Gun Control is ridiculous

[CFLarsen]

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 ?

No. Right on the mark.

 

[Lothian]

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

I have dropped all rational arguments and am now purely going for the sentimental vote. Next I am planning to post pictures of cats that have been shot.

 

[shanek]

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

Some crimes, yes.

 

[Darat]

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.

I'm asking for your opinion.

 

[shanek]

You have my opinion.

 

[fuelair]

And the Swiss require their citizens to keep assault rifles in their homes, and have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

All in all I like that aspect of the Swiss arrangement!

 

[Darat]

You have my opinion.

Shane I don't, you haven't given me an answer - you've merely said that "1a lot" is subjective.

In your opinion - and with whatever subjective value you wish to apply to my use of the term "a lot" - do you agree that there are a lot of accidental deaths and injury every year with legally owned firearms?

 

[quixotecoyote]

And yet, I have friends that have been in those situations.

A woman posted within this thread that was in one of those situations.

It's so unlikely, yet some people find themselves within them. I guess they don't exist.

If your friends act like you talk, they probably didn't need to be in those situations to start with, and may have avoided them if unarmed.

I may have missed the woman's post you mentioned. 900+ posts, I try to keep up, but undoubtedly a few slipped by,

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.

If by "statistics" you mean "unsourced numbers pulled out of luchog's ass", then yes I have been shown statistics. I'm not that impressed as they smell rather unpleasent.

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.

And a gun is best for that situation? Being jumped in an alley is the exact kind of short range/close combat situation where the person with a gun is a at a disadvantage. I'm starting to count ninjas now.

As mentioned before, you don't have to fire your firearm, and part of the arguments here has been "concealed carry". If you're going to tell me that some people I know haven't been able to disarm opponents ready to mug, attack, or RAPE them by threatening with a gun or warning the assailant that they had a firearm, then I'll call you a liar. If you're going to tell me that there isn't a significant number of these people, I'd either call you a liar, or demand you provide some evidence.

As above, you come off as having, shall we say "heroic" aspirations, so if your friends are anything like you I'm not that convinced trouble found them rather than the other way around. This is of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt that events actually happened the way you say you did.

As for the significant number of people like them, the only number that you and Shanek have been using was pulled unsourced from luchog's post. But read on, I have better #'s.

Alright, Quixote, you like odds.

1) Give me statistics that show how often people get hurt by firearms over being able to defend themselves with guns. Actual statistics, not "guesses" or the "40 ninjas" bull, something actual quantifiable and not just, "It seems unlikely to me".

231,000 injuries or deaths a year from firearms. :http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/firearms/index.html

Now where it gets intersting is parsing the data on the other side. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

82500 people use firearms a year in self-defense against crime. However, I don't know if it's possible just to use that number. Should we use the 62200 figure that says how often it's used during a violent crime? Maybe the 22000 figure where they faced a violent offender who also had a firearm (still generous as it included confrontation with police). Maybe we should use the 17600 figure where they did so without suffering injury.

Given the most generous interpretation, guns are 280% as likely to cause injury or death compared to being used for self defense. Using the lowest self-denfese #'s brings the figure to 1313% as likely. If we were using a stricily utilitarian policy analysis, this would be the end of it here, before we even consider that this same source shows 340700 incidents of firearm theft a year (incidents, not guns stolen).

Here's some interesting extrapolation.

Given a 70 lifespan and assuming an even risk, you have a half percent chance of being one of the people injured by guns over your lifetime.
Given those same assumptions you have half of a thousandth of a percent chance of using a gun against an armed criminal.

2)What are the chances that a total gun ban would be accepted within the U.S., especially in the southern states?

3) What are the chances that extreme tightening of guns regulations will go over well, with either the state governments or the individuals under them?

None and none. But just because you're fanatical, it doesn't mean you're right.

 

[shanek]

Shane I don't, you haven't given me an answer - you've merely said that "1a lot" is subjective.

And that is my opinion. It's too subjective to be of any use here.

 

[shanek]

If by "statistics" you mean "unsourced numbers pulled out of luchog's ass", then yes I have been shown statistics. I'm not that impressed as they smell rather unpleasent.

They weren't pulled out of anyone's ass. The 700,000 number, the minimum (as it's the number reported), came from the FBI, and the numbers showing a much larger amount of unreported DGUs come from many places, most notably Gary Kleck's research; he's a criminologist with FSU.

And a gun is best for that situation? Being jumped in an alley is the exact kind of short range/close combat situation where the person with a gun is a at a disadvantage. I'm starting to count ninjas now.

I posted an incident where it happened. If denying reality is your tactic then I wonder how you actually manage to get dressed in the morning.

As above, you come off as having, shall we say "heroic" aspirations, so if your friends are anything like you I'm not that convinced trouble found them rather than the other way around.

And now you're also resorting to personal attacks as well.

Another worthless gun control nut who won't debate properly.

 

[quixotecoyote]

They weren't pulled out of anyone's ass. The 700,000 number, the minimum (as it's the number reported), came from the FBI, and the numbers showing a much larger amount of unreported DGUs come from many places, most notably Gary Kleck's research; he's a criminologist with FSU.

Hold on, new research coming in. The DoJ just reported there are only 10 cases of self defense a year and 5 million accidential injuries. Half of those are babies and a third are kittens. Dr. Gregor Harken, a statistician with 40 years of experience, supervised those studies so you know they're correct.

I guess you have to support my position now.

I posted an incident where it happened. If denying reality is your tactic then I wonder how you actually manage to get dressed in the morning.

To Lonewulf I gave the benefit of the doubt because he's hot tempered but I haven't seen him post lies. You I have. I followed Claus's links to you going ******* crazy when you got called on your misinterpretations of other's posts, so please forgive me if I give your accusations of denying realtiy so little weight.

Also if you posted it in this thread you didn't use the word 'alley', and there's so many hypotheticals and 'it happened to a friend' stories that I can't match the one you're speaking of.

And now you're also resorting to personal attacks as well.

Another worthless gun control nut who won't debate properly.

I wonder if debating properly means reading when posts are addressed to you.

 

[shanek]

It doesn't matter if it was addressed to me or not; it was a personal attack against the person you were responding to.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I weep for you.

eta: And I weep for Lonewulf.

I shall commence the ritual self-flagellation at dawn.

 

[Lonewulf]

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

Yet I have seen no proposal that would adequately cause neither side to have no firearm.

Banning firearms would work just as well as prohibition. A continued restriction on firearms licenses would eventually cause an uproar in the population.

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?

How many Thomas Hamiltons are in society?

 

[Lonewulf]

I weep for you.

eta: And I weep for Lonewulf.

I really can't bring myself to care.

 

[quixotecoyote]

My sarcasm trumps yours.

 

[Lonewulf]

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

I think you've misunderstood, but I honestly can't say for sure. I'd have to go back and filter through it. I was just making some rough estimates before class, so I kinda dropped off my thought on it.

First of all, this data is from a few years ago. Since then, violence in general has been going down, including firearm violence. Keep that in mind.

Okay, let me check this out:

Around 15,500 injuries are caused by accident (rounding to the nearest 500).

"Assault -- Other" is 50,000. That means actual assault.

So the number 15,500 and 50,000 are side by side, not included within one another. I guess that makes 75,000 total people injured by firearm. However, I would say that you should keep in mind that this seems to include *all* injury by gunshot including in law enforcement and shots in self defense, *and* the victims have all survived. I'm just dealing with the statistics that I was presented, and now it's time to mess around a bit.

Assault, PERIOD, from ALL causes, whether sexual, or physical, or whatever else, INCLUDING with firearms, are a total of... 1,660,775. That's 560 people per 100,000 people.

So, that means that within the United States, you have (based on these estimates, not factoring for race, ethnicity, economic background, location,e tc.) a %0.0056 chance of being assaulted and injured (deaths aren't factored here). You are one hundred times more likely to be assaulted than to be injured by an accidental discharge of a firearm. You are 32 times more likely to be assaulted without a firearm than with (including rapes). Unintentional injury, including with firearms, involved 27,156,734 people, or 9,162 per 100,000 people. That means that you have around a 9.2% chance of being injured. Yet only a %.005 of being injured by a firearm by accident, if I did my math correctly (check me on it: 5 divided by 100,000, and then put into percentage).

I dunno, call me crazy, but I just don't feel so paranoid about the gun situation...

 

[Lothian]

I think you've misunderstood, but I honestly can't say for sure. ..Around 15,500 injuries are caused by accident (rounding to the nearest 500).

"Assault -- Other" is 50,000. That means actual assault.

So the number 15,500 and 50,000 are side by side, not included within one another. I guess that makes 75,000 total people injured by firearm.

65,500

However, I would say that you should keep in mind that this seems to include *all* injury by gunshot including in law enforcement and shots in self defense, *and* the victims have all survived. I'm just dealing with the statistics that I was presented, and now it's time to mess around a bit.

Assault, PERIOD, from ALL causes................

I am not interested in fist fights etc. lets keep to guns.

To restate your figures. Of the people shot; one in four was someone shooting themselves or a friend.

◊◊◊◊ me.

 

[Lonewulf]

65,500 I am not interested in fist fights etc. lets keep to guns.

Crapola. I always was sloppy at mathematics.

I am not interested in fist fights etc. lets keep to guns.

I said ALL assaults. That includes fists, crow bars, knives, chairs, tables, whatever else. You may not be interested, but I am pointing out how overblown people are making this guns situation.

To restate your figures. Of the people shot; one in four was someone shooting themselves or a friend.

◊◊◊◊ me.

Most of the time someone uses a gun, it's either to attempt to kill their opponent ("shooting for the legs" is for the movies or the very brave), or to warn their opponent off. That askews things a bit. Still, admittedly, I think that actual murder rates with firearms are far lower than injury... just because humans are harder to kill than hollywood suggests (Unless you're the main hero). However, I wonder if there's any statistics demonstrating the number of times someone has warded off attackers with a firearm instead of fired at them.

However, let me break this down individually, by how the person was treated:

*Treated and released -- 8,807 out of 15,000. This indicates a minor injury.
*Hospitalized -- 5,236 (Note: Warned as an unstable figure, given the sample size, according to the report)
*Observed/Left/Unknown -- 63

The rest of the figure seems to involve transfers...

 

[Lothian]

I said ALL assaults. That includes fists, crow bars, knives, chairs, tables, whatever else. You may not be interested, but I am pointing out how overblown people are making this guns situation.

And I am pointing out that a huge part of the gun situation is people shooting themselves or a friend.