Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
28 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar, Lammy, Theodoric (5 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,726 Year: 20,762/19,786 Month: 1,159/2,023 Week: 110/557 Day: 40/70 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
nator
Member (Idle past 488 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 responded

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 301 (398432)
04-30-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by nator
04-30-2007 5:50 PM


Re: No Self Defense
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?

I don't know. You're the stat master, look it up for me. Do you disagree with the assertion? Or are you just busting my balls?

But how are you going to know what people are thinking? And how do you measure the assaults that are prevented? It doesn't really seem all that empirical to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:50 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 301 (398435)
04-30-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
04-30-2007 5:53 PM


The idea of shooting a real gun does not appeal much to me.

Understood. And they're scary too.

The adrenaline rush is great though.

They were just air rifles, though.

You need something with some kick to get the full effect, but air rifles are alright.

I don't have a problem with people going to a firing range and "renting" guns for target practice.

Yeah.... I don't think they are going to like that idea very much. Some people really want their guns. I know someone who collects guns and enjoys firing them at the range. Collecting them (and taking care of them [cleaning,etc]) is a big part of it too and the "renting" would remove some of the enjoyment from their hobby.

I would definately go to a range to rent some guns though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 5:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 488 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 yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 260 of 301 (398438)
04-30-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by AdminSchraf
04-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: No Self Defense
I understand. But part of "treat other members with respect" has got to mean stop posting the same false statement over and over again.

In this thread alone, I've had to say "We are not saying ban all guns" about 50 times.

Clearly saying it with a even tone does NOTHING to get the point across.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-30-2007 5:29 PM AdminSchraf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-30-2007 6:18 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 261 of 301 (398439)
04-30-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: No Self Defense
you've already conflated pro-gunners with drunk rednecks

No. Jon did.

I said that drunk rednecks are likely to have guns, not that people who are likely to have guns are drunk rednecks.

Jon is the one who claims that everyone who has a gun is a drunk redneck with a little penis. A statement he refuses to back up.


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 not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 488 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 yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17553
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 263 of 301 (398441)
04-30-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:29 PM


Re: No Self Defense
Catholic Scientist writes:

Someone is less likely to assault someone else if they think that person has a gun.

Never heard of the Wild West?

It ain't whether the other guy is armed or not. And it ain't who fires first.

It's all about keeping a cool head and ignoring the bullets whizzing past your ears.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 9:10 PM ringo has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 264 of 301 (398442)
04-30-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:32 PM


This is the "if everyone had a gun, no one would get shot" argument.

No only is it obviously wrong, it flies in the face of shootings like Columbine where there WERE GUARDS WITH GUNS who did not stop the kids.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 265 of 301 (398443)
04-30-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:32 PM


Re: No Self Defense
Okay, this I have to hear.

How is it "intuative" that a person who is going to commit a crime is less likely to perpetrate that crime on a person with a concealed hand gun?

How does the criminal know that person has a concealed hand gun?
Why are psychic criminals resorting to gun crime when they could be winning poker games in vegas?


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 not yet responded

AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 301 (398444)
04-30-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Nuggin
04-30-2007 6:11 PM


Re: No Self Defense
quote:
I understand. But part of "treat other members with respect" has got to mean stop posting the same false statement over and over again.

No, that's a different rule :):

Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

quote:
In this thread alone, I've had to say "We are not saying ban all guns" about 50 times.

Nator has, too. It's what we need to do, another 5000 times if need be.

Cooly.

quote:
Clearly saying it with a even tone does NOTHING to get the point across.

that's not true. I finally got through to Charred Wing on that point, did you notice?

Anyway, no more discussion about this here. Please behave.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 6:11 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 267 of 301 (398445)
04-30-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2007 5:34 PM


Have you ever shot a gun?

This is not a valid question for this debate however, I will answer it.

Yes. I have hunted with both rifle and shotgun. I got my varsity letter in high school on the shooting team.

No, I have never used a machine gun to blow up a car or a pile of bowling pins. I've never felt the need.


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 not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 301 (398452)
04-30-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
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.

As a child? Fending off an adult attacker? A weapon is useless (not to mention, children are the last people who should have access to weapons). But a few high-profile cases of pedophiles sent away for a long time on the basis of cell-phone video evidence would be an incredible deterrent, I would think.

