Jump to content

Gun Control Discussion 2


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Looks like I didn't just read one paragraph.

Wow.  Your response is to bold a sentence that literally states there is "insufficient evidence," which entirely echoes my point they don't conclude much of anything.  You're good for some laughs, I'll give ya that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Wow.  Your response is to bold a sentence that literally states there is "insufficient evidence," which entirely echoes my point they don't conclude much of anything.  You're good for some laughs, I'll give ya that.

I appreciate your attempt at sophistry, but your deceit doesn't escape me. It states that there's insufficient evidence to support that "reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates." The burden of proof remains with those who assert that fewer guns result in fewer deaths/incidents of violence. I don't have to be an agnostic, because you, or any other gun control-freak, have not met any sufficient standard in arguing that stringent regulations have reduced death/violence.  But you can continue to tell me how you feel. It won't make your argument stronger, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The burden of proof remains with those who assert that fewer guns result in few deaths/incidents of violence.

Right, there it is.  The effort to curb violence isn't truly of interest - the burden is on those that actually, ya know, want to see less people dead.  Thanks for clarifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dmc515 said:

Right, there it is.  The effort to curb violence isn't truly of interest - the burden is on those that actually, ya know, want to see less people dead.  Thanks for clarifying.

Again, not an argument--not a good one, anyway. You can attempt to dance around your burden with your appeals to emotion, but it's still not making your argument stronger. Try to insult me all you want -- it won't make for a better argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Again, not an argument--not a good one, anyway. You can attempt to dance around your burden with your appeals to emotion, but it's still not making your argument stronger. Try to insult me all you want -- it won't make for a better argument.

My burden?  What exactly is my burden?  And why isn't it your burden too?  I guess I'll relink here, but you need to work on provoking if you want to keep people engaged.  Only reason you kept me around so long is I'm drunk and it's like when a cat bats around yarn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dmc515 said:

My burden?  What exactly is my burden? 

I thought I already made that clear:

28 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The burden of proof remains with those who assert that fewer guns result in fewer deaths/incidents of violence. I don't have to be an agnostic, because you, or any other gun control-freak, have not met any sufficient standard in arguing that stringent regulations have reduced death/violence.

 

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

And why isn't it your burden too? 

Because I'm not the one making your argument. 

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I guess I'll relink here, but you need to work on provoking if you want to keep people engaged. 

Seems as though my session has timed out.

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Only reason you kept me around so long is I'm drunk...

The story of my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Saw a study a while back that said that the most common image (by far) found on American movie posters is someone holding a gun. I can't remember where or I'd link it. 

You know, that sounds right, although aren't there new limites(well, new as in post 9/11) about how many and what position you can have guns on posters now? I'll have to look that up.

I know there's a huge difference in what you can show in trailers that varies by country, its why UK trailers and USA trailers for films are usually so different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

is this really up for dispute? I don't think anyone denies that restricting or prohibiting the access to firearms will reduce the amount of incidents in which they are used. (If you don't have them, you can't use them.) But even that can and has been challenged. What should be up for dispute is whether you can justify limiting the access to firearms. Not only does a person have a right (well... more like privilege nowadays) to bear them in the United States, but only a small, small, small minority of gun owner use them in violent offenses. I'm going to assume that this campaign for gun-control is not out of fear of guns, but an attempt to reduce overall violent offenses. So we can posit: does gun-control (limited/prohibited access to firearms) reduce overall violence? And in the cases of the U.K. and Australia, the answer is no.

...

Small nitpick, there is only a small minority that use them in lethal violent offences. I don't think we have proper statistics of how many use guns in non-lethal offences. And as far as I understand in the current climate even research into that is difficult.

There are some small older data samples though eg:

Quote

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah.  Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys.  Injury Prevention.  2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.  All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah.  The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey.  Violence and Victims.  2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David.  In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home.  Social Science and Medicine.  2000; 50:285-91.

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

or

Quote

1. Motorists with guns are more likely to act aggressively (Arizona)

Using data from a telephone survey in Arizona, we examined the relationship between road rage and gun carrying in motor vehicles.  We found that self-reported hostile actions (e.g., obscene gestures, cursing or shouting, aggressively tailgating) were more common among men, young adults, and individuals who carried a firearm in their car.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Solop, Frederic I.  Road rage in Arizona: Armed and dangerous?  Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2002; 34:807-814.

