Summations Only

Well that's just stupid, no offense. Not if they're made at the same place...Not if the 2nd gun is brought to the 1st gun because the 1st gun exists.Your analogy just doesn't seem to be relevant at all. No, I'm saying it could and you have nothing to show that it doesn't, therefore your insistance on an increase in guns meaning an increase in gun deaths is unwarranted. I don't agree with the desciptions that concealed carry is an enormous pain in the neck nor that carriers are not ready. The gun in my home isn't locked up and it has a loaded mag sitting right beside it. Its not incredibly dangerous because there's nobody there right now and its hidden. It didn't for me. And I'll keep my right to make that desicion myself rather than loosing it based on what all the stupid people are doing. But reducing gun-using criminals will reduce the gun deaths. I'm not talking about murder. I'm talking about the illegal posession or usage of a gun. Then gun laws aren't going to do anything for that anyways. Okay, well thanks, um... you don't forget to wear your seatbelt!

I was attempting to clarify the relationship between guns and gun deaths by describing what happens when you keep everything the same while gradually increasing just a single variable from 0, in this case the number of guns in a population. Well, again, we're trying to keep everything the same except the number of guns, including the way people behave. Gun owners don't normally seek out confrontations with other gun owners, and except for friends don't really have any idea who the other gun owners are. It isn't an analogy, it's an attempt to help understanding by describing what happens when you vary a single variable at a time. This is the standard approach to understanding anything, vary one thing and see what happens. Look at it another way. There was a time when guns hadn't been invented yet. No guns, no gun deaths. After the invention of guns, one would expect that gun deaths would increase with increasing gun prevalence. Nothing else makes sense or is even possible. But we don't have "nothing". We have statistics showing that increasing gun prevalence correlates with increasing gun deaths. You have speculation. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that we have data supporting our position and you don't. No one can ever sneak up behind you and whisper, "Stick 'em up?" Really? You're eternally vigilant always and everywhere, no criminal could ever get the drop on you? You're never distracted, you're ever watchful, scanning back and forth across all the people within your vision, turning around every few seconds while you walk down the street, carefully peering into every ally before walking by?In the real world you'll never see the criminal coming. You'll be confronted by the criminal unexpectedly from out of the blue.And where will you be carrying this concealed weapon? Underneath one of various jackets that you always wear no matter the weather? While you're jogging? At the beach? At the neighbors? At little Johnny's softball game where you're umpiring? In restaurants? You're gun is hidden in a place where "there's nobody there right now?" I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean nobody's home right now? That doesn't matter since it's still where your family spends most of its time. Or do you mean the gun isn't kept where you live? In that case it's no good for home defense.Anyway, you're missing the point. The easier you make access to the gun in the event of break-in, the easier you make unintended access - in other words, the more dangerous the gun becomes. The more guns you hide around the house because you never know in what part of the house you'll be when the criminal breaks in, the more likely you make unintended access.Naturally you're going to place the gun and the ammunition somewhere that maximizes the safety of you and your family, but this consideration works against the gun being sufficiently available and ready in the event of break-in. In the vast majority of break-ins the intent is not murder, while the danger of the mere presence of a gun is ever constant. You wouldn't describe yourself as passionate and impulsive? Well, yes, of course, but most homicide victims are killed by people they know, not criminals. Well, you began responding to the subthread where Crash and I were discussing gun deaths. If you're actually talking about gun crime then much of what I've been saying doesn't apply. People who don't have guns can't commit murder with a gun. I was serious. Don't try to be a hero.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

I understand. When you increase the number of guns from 0 to 1, you can only increase the number of gun deaths. But that doesn't hold true when you increase the number of guns from 1 to 2. Or, necessariy, from any other numbers besides 0 and 1! No, you're not. You've been trying to group together the inner-city unlawful and reckless gun users together with the rural law-abiding extra careful gun enthusiast into one group of average danger-per-gun group so that you can say that an individual person should avoid having a gun because it'll be dangerous. By focusing on the single asymptote, really!? You are failing to focus on one variable. False, the 2nd gun preventing the death from the first gun makes sense. Or as you phrased it:

quote:

---

with increasing gun ownership at some point gun deaths begin decreasing because of the deterrent effect.

---

Too, there is no longer a possibility of zero guns in America so this point is irrelevant. As do you. So which is it: Prevalence causes deaths or deaths cause prevalence? What data is that? Which position is it supporting? Um... no. People can't just sneak up behind me. I'm neither deaf nor blind. There's situations where they can, sure, but so what?Is that really what we're to distinguish 'ready' and 'not ready' by? Pssht. The last time a criminal approached me he walked right up to my face and asked me for help. Well, I could just have it in my pocket, or on my hip. And there's various rules for deciding whether or not you'll carry. Some of the actual legislation that I've read has some good guidelines even, for example:*Don't bring a gun to a facility where you know that alcohol is going to be consumed.So how many lives would that simple rule save? I think you've aluded to drunken rages previously.But that assumes people who obey the rules. And that brings up a further point: that increasing rules only affects the people who'll obay rules. And those are the people that you *want* having the guns. Yes. I don't have a family. When unintended access is practically impossible, the gun is unable to be more dangerous. I stay on the 2nd floor and the 1st has a creaky old floor... Ha! No, not in the slightest. Appathetic and cautious, really. I know mexicans from Fairmont City that are in Sur Trece (or however you say "South 13" in English) and other who are in the Latin Kings. They all know each other and some of them want to kill each other. They'll use whatever holmes... guns just happen to be the best right now. But why should we focus on stopping those mexicans from killing each other with guns? No shit, Sherlock.But is your ineffective attempt worth the cost? To be illustratively ridiulous; would the demise of an unarmed populous who are facing a zombie apocolyps, or alien invastion or whatever floats you boat, be worth a minor reduction in the number of poeple who die by gunshot per capita per year? I was too. Safety first.

Hi CS,I was hoping to use the hypothetical scenario to establish a common baseline of agreement before branching out, but since that isn't working out and no other avenues for finding common ground occur to me at the moment I'll just demur for now.--Percy

I think what I find most concerning about gun rights advocates is their unwillingness to acknowledge the dangers of gun possession. Concerns I've raised about how, exactly, defense against a criminal is actually going to work out in reality without threatening one's own safety and the safety of those around them have been consistently ignored or dismissed.This belief that being armed and standing up to criminals increases one's safety has been codified in some states in stand-your-ground laws. A study released last month by Texas A&M associate professors Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng reveals that stand-your-ground laws increase homicide rates. Here's the abstract: PDF: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdfSwitching now from stand-your-ground laws to the risks of gun ownership in the home, I recently chanced across this 1998 study: Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. It showed that guns are far more likely to cause injury and death in episodes having nothing to do with self-defense. From the abstract: --Percy

But nobody's talking about punishment. We're talking about self-defense. What's backwards and barbaric is to think that you just get to punch people if you want, hey, it's no big deal, and if you started a fight because you're bigger and stronger than the other guy, you should just get to win. He shouldn't get to do anything "unfair" to try to stop you.It's unconscionable. What's barbaric and backwards is a world where we take from the weak what they need to repel the strong. But I never did say that it was justified as punishment. It's justified as self-defense. No, with just a regular-sized person. People don't understand that, I guess; that somebody regular-sized can actually punch you to death. My point is that it's not escalation - being physically assaulted entitles you to use lethal self-defense. And calling it "cowardly" is exactly the sort of backwards, barbaric thinking I've come to expect from you. The weak must be subject to the whims of the strong, in Hooah's world; anything less is "cowardly." Disgusting.

Your own data supports this. The US has a much higher incidence of homicides in all weapons categories. Everything. More people are beat to death with fists in the US than they are in other "Western-style" countries. And it beggars belief to suggest that it's the mind-altering properties of guns, or something, that causes it. Surely you can see how stupid it is to suggest that murderers are going to stand there crooking empty trigger fingers at their victims for a while and then go home. That makes no sense. People who want to murder are going to grab the tool available for it; not fail to grab one tool and then give up. If I'd meant "gun homicides" I would have said "gun homicides." No, I mean homicides. One person killing another, by any means. I don't think I was unclear. Well, except that you have been. It was nonsense when you said it to Faith and it's nonsense now. "Theft" isn't the only kind of crime, after all. When we say crime we don't always mean "theft." Sometimes we mean "murder." Frequently we mean "rape." And anywhere that could be considered "civilized", we would vastly prefer that a rapist be shot and killed than a woman be raped. Or a man, for that matter. But somehow that self-defense situation always falls down the memory hole; for whatever reason, you and your side always construe self-defense as between two equally-matched combatants in stand-up, toe-to-toe fisticuffs.But it's not like that. Heavyweight boxers aren't the only people attacked by murderers and rapists. It's the weak, the small who are typically victimized; those who seem like they won't put up much of a fight because they just don't have the physique to put up much of a fight. And it's precisely those people who stand the most to gain by defending themselves with a firearm. When you take guns out of people's hands, you're not just taking it out of the hands of the abusive father who finally turns the gun on his family and then himself. You're also taking it out of the hands of the rape victim. That just seems unconscionable, to me.

