Gun Control is ridiculous

[shanek]

Kind of a loaded question when in reality neither is not a foreseeable option.

Actually, the whole conjecture is ridiculous. I wouldn't feel safe in a room with a monkey with a power drill, either.

 

[volatile]

Okay: human beings. Any other species is irrelevant.



Safer with the guns, of course.

Hold on, hold on. I haven't even read the rest of your post yet but I am guffawing and spluttering and about to roll around the floor in fits of laughter.

Is your position, honestly, that a room with two unarmed people is less safe than a room with two people with guns?

 

[volatile]

That totally depends on the situation. There are situations where a knife is more effective. As I showed in another thread, there is at least one situation where a piano is more effective.

Guns are generally better at range. But even they're limited in range (depending on the firearm, ammunition, etc.). There are many ways in which hunting bows and arrows are comparable, and arguably do much more damage to the person being shot

You can't have it both ways, Shanek. Either guns are an effective, excellent and safe form of protection against the bad guys, or they aren't. Do you carry a piano around with you just in chase whatever ludicrous situation you can dream up demands one? If not, why do not you extend the same logic to firearms?

You think people with criminal intent who definitively want to kill you won't try if they think you have a gun? Of course they will, which is why armed gangs succeed in killing members of other armed gangs with regularity.

However, most criminals don't want to kill you. If gun ownership is widespread, those criminals who don't want to kill you but merely steal your stuff start carrying guns too, just in case you do; thus increasing the likelihood you'll die of being shot. Gun owners are far more likely to be shot at, as Schneibster pointed out above.

 

[CFLarsen]

However, most criminals don't want to kill you. If gun ownership is widespread, those criminals who don't want to kill you but merely steal your stuff start carrying guns too, just in case you do; thus increasing the likelihood you'll die of being shot. Gun owners are far more likely to be shot at, as Schneibster pointed out above.

Let's not forget that while burglaries are not exactly on top of the police department's "to do list", murder is.

You rob someone's house, chances are you'll get away with it. Unfortunately, but, there it is.

You rob someone's house and kill someone, or even fire a gun, you will make the ◊◊◊◊-list of every cop in town.

Society has far less tolerance of a burglar willing to fire a gun, than a burglar who just wants to steal, but not hurt.

 

[Mephisto]

Is anybody else here worried about spear control?

I think it's clear that she's out of control, especially after shaving her head. I heard she's also checked into rehab for drugs & alcohol . . . oops! Wrong spears.

BTW - can't we nominate Quad4 for some sort of JREF prize for the quickest growing thread ever? Who thought that the gun control issue still had so much steam left in it?

 

[Lothian]

Are you saying that stronger gun control means that strangers, more than family members, kill?

I am saying that in 1985 the proportion of murders committed by friends and family was higher than in 2006. I am not suggesting that the gun laws had anything to do with it.

I just noticed a correlation between the increase in the number of strangers as opposed to family and the reduction in the likelihood of being killed by a gun the same period. I was not necessarily saying the cause of Shaun being safer now is that he has a psychotic family and they are a smaller proportion of the population. I think we need more studies to prove that.

 

[shanek]

a nice grab bag of slogans here....and its nice to know that you are an educated and responsible gun owner. I've actually never come across a gun owner that doesn't believe that....wonder where all the irresponsible ones come from?

They're called "criminals."

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

BTW - can't we nominate Quad4 for some sort of JREF prize for the quickest growing thread ever? Who thought that the gun control issue still had so much steam left in it?

Dicky G seems to have legged it so I've been storing it all up for a while...........

 

[CFLarsen]

Is anybody else here worried about spear control?

We should be.

Let's say Britney Spears had gone through all the controls and "training", and obtained a gun. Not unlikely, given that she is in the spotlight, and has been for quite a while. There are wackos out there, and some go after celebrities.

Would anyone trust Britney Spears with a gun today?

 

[shanek]

Insurance companies did a set of actuarial studies; in case you don't know about that, it's how insurance companies make money. In other words, they don't have any agenda but to get a realistic idea of how much they are likely to have to pay, and how they should judge the risk of having to pay it. What they found is that people who own guns are more likely to get shot.

I notice you don't offer any support for this. If it is true, then why is there no additional premium for gun owners? I actually got a lower premium just because I have two fire extinguishers in my home. If they'll lower it for fire extinguishers, why won't they raise it for guns?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

I am saying that in 1985 the proportion of murders committed by friends and family was higher than in 2006. I am not suggesting that the gun laws had anything to do with it.

I just noticed a correlation between the increase in the number of strangers as opposed to family and the reduction in the likelihood of being killed by a gun the same period. I was not necessarily saying the cause of Shaun being safer now is that he has a psychotic family and they are a smaller proportion of the population. I think we need more studies to prove that.

There's nothing wrong with my family that 10 rolls of rubber wallpaper and a double lobotomy wouldn't cure. Except maybe Uncle Jock who supports Hibs. He's a lost cause.

 

[volatile]

Shanek, something just came to me.

You seem to have drawn your conclusions on human behaviour from Hollywood, where the good guys never die and the bad guys can be forced to flee by the protagonist waving a gun in their face.

Your version of reality seems to be based on prime-time cop dramas, or R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet video, where any tense situation involves the good guy brandishing his weapon and the bad guy backing down, with no shots ever being fired.

 

[volatile]

They're called "criminals."

Yep. Legal guns don't kill people, only illegal ones do.

You live in a movie, Shanek.

 

[shanek]

Is your position, honestly, that a room with two unarmed people is less safe than a room with two people with guns?

We weren't talking about the "room" being safe; that's a meaningless concept. We were talking about me being safe, and clearly, that is the case. And if you can't see why, then you have no business engaging in argumentum ad smiley.

 

[shanek]

You can't have it both ways, Shanek. Either guns are an effective, excellent and safe form of protection against the bad guys, or they aren't.

That's a false dichotomy. There are many cases where a gun is effective; there are some cases where it is not. People carry guns for defense because of the times where it is effective, not for the times where it isn't. Just like I have a fire extinguisher for use in times where it is effective, not for the times where it isn't.

Do you carry a piano around with you just in chase whatever ludicrous situation you can dream up demands one? If not, why do not you extend the same logic to firearms?

Because firearms are lighter than pianos. Are you arguing seriously in this thread? Monkeys? People carrying around pianos?

You think people with criminal intent who definitively want to kill you won't try if they think you have a gun? Of course they will,

WRONG. All of the data, as well as testimony from the criminals themselves, say that they are less likely to take on armed opponents. You have someone in this very thread whom that happened to.

which is why armed gangs succeed in killing members of other armed gangs with regularity.

That's the illegal drug trade; that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not talking about people engaging in turf wars; we're talking about ordinary, everyday people having guns.

 

[volatile]

We weren't talking about the "room" being safe; that's a meaningless concept. We were talking about me being safe, and clearly, that is the case. And if you can't see why, then you have no business engaging in argumentum ad smiley.

It's not a meaningless concept. I'm constructing an analogy to illustrate that we're not safer with weapons being available willy-nilly.

Seeing as you obtusely chose to ignore the monkeys, I gave you people. I'll spell this out slowly, if you'd like.

Posit a locked room. Sealed, so as to be impenetrable. Two people inside, otherwise empty.

Is that room safer for those within in - ie is there a great risk of injury, or death - if those people have guns on their person, or if the room is empty.

The obvious answer, seeing as guns are designed for the express purpose of causing death or injury, is that the room is not safer when guns are present. Therefore, dear man, we can posit that guns do not make people safer, but actually increase the risk of injury or death.

Patnently, those people are not safer when armed, and your obstinate refusal to acknowledge that plain fact is duly noted.

 

[Thanz]

So, because of your morbid fear of appearing to have fear rule your life, you'll refuse to take simple, convenient, and unobtrusive precautions against the possibility.

Well, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, right?

Seriously, however, I don't see carrying a gun as simple, convenient or unobtrusive. The precautions that I do see as simple, convenient and unobtrusive I do take. Such as a monitored alarm system for my house.

