Gun Control is ridiculous

quixotecoyote said:
Roughly 231000 people out of roughly 300000000 are injured or killed by a firearm each year. Assuming even risk and a 70 year lifespan that's a .0539 percent chance over your lifetime.
Click to expand...

Nope.
1,6170,000 : 300,000,000=
1,617,000 / 301,617,000=
=0.5%
 
Quad4: Gun Control involves controlling who the guns go out to. If you don't hand out a firearm to a criminal, then you are attempting to control who the gun goes out to; not giving a firearm to a criminal means that the criminal is not being armed, and you are discriminating (logically) who the firearm should and should not be given to. It isn't Gun Control that you're against, it's the level of Gun Control. Either way, as long as you're willing to cause a legal discrimination of who the guns go to, or any legal attempt to control who the firearms go out to, then you are for Gun Control. No Gun Control = selling firearms to whoever wants 'em, without any restrictions.

The Fool wants very tough restrictions (relative to what we currently have). Baron wants an outright ban. I'm okay with status quo (with some loosening up of heavy restrictions in, say, places like Washington D.C., but I'm speaking mainly about the United States; I have no demand for other countries to meet our standards)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
So when does the world end... ? :)
Click to expand...

It doesn't. that was non-fatal injuries, and mainly was based on trips to the hospital. If you went to the hospital, got some stitches, and were let out, then you would be one of those statistics. This includes for accidental and incidental gunfires, I'd add, so even a graze from a firearm that you go to the hospital for would be included in the estimate.

And it's automatically non-fatal; the worst condition you could have was "hospitalized, but eventually got better." There were no fatal figures involved. Though I guess a coma might count, if you aren't legally dead?
 
Lonewulf said:
I posted the link, and the 8:1 was done with the mathematics that I used. However, I used it incorrectly, and I thank Baron for correcting my methods.

I posted a source up there previously in the thread. Here it is again:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

From: http://www.cdc.gov/

"Not found". Website link is broken.

That's a lot more than the 12 factor that was touted about later. The numbers keep changing.

What are we talking about defending against, however? Does that include protecting against rape, for instance? And how do you account for all the numbers of incidents that may have been prevented thanks to the existance of a firearm?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did an edit to change the figures, you posted while I was typing. My hospital link broke, so as I said, we'll go with your cdc #'s.

I don't know where the 12 factor came from. I've been hearing it too, but it wasn't something I calculated.

As for what was being defended against the 62200 figure is against all violent crimes of all types, there's another 20300 where the crime being defended against was property/nonviolent crime which boosts the statistics a little,that I didn't count, and there's only 22000 total when defending against a criminal with a firearm, but I didn't want to lowball it.

I don't account for all the numbers of incidents that may have been prevented thanks to the existance of a firearm because it is impossible to do so. Likewise, I don't account for all the numbers of incidents that may have been prevented thanks to the absence of a firearm. I only go with the numbers that happened and extrapolate from that.
 
I don't know where the 12 factor came from. I've been hearing it too, but it wasn't something I calculated.
Click to expand...

From the Department of Health from Oregon, I believe. Someone (I forget who) extrapolated that data and seemed to think it was relevant for judging all 50 states...

As for what was being defended against the 62200 figure is against all violent crimes of all types, there's another 20300 where the crime being defended against was property/nonviolent crime which boosts the statistics a little,that I didn't count, and there's only 22000 total when defending against a criminal with a firearm, but I didn't want to lowball it.
Click to expand...

Alrighty.

I don't account for all the numbers of incidents that may have been prevented thanks to the existance of a firearm because it is impossible to do so. Likewise, I don't account for all the numbers of incidents that may have been prevented thanks to the absence of a firearm. I only go with the numbers that happened and extrapolate from that.
Click to expand...

Then it's difficult to really come up with a definite estimate. Either one of us could translate the numbers almost any way we want to.

To me, being shot is pretty darn unlikely compared to a lot of things in life, including being hit by a car, dying of heart disease, dying of stroke, etc. Getting shot in the first place, whether accidentally or purposefully, is uncommon (but not necessarily rare), and seems to be centered only a certain demographic group; I.E., people living in the bad parts of cities or towns, gangsters, etc. I do not think that I belong in the group of those that are at high risk (though with your "40 ninjas" argument, seemed to think that I was, as you are judging my personality online).