So, I was interested in this and could not really find a great site to get information from. For the US, I was able to find a list of the amount of homicides that took place with each type of weapon (including blunt force). As we wanted to look at knife crimes and determine if the US is at a higher percentage, let's do that.In 2008, in the United States, there were 14,180 homicides, compared with the UK's 651. Of the US murders 1,897 were committed with a knife and 270 of the UK's used a knife. This works out to 13.4% of homicides in the US utilize a knife, while 41.5% of UK homicides use a knife.Based solely upon population size, .00044% of UK residents can expect to be murdered with a knife, while .00062% of US residents can expect the same. So, while the difference is not a lot in precentage, it seems like it would add up to slightly more risk of death in the US even without guns.Also, I think it is an important point to notice how much more of a percentage of homicides utilize a knife in the UK. It seems that a lot of individuals, since most murders are done in the moment, not preplanned, simply find another means to kill someone. I think that there are a lot more variables that we are not considering when we simply think that removing guns will make things a safer society...banning guns does nothing to curb violence if the bad individuals can still obtain them and if the crimes of passion (in the moment) will simply move to another means. UK HomicidesUS Homicides

Ok, I guess, but I did that back in Message 689 and it didn't seem to help. I appreciate that you may have missed it - it wasn't addressed specifically to you - but please don't accuse me of not being "clearer" about what I've been telling you in every single post since you asked. As I said in Message 1047 I've been pretty clear that I think a significant driver of high gun ownership in the US is the desire of many Americans to be better equipped to commit a homicide. I don't know how I could have been any clearer about it. Higher than in any other OECD country.

That may be true in general but certainly your opponents in this thread have been explicit in their acceptance of the dangers of gun possession. It's been you who refuses to acknowledge the danger of not having a gun when you need one. One potential criticism of this study is that "homicide rates" includes justifiable self-defense homicides. And the times when the gun was used for self-defense without being fired? Not statistically captured, of course, so assumed not ever to have occurred.

Well that's disappointing... I put too much time into that to be happy with a simple hand-wave.What, exactly, is the common ground that you want to establish? That raising the number of guns increases the number of gun deaths? I can assume that for the sake of discussion.From Message 1115: Are you kidding? Have you never seen a list of Range Rules:

quote:

---

1.2 GENERAL SAFETY RULES
1.2.1. Place firearms in rack, with actions open or in a case, and check in before entering the firing line shelter.
1.2.2. Hearing and eye protection must be worn on the range. See the Range Safety Officer if you need hearing or eye protection.
1.2.3. The use of drugs or alcohol on Issaquah Sportsmen's Club property is prohibited. Persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be denied the use of club facilities .
1.2.4. Smoking while in the firing line shelter, range control building, restroom, or in the warming shed is prohibited. Smoking is allowed in the designated smoking area only (Gravel areas). Gunpowder is not allowed in the smoking area. Dispose of butts in containers provided for their disposal.
1.2.5. Eating or drinking in the firing line shelter is not recommended.
1.2.6. Horseplay is prohibited . Horseplay or other activities not related to shooting are not allowed on the range.
1.2.7. Use staplers on target frames only. Do not staple posts, benches, seats or other areas where users may contact sharp staple points.
1.2.8. User ages: Pistol shooters must be 21 years of age or older, or be supervised by a parent or guardian. Rifle shooters must be 18 years of age or older; except as follows: Children under 18 may shoot when supervised by a parent or guardian, or between the ages of 14 and 17 with a Hunter Education Certificate.
1.2.9. Visitors or spectators shall remain outside and to the rear of the firing line shelter.
1.2.10. Only club approved targets may be used. No human shaped targets are allowed at ANY time.
1.2.11. Any violation of the safety rules, operating procedures, or Range Safety Officer's instructions can be cause for removal from the range.

