11
Contributors
30
Replies
130
Views
5 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Agilemind
Featured Replies
  • > you have it all wrong, no one wants to kill their neighbors we just want the right to protect ourselves and our family. And from whom do you think you are going to "protect" yourself, if not your neighbors. That's what I meant. > Also it's more about having … Read More

  • 2

    > Since 1998 after Britains laws were put in place their murder rates doubled As a Brit, care to expand upon which 'laws' you are talking about and where you get the relevant stats from? I'm guessing you mean the change to the existing regulations regarding pistols? However, what you … Read More

  • 2

    > Since the blanket ban on firearms, murder rates have skyrocketed, including gun murder rates. Murder rates have skyrocketed in the UK since the 16th century restriction on carrying weapons and crossbows? Or do you mean when guns were made illegal to carry in public in 1824, is that what … Read More

  • Whoever imposed the 70mph limit needs to be taken out and shot! ;) On a more serious note, speaking as a Brit, knowing how tightly guns are controlled I feel safer here than I do when I visit the states. I'm still afraid of Mr. Burberry and his chavtastic warriors, … Read More

  • 2
    diafol 3,720   5 Years Ago

    This debate has been done many times over, hasn't it? I though we were going to discuss... >I just ran across this article about a judge's allowing a subpoena of over 100 accounts, for over 9 years - blanket from google, ms, and yahoo. @GJ - if you want to … Read More

0

I'm definitely worried about the state of my country (United States). I litterally am thinking about where to flee to because I and others know it's going down a really bad path. Government is to large, gun's are being jeopardized, and what I call equalization is coming on full force. The loss of privacy on top of all of that is even worse, it's time to make an escape plan before it's to late (next 20 years).

0

Judges tackle illegal behaviour, just because it involves the use of the Internet what difference should that make? Evidence is evidence wherever it comes from.

0

gun's are being jeopardized

If by that you mean you are worried the government is going to seize your precious guns just because they try to pass reasonable legislation to keep them out of the hands of criminals and whack-jobs the please don't flee to Canada. We don't want you.

By the way, are you aware that the US Postal Service has been photographing the outside (front and back) of every piece of mail since 2003? And you got upset about the cell phone tracking. I can see people saying "screw this" and omitting a return address from now on.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

No I am not aware of that, but it doesn't matter because they aren't opening our mail and invading our privacy. And I am definitely not fleeing to Canada, if you would like to know why please ask. The people use guns to kill people so I understand the government doing something about the whack-jobs in someway that doesn't remove other peoples rights (gun laws). Weapons are trivial for America to function, once they're gone it's OVER. My favorite quote: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." also "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late" - Thomas Jefferson (second a variation) Since 1998 after Britains laws were put in place their murder rates doubled (murder rates not GUN murder rates...), mexico had 27,199+ murders this past year (stats here) Also don't tell me anything about Canadian statistics, you have a much smaller population. It's been proven where there are more guns there is less violence (in modern societies). Guns are vital, the first thing a dictator does it take away guns so the citizens can't protect themselves. Whether or not guns exist a criminal is going to do what a criminal is going to do.

Edited by NardCake

0

Wow - any conversation any one starts will bring out the gun nuts - I think the 2nd amendment should be added to Godwin's law as a corollary (there are other corollaries already under consideration).

What I really hate about the gun nuts is the stupid things that they blame on our founding fathers for quotes that they pull out of their asses like:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." also "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late"

See Thomas Jefferson never said those things. I wish they would not believe everything thing they read on some random stranger's .sig or at the top of their blog; at the very least effing least use google to help them. There might be something in the many things TJ said that might be helpful to their cause but making stuff up just reverberates in the echo chamber where they seem to reside.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were very intelligent men and they very carefully chose their words (think Poor Richard's Almanac). Please stop attibuting thougbhtless bumperstickers to them.

Sorry, I just got back from Gawker and needed to vent.

Edited by GrimJack: hyper-vent-alating

0

Wow. Like poking a hornet's nest with a stick.

It's been proven where there are more guns there is less violence (in modern societies).

I'd love to see some reliable statistics to back that up. Fox News stats need not apply.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I did get those quotes from GoogleGoogle, I formulate my own opinions and do not read blogs. Why am I a nut just because I have an opinion? And you didn't care to battle any of my other points?

0

And you didn't care to battle any of my other points?

So you are OK with the government keeping records of your mail, cell phone usage, internet activity, etc. I suggest you look up Panopticon.

Any, by the way, just because you found the quote through Google doesn't make it legitimate.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

Weapons are trivial for America to function, once they're gone it's OVER.

That's extremely sad. It's sad that you consider it a defining aspect of America; that people keep a piece of equipment in their house and be prepared to use it to kill their neighbors.

In some countries (..cough.. Canada ..cough..), people consider it a defining aspect of their country; that people would never wish harm on their fellow countrymen and have the confidence that their military could never even stomach the idea of turning their weapons onto their fellow countrymen.

In my perspective, when the people lose that sentiment, THAT is when it's "OVER".

My favorite quote: [...] "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late" - Thomas Jefferson

You might consider making this your new favorite quote:
"An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern." -- Tony Benn

You seem so passionate about the issue of your guns being "jeopardized" (I am not sure what exactly you are referring to... the recent extremely weak and short-lived attempt at closing the gun-show loophole?). You might want to direct some of that passion towards other threats that are much more real and well underway for decades. I'm referring to the threats to the education, mental and physical health, and confidence of the American people. In the last decades, the education system has become massively underfunded, and undermined by pretenses that "teaching facts and critical thinking is liberal propaganda". The healthcare system has become the most outrageous and fraudulent private cartel. And the confidence of the american people in themselves and their principles have been greatly undermined when americans accept to give in to fear and terror, and accept to abandon their principles, buckling under the threat of terrorism.

Guns are vital, the first thing a dictator does it take away guns so the citizens can't protect themselves.

False. The first thing an aspiring dictator does is take away people's sentiment of security, undermine the education system, and stiffle them with poverty. At that point, all the aspiring dictator has to do is convince one faction of the population that the other faction is the enemy, which is easy to do when they are uneducated, poor, fearful and demoralized. At that point, who has guns or not doesn't really matter that much, it might affect the length of the conflict and the death-toll, but everybody has lost already, the nation has died.

mexico had 27,199+ murders this past year (stats here)

Mexico is a war zone right now. Drug cartels fighting each other and wreaking havoc in the communities, who fight back by organizing armed militias. Complete chaos. One thing's for sure though, all sides fight with American-made and American-bought machine guns.

It's been proven where there are more guns there is less violence (in modern societies).

False. Quite the opposite actually:

M. Killias, "International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide", Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1993. - Quote:

"There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership."

L. M. Hepburn and D. Hemenway, "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature", International Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 2004. - Quote:

"Most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate."

1

(Responses organized by paragraphs)

Just because In my opinion guns are trivial doesn't mean It's the defining aspect, you have it all wrong, no one wants to kill their neighbors we just want the right to protect ourselves and our family. Also it's more about having the god given right to protect yourself than having a

piece of equipment in their house and be prepared to use it to kill their neighbors.

I'm referring to mostly outsiders, and extreme liberals in this country that believe taking weapons is the way to stop crime. If you want to ban guns I want to ban water to stop people from drowning, that's essentially the same thing, none of those make sense. Yes I agree with you on education and health, just not universal healthcare.

And the confidence of the american people in themselves and their principles have been greatly undermined when americans accept to give in to fear and terror, and accept to abandon their principles, buckling under the threat of terrorism.

That is very true, that's why I believe Osama Bin Laden (or whoever organized 9/11) to be one of the smartest people to ever live. To orchestrate an attack that would cause America to destroy itself from the inside.

False. The first thing an aspiring dictator does is take away people's sentiment of security

When us "gun nuts" talk about guns it litterally means guns and it's also meaning the right to protect yourself which is essentially the peoples sentiment of security.

One of the main reasons Mexico is a warzone is because they have strict gun laws. A criminal is a person who has comitted a crime. So if someone is going to murder someone (against the law) do you think they care about any gun laws? No they aren't, they are going to use other weapons, so if you're going to ban guns so people don't kill people you my as well cut everyones fist off, ban knives, ban hamemrs, well ban basically everything. With the case of Mexico if they are distributing drugs they aren't going to care if guns are against the law, it's just going to cause more violence smuggling it in because they're criminals.

Hmm... I will read up on those, take a look at this.

I think we're kind of derailing this thread (mostly my fault) lets continue with PM's maybe?

2

you have it all wrong, no one wants to kill their neighbors we just want the right to protect ourselves and our family.

And from whom do you think you are going to "protect" yourself, if not your neighbors. That's what I meant.

Also it's more about having the god given right to protect yourself

Well, saying it's "god given" is pretty ungrateful towards the generations of people who fought (mostly with words) to give you those rights.

I'm referring to mostly outsiders, and extreme liberals in this country that believe taking weapons is the way to stop crime.

Empirical evidence is clear, reduce the gun possession means a reduction in crime. I won't discuss this further, this is just facts, and:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams.

just not universal healthcare.

Yeah, because we all agree that some people just don't deserve to live. (sarcastic)
That's what "not universal" means, in case you didn't know.

When us "gun nuts" talk about guns it litterally means guns and it's also meaning the right to protect yourself which is essentially the peoples sentiment of security.

You misunderstood me. The "sentiment of security" does not mean that (at least, I didn't mean it that way at all). I have a sentiment of security when I can stand in a room full of people and be quite certain that not a single one of them wants to harm me, as I don't want to harm them. When you have lost that sentiment, you no longer have freedom or piece of mind, whether you have a gun under your belt or not. The gun only gives you the faint hope that you'll be faster than the other guy to pull the trigger, this is no substitute for a true sentiment of security. It is no substitute for freedom.

One of the main reasons Mexico is a warzone is because they have strict gun laws.

The main reasons for the troubles in Mexico are a combination of the intensification of the illegal drug trade towards the US, and of the decrease in living standards that the Mexicans have been experiencing as a consequence of NAFTA and the latest conservative government in Mexico. Tensions rise between drug cartels while law enforcement and welfare programs are being defunded which compounds the problem and expands the chaos.

And gun laws in Mexico are not really tight. All sides have plenty of guns. I'm sure they all "feel" very secure.

So if someone is going to murder someone (against the law) do you think they care about any gun laws? No they aren't, they are going to use other weapons,

This hypothesis is false, as I quoted earlier from the peer-reviewed study. Many many murders are not premeditated (accidental, because of panic, because of anger, while committing a more minor crime, etc.), and there are far fewer of those when people don't have guns that are so easy to kill people (or yourself) with. The people who premeditate a murder can easily get a gun, gun laws not withstanding. The conclusion is that reducing gun ownership significantly cuts down on all types of un-premeditated murders (incl. suicides) and other similar crimes, and they are not "replaced" by more knife murders or whatever. It's that simple.

And no, guns are not the same as knives, fists, or hammers. You have to be nuts to find a similarity there.

Hmm... I will read up on those, take a look at this.

The Blaze?!? Seriously... if you consider that a trust-worthy source, I have little hope for you. For me, a reliable source means: substantial research, evidence-based conclusions, and a peer-review process. Anything short of that is merely "talking around the water cooler". That's why I quoted peer-review research earlier, because these are the only sources worth quoting to substantiate a claim.

And by the way, that article is a clear case of cherry picking. I find this is very recurrent in these conservative talking-heads, they have these flagship examples for each issue, but always ignore the broad studies that actually have substantiating evidence with statistical significance. It's always a matter of "Aha! Look at this case.. it clearly proves my point.", but never a word to refute the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The thing is, on any issue, you can always find outlyers that support your preferred conclusion. But this practice is aggregiously dishonest.

2

Since 1998 after Britains laws were put in place their murder rates doubled

As a Brit, care to expand upon which 'laws' you are talking about and where you get the relevant stats from? I'm guessing you mean the change to the existing regulations regarding pistols? However, what you don't appear to have grasped is that firearms in general are 'banned' here anyway. Possession is only legal under very strict licensing conditions, and usage highly restricted. How you correlate a doubling in murder rates to small changes in the law regarding weapons that were already highly restricted under existing licensing law (the only change was that small firearms/pistols could no longer even be held under license) is, quite frankly, beyond me...

0

'm guessing you mean the change to the existing regulations regarding pistols? However, what you don't appear to have grasped is that firearms in general are 'banned' here anyway.

However, what you don't appear to have grasped is that firearms in general are 'banned' here anyway.

which is exactly what he meant. Since the blanket ban on firearms, murder rates have skyrocketed, including gun murder rates.

In the Netherlands, where guns are outlawed as well (except for police and other criminals), there are at least 1-2 gun murders per DAY, that's more than in a comparable sized US population where people are allowed to protect themselves.
And that doesn't include the far higher rate of violent crime using other implements. Knives, screwdrivers, tyre irons, people get very inventive when it comes to ways to maim and kill.

When guns are outlawed, only police and other criminals will have guns. And soon enough they'll call for outlawing other things.
UK a few years ago tried to outlaw kitchen knives because they are being used for violent crime by people that can't get guns.
Netherlands wanted to outlaw tyre irons for the same reason.
Luckily, cooler heads prevailed when MPs realised that that's common household implements they themselves have a use for.

2

Since the blanket ban on firearms, murder rates have skyrocketed, including gun murder rates.

Murder rates have skyrocketed in the UK since the 16th century restriction on carrying weapons and crossbows? Or do you mean when guns were made illegal to carry in public in 1824, is that what you are saying? Or maybe the Gun License Act of 1870 or the Pistols Act of 1903? Or the legislation introduced in 1920, 1937 and 1968 which put more restrictions on the types of firearms that could be licensed? Guns have never been illegal to own here, and still aren't, however there are and always have been very strict controls over ownership.

Murder rates have also increased since the speed limit of 70mph was introduced on the motorways in the UK. I see exactly the same relevance (ie zero) in that correlation, but we can run with it if you like. Bring back unlimited speed limits on motorways and reduce the murder rate, let's start a campaign. I bet murder rates in the US increased after it imposed speed limits as well.

Your argument seems to be 'allow everyone to have guns as it's easier to murder people, with less mess, when they are legal' which is just pure insanity.

Edited by happygeek

Votes + Comments
Damn that 70mph limit! :)
2

Whoever imposed the 70mph limit needs to be taken out and shot!

;)

On a more serious note, speaking as a Brit, knowing how tightly guns are controlled I feel safer here than I do when I visit the states. I'm still afraid of Mr. Burberry and his chavtastic warriors, but that's a different reason and is part of a whole culture problem here.

People kill people, guns make it easier to kill people and abstract the act of killing away. How easy is it to pull a trigger? Compare that to how easy it is to beat someone to death with a crowbar. I don't mean physically, I mean psychologically.

It is for this reason I despise civilians having guns.

With regards to America, you guys have a different type of police force than we do. Our police force will protect us, as far as I'm aware, yours will not. I refer to a recent case I read: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsource

Now I understand the reason the judge ruled this way was to protect your gun laws. Are you really happy with that? A law that allows the police to stand there and do nothing while you are assaulted and potentially killed, just so you can have your precious guns? (Which aren't much use in close combat...)
In the UK, if the police see anything like that, they will intervene (as thankfully happened for me) and they have no problems mixing it up in a fight where weapons (even illegal firearms) are concerned.

Additionally, although we know that "criminals that want guns can get guns" that's no reason to make them freely available. Some kids that want crack can get crack so let's make crack legal too :) No..I don't think so ;)
Guns are not like water. Sure, water might be an agent involved with drowning, but it's also a substance required to live. You don't need a gun to live so this is an incorrect comparison.

Votes + Comments
Good logical writing - I always like it when Brits enter with some information
1

You don't need a gun to live so this is an incorrect comparison.

You will if you live in St. Louis, Missouri or Washington D.C.

You people only hear about high crime rates in the big cities of America. There are millions of people living without fear all over the country, living in small towns and rural areas. I am one of them -- the town where I live has a population of about 2,000 and the only crime we have had since I moved here in 1979 is kids playing pranks on Halloween. I don't even lock the doors of my home when no one is home for a few hours or when I am sleeping. And I list just a few miles outside of St. Louis, which has one of the highest crime rates in US.

On Thomas Jefferson Quotes

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

(At the time that was written America had large slave trade, "fee man" generally referred to white people, not black slaves, although there were a few white slaves too.)

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.

-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

And another

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

Ancient Dragon: See that is what I meant about how thoughtful the Founding Fathers wrote - I can believe those quotes (but I will verify them when I have time).

Speaking of the Hidehoshi comment: that is referring to the the 'involentary' collection of taxes wherein the tax collectors came to your home and took the taxes. We have what is known as a 'voluntary' tax collection system; voluntary in this usage has a specific usage that is different than common usage - I really do prefer to prepay my taxes to armed tax collectors stopping by on a regular basis. In 1536 3 forces were growing in power (the emperor no longer had any real power, his protector/commander/shogun had all the power. Their philosophies can be viewed by this schoolchild refrain:

What if the bird will not sing

  • Nobunaga answers: "kill it"
  • Hideyoshi answers: "Make it want to sing"
  • Ieyasu answers: "wait"
    Just to make their history a little more interesting - they call the Hideyoshi era the Tokugara Shogunate and he is also referred to as Taiko (if there are any more versed in Japanese history on here please correct any of my outsiders ideas).

NardCake:
I am not sure the word 'trivial' means what you think it means.

Weapons are trivial for America to function,

This is not a grammar attack - I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Do not loop me in with the anti-gun group - I am with the pro-regulation group. I bought my first .22 in 1962 and traded up from a bolt action to a semi-auto in 1964; I bought a Win .3030 in 1966; in 1974 my b-i-l gave me a .357 mag revolver and I still have all three. I was born and raised in Montana and got out of the USMC in 1969 - I love shooting but I am all for background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I also believe that the laws should be written to allow law enforcement to trace weapons back to the dealers who sell them.
I will get back to what your other points were later, I have to get out of the house right nowl.

Edited by GrimJack: clarified some thoughts

0

GrimJack I suppose my use of trivial was a bit loose. When I said that I meant that without the right to protect ourselves (guns) America can't function, sorry for the misunderstanding.

0

mike_2000_17

And from whom do you think you are going to "protect" yourself, if not your neighbors. That's what I meant.

Criminals.

Well, saying it's "god given" is pretty ungrateful towards the generations of people who fought (mostly with words) to give you those rights.

I understand this, when I said that I meant that we SHOULD be able to protect ourselves from other people, why is it even an argument? That was a bad choice of wording on my part.

Empirical evidence is clear, reduce the gun possession means a reduction in crime.

Sources?

I won't discuss this further

You remind me of any Piers Morgan gun debate.

Yeah, because we all agree that some people just don't deserve to live. (sarcastic)
That's what "not universal" means, in case you didn't know.

The United States doesn't need the beginning of what I call the equalization period. We're already paying 4.1 % (http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/) of our population not to work, I know some of these people need the help but it is heavily abused. It's human instinct to be lazy, if you have the oppurtunity to get money to do nothing you're going to do it, healthcare is just another incentive. Sometime we may get to a point where half of the Country is working to keep food on their table and someone elses, meaning we're working for people who don't do anything. Those people are very unfortunate but it shouldn't be at our loss to keep them going,.

You misunderstood me. The "sentiment of security" does not mean that (at least, I didn't mean it that way at all). I have a sentiment of security when I can stand in a room full of people and be quite certain that not a single one of them wants to harm me, as I don't want to harm them. When you have lost that sentiment, you no longer have freedom or piece of mind, whether you have a gun under your belt or not. The gun only gives you the faint hope that you'll be faster than the other guy to pull the trigger, this is no substitute for a true sentiment of security. It is no substitute for freedom.

You honestly think if everyone had a gun on them at all times crime will increase?

The conclusion is that reducing gun ownership significantly cuts down on all types of un-premeditated murders (incl. suicides) and other similar crimes, and they are not "replaced" by more knife murders or whatever. It's that simple.

So if a person has a knife on him instead of a gun and they are panicked just because they have a knife because of a gun they won't do anything?

And no, guns are not the same as knives, fists, or hammers. You have to be nuts to find a similarity there.

I'm not calling you nuts, I'm trying not to be offensive but when you call me and other people nuts just because I have an opinion it really pisses me off. Anyways if guns didn't exist and machetes were the weapon of choice the exact same thing would happen. Guns, knives, fists, or hammers are all weapons, by your and many other peoples philosophy you my as well be banning knives or hammers or machetes or even water to stop people from drowning (lol).

The Blaze?!? Seriously... if you consider that a trust-worthy source, I have little hope for you.

It has sources if you care to click on the links.

And by the way, that article is a clear case of cherry picking. I find this is very recurrent in these conservative talking-heads, they have these flagship examples for each issue, but always ignore the broad studies that actually have substantiating evidence with statistical significance. It's always a matter of "Aha! Look at this case.. it clearly proves my point.", but never a word to refute the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The thing is, on any issue, you can always find outlyers that support your preferred conclusion. But this practice is aggregiously dishonest.

That very well be true but it's not like you're doing it to. With your argument on ownership vs crime you're cherry picking the best cases, take a look at the contrary.

0

We're already paying 4.1 % of our population not to work

Perhaps if the 1% and the corporations who are getting all the tax breaks in order to (they say) create more jobs actually used that money to create jobs instead of just socking it away in foreign tax-havens and off-shoring as many jobs as they can you wouldn't have that problem.

2

This debate has been done many times over, hasn't it? I though we were going to discuss...

I just ran across this article about a judge's allowing a subpoena of over 100 accounts, for over 9 years - blanket from google, ms, and yahoo.

@GJ - if you want to discuss this, perhaps it's best if you start a new thread with the caveat:

"No mention of guns or gun laws will be tolerated on this thread or I'll get a mod with non-lethal powers to remove your post, or at least have you publically pilloried for not reading this notice"

But anyway, calling somebody 'nuts' is probably bad, as I prefer 'bonkers' ;)

Edited by diafol

Votes + Comments
Agreed - I will restart the thread with caveat
0

Oh, and I just loved the quote

police and other criminals

Are you implying that the police are the major criminal force in the Netherlands? :)

The problem as I see it is that most of the stats, experiential, cherry-picked, peer-reviewed or otherwise are largely correlative. You can pretty much join the dots any way you like with the right (or wrong!) tools.

Less individual gun ownership (or restrictions on the carrying of said weapons) = less homicides, seems like the common sense answer and AFAICS, this is backed up by most of the literature. What isn't so clear though is what would happen in the USA, where the gun culture is so intrenched, if you suddenly made sweeping changes to the carriage or ownsership of guns.

If we take Australia as an example, gun crime and gun homicide have seen massive decreases since legislation in '96 and '06. However, some sources point to a significant increase in violent crime (not necessarily relating to firearms) since '06, so the picture, for me at least, is not so clear cut.

Do criminals now see disarmed civilians as easy targets? No need for a gun, I can use a screwdriver or play some Willie Nelson to get what I want as the victim won't be armed. Mind you, you can easily run away from Willie Nelson - although the post-traumatic stress of such an assault may live with you forever - whereas it's more difficult to run away from a gun fitting snuggly into your Kirk Douglas-type dimple.

1

Harlan Ellison disagrees with the statement "everyone is entitled to an opinion". He claims "everyone is entitled to an informed opinion".

You honestly think if everyone had a gun on them at all times crime will increase?

Certainly suicides-by-gun would increase as well as accidental deaths, road rage shootings, alcohol-fueled bar shootings, etc. But, as you stated,

so if you're going to ban guns so people don't kill people you my as well cut everyones fist off, ban knives, ban hamemrs, well ban basically everything.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Any position taken to extreme is ridiculous. By your logic we should all be allowed to own tactical nukes. Three cheers for NNS (Neighbourhood Nuclear Superiority).

And I presume that the alarming number of children that are dying from accidental shootings by themselves or their siblings will, in the absence of guns, either accidentally stab or bludgeon themselves and their siblings to death.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

Sources?

I already quoted the source, here it is again:

L. M. Hepburn and D. Hemenway, "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature", International Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 2004.

You can follow the references in that paper to get more sources, and read to your heart's content.

You honestly think if everyone had a gun on them at all times crime will increase?

I don't have to "think" so, it's a fact, as established by the comprehensive study I quoted.

So if a person has a knife on him instead of a gun and they are panicked just because they have a knife because of a gun they won't do anything?

Let me elaborate, which I didn't think was necessary considering how obvious this is to understand.

Case 1: Accident:
James accidently stabs his friend John, while mishandling a knife, which is a rare thing to happen (stab by accident). He most likely inflicts a minor wound to John, immediately feels terrible about the accident, drops the knife, and helps John to get some medical attention. The chances that John survives are extremely high.

James accidently shoots his friend John, while mishandling a gun, which is still somewhat rare but significant. He most likely inflicts a serious wound to John, immediately feels terrible about the acccident, drops the gun, and helps John to get some medical attention. The chances that John survives are good but not great.

Case 2: Panic:
James feels threatened as a shady-looking man approaches him, he panics, pulls out his knife and thrusts it towards the man. The man has a fair chance to step away in time and walk away from the situation unharmed. Otherwise, he might protect himself with his hand, and sustain a stab wound on his hand or arm before being able to retreat. Or finally, the blow lands successfully and inflicts a more serious stab wound, which he is still very likely to survive and recover from.

James feels threadted as a shady-looking man approaches him, he panics, pulls out his gun, aims in the general direction of the man's body (mostly likely around the chest area), and shoots. The man has very little chance to avoid the bullet or effectively protect himself. The man is likely to be killed, and James will go to jail for manslaughter.

Case 3: Anger:
James is furious at his wife because she slept with another man, he gets so pumped up that he grabs a kitchen knife and stabs her. Again, she has a fair chance to avoid the blow or protect herself, thus limiting the injuries to her extremities. Under most circumstances, the sight of blood and the screams of pain from his wife will make James stop immediately and realize the madness of his actions. It is unlikely that he will go the whole mile and continue the stabbing until death is assured.

James is furious at his wife because she slept with another man, he gets so pumped up that he grabs a gun, aims decisively, and shoots her multiple times. She is dead before James even has a chance to realize what he just did.

Case 4: A minor crime escalating:
James is a common petty criminal, he attempts to mug a woman at knife-point, hoping to get her to give up her purse / jewelry, but she resists and tries to push him away, so he stabs her in the heat of the moment, and runs away. Again, the woman is likely to survive the stab wound.

James is a common petty criminal, he attempts to mug a woman at gun-point, hoping to get her to give up her purse / jewelry, but she resist and tries to make a move (such as pulling out her own gun), so he quickly reacts by shooting her where he originally aimed at her (usually the head or chest to maximize the "fear factor" of the mugging attempt), and he runs away. The woman is dead.

Case 5: Suicide:
James is a depressed teenager and sees nothing but dark clouds over him, he doesn't have a rope, doesn't live near a high enough bridge or building, so he grabs a kitchen knife and cuts his arteries. Soon after, his father discovers him in a pool of blood, rushes him to the hospital, which might save his life and allow him to seek help. Alternatively, James decides to take the remainder of his father's painkillers in the hopes of overdosing, but he wakes up the next day with a terrible feeling, which gets him to rethink the whole idea of committing suicide.

James is a depressed teenager and sees nothing but dark clouds over him, he grabs his father handgun, puts the barrel in his mouth, shoots and dies.

Case 6: Mistaken identity:
Late at night, James hears some creeping sounds in his house, he grabs the baseball bat he keeps in his bedroom for protection, he carefully makes his way in the dark, he sees a dark figure roaming in his house, he creeps up to him and knocks him out with the bat. Then, James turns on the lights and realizes that the intruder was just his teenage son who was probably sneaking back into the house after a night out with his friends (unbeknownst to his father). Later, his son comes to and everything is fine (maybe a trip to the doctor the next day to make sure there were no serious head trauma).

Late at night, James hears some creeping sounds in his house, he grabs the gun he keeps in his bedroom for protection, he carefully makes his way in the dark, he sees a dark figure roaming in his house, he aims and shoot. Then, James turns on the lights and realizes he just killed his teenage son.

All these types of cases put together account for roughly 85% of situations in which a gun is used by civilians. The remainder are legitimate self-defense cases and premeditated murders. In other words, if you use a gun in a real situation (i.e., not at the shooting range or while hunting), you are statistically far more likely to use it to kill yourself, a member of your own family, an innocent person (or a petty criminal), or to commit murder, than you are to use it in legitimate self-defense. And in almost all cases, an alternative scenario that does involve a gun, but instead some other weapon or method, the consequences are far less dramatic in general. Fewer guns == fewer deaths.

What is most dangerous are the people who have the crazy delusion that they should carry a gun for protection and that using it is actually a wise decision. I don't know if this is a Hollywood-action-movie inspired delusion or if it comes from elsewhere, or just some crazy macho concept of "courage". In any case, these people are dangerous for themselves and their neighbors. In the real world, if you want to get out of a sticky situation alive, you run! Or you do what you're told if being threatened at gun point. In most cases, trying "be the hero" will get you and the people around you killed.

The situations in which carrying and using a gun for self-defense would be good are far too insignificant, statistically, to warrant carrying one at all times or even keeping one in the house. You are more likely to be hit by lightning, so, do you walk around everywhere with a lightning rod on your back?

You remind me of any Piers Morgan gun debate.

This pains me greatly, being compared to Piers Morgan is, I think, the worse insult anyone has ever leveraged on me.

The United States doesn't need the beginning of what I call the equalization period.

Well, the United States has one of the worse income and wealth inequality in the world. I don't think that some "equalization" is too much to ask for.

We're already paying 4.1% of our population not to work

You are also paying this population to allow them to spend money. Money spent in the form of welfare checks or food stamps have an economic multiplication factor around 1.7 (conservative estimate, I've heard much more, but calculations can differ). In very simplified terms, this means that each dollar re-circulates in the economy about 2 times: the dollar is used to buy things, then received as income by the people making / selling the products, who then buy other things, etc.. until it ends up in some savings account or real asset. By contrast, the multiplication factor for money given to the rich (through tax cuts or subsidies) is less than 0.3, meaning most of it sleeps in a savings account (could be bonds or gold, or any other sleeping investments) and only a fraction of it is re-circulated to "create jobs". Ironically, welfare recipients are bigger job creators than entrepreneurs.

I'm not calling you nuts, I'm trying not to be offensive but when you call me and other people nuts just because I have an opinion it really pisses me off.

I'm actually being very gentle by choosing such a mild word.

If there is no difference between any weapon and any other, then I'd like to see you defend the right to carry an RPG to the mall or the right to keep a nuclear warhead at home. Remember, this little game can be played both ways.

Most reasonable people clearly understand that there is a significant difference between firearms and cold weapons.

It has sources if you care to click on the links.

I did. They are shit.

With your argument on ownership vs crime you're cherry picking the best cases, take a look at the contrary.

The source I quoted is a comprehensive gathering of a large quantity of statistics, compiled and correlated. It is as far from cherry-picking as you can get.

0

This pains me greatly, being compared to Piers Morgan is, I think, the worse insult anyone has ever leveraged on me.

Yeah sorry that was very offensive, not in a good mood. I'm going to read these sources then :P (Didn't see the first time)

0

This is also another nice (well-sourced) summary of the facts.

Here are a few key ones:

"Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009)."

"In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004)."

"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)."

"Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986)"

"Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998)"

"There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000)"

"The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994)"

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600." (remember that "homicide" includes many of the cases I illustrated in my previous post)

0

so if you're going to ban guns so people don't kill people you my as well cut everyones fist off, ban knives, ban hamemrs, well ban basically everything.

No - here is the real issure: guns have only one use, kill things; fists, knives, hammers, well everything all have a main function/use that does not include killing things. So if we are going to talk about banning things (and we are not, we are actually talking about regulating - as in 'well-regulated') we only need to ban something whose only purpose is to kill things.

You honestly think if everyone had a gun on them at all times crime will increase?

We actually can look to a time in history where everyone who wanted to could carry a gun - the time between the end of the civil war and the beginning of WWI in the US. Everyone in the West could carry a gun if they wanted to and so what happened can be followed by researching the Earps and their attempts at law enforcement. The Cowboys ran roughshod over everyone, even those who had guns because they had more guns. I am not going to go over the entire story here because it is a story that ran to its inevitable end in every town in the west. Guns were outlawed in town - this is how the west was won. It is true in Tombstone, Virginia City, Deadwood, Hanging Rock, Cody, everywhere.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.