Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

That is not the question I asked, I asked: "..do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?"

Ah, the same tactic to try to "shoehorn" me as CFLarson uses. Let me look at the statistical data, k?

Let's see...

15,000 cases of accidental firearms accidents, according to this report. That's 5 people per 100,000. So that's 99,995 per 100,000 that aren't being accidentally shot.

Let's look at incidents...

50,000 cases of assault with a firearm, which is 17 per 100,000. So that's about 22 per 100,000 that are injured from a firearm. Ironically, the number only barely goes up if you include self-inflicted wounds, if I'm reading this website right. But it's non-fatal, and I guess most people get it right.

25 per 100,000 people in America suffer from sexual assault. That's 75,000 people. But oh, that's right, they can never defend themselves with a firearm... except when they do.

Though this is just involving non-fatal injuries. Which are recoverable.

However, there are few statistics of those that actually successfully defend themselves, namely because many of those incidents go unreported.

(I'll play around with the links when I have more time, and give an in-depth response)


So, yeah, it's "a lot"... even though it's only about 0.00025% of the population.

Which means that you have the odds of %99.99975 of not being injured (non-fatally) with a firearm.

If you just take accidental...

Your chances are 5*10^-5 chances of being injured accidentally. The percentage chance is so low, my calculator had to use scientific notation.

Now, when people go on and on about how many guns are coming into the U.S., or are being manufactured and distributed, compared to the number of firearms that actually cause (non-fatal) injuries, I just can't help but not be paranoid about it.

So, to recap: You're more likely to end up getting raped than you are to end up getting shot non-fatally, whether by accident or incident. You're *far* more likely to end up getting raped than you are to end up *accidentally* shooting yourself.

The "assault" part also includes gunshots used in self defense and in the course of law enforcement, I'm going to assume. So the odds are even lower for a non-justifiable wound.

 

[Lothian]

You have been shown the statistics of how often armed citizens stop a crime, usually without even firing a shot. The low end is 700,000 a year, just the reported incidents. The reality, the data show, is over 1 million, maybe as much as 2 million or even more.
.

I don't think they have that much of an effect on overall crime levels. But they do obviously protect a lot of people from violent crime. It just turns "rape" into "attempted rape."

I am confused. Do guns stop 2 million crimes a year or do they not stop any crime rather they change the intensity ?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why is that?

If a rapist comes up to a woman and he's armed and she's not, that's better? Even though there is a significant chance that he may not only rape her, but also kill her?

I don't get your logic here.

Did you read my previous post? I said "neither side having them", that does not equate to the situation you have outlined.

Earlier in this thread, a woman told about her ability to avoid a rape thanks to threatening with her firearm. Are you saying that she shouldn't have had one altogether, and not only been raped, and possibly killed, but her child also have been killed? That's "not a worse situation"?

Are you saying that Thomas Hamilton should have had access to firearms (after all he as a gun club member and had a license for his weapons so had passed all the necessary tests)? Do you think that is a better situation than him not having guns? Do you think he would have been able to kill 16 kids and their teacher without guns?

 

[Darat]

Ah, the same tactic to try to "shoehorn" me as CFLarson uses. Let me look at the statistical data, k?

...snip...

I asked Shane a simple question, you choose to respond however you did not respond to the question I had asked; obviously if you don't have knowledge of the actual figures then you can't answer but I was assuming Shane would have so that is why I asked him.

It is entirely up to you if you respond or not.

ETA - you edited your post!!

So, yeah, it's "a lot"... even though it's only about 0.00025% of the population.

So would agree that there are societies that

Have very much lower rates of violent crime then the USA
Have much lower rates of accidents from firearms
Have much stricter gun controls then the USA

?

The reason for asking is that I am wondering if in principle you would support a system in the USA that significantly reduced the rate of violent crime in the USA, and significantly reduced the rate of accidents from firearms BUT required very strict gun controls (such as no handguns at all for private individuals) to be implemented?

