I know this has been covered in here before.  But something happened this weekend to bring it to mind again.

As most of you all know, I am currently deployed to the Middle East.  I am going to be here for the next year.

Right bfore I left, I made sure my wife knew where the gun and ammunition was.  She thought I was being a bit paranoid, but she humored me.  I own a Lorcin .380, patterened off of the Walther PPK.

Well, this weekend somebody tried to steal her car.  She heard the alarm go off, so went and got the gun.  She went out front, and 2 hispanic guys in their 20's were trying to hotwire it.  They saw her and one of them started to walk towards her )holding a tire iron).  She pulled the gun out of her pocket and said (in Spanish) "Do you want some of this?"

They both took off running.  Thankfully the only damage was a broken window.  They left the dent puller on the front seat where they left it when they took off.

When the cops showed up, they told her she should have just shot them.  With one advancing towards her, she had a fully justifiable case of self-defense.  And if not for the gun, the tire iron in his hand could have killed her.

I am just thankfull she is not hurt.  The only damage is a broken window.  But I shudder to think what would have happened if she had not had the gun.  She is not in the best of health, being a cancer survivor.  I am flying home in 2 weeks so i can be with her as she goes in for surgery.

So love guns or hate them, they can make a huge difference when you are faced with the scum of the earth.

Wow.  That's some scary sh*t!  Thank god your wife was not harmed. 

I'm glad your wife is okay, Mushroom. Glad to know just the show of a weapon prevented anything further from happening...

... and I'm also glad she didn't have to use it, because a Lorcin 380 is, well, less than my first choice of firearm... for any reason.

I hope everything goes as well as possible for your wife's surgery.

Ant

I'm glad it came out ok, Mushroom. That is scary. But why did she go outside? They could have had a gun, too. She didn't know that.


Again, I'm glad she is ok.



Cat

Glad she's ok and hope her surgery goes well too.

I have to say your wife should runned home and called the cops right away even if that meant the criminals would've taken her car, life is not a movie there's no need to risk life like that. Guns in civilians hands do more harm than good in my opinion

Wow, 'Shroom... You got yourself one heck of a great wife there!   :)

My sidearm of choice woulda been my old reliable Colt 1911.  Sure it is an older model but that .45 slug still leaves one heck of an impression.

But when confronted with two perps as your wife was, I would have probably whipped out my semiauto Benelli with the pistol grip.  The extra firepower would definitely give her an edge.  They don't call them "riot guns" for nothing!  ;)

I would told those punks to....uhhh...change the oil every 3000 miles and remember to rotate the tires!
:-[

Glad she's ok and hope her surgery goes well too.

I have to say your wife should runned home and called the cops right away even if that meant the criminals would've taken her car, life is not a movie there's no need to risk life like that. Guns in civilians hands do more harm than good in my opinion


I disagree.  Guns in the hands of someone trained with one can do a lot of good in dispatching scum.

I'd have to agree with the cop.  She should've emptied his skull.

I have to say your wife should runned home and called the cops right away even if that meant the criminals would've taken her car, life is not a movie there's no need to risk life like that. Guns in civilians hands do more harm than good in my opinion


I have to disagree as well. More people like Mushroom's wife would mean less crime and less police required.

Besides, cops are for cleaning up the mess afterward and taking reports - very few crimes of this nature are stopped in progress by police. I'd bet $20 they didn't even dust the car for prints nor will they catch these guys for this particular crime.


I'd have to agree with the cop.  She should've emptied his skull.


Unless you live in Texas, it's not that easy either. You can't protect property with deadly force. One would also have to make every reasonable and available means of escape before doing such a thing. Shutting and locking the door would have been prudent, though had they decided to pursue further (forcibly entering the home with a weapon), then ya, she should have emptied the 2 rounds into the guy(s).

I say 2 rounds b/c a Lorcin 380 is a pos and would probably jam after two shots. Sorry, Mushroom, I call 'em as I see 'em.

Ant

Unless you live in Texas, it's not that easy either. You can't protect property with deadly force. One would also have to make every reasonable and available means of escape before doing such a thing. Shutting and locking the door would have been prudent, though had they decided to pursue further (forcibly entering the home with a weapon), then ya, she should have emptied the 2 rounds into the guy(s).

I say 2 rounds b/c a Lorcin 380 is a pos and would probably jam after two shots. Sorry, Mushroom, I call 'em as I see 'em.

Ant


True, although Florida is pretty lenient as well.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

A firearm in the right hands is a way of de-escalating conflicts.  This case is a textbook example of how it usually works out; presentation of a lawfully-carried firearm in response to unlawful force tends to end the conflict without a shot being fired.  Everybody - bad-guy, good-guy, and cop alike - goes home, and the paperwork is kept to a minimum. 

Good that she had the option to fire in self-defense.  Even better that she didn't feel the need to do so. 

And just plain lucky for the bad guys that she's Doing It Right.

yes, yes, but the real issue is, do firearms diffuse more situations than they create? i'm fine with people owning firearms, but on the whole i think they're used more often in crimes of passion, heated moments of anger, and awkward drunken accidents than they are to diffuse potential violent situations. i know people own and enjoy guns, but when they go that extra step to try and justify guns as instruments that contribute to the general peace and welfare, i think that argument is, frankly, prespammersite. i know YOU, whoever you are, are responsible with guns but that's what everyone thinks. and yet every time i open up the paper i read about someone else killed by a stray bullet or accidentally killed by a jealous husband who was actually after someone else. i understand people want to own guns and i dont want to take that right away, it's not a battle worth fighting, but on the whole guns basically suck and we'd be better off without them.

I'm also glad your wife is ok, but I would not have gone outside.  Get the gun, call the cops and stay away.

One other thing - why is it important that they were "Hispanic"?  Would you have been specific if they had been white?

I'm also glad your wife is ok, but I would not have gone outside.  Get the gun, call the cops and stay away.

One other thing - why is it important that they were "Hispanic"?  Would you have been specific if they had been white?
i was wondering that too.

I'm also glad your wife is ok, but I would not have gone outside.  Get the gun, call the cops and stay away.

One other thing - why is it important that they were "Hispanic"?  Would you have been specific if they had been white?


Oh c'mon.  Do you have to make this a race thing now?

Look, from now on, we'll just describe people as pale, tan, or dark.  Is that ok?

I have to disagree as well. More people like Mushroom's wife would mean less crime and less police required.

Besides, cops are for cleaning up the mess afterward and taking reports - very few crimes of this nature are stopped in progress by police. I'd bet $20 they didn't even dust the car for prints nor will they catch these guys for this particular crime.

Ant


Why don't we just all become cops instead? Let's do justice with our own hands,how great will it be ::)

We don't have to be too smart to come to the conclusion that there are way too many guns in the US. Most of the guns bought legally are the ones being used by criminals, how many of this legal guns are stolen and sold? Thousands. If these guns didn't exist it yes they could get 'em anyway but they would be harder to get and be more costly. Whether you like it or not no gun control is one of the reasons behind your high crime rate .


Oh c'mon.  Do you have to make this a race thing now?

Look, from now on, we'll just describe people as pale, tan, or dark.  Is that ok?


Touchy, touchy  :D

I think Mushroom mentioned they were hispanic because his wife threaten them in spanish.

Why don't we just all become cops instead? Let's do justice with our own hands,how great will it be ::)

We don't have to be too smart to come to the conclusion that there are way too many guns in the US. Most of the guns bought legally are the ones being used by criminals, how many of this legal guns are stolen and sold? Thousands. If these guns didn't exist it yes they could get 'em anyway but they would be harder to get and be more costly. Whether you like it or not no gun control is one of the reasons behind your high crime rate .


Gun deaths in the US in 2008: 28,094 (16,750 of which were suicide)
Motor Vehicle deaths in the US in 2008: 37,313 (lowest figure in 40 years)

If I replace "guns" with "cars" in you paragraph, I have a perfectly sound argument as well, right?

I'm not looking for us to all be cops or vigilantes or turn the clock back to the 1870s and have wild-west type justice (or ride horses to work instead of driving cars). The truth is the US has plenty of gun control laws on the books, many of which are never enforced. I don't remember the year, but in one recent year like 15,000 felons applied for guns (and lied on the application), yet something like 32 were prosecuted for doing it. Both parties play stupid on this point and never really strive for any real change. Passing more feel good laws will do nothing to curb gun violence. Enforcing the ones we have would.

The only way I would ever consider giving up a right to bear arms is if police response time to 911 calls was 60 seconds or less, nationwide, with a 99%+ "on-time" rate. Trading my right to defend myself comes at the price of someone else doing it for me at a moment's notice.

You and I both know guns by themselves are not the sole cause of violence, either in America, Brazil or elsewhere.


yes, yes, but the real issue is, do firearms diffuse more situations than they create?


It's hard to say... accurate statistics on non-violent use of guns to deter threats aren't well documented. Mushroom's wife's incident probably won't be.

Many aspects of guns DO suck. It's heartbreaking to hear about a 3 year old picking up a loaded gun and shooting his face off. It's aggrivating to see idiots doing stupid things with guns and posting the "fun" on YouTube. And it's totally "wtf?" to see some dumb guy down on his luck finally snap and take out a dozen other people with him. These things happen far too often, and it's not just a black eye for gun rights advocates nor just a checkmark in the 'I told you so' column of the "gun control" folks: it's real lives that are affected in bad ways. But as many problems as guns have, they are nowhere near unique in that regard.

If you guys can explain this to me, it would help, honestly: why the huge deal about guns? What I mean is, why go after a cause of death that is so far down on the totem pole in the grand scheme of things? For every age group, I could cite credible sources of half a dozen or more different factors that cause far more prventable deaths than firearms do. To me, it's kinda like drug testing the guy who finishes 7th in the Olympics when the guys on the podium are clearly juiced. I don't get it.

Ant

Gun deaths in the US in 2008: 28,094 (16,750 of which were suicide)
Motor Vehicle deaths in the US in 2008: 37,313 (lowest figure in 40 years)

If I replace "guns" with "cars" in you paragraph, I have a perfectly sound argument as well, right?
well cars actually are an integral part of making the economy run. i'm not surprised there are a lot of fatalities in the deal to the devil that we commit in order to have a highway system, but think of what we get? do we get anything like the maintenance of the modern western economic system that we get with cars, from guns? will a gun get you to work every day? not really. the impression i get is guns are mostly a hobby that gets a lot of people killed.

I'm not looking for us to all be cops or vigilantes or turn the clock back to the 1870s and have wild-west type justice (or ride horses to work instead of driving cars). The truth is the US has plenty of gun control laws on the books, many of which are never enforced. I don't remember the year, but in one recent year like 15,000 felons applied for guns (and lied on the application), yet something like 32 were prosecuted for doing it. Both parties play stupid on this point and never really strive for any real change. Passing more feel good laws will do nothing to curb gun violence. Enforcing the ones we have would.

sounds a lot like what happened with banking regulations. the liberalization of both of which was radically advocated by the right wing, which has run things for the last eight years. might not be a coincidence that we're seeing wide-spread economic meltdown and the spreading of orgiastic gun violence at the same time. the laws on the books to keep both in check have been undermined in terms of enforcement since at least when bush got into office. clinton didn't seem to be too big on them either.

... and I'm also glad she didn't have to use it, because a Lorcin 380 is, well, less than my first choice of firearm... for any reason.


I have a .380 for several reasons.

For one, I originally bought it for my late fiancee.  At only 5', I needed a semi auto that was a single stack, and light enough so she could recover quickly after firing a shot.

Also, I know what pistols can do.  I am an expert shot, having guarded everything from the LA municipal water supply, to nuclear warheads.  I do not need some kind of "macho .44" to blow some sucker away, just enough to stop a bad guy.

And the .380 is not called a "Short 9mm" for nothing.  It is basically the same round, just less powder.  Which helps prevent it from going through walls and hitting family members or innocent bystanders.  I have no desire to kill a criminal, just to hold him for law enforcement.

However, I also will not hesitate to kill them if warranted or unpreventable.


I say 2 rounds b/c a Lorcin 380 is a pos and would probably jam after two shots. Sorry, Mushroom, I call 'em as I see 'em.


The Lorcin can actually be a pretty good gun, if properly maintained.  I clean mine regularly, and when loaded at home it has a good quality copper jacketed bullet.

Most jams tend to be either poor maintenance, poor quality rounds, or hollow points.  I have put several hundred rounds through mine, almost never a jam.  And all the jams I attribute to the cheap unjacketed lead rounds I use for target practice.  In over 50 of my "real rounds", I have never had a jam.

The Lorcin .380 os basically a copy of the Makarov .380.  That is a copy of the Walther PPK.  Both are well built and designed guns, often better known as the guns of choice for James Bond.


I'm also glad your wife is ok, but I would not have gone outside.  Get the gun, call the cops and stay away.

One other thing - why is it important that they were "Hispanic"?  Would you have been specific if they had been white?


Because that is a major crime issue in the region.  The vast majority of stollen cars in this area turn up in Juarez, which is about a 15 minute drive from my house.  There are at least 3 Hispanic car theft rings in the area.

And I would have pointed out if they were white also.  In this area, most thefts by whites are for "joy riding".  Most by Hispanics are for taking south and stripping (or use as drug curriors).

Since this was a 1990 Lincoln Towncar, I suspect couriers.  Older car, not stand out but also not to "junky" to attract attention.  With the military decal, just make up a fake military ID and most border guards would hardly give it a second glance.

Boy...you sure don't a lot of 1990 Lincoln Towncars up here in the Northeast.  Road salt eats 'em alive!

Gun deaths in the US in 2008: 28,094 (16,750 of which were suicide)
Motor Vehicle deaths in the US in 2008: 37,313 (lowest figure in 40 years)

If I replace "guns" with "cars" in you paragraph, I have a perfectly sound argument as well, right?

I'm not looking for us to all be cops or vigilantes or turn the clock back to the 1870s and have wild-west type justice (or ride horses to work instead of driving cars). The truth is the US has plenty of gun control laws on the books, many of which are never enforced. I don't remember the year, but in one recent year like 15,000 felons applied for guns (and lied on the application), yet something like 32 were prosecuted for doing it. Both parties play stupid on this point and never really strive for any real change. Passing more feel good laws will do nothing to curb gun violence. Enforcing the ones we have would.

The only way I would ever consider giving up a right to bear arms is if police response time to 911 calls was 60 seconds or less, nationwide, with a 99%+ "on-time" rate. Trading my right to defend myself comes at the price of someone else doing it for me at a moment's notice.

You and I both know guns by themselves are not the sole cause of violence, either in America, Brazil or elsewhere.

It's hard to say... accurate statistics on non-violent use of guns to deter threats aren't well documented. Mushroom's wife's incident probably won't be.

Many aspects of guns DO suck. It's heartbreaking to hear about a 3 year old picking up a loaded gun and shooting his face off. It's aggrivating to see idiots doing stupid things with guns and posting the "fun" on YouTube. And it's totally "wtf?" to see some dumb guy down on his luck finally snap and take out a dozen other people with him. These things happen far too often, and it's not just a black eye for gun rights advocates nor just a checkmark in the 'I told you so' column of the "gun control" folks: it's real lives that are affected in bad ways. But as many problems as guns have, they are nowhere near unique in that regard.

If you guys can explain this to me, it would help, honestly: why the huge deal about guns? What I mean is, why go after a cause of death that is so far down on the totem pole in the grand scheme of things? For every age group, I could cite credible sources of half a dozen or more different factors that cause far more prventable deaths than firearms do. To me, it's kinda like drug testing the guy who finishes 7th in the Olympics when the guys on the podium are clearly juiced. I don't get it.

Ant


Come on Jack,the car argument is pretty weak,no?

Firearms have only one purpose,why would a person with a good head on their shoulders even wanted to be near one is beside me.
You see you're right,guns are not the problem people who love guns are :P

It's like that line from "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

"There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig."

It's like that line from "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

"There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig."
well, in the wild west, that was probably true. and if america becomes like the wild west, i guess it will become that way again. but i for one do not see that as a desirable outcome.

It's like that line from "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

"There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig."


Actually there are two kind of people in the world the good like moi, and the bad and ugly ones like you :D

well, in the wild west, that was probably true. and if america becomes like the wild west, i guess it will become that way again. but i for one do not see that as a desirable outcome.


Well, it depends on where you live.

Phoenix has the second highest kidnapping per capita rate in the world thanks largely to illegal immigration.  If I lived there, I'd definitely be packing.

If I lived in Oakland or Detroit, I'd also be packing.  It probably wouldn't hurt to be armed in L.A. either or in any border town.

Actually there are two kind of people in the world the good like moi, and the bad and ugly ones like you :D


You're so cute when you say things like that...  ;)

Come on Jack,the car argument is pretty weak,no?

Firearms have only one purpose,why would a person with a good head on their shoulders even wanted to be near one is beside me.
You see you're right,guns are not the problem people who love guns are :P


I'll answer you're question if you answer mine:

"If you guys can explain this to me, it would help, honestly: why the huge deal about guns? What I mean is, why go after a cause of death that is so far down on the totem pole in the grand scheme of things? For every age group, I could cite credible sources of half a dozen or more different factors that cause far more prventable deaths than firearms do. To me, it's kinda like drug testing the guy who finishes 7th in the Olympics when the guys on the podium are clearly juiced. I don't get it."

Ant

I'll answer you're question if you answer mine:

"If you guys can explain this to me, it would help, honestly: why the huge deal about guns? What I mean is, why go after a cause of death that is so far down on the totem pole in the grand scheme of things? For every age group, I could cite credible sources of half a dozen or more different factors that cause far more prventable deaths than firearms do. To me, it's kinda like drug testing the guy who finishes 7th in the Olympics when the guys on the podium are clearly juiced. I don't get it."

Ant
well, to restate, because it seems the casualties are the POINT with guns. they serve no other useful purpose except, in rare instances, hunting for food. otherwise they're a hobby with a massive body count.

anyway, diz can speak for herself but for me i don't even want to regulate guns, at least not beyond reason. i just don't buy the argument that on the whole they're a net benefit for society. and that's the argument you have to make, that they provide a net benefit that outweighs their 20,000+ annual body count. otherwise, it seems pretty plain to me that they're a drag on society, a lot like tobacco. i don't want to outlaw tobacco but the stigmatization of tobacco, as a product that does nothing other than kill you, is a healthy development for society as a whole. i think guns should be perceived in a similar way.

well, to restate, because it seems the casualties are the POINT with guns. they serve no other useful purpose except, in rare instances, hunting for food. otherwise they're a hobby with a massive body count.

anyway, diz can speak for herself but for me i don't even want to regulate guns, at least not beyond reason. i just don't buy the argument that on the whole they're a net benefit for society. and that's the argument you have to make, that they provide a net benefit that outweighs their 20,000+ annual body count. otherwise, it seems pretty plain to me that they're a drag on society, a lot like tobacco. i don't want to outlaw tobacco but the stigmatization of tobacco, as a product that does nothing other than kill you, is a healthy development for society as a whole. i think guns should be perceived in a similar way.


In a nutshell, the "net benefit" for society is that we do not need a large portion of our tax base going to police to keep crime under control. You seem to place a LOT more faith in government/state protection of our people on our soil than I do. Sure, we have a huge military to protect us from international threats, but police here cannot adequately respond to crimes in progress. Nationwide, something like 25% of reported violent crimes are solved. That's a pretty piss-poor number.

Casualties are not THE point with guns. Yeah, a lot of it is hobby, some is hunting, and I'm not going to go into that pesky Constistution thing we have. As with any dangerous product, people will lose their lives.

As for your post about cars being useful, that's true: they are. But aside from directly killing tens of thousands of people every year, often in far gorier ways than firearms, transportation is also pretty much how every single drug in this country gets to an addict. That cars and trucks and scooters are necessary doesn't excuse their high death toll, even with proper use. Because transportation is necessary to our lifestyle, that makes a two-fold death toll increase over those 'hobby' guns okay? Of course it doesn't, but I see your point that they are a necessary evil.

I always enjoy debating with you, Tia. and I'm glad to know that you don't want more regulations, restrictions, bans, etc.

At $5.50+ a pack, tobacco is on it's way out. Even though I'm a smoker, I wouldn't care if they were illegal, because unlike guns or cars, they serve ZERO purpose except to sicken and kill and make the big companies richer.

Ant

yes, yes, but the real issue is, do firearms diffuse more situations than they create? i'm fine with people owning firearms, but on the whole i think they're used more often in crimes of passion, heated moments of anger, and awkward drunken accidents than they are to diffuse potential violent situations. i know people own and enjoy guns, but when they go that extra step to try and justify guns as instruments that contribute to the general peace and welfare, i think that argument is, frankly, prespammersite.


(Pet peeve of mine - it's defuse (to disarm, to prevent from blowing up, etc.), not diffuse (to spread around, to dilute, etc.)

i know YOU, whoever you are, are responsible with guns but that's what everyone thinks. and yet every time i open up the paper i read about someone else killed by a stray bullet or accidentally killed by a jealous husband who was actually after someone else. i understand people want to own guns and i dont want to take that right away, it's not a battle worth fighting, but on the whole guns basically suck and we'd be better off without them.


But on to the important stuff.

First:  Citation needed.  I don't know what the numbers are.  Neither do you.  Let's see some data beyond "every time you open the paper" and appeals to emotion.

Because every time I opened up the paper a couple of years ago, I read about a SHARK ATTACK!  Ten years ago, it was KILLER BEES!  There were also the Summers of the Missing White Girls, and the post-9/11 Anthrax Scare era of Buildings Locked Down due to Unidentified White Powders.  ("I went into the coffee room, and there was white powder all around the place where the powdered non-dairy creamer used to be!"  "We have to take every call seriously...")

You always hear about the crimes of passion because they make the news.  You never hear about the 30-second confrontations like this one, because... well, if you're a news reporter trying to fill the space between commercials with terrifying stories of blood and gore, there's nothing worth reporting.  So you never hear about it. 

There's no citizen-accessible centralized database of police records, so you can't even look it up; all we can do is wait for some academic who happens to have either a pro-gun or an anti-gun bias to do the research that best fits our preconceived notions.

Obligatory car analogy:  If I walk to the bar, have a few beers, and walk into the path of an oncoming bus, MADD and other neo-prohibitionist organizations will classify it as an alcohol-related automobile accident. 

By the same token, if a 17-year old sticks up a store and gets tried as an adult, he's an adult felon, but if he gets shot in self-defense by the a shopkeeper, he's a child (a minor) who died due to firearm violence.  There's also the thornier issue of suicide.  Was Hunter S. Thompson also a "victim of gun violence"?  The answer to that one depends on a philosophical issue completely unrelated to firearms.

Net benefit to society?  You pays your money, you picks your researcher, you takes your chances. 

Owning firearms all my life since I was a teen, I feel like I know how to handle them safely, handguns, shotguns, rifles & I know very well how dangerous they can be & that innocent people can get hurt or killed. If you pull a gun on someone, you better know how to use it, and be absolutely sure of a threat to life because as much as I feel the need to protect my property, I'd hate to shoot a punk because he was trying to steal a stereo. And then there are many unforeseen things that can complicate things in a tense situation such as multiple targets, numerous individuals and not knowing if they have a gun or weapon. Your adrenaline kicks way up, your heart races, and it could be dark and hard to see. Ya need to be 100% sure it's not a family member or friend or neighbor. another thing is if you've called the police, they might not venture into area until they know you've put your gun away.  I keep mine locked with a trigger keylock, but I make sure the key and ammo are readily available and easy to access and load if needed and I can do that very quickly. hopefully there is never a need to use it, but if there is a threat to my family, I'll do what i gotta do.  8)
Mushroom, your wife took a chance but we do have a right to protect our property in this country and sometimes I feel like we work so hard to pay the bills and provide and then some criminal tries to take whjat we've worked for, and then I can see going out and drawing on them but she could have been shot too.  maybe you guys should get some kevlar vests  8)  actually, that's not a bad idea  ::) 

(Pet peeve of mine - it's defuse (to disarm, to prevent from blowing up, etc.), not diffuse (to spread around, to dilute, etc.)

But on to the important stuff.

First:  Citation needed.  I don't know what the numbers are.  Neither do you.  Let's see some data beyond "every time you open the paper" and appeals to emotion.

Because every time I opened up the paper a couple of years ago, I read about a SHARK ATTACK!  Ten years ago, it was KILLER BEES!  There were also the Summers of the Missing White Girls, and the post-9/11 Anthrax Scare era of Buildings Locked Down due to Unidentified White Powders.  ("I went into the coffee room, and there was white powder all around the place where the powdered non-dairy creamer used to be!"  "We have to take every call seriously...")

You always hear about the crimes of passion because they make the news.  You never hear about the 30-second confrontations like this one, because... well, if you're a news reporter trying to fill the space between commercials with terrifying stories of blood and gore, there's nothing worth reporting.  So you never hear about it. 

There's no citizen-accessible centralized database of police records, so you can't even look it up; all we can do is wait for some academic who happens to have either a pro-gun or an anti-gun bias to do the research that best fits our preconceived notions.

Obligatory car analogy:  If I walk to the bar, have a few beers, and walk into the path of an oncoming bus, MADD and other neo-prohibitionist organizations will classify it as an alcohol-related automobile accident. 

By the same token, if a 17-year old sticks up a store and gets tried as an adult, he's an adult felon, but if he gets shot in self-defense by the a shopkeeper, he's a child (a minor) who died due to firearm violence.  There's also the thornier issue of suicide.  Was Hunter S. Thompson also a "victim of gun violence"?  The answer to that one depends on a philosophical issue completely unrelated to firearms.

Net benefit to society?  You pays your money, you picks your researcher, you takes your chances. 
well, i guess what i'm saying is, if there IS a net benefit to society of basically unregulated gun ownership in america, i need to hear from you what it is. yes, yes, citations, i know, but i believe the 20,000+ casualty figures from guns annually is non-controversial. (wasn't that a figure you provided? I'd have to go back and look.) so what is it exactly about guns that are so beneficial that it rates 20,000 deaths per year? defusing (and thank you for that, you're entirely right) the occasional mugging is not worth 20,000 deaths per year, in my opinion. i need to hear a reason why it is.

I'll answer you're question if you answer mine:

"If you guys can explain this to me, it would help, honestly: why the huge deal about guns? What I mean is, why go after a cause of death that is so far down on the totem pole in the grand scheme of things? For every age group, I could cite credible sources of half a dozen or more different factors that cause far more prventable deaths than firearms do. To me, it's kinda like drug testing the guy who finishes 7th in the Olympics when the guys on the podium are clearly juiced. I don't get it."

Ant


The huge deal is that guns are accessible to EVERYONE. With my bad temper i wouldn't even trust myself with one why would i trust you? The police and the military have enough armed rampage lunatics and they're there to protect us. The US and Brazil have the same violent culture, guns in our hands are just fuel to our rage.

The huge deal is that guns are accessible to EVERYONE. With my bad temper i wouldn't even trust myself with one why would i trust you? The police and the military have enough armed rampage lunatics and they're there to protect us. The US and Brazil have the same violent culture, guns in our hands are just fuel to our rage.
not every armed citizen is fueled with rage ready to go on rampage at the slightest provocation. it's just that when the few do, it makes news.

not every armed citizen is fueled with rage ready to go on rampage at the slightest provocation. it's just that when the few do, it makes news.
a few high-profile spree killers are not responsible for 20K deaths per year. yanno?

a few high-profile spree killers are not responsible for 20K deaths per year. yanno?


If they had armed hall monitors at Columbine, they could have gunned down those two nutjobs before anyone got killed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif

not every armed citizen is fueled with rage ready to go on rampage at the slightest provocation. it's just that when the few do, it makes news.


You have a gun,right Mike? God forbid but imagine if something bad happened to Di or Julz, you would get so angry,so desperate that if you had the chance you would take that gun and kill whoever did it. I know i would,it would be a common reaction. But we have laws, there are authorities who take care of it because justice can't be in our hands. We as citizens need to respect that if we want our society to work.

If they had armed hall monitors at Columbine, they could have gunned down those two nutjobs before anyone got killed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif
couple interesting arguments on that.

first, when you think about it... okay, spree killer, comes into a room and starts shooting people. say a bunch of people in the room are armed. well, the guy shooting sees the people reaching for guns, which makes them targets, so he just shoots em while they're sticking their hands in their jackets. simple. if you have a gun in a situation like that, turns out you're probably just going to die first. and it turns out they kinda wargamed this out, a study of sorts with paint guns, guy goes in with a paint gun and goes postal, some of the guys in the room have concealed paint guns, they reach for them and get pwn3d.

here's the other thing, and this is particularly true in columbine and virginia tech, where you have roving killing sprees and people in different rooms/classrooms hear gunshots, get told rumors, see fleeing victims, so forth. if you've read descriptions of either of these episodes, it was absolute pandemonium.

now say half the students there were armed. once the killers go through the first room, shooting the gun-toters first and then exterminating the rest, this wave of terror goes through the entire school, all the people who are armed in the school draw their guns. now, they have no idea who the real killers are, they're just there, panicked, with drawn, loaded guns, looking at other people with drawn, loaded guns. the outcome is obvious: all the people with guns are going to start shooting each other!

it's a no-brainer. the wild-west solution to dealing with spree-killers is stupid. and like i said, i'm not in favor of heavily legislating guns, but i think this veneer that carrying guns around is somehow cool needs to be taken on. smoking was cool for a while too, but excessive gun ownership, just like smoking... it's just a dead weight on society. it pulls us all down.

You have a gun,right Mike? God forbid but imagine if something bad happened to Di or Julz, you would get so angry,so desperate that if you had the chance you would take that gun and kill whoever did it. I know i would,it would be a common reaction. But we have laws, there are authorities who take care of it because justice can't be in our hands. We as citizens need to respect that if we want our society to work.
It's hard to say what a person would do or what we are capable of doing if something of that magnitude happened. I would avoid harming another person as much as is possible, but I firmly believe in having the means to protect life if it is threatened. and after that, then the laws can be applied as needed  8) 

It's hard to say what a person would do or what we are capable of doing if something of that magnitude happened. I would avoid harming another person as much as is possible, but I firmly believe in having the means to protect life if it is threatened. and after that, then the laws can be applied as needed  8) 
i read that and having said what i said above, in the instance that something tragic happened to someone i loved, chances are good i might go out and buy a gun to make things right. which sorta makes diz's point and sorta doesn't. in that instance you have no idea what someone will do and guns definitely make it possible to do more crazy things, but at the same time owning a gun might not make that much of a difference, yanno? just that they can be gotten.

You buy a gun, one of three things happens:

1. Nothing.
2. You kill somebody with it.
3. Somebody kills you with it.

How about them odds?
???

If they had armed hall monitors at Columbine, they could have gunned down those two nutjobs before anyone got killed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif


Actually, they did have armed campus police at Columbine.

The problem with that situation is that when the rest of the cops finally showed up, they really screwed up their rules of engagement.  They waited outside the building in the crossfire instead of entering the buildings and taking on the terrorists full-on.

You buy a gun, one of three things happens:

1. Nothing.
2. You kill somebody with it.
3. Somebody kills you with it.

How about them odds?
???
It's the Saturday Night Special  8)


i read that and having said what i said above, in the instance that something tragic happened to someone i loved, chances are good i might go out and buy a gun to make things right. which sorta makes diz's point and sorta doesn't. in that instance you have no idea what someone will do and guns definitely make it possible to do more crazy things, but at the same time owning a gun might not make that much of a difference, yanno? just that they can be gotten.
lack of a gun wouldn't prevent me from "making things right",  I'm pretty good with a bo staff  :D

If they had armed hall monitors at Columbine, they could have gunned down those two nutjobs before anyone got killed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif


Damn straight.

Damn straight.


NO PASS = SHOT IN THE ASS!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rocketwhore.gif

If they had armed hall monitors at Columbine, they could have gunned down those two nutjobs before anyone got killed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/fal.gif
gunning em down wouldn't be necessary, just have them check their guns in and don't let them have them back until after class  ::)

well, to restate, because it seems the casualties are the POINT with guns. they serve no other useful purpose except, in rare instances, hunting for food. otherwise they're a hobby with a massive body count.


I would dissagree with that.

I myself find shooting to be a very relaxing sport.  There is something almost Zen like when I am on the range.  It is like there is a direct connection between myself, the weapon in my hand, and the target.  I tune out everything else but myself and the target, and almost will my shots to hit where I want them.

For somebody that has not done much chooting it can be almost impossible to explain.  And for other members in my family that did competition bow shooting they describe it the same way.  It takes concentration and focus.  And it is very satisfying to not only do something, but to do it well.

And for me, it is also a key part of my profession.  I qualify at least 2 times a year, and practice at least 1 or 2 more times.  And that is just with the M-16.  In the last year and a half I have also qualifies with the M-246 SAW, the M-9 pistol, the M-2 .50 machine gun, and the Mk-19 Grenade launcher.

Each weapon has it's own unique style and requirements to shoot well.  I enjoy practicing with all of them, but take special pleasure when I shoot a pistol.  It is a much more organic weapon.  Ranges are much closer, and reflexes and speed are much more important.


It's hard to say what a person would do or what we are capable of doing if something of that magnitude happened. I would avoid harming another person as much as is possible, but I firmly believe in having the means to protect life if it is threatened. and after that, then the laws can be applied as needed  8) 


Owning a gun to me is something very special.  And I do not nessicarily mean that in a good way.  As a line from a comic book says, "with great power comes great responsibility".

I have used them, both as a sport from when I was 10.  And also as a tool of my profession.  And I have even bought and sold them professionally.  And many times I have actually talked people out of buying a gun.

26 years ago my first job in the Marines was as a guard at a Naval Weapons Station.  And yes, one of the things I guarded were nukes.  And the things we had to know are still in my mind, even a quarter of a century later.  And I take them very seriously.

One of the first things we had to learn was what is known as the "Rules of Deadly Force".  And I can still recite them by heart:

Deadly force is that force a person uses when they know or reasonably know, would cause a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm.  It is only used in cases of last resort, when all lesser means have failed, or can not be reasonably employed.

And there are only 6 times Deadly Force can be applied:

1.  Self Defense
    Self explanitory
2.  Defense of Government property vital to National Security
    Such as a nuclear weapon, or cryptology equipment
3.  In defense of Government property not vital to National Security, but inheriantly dangerous to others
    Like weapons or ordinance
4.  To prevent serious offense against others
    Like murder, aggrivated assault, rape, etc
5.  Apprehension and escape
    To stop somebody if they have done any of the previous 4 offenses
6.  Lawful order
    As anybody in the military can tell you, not every order is lawful.

In short, you do everything possible to prevent having to shoot somebody.  But if there is nothing else to be done and what the person has done falls under the category of "saving your own or somebody else's life", then you do what you have to do. 

Have I ever had to shoot anybody?  Thankfully, no.  Would I?  If I felt it was warranted, without hesitation.  And I do not believe in "warning shots".  You shoot for the torso, and nowhere else.  I also do not believe in simply showing a gun.

If you own a gun, you have to be mentally prepared to pull it out.  If you pull it out, you had better be prepared to shoot somebody with it.  And if you shoot somebody, you had better be damned well prepared to kill them.  And by that I mean mentally prepared.

If you can't do any of the above, you have no reason to own a gun.  Stick to shooting spit-balls.


The huge deal is that guns are accessible to EVERYONE. With my bad temper i wouldn't even trust myself with one why would i trust you? The police and the military have enough armed rampage lunatics and they're there to protect us. The US and Brazil have the same violent culture, guns in our hands are just fuel to our rage.


Well, I certainly never considered myself a rampaging lunatic.  But I know I certainly do not like serving with them.  Most of those that "talk tough" are talking out their arse.  They have probably never used their gun other then on the range, and in reality would void themselves if they ever really had to.  Not somebody I want to trust my life to.

I would dissagree with that.

I myself find shooting to be a very relaxing sport.  There is something almost Zen like when I am on the range.  It is like there is a direct connection between myself, the weapon in my hand, and the target.  I tune out everything else but myself and the target, and almost will my shots to hit where I want them.

For somebody that has not done much chooting it can be almost impossible to explain.  And for other members in my family that did competition bow shooting they describe it the same way.  It takes concentration and focus.  And it is very satisfying to not only do something, but to do it well.

And for me, it is also a key part of my profession.  I qualify at least 2 times a year, and practice at least 1 or 2 more times.  And that is just with the M-16.  In the last year and a half I have also qualifies with the M-246 SAW, the M-9 pistol, the M-2 .50 machine gun, and the Mk-19 Grenade launcher.

well, zen experiences do not equate with "usefullness," which is the word i used. what service do firearms provide that justifies the 20,000+ people shot to death every year? that's a 20,000-death drag on society that firearms should provide a benefit to counterbalance, otherwise, net, they're a detriment to our society, not a boon. so that's what i'm still waiting to hear, what that benefit is. busting up the occasional mugging isn't good enough, and neither is the "zen" experience of using a firearm. a lot of things are associated with zen-like experience, from jogging and meditation to heroin abuse to hannibal-lecter style sexual mutilation. some zen-like things are good, some are bad. just because something provides a zen-like experience in no way testifies to its usefulness.

i understand the "part of the profession" argument, that's not a bad point. of course, for most of us firearms are not part of our profession so it's a bit of an exception.

well, zen experiences do not equate with "usefullness," which is the word i used. what service do firearms provide that justifies the 20,000+ people shot to death every year? that's a 20,000-death drag on society that firearms should provide a benefit to counterbalance, otherwise, net, they're a detriment to our society, not a boon. so that's what i'm still waiting to hear, what that benefit is. busting up the occasional mugging isn't good enough, and neither is the "zen" experience of using a firearm. a lot of things are associated with zen-like experience, from jogging and meditation to heroin abuse to hannibal-lecter style sexual mutilation. some zen-like things are good, some are bad. just because something provides a zen-like experience in no way testifies to its usefulness.


D.T. Suzuki was into cow-tipping!
:D

well, zen experiences do not equate with "usefullness," which is the word i used. what service do firearms provide that justifies the 20,000+ people shot to death every year?

The wonderful thing about statistics is that they can often be twisted to mean whatever you want them to mean.

True, guns kill between 20-35k perople every year.

But of that, an average of 56.5% are suicides.  And if somebody wants to kill themselves, they will do it.  Be it by gun, poison, overdise, jumping, hanging, slitting wrists, planned accident, or anything else.  Nobody buys a gun to kill themselves, they simply use whatever is available at the moment to accomplish the task.

And don't forget, the statistics that list death by guns list "homicide" as the cause of death.  This can be everything from a person killing somebody in a bank robbery, to a police officer killing a criminal who is holding an innocent person hostage.  Any time a person kills another it is a homicide, wether it is justifiable or not.

And roughly the same number of people die of illegal drug use.  Also roughly the same number of people die from sexual behavior (AIDS and other diseases).  However, over 40,000 die every year due to motor vehicle accidents.

Maybe we should outlaw drugs, unmarried sex, and motor vehicles.  They all kill as many if not more people then fire arms.  And if you remove suicide from the statistics, guns kill around the same number of people as Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, such as Aspirin and Ibuprofin.

The wonderful thing about statistics is that they can often be twisted to mean whatever you want them to mean.

True, guns kill between 20-35k perople every year.

But of that, an average of 56.5% are suicides.  And if somebody wants to kill themselves, they will do it.  Be it by gun, poison, overdise, jumping, hanging, slitting wrists, planned accident, or anything else.  Nobody buys a gun to kill themselves, they simply use whatever is available at the moment to accomplish the task.

And don't forget, the statistics that list death by guns list "homicide" as the cause of death.  This can be everything from a person killing somebody in a bank robbery, to a police officer killing a criminal who is holding an innocent person hostage.  Any time a person kills another it is a homicide, wether it is justifiable or not.

And roughly the same number of people die of illegal drug use.  Also roughly the same number of people die from sexual behavior (AIDS and other diseases).  However, over 40,000 die every year due to motor vehicle accidents.

Maybe we should outlaw drugs, unmarried sex, and motor vehicles.  They all kill as many if not more people then fire arms.  And if you remove suicide from the statistics, guns kill around the same number of people as Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, such as Aspirin and Ibuprofin.
right, we're having the same debate i had with foo bar a couple days ago. it was motor vehicles that prompted me to ask the question, "what good do guns do us that makes it worth the price they exact from our society"? now, obviously, in the case of motor vehicles ... well, motor vehicles actually hold this society together. without them, we literally couldn't have commerce or employment. so although the price we pay for having cars is quite high, the good they provide us is such that we're basically forced to accept traffic deaths as a sad necessity to live in the society we want to live in.

i see no equivalent benefit for guns. in the hands of police officers, soldiers, etc., sure, but our current policy of basically allowing anyone who can fog a mirror to own a gun, what benefit does this policy provide that makes it worth the 20k deaths it exacts from us? bear in mind, i'm not trying to say we should outlaw guns,  i'm just trying to say that guns should be viewed negatively, the same way smoking is. it's a burden to society that causes far more harm than good. but saying "maybe we should outlaw unmarried sex" etc. etc. is a straw man. (although outlawing unmarried sex might actually make it more exciting.  :D )

you've said some things in the past that i've disagreed with, but i don't think i've ever disagreed with anything mroe than the sentiment that "if somebody wants to kill themselves, they will do it." it's been known for so long now that it's almost a cliche that most suicide attempts are a cry for help from people enduring temporary emotional distress or mental illness, many people actually attempt suicide without even hoping to be successful or are deeply ambivalent about it even as they're attempting it. so it's hard to say how many firearm suicides would still successfully commit suicide by other means if firearms weren't available (same is true of homicides, of course) but my guess is many people commit suicide by firearm but would fail if they attempted it by other means, simply because firearms are so simple and effective at being lethal.

the suicide thing actually makes the statistic MORE tragic, in my opinion, not less. some murder victims, frankly, may in a sense 'have it coming' (certain drug and mafia reprisal killings, for example) but a suicide is almost guaranteed to be innocent and undeserving of the death that they suffer.

right, we're having the same debate i had with foo bar a couple days ago. it was motor vehicles that prompted me to ask the question, "what good do guns do us that makes it worth the price they exact from our society"? now, obviously, in the case of motor vehicles ... well, motor vehicles actually hold this society together. without them, we literally couldn't have commerce or employment. so although the price we pay for having cars is quite high, the good they provide us is such that we're basically forced to accept traffic deaths as a sad necessity to live in the society we want to live in.


And with illegal drug use killing roughly the same number as firearms, you also answer the question "why should I support drug legalization"?  Because if they are legalized, the deaths would only increase.

With me, it ultimately returns to an issue of personal responsibility.  You are responsible for your actions, and if they harm others, you pay the price.

It is no secret I am a firm "law and order" person.  If you break the law, you pay the price.  If you harm others, you pay a severe price.  And if you kill somebody intentionally, you should pay the ultimate price.  Think of it as the Charlton Heston version of the "Three Fold Law".  8)

Guns do not cause crime.  Crime existed before guns did, and happens even where no gun is involved.  But if somebody uses a firearm in the comission of a crime, I feel they should get 25 years automatically.  Period.

If they leave a gun unsecure and a child harms themselves or another person, 25 years.  If they kill with a gun, LWOP or Death.

And I also believe in background checks, registration, and required gun safety courses and refresher courses.  We should treat firearms much like we do motor vehicles.

sure, individually, responsibility, licensing, all that. however, collectively, guns exact a tremendous cost to society. i'm still waiting to hear someone explain the benefit they provide that offsets that. it looks like i'm not going to get it.

drug legalization is a red herring. although i'm not sure why the personal responsibility thing with regard to guns doesn't apply with regard to drugs. and why, if legalizing drugs would increase drug deaths, and if we then stipulate -- as you seem to -- that since dangerous things like drugs should be outlawed if it reduces the damage to society, why that position wouldn't lead YOU to advocate the outlawing of firearms, since it's quite clear that would reduce the damage to society that firearms cause. seems to me for your position to be consistent you have to either think drugs should be legal (personal responsibility and hang the costs) or guns should be illegal (legislate in order to minimize social harm). seems to me you don't like drugs so you'd like to outlaw those, but you like guns, so you'd like them to be legal. and you're changing your standards and your argument to accommodate your personal taste.

again, i'm not saying guns should be illegal. i'm saying they should be understood as a social harm and stigmatized accordingly, much like cigarettes, or yes, like drug use. it's definitely possible, for instance, for a heroin addict to be very careful with regards to dose, cut, buying from a trusted source etc., and still die of an overdose. and similarly, it's possible for a gunowner to fastidiously follow every precaution and still have himself or some familymember or friend fall victim to an accidental gun injury or death.

But of that, an average of 56.5% are suicides.  And if somebody wants to kill themselves, they will do it.  Be it by gun, poison, overdise, jumping, hanging, slitting wrists, planned accident, or anything else.  Nobody buys a gun to kill themselves, they simply use whatever is available at the moment to accomplish the task.



Well, now that you bring up the subject, I must tell you about the pit.

Depression runs wide and deep in my family.  My paternal grandfather killed himself with a shotgun at the age of 37.  He was in the pit.  The folks looking after him did everything they could to keep him away from the guns on the family farm -- but he hatched a scheme to get access to them and did the job on himself.  My father was in a pit of depression at about the same age as his father and came within a hair's breadth of going out the same way.  My mother figured out what he was going to do.  She threw my father's pistol and his rifle in the trunk of the car and drove us kids to our grandparents.   It brings up a lot of hellish memories to recall that weekend so I'd rather not hash over the details. 

My aunt, my dad's sister, was hospitalized for depression last month.  She's had dysthymia her entire life but she persevered.  Now divorced and retired, living alone, children grown and all hundreds of miles away, she descended into the pit at the age of 68.  My cousins surmised from the black tone of her emails that she was in trouble.  She mentioned several times how she finally understood how our grandfather felt when he did what he did.  I don't know how, but one of my cousins figured out my aunt had applied for a gun permit.  They intervened and got her the medical care she needed.

I've been in the pit myself and I can tell you it's no place I'd wish my worst enemy to go.   If I had a gun, I would have used it on one of those stygian nights.  I would no longer be here. 

Why not some other method?  Why not a high bridge, a handful of pills, a rope or a blade?  The problem is either length of planning or uncertainty of completion or both.  You don't want to give yourself time to change your mind once you've started the process.  You don't want to wake up in custody sick and mangled and worse off than you were before.  The barrel of a gun pressed against your palate....and it's all over in a blue flash.

Maybe my aunt was telling herself she would take up target practice.  Perhaps she was telling herself she wanted to secure her home as an older woman living alone.  However, once that gun is in the house and the black dog comes howling....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/confused1.gif

You're right.  If a person is truly determined to commit suicide, he or she will -- gun or no gun.  However, something we depressives understand is when you are down in the pit, you literally can see no other way out.  This conclusion does not last more than a few hours or a few days.  After you climb back out of the pit, you might still feel life is hardly worth living, but you can see something worth living for, whether it's your spouse, your children, your career, or even just a steak and nice glass of wine...there's something.  When you're down in the pit and you've got the loaded gun and the impulse, you're much less likely to find that reason to live again.

Well, now that you bring up the subject, I must tell you about the pit.

Depression runs wide and deep in my family.  My paternal grandfather killed himself with a shotgun at the age of 37.  He was in the pit.  The folks looking after him did everything they could to keep him away from the guns on the family farm -- but he hatched a scheme to get access to them and did the job on himself.  My father was in a pit of depression at about the same age as his father and came within a hair's breadth of going out the same way.  My mother figured out what he was going to do.  She threw my father's pistol and his rifle in the trunk of the car and drove us kids to our grandparents.   It brings up a lot of hellish memories to recall that weekend so I'd rather not hash over the details. 

My aunt, my dad's sister, was hospitalized for depression last month.  She's had dysthymia her entire life but she persevered.  Now divorced and retired, living alone, children grown and all hundreds of miles away, she descended into the pit at the age of 68.  My cousins surmised from the black tone of her emails that she was in trouble.  She mentioned several times how she finally understood how our grandfather felt when he did what he did.  I don't know how, but one of my cousins figured out my aunt had applied for a gun permit.  They intervened and got her the medical care she needed.

I've been in the pit myself and I can tell you it's no place I'd wish my worst enemy to go.   If I had a gun, I would have used it on one of those stygian nights.  I would no longer be here. 

Why not some other method?  Why not a high bridge, a handful of pills, a rope or a blade?  The problem is either length of planning or uncertainty of completion or both.  You don't want to give yourself time to change your mind once you've started the process.  You don't want to wake up in custody sick and mangled and worse off than you were before.  The barrel of a gun pressed against your palate....and it's all over in a blue flash.

Maybe my aunt was telling herself she would take up target practice.  Perhaps she was telling herself she wanted to secure her home as an older woman living alone.  However, once that gun is in the house and the black dog comes howling....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/confused1.gif

You're right.  If a person is truly determined to commit suicide, he or she will -- gun or no gun.  However, something we depressives understand is when you are down in the pit, you literally can see no other way out.  This conclusion does not last more than a few hours or a few days.  After you climb back out of the pit, you might still feel life is hardly worth living, but you can see something worth living for, whether it's your spouse, your children, your career, or even just a steak and nice glass of wine...there's something.  When you're down in the pit and you've got the loaded gun and the impulse, you're much less likely to find that reason to live again.


Karma! After that testament i name you the most gutsy poster here 8)

Karma! After that testament i name you the most gutsy poster here 8)


Thanks, Dizzy.  Sometimes it take a heavy hand to drive a point home. 
;)

sure, individually, responsibility, licensing, all that. however, collectively, guns exact a tremendous cost to society. i'm still waiting to hear someone explain the benefit they provide that offsets that. it looks like i'm not going to get it.

The benefit comes under 2 rare occasions.

If the government becomes so corrupt and authoritarian that civil liberties dissipate completely, then insurgencies will be better able to weaken the power of the government.  Obviously, militias couldn't overthrow our government, but they could force the government to take serious losses if a fascist coup ever took hold.

The other rare (and almost impossible) scenario involves a foreign invasion.  If we were conquered by some foreign force, insurgencies could also make the conquerors' lives a living hell.

While both of these scenarios are highly unlikely, their defense for personal gun ownership makes all the difference when looking at our revolutionary past.

drug legalization is a red herring. although i'm not sure why the personal responsibility thing with regard to guns doesn't apply with regard to drugs. and why, if legalizing drugs would increase drug deaths, and if we then stipulate -- as you seem to -- that since dangerous things like drugs should be outlawed if it reduces the damage to society, why that position wouldn't lead YOU to advocate the outlawing of firearms, since it's quite clear that would reduce the damage to society that firearms cause. seems to me for your position to be consistent you have to either think drugs should be legal (personal responsibility and hang the costs) or guns should be illegal (legislate in order to minimize social harm). seems to me you don't like drugs so you'd like to outlaw those, but you like guns, so you'd like them to be legal. and you're changing your standards and your argument to accommodate your personal taste.

Drug legalization (for the weaker drugs) makes equally as much sense as gun legalization.  You're correct that we are neglecting personal responsibility and freedom by keeping things like pot illegal.  Sadly, there are powerful lobbies that would like to keep things like pot illegal, and criminals would like to keep them illegal because of how much they can charge for them while they are illegal.

again, i'm not saying guns should be illegal. i'm saying they should be understood as a social harm and stigmatized accordingly, much like cigarettes, or yes, like drug use. it's definitely possible, for instance, for a heroin addict to be very careful with regards to dose, cut, buying from a trusted source etc., and still die of an overdose. and similarly, it's possible for a gunowner to fastidiously follow every precaution and still have himself or some familymember or friend fall victim to an accidental gun injury or death.


When you consider that guns kill far less people than cigarrettes, alcohol, unhealthy diets, and driving, I believe the stigma for guns should be relatively low.

taken from a 2005 MSNBC report  Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.


I say ban alcohol in America and that may save most of those 70,000 lives and then in effect, it may save more lives by reducing those 20,000 deaths from guns, as it is likely many of those were either under UTI or killed by someone UTI of alcohol and then that number may only be 10,000, a more acceptable number....that is, unless you're one of the 10,000 
::)

seems to me for your position to be consistent you have to either think drugs should be legal (personal responsibility and hang the costs) or guns should be illegal (legislate in order to minimize social harm)


I think that both should be legal, but with restrictions. Not unlike the death penalty/abortion position that so many are ambivalent about.

*runs from can of opened worms*

Ant

I think that both should be legal, but with restrictions. Not unlike the death penalty/abortion position that so many are ambivalent about.

*runs from can of opened worms*

Ant


It always falls back to what I have long said.

Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, we all want to see people die.

We simply dissagree on who and under what circumstance they should die under.  8)

taken from a 2005 MSNBC report   Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.


I say ban alcohol in America and that may save most of those 70,000 lives and then in effect, it may save more lives by reducing those 20,000 deaths from guns, as it is likely many of those were either under UTI or killed by someone UTI of alcohol and then that number may only be 10,000, a more acceptable number....that is, unless you're one of the 10,000 
::)
as i've said over and over on this thread, i am not advocating the outlaw of guns. i'm advocating stigmatizing them as a harm to society. which is totally like alcohol abuse, which is already stigmatized.

as i've said over and over on this thread, i am not advocating the outlaw of guns. i'm advocating stigmatizing them as a harm to society. which is totally like alcohol abuse, which is already stigmatized.


I agree, stigmatize all things bad.

We can start with guns, and alcohol, and cigarettes, abortion, and drugs.

Then we can move on to the truely horrible things, like Boy Bands, Disco Music, and L. Ron Hubbins books.  Who knows how many people those have all killed and permanently maimed.

I agree, stigmatize all things bad.

We can start with guns, and alcohol, and cigarettes, abortion, and drugs.

Then we can move on to the truely horrible things, like Boy Bands, Disco Music, and L. Ron Hubbins books.  Who knows how many people those have all killed and permanently maimed.
ok.

of the first group of things, are guns the only thing you actually don't want to stigmatize? and if so, what is your rationale? because that's actually a pretty effective list of things that are crappy for all of us. every last one of them plays a role in making our society a slightly worse place to live in. (well, in the case of abortion i feel the need to nuance the argument and say that unwanted pregnancy makes the world a worse place to live in.) and of them all, guns are the only thing that as far as i can see, people who abuse guns aren't embarrassed to do it. as for the rest, they're pretty much stigmatized already.

of the second group, l. ron hubbard books you could actually make an argument for, in that scientology actually tries to convince people not to receive healthcare. as for the rest of it... whatever. it's frivolous. i have to be honest, i'm not sure what you're driving at. what's your point, here? i guess i need you to make it explicit for me. i mean, guns, we KNOW how many people they've killed and maimed. as for boy bands, yes, we have to speculate. and i'd speculate that the body count is zero. so what's your point?

taken from a 2005 MSNBC report   Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.


I say ban alcohol in America and that may save most of those 70,000 lives and then in effect, it may save more lives by reducing those 20,000 deaths from guns, as it is likely many of those were either under UTI or killed by someone UTI of alcohol and then that number may only be 10,000, a more acceptable number....that is, unless you're one of the 10,000 
::)



We have been down that road before. It was call PROHIBITION and it didn't work. And I do know what alcohol can do-I saw it first hand, up close & personal and it wasn't pretty.



I think that both should be legal, but with restrictions. Not unlike the death penalty/abortion position that so many are ambivalent about.

*runs from can of opened worms*

Ant



I agree with you. I don't want gun prohibition, I want gun CONTROL! There is a difference and it really bothers me that people think that gun control is the same a prohibition. As we saw in the 20s with alcohol &  today with drugs, prohibition doesn't work. It leads to crime. If there was control, crime wouldn't be as high as it is.



Cat

as i've said over and over on this thread, i am not advocating the outlaw of guns. i'm advocating stigmatizing them as a harm to society. which is totally like alcohol abuse, which is already stigmatized.
as a former alcohol abuser  ::) I'm part of society & I don't think I stigmatize it & I don't disapprove of it for others, just myself because I know how "different" I am when I drink it in the large quantities that I've been known to consume. as for guns, I think it should be mandatory that every new gun owner take a safety course before aquiring the weapon. What about the cops? do you have any problem with cops having handguns or shotguns & rifles? they have them to protect and defend the public from those that would seek to harm. those same criminals that are out there are right there in our midst everyday. they are all around seeking opportunity to rob, steal or hurt & kill. The world seems very safe and non threatening to most of us, but it's a fragile veil and it would not take much for it to get chaotic or the need for marshal law if something unexpected were to happen. we go about everyday under the protection and security of law enforcement and civility. If that is not there, then we're on our own. not being paranoid, but as a safe and responsible gun owner, I like knowing it's there even if I never have to pull it out.

as a former alcohol abuser  ::) I'm part of society & I don't think I stigmatize it & I don't disapprove of it for others, just myself because I know how "different" I am when I drink it in the large quantities that I've been known to consume. as for guns, I think it should be mandatory that every new gun owner take a safety course before aquiring the weapon. What about the cops? do you have any problem with cops having handguns or shotguns & rifles? they have them to protect and defend the public from those that would seek to harm. those same criminals that are out there are right there in our midst everyday. they are all around seeking opportunity to rob, steal or hurt & kill. The world seems very safe and non threatening to most of us, but it's a fragile veil and it would not take much for it to get chaotic or the need for marshal law if something unexpected were to happen. we go about everyday under the protection and security of law enforcement and civility. If that is not there, then we're on our own. not being paranoid, but as a safe and responsible gun owner, I like knowing it's there even if I never have to pull it out.
yeah, i talked about that with mushroom already, obviously there are people who use guns as a part of their job and obviously they shouldn't be embarrassed to do so.

i have to be honest with you, i dont particularly care to be in a house when i know there's a gun. i feel a bit less safe, because suddenly the possibility of harm being inflicted on me with an easy-to-use device solely designed for the purpose of doing me harm is readily available. on a personal level i prefer knowing guns are NOT around because statistically speaking, random guns sitting around in my environs are much more likely to do me harm than protect me.

yeah, i talked about that with mushroom already, obviously there are people who use guns as a part of their job and obviously they shouldn't be embarrassed to do so.

i have to be honest with you, i dont particularly care to be in a house when i know there's a gun. i feel a bit less safe, because suddenly the possibility of harm being inflicted on me with an easy-to-use device solely designed for the purpose of doing me harm is readily available. on a personal level i prefer knowing guns are NOT around because statistically speaking, random guns sitting around in my environs are much more likely to do me harm than protect me.
you just need to kill them first Tia. geez, what's the problem  8)  there's a warrior inside you waiting to come out. We should take you out for a shooting experience. I bet you're a good shot, a natural sharpshooter.  but then again, so was Gomer Pyle in Full Metal Jacket and we know how he went over the deep end  :o  I tell ya, knowing a gun is in someones house is not a problem for me. seeing a gun in someone's hand is a problem and especially not knowing that person. It's a different experience that I've felt and it's not pleasant. thruout history haven't people always had weapons, be it swords or pistols and we've gotten more sophisticated and able to control society and not have to wear weapons everywhere we go. but the threats to us are still present all the time, we are just good at not seeing them if they don't directly affect us. the bad guys are out there and we may never encounter them, but I'm still gonna own a gun. I've enjoyed a life of hunting, target shooting outdoors and at the range and I have no problem with them, just with the bad people that own them.  so you wanna swing by for some lunch later  :)

of the second group, l. ron hubbard books you could actually make an argument for, in that scientology actually tries to convince people not to receive healthcare. as for the rest of it... whatever. it's frivolous. i have to be honest, i'm not sure what you're driving at. what's your point, here? i guess i need you to make it explicit for me. i mean, guns, we KNOW how many people they've killed and maimed. as for boy bands, yes, we have to speculate. and i'd speculate that the body count is zero. so what's your point?


Actually, I was mostly being silly-absurd there.

And as for the El-Ron remark, have you ever seen "Battlefield Earth"?

And boy bands are the cause of the death of far to many brain cells in teenage girls, and their parents.

But they can be fun in later life.  I have occasionally mentioned to my daughter how much she once loved the Rescue Shelter Boys.  ::)

I think that both should be legal, but with restrictions. Not unlike the death penalty/abortion position that so many are ambivalent about.

*runs from can of opened worms*

Ant


Don't forget euthanasia.  ;)

How can anyone not find it excessive having more guns than people? If gun ownership really prevented crime then the US would need no prisons, 'cause everyone is armed to the teeth. Instead you have more gun massacres than any other 1st world country, your teens are exposed to the very same violent culture in other nations where they have the same problems the same angst but don't act on it as frequently because they lack means to. Guns need to be regulated more harshly everywhere, the US are no different.

How can anyone not find it excessive having more guns than people? If gun ownership really prevented crime then the US would need no prisons, 'cause everyone is armed to the teeth. Instead you have more gun massacres than any other 1st world country, your teens are exposed to the very same violent culture in other nations where they have the same problems the same angst but don't act on it as frequently because they lack means to. Guns need to be regulated more harshly everywhere, the US are no different.


Well, while it is true that our crime is worse than most countries in the First World, I don't think that's the fault of guns.  It's the fault of wealth disparity.

For example...  If more guns per capita equalled more crime, then Switzerland would have more crime than France.  Canada would have more crime than the U.K.

The only clear trends seen that correlate to crime involve wealth disparity, cultural conflict, and lack of education.  Guns are an externality.  About the only thing you could say that does correlate guns with crime is that violent crime is more lethal in environments where guns are easier to access, but that access isn't limited to legal ownership.  Most gun crimes in most countries are done with illegal firearms.

Don't forget that we also have a "thug life" culture in this nation, which glamorizes illegal possession and use of weapons.

A lot of countries have larger ownership of weapons, without the resulting damage that this nation has.  You even have cities that have made it mandatory to possess a weapon, and their crime rates are negligable.

If you look at the national statistics, most gunowners are white men in the rural South-Eastern United States.  But most gun crime happens in large suburban areas in the Southwest and North East.  And a proportionally large percentage of that crime is comitted by minorities.

The biggest problem is not guns, but the illegal aqusition of guns.  Since 1993, the use of illegal guns in crimes has risen over 258%.  And 1/4 of all gun crimes are comitted by people under the age of 21.  They are not allowed to own firearms in the first place.

I have had guns in my household all of my life.  And none has ever been fired at another person.  Nobody has ever been harmed by them.  But it has helped prevent a violent assault.

Do you think those kids would have been scared off if my wife was armed only with a telephone?

Of course, she could have also let our dog loose on them.  That would probably have done more damage then my pistol.  ;)

Don't forget that we also have a "thug life" culture in this nation, which glamorizes illegal possession and use of weapons.

A lot of countries have larger ownership of weapons, without the resulting damage that this nation has.  You even have cities that have made it mandatory to possess a weapon, and their crime rates are negligable.

If you look at the national statistics, most gunowners are white men in the rural South-Eastern United States.  But most gun crime happens in large suburban areas in the Southwest and North East.  And a proportionally large percentage of that crime is comitted by minorities.

The biggest problem is not guns, but the illegal aqusition of guns.  Since 1993, the use of illegal guns in crimes has risen over 258%.  And 1/4 of all gun crimes are comitted by people under the age of 21.  They are not allowed to own firearms in the first place.

I have had guns in my household all of my life.  And none has ever been fired at another person.  Nobody has ever been harmed by them.  But it has helped prevent a violent assault.

Do you think those kids would have been scared off if my wife was armed only with a telephone?

Of course, she could have also let our dog loose on them.  That would probably have done more damage then my pistol.   ;)
still waiting to hear exactly what benefit guns offer society that justifies 20,000-30,000+ deaths a year that they inflict on this country, and all the concomitant costs involved with that. let me know when you have an answer for me on that. i've asked that question of you and macphisto, i'm guessing, probably a half dozen times by now.

i know YOU'RE responsible with guns but you're using your responsibility to argue for a gun policy that's plainly putting guns in the hands of people who AREN'T responsible, and society is suffering as a result.

Well, while it is true that our crime is worse than most countries in the First World, I don't think that's the fault of guns.  It's the fault of wealth disparity.

For example...  If more guns per capita equalled more crime, then Switzerland would have more crime than France.  Canada would have more crime than the U.K.

The only clear trends seen that correlate to crime involve wealth disparity, cultural conflict, and lack of education.  Guns are an externality.  About the only thing you could say that does correlate guns with crime is that violent crime is more lethal in environments where guns are easier to access, but that access isn't limited to legal ownership.  Most gun crimes in most countries are done with illegal firearms.


Karma yes. 




Don't forget that we also have a "thug life" culture in this nation, which glamorizes illegal possession and use of weapons.




You are right about the glamorization of "thug life"  What can we say about a culture who holds up a low life scum like Jesse James as an example of an American hero.  How many kids want to be him.  Let's face it, a lot of people watched "The Sopranos" and sympathized with Tony, he was the guy they wanted to be, or wanted to know. 

I agree, stigmatize all things bad.

We can start with guns, and alcohol, and cigarettes, abortion, and drugs.

Then we can move on to the truely horrible things, like Boy Bands, Disco Music, and L. Ron Hubbins books.  Who knows how many people those have all killed and permanently maimed.


You're mixing up L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, with David St. Hubbins, founder of Spinal Tap!
;)

You're mixing up L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, with David St. Hubbins, founder of Spinal Tap!
;)

How do you know they're not one and the same person?  Have you ever seen them together?

Do not the levels of Scientology go up to eleven?

still waiting to hear exactly what benefit guns offer society that justifies 20,000-30,000+ deaths a year that they inflict on this country, and all the concomitant costs involved with that. let me know when you have an answer for me on that. i've asked that question of you and macphisto, i'm guessing, probably a half dozen times by now.

Cars could be compared the same way.  And before anyone says they are a necessity -- they aren't.  Relying solely on public transportation is perfectly feasible even for a nation as large as us if we are willing to make the investments necessary for it.

What it usually comes down to is an immeasurable quality -- freedom.  You can't really put a price on the right to bear arms.  It's like trying to put a price on free speech or the freedom of religion.  Likewise, you can't put a price on the freedom of being able to drive where you want, when you want.

Legalizing pot is also similar.  People point to the costs that would be associated with legalizing it, but then it becomes easy to point at how much it costs to keep it illegal.

i know YOU'RE responsible with guns but you're using your responsibility to argue for a gun policy that's plainly putting guns in the hands of people who AREN'T responsible, and society is suffering as a result.


I could make the same argument against gambling or drinking.  More people die of drunk driving every year than from guns.  Gambling usually makes the poor poorer in the areas where it is allowed.

Gun deaths among the old are most likely to be suicides. Suicides are about 57% of all gun deaths according to the U.S. Bureau Of Justice. Drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the US.

Cars could be compared the same way.  And before anyone says they are a necessity -- they aren't.  Relying solely on public transportation is perfectly feasible even for a nation as large as us if we are willing to make the investments necessary for it.

name me a country of our size that relies fully on public transportation. including for shipping, transport, local trips, things like grocery shopping where small families take groceries from the store to the home. name me a country where a family uses public transportation to move their furniture from one house to another.

and anyway, say we move from cars to public transportation. then we'll start seeing a rise of fatalities from public transportation -- train accidents and so on. the point is, these deaths are in the service of a necessary prerequisite to civilized modern life. guns provide no such service. i can defend anything by saying we should have it for "freedom." that's a catch-all.

You can't really put a price on the right to bear arms.
you can, actually. the price we're paying is approximately 20-30,000 deaths per year.

name me a country of our size that relies fully on public transportation. including for shipping, transport, local trips, things like grocery shopping where small families take groceries from the store to the home. name me a country where a family uses public transportation to move their furniture from one house to another.

and anyway, say we move from cars to public transportation. then we'll start seeing a rise of fatalities from public transportation -- train accidents and so on. the point is, these deaths are in the service of a necessary prerequisite to civilized modern life. guns provide no such service. i can defend anything by saying we should have it for "freedom." that's a catch-all.


No country relies entirely on public transportation, however, if we restricted cars to only highly skilled drivers or made licenses so expensive to obtain that fewer people got them, traffic fatalities would decrease.  This also makes support for public transportation eminent.  For a good example of this, look at Germany.

Germany proves that a country of 80 million people can mostly depend on public transportation, so extending this to 300 million people doesn't really seem that much of a stretch.

You are correct that my argument could extend to anything with freedom as the basis, but...  guns do provide a service -- self-defense.  It is equally as much a necessity as transport.  If you don't believe me, name me one free country where all weapons are banned from the public.

you can, actually. the price we're paying is approximately 20-30,000 deaths per year.


And again, I'd say the price we pay for cars is more than that every year.  The price we pay for legal alcohol is around the same.  The price we pay for legal tobacco is pretty high when figuring in the costs of lung cancer and possible dangers from second hand smoke.

I'm not saying that I want to ban all of these things, but a lot of things can be criticized for the costs they incur on society.  The question becomes: how much power do you want the government to have over your personal life?

you can, actually. the price we're paying is approximately 20-30,000 deaths per year.


Yes, and 55% of these were done by people commiting suicide.  They'll find another way.

The majority of the rest of the deaths are done in the performance of a crime, often with illegal weapons.

What makes anybody thing that a criminal who is already breaking two laws is going to stop his mayhem because you pass yet another law that covers the crime?

Guns are here to stay folks, and a gun ban would only work out like Prohibition did... a new added source of crime and a new added source of criminal activity and murders.

Yes, and 55% of these were done by people commiting suicide.  They'll find another way.


read the earlier pages. we're going round in circles, i already addressed this. what you say is totally wrong.

And again, I'd say the price we pay for cars is more than that every year.  The price we pay for legal alcohol is around the same.  The price we pay for legal tobacco is pretty high when figuring in the costs of lung cancer and possible dangers from second hand smoke.

I'm not saying that I want to ban all of these things, but a lot of things can be criticized for the costs they incur on society.  The question becomes: how much power do you want the government to have over your personal life?
i'm not saying ban guns, as i've said repeatedly here. i say guns should be stigmatized the same way alcohol abuse, smoking, heroin abuse et al. are.

gun ownership is not a noble pursuit. it may once have been but in a society like this it's a dangerous and harmful vice.

name me one free country where all weapons are banned from the public.

name me another free country where a weapon that kills 20-30,000+ of its own citizens each year is NOT.

i'm not saying ban guns, as i've said repeatedly here. i say guns should be stigmatized the same way alcohol abuse, smoking, heroin abuse et al. are.

gun ownership is not a noble pursuit. it may once have been but in a society like this it's a dangerous and harmful vice.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

name me another free country where a weapon that kills 20-30,000+ of its own citizens each year is NOT.


Knives are allowed in a lot of countries.  Knives also kill a lot of people.

In Canada, you're allowed (in most areas) to carry a knife with you.

read the earlier pages. we're going round in circles, i already addressed this. what you say is totally wrong.


And I've seen this argument go around in the circles ever since Mr. Strobel  raised it in civics class about 25 years ago!

There's always a guy whose gonna say, No what YOU say is totally wrong!
::)

*bites tongue to avoid mod nastygram*  :-X

Ant

And I've seen this argument go around in the circles ever since Mr. Strobel  raised it in civics class about 25 years ago!

There's always a guy whose gonna say, No what YOU say is totally wrong!
::)


This is one of the debates like drug legalization and abortion.  No matter what, some people will say it is wrong no matter what.

However, thankfully this is a free country.  And since the right to own guns is protected under the Bill Of Rights, everybody has the right to carry one, or not carry one.  It is their free choice.

All I ask is that they do not interfere with my choice to use my Constitutionally protected right.

Knives are allowed in a lot of countries.  Knives also kill a lot of people.

In Canada, you're allowed (in most areas) to carry a knife with you.
knives kill 20,000 people? in which country? i'd need a specific name.

And I've seen this argument go around in the circles ever since Mr. Strobel  raised it in civics class about 25 years ago!

There's always a guy whose gonna say, No what YOU say is totally wrong!
::)
well, i'm not just saying he's wrong, nyah nyah. i'm saying i already addressed this question (as did you) a few pages ago and dont feel like addressing it again.

This is one of the debates like drug legalization and abortion.  No matter what, some people will say it is wrong no matter what.

However, thankfully this is a free country.  And since the right to own guns is protected under the Bill Of Rights, everybody has the right to carry one, or not carry one.  It is their free choice.

All I ask is that they do not interfere with my choice to use my Constitutionally protected right.
yup. people also have the right to drink themselves to death with alcohol. or to poison themselves and those around them by smoking cigarettes. or to gamble their savings away through gambling addiction. and they should have that right but they should also be embarrassed at their own conduct and the ill effect their behavior is having on themselves and their own society. so, in my opinion, it is with guns.

knives kill 20,000 people? in which country? i'd need a specific name.


Here's the problem.  I've looked up stats on knifings, and for whatever reason, deaths by knife aren't really separated for statistical purposes.  A lot of countries certainly put a lot of effort into separating gun deaths, but as far as knifings go...  it's hard to find stats.

In the U.K., knifings are a big problem, but their illegality clearly hasn't lowered knifings for them.

Here's the problem.  I've looked up stats on knifings, and for whatever reason, deaths by knife aren't really separated for statistical purposes.  A lot of countries certainly put a lot of effort into separating gun deaths, but as far as knifings go...  it's hard to find stats.

In the U.K., knifings are a big problem, but their illegality clearly hasn't lowered knifings for them.
for the Nth time, i'm not talking about legality. i'm talking about the false veneer of nobility and acceptability that's somehow developed regarding guns. anyone who thinks gun ownership is a noble and proud pursuit needs to account for the terrible toll they exact on society.

i think it would be crazy to think knives kill anything like 20,000 people in the UK or anywhere else. i dont need stats to tell me that.

for the Nth time, i'm not talking about legality. i'm talking about the false veneer of nobility and acceptability that's somehow developed regarding guns. anyone who thinks gun ownership is a noble and proud pursuit needs to account for the terrible toll they exact on society.

i think it would be crazy to think knives kill anything like 20,000 people in the UK or anywhere else. i dont need stats to tell me that.


Well, if you've already made up your mind about it, then what would be the use in me finding facts that might contradict your assumption?

Nevertheless, do you believe that we should stigmatize knives as well?

Well, if you've already made up your mind about it, then what would be the use in me finding facts that might contradict your assumption?

Nevertheless, do you believe that we should stigmatize knives as well?
no. i think they're completely different. their ability to kill repeatedly, at a distance, and dispassionately is much, much less. plus, they kill many fewer people.

plus, they're useful  in daily life in a way guns are not.

no. i think they're completely different. their ability to kill repeatedly, at a distance, and dispassionately is much, much less. plus, they kill many fewer people.

plus, they're useful  in daily life in a way guns are not.


Generally speaking, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed at close range.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed at close range.
and yet the high-profile stuff -- the texas tower, columbine, Va Tech etc. -- deserves mention, since all of these were completely made possible by guns. the ability of guns to kill long range might not be statistically significant, but is one of guns' more nightmarish qualities. it also makes it possible to kill with guns in an extremely detached and impersonal way.

and yet the high-profile stuff -- the texas tower, columbine, Va Tech etc. -- deserves mention, since all of these were completely made possible by guns. the ability of guns to kill long range might not be statistically significant, but is one of guns' more nightmarish qualities. it also makes it possible to kill with guns in an extremely detached and impersonal way.


Well again, if you're going to stigmatize guns, does that mean we should also stigmatize police and soldiers?

Generally speaking, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed at close range.


I remember an urban myth that in Texas it is legal to kill your spouse and your spouse's lover provided you kill both with the same bullet!
:D

Well again, if you're going to stigmatize guns, does that mean we should also stigmatize police and soldiers?

Why are you putting up (yet) another straw man?  This is a complete non sequitur to Tia's stated position (in much the same way your attempt to drag in knives was: the knives/ guns are not even remotely comparable, even less so the attitude to guns vs police and soldiers).


Generally speaking, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed at close range.

"Close range" for a gun would still need a pretty long knife

Well again, if you're going to stigmatize guns, does that mean we should also stigmatize police and soldiers?
again, i already talked about this. go back and look at the thread.

anyone who thinks gun ownership is a noble and proud pursuit needs to account for the terrible toll they exact on society.


O, rly? Do YOU need to account for the number of injuries and deaths each year that occur on two wheeled motorized vehicles just because you have one? Do you need to justify having a scooter? No, because it's absurd.

Do swimming pool owners need to justify or account for having pools despite the fact that more than  3500 deaths a year (and scores more injuries) occur from non-intentional drownings? Wanna stigmatize those people as well? I could make the same (weak) argument about them that you do firearms, that pools offer no net benefit to society (other than play or a hobby) that justifies the number of injuries and deaths they cause each year.

A page or so back you posted something to the effect of 'gun owners should be looked at in the same way as drug addicts'. Wow, just wow man. Normally you make very valids points and have some great ideas on all aspects of life, government, finances, etc., but to see something posted by you so far off the mark... well, it's good that you don't own a gun, because you didn't just miss hitting the broad side of a barn, you wound up shooting an innocent victim: your own good reputation.

Ant

O, rly? Do YOU need to account for the number of injuries and deaths each year that occur on two wheeled motorized vehicles just because you have one? Do you need to justify having a scooter? No, because it's absurd. scooter accidents, by and large, claim the life and limb of the person riding the scooter. so i'm curious why this is relevant. i imagine the majority of gun accidents claim the life of someone other than the person wielding the gun, which makes the gun owner liable for a life other than his. i need further explanation as to why this is a good example.

plus, scooters (and other motorized transport vehicles) provide a useful service that weighs against the lives lost in terms of social value. (see, as usual, previous pages on this thread. we've already covered this topic.) i'm still waiting to hear any commensurate statement of value that guns contribute to society to make it worth the horrible toll they take on us.

Do swimming pool owners need to justify or account for having pools despite the fact that more than  3500 deaths a year (and scores more injuries) occur from non-intentional drownings? Wanna stigmatize those people as well? I could make the same (weak) argument about them that you do firearms, that pools offer no net benefit to society (other than play or a hobby) that justifies the number of injuries and deaths they cause each year.

well, i think the difference between ~3000 deaths and ~30,000 deaths isn't a negligible distinction. part of my point is that the toll guns exact is truly unusual, markedly onerous.

but aside from that, the analogy would only hold if there were pro-pool associations advocating the radical paring back of pool safety regulations and the active participation of people in the pool lifestyle even if they have no business being in a pool -- i.e., they can't swim and don't know even basic safety measures to take while swimming. this would be fairly like the NRA's approach to guns. they talk a good game about gun ownership responsibility but create a culture where guns can be readily purchased at wal*mart and at gun shows without any more than a cursory background check. if our nation's pools (lol) were such that lifeguards were optional, ability to swim was your own responsibility and any drunk with a pulse were allowed to plunge right into the deep end, then yes, i would say that pools should be stigmatized like gun ownership.

A page or so back you posted something to the effect of 'gun owners should be looked at in the same way as drug addicts'. Wow, just wow man. Normally you make very valids points and have some great ideas on all aspects of life, government, finances, etc., but to see something posted by you so far off the mark... well, it's good that you don't own a gun, because you didn't just miss hitting the broad side of a barn, you wound up shooting an innocent victim: your own good reputation.

Ant
the drug addict thing was largely an offshoot of something mushroom said (man, i wish people would read back through the thread before posting their 2 cents), i personally think gun ownership should be stigmatized something a lot more like cigarette smoking or gambling addiction. but also bear in mind, i think drug addiction is stigmatized in this country a lot more than it should be.

i hasten to add that no one who owns a gun has expressed an ounce of concern for the number of people who die by firearms every year. all i see are rationalizations that, well, it's okay because they were committing suicide, or it's okay because guns are very zen and it feels good to use them, or it's solely the responsibility of those OTHER people, unlike me, who don't know how to use guns; and then there's this very defensive, angry rejoinder that someone's trying to take your guns away or ban them, when i'm proposing nothing of the sort.

but let's go ahead and go there, and let me explain why to me, the vociferous defense of radically deregulated gun ownership really does seem a little like alcoholism. always you hear, *I* know how to drink and it's the other guys who can't hold their liquor and can't quit whenever they want to, and a drink or two really helps me to function and puts me in touch with myself in ways i can't explain, and if you haven't been there you just can't understand. and what's a drunk's primary concern? making sure no one takes his drink away. all the alcoholic or drug addict wants is for people to leave him alone so he can indulge his addiction.

now i know this example is overwrought (except for some; i think it's definitely possible to become literally addicted to guns on an individual scale), but collectively, the gun ownership advocates do seem to behave in a slightly addictive pattern, deadset and blind that they be allowed to continue their indulgence without any restictions, and unwilling to acknowledge the cost to the rest of us of the product they're consuming.

i dunno, if one person had, even in the process of defending gun ownership, said, 'you know something, 20-30,000 deaths a year IS awful high, and while i disagree with you on some particulars i'm definitely with you on trying to find a way to bring that number down," then maybe i'd change my impression. but i keep seeing the same sentiment -- i WANT my guns, i want ALL the guns i can have, and i choose to disregard, ignore, or explain away the human costs. again, it sounds a lot like alcoholism. alcoholics just want what they want, hang what it does to the people around them or its potential to harm themselves.

scooter accidents, by and large, claim the life and limb of the person riding the scooter. so i'm curious why this is relevant. i imagine the majority of gun accidents claim the life of someone other than the person wielding the gun, which makes the gun owner liable for a life other than his. i need further explanation as to why this is a good example.



Back on page two or so I mentioned the gun death statistics: 30k/year or so is correct. 57% of them are by suicide, so no, the majority of gun "accidents" (or incidents) DO claim the life of the person weilding the gun. The reason I brought up scooters is that you make a choice to own something that can cause death, and a fair number of them. Granted, 12k+ non-scooter riders (i.e., innocent bystanders) a year are not killed by scooters or motorcycle or bicycles. I've owned motorcycles, and we probably have a similar stance on them: training and care can drastically reduce the number of fatalities associated with these vehicles. Helmets, AMA safety courses, etc. all go to reducing accidents.


plus, scooters (and other motorized transport vehicles) provide a useful service that weighs against the lives lost in terms of social value. (see, as usual, previous pages on this thread. we've already covered this topic.) i'm still waiting to hear any commensurate statement of value that guns contribute to society to make it worth the horrible toll they take on us.



Yes, we have covered this topic. I also posted several pages back an explanation of why I thought firearms contributed to society rather than detracted from it.


well, i think the difference between ~3000 deaths and ~30,000 deaths isn't a negligible distinction. part of my point is that the toll guns exact is truly unusual, markedly onerous.

but aside from that, the analogy would only hold if there were pro-pool associations advocating the radical paring back of pool safety regulations and the active participation of people in the pool lifestyle even if they have no business being in a pool -- i.e., they can't swim and don't know even basic safety measures to take while swimming. this would be fairly like the NRA's approach to guns. they talk a good game about gun ownership responsibility but create a culture where guns can be readily purchased at wal*mart and at gun shows without any more than a cursory background check. if our nation's pools (lol) were such that lifeguards were optional, ability to swim was your own responsibility and any drunk with a pulse were allowed to plunge right into the deep end, then yes, i would say that pools should be stigmatized like gun ownership.
the drug addict thing was largely an offshoot of something mushroom said (man, i wish people would read back through the thread before posting their 2 cents), i personally think gun ownership should be stigmatized something a lot more like cigarette smoking or gambling addiction. but also bear in mind, i think drug addiction is stigmatized in this country a lot more than it should be.

Lifeguards are optional, and any idiot can swim at their own risk. And yes, sadly, much is the same with guns - any idiot with $400 and a clear background can get one. But, back to water, aside from public beaches and community pools (YMCA, city rec centers), I do not know of any other place where people can swim with someone there to bail  them out if they get in over their head (pardon the pun). Go to any hotel, and all you will find is signs saying "NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY", "SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK", and "NO DIVING - SHALLOW WATER". We put phones in pool areas now in case of emergency, but no hotel I've done in two years has cameras in the pool - no one wants to be held liable for someone drowning or breaking their neck.

I should note that the 3500+ deaths I mentioned are not all from pools; I'm sure there are numerous deaths from kids drowning in bathtubs and 5 gallon buckets filled with 2" of rainwater. If you are like I am, even ONE death like this is too high a number.

Number of violent firearm deaths (~12k a year) doesn't consider factors like inter-gang violence, which, I'd imagine, accounts for a substantial number of firearm related deaths. IOW, if you were to remove the truly stupid and preventable deaths from guns and water (like, not being in a gang or leaving a 2 year old unsupervised next to a spa, respectively), these numbers would be quite a bit different.

"but also bear in mind, i think drug addiction is stigmatized in this country a lot more than it should be."

That is a very important statement that I do not believe I've seen you bring up before, at least on this thread. It also changes quite a bit my perception of your replies and views, in a positive manner.


i hasten to add that no one who owns a gun has expressed an ounce of concern for the number of people who die by firearms every year.


Many aspects of guns DO suck. It's heartbreaking to hear about a 3 year old picking up a loaded gun and shooting his face off. It's aggrivating to see idiots doing stupid things with guns and posting the "fun" on YouTube. And it's totally "wtf?" to see some dumb guy down on his luck finally snap and take out a dozen other people with him. These things happen far too often, and it's not just a black eye for gun rights advocates nor just a checkmark in the 'I told you so' column of the "gun control" folks: it's real lives that are affected in bad ways. But as many problems as guns have, they are nowhere near unique in that regard.



'you know something, 20-30,000 deaths a year IS awful high, and while i disagree with you on some particulars i'm definitely with you on trying to find a way to bring that number down," then maybe i'd change my impression.

In that case we share the exact same viewpoint.  8) Which, is kinda weird and refreshing at the same time.

BTW, you might find it interesting to know that, not only am I no longer a member of the NRA (I let that lapse in 2005) or any other pro-gun group, but that I also do not own a firearm at this time.

Ant

Back on page two or so I mentioned the gun death statistics: 30k/year or so is correct. 57% of them are by suicide, so no, the majority of gun "accidents" (or incidents) DO claim the life of the person weilding the gun. The reason I brought up scooters is that you make a choice to own something that can cause death, and a fair number of them. Granted, 12k+ non-scooter riders (i.e., innocent bystanders) a year are not killed by scooters or motorcycle or bicycles. I've owned motorcycles, and we probably have a similar stance on them: training and care can drastically reduce the number of fatalities associated with these vehicles. Helmets, AMA safety courses, etc. all go to reducing accidents. well, the suicide thing is different from the scooter thing, in my opinion, for the reasons maxwell and i talked about. people who commit suicide by firearm are more likely to succeed than if they attempt suicide by other means because guns are so efficiently lethal, and suicidal impulses tend to be fleeting, founded on transitory emotional/biochemical factors. if the suicide attempt is unsuccessful the subject is likely to get health and possibly be saved, whereas a suicide by firearm is a life lost forever for no good reason. people put the suicide deaths out there as somehow the least tragic of gun-related deaths -- "they'll just find another way," mushroom said, totally incorrectly -- but i think they're the most tragic.

scooter riders on the other hand, are just riding scooters. not intending to or planning on dying. so i'm still not clear why i should be drawing comparisons between scooter riders and would-be suicides. this is somewhat melodramatic no? i mean, unless they're not wearing helmets and gallavanting around drunk on interstates. in which case that's suicide-by-scooter and we've come full circle. but it's the direct intention to take one's life, coupled with a firearm's singular ability to make this intent a reality, that makes suicide deaths by firearm particularly tragic and avoidable.

Yes, we have covered this topic. I also posted several pages back an explanation of why I thought firearms contributed to society rather than detracted from it. yeah, i didn't find the reasons presented compelling enough to compensate for the loss of life we suffer as a society. we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Lifeguards are optional, and any idiot can swim at their own risk. And yes, sadly, much is the same with guns - any idiot with $400 and a clear background can get one. But, back to water, aside from public beaches and community pools (YMCA, city rec centers), I do not know of any other place where people can swim with someone there to bail  them out if they get in over their head (pardon the pun). Go to any hotel, and all you will find is signs saying "NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY", "SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK", and "NO DIVING - SHALLOW WATER". We put phones in pool areas now in case of emergency, but no hotel I've done in two years has cameras in the pool - no one wants to be held liable for someone drowning or breaking their neck. yeah, i have to admit, i find the idea of swimming in pools with no lifeguard effin' stupid. i think i'd be tempted to stigmatize people who do it. so you got me there.  ;D

I should note that the 3500+ deaths I mentioned are not all from pools; I'm sure there are numerous deaths from kids drowning in bathtubs and 5 gallon buckets filled with 2" of rainwater. If you are like I am, even ONE death like this is too high a number. and yet with bathtubs we come back to the practicality issue. it's horrid that children -- or for that matter, anyone else -- dies or is injured in a bathtub. frankly i'm aware of the statistics and kinda catch my breath every time i slip a little in the bath because the apparent silliness of it aside, bathtub injuries are serious business. then again, bathtubs, i would suggest, provide a service to society that at least help to offset the human cost. (i'd like to see bathtub manufacturers required to put those gripping stickers on the bottom of every tub, i mean how much trouble would that be?) but at the same time i would not like to live in a society without bathtubs. that's an essential service to society and i'm not being facetious.

Number of violent firearm deaths (~12k a year) doesn't consider factors like inter-gang violence, which, I'd imagine, accounts for a substantial number of firearm related deaths. true that, but gang violence also takes out a crapload of innocent bystanders, so it can scarcely be brushed off with a 'well, tit for tat, they have it coming' type argument. plus i think a lot of kids get swept up into gangs because they're young and stupid and don't necessarily deserve to die for doing so.

but imagine if committing violence by gun as a part of a gang came to be seen as cowardly? after all, there's nothing to shooting someone else to death that shows you're the better man or the better fighter, and ostensibly that's a big deal as a part of being a gang. it would be interesting to see a gang mentality that got back to a more gladiatorial/mano-a-mano type of combat. now i'm sure that's a bit naive in that most of these gangs are actually involved in trafficking and so forth but to the extent that gang wars involve reprisals and determining who is the stronger gang, guns are actually a detriment to determining that. but i think the imprimatur afforded to guns actually eclipses what's supposed to be the main thing afforded a gang member -- an earned sense of manhood through victory in a street fight. as it is, holding a gun MAKES you a man if you're in a gang, and if the gangmembers were embarrassed to use guns to settle their conflicts (as they should be; it's cowardly) and instead resolved their conflicts in fair fights with broken off pool cues with their peers looking on, the way god intended, it would be a helluva lot better for all of us.

i mean obviously that's a pipe dream but it's just an illustration of the false high esteem in which guns are held and how this perception of guns contributes to all these problems.

"but also bear in mind, i think drug addiction is stigmatized in this country a lot more than it should be."

That is a very important statement that I do not believe I've seen you bring up before, at least on this thread. It also changes quite a bit my perception of your replies and views, in a positive manner. glad to hear it.

In that case we share the exact same viewpoint.  8) Which, is kinda weird and refreshing at the same time.

BTW, you might find it interesting to know that, not only am I no longer a member of the NRA (I let that lapse in 2005) or any other pro-gun group, but that I also do not own a firearm at this time.

Ant
i feel that i don't necessarily think gun ownership per se is the problem (even though i've probably said as much here), it's more the culture surrounding gun ownership and a certain romanticization that surrounds gun ownership that i think is unwarranted. people are more than welcome to own guns, but the "you can have it when you pry it from" etc. and "gun deaths are okay because they're mostly suicides and gang members" -- i find that mentality embarrassing and i think people should be embarrassed to make arguments like that. frankly.

people are more than welcome to own guns, but the "you can have it when you pry it from" etc. and "gun deaths are okay because they're mostly suicides and gang members" -- i find that mentality embarrassing and i think people should be embarrassed to make arguments like that. frankly.


I've never stated, either directly or indirectly, that "gun deaths are okay because they're mostly suicides and gang members". I've never implied such a thing is okay. Given my previous post, you seem to be quoting me. Perhaps you are quoting someone else, in which case I would love to see your source for that statement.

Am I reading your post incorrectly? I mean, from what I get from your words is that I'm like Charleton Heston and I should be embarassed for my considerably more moderate views... is that the gist of what you are getting at? Am I correctly inferring what you seem to be implying? Please tell me I'm wayy off base, and that you were trying to make another point which didn't come across as intended.

As for the other quote, I know exactly where that came from, and it's one of the many reasons I'm no longer a member of the NRA, because, you're right, it is embarassing to hear that. The fact that there are no moderate mainstream views or organizations in regards to guns is in itself an enormous problem. The extreme right wants practically unlimited guns for everyone, the extreme left would love to ban, confiscate and melt  them all. You and I aren't anywhere near those extremes, and yet we still have a hard time conveying our points to one another.

As for suicide, regardless of method, I'm not going to post my views on that at this time. One of our board members has recently been personally affected by it, and, out of respect for her, I do not wish to cause any more grief than she is already going through. We could continue that discussion via PM if you are so inclined.

Ant

I've never stated, either directly or indirectly, that "gun deaths are okay because they're mostly suicides and gang members". I've never implied such a thing is okay. Given my previous post, you seem to be quoting me. Perhaps you are quoting someone else, in which case I would love to see your source for that statement. i'm talking mroe about the gun culture as a whole, as i perceive it, than i am responding to you in particular, i suppose. although i do wonder why people bring up the suicide statistic so often, as though that ameliorated the death toll somehow. also why are we presumably subtracting the gang violence from the statistic? you say

Number of violent firearm deaths (~12k a year) doesn't consider factors like inter-gang violence, which, I'd imagine, accounts for a substantial number of firearm related deaths.

if you're not implying that the intergang violence statistic doesn't somehow ameliorate the overall statistic, what is your purpose for including it?

Am I reading your post incorrectly? I mean, from what I get from your words is that I'm like Charleton Heston and I should be embarassed for my considerably more moderate views... is that the gist of what you are getting at? Am I correctly inferring what you seem to be implying? Please tell me I'm wayy off base, and that you were trying to make another point which didn't come across as intended. here again i'm talking more about what i perceive as gun culture as a whole. you might protest that i'm being too monolithic in perceiving there to be a unitary "gun culture" and to the extent that your views are more moderate than those of the NRA's, i applaud you. i've been bickering on this thread for quite a while now and have come across several arguments several times -- the suicide argument, the motor vehicle argument, the "soldiers and police" argument, have all come up more than once and i have to keep answering them, so i'll be very honest, i'm not distinguishing sufficiently between different people making the same argument. i do recognize and appreciate that your point of view appears to be more moderate than some others who have posted on this thread; however, you have made some of the same points, and so i'm inclined to come back with the same answers.

As for the other quote, I know exactly where that came from, and it's one of the many reasons I'm no longer a member of the NRA, because, you're right, it is embarassing to hear that. The fact that there are no moderate mainstream views or organizations in regards to guns is in itself an enormous problem. The extreme right wants practically unlimited guns for everyone, the extreme left would love to ban, confiscate and melt  them all. You and I aren't anywhere near those extremes, and yet we still have a hard time conveying our points to one another. my sneaking suspicion is that gun owners are often defensive because they do perceive all those who question the gun ownership point of view as being from the far-left camp. (i kept trying to clarify my argument, and i mean in general, not necessarily in response to you, as, i would like to see guns as being viewed as much less "cool" than they are, but frequently got confronted with responses that assumed i wanted to "ban" guns, for instance.)

As for suicide, regardless of method, I'm not going to post my views on that at this time. One of our board members has recently been personally affected by it, and, out of respect for her, I do not wish to cause any more grief than she is already going through. We could continue that discussion via PM if you are so inclined. fair enough, i think that discussion predated the incident so we should maybe drop that side of it.

Why are you putting up (yet) another straw man?  This is a complete non sequitur to Tia's stated position (in much the same way your attempt to drag in knives was: the knives/ guns are not even remotely comparable, even less so the attitude to guns vs police and soldiers).
"Close range" for a gun would still need a pretty long knife


Well, I just don't understand what the need for stigmatizing a form of self-defense is.

It really doesn't make any sense to me.

Overall, Tia, to me...  your attitude of judging guns so negatively seems hypocritical when the Left claims to be so tolerant.

As a moderate, I see intolerance coming from both sides, just on different topics.  I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I like them (because they make guns a partisan issue), but I do agree with a lot of their stances.

Generally speaking, I just don't understand why some people are so against guns.  You can pull out crime statistics, but to me, that's not relevant, because a responsible gun owner doesn't kill anyone except in self-defense.  Guns themselves are not the problem.  Criminal activity is.

So again. don't blame the weapons, blame the criminals.

Overall, Tia, to me...  your attitude of judging guns so negatively seems hypocritical when the Left claims to be so tolerant.

As a moderate, I see intolerance coming from both sides, just on different topics.  I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I like them (because they make guns a partisan issue), but I do agree with a lot of their stances.

Generally speaking, I just don't understand why some people are so against guns.  You can pull out crime statistics, but to me, that's not relevant, because a responsible gun owner doesn't kill anyone except in self-defense.  Guns themselves are not the problem.  Criminal activity is.

So again. don't blame the weapons, blame the criminals.

i don't really claim to be that "tolerant." nor do i claim to represent the "left." i personally am just tired of having to pretend that guns are useful somehow, that there's something they offer that makes up for the incredible toll they take on this society, or that i'm supposed to be impressed because some people use guns responsibly. obviously a lot of people are NOT using guns responsibly because they're killing people in enormous numbers, and i'm willing to guess that some of the people using guns irresponsibly are claiming to be using guns responsibly. in any case, you can use a gun "responsibly" and still have an accident. it's impossible to be 100% safe with guns because they're inherently destructive and dangerous. they're designed with that purpose in mind.

and the platitudes -- "when seconds count," "guns don't kill people," etc., are starting to sound awful hollow. we've been hearing that stuff for decades and yet guns are still putting an awful lot of people into the ground, a great many of them needlessly. i'm not in the mood to be tolerant of that. to be honest with you i think guns get a free pass in this country -- how else can you explain the extreme leniency of the laws around them -- and it's high time that the public perception of gun ownership be changed to match the reality of the harm guns do.

i don't really claim to be that "tolerant." nor do i claim to represent the "left."

Other than as an individual, what do you claim to represent? (this is a serious question, I'm not trying to be rude)

i personally am just tired of having to pretend that guns are useful somehow, that there's something they offer that makes up for the incredible toll they take on this society, or that i'm supposed to be impressed because some people use guns responsibly. obviously a lot of people are NOT using guns responsibly because they're killing people in enormous numbers, and i'm willing to guess that some of the people using guns irresponsibly are claiming to be using guns responsibly. in any case, you can use a gun "responsibly" and still have an accident. it's impossible to be 100% safe with guns because they're inherently destructive and dangerous. they're designed with that purpose in mind.

Right, but by judging people for having guns, you're doing the same thing religious people do to gays or people who have a lot of sex.  Statistically speaking, living the gay lifestyle is more dangerous than the straight lifestyle because of higher chances of getting AIDS, and being promiscuous also is dangerous.  Yet, I don't judge these people for their choices.  I expect them to handle the consequences of their decisions responsibly, but other than that, I give them tolerance.

Sure, having a gun might be dangerous in some ways, but it also defends against danger.  I just don't see why you have to judge people for having guns.

and the platitudes -- "when seconds count," "guns don't kill people," etc., are starting to sound awful hollow. we've been hearing that stuff for decades and yet guns are still putting an awful lot of people into the ground, a great many of them needlessly. i'm not in the mood to be tolerant of that. to be honest with you i think guns get a free pass in this country -- how else can you explain the extreme leniency of the laws around them -- and it's high time that the public perception of gun ownership be changed to match the reality of the harm guns do.


Well, again, your argument could be applied to various things that kill people, like alcohol, tobacco, or promiscuity.  None of those serve much of a purpose for society either, and yet they result in plenty of death and disease.

Other than as an individual, what do you claim to represent? (this is a serious question, I'm not trying to be rude)what are you looking for? who do you represent? i have opinions, i express them. i dont see myself representing a particular point of view.

Right, but by judging people for having guns, you're doing the same thing religious people do to gays or people who have a lot of sex.  Statistically speaking, living the gay lifestyle is more dangerous than the straight lifestyle because of higher chances of getting AIDS, and being promiscuous also is dangerous.  Yet, I don't judge these people for their choices.  I expect them to handle the consequences of their decisions responsibly, but other than that, I give them tolerance.i'm not sure how many innocent people you can kill by being gay, but a promiscuous attitude toward the distribution of guns in this country gets a lot of people killed needlessly. now, if a broad swath of the gay culture were encouraging people to have unsafe sex, claiming condoms weren't necessary, or somehow advocating having sex in a way that gave AIDS to bystanders, then, yes, i would condemn that as well.

Well, again, your argument could be applied to various things that kill people, like alcohol, tobacco, or promiscuity.  None of those serve much of a purpose for society either, and yet they result in plenty of death and disease.
precisely my point. people who own, and encourage the wholesale ownership of, guns should be as proud of it as those who use the above products or engage in the above activities. these activities are all stimatized to a degree but guns, for some reason, are not.

what are you looking for? who do you represent? i have opinions, i express them. i dont see myself representing a particular point of view.

I consider myself a moderate.  I don't claim to represent all moderates, but I do represent a lot of them.

precisely my point. people who own, and encourage the wholesale ownership of, guns should be as proud of it as those who use the above products or engage in the above activities. these activities are all stimatized to a degree but guns, for some reason, are not.

I disagree.  For example, guns are obviously stigmatized in D.C. and Chicago.  There are/were handgun bans in those cities.  They're stigmatized in states like NY, where gun laws are pretty strict.

It really depends on where you live as to what the attitude toward guns are.  Down here in N.C., we don't apply that stigma to guns, but we obviously have other stigmas.  My argument is that stigmas aren't necessary and that people should just mind their own business.

I consider myself a moderate.  I don't claim to represent all moderates, but I do represent a lot of them.

I disagree.  For example, guns are obviously stigmatized in D.C. and Chicago.  There are/were handgun bans in those cities.  They're stigmatized in states like NY, where gun laws are pretty strict.

It really depends on where you live as to what the attitude toward guns are.  Down here in N.C., we don't apply that stigma to guns, but we obviously have other stigmas.  My argument is that stigmas aren't necessary and that people should just mind their own business.
but see, as someone who's not interested in owning a gun, i feel like i AM minding my own business and i see lots of fired-up pro-gun people who are actively working to make MY life and the lives of my loved ones less safe by permeating my environment with dangerous weapons. we had a gun ban in DC and politicians from the south intervened to overturn it. as if they cared about the constitutional rights of district residents, they've been fighting to deny DC the vote for decades. but they have an agenda, so even though they don't have to live here, they made sure the city i work in is saturated with guns. i'm sorry, but that pisses me off. these guys have a funny idea of "minding one's own business."

Another favorite of mine from the pro-gun side--the irrefutable tautology:

Responsible law-abiding gun owners don't commit crimes ergo when a gun owner commits a crime he is no longer responsible or law-abiding.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

but see, as someone who's not interested in owning a gun, i feel like i AM minding my own business and i see lots of fired-up pro-gun people who are actively working to make MY life and the lives of my loved ones less safe by permeating my environment with dangerous weapons. we had a gun ban in DC and politicians from the south intervened to overturn it. as if they cared about the constitutional rights of district residents, they've been fighting to deny DC the vote for decades. but they have an agenda, so even though they don't have to live here, they made sure the city i work in is saturated with guns. i'm sorry, but that pisses me off. these guys have a funny idea of "minding one's own business."


Your city had plenty of guns before that.  You really can't blame the South for that.

Another favorite of mine from the pro-gun side--the irrefutable tautology:

Responsible law-abiding gun owners don't commit crimes ergo when a gun owner commits a crime he is no longer responsible or law-abiding.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif


And by the same token, I could take away your car because it can be abused just like a gun.

And by the same token, I could take away your car because it can be abused just like a gun.


Tonight I'm going out and have me a drive-by driving!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/laughing9.gif

Your city had plenty of guns before that.  You really can't blame the South for that.
right. but we were trying to deal with it, and the right prevented us. so i can blame the southern politicians and conservatives for pretending to have a "live and let live" ideology in word, but being very intrusive in practice -- they force cities they don't live in to do nothing to deal with their gun problems but won't even let them have the vote. i thought that was totally disgusting and intrusive.

say what you will, conservatives have no right to talk about "the right to be left alone," not if the way their politicans comport themselves is any indication. they intrude in other people's business routinely, and only really believe in "the right to be left alone" when they're talking about themselves.

i mean, try being a gay man who wants to marry his lover, or a woman who wants to get an abortion, or a liberal city trying to deal with a gun problem? then suddenly the right wing knows what's best for you, and is more than happy to shove it down your throat.

And by the same token, I could take away your car because it can be abused just like a gun.
you're repeating yourself. we've covered the motor vehicle thing literally ad nauseum.

if you're gonna keep this thing going, please make an argument that hasn't already been refuted.