 

2. Motorists with guns are more likely to engage in types of road rage (U.S.)

Over 2,400 licensed drivers responded to questions about their own aggressive driving in a 2004 national random-digit-dial survey.  We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely.  Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.

Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary; Miller, Matthew.  Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage.  Accident Analysis and Prevention.  2006; 38:687-95.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Seli said:

Small nitpick, there is only a small minority that use them in lethal violent offences. I don't think we have proper statistics of how many use guns in non-lethal offences. And as far as I understand in the current climate even research into that is difficult.

There are some small older data samples though eg:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

or

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/

True. (I'm fine with nitpicking.) So, 67,000 people are injured as a result of firearms each year. There are 126 million households, 40% which own a firearm. That's about 50.4 million. If we assigned one firearm related injury, and that's being very generous, to one household (67,000 out of 50.4 million) that's 0.13%. As for threats of violence, you're correct in that the research into that is difficult and the Harvard random-digit-dialing survey is limited because it's a random-digit-dialing survey and primarily juxtaposes self-defense with gun threats, not so much with non-violence. Until research becomes more sophisticated, we must rely on the objective: recorded incidents of violence (injury & death.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

so if we go entirely on math and statistics every home should have a gun

This is a non sequitur. Clearly every home doesn't have a gun. Whether they should is a matter of opinion.

37 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

and the chance of anyone ever being killed by them is statistically low.

Technically, yes. There are 2.6 million deaths, 34,000 of which are firearm related. That's 1.3%. Is that not statistically low?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

This is a non sequitur. Clearly every home doesn't have a gun. Whether they should is a matter of opinion.

Technically, yes. There are 2.6 million deaths, 34,000 of which are firearm related. That's 1.3%. Is that not statistically low?

Stop pretending like you don't understand the point. If your position is that a proliferation of guns doesn't contribute to more deaths than otherwise, say so.  And if you actually believe that, then the natural extension of that is that a gun in every home wouldn't increase violence or suicides or the murder rate. And if you believe that, you are a complete fucking idiot or a lying asshole that likes guns more than people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Stop pretending like you don't understand the point. If your position is that a proliferation of guns doesn't contribute to more deaths than otherwise, say so.  And if you actually believe that, then the natural extension of that is that a gun in every home wouldn't increase violence or suicides or the murder rate. And if you believe that, you are a complete fucking idiot or a lying asshole that likes guns more than people.

Your syllogism makes no sense, larry. It was NEVER my argument that the "proliferation" of guns doesn't contribute to more deaths than otherwise. (I would have to and would have provided evidence for that argument.) My argument is that an overwhelming majority of gun owners have not used their guns in violent offenses. Your response in reality is just a straw man argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Your syllogism makes no sense, larry. It was NEVER my argument that the "proliferation" of guns doesn't contribute to more deaths than otherwise. (I would have to and would have provided evidence for that argument.) My argument is that an overwhelming majority of gun owners have not used their guns in violent offenses. Your response in reality is just a straw man argument.

The real strawman here is that no one is arguing that the majority of gun owners use their guns in violent offenses.  And yet you are jumping through hoops to act is if that were the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The real strawman here is that no one is arguing that the majority of gun owners use their guns in violent offenses.  And yet you are jumping through hoops to act is if that were the case.

I neither argued nor insinuated that you or anyone believed that a majority of gun owners acted out in violent offenses. I've used the argument to undermine "the need" for gun control. I did however insinuate that gun control assumes that every gun owner is a likely threat. And there's no "jumping through hoops." Just stating the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

I neither argued nor insinuated that you or anyone believed that a majority of gun owners acted out in violent offenses. I've used the argument to undermine "the need" for gun control. I did however insinuate that gun control assumes that every gun owner is a likely threat. And there's no "jumping through hoops." Just stating the facts.

People not in possession of guns are very unlikely to shoot themselves or others. People with guns have a very much higher probability of shooting themselves or others. The only way to change these probabilities is to reduce people or reduce guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, maarsen said:

People not in possession of guns are very unlikely to shoot themselves or others. People with guns have a very much higher probability of shooting themselves or others. The only way to change these probabilities is to reduce people or reduce guns.

Nice. But that's not an argument I'm disputing. It makes sense to conclude that a person who possesses a firearm is more likely than someone who doesn't to inflict injury or death upon himself or others with the use of said firearm. That's not the point. Gun control assumes every gun owner is a likely threat. When I say "likely," I'm not talking about specific odds. When I say "likely" I'm suggesting that they're "expected" to be threats. And the data don't support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...