Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

o/` Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust o/`

 

[Yjacket]

Can you provide any support for this claim?

Unfortunately I do not keep interesting articles from the newspapers. As I said, I recall. That is because I read it in the newspaper. It is a lot like that UN committee that has been pressuring the the US to ban civilian firearm ownership.

 

[The Fool]

Actually, it's more a case of magical thinking. They tend to talk, at least, like they believe that people are inherently good; but that firearms are magical objects that will invariably corrupt people and cause violent behaviour that otherwise who have had no impetus to exist.

Personally I find the Musings of gun control advocates like yourself and shane slightly confusing...maybe its the way you simply make up a contrary position for yourselves to argue against and nail it to the nearest bystanders.

 

[luchog]

Is it more probable that this situation will occur and that, just once, a gun will save your life, or that the gun will fall into criminal hands, cause an accidental death or wounding, backfire, break or just plain fail to work.

We're not talking absolutes, but your reason for owning a gun works in only a vanishingly rare case, whereas, as we know, guns falling into the wrong hands, or causing accidents, or being used in anger rather than defence is far more frequent.

Let's look at that. Can't do a lot of in-depth evaluation, but here're some quick numbers from the FBI and other sources.

There are roughly between 2 million incidents a year where firearms were used for self-defense and never fired*, as well as roughly 60,000 where the defender discharged his firearm, and that the reported violent crime rate for 2005 (the most recent FBI statistics) was 477,040 -- 16,692 of which were murders, including all gang-related shootings -- including crimes in which there were no injury or in which the victim successfully defended himself.

It's esimated that 47,600,000 households and 59,100,000 individuals own at least one firearm of any sort, for a total of roughly 258,000,000 privately-owned firearms; with the majority owning 2 or more. There are approximately 680,000 firearms stolen every year, 48% of which are recovered. Of these, roughly 80% are stolen during "cold" robberies. That's less than 0.4% of firearms stolen, and less than 0.3% subsequently used in crimes. And that includes all gang-related violent crime.

Sounds like you need to go back to school and learn some basic math.

*the FBI statistics only show roughly 700,000; but includes only reported incidents, several university studies estimate between 3 snd 4 times that many incidents occur

 

[Lonewulf]

Let's look at that. Can't do a lot of in-depth evaluation, but here're some quick numbers from the FBI and other sources.

There are roughly between 2 million incidents a year where firearms were used for self-defense and never fired*, as well as roughly 60,000 where the defender discharged his firearm, and that the reported violent crime rate for 2005 (the most recent FBI statistics) was 477,040 -- 16,692 of which were murders, including all gang-related shootings -- including crimes in which there were no injury or in which the victim successfully defended himself.

It's esimated that 47,600,000 households and 59,100,000 individuals own at least one firearm of any sort, for a total of roughly 258,000,000 privately-owned firearms; with the majority owning 2 or more. There are approximately 680,000 firearms stolen every year, 48% of which are recovered. Of these, roughly 80% are stolen during "cold" robberies. That's less than 0.4% of firearms stolen, and less than 0.3% subsequently used in crimes. And that includes all gang-related violent crime.

Sounds like you need to go back to school and learn some basic math.

*the FBI statistics only show roughly 700,000; but includes only reported incidents, several university studies estimate between 3 snd 4 times that many incidents occur

Not to mention that modern firearms of decent quality (such as the Colt 1911) and kept in decent condition have an extremely low chance of backfiring or misfiring. *Counting* on a misfire is like counting on lightning striking you. Poor quality firearms have a higher chances of a misfire, as do automatics over revolvers, but overall unless you keep it in dingy conditions, you can count on it firing unless someone sabotaged it.

This is one of those cases where actually understanding the firearm (when talking about misfires and the like) and understanding the mechanics and likelihood of modern gun failure comes in handy. This is one of those points where actual expertise steps in.

 

[Lonewulf]

Personally I find the Musings of gun control advocates like yourself and shane slightly confusing...maybe its the way you simply make up a contrary position for yourselves to argue against and nail it to the nearest bystanders.

Alrighty, Fool.

What is your proposition? Or do you have one? What is your stance? What are you for?

Are you arguing that America should tighten it's guns regulations? If so, do you think that that would work for the U.S.? Do you think that, overall, more gun control = better for the United States?

Should we ban the sale of handguns? Hunting rifles? Shotguns?

 

[The Fool]

Alrighty, Fool.

What is your proposition? Or do you have one? What is your stance? What are you for?

Are you arguing that America should tighten it's guns regulations? If so, do you think that that would work for the U.S.? Do you think that, overall, more gun control = better for the United States?

Should we ban the sale of handguns? Hunting rifles? Shotguns?

your country is awash with weapons. I think you could and should do something about that.....Try having a look at nations that are not awash with weapons. Things won't change overnight but everything has to start sometime.

I don't want to "ban" anything although I have and will probably continue to be assigned that position....either that or "anti gun" whatever that pointless statement is meant to mean.

 

[Lonewulf]

your country is awash with weapons. I think you could and should do something about that.....Try having a look at nations that are not awash with weapons. Things won't change overnight but everything has to start sometime.

I don't want to "ban" anything although I have and will probably continue to be assigned that position....either that or "anti gun" whatever that pointless statement is meant to mean.

Okay, so you don't want to ban firearms but you want to limit firearms from being available in the U.S.? How do you propose for America resolve the situation?

And will this really detract from overall violence levels, or just gun violence levels (as has been brought up), while non-gun violence levels rise?

I know that you don't like being assigned a position that you do not personally hold. Well, here's a good chance to make your stance clear on the subject...

 

[The Fool]

Okay, so you don't want to ban firearms but you want to limit firearms from being available in the U.S.? How do you propose for America resolve the situation?

And will this really detract from overall violence levels, or just gun violence levels (as has been brought up), while non-gun violence levels rise?

I know that you don't like being assigned a position that you do not personally hold. Well, here's a good chance to make your stance clear on the subject...

Probably the first problem you have to deal with is the basic fact the "because I want one" is a good enough reason for people to be allowed to keep weapons. In my country fear is not a valid reason for being allowed to be armed and no reason is not good enough either... but legitimate membership of a rifle or pistol club and actual participation in a sport including membership of authorised hunting groups is a valid enough reason for ownership of appropriate weapons.....This helps reduce the number of casual gun buyers who pick one up and then leave it lying around the house because it seemed like a good idea to get one at the time.

Tighten up the securing of weapons and secure weapons that thier owners can't manage to secure in a furnace.

Weapons that come into the possesion of the police due to being taken from people who shouldn't have them go into a furnace.

Eventually, the handgun is no longer a ten buck purchase or a free gift....If you want a handgun off the street no questions asked in Australia expect to pay close to 1000 bucks... A lot less Yobos have one down the pants at that price.

 

[Lonewulf]

Probably the first problem you have to deal with is the basic fact the "because I want one" is a good enough reason for people to be allowed to keep weapons.

"Because I want one" or "because I want to" generally, by itself, is not a good enough reason, no. Even relatively silly and harmless things, like a swimming pool, cannot be justified with simply, "Because I want to have one"; it has to be justified with an additional, "Because it's relatively harmless" (which they are not, as you're more likely to drown than get shot by a firearm), or "Because it's my right" (which it isn't), or "Because it's not made to harm others" (which is true 'nuff).

In my country fear is not a valid reason for being allowed to be armed and no reason is not good enough either...

In my country, the desire to protect yourself is a valid reason to want to have the appropriate tool for self-defense, however. Your country may disagree that the firearm is an appropriate tool for self defense, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here.

but legitimate membership of a rifle or pistol club and actual participation in a sport including membership of authorised hunting groups is a valid enough reason for ownership of appropriate weapons.....

Okay. How about membership with a group like the NRA, a group that teaches safeties, instructs you how to use (and not to use) a firearm, how to store the firearm, etc.?

And is using your pistol for ranged shooting good enough? As ranged shooting is actually more popular than hunting here, I believe.

This helps reduce the number of casual gun buyers who pick one up and then leave it lying around the house because it seemed like a good idea to get one at the time.

But is there really a significant number of accidents that are caused this way? Are there statistics or anything non-anecdotal that show that there is a huge number of people that just pick one up and leave it lying around the house?

If it is happening does cause many accidents, then yes, I'd agree. If it's happening and doesn't cause many accidents, then I think that a real harsh crack-down on this behavior isn't necessary. If it's generally not happening (if most gun owners actually do keep them locked in a secure location), then I'd have to say that this seems like FUD.

Tighten up the securing of weapons and secure weapons that thier owners can't manage to secure in a furnace.

I may agree with this to some extant, though I'm a bit dubious.

Weapons that come into the possesion of the police due to being taken from people who shouldn't have them go into a furnace.

Seems like a waste to me, but why not?

Eventually, the handgun is no longer a ten buck purchase or a free gift....

I was not aware that it was. I went to the local store here in Corpus. Most of the legal firearms were $400-800 a pop. I think that many of them were used, too.

Not sure about illegal firearms, but I do know that some local gangs actually can't get their hands on a firearm because it takes too many resources to gain. However, they *do* sometimes gain a hold of them through theft, so I could see a point there.

