Another mass shooting...

Your survey shows only civilian firearms. Switzerland and finland citizens have military firearms at home. So your survey says absolutely nothing.

Huh? We are talking about civilian ownership of weapons, right? How is a survey, studying the civilian ownership of weapons, not saying anything about civilian ownership of weapons?

Edit: And I don't know what you mean by "citizens have military firearms at home.". Either you're implying that most people in these countries are in illegal possession of arms, or you're forgetting that each country has different views on which weapons are to be available to civilians or not.

Finland and Switzerland have more guns per head of population than the USA

This isn't even remotely true.  Finland and Switzerland don't even top the guns per head for Europe and the rate is 4 times less than the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Quote from: User324 on November 07, 2017, 05:16:36 AM

Your survey shows only civilian firearms. Switzerland and finland citizens have military firearms at home. So your survey says absolutely nothing.

Huh? We are talking about civilian ownership of weapons, right? How is a survey, studying the civilian ownership of weapons, not saying anything about civilian ownership of weapons?

Initial statement was
"Finland and Switzerland have more guns per head of population than the USA"
The study only took into account civilian fire arms.
I mentioned that the statistic is useless, because in switzerland (and I think finland, too) people are required to go into military and then keep their weapon at home, meaning that the amount of weapons per household in switzerland(/finland) is way higher than what your survey states.

Edit: And I don't know what you mean by "citizens have military firearms at home.". Either you're implying that most people in these countries are in illegal possession of arms, or you're forgetting that each country has different views on which weapons are to be available to civilians or not.

If you get a gun in the military, get to take it home, then you legally have a military gun at home. Your survey doesn't count those guns so it's not representative about how many guns there are per citizen.

Initial statement was
"Finland and Switzerland have more guns per head of population than the USA"
The study only took into account civilian fire arms.
I mentioned that the statistic is useless, because in switzerland (and I think finland, too) people are required to go into military and then keep their weapon at home, meaning that the amount of weapons per household in switzerland(/finland) is way higher than what your survey states.

Civilian ownership doesn't mean that it was bought in a store necessarily. They mean ANY gun that is in civilian possession. So no, the survey IS representative of the amount of guns owned by civilians.

If you get a gun in the military, get to take it home, then you legally have a military gun at home. Your survey doesn't count those guns so it's not representative about how many guns there are per citizen.

If you're allowed to bring it home it's not military, it's civilian. You're misunderstanding the meaning of civilian guns in the context. The survey is speaking about civilian ownership of weapons, not commercial weapons targeted towards and sold to civilians. If a civilian is trained and then handed a gun by the military, that they then bring home, they will be a civilian in possession of a gun, and that gun will be counted as a civilian firearm by the survey.

If you're allowed to bring it home it's not military, it's civilian. You're misunderstanding the meaning of civilian guns in the context. The survey is speaking about civilian ownership of weapons, not commercial weapons targeted towards and sold to civilians. If a civilian is trained and then handed a gun by the military, that they then bring home, they will be a civilian in possession of a gun, and that gun will be counted as a civilian firearm by the survey.

Hmm, sounds reasonable, could be true.
Where can I find the definition used in the survey?

Quote from: User324 on November 07, 2017, 07:14:29 AM

If you get a gun in the military, get to take it home, then you legally have a military gun at home. Your survey doesn't count those guns so it's not representative about how many guns there are per citizen.

If you're allowed to bring it home it's not military, it's civilian.

If the military issued you the weapon, then it's a military weapon, regardless of where it lives.

Hmm, sounds reasonable, could be true.
Where can I find the definition used in the survey?

They don't really define it, but here is how they word it in the survey papers:
"Published estimates of Yemeni civilian firearm ownership (millions)"
"The 30 largest civilian firearm holdings (in descending order)"
"Estimates of German civilian firearm ownership (millions)"

Here's their take on the swiss ownership of weapons:

Box 2.5 Switzerland: public uncertainty and expert biases
Despite their cultural importance, the number of privately held Swiss firearms is extremely elusive. A recent survey found
that 26 per cent (1.95 million) of Swiss own at least one firearm (Gasser, 2006; also see Becker, 2001, p. 14). Published estimates
of total firearm ownership vary extraordinarily, ranging from 1.2 million to 12 million (see Table 2.6).
There is less room for disagreement over the nature of Swiss gun problems. This was poignantly demonstrated by the
Zug massacre of 2001, and in 2006 by the murder of former Swiss ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet (Foulkes, 2006). Firearm
murders are only somewhat more common in Switzerland than most other European countries, but firearm suicide is significantly
more prevalent (Ajdacic-Gross et al., 2006). Recent research concluded that greater availability of firearms has increased
suicides by roughly 25 per cent in the last 20 years. Army-issued weapons are a major element in Switzerland’s suicides.
Although 60 per cent of Swiss firearm murderers use privately acquired weapons, 68 per cent of successful suicides use armyissued
guns (Ajdacic-Gross et al., 2006). As a proxy variable for firearm accessibility, Swiss suicide data supports higher estimates
of civilian ownership (Killias, 1993; Killias, Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher, 2001).
Traditionally, Swiss army reservists store their service weapons and sealed ammunition at home. The weapons can be
kept after their service obligation ends, an option chosen by 57–75 per cent of former soldiers, after paying a fee (Papacella,
2004; Vonarburg, 2006). This process accelerated in 2004, when the army began reducing its ranks by over 300,000 reservists,
a measure expected to release several hundred thousand additional high-powered rifles and pistols (Papacella, 2004).
One major area of disagreement is the number of modern military rifles in the hands of former reservists, their heirs, and
clients. According to Peter Hug, roughly 100,000 Sturmgewehr 57 and Sturmgewehr 90 automatic and semi-automatic rifles
have been released this way (Hug, 2006). Contrasting reports suggest that many more were released in 2004–06 alone (Mutter,
2006; Papacella, 2004). Even greater uncertainty surrounds privately purchased firearms. Hug (2006) estimates this category
at some 450,000. Other estimates can be explained only by assuming that there are between one and three million privately
acquired guns.
The lowest total estimates of 1.2–1.3 million private Swiss guns (Bachmann, 2002; SwissInfo, 2005) overlook major categories.
The highest estimates of 5–12 million are hard to justify without a clear breakdown. The Small Arms Survey presents Swiss
ownership at 2.3–4.5 million firearms, or 31–60 for every 100 residents.
The broad range of Swiss firearm estimates illuminates common biases of expert estimates. The perceptions of gun policy
experts anywhere, regardless of their convictions, are vulnerable to classic problems of cognitive screening and selective
attention, leading them to see what they expect to see (Bruner, 1957; Egeth, 1967). Higher numbers typically—but not always—
come from gun owners and police; lower numbers usually are from gun control advocates. Whether they devote more time to
shooting sports or responding to gun pathologies, owners tend to see more guns than non-owners. Because of their greater
proximity to firearms, the estimates of law enforcement officials and gun advocates must be taken seriously. The perspectives
of more distant observers can be equally valuable. Without comprehensive records or careful public polling, neither
perspective is sufficient. Whenever possible, both methods must be applied together.

So it definitely seems that they are taking into account weapons issued by the military to civilians.

If the military issued you the weapon, then it's a military weapon, regardless of where it lives.

I don't think the survey cares wether a weapon is intended for civilian or military use.

There's a difference between civilian-arms ownership and civilian arms-ownership. I'm pretty sure the survey leans towards the latter, as that makes more sense.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

Awesome.  Let's abolish all laws since they're apparently completely powerless to prevent anything ever. 

Anarchy FTW!

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2017, 07:52:39 AM

If the military issued you the weapon, then it's a military weapon, regardless of where it lives.

I don't think the survey cares wether a weapon is intended for civilian or military use.

There's a difference between civilian-arms ownership and civilian arms-ownership. I'm pretty sure the survey leans towards the latter, as that makes more sense.

But are they really civilians or are they active duty or reserve military?  Do they actually own the weapons or does the military want their weapons back after they're done with their military service?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/trump-extreme-vetting-guns/index.html

"Extreme vetting for guns".

Brilliant!

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2017, 08:01:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2017, 07:52:39 AM

If the military issued you the weapon, then it's a military weapon, regardless of where it lives.

I don't think the survey cares wether a weapon is intended for civilian or military use.

There's a difference between civilian-arms ownership and civilian arms-ownership. I'm pretty sure the survey leans towards the latter, as that makes more sense.

But are they really civilians or are they active duty or reserve military?  Do they actually own the weapons or does the military want their weapons back after they're done with their military service?

I'd have to research it, but I think they are reserve military but they don't have to give the weapon back. Not sure tho.

