Guns

While it doesn't give any graphs, it certainly brings up a couple of interesting counterpoints to some of your data.Gun Control's Twisted OutcomeI know, I have a problem with the unsupported claims at the beginning too. I'm not a big Dan Rather fan. However, the part about how the US counts homocides vs. how our Brit buddies do it was an interesting point that's worth considering.

---

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.

I fully agree with this. My only contention with Nuggin is that he seems to be placing more of an emphasis and more culpability on the gun manufacturers and store owners than he is with the psychologists who actually knew that he was a danger to society.But, yes, I agree. Though there is a risk of being falsely accused or labeled as crazy by crackpot pop-pyschologists. For instance, I was taking a psychological battery for a police officer job about two years ago. The test consisted of about 700 yes or no questions. Most were redundant and phrased differently each time to detect for inconsistency.I was brutally honest on that test-- to a fault even. I was hoping that my honesty would have been looked upon in a positive light. When the test was over, I was flagged for about seven questions to be scrutinized more deeply. The psychologist brought me in and asked me about them. One of them was asking about arson. I answered yes because one time I and some friends took a can of gasoline and lit a portion of a wooded area on fire. I answered yes because, technically, that's arson. Of course, I knew he would bring me in for special scrutiny over answering yes to it. I assumed, (silly of me), that after hearing the story he would have surely understood that I was, ya know, 12 years old, and nothing came of it.He apparently didn't see it that way. So after a few days passed, I get a call from my prospective employer with the typical thanks, but no thanks brush off. They said I didn't pass my psychological background.Naturally, I called the psychologist and asked why I didn't pass the test. He was flustered and tried to explain his decision, claiming that the test was a "complex algorithm" that couldn't really pin down any solid reason why I didn't pass.Yeah right.All it really was, was that I answered some questions that are perceived negatively. And instead of being honest with how much of a crock that test really is, he tries to throw at me all this psychology jargon to divert my attention from what it really was.What the test really was is something that penalizes the honest, but passes the dishonest. I could have lied. I could have given them everything they wanted to hear to make myself out to be the very quintessence of a goody-two-shoes. But that would have been wrong of me to do.This kind of injustice pervades many law enforcement departments where they hire lying dirtbags, but people who might actually make good law enforcement officers get the shaft for some thing they did when they were a child. Its sad.And so, I offer a caveat. Even though someone like Cho was transparently disturbed, some people who are not might falsely be flagged for an illness they don't even have. But, we live in an imperfect world. And even the best of systems have their pitfalls. I'd rather a psychological background bar a few good people than have a whole handful of bad ones make their way through the net. Of course not. Nor should we rely on people to be truthful on their psychological battery. The problem is, how are we to know?

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

If you can find a way to make sure that only people with integrity are able to purchase guns, then I'm all for it.Good luck.

quote:

---

But unless you'll argue that all bad guys have a)integrity or b)NO fear of guns in american households, you can't say they'll lose the guns.

---

You forgot that guns in the American household do far, far more damage to those who live within by those within than protect from those without.You also forgot that having guns within a house is a strong incentive to criminals, since they are valuable loot.

quote:

---

But seriously, if you're telling me that there's nothing to fear from this world, and nothing to protect oneself from, come on.

---

Never said that there is nothing to fear in this world or protect oneself from.It is simply not my mindset, however, to "divide and conquer", nor to live in fear.I'm going to be blunt. Many conservatives are paranoid.It is the reason all these conservatives who live in bufu nowhere in the US Midwest are panicked and frantic over the next terrorist attack such that they will gladly give up their civil liberties and let mommy and daddy government take care of everything, but the liberals of NYC who are fighting for our rights are the people who's lives are actually in danger.Read The Authoritarians here. It will open your eyes. I was amazed.And again, are any of you pro-gunners planning on providing any studies or evidence to support your claims any time soon?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Depends on where you live; I guarantee you there's more people with guns in some places than others. The further into crime-heaven you get in my old city, the more people have their guns, and the more people make a point to keep them cleaned and ready. But hey, there might be a low chance in some areas. But if you put a ban on firearms across the nation, I guarantee you the chance of a house with a gun inside will go waaay down. You're forgetting something--the US isn't the only place that manufactures guns, and criminals traffic firearms from other countries in even now. I don't have a stat on this, but I'm sure some of the bigger gangs have their connections with these middle men. This would not be beyond the power of big crime syndicates, and I'm sure they'd be happy to deal to small-timers for enough money. First of all, that just proves my point that, whether you're conservative or not, you don't have to be paranoid to feel the need to protect yourself from your environment.No, I don't carry a gun. In California, it's illegal to purchase and own a hangun if you're under the age of 21. I'm not even 20, and even then it's EXTREMLY difficult to get a concealed weapons permit. I've definitely slacked on training the first weapon since this wrestling season concluded, but with school I've had a darn good reason. Nevertheless, I still feel that's the most important part of defending yourself (and punching out annoying, belligerent roommates when they break into your room to steal, ironically, your boxing gloves). Fact is, as a society we don't do that enough, and most of the new people I meet training in Jiu-jitsu etc. thanks to the boom of UFC are strong enough to hold their own anyway. Lots of people think teaching kids self defense as a society would promote violence, so that doesn't happen. Well, might as well allow them to defend themselves somehow.

---

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.

quote:

---

My only contention with Nuggin is that he seems to be placing more of an emphasis and more culpability on the gun manufacturers and store owners than he is with the psychologists who actually knew that he was a danger to society.

---

Well, why shouldn't we license firearms owners?Why shouldn't all guns have child safety features that make them safer?Why shouldn't there be a paper trail for every sale of a gun?Why shouldn't we close the gun show and private sale loopholes?The gun lobbies oppose all of these measures.

quote:

---

I'd rather a psychological background bar a few good people than have a whole handful of bad ones make their way through the net.

---

Amen to that.

quote:

---

I know, I have a problem with the unsupported claims at the beginning too.

---

I have a problem with the unsupported claims throughout the piece. It lists no references at all.

To the contrary. I'd say that it's much easier to get a kilo of cocaine into the country than a single handgun.Furthermore I'd imagine that most non-military guns in the world are made in the US. Am I wrong? I'd say that cell phones with video cameras constitute a great defense for young people.

That's clearly a psychological/disciplinary issue we're confronting, since the gun didn't jump off the shelf, load itself, and then shoot somebody's foot off. Taking away guns from these people just means they'd probably stab their hands with scissors instead. Big money says they're a lot more likely to break into your house when they know you're gone if the shotgun's their target. Okay, you know what? I don't see any right now. You win on the evidence, if that's what you're so hellbent on reading. But you know what? There's a better solution than banning guns to the problem that these statistics bring to light--psychological and sociological ones, to be specific.The bottom line is, guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. Who pulls the trigger? The human being, whether they're a deranged serial killer, a housewife that snaps one day, or a four year old that found his dad's loaded gun does the killing. Let's do more about these issues. What exactly do I propose we do? I don't know, I haven't gotten my masters in Criminal Psychology yet... how about I get back to you in four years?

---

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.

I'd have to agree. But it still happens; the border patrol doesn't catch everything smuggled from Mexico, just to name one example. I'm almost certain I read something once that said the US was the leader by a good number. Still, they're out there. And military weapons do get into the hands of criminals all the time. Ever heard of a hand grenade going off in LA? Happens, and I'll be happy to dig for a news archive later today if you'd like....not sure I get the cell phone part. Do you mean the 'anti-theft' commercial? The camera phone may get somebody convicted, but it isn't that great a weapon. You're much better off wearing a heavy boot, carrying a swiss army knife, or, against a bladed weapon, using your belt or your shoe.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : cell phone

---

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.

quote:

---

But if you put a ban on firearms across the nation,

---

I really wish you would stop using this as if it represented what anyone in this thread is putting forward.

quote:

---

You're forgetting something--the US isn't the only place that manufactures guns, and criminals traffic firearms from other countries in even now.

---

Actually, according the the FBI, 80% of the guns available in the US are manufactured here.Mexican and Canadian criminals get their guns from the US.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt

nice. I wish you would stop using the term 'pro-gunner' as if the difference in your opinion and mine is any greater than how strict the laws ought to be on handguns.Come to think of it, I'm not sure why we're arguing by this point. Nice. But what about the other 20%? Do we tell everyone else to stop making guns per our laws, 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.

quote:

---

That's clearly a psychological/disciplinary issue we're confronting, since the gun didn't jump off the shelf, load itself, and then shoot somebody's foot off. Taking away guns from these people just means they'd probably stab their hands with scissors instead.

---

YES! EXACTLY!They wouldn't be DEAD.Why is this so difficult for people to understand?The violence will still happen, but it is not likely to be anywhere near as lethal as when there are guns around.Jesus, you do have a mental block about that, don't you?

quote:

---

Big money says they're a lot more likely to break into your house when they know you're gone if the shotgun's their target.

---

Well sure, but that still means that the shotgun is an incentive to them breaking in.

quote:

---

Okay, you know what? I don't see any [evidence] right now.

---

Well, if your views aren't based upon solid evidence, what are they based upon? Preconceptions? Gut feelings? Fear and other emotions?Do you maybe think that unless evidence exists that supports your view, maybe your view is mistaken?

quote:

---

The bottom line is, guns don't kill people, they just make it easier.

---

YES! EXACTLY!Why don't we make it more difficult for people to kill each other by reducing the ease with which people can obtain guns?Why is that a bad idea? Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I wish you would stop using the term 'pro-gunner' as if the difference in your opinion and mine is any greater than how strict the laws ought to be on handguns.

---

Look, if you don't like "pro-gun" as a moniker than tell me what you want your position to be called.I also fail to see the similarity between a slightly inaccurate (I guess) descriptor and a complete strawman of my/our position.

quote:

---

But what about the other 20%? Do we tell everyone else to stop making guns per our laws, too?

---

Huh? Who is telling any gun manufacurer that they have to stop making guns?We're talking about the sale of guns, not the manufacturing of them.

alright then. it's already in place. that works for me.

YES! EXACTLY! No, I see where you're coming from... but how are we supposed to know who's this stupid? Background checks could be improved, by giving the ATF some legitimate funds for starters, and that'd take huge chunk out of this problem. But I fail to see what your proposal is short of banning guns as to ensure that this DOES NOT HAPPEN as you seem to be desiring?Is this a mental block? I know you don't want to ban guns, but you don't want to idiot to blow his head off, or worse yet hurt someone else. Me too; I just don't really see what you're proposing. Do we agree that we need to put funding in the right places, improve background checking, and get the APS (American Psychology... society, I think?) organized to get these crazies some help? If yes, then we're in agreement! I have experience of events and I know people who have the same. Is it objective evidence? No, it's anecdotal, and even if I could find the articles online it's still only one instance. But are you saying that a criminal is more likely to break in while someone's home than when they're away? If you can show me a statistic that says just that, then criminal psyche is going to be quite interesting. How about experience and rhetoric? Okay, Descartes, am I to assume my whole life hasn't happened? To deny what I've seen would be living in denial, even though I don't think we really disagree on much. I can't bring myself to think that I'm safer without a gun in my house when my neighborhood goes to shit.YES! EXACTLY! It isn't, it's just that I don't think it should be so difficult that you can't get one unless you have a college education, a perfect parking record, and are at least 42 years of age.I'm not asking you to fix this problem in a paragraph, but to what degree to you think gun restrictions should be intesnified, and why? I have a feeling I'll agree with 95% of what you'll say.

---

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.