However, you did not answer one question (which is difficult to really answer completely): Would this lower overall violence, in your opinion? And does that opinion have much to actually support it? I'm not just talking about gun violence, but all violence.

 

[The Fool]

However, you did not answer one question (which is difficult to really answer completely): Would this lower overall violence, in your opinion? And does that opinion have much to actually support it? I'm not just talking about gun violence, but all violence.

The origins of violence in society is something for sociologists to debate, Guns just make violence more efficient, thats thier purpose....Fistfight, knifefight, gunfight....do we need to argue about the relative order of likelyhood of death being an outcome? I don't see how guns cause violence except maybe a small fringe effect where more efficient killing leads to a desire to take revenge in an equally efficient way. I don't see any evidence that Americans are more violent than anyone else but they do seem to want to have plenty of efficient tools suitable for that purpose..

 

[Lonewulf]

The origins of violence in society is something for sociologists to debate, Guns just make violence more efficient, thats thier purpose....Fistfight, knifefight, gunfight....do we need to argue about the relative order of likelyhood of death being an outcome?

A fair enough statement. But for the same reason that they make you more likely to kill, they also become more effective self-defense weapons.

I don't see how guns cause violence except maybe a small fringe effect where more efficient killing leads to a desire to take revenge in an equally efficient way. I don't see any evidence that Americans are more violent than anyone else but they do seem to want to have plenty of efficient tools suitable for that purpose..

Interestingly, this may make you one of the more rational debaters in this thread. I just regret that it took me asking you questions for it to come out. I can respect your viewpoint, but I'm afraid that I'd want to focus on other things besides stricter and stricter gun control in this society. While the guns issue is certainly an issue, there are others that we need to clear up as well; one needs to pick their battles and do a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm saying that it's extremely unlikely. Do you disagree? Yes or no?

I didn't ask if you thought it was likely or not.

Are you seriously saying that you will never, ever be so angry that you don't know - or care - what you do? No matter what happens?

Just yes or no.

Certainly. If there are no guns to go around, people cannot commit gun crimes. They commit knife crimes and axe crimes and crowbar crimes, but not gun crimes.

Are you saying that the crime level would be the same, regardless of what weapons people have? If they hadn't used a gun to kill, they would have used whatever else they had?

Capable? Yes. Likely? Not at all. And, what's your point?

Not at all likely? Are you serious? What do you base that on? The answer to the above is "no"?

Is it possible I will ever run into a situation where I would need a firearm to protect myself? Yes or no?

We can run these "yes or no" questions all day long. Until you provide the odds that I will fall into a rage, it's only so much hot air, and you just prove how "skeptical" you really are.

You keep talking about odds. You must have calculated the odds yourself, and found them to be acceptable to you.

How did you calculate the odds?

I'm not sure how or why you keep trying to extrapolate questions directed at me personally into the bigger picture of the United States. If you want to hear an answer pertaining to the U.S. in general please ask the question in that manner.

So yes, your question was answered perfectly, if you would like to rephrase it differently please do so.

You are saying that your description of how you would handle a gun is not what we can expect the general gun owner to do? You are not what the generic gun owner is like?

Perhaps this might help. This is the question you asked......

Notice that nowhere does it ask anything about the population of the United States. It would greatly be appreciated if you would refrain from your silly little word games and putting words into others mouths.

I'm not putting words in others mouths. I am pointing out the logical conclusion based on what you said.

Because after all is said and done, the risk from firearms is still less than other risks many people are willing to accept in day to day life.

But risks are not merely risks. If you never fly, you won't be killed in a plane crash. If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash.

But if people around you have guns, you can definitely be killed with a gun.

(I'd add something about "years of training" in martial arts: Krav Maga was selected by police forces and militaries across the world because some of the most important moves taught within it was not difficult to learn; in a few weeks of intensive training, police officers and military soldiers have been able to adequately defend themselves in numerous situations, from dealing with knives, clubs, firearms, and even some unarmed situations. So pardon me if I'm a bit confident in the style that has been shown to actually work).

The issue is not if it works, but if you are capable of making it work.

Really: You have absolutely no training in Krav Maga. It takes weeks of intensive training to learn, yet you have only played out some techniques on your friends.

You are seriously overestimating your own abilities.

I carry a gun now because certain crimes have gone up and I have my wife to think of - and I am getting older. Unless the police/government can guarantee complete freedom from crime I do not plan to change that - even if the law changes.

That is ludicrous. Where can the police/government guarantee "complete freedom from crime"?

Don't get the wrong idea about Claus.

He's like that in every thread.

Now, how would you know that if you (claim to) have me on ignore?

Occasionally someone with a gun who has not committed any previous crimes may go into a rage or something and kill somebody. But if they go into a rage to where they are intent on taking someones life, they will use other means if a gun is not available. This can be seen throughout history where people get stabbed to death in a fit of rage.

If this is the case, then Americans are somehow much more murderous than other nations. Why is that?

Trying to outright ban guns in the US is just a silly idea. It would not work, and it would simply leave law abiding citizens defenseless. Yes we know that the gun control advocates think that they live in such a perfect world where they don't have to worry about crime. Reality is, we do NOT live in a perfect world. Guns will always be readily available to criminals no matter how illegal guns become.

I cannot remember hearing any gun control advocate say that he thinks he lives in such a perfect world where he doesn't have to worry about crime.

Perhaps you could provide a quote from someone? Anyone.

Sorry there fella but it was you back in post at post 647 who said " Ah, yes, the old Kleck/Lott "2-3 million defensive gun uses" ruse." To me at least that indicates you feel that Kleck and Lott have collaborated at some point. You and only you mention a Kleck/Lott bit of information.

I am not responsible for your misunderstandings.

It is your statement so perhaps you should explain it.

I already have.

You suggested you could claim that grenades are useful for hunting, are sporting, and not primarily intended for killing people. I said that was a crap argument.

You followed up with “Excuse me, but what gives you the right to decide what weapons of choice I use for hunting?”

Nowhere did I address what you should be able to choose or not choose for hunting.

So, I can use a hand grenade for hunting?

You said that because there are restrictions on guns, that I should not be trusted to have them. It does not make sense that I should not be trusted with guns just because there are restrictions on them.

You are aware that the restrictions are there because other people cannot be trusted with guns?

Here is where you lied “But when you tell me what weapons I can use for hunting, you are doing the exact same thing that you complain gun control proponents are doing.” I never said anything to you about what you can hunt with. Lying is is a very weak position to argue from, it does not become you at all.

I'm not lying at all.

Take a look here for info on hoplophobia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia . You mistrust me just because I say I have firearms. It really makes no sense that an inanimate object should have such an effect on you.

Would you trust me with a nuclear weapon? It's an inanimate object, so it shouldn't make you mistrust me.

I think it is very unlikely that I will become so angry that I will not know or care what I do. I think you are not in any position to judge my character.

I didn't ask if it was likely. I asked if it was possible.

My penis/gun analogy was about choices people make, not about how we are born.

But people doesn't make a choice of whether they want to be born with a penis or not. So, your analogy is invalid.

And no I do not think women never commit sexual crimes

How will you prevent women from committing sexual crimes? You can't cut off their penises. Confiscate their dildos? What?

Are you seriously saying that he will?

No, I am saying that there is a possibility that he will. Try to read what I say.

Are you saying that they are always unjustifiable?

Flying into a rage while having a gun is always unjustifiable. You are out of control - and that's a bad situation if you have a gun.

Had the bombs, two propane fuel-air explosives, actually worked, estimates are that they would have leveled half the school and killed a whole lot more people than they managed with the firearms.

Yeah. But shootings are far more common than people blowing up each other with bombs. Why? Because while bombs are tricky to make, guns are freely available.

You don't know what a straw purchase is, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase

A straw purchase is illegal by it's definition. Had Anderson purchased the firearms for himself, then they would have been legal. His giving the firearms to Klebold and Harris would have been an illegal act, since they were not legally permitted to own or possess firearms. The fact that he purchased them on behalf of an ineligible third party means that the purchase itself was illegal, not merely his transfer to Klebold and Harris.

I assume that you think straw purchases is a bad thing. How will you prevent straw purchases?

And according to officials in the UK and Australia, this is equally true for those nations as well. The difference is that fewer criminals choose to use one, although that is changing with the increase in gang activity.

What "officials"? Please provide evidence.

Yes, do in fact read the source[/url=, since it it doesn't say anything near what Claus claims it does.

Not going to go over a point-by-point refutation, since I simply don't have the time or energy (due to lots of work and increasing illness), but I'll make a couple small comments.

No, of course not. Why refute my points?

Nearly 50% of fatal gunshot wounds, and nearly 90% of non-fatal gunshot wounds were black males, 15-24. This closely matches federal statistics on gang-related violence. Furthermore the "28% were killed because of an argument" statistic is misleading, since many one-on-one gang-related shootings are classified as "argument" unless they are part of a larger gang-related activity (such as a drug transaction, or a stated intent relating to gang activity, such as revenge shootings).

It just continues to support the fact that the vast majority of firearm violence in the US, just like the UK and Australia, is gang-related; not general citizenry going around shooting each other like most of the rest of the world likes to portray.

Where do you see that in the report??

Unfortunately I do not keep interesting articles from the newspapers. As I said, I recall. That is because I read it in the newspaper. It is a lot like that UN committee that has been pressuring the the US to ban civilian firearm ownership.

Your point is invalid, then.

Next time, please have the evidence ready, before you dismiss people's points.

Let's look at that. Can't do a lot of in-depth evaluation, but here're some quick numbers from the FBI and other sources.

There are roughly between 2 million incidents a year where firearms were used for self-defense and never fired*,

Waaaait a minute.

You said earlier:

That's why firearms are used an estimated 8 million times a year to prevent crimes. Because all those firearm holders simply dropped their firearms and surrendered, and the criminals got embarrased and walked away.

What is this game you are playing? Which is it, 2 million or 8 million?

There are approximately 680,000 firearms stolen every year

680,000 firearms stolen every year? That doesn't make you stop and reconsider for a split-second?

*the FBI statistics only show roughly 700,000; but includes only reported incidents, several university studies estimate between 3 snd 4 times that many incidents occur

Or, is it 8 million?

 

[clarsct]

Any new arguements?

Hav ewe been through that swimming pools kill more kids per year than guns?

Did we do the drug/alcohol comparison?

Have we been through the US Constitution with a fine tooth comb?

Have the anti-gun people compared owning a pistol to owning a nuke?

Have we trotted out umpteen million stats that convince no one?

No I didn't read the thread. And I am not going to. I'm not quite THAT bored. Nor masochistic.

Maybe it's time to bury the thread? Yes? No?


Well, I'm going for a walk...see you in another 20 pages....

 

[Lothian]

I like how you avoided the non-firearm-related murder rate, as well as the overall violent crime rate. Makes it almost look like you had a valid point.

The thread was about guns. Should I have included car accidents in the figures ?

Like for like statistics show that you are nearly 50 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than the UK. That is a valid point. There are lots of others but it is nevertheless still valid no matter how much you dislike it.

 

[Skibum]

You are saying that your description of how you would handle a gun is not what we can expect the general gun owner to do? You are not what the generic gun owner is like?

See, there you go again, playing your games. If you want me to answer a specific question ask it. Don't ask for my thoughts on what I would do, then try to extrapolate them to a larger group.
I haven't done any proper studies of the general population to give you a decent answer.

I'm not putting words in others mouths. I am pointing out the logical conclusion based on what you said.

No, you are. I fail to see how If I were to ask you what your favorite food is, how I could magically conclude that you are answering for Denmark as a whole, same thing you are doing.

But risks are not merely risks. If you never fly, you won't be killed in a plane crash. If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash.

Oh really? I'm stunned at your total lack of logical thought.

But if people around you have guns, you can definitely be killed with a gun.

True.

 

[richardm]

Hav ewe been through that swimming pools kill more kids per year than guns?

If you ban swimming pools then only criminals will have swimming pools.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

He can hit me on the head with something else in the room. If there's nothing else in the room, he can strangle me. I'm not very strong (particularly right now) and he would have little trouble in doing so. My only hope would be to have an effective means of defending myself.

And all of these are significantly more difficult as means of killing people than shooting them and involve a risk to the perpetrator. So a percentage of those willing to kill with a gun may well be unable or unwilling to do so without one.

And what about the other teachers in neighboring classrooms?

Well by the time they had realised what was going on, retrieved their gun, loaded it and responded, my guess is a good number of children would be dead. Easy to kill large numbers quickly with several loaded guns, the element of surprise and no consideration for getting away.

What do you think would have happened? And at the same time could you answer the question in my previous post that you did not quote:

"What do you think would have happened if Hamilton DID NOT have a gun?"

I think it is highly unlikely he could have killed the number of people he did before they escaped and/or he was overpowered. His spree is thought to have lasted 3-4 minutes. It is unrealistic to suggest he could kill a child every 15 seconds without a gun.

 

[shanek]

The thread was about guns. Should I have included car accidents in the figures ?

It's comments like this which clearly shows why gun control people shouldn't be taken seriously. Anyone who thinks can see the relevance here.

Like for like statistics show that you are nearly 50 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than the UK. That is a valid point. There are lots of others but it is nevertheless still valid no matter how much you dislike it.

Regression analysis...regression analysis...REGRESSION ANALYSIS...

 

[William Rea]

Regression analysis...regression analysis...REGRESSION ANALYSIS...

What parameters do you want to see on the regression analysis? What will be an acceptable R^2 value for the exercise?