Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 220 of 301 (398348)
04-30-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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:
Its common sense that by trying to ban guns, all you really do is ensure the people who don't play by the rules remain armed, while you are disarming those with integrity.
Got any objective evidence to back this up?
quote:
I mean, Nuggin, you live in LA where people are killed over glances.
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:
Placed any blame on societies continued acceptance of increasing violence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 12:58 PM nator has replied
 Message 274 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 8:32 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 301 (398353)
04-30-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NosyNed
04-30-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Epidemiological look at it
Good idea:
Data is from 1991
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE US AND OTHER RICH NATIONS
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40
Canada 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 24.4
Canada 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 37.20
Sweden 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 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2007 11:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:07 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 228 of 301 (398358)
04-30-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 12:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:29 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 301 (398361)
04-30-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Psychological profiles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 1:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 301 (398364)
04-30-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:07 PM


Re: Epidemiological look at it
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:07 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 235 of 301 (398368)
04-30-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:20 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:44 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 237 of 301 (398371)
04-30-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:29 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:29 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:09 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 238 of 301 (398373)
04-30-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:44 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:44 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:12 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 301 (398398)
04-30-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
quote:
but how are we supposed to know who's this stupid?
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:
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?
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:
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!
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:
But are you saying that a criminal is more likely to break in while someone's home than when they're away?
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:
How about experience and rhetoric?
Personal experience and rhetoric leads to bias and error in conclusions.
quote:
Okay, Descartes, am I to assume my whole life hasn't happened?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:09 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 8:14 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 301 (398401)
04-30-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
quote:
So we'll make them illegal, but still manufacture domestic guns for... what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 2:12 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 301 (398421)
04-30-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 255 of 301 (398429)
04-30-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:32 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?
quote:
No, its intuitive.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:57 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 301 (398430)
04-30-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:34 PM


quote:
It might not be what you're defining as "legitimate", but they sure are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot.
Reason: Entertainment.
I don't have a problem with people going to a firing range and "renting" guns for target practice.
quote:
Have you ever shot a gun?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 6:03 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 259 of 301 (398437)
04-30-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:57 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
I don't know.
Right. We don't know.
quote:
You're the stat master, look it up for me.
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:
Do you disagree with the assertion? Or are you just busting my balls?
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:
But how are you going to know what people are thinking?
Surveys of whatever demographic group is most appropriate. Perhaps criminals incarcerated for assault?
quote:
And how do you measure the assaults that are prevented?
Well, we could look at all the police reports of actual attempted assaults that were prevented when the assailant was faced with a gun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 262 of 301 (398440)
04-30-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 6:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 6:03 PM New Cat's Eye 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