Well, I just don't understand what the need for stigmatizing a form of self-defense is.

It really doesn't make any sense to me.

It may be because the number of times when guns are used legitimately in self-defence is small compared to the increase in homicide/suicide that guns cause.  This sums up the statistical arguments pretty well, IMO.

Incidentally, I'm not an advocate of the same sort of firearm prohibition over there as we have here: there are simply too many guns already, and if you were to try and ban them, all you'd get is law-abiding citizens disarming themselves and criminals who are already inured to the bad bits of gun culture having a spree against an unarmed public.  Which is why I think Tia has a very good point to make: prohibition is not going to work, yet what can you do to reduce the pervasiveness of guns in society? 


And by the same token, I could take away your car because it can be abused just like a gun.

So by your argument, we shouldn't care about the ridiculously high numbers of people killed on the roads?  You're raising another straw man: nobody would seriously suggest taking away everyone's cars because cars globally kill more than terrorism, wars and disease put together; however, as an example, drink-driving *has* been heavily stigmatised over here, and as a result drink-driving incidents have decreased significantly over the past couple of decades.

Tonight I'm going out and have me a drive-by driving!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/laughing9.gif


Right, but I don't know if you're going to drink beforehand.  After all, cars are dangerous.  They should be heavily controlled by the government to prevent the wrong people from using them.


you're repeating yourself. we've covered the motor vehicle thing literally ad nauseum.

if you're gonna keep this thing going, please make an argument that hasn't already been refuted.


You think it's been refuted, but it hasn't.  Your logic of treating guns as dangerous because of statistics works the same with cars and alcohol.  That's why I continue to mention it.

The logic is no less sensible when applied to these than guns because you're targeting a device rather than behavior.

right. but we were trying to deal with it, and the right prevented us. so i can blame the southern politicians and conservatives for pretending to have a "live and let live" ideology in word, but being very intrusive in practice -- they force cities they don't live in to do nothing to deal with their gun problems but won't even let them have the vote. i thought that was totally disgusting and intrusive.

Regardless of how you were trying to deal with it, it didn't work.  It failed long before people noticed it violated the Constitution.  And by the way, do you really think everyone in D.C. approved of that legislation?  Part of what inspired the court case were people who lived in the area that rightfully brought attention to the ban to the right judicial authorities.

say what you will, conservatives have no right to talk about "the right to be left alone," not if the way their politicans comport themselves is any indication. they intrude in other people's business routinely, and only really believe in "the right to be left alone" when they're talking about themselves.

I agree, but as a moderate, I can talk about it.

i mean, try being a gay man who wants to marry his lover, or a woman who wants to get an abortion, or a liberal city trying to deal with a gun problem? then suddenly the right wing knows what's best for you, and is more than happy to shove it down your throat.


Agreed.  This is why I support gay marriage and I'm pro-choice.  But banning guns is unconstitutional.  That's where I draw the line.

So by your argument, we shouldn't care about the ridiculously high numbers of people killed on the roads?  You're raising another straw man: nobody would seriously suggest taking away everyone's cars because cars globally kill more than terrorism, wars and disease put together; however, as an example, drink-driving *has* been heavily stigmatised over here, and as a result drink-driving incidents have decreased significantly over the past couple of decades.

Right, so why not stigmatize gun crime rather than guns themselves?

It's not guns that are bad, it's the abuse of guns.  It's like drugs.  Pot isn't bad.  Abusing pot is.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?

Right, so why not stigmatize gun crime rather than guns themselves?

It's not guns that are bad, it's the abuse of guns.  It's like drugs.  Pot isn't bad.  Abusing pot is.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?
it's not hard to figure out. i just don't think it says much. it's a hollow cliche.

guns are dangerous. in and of themselves, they're designed solely for the purpose of killing and maiming. we can blame whoever we want to, the fact remains that so long as this country is saturated with guns, people will die needlessly in large numbers.

sure. blame criminals. so what? say i officially decide to blame criminals. doing so improves the situation ... how, exactly? isn't gun crime stigmatized already?

isn't gun crime stigmatized already?


Yep, and that's the full extent of what's necessary.

Right, but I don't know if you're going to drink beforehand.  After all, cars are dangerous.  They should be heavily controlled by the government to prevent the wrong people from using them.

You think it's been refuted, but it hasn't.  Your logic of treating guns as dangerous because of statistics works the same with cars and alcohol.  That's why I continue to mention it.

The logic is no less sensible when applied to these than guns because you're targeting a device rather than behavior.
*sigh*

i agree with alcohol, as i've said a half dozen times. alcohol is stigmatized, i think guns should be stigmatized the same way.

and cars serve a practical purpose. guns do not. their primary purpose is to kill or injure. cars are the cornerstone of this economy. as i've said a half dozen times already.

go back and read the thread. PLEASE. if you have an answer to the actual argument i'm making, then answer it. but don't just keep saying "alcohol! cars!" i've addressed it already. if you have a counterpoint, make it. but you're repeating yourself.

Yep, and that's the full extent of what's necessary.
only if you're okay with 20-30,000 deaths from guns per year. i'm not.

only if you're okay with 20-30,000 deaths from guns per year. i'm not.

The burden of living in a free society is that people make mistakes.  Obviously, guns aren't the only tools that are misused by society.

Here's the thing I don't get about the Left's fixation with controlling guns.  Usually, the Left is all about letting people do their own thing.  But when it comes to guns, they act more like how conservatives do.

I don't get that.  I try to be more consistently liberal, in that I'd prefer to let people use guns in whatever legal ways they choose and I'd rather not bother them about it in general.

Freedom means so much more than security -- at least to me.  This is why I fight against things like the Patriot Act.  It's why I think pot should be legal.  It's why, in general, I want the government out of people's personal lives.

I guess what it really comes down to is...  do you really think stigmatizing guns will do any good?  You posed the question to me about making the distinction between the gun and the abusive behavior that can apply to it, but two can play that game.  What good will it do to demonize guns?  What good is there in being phobic of them in general?

You've stated your views quite clearly and well on having no desire to ban guns; that I understand fully. My basis for bringing in inter (and/or possibly "intra") gang violence numbers is that those are specific to an inherently unhealthy lifestyle. I am also working under the premise that one of your major gripes about firearms is the number of innocent people whose lives are taken by them (please correct me if I am wrong about this assumption).

Let's say, for argument's sake, that 15% of all homicides (excluding "innocent bystander"/wrong target situations) are due to gang violence of gang members. In my way of viewing things, if you are not in a gang then your chances of being killed drop 15% right there. IOW, your average citizen would be 15% less likely to get killed than what the numbers would suggest.

Gun death stats include all deaths, and breaking them down by type would be interesting. Everyone who becomes a statistic for gun deaths dies by a firearm, but the circumstances in which their demises came about is important to me. Self-defense cases, justifiable homicides, and the like are not in the same category to me as gang violence. I'm not saying that gang members deserve to get shot or that their lives mean any less than anyone else's, but engaging in high risk behavior of any type results in a higher number of injuries and deaths than safer behavior and actions do.

Tia, you wanted a country with knife deaths higher than guns, right? Rwanda, 1994. Maybe you wanted a first world country... I dunno, I'm too tired right now to look back through this thread to see what it was.

At this point I'd just like to interject that quite a great deal of the world's violence is NOT carried out by firearms. Rwandan genocide: 800,000 people killed, mostly hacked to death with machetes. Nanking massacre in 1937, any war before the 1600s or so, and so on.

And then there's the beyond horrific murders where the killers used hammers and screwdrivers to torture and kill their victims. They were thoughtful enough to make a video of it too. If you watch it (which I advise against), try to convince me that if you were there and armed, you wouldn't have hesitated one second to blow all three of those animals away.

Yes, yes, all of those problems happened not in America but in backward ass third world countries, so I guess they don't count.

Anything sharp or heavy that can be easily wielded or concealed is a potential deadly weapon. Looking over my cluttered desk right now I see, among other things, a half full Bud Lime bottle, a cheapy Leatherman type tool, and a 3' garrote computer patch cord. I'm sure if you counted, you'd find at least 20 different things in your house laying around that could be lethal if used in an aggressive manner.

I know the right loves the saying "Guns don't kill people: people kill people". I'd like to say that "Guns aren't the problem: idiots and anger management types are".

Guns are not all made for the sole purpose of killing people. There are numerous guns designed for sport and competition uses only.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but there's a crapload of stuff out there that, improperly used, is very likely to cause death. We've already been over motor vehicles and illegal drugs. Prescription drugs, spray paint, asbestos, heavy metals, ad naseum. It doesn't really matter what their intended purpose is when they take a life.

Ant

Right, so why not stigmatize gun crime rather than guns themselves?

It's not guns that are bad, it's the abuse of guns.  It's like drugs.  Pot isn't bad.  Abusing pot is.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?

Because an increased level of gun ownership has a statistically significant relationship to increased abuse of guns.

More guns around *does* lead to more abuse of guns.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?

Tia, you wanted a country with knife deaths higher than guns, right? Rwanda, 1994. Maybe you wanted a first world country... I dunno, I'm too tired right now to look back through this thread to see what it was.

Sorry, have been watching this go on for so long and can't help but to throw in my two cents.

Tia hasn't noted in any way that he (or anyone else) wants a country with knife deaths higher than guns (no one wants that).
To even use that as a basis for a retort or an argument is ridiculous and arbitrary.
I'm beginning to understand Tia's frustration, in that no one supporting or challenging an opposing view to his arguments can stay on topic or really put forth any legitimate argument to support an opposing view.

At this point I'd just like to interject that quite a great deal of the world's violence is NOT carried out by firearms. Rwandan genocide: 800,000 people killed, mostly hacked to death with machetes. Nanking massacre in 1937, any war before the 1600s or so, and so on.

And then there's the beyond horrific murders where the killers used hammers and screwdrivers to torture and kill their victims. They were thoughtful enough to make a video of it too. If you watch it (which I advise against), try to convince me that if you were there and armed, you wouldn't have hesitated one second to blow all three of those animals away.

Yes, yes, all of those problems happened not in America but in backward ass third world countries, so I guess they don't count.

Anything sharp or heavy that can be easily wielded or concealed is a potential deadly weapon. Looking over my cluttered desk right now I see, among other things, a half full Bud Lime bottle, a cheapy Leatherman type tool, and a 3' garrote computer patch cord. I'm sure if you counted, you'd find at least 20 different things in your house laying around that could be lethal if used in an aggressive manner.

I know the right loves the saying "Guns don't kill people: people kill people". I'd like to say that "Guns aren't the problem: idiots and anger management types are".

How many times does the same point have to be made? The question or point is not of what amount of violence of deaths are worldwide by other types of weapons or means, or by other countries for that matter, but within THIS country. This is the USA, and we should expect to have a much higher standard and ABILITY to control this aspect of gun ownership.

Using some other country or event outside of these boarders as an example or reflective view, is redundant and unacceptable as a US citizen.

Does it not confuse, or bother you, that within this country, compared to others that have access to guns (and those that don't) we have such a high rate of death and violence by firearms? Using any particular factoid or graphic of some other weapon or object used to kill or maim outside of the boarders of this country is moot. The issue SHOULD be (if we can stay on topic) why we, as Americans have so poor a record of death and violence HERE with guns.

Guns are not all made for the sole purpose of killing people. There are numerous guns designed for sport and competition uses only.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but there's a crapload of stuff out there that, improperly used, is very likely to cause death. We've already been over motor vehicles and illegal drugs. Prescription drugs, spray paint, asbestos, heavy metals, ad naseum. It doesn't really matter what their intended purpose is when they take a life.

Ant

Such a huge cop out and dishonestly UNTRUE.
Look, a gun, in its own design is meant to send a metal pellet, some long distance (much longer/further than a knife) at a speeds approaching supersonic rates through objects/humans to cause damage, immobilize and/or induce death. That an individual (or group of individuals) wishes to modify, use or produce said device specifically for competition does NOT make its ultimate and ORIGINAL purpose or reason for being that much less deadly.   ::)  As if target or competition guns were the issue or problem that we're facing...

Yes, there are plenty of things that can be "improperly used" to cause death, but a gun is purposely designed to do so.
No car, spray paint, heavy metal or other thing you've mentioned is specifically designed to cause physical damage.
No company or product designer set out for spray paint, heavy metals or even prescription drugs to cause human DAMAGE or death. You cannot say that about guns.

It COMPLETELY matters what their intended purpose is if the product or object takes a life, I'm dumbfounded by that statement. If a child dies from swallowing a balloon, we are not going to ban all balloons. A balloon is not in any way from its initial or final purpose designed to kill, damage or maim, a gun IS. I'm getting a bit irritated here as I KNOW you guys are more intelligent than that, lets focus on reality here...

I'll state it again as Tia has tried to, the issue here is that guns are by their very nature and design is to cause harm in their use. Think about it. In order to "misuse" a gun, it would have to NOT cause physical damage or the threat of physical harm or death in its use. Maybe hit someone over the head with one, you could call that "misuse" or improper use. BUT just by firing a gun, its being used in the manner it was designed. So you can't call injury or death by someone firing a gun "misuse". Ever.

Even the psycho nutjob killing innocent people in a rampage at a Burger King is not misusing the gun, the gun itself is being used in the manner it was designed, to injure, maim or kill at a short to long distance.
Get it?

Honestly, I like many others, don't support taking or banning guns from private ownership. But we really need to focus on the serious problems we have in the US with gun violence.

These type of WEAK arguments against doing more to contain gun violence and issues we have are NOT helping. If you want and need to have a firearm, fine, please offer some ideas on how to contain or reduce the out of control violence and deaths we have in this country due to firearms.
Step up and offer some relevant and intelligent conversation and suggestions on the matter.

Such a huge cop out and dishonestly UNTRUE.
Look, a gun, in its own design is meant to send a metal pellet, some long distance (much longer/further than a knife) at a speeds approaching supersonic rates through objects/humans to cause damage, immobilize and/or induce death. That an individual (or group of individuals) wishes to modify, use or produce said device specifically for competition does NOT make its ultimate and ORIGINAL purpose or reason for being that much less deadly.   ::)  As if target or competition guns were the issue or problem that we're facing...


Then obviously there is no such thing as a "target bow" either.  After all, a bow made for hunting and a bow made for target shooting are made to only do one thing:  put a metal tipped shaft into a target at a distance.

Why can't people just say they hate guns and want them eliminated, instead of trying to do this song and dance around the topic?  In short, people against guns simply want to find a way to overturn part of the Bill Of Rights.

Why can't people just say they hate guns and want them eliminated, instead of trying to do this song and dance around the topic?  In short, people against guns simply want to find a way to overturn part of the Bill Of Rights.
because i don't. you're desperate to create a straw man.

why don't the people who keep arguing that "guns don't kill people" and "blame the criminal" admit that they're simply willing to do nothing to solve the problem? you, mushroom, do not want to do anything to solve the problem. it's quite evident that the status quo is acceptable to you.

because i don't. you're desperate to create a straw man.

why don't the people who keep arguing that "guns don't kill people" and "blame the criminal" admit that they're simply willing to do nothing to solve the problem? you, mushroom, do not want to do anything to solve the problem. it's quite evident that the status quo is acceptable to you.


Sure, I am willing to solve the problem.  Let me make it clear.

1.  Registration, including rigerous background check and biannual (every 2 years) recertification.
2.  Safety class before purchase, and annual recertifications.
3.  Required class annually on gun laws.
4.  Prosecution of all gun crimes, to the fullest extent of the law.

And when that law is violated, the penalty should be strong and severe.  For those that do drive-bys, robbery, murder, the death penalty should apply. 

Gun death stats include all deaths, and breaking them down by type would be interesting. Everyone who becomes a statistic for gun deaths dies by a firearm, but the circumstances in which their demises came about is important to me. Self-defense cases, justifiable homicides, and the like are not in the same category to me as gang violence. I'm not saying that gang members deserve to get shot or that their lives mean any less than anyone else's, but engaging in high risk behavior of any type results in a higher number of injuries and deaths than safer behavior and actions do.

Tia, you wanted a country with knife deaths higher than guns, right? Rwanda, 1994. Maybe you wanted a first world country... I dunno, I'm too tired right now to look back through this thread to see what it was.

At this point I'd just like to interject that quite a great deal of the world's violence is NOT carried out by firearms. Rwandan genocide: 800,000 people killed, mostly hacked to death with machetes. Nanking massacre in 1937, any war before the 1600s or so, and so on.

i think nanking also involved firearms. it's just the beheadings got a lot of press. as for rwanda, that's an interesting example, not only because it was a mind-numbingly bloody civil war (thus not particularly germane to a western country in relative peacetime) but also that the people there obviously owned machetes because they lived in a place with thick undergrowth you often had to hack through to get where you were going. then when hostilities broke out these tools, which had a practical use, were turned to lethal ends.

it turns out there's such a thing as a "combat machete" now. how queasy is that? it's interesting to me that there are standard machetes (for hacking through brush) and combat machetes (for hacking through limbs) but either can be used for either end. both have a practical and a lethal use. whereas guns, you can call a gun a "combat" gun or a "target" gun but either way, it can be used for only one thing: to put a hole in something, living or no, with great force. if a gun has a practical alternative use the way a machete does, i'd love to hear it.

And then there's the beyond horrific murders where the killers used hammers and screwdrivers to torture and kill their victims. They were thoughtful enough to make a video of it too. If you watch it (which I advise against), try to convince me that if you were there and armed, you wouldn't have hesitated one second to blow all three of those animals away.