​

1.3 FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SAFETY RULES
1.3.1. Know how the firearm operates.
1.3.2. Be sure that the firearm and the ammunition are compatible.
1.3.3. Keep the action open and the firearm unloaded until ready to use.
1.3.4. Keep fingers off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot.
1.3.5. A maximum of ten rounds at a time may be loaded in rifle chambers or magazines.
1.3.6. A maximum of ten rounds at a time may be loaded in pistol chambers or magazines.
1.3.7. Quick draw shooting is prohibited.
1.3.8. Wearing of holstered or concealed firearms is not allowed on firing line.
1.3.9. Speed shooting is prohibited. Slow fire only.
1.3.10. Armor piercing ammunition is prohibited.
1.3.11. Tracer or incendiary ammunition is prohibited.
1.3.12. Use of cannons is prohibited.
1.3.13. Use of fully automatic firearms is prohibited.
1.3.14. Rifles with automatic shell ejection shall have a spent casing catcher installed or shooters shall use a cartridge deflection screen available from the Range Safety Officer.
1.3.15. Shotguns firing slugs or shot may be used only by members on rifle range so long as they pass a test given by RSO. Slugs will be used at 25 yards. Shot will be used at 7 yards. All other shotgun use is prohibited unless specifically approved by the Board of Directors.

​

1.4 RANGE OPERATING PROCEDURES
1.4.1. Know and obey all range commands.
1.4.2. All firearms will be unloaded with the action open and magazines removed before entering or leaving the range. Unloaded firearms may be transported in gun case, with the actions closed.
1.4.3. ll firearms will be placed on shooting benches with the muzzles pointed down range or in the rifle racks.
1.4.4. All shooters will remain behind the red line, except when the range is cleared for shooting. The red warning lights will go off and the Range Safety Officer will announce "commence fire" allowing shooting to begin.
1.4.5. Shooting periods are normally 15 minutes long. There will be a 5 minute and a 1 (one) minute warning before a cease fire is called. Use this time to finish firing, unload your firearm and step behind the red line. Leave your firearm on the bench with the action open.
1.4.6. When a cease fire is called remain behind the red line until the red lights go on and the Range Safety Officer announces it is O.K. to change targets. Do not handle any firearm during the cease fire period.
1.4.7. During target change cease fires, place your paper target on the frame above the number frame matching your numbered shooting position. Do not place targets on posts, number boards or other devices or holders not provided by the club or approved by the Range Safety Officer.
1.4.8. It is your responsibility to clean up after yourself. Recycle your targets and put spent casings in the provided buckets. Brooms are provided to sweep up spent casings. If brass on the ground or in the buckets does not belong to you, you may NOT take it for yourself unless approved by the Range Safety Officer.
1.4.9. When the range is cleared, the Range Safety Officer will turn out the red lights and announce the commence fire. Then and only then may you proceed forward, load your firearm and begin firing.
1.4.10 EMERGENCY CEASE FIRE If an emergency cease fire is needed, it may be called and all shooters shall immediately cease fire and step behind the red line and remain there until the cease fire is cleared.

---

But that doesn't mean that its difficult to be safe with a gun. There's a few simple rules that if always followed will prevent injury:1. Treat every gun as if it was loaded.
2. Don't point it towards anything you don't want to shoot.
3. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot.
4. Be mindfull of what's behind your target. An increase in the number of reported murders Okay, but why should I let the fact that those idiots in Memphis are shooting each other determine whether or not I would be better off having a gun?

Which doesn't even have to be an intruder who ran after seeing the cold hard steel. It could also be the guy that just decided to stay home instead because he was afraid there might be a gun.

Doyou live in the wild west where Biff Tannen goes around beating up Marty McFly every hour? Is the world full of Marty McFly's? That's not what anyone is doing. You aren't Judge Dredd and you don't get to kill people as you see fit just because you are a scared pussy that gets your ass whipped constantly.You know who does do that? The Columbine kids and all the other high school shooters. They got picked on and enacted their revenge. I guess crash says they were right.Crashfrog says the Columbine shooters were in the right. And I'll bet that happens less often than schools getting shot up. So which is a worse problem? Based on what? Your say so? I go by the Geneva Convention and it says other wise. Well, I can't stand your green fucking frog face.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This thread is amazing for a couple reasons. First, it's still on topic after 1124 messages. Second, no moderator has closed it yet (don't worry about me, I'm a participant).How about we self-moderate and make sure on our own that things don't spiral out of control. It won't take much. It just means staying mostly on topic, which we've been doing, and keeping discussion impersonal, which maybe we could do better at.

Nobody expects any better from Hooah.But really, cavediver? Really, Rahvin? Kudos for this shit? Honestly?Maybe you guys could explain what you felt was meritorious about this message.