Are you afraid of guns?

[newyorkguy]

...It's not about gun control, it's about taking the guns out of the citizens and making sure that the police and military have them...

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?...

Of course! See: jref forums...

I was quite proud of it. Printed it out and put it up on my wall...

Evasion noted.

Eta - It's Crocker. From Kojak.

 

[Totovader]

And nowhere does the number 32 per 100K appear in there. The actual number given is 5.5 per 100K. If we add Fatal excessive force (we can't because we don't have that figure for CCWs) we see a rise to 23.47 not 32.

As the same time I can't find where the 0.7 per 100K is meant to come from.

That's because that's just the source of corrupt killings done by police officers- they aren't doing the analysis that I did.

 

[newyorkguy]

Sen. Diane Feinstein isn't a lightweight when it comes to gun control and her solution is bans every time a Cubs fan farts. That's no secret.

First of all that's not "gun control advocates," that's one U.S. Senator who has worked to ban assault weapons. Keep going.

 

[Totovader]

OK, I misunderstood the statistic. When I do the math for both groups I get much closer numbers, but the cops are still in the lead. Note that your value for "corrupt cops" is at least 2x too high. The site that you linked reports 127 fatalities associated with credible excessive force complaints in 2010. There are about 900,000 officers in the US with the authority to arrest people at any level of the government. That comes out to 14.1 per 100k.

A few corrections: I'm not looking at excessive force. While interesting, it's not comparable to the CCW numbers- I went by straight fatalities on either side.

Also, the number of officers I used was 765,000 which is state and local. I excluded Federal officers with arresting powers because they weren't mentioned anywhere in the report.

The number for CCW carriers is low as well. Again, nobody officially tracks these statistics that I can find, but the most solid source for a number of CCW homicides was 644 since 2007 from here. While they're an advocacy group, they do have news reports to tie to every case they include in the total. This is almost certainly an underestimate as well, since there are going to be cases where the CCW status of a murderer is never mentioned. With about 9M CCW holders in the US (again, no good number for the present, rounded up significantly), we're looking at more like 1 per 100k.

I had trouble finding that stat as well, I used a biased source, and counted the victims for all murders whether they were pending or convicted, unintentional or not. I also included incidents where the weapon was not known- I excluded suicides if the suicide was the only victim and when stats were for fiscal year I halved the number of victims. The other problem with the source is that it includes murders for states that are "no permit required"- I included those, but I'm not sure it's entirely comparable.

Honestly, my solution is that neither group needs guns. I realize that in your mind this would lead to total anarchy as we are all brutalized by the villains, but it seems to work surprisingly well in most of the developed world.

I disagree with the premise and have found no data to support that conclusion.

 

[Totovader]

First of all that's not "gun control advocates," that's one U.S. Senator who has worked to ban assault weapons. Keep going.

Yeah, but when it comes to the mighty sword of power... she's kinda high on the list.

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah, but when it comes to the mighty sword of power... she's kinda high on the list.

Yay!
A list of people advocating something that'll never happen.

 

[geni]

A few corrections: I'm not looking at excessive force. While interesting, it's not comparable to the CCW numbers- I went by straight fatalities on either side.

No you didn't. You haven't got straight fatalities for either side since both datasets try to ignore legal killings. The problem you've got is the difference between the limts on legitimate self defence for a civilian (or at least what the police think they can't prove wasn't legitimate self defence) and excessive force for a police officer.

You aren't comparing like with like.

 

[Mark6]

Honestly, my solution is that neither group needs guns. I realize that in your mind this would lead to total anarchy as we are all brutalized by the villains, but it seems to work surprisingly well in most of the developed world.

I disagree with the premise and have found no data to support that conclusion.

Really? Maybe you did not look. Took me less than a minute:

Comparisons of crime in OECD countries.

Out of 36 countries, all of them more or less developed, US has third highest murder rate (after Mexico and Estonia) and fourth highest rape rate. US rates of theft, robbery and burglary are between 8th and 13th (I was shocked by Belgium here), and it is right in the middle in assaults.

All in all, compared to the rest of developed world US seems to be a pretty violent place.

Note that England, where not only guns are effectively outlawed, but also police do not carry guns except on specific missions, has rather low murder rate (about 1/3 from the bottom), but is in top 8 in every other category. Looks like maybe police ARE the ones who should carry guns

 

[Craig4]

What scares me is any idiot who wants to can go buy one and not prove they can store it securely, use it safely and aren't ******* crazy. In fact you don't even have to have insurance most places to own a gun so when Jethro shoots his AR-15 through the wall of my condo I'm not financially protected like if he drove his car into my front door.

 

[Polaris]

How's that working out for her?

She had a watered down ban on some guns she thought looked scary with a 10-year sunshine clause - but the question wasn't how successful she was, it was what her goals were. Considering she also made efforts to ban handguns in CA and San Francisco (except her self of course), it sure sounds like gun bans are her goal.

First of all that's not "gun control advocates," that's one U.S. Senator who has worked to ban assault weapons. Keep going.

"Assault weapons" and handguns - she's not a gun control advocate because she's a Senator? How does that work? She's led the charge twice, having the ear of the President both times.

You guys asked for examples of people who want to ban guns, and I presented a glaring example. If you mean people who want to ban all guns you'll have to specify that. We're not mind-readers.

 

[Olowkow]

I'm not afraid of guns. I had a few years ago. Some of them are actually beautiful in their own way. I got bored with shooting targets and cans and never wanted to kill any animals.

What I am most afraid of are people handling guns--of negligent and accidental discharges. Yes, even at gun shows. I consider everyone to be incompetent, and just fade away where guns are being admired.

Gun activists designated last Saturday “Gun Appreciation Day” in an attempt to highlight their opposition to gun safety laws. The PR stunt proved to be more of an embarrassment, however, when 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day. On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm.

MESA, AZ -- Police say a woman and little girl were injured Saturday when a gun accidentally fired at a Mesa gun show.

"I was two rows away, we heard the gun go off and everybody just kind of stopped," said Mike Todd, a gun show regular. "It could've been much worse."

I watched quite a few videos a few weeks ago to understand how this problem could possibly be so widespread and learned a lot. Long story short, machismo, poor training, carelessness and forgetfulness are not the only problems. The equipment itself is often the cause. Personally, I wouldn't carry one on a bet.

 

[Totovader]

No you didn't. You haven't got straight fatalities for either side since both datasets try to ignore legal killings. The problem you've got is the difference between the limts on legitimate self defence for a civilian (or at least what the police think they can't prove wasn't legitimate self defence) and excessive force for a police officer.

You aren't comparing like with like.

What you just posted here simply is not true.

 

[Totovader]

Really? Maybe you did not look. Took me less than a minute:

Comparisons of crime in OECD countries.

Out of 36 countries, all of them more or less developed, US has third highest murder rate (after Mexico and Estonia) and fourth highest rape rate. US rates of theft, robbery and burglary are between 8th and 13th (I was shocked by Belgium here), and it is right in the middle in assaults.

All in all, compared to the rest of developed world US seems to be a pretty violent place.

Note that England, where not only guns are effectively outlawed, but also police do not carry guns except on specific missions, has rather low murder rate (about 1/3 from the bottom), but is in top 8 in every other category. Looks like maybe police ARE the ones who should carry guns

How do you think that supports the argument that throwing all the guns into the sea from private citizens is the best option?

 

[mikado]

I am puzzled by the fact that so many people seem to be able to totally ignore the fact that we all have moments in our lives when we are under so much stress that we can all behave in ways that are unimaginable otherwise.
Guns make it easier for all and any of us to do things that we wouldn't if we were in our right minds... that's my basic worry.

 

[mikado]

sorry double post!

 

[RandomElement]

Evidence?

It already happened twice. That takes it out of the theoretical, probabilistic realm, does it not?

 

[NoahFence]

She had a watered down ban on some guns she thought looked scary with a 10-year sunshine clause - but the question wasn't how successful she was, it was what her goals were. Considering she also made efforts to ban handguns in CA and San Francisco (except her self of course), it sure sounds like gun bans are

I'm sure that is her goal.
Thing is, its not going to happen. So who cares? The NRA mantra, 'they're Cummin' fer yer gunz' is nothing resembling reality. an outlier or two can't make policy.

 

[Ranb]

Yes. Guns are dangerous, and so you should be afraid of them.

Not afraid. Not afraid of motor vehicles either, even though I've been in several accidents over the years. There is a difference between fear and respect for the threat an object presents.

Ranb

 

[Foolmewunz]

I clicked this thread to see when the poll was going to be put up, but didn't realize that the question was settled in the first post so there's no poll necessary.

The argument seems like a bit of chest-thumpy swingdickery to me. "You're just a-skeered, ain't ya?"

Yeah, I'm afraid of guns. You're supposed to be. That's their deterrent factor, after all. And I'm safely afraid of guns to the point that even a cop with his gun holstered or a Brinks guard with his scattergun cradled in his arm and not pointing at me is sufficient to get my attention.

Do I break out in hives if I see guns in a display case or shouldered when their handlers are marching in a parade or standing guard duty? No. Do I ratchet that up a bit when it's an eighteen year old who's barely shaving and he has the muzzle stuck in my navel? (Chile 1985) Why, yes... quite a bit. Or when it was a mugger with the barrel of his handgun stuck in my ribs (NYC 1968), well, yeah... I was afraid.

Guns kill. They are designed for killing. Not for making political statements and not as conversation pieces at the pre-school. I'm in favor of the 2nd. I'm just in favor of having much more rigid limitations on the types of guns and the training and education of the people who own them and the controls and inspections on those owners. To the "gun nut" lobby that means I'm anti-gun. So be it. I'll accept that label. You win the semantic debate.

Frankly, only an idiot or a psychopath wouldn't be afraid of an instrument designed for killing. As the Duke noted, "Afraid, son? Hell, yes, I'm afraid. Only person who's not afraid is a fool or a liar."

 

[newyorkguy]

Sen. Diane Feinstein isn't a lightweight when it comes to gun control and her solution is bans every time a Cubs fan farts. That's no secret.

First of all that's not "gun control advocates," that's one U.S. Senator who has worked to ban assault weapons. Keep going.

..."Assault weapons" and handguns - she's not a gun control advocate because she's a Senator? How does that work? She's led the charge twice, having the ear of the President both times. You guys asked for examples of people who want to ban guns, and I presented a glaring example....

No us guys didn't ask for an "example of people who want to ban guns." This is a derail. First, you didn't make the original comment so my response wasn't directed to you anyway. The statement was made that gun control is actually a subterfuge for taking people's guns away. I asked for proof. I didn't ask can anyone name a politician who proposed a ban. I did ask you to keep going and you're not mentioning any other persons or groups. I guess that answers the question.

...Plus, gun control advocates are never really quite honest in their objective. It's not about gun control, it's about taking the guns out of the citizens and making sure that the police and military have them.

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?..