|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Guns | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You post makes a lot of claims but is rather light on actual evidence. Saying "It's common sense" isn't a good argument.
quote: Got any objective evidence to back this up?
quote: And people aren't killed, but are instead merely punched or hit with beer bottles "over glances" in places where handguns are banned or severely restricted. The evidence shows that the US is no more violent than most other industrialized nations, but the violence that does happen tends to be far more lethal. This is because of handguns. The fact is, the cold, hard numbers are not in your favor WRT the self defense argument. Tens of thousands of people die every year from firearms in this country, second only to auto accidents. That is saying something, considering that compared to guns, far, far more people use automobiles for far, far more hours a day. Justafiable use of a firearm in self defense is quite rare, according to the evidence. So, what many self-defense gun advocates are saying is that their right to instantly and easily purchase a handgun and store it in any way they like is more important than the death of tens of thousands of people. I will repeat in every single post since it seems to be neccessary: I do not advocate for the banning of all firearms, just for much stricter regulation, licensing, paper trails, and purchase and storage requirements.
quote: Actually, violent crime rates are very much lower than just 15 years ago, and the previous rate was generally flat at that higher level since the mid 70's. So, you are safer from violent crime now than you were as a kid. Well, you weren't born yet, so am safer now than when I was a kid. The biggest difference, of course, is in the much more prevalent reporting of violent crime. We hear about it far more often than we ever did back then because the news these days is not about news, but about sensationalism. You are also a conservative and thus are prone to seeing the world as something to fear and protect oneself from. (BTW, I strongly suggest that you read this book. It is remarkable. Every conservative should read it.) And this argument about "criminals will still have guns" is spurious. Drunk driving is currently illegal, but it wasn't always. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not; the fact is that drunk driving kills people. There are plenty of people who still drive drunk (break the law), but now that we do regulate drunk driving, and the stricter DUI laws have become, the number of drunk driving fatalities has fallen proportionately. By your logic, the drunk drivers should be able to drive drunk as long as they don't hurt anybody, and that only the drunk drivers who hurt people or get into accidents should be cracked down on by police. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Good idea:
Data is from 1991 A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE US AND OTHER RICH NATIONS Murders committed with handguns annually: United States 8,915Switzerland 53 Sweden 19 Canada 8 United Kingdom 7 Murder rate (per 100,000 people): United States 8.40Canada 5.45 Denmark 5.17 Germany 4.20 Norway 1.99 United Kingdom 1.97 Sweden 1.73 Japan 1.20 Finland 0.70 Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people): United States 24.4Canada 2.6 Sweden 2.3 Norway 2.3 Finland 2.3 Denmark 2.2 United Kingdom 2.0 Netherlands 1.2 Germany 0.9 Japan 0.5 Rape (per 100,000 people): United States 37.20Sweden 15.70 Denmark 11.23 Germany 8.60 Norway 7.87 United Kingdom 7.26 Finland 7.20 Japan 1.40 Armed robbery (per 100,000 people) United States 221Canada 94 United Kingdom 63 Sweden 49 Germany 47 Denmark 44 Finland 38 Norway 22 Japan 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: Amen to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I have a problem with the unsupported claims throughout the piece. It lists no references at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I really wish you would stop using this as if it represented what anyone in this thread is putting forward.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: Well sure, but that still means that the shotgun is an incentive to them breaking in.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I think we already know that many, many many people are, indeed, this stupid. The 800-900 accidental shooting deaths per year should tell you that. That doesn't even include the number of guns that are stolen out of people's homes or used in suicides because they were not adequately secured.
quote: I don't expect accidents and misdeeds to never happen. That is impossible. I am simply proposing that we take steps to reduce the liklihood of them happening. As it stands right now, the laws are far too lax WRT liability. For example, gun owners should be held reasonably responsible for securing their firearms and if they don't, should be held liable if the gun they failed to secure properly is stolen and then used in the commission of a crime.
quote: What the mental block is is this: I say, "Guns in a home greatly increases the liklihood of someone in that home being killed with a gun." Then you say, "Yeah, but if they didn't shoot themselves, they would just stab themselves in the hand with a pair of scissors instead." This response, in different forms, is brought out over and over again, and I don't understand how someone can seriously equate a pair of scissors and a gun. Can't you see that a gun and a pair of scissors have entirely different potentials for lethally wounding someone?
quote: No, I believe the evidence says that people who want to steal your stuff do not want to encounter any people. Sorry if I appeared to say otherwise.
Well, if your views aren't based upon solid evidence, what are they based upon? Preconceptions? Gut feelings? Fear and other emotions? quote: Personal experience and rhetoric leads to bias and error in conclusions.
quote: No. But your "whole life" doesn't represent anywhere close to an accurate picture of the reality of the issue we are discussing. And unless you have been keeping really, really good records of the events in your life, confirmation bias is likely to be rampant in your impressions.
quote: Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. The data I've seen suggests that you are more likely to be shot or kill yourself if you have a gun in your house, and more likely to be burgled, too. The data also suggests that the chances of you using your gun in a legitimate case of self-defense are very small.
quote: Please reread message 12 on the first page of this thread and tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on. I may or may not have a fleshed-out answer for you, but I'll do my best. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hunting. Military and police use. Modified, unfireable guns for collectors. It's up to the private manufacturers how they wish to respond to changing regulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you have any data to support that assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you have any data to support that assertion? quote: Actually, it is empirical. As in, it is a testable hypothesis. How much less likely is it for someone to assault someone if they think they have a gun? What if both people have a gun? What are the chances then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't have a problem with people going to a firing range and "renting" guns for target practice.
quote: Not a "real" gun, but I used to target shoot as part of triathalon competitions. They were just air rifles, though. The idea of shooting a real gun does not appeal much to me. I like archery and fencing, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Right. We don't know.
quote: I tried for a few minutes and didn't find anything other than pro-gun bloggers making the assertion without any backup. I'm not going to do everybody else's research in this thread as well as my own, however.
quote: I am neutral on the assertion, because it is an empirical question that we don't know the answer to. I don't know, and I am not willing to assume anything.
quote: Surveys of whatever demographic group is most appropriate. Perhaps criminals incarcerated for assault?
quote: Well, we could look at all the police reports of actual attempted assaults that were prevented when the assailant was faced with a gun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I actually don't have a problem with people owning guns to use for target shooting and collecting and whatnot.
I do think that the hoops people should be required to jump through to get them, the requirements for storage, licensing, and insurance, and the laws involving liability if their guns are stolen du to improper storage should be significant. Child safety locks should also be mandatory on all guns sold in or imported into the US. If an owner is irresponsible with their gun and someone steals it and uses it to hurt or kill someone else, they should be partially liable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024