 

[CFLarsen]

I already answered your question several times. Just because you are not satisfied or want several different versions does not mean I will keep on providing more answers. What answer are you looking for anyway?

Can you hunt with all that is legal? Not just guns, but whatever is at hand?

Those eligible persons who truthfully fill out form 4473 are good examples of trustworthy people.

"...who truthfully fill out form 4473..."

You have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, yet you find them trustworthy so they can have guns?

Aren't you just a wee bit naive?

These nukes/cars/guns comparisons make you look silly.

You don't subscribe to the "cars kill people too" comparison, then?

You really do not want to admit you made a mistake either. Why should I think you are telling the truth if you can not admit to making a mistake?

Why not? You are already naive enough to trust people with a gun, if you think they are telling the truth on a form.

You have been shown the statistics of how often armed citizens stop a crime, usually without even firing a shot. The low end is 700,000 a year, just the reported incidents. The reality, the data show, is over 1 million, maybe as much as 2 million or even more.

That's a lot! Your claim that "it simply won't happen" is bogus and flies in the face of all the available data. Women do get jumped in dark alleys for the purpose of being raped, for example. Look at the stats. And that doesn't have the first damned thing to do with her somehow wanting to pick a fight.

Those million numbers are bogus. They are phantom "data". They are of worse quality than John Mack's millions of Americans being abducted by aliens.

 

[Quad4_72]

Ah, the same tactic to try to "shoehorn" me as CFLarson uses. Let me look at the statistical data, k?

Let's see...

15,000 cases of accidental firearms accidents, according to this report. That's 5 people per 100,000. So that's 99,995 per 100,000 that aren't being accidentally shot.

Let's look at incidents...

50,000 cases of assault with a firearm, which is 17 per 100,000. So that's about 22 per 100,000 that are injured from a firearm. Ironically, the number only barely goes up if you include self-inflicted wounds, if I'm reading this website right. But it's non-fatal, and I guess most people get it right.

25 per 100,000 people in America suffer from sexual assault. That's 75,000 people. But oh, that's right, they can never defend themselves with a firearm... except when they do.

Though this is just involving non-fatal injuries. Which are recoverable.

However, there are few statistics of those that actually successfully defend themselves, namely because many of those incidents go unreported.

(I'll play around with the links when I have more time, and give an in-depth response)


So, yeah, it's "a lot"... even though it's only about 0.00025% of the population.

Which means that you have the odds of %99.99975 of not being injured (non-fatally) with a firearm.

If you just take accidental...

Your chances are 5*10^-5 chances of being injured accidentally. The percentage chance is so low, my calculator had to use scientific notation.

Now, when people go on and on about how many guns are coming into the U.S., or are being manufactured and distributed, compared to the number of firearms that actually cause (non-fatal) injuries, I just can't help but not be paranoid about it.

So, to recap: You're more likely to end up getting raped than you are to end up getting shot non-fatally, whether by accident or incident. You're *far* more likely to end up getting raped than you are to end up *accidentally* shooting yourself.

The "assault" part also includes gunshots used in self defense and in the course of law enforcement, I'm going to assume. So the odds are even lower for a non-justifiable wound.

Lonewulf your statistics are meaningless. You are not taking into account Larsens "Rage" factor

That still cracks me up.

 

[shanek]

Thanks - do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?

"A lot" is subjective. But of course it happens. If there are "a lot" of these accidents then there are "a lot" of drownings and other forms of accidental death, because the rates are on par with each other.

 

[CFLarsen]

However, there are few statistics of those that actually successfully defend themselves, namely because many of those incidents go unreported.

Come again?

Statistics of unreported incidents?

 

[Darat]

"A lot" is subjective. But of course it happens. If there are "a lot" of these accidents then there are "a lot" of drownings and other forms of accidental death, because the rates are on par with each other.

I know it is a subjective question and I was hoping you would give me your answer?

 

[Lothian]

Let's see...

