Gun Control is ridiculous

varwoche said:
Indeed I would, and I invite you to surprise me with evidence.
Click to expand...

Warren vs. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
Freeman v. Ferguson
Riss v. City of New York
Keane v. City of Chicago
Morgan v. District of Columbia
Calogrides v. City of Mobile
Morris v. Musser
Davidson v. City of Westminster
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
Weutrich v. Delia
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
Silver v. City of Minneapolis
Bowers v. DeVito
Thurman v. City of Torrington (a case VERY close to my hypothetical situation above)
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas

Enough?
 
Quad4_72 said:
Do you have statistics to prove that it is more likely that the attacker is going to shoot me first? Or that it will be stolen?
Click to expand...

Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals

Women gun buyers also had a greater likelihood of being shot to death by another person than women in the general population did. Some women may buy handguns for protection from violent husbands or boyfriends, who then murder them with their own or another's weapon, the scientists theorize. Other research has shown that suicide rates rise among women in abusive relationships, they add.
In contrast, gun-related homicides occurred less often among male gun purchasers than among men in the population at large. These handgun buyers came from predominantly affluent, and thus safer, households, perhaps partly explaining this finding, Wintemute's group contends. This result didn't hold for women gun purchasers."



So, guns seem make you more likely to be shot (when normalised across socio-economic groups), and stolen legally owned guns are a massive source of the black market in illegal weapons.
 
volatile said:
Stop the kid getting the gun, and the teacher doesn't need one. Your idea is to routinely arm all teachers, mine is to stop the kids getting the guns in the first place.
Click to expand...

And how do you do that? Is it as easy as, say, stopping kids from getting drugs?
 
Quad4_72 said:
What are you going on about now? I was simply saying that you cannot apply a national statistic towards an individual in this case. In other words, I am not as likely to shoot a family member because they live hundreds of miles away. Is it really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Do you think legislation should be applied on an individual, ad-hoc basis, or on the basis of broadly-considered national data, Quad? Because people with guns are, if LL is correct, likely to shoot a family member, should we make guns more difficult to get hold of in general, or should we an exemption to those with family members living a pre-specified distance away?!
 
volatile said:
Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals

Women gun buyers also had a greater likelihood of being shot to death by another person than women in the general population did. Some women may buy handguns for protection from violent husbands or boyfriends, who then murder them with their own or another's weapon, the scientists theorize. Other research has shown that suicide rates rise among women in abusive relationships, they add.
In contrast, gun-related homicides occurred less often among male gun purchasers than among men in the population at large. These handgun buyers came from predominantly affluent, and thus safer, households, perhaps partly explaining this finding, Wintemute's group contends. This result didn't hold for women gun purchasers."



So, guns seem make you more likely to be shot (when normalised across socio-economic groups), and stolen legally owned guns are a massive source of the black market in illegal weapons.
Click to expand...

Cool statistics. Now, try getting the statistics I asked for. How likely am I to have my gun stolen? You gave me a number of how many guns have been stolen in ten years.

You have also failed to give me a statistic that I am more likely to be shot if an intruder breaks into my home and I am armed.

So lets try this again. Go get some relevant statistics. If you don't have them, simply retract your claim.
 
shanek said:
And how do you do that? Is it as easy as, say, stopping kids from getting drugs?
Click to expand...

There are ways, I'm sure. One that the UK is bringing in is the crackdown and banning of replica firearms that can be converted into real ones.

It's probably easier to crack down on guns than drugs, because manufacturing and distributing weaponry is harder than manufacturing and distributing drugs, for a variety of reasons - drugs can be grown and manufactured in private residences, drugs are able to be transported in very small consignments, a drug dealer can distribute thousands of hits on his own, with them about his person.

We'd be better off with teachers with guns, then?
 
volatile said:
Do you think legislation should be applied on an individual, ad-hoc basis, or on the basis of broadly-considered national data, Quad? Because people with guns are, if LL is correct, likely to shoot a family member, should we make guns more difficult to get hold of in general, or should we an exemption to those with family members living a pre-specified distance away?!
Click to expand...

This is like talking to a child. I NEVER ONCE made an admission of opinion with regards to the statistics. I did not say that the statistics are wrong. I just said that those particular statistics being apllied specifically towards me in my case is wrong. He blatantly said that I am ten times more likely to shoot a family member with my gun. He is WRONG, in that my family is hundreds of miles away. Do you not see what Im saying?
 
Quad4_72 said:
Cool statistics. Now, try getting the statistics I asked for. How likely am I to have my gun stolen? You gave me a number of how many guns have been stolen in ten years.

You have also failed to give me a statistic that I am more likely to be shot if an intruder breaks into my home and I am armed.

So lets try this again. Go get some relevant statistics. If you don't have them, simply retract your claim.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing a good example of why I normaly avoid these discussions. The pro-gun people come accross, to me, equaly irrational as someone arguing a pro-religion stance.
 
Molinaro said:
Thanks for providing a good example of why I normaly avoid these discussions. The pro-gun people come accross, to me, equaly irrational as someone arguing a pro-religion stance.
Click to expand...
All of them?

Actually, it's not a bad analogy, assuming you buy into the premise that the net harm of gun ownership outweighs the net good.

Are you advocating that religion be outlawed?
 
Molinaro said:
Thanks for providing a good example of why I normaly avoid these discussions. The pro-gun people come accross, to me, equaly irrational as someone arguing a pro-religion stance.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for that. Do YOU have the statistics? Or were you just simply submitting your opinion of a matter completely unrelated to the question?
 
Quad4_72 said:
How likely am I to have my gun stolen?
Click to expand...

1.7m in 10 years. 33% gun ownership (families). Family avg 2.6 people. Avg 2 guns per household (1.73 per owner, so likely more, but still). 1.7/65 * 7 (assuming 7 decade lifespan) = 18% = 1 in 5.

You've a 1 in 5 chance of having your gun stolen. OK?
 
Quad4_72 said:
Cool statistics. Now, try getting the statistics I asked for. How likely am I to have my gun stolen? You gave me a number of how many guns have been stolen in ten years.
Click to expand...

Well, 1.7 million reported gun thefts in 10 years over an ownership of 230 million guns. You do the maths.

Point is, that's a lot of guns in the hands of criminals that wouldn't be there were it not for the legal gun trade to fuel it.

You have also failed to give me a statistic that I am more likely to be shot if an intruder breaks into my home and I am armed. So lets try this again. Go get some relevant statistics. If you don't have them, simply retract your claim.
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase my claim, slightly. You're more likely in general to be shot as a gun owner. That actually strengthens my case, however, not weakens it.
 
I'm off now, but before I go I just want to point out that my calculation is not supposed to be accurate, but to illustrate the absurdity of the question.

I know that nobody would misinterpret what I was saying, but... :)
 
Garrette said:
Yes. We should put guns in parachute packs.
Click to expand...
Nice.

But, I don't think that you have fully grasped the situation that arises with your suggestion. If we put guns into parachute packs, and give those to commercial airline passengers, then as soon as Claus steps on the plane for the next TAM he will be forced to kill everyone on board, including himself once he is handed his pack.
 
Quad4_72 said:
This is like talking to a child. I NEVER ONCE made an admission of opinion with regards to the statistics. I did not say that the statistics are wrong. I just said that those particular statistics being apllied specifically towards me in my case is wrong. He blatantly said that I am ten times more likely to shoot a family member with my gun. He is WRONG, in that my family is hundreds of miles away. Do you not see what Im saying?
Click to expand...

Do you not see that public policy needs to be made on general and not individual bases? He pointed that you were "more likely" (based on national stats) to shoot a family member. This he used as an advocacy for gun control.

Your rebuttal was not the point of the argument, but to the use of statistics. Your rebuttal was idiotic for that precise reason, as you in no way addressed the argument Loss Leader put forward, which was, and I paraphrase - if, in general, you're more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal, aren't we all better off without guns?

Your response that this argument in favour of gun control on a sociological level doesn't apply to you specifically because you don't have family members nearby is ridiculous. It would be like me denying that I'm more likely statistically to get struck by lightning than win the lottery because I never leave the house.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
Do you not see that public policy needs to be made on general and not individual bases? He pointed that you were "more likely" (based on national stats) to shoot a family member. This he used as an advocacy for gun control.

Your rebuttal was not the point of the argument, but to the use of statistics. Your rebuttal was idiotic for that precise reason, as you in no way addressed the argument Loss Leader put forward, which was, and I paraphrase - if, in general, you're more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal, aren't we all better off without guns?

Your response that this argument in favour of gun control on a sociological level doesn't apply to you specifically because you don't have family members nearby is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ah but see this is a point that I have argued and no one has seemed to have been able to find a rebuttal. Would better education and responsibility by gun owners not help eliminate that factor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom