Jump to content

Gun Control 5


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Romania? One of the newest members of the European Union. What about it? Talking about count Dracula, perhaps? ;)

And, as Shryke pointed out, it doesn't work like that. The mere fact, that a certain law is implemented in a number of countries that are not, say, protecting human rights, does not automatically mean that law is wrong. The more important, this particular one simply works, resulting in limiting the number of gun homicides.

I'm still uncertain of post-Ceausescu Romania. It is hard to shake off the effects of that type of regime. BTW, Vlad III was a prince, not a count. Bram stoker lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What numbers FLOW?

Your article links to no studies. It is actually quite sparse on the numbers.

Didn't read the Cato article and links, did you? If you did, then you need to read a bit more closely. It cited to a batch of them, a couple of them conducted by the government.

Meanwhile, in actual numbers, we know more guns correlates with more homicides and suicides at basically all levels studies are done.

Of course.

No FLOW, we look at statistics are as-accurately-as-possible access the prevalence of accidents. And that prevalence is higher the more guns there are out there.

Of course.

No evidence (that I've ever read of) suggesting that guns prevent crimes to any statistically significant degree and plenty to suggest they don't and even more showing that a better armed populace is not safer.

The problem is that you are comparing a theoretical society in which nobody has guns (or very few do), with a society that has lots of them, and then arguing that the former is safer. Of course. But that's not the comparison that matters because the former is realistically unattainable in the U.S., whatever those who live outside this country might think. The correct comparison is whether or not law-abiding Americans are safer as individuals if only the law abiding turn in their weapons. And you can read the reams and reams of Cato examples of innocent people who would have been in much worse shape but for their possession of a weapon.

Your Atlantic article just wants to throw up it's hands and go "Well, there's too many guns, let's just go with my gut and hope more guns will somehow, this time, lower gun crime". It's a fantasy.

Fantasy, eh? Where is the evidence that significantly more restrictive gun ownership laws will significantly reduce the prevalence of guns in the U.S.? Say, to only 10 million in private hands versus 300 million. Where is the evidence that it has a realistic chance of passing even as a legal matter in the U.S.? And where is the evidence that U.S. gun owners (both otherwise law abiding and criminals) would overwhelming comply with such a law even if it did pass (which it won't)? That's your "fantasy", and the author of the Atlantic article is intelligent enough to recognize it even though he wishes it were otherwise. Even if there is a possibility of such a law passing in the foreseeable future, that is no help at all with how we address the current problem.

There are irrefutable examples of private citizens who have deterred or minimized a violent crime through the use of a firearm. That's not fantasy, or speculation. Read the Cato institute article. Read my first post citing mass shootings that were halted in their tracks by armed, private citizens. Yes, there would be fewer homicides and gun accidents if nobody had guns, but that option is not available. That's not saying that handing out guns to everyone and their brother is a great idea. But the concealed carry numbers are pretty interesting:

Gohmert’s statement was declarative and sweeping: “The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down.”

The actual evidence is much murkier — and in dispute. Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased. Even those sympathetic to Lott’s research suggest that any decline in the crime rate from right-to-carry laws is more sporadic — as opposed to Gohmert’s claim that crime rate always goes down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

The argument is not the simplistic strawman of "more guns = everyone safer", which is clearly false. Rather, it is that given the prevalence of guns, and therefore quick availability to criminals and/or people who wish to do harm, innocent people can be made safer in some situations through the presence of an armed person willing to protect them. This raises the legitimate policy issue of whether the specific factual circumstances of having someone armed in a school, or movie theater, or church may actually make innocent people safer.

Shit, here's a story from today. Some pissed off dude looking for his girlfriend enters a movie theater with a gun, starts firing away, and shoots some innocent bystander. Fortunately, the theater had a security guard who open fire and dropped the guy. Maybe you think the people in the theater would have been better off if the guard was not there, but I think that's at least a reasonably debatable issue.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Deputy-shoots-gunman-at-San-Antonio-movie-theater/2wFsix5ntU2CDrsHjXx2kQ.cspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not assume that the only precaution I take, is to have a gun. There is an alarm system covering all potential points of entry. That alarm triggers multiple strobe lights designed to impair the intruders vision. If he proceeds, anyway, to the room where I am likely to be, it is obvious that his intent isn't burglary. I'll also have the advantage of knowing where he must enter, he will be back-lighted and without knowledge of my exact location and type of cover and concealment I'll be using.

that sounds awesome, do you do birthday parties at your quasar lazer house? also bolded part, i presume thats a mistake. surely you want to be back lit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not derail too far into the war, we appreciate your participation. And as many US veterans will tell you, you appreciate ours as well. Team effort. Can we leave it at that?

I'm not sure. I do think it has relevance to the topic. We are a gun culture as we are a car culture. Both those things gave us a tremendous leg up during WWII, as in other conflicts. A large number of Americans were already familiar with guns, which cut our training time down versus other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit, here's a story from today. Some pissed off dude looking for his girlfriend enters a movie theater with a gun, starts firing away, and shoots some innocent bystander. Fortunately, the theater had a security guard who open fire and dropped the guy. Maybe you think the people in the theater would have been better off if the guard was not there, but I think that's at least a reasonably debatable issue.

Are the gun nuts incapable of understanding the difference between a trained and licensed security guard and an ordinary patron of the movie theater?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the United States has a lot to be proud of. Yes, that is nationalistic, but it's supported by facts.

Iraq, vietnam, afghanistan, pakistan, chile, iran, nicaragua, etc

yep lots to be proud of

showing up for WW2 when Germany was already stopped and well on their way to defeat, well at least we got in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see you're milking the cow at both ends.

1. You whine about us coming late to the show.

BUT

2. You say how you could have handled it by yourselves. Which sounds like we didn't have to come to the show at all.

By December 1941, the Germans were stopped at Moscow, eliminating the possibility that the Germans could win decisively

By November 42, the 1st time Americans landed soldiers (in Africa) to face any Axis troops-Vichy French BTW-Stalingrad was won destroying any chance of a German victory

By September 43, when AMerica landed at Salerno-Continental Europe-Kursk had been won eliminating the German ability to wage strategic offensive warfare.

By June 44 when America landed in NW Europe, the Soviets had won and crushed the wehrmacht in Operation Bagration puttng victory within easy reach.

The Soviets faced over 90% of the wehrmacht.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I do think it has relevance to the topic. We are a gun culture as we are a car culture. Both those things gave us a tremendous leg up during WWII, as in other conflicts. A large number of Americans were already familiar with guns, which cut our training time down versus other countries.

Ummm, 11 months before ground forces landed in Africa, not really an expeditious training schedule.

We did have a few prewar marine units get to Guadalcanal, but that is irrelevant as again, pre war units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that sounds awesome, do you do birthday parties at your quasar lazer house? also bolded part, i presume thats a mistake. surely you want to be back lit!

I hate birthday parties. No, I want the intruder back lit. I want a clear silhouette. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the back light I'm referring to, is in a hall, not shining into the room I'm located. I'd post a diagram, but that's just too dumb to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate birthday parties. No, I want the intruder back lit. I want a clear silhouette. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the back light I'm referring to, is in a hall, not shining into the room I'm located. I'd post a diagram, but that's just too dumb to do.

I would hate to live like that, sounds horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anyone successfully dispute this, so I put to you a different hypothesis: gun owners know that they make America less safe, but believe they make their family safer. So it's a trade off: a safer family in a dangerous country. I'm not saying they're right, I don't think they are, but I suspect this is a common line of reasoning. It reminds me of Keynesian economics: in a recession, families stop spending as much, which is good for them but, counter-intuitively, bad for everyone overall.

Great job on collating all those articles by the way, involvement in this discussion is basically one big stat search and it's pretty hard wading through all of it.

Except I have refuted it, showing that many thousands to millions of Americans have used their guns to protect themselves and their families, and posessions. I cited CATOs paper on it, articles that showed that after Heller was passed, and more guns were easily obtained, crime went down in two cities. Crime in England is rising, crime in the USA declining. More people are owning guns in the USA, and violent crime rates are decreasing. 1.5 million background checks last December; its not just fewer people owning more guns...Americans favor loosening restrictions; that would not happen if it it was just a few who owned many weapons. It is because criminals fear guns that most home invasions in the USA happen while the owner is AWAY....in England, home invasions occur most often while the homeowner is home due to the fact the criminals have nothing to fear.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

Here is another study showing gun ownership has helped reduce violent crime: http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482

Shrykes articles ignore that the number of gun victims is startlingly small to begin with. Her 1993 NEJM article "excluded nearly 30 percent of "in home" homicides, and failed to mention that its results changed when comparing relevant subgroups (e.g., gun-owning criminals vs. law-abiding gun owners, who may be much less likely to be shot)." (Quoted from the independent link, above)

There were 535 accidental gun deaths in 2006. Out of all the vast millions of guns owned, only 535 accidental deaths caused by a gun. "In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm" . http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm Again, when seen with the many millions of guns owned, it is clear that only a infinitesimally minute percentage of guns will ever be used against someone in a crime. Meanwhile, guns save many thousands...you want to take away a right and ability to protect someone because someone else may be killed with a gun?

While some view items like magazine size restrictions, more strident background checks, better mental health services, and stricter licensing procedures as halfway measures--unlikely to have an effect, for me, just as with other mass shootings, the benefit (which is basically saving lives by making it a little more difficult for mentally ill people to kill dozens of people in an instant with a magic flick of the finger) far outweigh the downside---which, as far as I've been able to understand it is, "FIGHT FUR OUR FREEDOMZZZ! U GONNA TAKE MAH GUNZZZ"

I view my country's rabid gun element with mild disgust, since they view horrible tragedies like these as an acceptable price for unrestricted access to a tool whose SOLE FUCKING PURPOSE is to kill with the flick of a finger.

No. The PURPOSE of the gun is for protection, defense, and target shooting fun. In the course of protection, it CAN kill, but the gun can also be used to frighten away the guy by its presence, or wound him non fatally. Just like the purpose of a car is not to kill, but it can. Do you want to ban cars now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though getting murdered by a home invader is a rare event, just getting your home burglarized (burgled?) is a traumatic event and I can understand people wanting to have guns to be able to chase a burglar away, though I'd personally be more afraid of shooting a drunk teenager or a friend or family member trying to grab something from my house by mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not assume that the only precaution I take, is to have a gun. There is an alarm system covering all potential points of entry. That alarm triggers multiple strobe lights designed to impair the intruders vision. If he proceeds, anyway, to the room where I am likely to be, it is obvious that his intent isn't burglary. I'll also have the advantage of knowing where he must enter, he will be back-lighted and without knowledge of my exact location and type of cover and concealment I'll be using.

Are you a highly controversial politician of some sort? FBI agent? Military leader? Have a stalker or other known threat against you or your family?

If not, I'd like to know: what's it like being so afraid?

I mean, I suppose it's always good to prepare for accidents of all sorts, like having a first aid kit in your car, keeping lots of food and supplies if you live in a rural area prone to storms, reading the safety manual when you fly... But what you're doing seems more akin to preparing for the zombie apocalypse. Unless you are actually living under a threat, in which case I deeply apologize, preparing for an intruder breaking into your house is not the most rational thing to do. Burglars generally don't want to enter a house with someone in it, and if they happen to, they still tend not to resort to violence. If they do use violence, simple assault is the most common, resulting in no or minor injuries. Burglaries resulting in homicide make up about 0.004% of all burglaries.

Have a look at this report: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

I don't buy the idea of needing a gun to protect yourself and your family. No one should need that. Guns are for hunting and shooting sports. If you think you need a gun for protection, you're either wrong or you live in a society where something is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit, here's a story from today. Some pissed off dude looking for his girlfriend enters a movie theater with a gun, starts firing away, and shoots some innocent bystander. Fortunately, the theater had a security guard who open fire and dropped the guy. Maybe you think the people in the theater would have been better off if the guard was not there, but I think that's at least a reasonably debatable issue.

http://www.woai.com/...DrsHjXx2kQ.cspx

Nobody's claiming it's possible to remove guns overnight, it would have to be an incredibly gradual process. In the whole process, security guards would be way, way down the list of people to give up their guns. We'll wait till the chances of lone nuts shooting up cinemas is statistically insignificant enough to no longer merit armed guards in cinemas. I mean I certainly wouldn't, given the option, remove all firearms from police and security right this second. But most polls will show you that gun ownership has declined in the last fifty or so years......so what if they decline a little more? Then a little more? Why does this ultimate goal of bringing gun ownership down to levels seen in the rest of the developed world seem so impossible to you? America has achieved far greater thing in its history, I don't believe for a second this is beyond your capabilities. And what's wonderful is, every small step you take makes you a little bit safer. It's not like you'd have to endure many years of a more dangerous living situation; if you did, the states that already show lower ownership would be worse off. They aren't. Why, in these states, are the criminals not hoarding all of them? Because there's no evidence that happens. No-one is denying that sometimes, someone with a gun saves innocent people. But generally speaking, less guns means less death. So it's an admirable goal, which offers benefits the whole way toward it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody's claiming it's possible to remove guns overnight, it would have to be an incredibly gradual process. In the whole process, security guards would be way, way down the list of people to give up their guns. We'll wait till the chances of lone nuts shooting up cinemas is statistically insignificant enough to no longer merit armed guards in cinemas. I mean I certainly wouldn't, given the option, remove all firearms from police and security right this second. But most polls will show you that gun ownership has declined in the last fifty or so years......so what if they decline a little more? Then a little more? Why does this ultimate goal of bringing gun ownership down to levels seen in the rest of the developed world seem so impossible to you? America has achieved far greater thing in its history, I don't believe for a second this is beyond your capabilities. And what's wonderful is, every small step you take makes you a little bit safer. It's not like you'd have to endure many years of a more dangerous living situation; if you did, the states that already show lower ownership would be worse off. They aren't. Why, in these states, are the criminals not hoarding all of them? Because there's no evidence that happens. No-one is denying that sometimes, someone with a gun saves innocent people. But generally speaking, less guns means less death. So it's an admirable goal, which offers benefits the whole way toward it.

Yeah, unless we have an guard in every class, armed and armored enough to take on Lanza and his assault rifle, bulletproof vest, 2 handguns, and 30 round clips, there is only one other alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The PURPOSE of the gun is for protection, defense, and target shooting fun. In the course of protection, it CAN kill, but the gun can also be used to frighten away the guy by its presence, or wound him non fatally. Just like the purpose of a car is not to kill, but it can. Do you want to ban cars now?

Why are cars brought up so much in gun discussions!? What the hell did the cars do to people? Protection or defense is just rewording 'injury and death'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hate to live like that, sounds horrible.

Not really. Once things are in place for the purpose they serve, everything is pretty much normal.

Why are cars brought up so much in gun discussions!? What the hell did the cars do to people? Protection or defense is just rewording 'injury and death'.

Let's put a drunk behind the wheel and find out. There are responsible gun owners and responsible drivers, just as there are criminals snd drunks.

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...