Realistically, a certain number of crimes are going to occur no matter how people are armed. Taking steps to ensure later prosecutability would be a great step towards repairing the inevitable damage of crime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 7:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 279 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 9:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 269 of 301 (398453)
04-30-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
04-30-2007 7:41 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
As a child? Fending off an adult attacker? A weapon is useless (not to mention, children are the last people who should have access to weapons). But a few high-profile cases of pedophiles sent away for a long time on the basis of cell-phone video evidence would be an incredible deterrent, I would think.

Crash, there are weapons all around every human being at any given moment; if you're not wearing a straight jacket, you could rip some padding off the walls and suffocate someone with it. I'm not suggesting children carry lethal weapons, nor am I saying that it's a great idea for a child to try and fend off an attacker by his or herself(Scream, run, and hit the bladder and groin if they grab you.). The weapon suggestion was for somebody a little older, in a situation where fighting it out might be the only option.

But a few high-profile cases of pedophiles sent away for a long time on the basis of cell-phone video evidence would be an incredible deterrent, I would think.

Realistically, a certain number of crimes are going to occur no matter how people are armed. Taking steps to ensure later prosecutability would be a great step towards repairing the inevitable damage of crime.

Okay, now I get what you're saying. Still, the fact remains that if something does happen despite the threat of the phone, the phone's not a good deterrent unless the kid can somehow get away and call somebody, or something like it. Am I saying give every kid a knife? No, that's too iffy--on one hand, I've had some kind of a knife since I was five, and never cut myself with it except to get a blister. On the other hand, I have a friend who gashed his finger trying to stab a gatorade bottle when he was 17...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 7:41 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 270 of 301 (398455)
04-30-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by nator
04-30-2007 3:32 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
1) I do not think there is a legitimate reason for anyone other than the military to be able to own a firearm that is capable of firing off rounds in very rapid succession.
2) The gun lobby has shamefully and almost always effectively fought any reasonable restriction or requirement or delay to gun ownership.

3) If gun ownership is to be allowed, I think that people should have to be licensed to own one, such that they must:

-be at least 21 to own a gun

-undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check

-give proof of residency

-successfully complete a firearms safety course and test.

I also think there needs to be stricter liability laws for how people store their guns and ammunition.

I also think there needs to be stricter laws with regard to child safety locks; as in, all guns sold to private citizens in the US should have them.

Okay, I totally missed this because nuggin and I were having a post pissing contest, and I think somebody else jumped on you.

Okay, I will completely buy this if two things are tweaked:

1)Keep the rifle/shotgun age at 18, with the exception of handguns. They should be 21-and-up in all states if they aren't already.

2)Please define rapid succession. If you mean you have to reload after every shot, then home defense is nerfed because you might miss in the panic, even with a shotgun. As for hunting, that's not a bad idea because that's where to skill comes in.

The rest of my replies will have the above in mind.

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.

Okay, this might solve some problems. But I haven't read you acknowledging anything I meantion about psychological approaches to these nationwide issues; don't you think putting a dent in 'stupid' and 'psychotic' would also be an effective approach?

Consider that these gun laws would take about as long to get passed as the research and execution of this proverbial 'War on Crazy'.

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.

Okay, but if these guns are secured properly and still somehow stolen, it's not the private citizen's fault that these government standards aren't enough. Deal?

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?

I have said a billion times to nuggin that I am aware that it's easier to do these stupid things with a gun. Take a gander through that if you don't believe me. I was countered by being portrayed as a hyperbolizing strawman that wanted gattling guns sold at Target when I pointed out that, although some less damage might be done, stupid people could find ways to kill themselves with less guns around just fine. When it felt like I was being portrayed as such, it's hard to remember that the underlying point is not to ban all guns and expect happy-world-land to come to life.

Oh, and their POTENTIALS aren't different-- They can both kill something. What you meant was the difference in LIKELYHOOD and ACCESSIBILITY of their full potential.

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.

Again, this sounds like a problem with the sanity of the world we live in than guns being around, because if a group of people stay sane and sensical in the presence of gun then the chance of people shooting themselves is ZERO.

I'm not worried about accidently shooting myself with the rifle back home, because I only take it out to either a)go shooting or b)stop somebody from breaking in. At least in that house, b's never been an issue... yet


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 245 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 3:32 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 8:22 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019