15,000 cases of accidental firearms accidents,
50,000 cases of assault with a firearm,

Is that right? 23% of firearm assaults are accidental or have I misunderstood ?

 

[shanek]

I am confused. Do guns stop 2 million crimes a year or do they not stop any crime rather they change the intensity ?

If someone tries to rape a woman and she stops him, a crime has still taken place. "Attempted rape" is a crime. The only difference is, the woman is protected because she doesn't have to deal with actually being raped. But there is still one more crime being committed--the attempted rape.

Now, it's better to have an attempted rape than a real rape, but just as far as the numbers are concerned, the same number of crimes have occurred. And attempted rape usually gets reported along with rape (another problem with the UCRs).

 

[shanek]

I know it is a subjective question and I was hoping you would give me your answer?

I gave you the best answer I could. So unless you can provide me with any guidelines for what should constitute "a lot," or rephrase your question to get at what you're actually trying to know, that's the best I can give you.

 

[Lothian]

If someone tries to rape a woman and she stops him, a crime has still taken place. "Attempted rape" is a crime. The only difference is, the woman is protected because she doesn't have to deal with actually being raped. But there is still one more crime being committed--the attempted rape.

Now, it's better to have an attempted rape than a real rape, but just as far as the numbers are concerned, the same number of crimes have occurred. And attempted rape usually gets reported along with rape (another problem with the UCRs).

Ok. So you argue that guns have no effect on the crime rate but they do change the crimes that are committed ?

 

[rtalman]

Are you saying that people who have, in the past been guilty of a minor offence, and who have paid their debt to society, no longer deserve the right to protect themselves and their family and that as a result of their past actions their family deserve to die ?.

Leaving aside whether a felony is a minor offense, yes, positively.

My firmly held belief is that once you have demonstrated a certain level of civic irresponsibility, you should forfeit the privilege to own a gun.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ok. So you argue that guns have no effect on the crime rate but they do change the crimes that are committed ?

Not sure that is a valid conclusion. An attempted attack is still a crime, but it may well be that had the attack not been prevented more than one crime would have been committed. For example multiple murders instead of attempted murder - frankly the number of charges does not appear to constitute a major argument either way.

The claim is that in addition to incidents directly stopped, others are deterred by the possibility the victim is carrying a gun. It is not going to be possible to obtain statistics documenting such cases.

 

[Lothian]

Leaving aside whether a felony is a minor offense, yes, positively.

My firmly held belief is that once you have demonstrated a certain level of civic irresponsibility, you should forfeit the privilege to own a gun.

So the son should be punished for the crimes of the father?

 

[Lothian]

As I understand the arguments.

Owning a gun does not affect the likelihood of you being a victim of crime.

Owning a gun decreases the severity of the crime committed on gun owners.

Increases in gun ownership among victims increases the likelihood that attackers will be armed.

Armed assaults are more severe than unarmed assaults.

You can conclude from the above that an armed society will have similar crime to an unarmed society. However the armed society’s crime will be disproportionately severe on the unarmed as opposed to the armed.

Perhaps this is where we are. The fact that there are more severe cases in America (illustrated by some of the examples given) means that there is more fear and a reluctance to disarm as it makes it more likely that you will become a victim of severe crime.

In unarmed societies there is less fear of severe crimes and there is a reluctance to arm as the severity will increase making it more likely that the society will suffer from severe crime.

So we have armed societies putting themselves ahead of their society and unarmed societies putting the society ahead of themselves.

Therefore by keeping their guns Americans are showing how much they hate America……..wait. Is that a different thread ?

 

[rtalman]

So the son should be punished for the crimes of the father?

Objection! Asked and answered.

 

[Lothian]

Objection! Asked and answered.

I was just confimrming that you want the children to suffer.

 

[rtalman]

I was just confimrming that you want the children to suffer.

Now that's and interesting tack. We cannot increase gun control laws,it's for the children.

Won't somebody please think of the children? -- Mrs. Lovejoy.