You have no idea what kind of neighborhood he was in. This sounds like an unwarranted assumption made in order to preserve your own viewpoint.

Of course it was an assumption. But it was based not to justify any viewpoint, but based on his personal experiences.

I have a friend who lives in one of the best neighborhoods in town, in a city with one of the lowst crime rates in the nation. His house has been broken into twice.

And you think having a gun would have prevented that? A monitored alarm might have, if he doesn't have one.

[other anecdotes omitted]

I have been accosted and harrased in several parts of town, because I'm openly transgendered. This has happened just as often in the upscale parts of town as in any other.

That's because bigots come in all shapes and sizes, rather than anything to do with guns.

 

[Skibum]

It's not a meaningless concept. I'm constructing an analogy to illustrate that we're not safer with weapons being available willy-nilly.

Seeing as you obtusely chose to ignore the monkeys, I gave you people. I'll spell this out slowly, if you'd like.

Posit a locked room. Sealed, so as to be impenetrable. Two people inside, otherwise empty.

Is that room safer for those within in - ie is there a great risk of injury, or death - if those people have guns on their person, or if the room is empty.

The obvious answer, seeing as guns are designed for the express purpose of causing death or injury, is that the room is not safer when guns are present. Therefore, dear man, we can posit that guns do not make people safer, but actually increase the risk of injury or death.

Patnently, those people are not safer when armed, and your obstinate refusal to acknowledge that plain fact is duly noted.

Thats great when do we start forcing everyone to live in locked rooms?

 

[volatile]

That's a false dichotomy. There are many cases where a gun is effective; there are some cases where it is not. People carry guns for defense because of the times where it is effective, not for the times where it isn't. Just like I have a fire extinguisher for use in times where it is effective, not for the times where it isn't.

Look, if you carry a gun in case you encounter a vanishingly unlikely situation when it might be effective (when often times it won't be, and in many cases it makes you more at risk of injury or death), why not carry a piano?

Having a firearm gives you an illusion of safety and gives everyone else (and you too, actually) an increased risk of danger. Selfish, ignorant and misguided are three of the first adjectives that spring to mind

Because firearms are lighter than pianos. Are you arguing seriously in this thread? Monkeys? People carrying around pianos?

You brought it up. If you think pianos might keep you safe, carry one. What about all the other improbable things that might happen. Do you pack a rucksack with rope in case you fall off a cliff? Carry round a defibrillator in case you have a heart attack?

Essentially, what I'm getting to here is that, for some reason fathomable only to yourself, you carry a gun to make you "safer" when a) the cases in which it might conceivably help are rare and b) carrying a gun in the first place puts you at greater risk anyway!

It's a nonsense to argue that a gun won't keep you safe, but you carry one to keep you safe.

WRONG. All of the data, as well as testimony from the criminals themselves, say that they are less likely to take on armed opponents. You have someone in this very thread whom that happened to.

Why is it, then, that gun owners are more likely to be shot? Why are your gun crime and homicide rates so much higher than ours?

That's the illegal drug trade; that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not talking about people engaging in turf wars; we're talking about ordinary, everyday people having guns.

Oh, right. So pointing out that people with guns are quite capable of killing other people with guns doesn't undermine your position that guns stop people getting killed, because those people are criminals.

Riiiggghhttt....

 

[Lothian]

WRONG. All of the data, as well as testimony from the criminals themselves, say that they are less likely to take on armed opponents.

I am not sure that is the right test. We are looking at surviving as a victim not as an attacker.

Consider the following.

Attacker unarmed defender unarmed
Attacker armed defender unarmed
Attacker unarmed defender armed
Attacker armed defender armed

The question is :in what percentages of these scenarios does the defender die.
I would say that the middle two might even themselves out. The last scenario will result in more defenders being killed than the first.

Sure you may wish to add likelihood of attack to this (although there is the question how does the attacker know the defender has a gun ?) but the fact that criminals are less likely to take on someone with a gun does not mean that you are more likely to live if you have a gun when you are attacked.