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

Awesome.  Let's abolish all laws since they're apparently completely powerless to prevent anything ever. 

Anarchy FTW!

You are the only one in this thread who mentioned abolishing laws.

Quote from: crutonius on November 07, 2017, 08:33:50 AM

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

Awesome.  Let's abolish all laws since they're apparently completely powerless to prevent anything ever. 

Anarchy FTW!

You are the only one in this thread who mentioned abolishing laws.

I'm highlighting your hyperbole with hyperbole.

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2017, 08:37:57 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2017, 08:01:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2017, 07:52:39 AM

If the military issued you the weapon, then it's a military weapon, regardless of where it lives.

I don't think the survey cares wether a weapon is intended for civilian or military use.

There's a difference between civilian-arms ownership and civilian arms-ownership. I'm pretty sure the survey leans towards the latter, as that makes more sense.

But are they really civilians or are they active duty or reserve military?  Do they actually own the weapons or does the military want their weapons back after they're done with their military service?

I'd have to research it, but I think they are reserve military but they don't have to give the weapon back. Not sure tho.

If they are reserve military, then it's most likely that they are responsible for the weapons that were issued but don't actually own them.

But are they really civilians or are they active duty or reserve military?  Do they actually own the weapons or does the military want their weapons back after they're done with their military service?

When they're not at work they are technically civilians. And if I'm interpreting this (and the rest of what the survey says about switzerland) right:
"Recent research concluded that greater availability of firearms has increased
suicides by roughly 25 per cent in the last 20 years. Army-issued weapons are a major element in Switzerland’s suicides.
Although 60 per cent of Swiss firearm murderers use privately acquired weapons, 68 per cent of successful suicides use armyissued
guns (Ajdacic-Gross et al., 2006). As a proxy variable for firearm accessibility, Swiss suicide data supports higher estimates
of civilian ownership (Killias, 1993; Killias, Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher, 2001)."
Then at least reservists are counted as civilians. They are saying that "the greater availability of firearms" increased suicides, and that the majority of sucessful suicides are using military issued weapons. So they are counting military-issued weapons as part of the "greater availability of firearms", which doesn't make sense if you're talking about military access to firearms (of course the military has access to weapons) but it makes more sense if you're talking about civilian access to firearms. And most military-issued weapons belong to reservists.

And if it doesn't take into account active duty personnel it doesn't really matter, these people should have decent training and regular check-up. You can't really compare that to civilians who buys guns in stores. If they did take into account these people the survey would be less useful, because then we would be comparing people that have very different amounts of experience and training in small-arms.

And anyways, IF anyone thinks that these statistics are bogus then I expect them to have some statistics (with a source) of their own.

EDIT: Or in any other way demonstrate, not just by voicing their own opinion, that the statistics are false.

EDIT: Or in any other way demonstrate, not just by voicing their own opinion, that the statistics are false.

You quoted it yourself

Published estimates of total firearm ownership vary extraordinarily, ranging from 1.2 million to 12 million

What an accurate survey, only a range of factor 10 (1000%).

What an accurate survey, only a range of factor 10 (1000%).

Context, ever learned that word? They are talking about other surveys, not their own:

Table 2.6 Estimates of civilian firearms ownership in Switzerland
Estimate Source
1.2 SwissInfo (2005)
1.3 Bachmann (2002)
l.0–3.0 Pescia (2006)
2.36 Hug (2006)
2.83–4.56 ProTell (2004)
5.0 Munday (1996, p. 12)
3.0–l2.0 Hess (1995)
2.3–4.5 2007 Small Arms Survey estimate

And use a little common sense. "Published surveys". At the time of them writing this survey, their own survey couldn't had been published, otherwise they wouldn't be writing still. So it obviously has to be talking about other surveys.

Quote from: User324 on November 07, 2017, 09:21:23 AM

What an accurate survey, only a range of factor 10 (1000%).

Context, ever learned that word? They are talking about other surveys, not their own:

Quote

Table 2.6 Estimates of civilian firearms ownership in Switzerland
Estimate Source
1.2 SwissInfo (2005)
1.3 Bachmann (2002)
l.0–3.0 Pescia (2006)
2.36 Hug (2006)
2.83–4.56 ProTell (2004)
5.0 Munday (1996, p. 12)
3.0–l2.0 Hess (1995)
2.3–4.5 2007 Small Arms Survey estimate

And use a little common sense. "Published surveys". At the time of them writing this survey, their own survey couldn't had been published, otherwise they wouldn't be writing still. So it obviously has to be talking about other surveys.

Bro, they didn't even make their own research, they just used already published papers to estimate the gun-per-citizen rate.

Basically a meta study. But the available data sucked.

Bro, they didn't even make their own research, they just used already published papers to estimate the gun-per-citizen rate.

Basically a meta study. But the available data sucked.

Is that a problem? Comparing the results of multiple different studies and arriving at a new estimate should be quite accurate. Does it in any way make the estimation wrong, and do you have any sources that would contradict this survey?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

I'm sorry, the point is to have a system that makes SURE you can't have a gun if you don't meet the requirements, having one where any asshole can say "yes, I am allowed to have a gun" and then MAYBE, in some point in the future, if he's found out he may be tried for perjury just doesn't cut it.

Well I couldn't find any data that said that either Finland or Switzerland have more guns per capita than the USA anywhere, so we might just drop this argument. The most generous estimate for Switzerland I could find was 4.5 million guns, both private and military, which puts it at a bit more than 0.55 guns per capita, which is about half that of the US.

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

I'm sorry, the point is to have a system that makes SURE you can't have a gun if you don't meet the requirements, having one where any asshole can say "yes, I am allowed to have a gun" and then MAYBE, in some point in the future, if he's found out he may be tried for perjury just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps we should actually try it.

The report shows that, between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/amp/


You can get 5 years iirc for perjury.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 09:37:18 AM

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

I'm sorry, the point is to have a system that makes SURE you can't have a gun if you don't meet the requirements, having one where any asshole can say "yes, I am allowed to have a gun" and then MAYBE, in some point in the future, if he's found out he may be tried for perjury just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps we should actually try it.

Quote

The report shows that, between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/amp/


You can get 5 years iirc for perjury.

Ooooh, so there were only 254 false statements that they found out were false. I wonder how many false statements weren't found out. Like this case we're talking about here.

Ooooh, so there were only 254 false statements that they found out were false.

No.  Only 254 false statements were considered for prosecution.  There were over half a million gun purchase denials (presumably for some sort of false statement).

I wonder how many false statements weren't found out. Like this case we're talking about here.

Impossible to know, but obviously too many.

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 10:03:24 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 09:37:18 AM

Quote from: NAZA on November 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

Thanks for pointing out that criminals don't care about laws.

Welcome to the NRA.

I'm sorry, the point is to have a system that makes SURE you can't have a gun if you don't meet the requirements, having one where any asshole can say "yes, I am allowed to have a gun" and then MAYBE, in some point in the future, if he's found out he may be tried for perjury just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps we should actually try it.

Quote

The report shows that, between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/amp/


You can get 5 years iirc for perjury.

Ooooh, so there were only 254 false statements that they found out were false. I wonder how many false statements weren't found out. Like this case we're talking about here.

Noooo, maybe you should read the article again.

only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution,

Again, perhaps we should  try enforcing laws designed to stop people who by due process have had their right restricted.

In this particular case lying should not have worked because his crimes were not reported as the law requires.

But, a good question to ask is if this nut actually knew someone who did time for lying on the form would he have even tried?

It doesn't matter what the penalty is if they know it's not enforced.
Kind of like going a few mph faster than the speed limit. You know it's against the law but you do it because you also know the police don't bother.

Noooo, maybe you should read the article again.

Ain't nobody got time for that. If you have read it, just quote to important part.

Again, perhaps we should  try enforcing laws designed to stop people who by due process have had their right restricted.

In this particular case lying should not have worked because his crimes were not reported as the law requires.

But, a good question to ask is if this nut actually knew someone who did time for lying on the form would he have even tried?

It doesn't matter what the penalty is if they know it's not enforced.
Kind of like going a few mph faster than the speed limit. You know it's against the law but you do it because you also know the police don't bother.

Well yes.  But therein lies the rub.  The issue is so politicized that if you're a Republican then you must deflect at all costs or you'll get lynched by the NRA.

But, a good question to ask is if this nut actually knew someone who did time for lying on the form would he have even tried?

Probably. I think he bought it less than a month ago, I'm pretty sure he bought it specifically to kill them. He didn't care enough about the "don't mass murder people" law, what makes you think he'd care for the "don't lie for a gun permit" law? The point is to have a system where lying wouldn't have worked and completely prevent this altogether instead of just applying a penalty to it.