Gun Control is ridiculous

[shanek]

This isn't about the benefit (or perceived benefit) to society, it's about the benefit (or perceived benefit) to the individual. That's really the ideological debate at the heart of this particular issue, as whilst strict gun control advocates believe their position would on balance be better for everyone, those who are for gun liberalisation believe their position is better for themselves.

It's individualism vs communalism at its basest, really.

You are absolutely correct, in my estimation. But what is a society but individuals? How can you say society is protected if the individuals who comprise that society are not? And how many individual lives are worth losing to protect "society"?

Let me phrase it this way: let's say that you're correct that more people would be saved with gun control that would be harmed. What would you then say to those that were harmed? "It's okay, because society is protected"? "Isn't it great that, despite the fact that you're hospitalized and may need years of therapy to recover, that other people who weren't even involved in this incident are safe"?

 

[Darat]

Because the question itself isn't meaningful to me.

Remind me if we are at lunch again and I say "is that enough" that you can't answer that question in a meaningful way!

 

[Ranb]

The same goes for guns. We don't start out with guns. If you want to argue that a society as a whole is a better place with guns than without, then you have to provide the evidence.

If you want to argue that a society as a whole is a better place without guns than with, then you have to provide the evidence.

Are you going to tell someone that their property is bad for society without providing proof?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

But then, you don't know if those filling out 4473 are trustworthy or not. Correct?

I'm not mean spirited. I'm pointing out that there are serious flaws in your argument.

We apply statistics to any one person to know what the risks are for that particular person. You can erect all sorts of conditions to diminish the risk of something happening. Like, oh, removing the gun in the first place.

You are correct; I do not know what small percentage of those who fill out the 4473 are not trustworthy.

You make errors, and when someone points them out to you, you resort to insults instead of acknowledging your error.

Statistics can not apply equaling to everyone simply because there are different conditions in which everyone lives. One example is different cultures and countries which result in a wide variety of laws.

My risk of being a victim of violent crime are much affected by where I live, not just which statistic you decide to apply to me.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Would you like the government to check everyone who wants a gun's friends before giving them one? Or is that becoming so unwieldy and unviable that it really starts to become absurd?

More pointedly should public policy be made on a one-to-one basis? Or should they use the evidence based on general experience?

If the evidence is correct (and as a good sceptic I have no reason to doubt quixotecoyote's evidence, do you.....

I do not understand your first sentence.

General experience indicates that most people do not injure themselves with a firearm, or injure others. So yes, I would go with that.

Quixotecoyote's links look ok. But it says in part;

National statistics for 1994 indicate that 52% of firearm deaths resulted from suicide, 43% from homicide and 5% were classified as unintentional.

Were police shootings also included? I bet that many of the homicides were gang members killing each other.

It was interesting to read from his link;

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

Defending yourself with a firearm may help you escape injury.

Statistics say (as someone that might live anywhere in the USA) that my guns may threaten me more than criminals. This does not manifestly make me and my family more at risk. I do not live in a high crime area, and I have no child in the house. It is unlikely that I will ever have to use a gun for defense or that anyone will have unauthorised access to them.

If you were a good skeptic, then you would not be claiming that I want to execute drug addicts.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

If you want to argue that a society as a whole is a better place without guns than with, then you have to provide the evidence.

Are you going to tell someone that their property is bad for society without providing proof?

Having guns is not the default position. Not having guns is.

If you want to argue that guns are beneficial, the onus is on you.

You are correct; I do not know what small percentage of those who fill out the 4473 are not trustworthy.

How do you know it is small?

Statistics can not apply equaling to everyone simply because there are different conditions in which everyone lives. One example is different cultures and countries which result in a wide variety of laws.

My risk of being a victim of violent crime are much affected by where I live, not just which statistic you decide to apply to me.

We can definitely use nationwide statistics to determine the nationwide risk you run of being a victim of violent crime.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Having guns is not the default position. Not having guns is.

Why? Because you say so?

Both Darat and I have tried to explain this to you. Your argument seems to be that because we are not born with them then this is the default. Surely you can see what a nonsensical position that is?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why? Because you say so?

Both Darat and I have tried to explain this to you. Your argument seems to be that because we are not born with them then this is the default. Surely you can see what a nonsensical position that is?

Apparently not.

What am I missing?

 

[Lonewulf]

We can definitely use nationwide statistics to determine the nationwide risk you run of being a victim of violent crime.

Chance of an injury by assault is 17 in 100,000, or %0.016. This is not adjusted for location, economic status, etc.

22 in 100,000 (including accidental injuries), if I read the survey right (there's a possibility I did not), That's a 0.022%.

Now, include basic firearms training, a non-alcoholic drug habit, lack of mind-altering substances taken, living in a safe neighborhood, not being a gangster member, etc., and the chances drop considerably.

Your chances of being injured, period, are nearly 1 in 10. This is nearly 1 in 4500 chance, if I did my math correctly. Once more, the latter is a general assumption, with no specifics such as age, race, disposition, location, whether you're in a gang or not, etc.

I find those odds acceptable.

 

[Darat]

Apparently not.

What am I missing?

Real v. Hypothetical

Real:
Today in the UK there is a set of laws regarding gun ownership, those laws represent the current "default" position today of UK society in regards to guns.

Hypothetical:
Today we are going to start a new society of humans, since this is a new society the "default" position is no guns, since humans don't come equipped with guns.

 

[CFLarsen]

I find those odds acceptable.

Per year, perhaps.

Do you dare calculate your life time odds?

 

[Lonewulf]

Per year, perhaps.

Do you dare calculate your life time odds?

Oooo, good point. Though the numbers may get kinda screwy.

I don't think that I should multiply the number by 77 (average lifespan in the U.S.), right? There needs to be somewhat extra that needs to be done to get an accurate result?

Like I said, I'm not a math major

 

[CFLarsen]

Real v. Hypothetical

Real:
Today in the UK there is a set of laws regarding gun ownership, those laws represent the current "default" position today of UK society in regards to guns.

Hypothetical:
Today we are going to start a new society of humans, since this is a new society the "default" position is no guns, since humans don't come equipped with guns.

Humans have only come equipped with guns until relatively recently in human history (and then, only a select few). There have always been all kinds of laws, regulations and limitations, regardless of when and where you were.

We have never worked from the assumption that guns were the default position. Guns is something extra.

You are the one who is arguing that it is up to those who hold the default position to present evidence to retain it, not me.

Ehhh....no. I'm arguing the opposite. Those who want to challenge the default position must present evidence.

 

[Ranb]

Having guns is not the default position. Not having guns is.

If you want to argue that guns are beneficial, the onus is on you.


How do you know it is small?


We can definitely use nationwide statistics to determine the nationwide risk you run of being a victim of violent crime.

Gun possession is the default position where I live.

Since I have a right to own guns, there has (should) to be some burden of proof that they are not beneficial if they are to be banned.

How do you know it isn't? The people who fill out the forms claim to be honest. You have data that says more than a small percentage is not? If you are claiming that people are dishonest, then it is up to you to prove otherwise.

I do not live/travel nationwide. I live in Washington. Nationwide statistics you are using are of little use when applied to me.

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

Ehhh....no. I'm arguing the opposite. Those who want to challenge the default position must present evidence.

Default position in the U.S., or at least in Texas and many southern states, is that we should have #3 on on the chart I provided earlier.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oooo, good point. Though the numbers may get kinda screwy.

I don't think that I should multiply the number by 77 (average lifespan in the U.S.), right? There needs to be somewhat extra that needs to be done to get an accurate result?

Like I said, I'm not a math major

I don't know your age, but if you are anywhere from middle-aged and younger, at the rate of scientific progress and better knowledge of health issues, you will probably make it to way beyond mid-80s.

Just as a ball park figure, it sure doesn't look as appealing as before, does it? Think about it - if there is even a 1% chance of getting shot during your lifetime, that means that one out of 99 of your family, friends or coworkers - or yourself - will get shot.

Not nice to think of, eh?

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't know your age, but if you are anywhere from middle-aged and younger, at the rate of scientific progress and better knowledge of health issues, you will probably make it to way beyond mid-80s.

Just as a ball park figure, it sure doesn't look as appealing as before, does it? Think about it - if there is even a 1% chance of getting shot during your lifetime, that means that one out of 99 of your family, friends or coworkers - or yourself - will get shot.

Not nice to think of, eh?

That also means that I have an 80 in 10 chance of getting injured, period, or an 800% chance, if you start multiplying the chance by age.

However, with crime going down, and with my particular lifestyle and the fact that my family are just as safe as I am, and that I live in a safe neighborhood, that figure is pretty low.

Huh, I have a 180% chance of getting hit by a vehicle.

I must be doing some bad math somewhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

Gun possession is the default position where I live.

Why?

Since I have a right to own guns, there has (should) to be some burden of proof that they are not beneficial if they are to be banned.

Rights? Someone in the past said you have a right to X, and suddenly that becomes the default position?

When slavery was allowed in some states in the US, was that the default position? If slavery was allowed in your state, and you opposed slavery, do you think you should be the one arguing against slavery?

How can slavery ever be the default position?

How do you know it isn't? The people who fill out the forms claim to be honest. You have data that says more than a small percentage is not? If you are claiming that people are dishonest, then it is up to you to prove otherwise.

You claimed that the percentage is small. You provide the evidence.

I do not live/travel nationwide. I live in Washington. Nationwide statistics you are using are of little use when applied to me.

Why draw the line at Washington? Why not draw the line at the neighborhood you live in? Or the block you live on? The street? Your closest neighbors? Or just yourself?

Default position in the U.S., or at least in Texas and many southern states, is that we should have #3 on on the chart I provided earlier.

Rubbish.

 

[CFLarsen]

That also means that I have an 80 in 10 chance of getting injured, period, or an 800% chance, if you start multiplying the chance by age.

However, with crime going down, and with my particular lifestyle and the fact that my family are just as safe as I am, and that I live in a safe neighborhood, that figure is pretty low.

Huh, I have a 180% chance of getting hit by a vehicle.

I must be doing some bad math somewhere.

Yes, you are. But that aside, it isn't a nice thought to think through, is it?

And, of course, crime can go up again. It isn't a natural law that it will drop.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

We have never worked from the assumption that guns were the default position.

Who is "we" that have never done this?

Ehhh....no. I'm arguing the opposite. Those who want to challenge the default position must present evidence.

Then where is your evidence to challenge the default position in the US which is guns reasonably freely available?