I also think that there are situations where having a firearm, or even the *chance* of you having a firearm, would deter many criminals who want "easy pickings". For instance, a 6'2" mugger might still be scared of a 5'2" little lady that was half his weight because she may or may not have a firearm; in fact, given her small size and being alone in a place to be mugged, probably is armed. This isn't a case of "40 ninjas"; the fact is that I would be cautious about mugging a man that could have a firearm on his person. That's not always the case, however, as I've heard anecdotal stories about gangs beating up on people they thought were undercover cops (though they weren't), even though undercover cops would most likely have a firearm. Nonetheless, there are cases where having a firearm helps, and cases where having a firearm does not. The assumption made here by the "other side" is that a person with a firearm is likely to draw it at the most wrong possible time and make a good situation bad, or a bad situation worse. I do not hold to the belief that this is common, especially with rudimentary training with the firearm, but I do accept that it would naturally happen; not all humans make intelligent decisions.

So really, we can sit here and play with numbers all day, and I can't really complain because I asked for statistics and people provided them. But it seems that we still can't come to anything conclusive in spite of all of this; and this all ignores the idea of Baron's gun ban even being possible. There seems to be this perception that if you pass a law, it will automatically work, and everyone immediately complies... that's not how it works, at least not in the United States.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
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?

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

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?
Click to expand...

Because if a person is not a felon, there is no one who actively intervenes in the purchase or ownership of a firearm.

Unless you are prepared to believe the 2nd amendment applies to an individuals right to own guns, then there were no laws in the past allowing gun ownership. There are also very few laws requiring it. Americans are allowed to own any firearms they want unless there is a law prohibiting them. If you take a look at our gun laws, they say, “can’t own this, can’t own that” sometimes with certain exceptions. If there is no law prohibiting something, then that is the default position. Or do you have a different definition of default?

If slavery was allowed in my state, then I would be opposed to it. I damn well would be arguing against it.

Lying on the 4473 is a crime. The NICS check exposes (or should) those who lie. Not many people are caught lying on the forms; you can take my word on this.

Because it is appropriate to draw lines closer to where I live if I want to apply statistics to myself. The USA is a big place.

Ranb
 
Note: Just because it's the "default" position of the government and the country doesn't make it the "correct" position or the "acceptable" position. That's why, if you find it unacceptable, you have to provide evidence against it and show why it's unacceptable. If slavery were legal, it would be the default position of the government. It just wouldn't be the acceptable position. So, you make an argument as to why it's unacceptable.

At one time period, slavery was considered acceptable. It was the default for many societies throughout history, not just America; but as views change, and there was less an emphasis on brute physical labor, and the idea of freedom and liberty became the ideal, that viewpoint grew less and less acceptable, until eventually it was dealt away with. Though racism, prejudice, and bigotry still remained for quite a while (and still exists, to a minor extent).
 
Last edited:
Default position seems to imply the status quo. I think CFLarsen is thinking more of a "natural position", as guns are something that has to be artifically created in a society as opposed to things such as social heirarchies or languages. The natural condition would require positive reasons for introducing anything, from clothing to guns.

Check me if I'm wrong, but that's how I'm viewing it.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Default position seems to imply the status quo. I think CFLarsen is thinking more of a "natural position", as guns are something that has to be artifically created in a society as opposed to things such as social heirarchies or languages. The natural condition would require positive reasons for introducing anything, from clothing to guns.
Click to expand...

But to remove it, you need reasons. Once they're in society, the population of that society has those objects, and that status quo. Thus, you need a case of argument in order to convince the population that owns that condition to give it up.

But it's a philosophical position to claim that anything negative must be forcefully removed, and a political position to claim that the government is the only source to do so with. You could ban cigarettes, for instance, for precisely that reason. Or alcohol. However, people do not want to give up cigarettes, or alcohol, just as they do not want to give up firearms.

Further, you cannot get rid of bad ideas by government enforcing. Expression of ideas is protected, so you cannot take a philosophical stand that everything that is deemed as harmful must be removed, or else we must be able to ban hate speech as well; but the government is not capable of politically moving towards that philosophical goal.
 
lonewulf:

Default position seems to imply the status quo. I think CFLarsen is thinking more of a "natural position", as guns are something that has to be artifically created in a society as opposed to things such as social heirarchies or languages. The natural condition would require positive reasons for introducing anything, from clothing to guns.

Check me if I'm wrong, but that's how I'm viewing it.

On the subject of statistics and evidence;
If you want to include something else into the debate such as the effect of firearm ownership in preventing crime attempts in the first place, you have to have some way to quantify it in order to make it into a valid argument. This is true for me as well, I have no way to quantifty what I see as the glorification of real violence (fantasy violence, not such a problem) through the celebration of gun ownership. It seems from the outside that guns are not just a tool to be used as a fence or house alarm, but a cultural symbol of power and aggression that is celebrated. I admit I was snarky with the online personality analysis before and I apologize, this is not meant to be snarky but let me show you a small example of why I think this:

ok check that, let me phrase it as a question because I can't find the posts.

Did you at point point say that you didn't want firearms banned because you wanted to have the change for hunting, trap shooting, and self-defense? I thought I remembered you posting that and having it stike me as odd that you'd put facing off with criminals as something you'd like a chance to do on the order of hunting and trap shooting. For me I'd want to avoid having to do that because I like living more than I like blazes of glory. My perception is that many pro-gun folks are quietly looking forward to their chance to shoot a bad guy.
 
sorry, I didn't realize the first part of my response had already posted.

My interpretation of CFLarsens point as to contribute to understanding. I'm arguing this as a philosophical issue, because there's no way to seperate the gun-owners from the guns. It's an unbreakable cultural identity thing. I think that's wrong, and I'm arguing against it, but I recognize that the most I can hope for on this issue is being right, not having my ideas implemented
 
quixotecoyote said:
Did you at point point say that you didn't want firearms banned because you wanted to have the change for hunting, trap shooting, and self-defense? I thought I remembered you posting that and having it stike me as odd that you'd put facing off with criminals as something you'd like a chance to do on the order of hunting and trap shooting.
Click to expand...

I don't even remember mentioning trap shooting.

I am not a hunter, personally. If I take a gun anywhere, it's going to be on the range. If I ever buy a firearm and get a concealed weapon license, and I carry that firearm, then it will be for self-defense.

For me I'd want to avoid having to do that because I like living more than I like blazes of glory. My perception is that many pro-gun folks are quietly looking forward to their chance to shoot a bad guy.
Click to expand...

Which, in my case, is true... for fiction. I love violent videogames and RPGs and the like. I love playing post apocalyptic characters. Yadda yadda.

But for real life, no, it's not. I'm not out for a blaze of glory, and in fact even with a concealed carry license, I would probably rarely ever walk out with my gun on me. I just don't see any need for it where I am currently. However, within my house, yes, I would have it available for self defense (or at least have the safe location it's in be easily accessable). However, I live in a small apartment, so most likely the only time I will really have time to draw it if I needed to (which would be very rarely, I'm in a safe neighborhood) would be if someone were to try to break down my door gradually and not instantly. So, really, I'm not paranoid about my chances; I figure I'll be safe altogether. Though, to be truthful, I would want a concealed carry permit if I ever needed to drive down a "bad neighborhood", but I don't plan on that happening anytime soon.

See, if I ever draw a gun ,it's not to "shoot a bad guy", it's to make that "bad guy" passive. No one wants to be shot, so they will avoid that situation. Here's my plan:

Plan A: Shout that I have a gun.
Plan B: Brandish said gun, if other person is distant enough.

The rest of the plans depend on specific scenarios. Only in extreme cases would I actually end up pulling the trigger. I don't want a conflict, but not everyone that ends up within one wants to be in one. Take the woman earlier in the thread that was being pursued by two males; she did nothing to escalate the situation and had no choice to defend herself, yet she warded off her attackers with her firearm.

However, the crux of this argument isn't necessarily that I want to keep guns for myself. This isn't all about me. I support other's rights to be able to buy firearms for themselves, and I further generally oppose too much government legislation in general; though based on logical premises. I.E., there are times for government intervention (especially in an urban environment and in a developed country), and there are times where I feel it is unnecessary. For me, the guns issue is unnecessary.

You talked about the "40 ninjas" argument; for me, it's the "40 gunshot victims vs. the 40,000 automobile accidents". Not to mention the idea that people are children that need coddling and to be taken care of by the government. Quite frankly, the ban on firearms altogether seems about as logical to me as the other thread where they planned on banning McDonald's food to try to promote lack of obesity (and considering that heart disease kills far more than almost anything else, I'd consider that more defendable!)

Look at it this way: The U.S. Government is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Quite frankly, we're STILL borrowing money from places like China. Meanwhile, we're expending SO MANY government resources on so many different tasks. This includes, as I mentioned before, many of the "Wars on <blank>", many of which have yet to end. If we plan to do anything about illegal immigrants, drugs (which I'm for legalizing, depending on the drug), the War on Terror, the War on Iraq, and possibly even the War on Iran, we need to make a cost-benefit analysis. Firearms deaths, in my view, are not severe enough or crippling enough that they need immediate severe attention, and the fact that violence in general is going down, even without the banning of firearms, tells me that there is no escalation, hence no need for immediate action.

A proposal for a ban isn't just illogical because I don't think it won't work, and I think that it will eventually end up making criminals out of what was once normal everyday citizens that believe in the ability to defend themselves (You can bet that there's going to be some major resistance in the south), but also because, quite frankly, it would be yet another project that would end up with lots of money pumped into it, and yet another division of the resources that we have, and will further make us look the fools as we stumble around trying to find firearms with the same gusto we did booze and drugs. I'd rather we clear up some of the big pictures before we start focusing on the small ones.

Some minor restrictions I'm for. You want to prevent accidental deaths? We can encourage people (or possibly even regulate people to) use key-locks. You want to prevent incidental deaths (I.E., assaults and homicides)? Then we can find whatever we're doing to lower the rate of crime, and try to keep doing that. However, an outright ban is not the answer, and never will be. It just won't work.

Sure, you can say that we should bring people "safety and security" at all costs... but if the cost is too high, then you aren't bringing safety and security.
 
Last edited:
lonewulf:

I'm not going to quote because I agree with the second half of your post, this should not be a priority, there are a zillion 'war on X' we need to stop, saftey education and regulation is good, and from a policy perspective a ban on guns would be a horribly ineffective waste of resources.

What I'm saying is that we should all WANT to ban guns, we should all WANT to ban horrible food etc, because its bad for us and we don't want it around us existing as a general drag on society. We don't have that desire as a nation and due to that it would create a prohibition-like scenario that would probably raise far more problems than it solves. My point is the principle of the thing, that given the many deaths from firearms we as a society should try to minimize their availability. It only works if the society decides to do it, and right now it's not. I'm just saying it should.
 
quixotecoyote said:
What I'm saying is that we should all WANT to ban guns, we should all WANT to ban horrible food etc, because its bad for us and we don't want it around us existing as a general drag on society. We don't have that desire as a nation and due to that it would create a prohibition-like scenario that would probably raise far more problems than it solves. My point is the principle of the thing, that given the many deaths from firearms we as a society should try to minimize their availability. It only works if the society decides to do it, and right now it's not. I'm just saying it should.
Click to expand...

I think that banning the object is putting a patch on the wound. Education, responsibility, and getting rid of the societal causes of violence are the salve.

If we're going to shoot for ideals, I might as well shoot the ideal that would be most effective. The arguments here aren't that we need to get rid of guns because guns are evil, but that we need to get rid of guns because the magnify the problems that already exist within society, such as irresponsibility and assault/murders. But if you have a 0 base, then 0*x = 0. You cannot magnify nothing.

For instance, about horrible food: Why should I ban McDonald's food? Heck, even I eat it. McDonald's food mainly causes obesity in those that rely on it far more often than normal. With correct levels of responsibility, McDonald's food is hardly harmful at all. Sure, it would put you off your diet, but it's not poison. It's just more fattening than what you would otherwise eat.
 
Last edited:
But that's the thing: I don't want to ban guns, I don't want to ban bad food, I don't want to get rid of choices. If I had my way and had my own little paradise, everyone would have guns, and no one would ever get injured by them. I'd also be the best crack sniper in the world, and get to flaunt it to everyone at the range. I'd also have a pony.

I'd call him "bullet". :D

(Actually, that's not true. I'd call him .44 Mag...)

Okay, seriously, that's not really true. I'm just playing with your stereotypes there. But I still don't think that banning the object is the only answer, nor always the desirable one. It's putting a patch on a wound, but it doesn't keep it from festering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom