Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 46 of 301 (397997)
04-28-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 7:37 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
So I guess that sucks for the now defenseless housewife when a homocidal maniac breaks into her house
Guess what? This really doesn't happen with the kind of regularity you think it does.
The VAST majority of the women killed in handgun violence are killed by people they KNOW. Like abusive husbands, spurned lovers, etc. These people aren't breaking in. They are already in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:37 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 10:34 PM Nuggin has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 301 (397998)
04-28-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
quote:
The prospect of a shootout scares some away from homes that they think/know have guns in them.
You do know that known guns in a house are a strong inducement to burglary, don't you?
Here's the abstract to one study:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html
The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:16 PM nator has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 301 (397999)
04-28-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Without guns, the stat might read more like 0 to 302.
Or 0 to 200 or 0 to 20.
Either way, you are saying you'll happily have over 300 women killed so that one woman can shoot a criminal. Fantastic. either you are sick or very very bad at math

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:48 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:26 PM Nuggin has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 301 (398004)
04-28-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
04-28-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
I was "footprinted" in the hospital as an infant for identification purposes.
Was that overly intrusive?
Yep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 6:58 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:20 PM Jon has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 301 (398005)
04-28-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jon
04-28-2007 8:17 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
How so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:17 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:31 PM nator has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 301 (398007)
04-28-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 8:08 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Criminals get guns. Make it illegal to get guns. Criminals get guns. Find all the guns and melt them down. Criminals get guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 8:08 PM Nuggin has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 301 (398008)
04-28-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nator
04-28-2007 8:20 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
Why should they be allowed to register physical identification of you in some database without your consent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:40 PM Jon has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 301 (398012)
04-28-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jon
04-28-2007 8:31 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
quote:
Why should they be allowed to register physical identification of you in some database without your consent?
Database?
You mean, a filing cabinet?
They had my parent's consent, since I was a minor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:31 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 9:29 PM nator has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 301 (398022)
04-28-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
04-28-2007 8:40 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
I should've been more specific. I meant 'Database,' with a capital 'D.' In this case, I think your parents done you wrong. I consider 'prints'”finger, foot, retinal scans, urine samples, DNA, etc.”to be 'personal property,' and do not think that any organization should be allowed access to them without consent or just cause, in the same way that I do not think any organization, which includes Uncle Sam , should be allowed access to other personal property of mine”house, car, etc.”without just cause or my consent.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : YAY! Em-dashes! :-D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 9:32 AM Jon has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 55 of 301 (398027)
04-28-2007 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
04-28-2007 7:53 PM


so sad is the scraff I see here
I love the way you throw statistics at me instead of acknowledging that there's nothing you can say to undermine the specific points I made, nator. Really wish you and nuggin wouldn't resort to creationist tactics like this.
Let's take a look at the somewhat vague stats here:
” Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed
by their intimate partners.ii
” Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners.iii
So it sounds to me like it was somebody already in the house, using the most convenient method. Sadly, we've already covered this-- he's almost always a larger, faster specimen who could take her out without a gun with VERY little risk of mortal injury. Gunshots are loud as hell, so either way people will probably call the cops on him. If he used a silencer, that's illegal. That further proves that criminals will always have stuff we're not supposed to.
"” Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more
than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers
who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.iv"
Either-or FALLACY. There are weapons EVERYWHERE, even in the abscence of guns: Shoes, chairs, silverwear, letter openers, belts, metal combs, blow driers, pencils, printer, PS2, hammer, screwdriver, drill&bits, heavy bicycle helmet, heavy lamp, loose mattress spring, hookah, broomsticks, plungers, pillows, staplers (that was just my own hole-in-the-wall off campus living; just think what's in a real house. For the record, I don't personally use the hookah.)
OH, and for that last one? Clearly there's something wrong with people who would abuse their spouses in the first place. Let's work on the problem of crazy people a little more actively before we take away the power for the sane to defend themselves.
Since you're on a roll with stats in general (albiet misleading ones), look up the percentage of homeowners with guns that happen upon such misfortunes?
” Domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders were the second most
common reason for denials of handgun purchase applications between 1994 and 1998.ix
” From 1998 to 2001, more than 2,800 people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions
were able to purchase guns without being identified by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.x
The Facts on Guns and Domestic Violence
Sounds like we're taking steps in the right direction, but we still need some work. Oh, and how many of those 2,800 actually committed crimes after purchasing said guns? If this was such a problem, that would've been listed too.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 9:45 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 56 of 301 (398028)
04-28-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 8:04 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
Guess what? This really doesn't happen with the kind of regularity you think it does.
The VAST majority of the women killed in handgun violence are killed by people they KNOW. Like abusive husbands, spurned lovers, etc. These people aren't breaking in. They are already in.
Okay, so they'd already be close enough to stab or beat them to death, anyway. As I've said with scraff, a faster and stronger specimen would be able to kill a smaller, weaker, and slower opponent without much hassle, especially if they can catch them off guard. This doesn't do anything but prove my point, because, as I've shown with the example, a knife or a bat is probably not going to be enough for the fragile victim here.
So let's work on the psychiatric approach instead of banning things so that there won't be exceptions to the abuse victims.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 8:04 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 11:23 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 57 of 301 (398030)
04-28-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
nuggin writes:
OR
I've already answered that.
Clever. You must be really good at dodgeball.
And the kid died right? Or did he just have to get stitches? Do you think the kid would have just needed stitches of this same drunk idiot accidently put a 9mm round between the guys eyes?
Of course not, and if the kid would've accidently slashed his jugulars deep enough, the kid would've died despit putting pressure. Futhermore, if he would've accidently Dragon Kicked the kid into a pit of spikes(everyone where I'm from has one of these in his backyard, and knows how to administer Bruce Lee's trademark finish), he would've died too.
Scraff was at least practical in considering the same area of the body in her objection. This is just hyperbolic and weak (I didn't know this combination is possible).
The would be a good start. But a 3 month wait period so that Joe Schmo can have a fully automatic M-16 isn't gonna cut it.
Additionally, that same Schmo buying a 9mm in 1980 and still having it today means that 27 years of crazy could have happened since the 3 month wait period.
When does 'practical home defense' (isn't that the term I used?) include an M-16?! I claim the weapons we've got legalized now are just right, for the record. An M-16 for civilian use (not the .22 replica, the real deal) is ILLEGAL because it's too much. What do YOU think is adequate practical home defense, anyway? A toothpick?
27 years of crazy? Let's hear some explainations. I guarantee you that anything legit that you can come up with could've been prevented by an increased awareness in society of such mental illness, versus disarmnament of our entire country.
Oh, and the kid? Oi... what makes the kid crazy? Crazy parent? See above. Just crazy? Get the kid some help/get some parents that'll teach him gun safety. If they're not responsible enough to do that, then they've almost certainly done something to reflect that on their record. Did they go crazy after the gun? Again, see above.
And even if they try a rampage in the neighborhood, another neighbor who owns a gun may stop them from doing more damage, as opposed to a neighborhood full of people who don't believe in guns.
You scenario still holds to this theory you have that the only thing keeping criminals from running amok us the potential threat of handguns.
No, it doesn't. Stop hyperbolizing what I say. Are you saying this break-in instance DOES NOT HAPPEN? Of course it does!
And if we banned guns, this criminal uprising wouldn't be a rampage. It would be a slow, subtle, gradual annihilation of home security.
Ask yourself this: Was gun violence more common or less common in the wild west? Just about everyone had easy access to guns. If your theory is correct, the percentage of the population exposed to gun violence in Tombstone, AZ should be MUCH lower than in modern Phx.
Ask yourself this: How were ethics, psychology, politics, security of living, and life in general during this time? You're blaming guns themselves for the unrestrained and unattended violent intentions of human beings. How was life in ancient Aztec times even before Cortez? Horribly violent, with no guns in sight. Ask yourself the same question as above.
Yes, that's what you were saying. And what you were implying is that the number of people killed by accidental shootings was less than 32
No, I was referring to the VT shootings. Your misunderstanding here is 100% clear, and I will note it. Furthermore, considering this came off the VT topic, I'd figure that number would be fresh in your mind.
Don't accuse me for misleading people just because you made an unsupportable claim.
Says the guy who claims that disarming this nation will somehow erase the vast majority of violence in it. This claim that you say I made was not made by me, as I wrote above. You either misunderstood me, or are pulling yet another strawman. You really hate scarecrows, don't you?
Do you have ANY figures showing the number of houses not broken into because the owners owned guns?
Please explain to me how in the world you can get a stat on how many houses WERENT broken into? Let's try a whole heck of a lot of them; a whole heck of a lot of those probably had guns. You're asking me to somehow make a data table of events that didn't happen.
Do you have ANY figures on the number of criminals actually fought off by gun owners as opposed to gun owners killed by their own hand guns? Do you have any figures at all?
No, and I should probably get those. Last I checked, the only one giving them was nator, and all of hers were quite vague and misleading. You don't have any either, pot. Don't get mad because the kettle's got better tea than you do.
[qs]You are trying to push this wild theory that somehow it is safer to have a hand gun in the home because of the "crime menace" lurking out there waiting to break in and rape your women. But there's NO evidence that supports the theory. It's just regurgitated NRA crap
So you're saying not one person with an illegal firearm would even think of taking advantaged of disarmed homeowners, especially in bad neighborhoods (hint: the gangs will keep their guns. Always. Will not go away. Same with all the other freelance hoodrats.) You know why there's no evidence supporting this theory? Because we've never disarmed the whole nation, so you people living in happy-world-land will have to somehow disarm us if you want a good rise in the number of victims as badly as it seems you do.
Yes, it happening the movies. Guess what, movies aren't real life.
This made me laugh out loud; you're not serious are you? You really think that break-ins where robbers are strapped do not happen in real life? May I ask where you live, and where you have lived? You must realize that a statement like you just made here is naive beyond what most people might deem possible.
Yup, people are killed by drunk drivers. But cars are not manufactures specifically to kill people. There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it.
This is yet another completely false statement. You can go to shooting ranges. You can exterminate yard rodents on large property (not saying its legal, and it is definetely oaky, but it's still a reason).
Is your beef with guns in general, or just handguns? I'm starting to think the latter.
You scenario relies on psychic criminals hellbent on mayhem held in check by the specter of gun ownership. It's pure fantasy
Wrong. Except, maybe I shouldn't have said any 'particular' household, unless of course they have a 'beware of owner' sign. But the fact remains that there's a great chance that any given household in most places will have a gun. Let's say there's a 0% chance that the house will have a gun? Well, no worries. Hellbent on mayhem? Nah, they just want to steal some crap to get a fix. But of course if there's some fresh tang in there with nothing to protect her, why wouldn't he help himself?
EDITED IN:
You know what? I looked up a link or two just so you won't keep defending your nonsense arguement with the fact that I didn't crunch any numbers:
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
=the websiteWe witnessed America's worst mass shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech. Thirty-three students and faculty were killed, including the gunman. At least fifteen more were wounded.
How many deaths and injuries must we endure before our nation's elected officials act to end gun violence? We must ask our leaders: "What are you going to do about it?" What are you going to do to make our schools, workplaces, and communities safe from gun violence?
To this I ask: What do all of these people who ask this PROPOSE people do about it? Furthermore, nuggin, what do YOU say we do about it? Answer my question, for once. Every time you dodge my questions it makes your arguement appear that much weaker than it already is.
http://www.csgv.org/...s/Gun%20Violence%20Fact%20Sheet%2Epdf
Check out the incredible number of suicides here. Consider this: If somebody's bent on killing themselves, slitting arteries with a knife is just as easy, if not easier, than pulling the trigger.
Furthermore, the Women and Gun Violence section just spits out the same thing you did, without considering that the same could very well happen anyway without a gun. If anything it should consider that maybe the psychiatry in this country needs some work.
Enforcement On Federal Gun Laws explicates just how understaffed and underfunded ATF is. With that in mind, these guys don't get enough resources to do their job, yet you expect them to get the regulating job done? How about we cough up adequate funds before we say they're not doing their job?
Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Put in some links

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 7:56 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 11:42 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 11:49 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 58 of 301 (398032)
04-28-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
04-28-2007 8:05 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
There were a lot of things that they admitted were unclear.
Furthermore, the highlighted part is open to interpretation:
How do they know that the gun availability didn't increase due to the crime rate, instead of the other way around? That sounds like a much more realistic situation to me; when my first neightborhood went to sh!t, the whole place went up in arms.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kuresu, posted 04-28-2007 11:36 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 99 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 10:14 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 301 (398033)
04-28-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 10:34 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
You really have a pretty big fantasy about how easy it is to kill someone with a knife.
Guess what, the victim is unlikely to cooperate with the stabbing, and even a small woman can scream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 10:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:32 PM Nuggin has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 60 of 301 (398034)
04-28-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 11:23 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
You really have a pretty big fantasy about how easy it is to kill someone with a knife.
Guess what, the victim is unlikely to cooperate with the stabbing, and even a small woman can scream.
yeah? A gun is just as loud. You can cover someone's mouth while you're stabbing them; the gun is noisy no matter what. Unless you want a silencer, which, if you have it, proves my point that criminals use this stuff no matter how many bans we put on it.
EDITED IN, because I'm on you like awesome on One_Charred_Wing:
Oh, and we can agree that it's harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That means that it sucks for a woman who might try to defend herself with that knife against somebody who's an all-around better fighter with more experience? Guess she would disagree with you that guns need to be taken away.
Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Had to continue with the pwnage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 11:23 PM Nuggin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024