justify their point of view and try to astroturf everyone into thinking they represent the majority.
Also, the idea that 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income is also a complete fallacy. Sounds like someone is just making shit up to justify their point of view and try to astroturf everyone into thinking they represent the majority.
- Zoloft
- Trustee
- Posts: 14088
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Well, here's the paper on the research: linkhttps://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/pdfplus/ ... 017.3.5.02[/link]Kumioko wrote:well if you go back and look at the links i provided that show the percentages by state you'll see that it's a lot higher than 3%. I'm not sure where that 3% came from, but it's complete horseshit.
Also, the idea that 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income is also a complete fallacy. Sounds like someone is just making shit up to justify their point of view and try to astroturf everyone into thinking they represent the majority.
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:16 am
- Wikipedia User: Volunteer Marek
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Ummm... that's not how statistics work. You do understand that it's entirely possible for 3% of the population to own 50% of the guns and the distribution of households with guns across states be whatever it wants to be, right?Kumioko wrote:well if you go back and look at the links i provided that show the percentages by state you'll see that it's a lot higher than 3%. I'm not sure where that 3% came from, but it's complete horseshit.
I have no idea why you think that percentages by state says anything at all about what percentage of gun is owned by what percentage of households.
Again, no. First, that's not a "fallacy". A "fallacy" is a flaw in reasoning. When a conclusion doesn't follow from premises. What you mean here is just plain ol' "false". As in "I don't believe it". Why exactly? I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but if you expect to be taken seriously, you need to provide at least some rationale.Also, the idea that 3% consist mostly of white males with low education and unstable income is also a complete fallacy. Sounds like someone is just making shit up to justify their point of view and try to astroturf everyone into thinking they represent the majority.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9952
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Well, let's not forget that if you consistently have no income at all, then your income is extremely stable by definition.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
The article indeed says "Put another way, half of the gun stock (approximately 130 million guns) is owned by approximately 86 percent of gun owners, and the other half is owned by 14 percent (14 percent of gun owners equals 7.6 million adults, or 3 percent of the adult U.S. population)."
It also says "The demographic characteristics of gun owners have been well established in multiple surveys. Consistent with these surveys, we find that gun owners overall are disproportionately male, white, older, non-urban, and from the South." I'm not sure where "low education and unstable income" or religion come into that. Further, "Handgun-only owners, in particular, appear to be a distinct group: they are more likely to be female, nonwhite, and living in urban areas ."
It also says "The demographic characteristics of gun owners have been well established in multiple surveys. Consistent with these surveys, we find that gun owners overall are disproportionately male, white, older, non-urban, and from the South." I'm not sure where "low education and unstable income" or religion come into that. Further, "Handgun-only owners, in particular, appear to be a distinct group: they are more likely to be female, nonwhite, and living in urban areas ."
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
What I am saying is this: Every state in the US has millions of people and every state has a percentage of the population larger than 3% that owns guns, so, it is statistically impossible to say that 3% of the population owns the majority of the guns. Now if you include the dealers and businesses who are selling the guns, then ok maybe, and I wouldn't doubt those are included as the "owners" but barring that, there is no way to justify the 3% statement.
- DanMurphy
- Habitué
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
- Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
- Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Who wants to break it to him?Kumioko wrote:What I am saying is this: Every state in the US has millions of people...
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
You have to keep the whole context Dan, not just chop out the bit that fits your argument.DanMurphy wrote:Who wants to break it to him?Kumioko wrote:What I am saying is this: Every state in the US has millions of people...
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
I do, I do! List of U.S. states and territories by population (T-H-L)DanMurphy wrote:Who wants to break it to him?Kumioko wrote:What I am saying is this: Every state in the US has millions of people...
I count half a dozen states with less than one million people: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska and Delaware.
Montana and Rhode Island have barely over one million. Number of major pro sports franchises located in these states: zero.
Fourteen states have less than two million people, which is not millions plural.
Kumioko has no credibility. If we can't trust his facts on this, how can we trust his facts on what percentage own guns?
No coffee? OK, then maybe just a little appreciation for my work out here?
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Y'all see the Parkland high school students on 60 Minutes?
Such smart kids. They won't let the politicians subvert them. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them was in elected office before they turn 30.
Emma Gonzalez: you go girl!!
By the way, the Democratic governor's primary in Ohio could be viewed as a litmus test on this issue. Dennis Kucinich (T-H-L) is clearly more supporting of gun control than Richard Cordray (T-H-L).
Such smart kids. They won't let the politicians subvert them. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them was in elected office before they turn 30.
Emma Gonzalez: you go girl!!
By the way, the Democratic governor's primary in Ohio could be viewed as a litmus test on this issue. Dennis Kucinich (T-H-L) is clearly more supporting of gun control than Richard Cordray (T-H-L).
No coffee? OK, then maybe just a little appreciation for my work out here?
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Even if in every single state 100% of people owned guns, it would still be statistically possible for 3% of them to own 50% of the guns. Say that in each state there are exactly a million people who in total own two million guns. Say 970,000 own one gun each and the remaining 30,000 own the other 1,030,000 guns, or about 34 each.Kumioko wrote:What I am saying is this: Every state in the US has millions of people and every state has a percentage of the population larger than 3% that owns guns, so, it is statistically impossible to say that 3% of the population owns the majority of the guns.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
Well regardless of whether you all think I am credible or not I still believe the 3% is a bullshit, not credible, made up number.
- AndyTheGrump
- Habitué
- Posts: 3193
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: AndyTheGrump (editor/heckler)
Re: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page
So, who do we think is more credible? Kumikio, some random bloke on the internet, or the authors of the research?Kumioko wrote:Well regardless of whether you all think I am credible or not I still believe the 3% is a bullshit, not credible, made up number.
Or is Harvard 'made up' as well?Deborah Azrael is research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of research for the
Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Lisa Hepburn is adjunct research associate at the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center. David Hemenway is professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and
co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Matthew Miller is professor of health sciences and
epidemiology at Northeastern University, adjunct professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public
Health, and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.