Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Hittman]

Given the undeniably high rate of deaths and injuries that occur in a non-self defensive circumstance as a result of readily accessible loaded firearms, it seems illogical to argue that doing so is a good idea for a very very small number of incidents where a victim may or may not be able to protect themselves with a readily accessible loaded firearm.

It's actually pretty low. 60% of US firearm deaths are suicides. 40% are Homicides, 3% are accidental and 2% are legal (mostly cops killing people.) The numbers are, of course, approximate, so they don't add up to 100%. For 2005 there were 30694 gun deaths, but if we subtract the suicides we're looking at 12,277, out of 300,000,000 people.

But guns don't exist just to kill – they are used far more often to intimidate, to present a credible threat of force that can scare a criminal away without firing a shot. It's hard to get a good number on this, because, given the legal climate in this country, if you scare away a burglar it's not a great idea to call the cops and tell them about it. The federal government estimates this happens 100,000 times a year, which seems way too low. Gun enthusiasts claim it's 2.5 million times a year, which seems way too high. (That's just a little below 1% of the population.) The real number is somewhere in the middle – but let's say we go with the very lowest, the federal number. If we were to leave those people defenseless, how many of those events would have turned into homicides?

The simple statistical fact is if you have a loaded accessible firearm in your house, that weapon is far, far more likely to be used to kill or inflict injury on you or a member of your family than it is to protect you.

This is another gun-grabber fun-with-statistics BS number. The actual claim isn't family member, but "someone you know." Think about it. Are you more likely to be attacked by a complete stranger, or someone you know? Duh.

Only because it is wrong.

You might want to bone up on some basic constitutional laws and principles.

The first amendment guarantees the right of free assembly. Yet the government can require you to obtain a permit, can they not?

On government property, yes. But not in your home. And I'd argue that the requirement on government property is unconstitutional.

Rights are not absolute. If gun ownership was an absolute right, then the government could not deny felons the right to own guns.

A felon, by definition, has broken the law. Just as someone who has, say, put up a web site threatening the president can be prohibited from using the internet as part of their punishment, a felon can lose their right to firearms, voting, and whatever else Big Brother wants to take away.

The government does whatever it pleases, and frequently, make that usually, ignores the constitution. Using that as justification for your claims shows a basic misunderstanding of what rights are and how they are supposed to work.

 

[Cicero]

Lets not forget the majority of rape victims know their attacker, and are in a place of perceived safety and comfort at the time of the attack.

Given the undeniably high rate of deaths and injuries that occur in a non-self defensive circumstance as a result of readily accessible loaded firearms, it seems illogical to argue that doing so is a good idea for a very very small number of incidents where a victim may or may not be able to protect themselves with a readily accessible loaded firearm.

The simple statistical fact is if you have a loaded accessible firearm in your house, that weapon is far, far more likely to be used to kill or inflict injury on you or a member of your family than it is to protect you.

All your "statistics'" pale to insignificance if even one female's access to a weapon stopped one rapist. Good thing you are not the one making the determination for women as to how they can protect themselves.

 

[Cicero]

As is every other opinion, since no opinion reaches 50%. In fact, the "liberal satisfied" and "conservative satisfied" add up to a whopping 28%.

No.

BTW, does one need to have been raped to have an opinion on rape laws? Even to know someone who has been raped? Then why would my firearms history be at all relevant here?

Only because it is wrong. A concept that seems to have escaped you.

The first amendment guarantees the right of free assembly. Yet the government can require you to obtain a permit, can they not?

Rights are not absolute. If gun ownership was an absolute right, then the government could not deny felons the right to own guns.

Hittman already exposed the obvious errors in your bizarre arguments. Perhaps you should confine yourself to subjects you have even a passing acquaintance?

BTW: If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that the numbers of those who are for the same or less firearm restrictions among all groups is 58 compared to those who want more or total restrictions is 21.

 

[gdnp]

On government property, yes. But not in your home. And I'd argue that the requirement on government property is unconstitutional.

And I assume you can cite legal precedent to support this argument?

Assuming that the government does have the power to regulate the right to free assembly on public property for the purposes of public safety, doesn't that imply that they may also have the power to regulate firearms in public?

A felon, by definition, has broken the law. Just as someone who has, say, put up a web site threatening the president can be prohibited from using the internet as part of their punishment, a felon can lose their right to firearms, voting, and whatever else Big Brother wants to take away.

Although strangely enough I have never seen where it says in the constitution that the government has the right to strip felons of their constitutional rights.

The government does whatever it pleases, and frequently, make that usually, ignores the constitution. Using that as justification for your claims shows a basic misunderstanding of what rights are and how they are supposed to work.

My understanding is that rights are given by God or natural law and that the founding fathers chose to explicitly state some of these rights in the first 10 amendments to the US constitution. In 1803, although not spelled out in the constitution, the Supreme Court under John Marshall unilaterally decided in the case Marbuy vs. Madison that it has the right to determine whether something is constitutional or not, establishing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of US laws. So constitutional rights in the US are essentially whatever the current Supreme Court justices decide they are. Do you have some other understanding about how rights are "supposed to work?" Do you think the right to keep and bear arms is based on natural law? Derivable algebraically? Written on some ancient stone tablets given by God?

 

[gdnp]

Hittman already exposed the obvious errors in your bizarre arguments. Perhaps you should confine yourself to subjects you have even a passing acquaintance?

Well, if you followed your own advice, you'd be restricted to the thread you started on the Obama's choice of a dog.

BTW: If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that the numbers of those who are for the same or less firearm restrictions among all groups is 58 compared to those who want more or total restrictions is 21.

But I am intellectually honest. You are correct.

Of course, if you were intellectually honest you would admit that the percentage of those who are for the same or greater firearms restrictions among all groups is 53%, compared to those who want fewer or no restrictions at 25%.

 

[gumboot]

All your "statistics'" pale to insignificance if even one female's access to a weapon stopped one rapist. Good thing you are not the one making the determination for women as to how they can protect themselves.

I personally think preventing large numbers of innocent people being injured and killed is far more worthy than maybe preventing one woman from being raped.

 

[gdnp]

I personally think preventing large numbers of innocent people being injured and killed is far more worthy than maybe preventing one woman from being raped.

That is because you are rational. But statistics and logic will never defeat bias and emotion.

 

[leftysergeant]

Drive-by shootings have always been more common, per capita, in California, where it is absurdly hard to obtain most weapons legally, than in Washington, where any sane, moral citzen can get a CPL. I think that the greater chance that someone might return fire has a bit to do with that.

 

[Drudgewire]

That is because you are rational. But statistics and logic will never defeat bias and emotion.

Did we ever get those stats on "women usually being asleep when they're raped in their home?"

Claus may be gone, but his "the anti-gun side is rational by default" mentality lives on.

 

[gdnp]

Drive-by shootings have always been more common, per capita, in California, where it is absurdly hard to obtain most weapons legally, than in Washington, where any sane, moral citzen can get a CPL. I think that the greater chance that someone might return fire has a bit to do with that.

I blame the traffic and the overall level of sanity in the respective populations.

 

[Cicero]

I blame the traffic and the overall level of sanity in the respective populations.

dito New Jersey:

http://www.fox59.com/pages/landing/...l-2-injure-4-in-Ne=1&blockID=117303&feedID=16

How can this be when N.J. has

1) Permit to Purchase ID Cards
2) Police record of all transfers of handguns
3) Licensing of Owners
4) Permit to Carry ID Cards

 

[applecorped]

dito New Jersey:

http://www.fox59.com/pages/landing/...l-2-injure-4-in-Ne=1&blockID=117303&feedID=16

How can this be when N.J. has

1) Permit to Purchase ID Cards
2) Police record of all transfers of handguns
3) Licensing of Owners
4) Permit to Carry ID Cards

Those pesky criminals just won't obey the law!

 

[Cicero]

I personally think preventing large numbers of innocent people being injured and killed is far more worthy than maybe preventing one woman from being raped.

Why are New Zealand's anti-gun groups, Coalition for Gun Control, and Gunsafe N, no longer active? Perhaps they espoused the same hysterical rhetoric you use and that led to their demise?

I wish there were a way to arrange for a meeting with you and this rape victim that could have prevented the attack had she been allowed access to firearms. You could console her with platitudes about her sacrifice for the greater good.

 

[gdnp]

dito New Jersey:

http://www.fox59.com/pages/landing/...l-2-injure-4-in-Ne=1&blockID=117303&feedID=16

How can this be when N.J. has

1) Permit to Purchase ID Cards
2) Police record of all transfers of handguns
3) Licensing of Owners
4) Permit to Carry ID Cards

OMG!!! There was a drive-by shooting in New Jersey in October 2008!!!!! We must repeal all the gun laws!!!!!!

 

[gdnp]

I wish there were a way to arrange for a meeting with you and this rape victim that could have prevented the attack had she been allowed access to firearms. You could console her with platitudes about her sacrifice for the greater good.

I wish there were a way to arrange for a meeting with you and the parent of a child handgun victim whose death could have prevented if the country had stricter firearms laws. You could console her with your self-righteous constitutional defense.

 

[Cicero]

I wish there were a way to arrange for a meeting with you and the parent of a child handgun victim whose death could have prevented if the country had stricter firearms laws. You could console her with your self-righteous constitutional defense.

I know you are determined to prove that liberals are genetically incapable of making a valid analogy, but how is denying a women access to a firearm to ward off a rapist the same as irresponsible parents allowing their dopey kids access to their firearms? What firearm law would be a 100% guarantee against this scenario other than a total abolishment of firearms countrywide? And how would this be accomplished when there are 300 million firearms already in circulation?

 

[Cicero]

OMG!!! There was a drive-by shooting in New Jersey in October 2008!!!!! We must repeal all the gun laws!!!!!!

"The city registered 106 homicides in 2007, leading the Newark Teachers Union to sponsor several billboards imploring: "HELP WANTED: Stop The Killings In Newark Now!"

On the other side of the billboard it said "Loony Anti-Gunners Needn't Apply: Strict Gun Laws Didn't Stop The Killings In Newark Now, or Ever."

 

[gdnp]

I know you are determined to prove that liberals are genetically incapable of making a valid analogy, but how is denying a women access to a firearm to ward off a rapist the same as irresponsible parents allowing their dopey kids access to their firearms?

For the analogy challenged:

Cicero pointed out a case where a hypothetical woman is injured due to overly stringent gun control laws. Classic appeal to emotion and argument by anecdote. I pointed out a case where a hypothetical child is injured due to overly lax gun control laws. Also an appeal to emotion and argument by anecdote and equally invalid as an argument, but the point was not to make a valid argument but to point out the absurdity of Cicero's argument.

What firearm law would be a 100% guarantee against this scenario other than a total abolishment of firearms countrywide? And how would this be accomplished when there are 300 million firearms already in circulation?

What, your standard for good policy is 100% guarantee? Can you give me a 100% guarantee to me that loosening gun control restrictions will assure that no woman is ever raped again?

You are wearing out my rolleyes smiley.

 

[gdnp]

On the other side of the billboard it said "Loony Anti-Gunners Needn't Apply: Strict Gun Laws Didn't Stop The Killings In Newark Now, or Ever."

Well, if it says it, it must be true, right?

 

[Cicero]

For the analogy challenged:

Cicero pointed out a case where a hypothetical woman is injured due to overly stringent gun control laws. Classic appeal to emotion and argument by anecdote. I pointed out a case where a hypothetical child is injured due to overly lax gun control laws. Also an appeal to emotion and argument by anecdote and equally invalid as an argument, but the point was not to make a valid argument but to point out the absurdity of Cicero's argument.



What, your standard for good policy is 100% guarantee? Can you give me a 100% guarantee to me that loosening gun control restrictions will assure that no woman is ever raped again?

You are wearing out my rolleyes smiley.

I didn't advocate "loosening" the current federal regulations. You and gumboot are the ones who advocate New York City, or even worse, type regulations for the entire country. In your dream worlds, an average women has a slim chance to legally procure a firearm for protection. Then you came up with a scenario that excuses a parent's responsibility for their own children by shifting the blame to the inanimate object, the firearm.

Since both you and gumboot have zero first hand knowledge of firearms, all your arguments are mired in the theoretical world.