Yes, yes, all of those problems happened not in America but in backward ass third world countries, so I guess they don't count. no, they don't count because hammers and screwdrivers etc. all have practical, nonlethal uses. again, a point i've made a half-dozen times, and a point the pro-gun, pro-status-quo crowd steadfastly refuses to answer.

Anything sharp or heavy that can be easily wielded or concealed is a potential deadly weapon. Looking over my cluttered desk right now I see, among other things, a half full Bud Lime bottle, a cheapy Leatherman type tool, and a 3' garrote computer patch cord. I'm sure if you counted, you'd find at least 20 different things in your house laying around that could be lethal if used in an aggressive manner.see above. guns are ONLY for shooting holes in things.

I know the right loves the saying "Guns don't kill people: people kill people". I'd like to say that "Guns aren't the problem: idiots and anger management types are". and the fact that they are being given ready access to tools custom designed to express their anger and idiocy in the most focused and lethal fashion possible, tools with no other practical purpose.

Guns are not all made for the sole purpose of killing people. There are numerous guns designed for sport and competition uses only. yes, but what other practical task can they accomplish? guns are like machetes in that there some labeled for combat use, some for other uses, but only machetes actually are dual purpose. you can call a gun a sport or competition gun, but it still does essentially the same thing as a gun intended for use against human beings.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but there's a crapload of stuff out there that, improperly used, is very likely to cause death. We've already been over motor vehicles and illegal drugs. Prescription drugs, spray paint, asbestos, heavy metals, ad naseum. It doesn't really matter what their intended purpose is when they take a life.and as gumbypiz points out, a gun when properly used causes death.

Sure, I am willing to solve the problem.  Let me make it clear.

1.  Registration, including rigerous background check and biannual (every 2 years) recertification.
2.  Safety class before purchase, and annual recertifications.
3.  Required class annually on gun laws.
4.  Prosecution of all gun crimes, to the fullest extent of the law.

And when that law is violated, the penalty should be strong and severe.  For those that do drive-bys, robbery, murder, the death penalty should apply. 
i'd be all for these, except the death penalty bit. and i imagine if these measures were passed and enforced, it might ameliorate the death rate from guns enough that i wouldn't feel the need to complain.

you realize, of course, though, that the main obstacle to common-sense measures like these is coming from the right, not the left. arguing with the likes of me is going to get you no closer to your goal here. you need to take it up with your fellow travelers in the NRA and elsewhere.

Tia hasn't noted in any way that he (or anyone else) wants a country with knife deaths higher than guns (no one wants that).
To even use that as a basis for a retort or an argument is ridiculous and arbitrary.



Poor wording on my part. Tia was looking for an example of a country with knife deaths higher than guns, not to have knife deaths higher than firearms:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=36726.msg1991496#msg1991496


Does it not confuse, or bother you, that within this country, compared to others that have access to guns (and those that don't) we have such a high rate of death and violence by firearms?

I've already covered this at least three times in this thread alone. In that respect I do understand Tia's frustration, because this thread is like Merry-Go-Round with no end.


Such a huge cop out and dishonestly UNTRUE.
.... lets focus on reality here...
Step up and offer some relevant and intelligent conversation and suggestions on the matter.


Nice. Three thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. At this time I am removing myself from the discussion, not because I am incapable of continuing it, but because of replies like these.

Ant

Then obviously there is no such thing as a "target bow" either.  After all, a bow made for hunting and a bow made for target shooting are made to only do one thing:  put a metal tipped shaft into a target at a distance.
if target bows were killing tens of thousands of people each year, i probably WOULD complain.

the idea is, the social utility of a tool should be weighed against its cost to society. a target bow isn't much more useful than a gun -- hunting, target practice, and killing/maiming -- but because i'm expecting the damage done by target bows in terms of killed and wounded is very minor compared to guns, i'm not particularly inclined to complain. like i say, balance utility vs. cost. in the instance of guns, utility is low, cost is high. therefore i complain. in terms of target bows, utility is low, but so is cost, so i say have at it.

ironically, i spent like three hours last night playing call of duty IV.  ;D

Nice. Three thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. At this time I am removing myself from the discussion, not because I am incapable of continuing it, but because of replies like these.

Ant


If you saw those as direct attacks, I apologize  :-I've already covered this at least three times in this thread alone. In that respect I do understand Tia's frustration, because this thread is like Merry-Go-Round with no end.

Yes, exactly, you see, that was the main reason for my post was to stop the endless use of every other object in the world that may have been used or could be used as a killing object as a denial of the problem and issue...and stop the "Merry Go Round" by trying to keep the thread ON TOPIC about guns.

We probably won't get anywhere on this unless we can stick to the subject at hand, regardless of if you're a gun advocate or anti-gun, we have too many deaths in this country from them. Regulations that we have in place are not having an effect.

Believe it or not, I do not support the government taking away ones right to own a firearm, I'm just dismayed by how many people are injured or killed by them. I fully understand how some gun owners feel and they're rabid fights against any further gun legislation or rules.

But, I also believe that the majority of the US public, rightly or wrongly (and partly media induced) will eventually say enough is enough and by fear alone have the government force more action to remove guns from a large part of those that own them...

That is UNLESS the NRA and those gun owners step up to the plate, face the the real concern of those whose safety is threatened, and support either a reduction of the manufacture or availability of them OR propose some real new steps or legislation that will have an active effect on reducing gun violence in this country, they will lose them.

I do not understand a gun owner or gun advocate with the continuing the stance that no legislation or rules or that SOMETHING has to be done, and the legacy of continuing gun violence is an acceptable situation and part of American life for now and the future.

Arguing that people kill people or other types of objects can kill people too is just so not the point...

Because an increased level of gun ownership has a statistically significant relationship to increased abuse of guns.

More guns around *does* lead to more abuse of guns.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?


You could say the same for ANYTHING.  Like cars, alcohol, etc.

How many times does the same point have to be made? The question or point is not of what amount of violence of deaths are worldwide by other types of weapons or means, or by other countries for that matter, but within THIS country. This is the USA, and we should expect to have a much higher standard and ABILITY to control this aspect of gun ownership.

Why?  Human nature remains the same regardless of country.  You're positing that control is more important than choice, which is something a lot of Americans will differ on you with.

Using some other country or event outside of these boarders as an example or reflective view, is redundant and unacceptable as a US citizen.

Oh really?  So what about healthcare?  Should I not use France's success as a reason for why socialized medicine can work?

Good debators use all the facts that are at their disposal.  This includes the world outside of the U.S.  To limit yourself to our country is only ignoring a lot of reality.

Does it not confuse, or bother you, that within this country, compared to others that have access to guns (and those that don't) we have such a high rate of death and violence by firearms? Using any particular factoid or graphic of some other weapon or object used to kill or maim outside of the boarders of this country is moot. The issue SHOULD be (if we can stay on topic) why we, as Americans have so poor a record of death and violence HERE with guns.

Yes, it's called wealth disparity.  Countries like Canada have almost as many guns as we do per capita, but they have much lower violence due to less poverty.

Such a huge cop out and dishonestly UNTRUE.
These type of WEAK arguments against doing more to contain gun violence and issues we have are NOT helping. If you want and need to have a firearm, fine, please offer some ideas on how to contain or reduce the out of control violence and deaths we have in this country due to firearms.
Step up and offer some relevant and intelligent conversation and suggestions on the matter.

The strongest argument I can give is that by banning the guns, you violate the Constitution.  Since you continually reject other arguments despite their logic, this is one I'll let you reflect on instead.

lather, rinse, repeat.

But, I also believe that the majority of the US public, rightly or wrongly (and partly media induced) will eventually say enough is enough and by fear alone have the government force more action to remove guns from a large part of those that own them...

And if that ever happens, it's going to get bloody very quickly.  For all of our sakes, I hope it never gets to that point.

Because if it did, any person who remotely cared about personal rights would join an insurgency or militia at that point.  I know I would.

That is UNLESS the NRA and those gun owners step up to the plate, face the the real concern of those whose safety is threatened, and support either a reduction of the manufacture or availability of them OR propose some real new steps or legislation that will have an active effect on reducing gun violence in this country, they will lose them.

It's like the War on Drugs.  More government isn't the answer.

I do not understand a gun owner or gun advocate with the continuing the stance that no legislation or rules or that SOMETHING has to be done, and the legacy of continuing gun violence is an acceptable situation and part of American life for now and the future.

Arguing that people kill people or other types of objects can kill people too is just so not the point...


It's acceptable when looking at our situation.  Inevitably, we will always have more wealth disparity than most of the First World, therefore, we will have more crime.  That's just life.  Getting the government to control guns more isn't going to solve anything, but it will make the government even more intrusive than it already is.

I would like to say that I'd like to have the choice of owning a gun or not, such that I can arm myself in the event that the country goes to hell or is overrun by zombies :D

I would like to say that I'd like to have the choice of owning a gun or not, such that I can arm myself in the event that the country goes to hell or is overrun by zombies :D


Nerds like you owning a gun, now that's the scariest :o

And if that ever happens, it's going to get bloody very quickly.  For all of our sakes, I hope it never gets to that point.

good luck facing off against those blackhawk helicopters and microwave weapons with your 30-06.  ;D

Nerds like you owning a gun, now that's the scariest :o


The scarier thing is that I actually know how to use a gun :P

Why?  Human nature remains the same regardless of country.  You're positing that control is more important than choice, which is something a lot of Americans will differ on you with.

Yes, true, but only to a point where they don't have the choice to not to be shot with a gun. Human nature works both ways, once they loose THEIR choice, then they are going to DEMAND control.


Oh really?  So what about healthcare?  Should I not use France's success as a reason for why socialized medicine can work?

Good debators use all the facts that are at their disposal.  This includes the world outside of the U.S.  To limit yourself to our country is only ignoring a lot of reality.

Yes, it's called wealth disparity.  Countries like Canada have almost as many guns as we do per capita, but they have much lower violence due to less poverty.

Another salvo for off topic retorts, the thread is called "Guns in America".  ::)
Good debaters also stay on topic, France, Canada, health care and guns, in this thread are not related and like the merry go round does, takes further from discussing the topic at hand...
What are your suggestions to reduce gun violence here in this country? Do nothing?

The strongest argument I can give is that by banning the guns, you violate the Constitution.  Since you continually reject other arguments despite their logic, this is one I'll let you reflect on instead.


%*&#@!
I am NOT for banning guns! I support a citizens right to own one, but we have to find a balance here. Don't you guy get it? I'm challenging you, or those that want own them to justify the alarming amounts of gun violence and death for your opportunity or right to own one, and WHY we should continue with the status quo.

The scarier thing is that I actually know how to use a gun :P


And you go to school :o

good luck facing off against those blackhawk helicopters and microwave weapons with your 30-06.  ;D


Consdiering how much the government already monitors a lot of internet traffic, I can't go into the details of how I'd actually fight back.

Consdiering how much the government already monitors a lot of internet traffic, I can't go into the details of how I'd actually fight back.


dude, you'd last about five seconds, tough guy.  ;D

i have to admit, of all the arguments for unfettered gun proliferation, the whole "we gotta fight off the gubmint!" is perhaps the most ridiculous. what do you think this is, red dawn? the US military would annihilate any militia group in about five minutes. ten if they took a coffee break. it's a joke.

Yes, true, but only to a point where they don't have the choice to not to be shot with a gun. Human nature works both ways, once they loose THEIR choice, then they are going to DEMAND control.

And tell me how it would ever become that way for the average American?

Another salvo for off topic retorts, the thread is called "Guns in America".  ::)
Good debaters also stay on topic, France, Canada, health care and guns, in this thread are not related and like the merry go round does, takes further from discussing the topic at hand...
What are your suggestions to reduce gun violence here in this country? Do nothing?

Man up, buy your own gun, and train with it.  That's my suggestion.

%*&#@!
I am NOT for banning guns! I support a citizens right to own one, but we have to find a balance here. Don't you guy get it? I'm challenging you, or those that want own them to justify the alarming amounts of gun violence and death for your opportunity or right to own one, and WHY we should continue with the status quo.


Again, the Constitution is all the justification I need.  Unless you can successfully remove the 2nd Amendment, the challenge is on you, not me.

dude, you'd last about five seconds, tough guy.  ;D

i have to admit, of all the arguments for unfettered gun proliferation, the whole "we gotta fight off the gubmint!" is perhaps the most ridiculous. what do you think this is, red dawn? the US military would annihilate any militia group in about five minutes. ten if they took a coffee break. it's a joke.


They haven't annihilated the Taliban, have they?

Terrorists will always exist.  By the same token, if you piss off a well-armed populace, you will suffer a lot of losses for it.  Look at Iraq, for example.

They haven't annihilated the Taliban, have they?

Terrorists will always exist.  By the same token, if you piss off a well-armed populace, you will suffer a lot of losses for it.  Look at Iraq, for example.
i dont think they're really trying to win either war so much as they're trying to keep the cash cow going. suppression of a domestic insurrection would be much more brutal. anyway, both the afghans and iraqis have been at war for decades. frankly, you're probably too soft. guns make people feel big out of proportion to their real battle-hardness, that's one of the problems with guns.

anyway, again, we digress.

i dont think they're really trying to win either war so much as they're trying to keep the cash cow going. suppression of a domestic insurrection would be much more brutal. anyway, both the afghans and iraqis have been at war for decades. frankly, you're probably too soft. guns make people feel big out of proportion to their real battle-hardness, that's one of the problems with guns.

anyway, again, we digress.


If I was fighting the government, it would mostly involve household chemicals that can be made into explosives.  You'd be surprised what you can make out of stuff you can buy at the supermarket.

I guess we're just lucky that most terrorists aren't particularly practical.

If I was fighting the government, it would mostly involve household chemicals that can be made into explosives.  You'd be surprised what you can make out of stuff you can buy at the supermarket.

I guess we're just lucky that most terrorists aren't particularly practical.


Oh Macphisto, you don't scare no one ::)

If I was fighting the government, it would mostly involve household chemicals that can be made into explosives.  You'd be surprised what you can make out of stuff you can buy at the supermarket.

I guess we're just lucky that most terrorists aren't particularly practical.
your best bet is to win the soldiers/police over to your side. every recent successful populist revolution has been done that way, from solidarnosc and the fall of the wall to the former yugoslavia. soldiers tend not to want to kill their own countrymen.

with pipe bombs you'll just blow your own arms off.

And if that ever happens, it's going to get bloody very quickly.  For all of our sakes, I hope it never gets to that point.

Because if it did, any person who remotely cared about personal rights would join an insurgency or militia at that point.  I know I would.

It's like the War on Drugs.  More government isn't the answer.

Strongly agree, I don't think more government is the answer, just the opposite, but if the proponents of guns the NRA and so forth don't start accepting the reality of the situation, some type of blood conflict is a possibility, but then thats my point.

Are we just going to let it escalate to that? Do you really believe that the public and government will not try to impose new regulations or rules on guns?


It's acceptable when looking at our situation.  Inevitably, we will always have more wealth disparity than most of the First World, therefore, we will have more crime.  That's just life.  Getting the government to control guns more isn't going to solve anything, but it will make the government even more intrusive than it already is.

Well I don't accept that we should accept gun violence/death. Crime yes, but you can have crime without having the result of so much more violence and death via a gun.

And if you can understand my point, I don't accept more government control, but its going to happen with the do nothing, leave my guns alone point of view.

OK, let ME go off topic somewhat, I'm a car guy, love cars. Back in the late 60's with muscle cars and the horsepower wars free-flow exhausts were glory days. But eventually, smog and pollution (not to mention atrocious) fuel economy resulted from that. The public and government strongly suggested the car industry take measures to police itself and reduce emissions and take steps to increase fuel economy.
The auto industry resisted as they always did. What happened? Eventually EPA emissions standards and CAFE fuel standards were legislated. Took the control of how their product was made and sold. And for a long time we had huge V8 ci engines strangled with both poor economy and no horsepower. Not any car guys favorite era.

What I'm saying is, now is the time for many gun enthusiasts and advocates to step up and face the challenges of suggesting ways to bring down gun violence or they won't have either the choice to do so and/or the object they want to keep so badly may be taken away.

Why sit still arguing all these other points, or doing nothing, waiting for the inevitable?
By doing nothing, its almost like the NRA and others WANT the government to come for their guns.
I don't understand that. ???

your best bet is to win the soldiers/police over to your side. every recent successful populist revolution has been done that way, from solidarnosc and the fall of the wall to the former yugoslavia. soldiers tend not to want to kill their own countrymen.

with pipe bombs you'll just blow your own arms off.


Hey, I can't disagree there.

Oh Macphisto, you don't scare no one ::)


I aim more to amuse and challenge than to scare...  ;)

Strongly agree, I don't think more government is the answer, just the opposite, but if the proponents of guns the NRA and so forth don't start accepting the reality of the situation, some type of blood conflict is a possibility, but then thats my point.

Are we just going to let it escalate to that? Do you really believe that the public and government will not try to impose new regulations or rules on guns?
Well I don't accept that we should accept gun violence/death. Crime yes, but you can have crime without having the result of so much more violence and death via a gun.

And if you can understand my point, I don't accept more government control, but its going to happen with the do nothing, leave my guns alone point of view.

That is a valid assumption, but I don't think that's going to happen -- mostly because of the uproar that would result and the lobbyism ensuring it won't happen.  I'm not an NRA member, but I can't say I mind their influence.

OK, let ME go off topic somewhat, I'm a car guy, love cars. Back in the late 60's with muscle cars and the horsepower wars free-flow exhausts were glory days. But eventually, smog and pollution (not to mention atrocious) fuel economy resulted from that. The public and government strongly suggested the car industry take measures to police itself and reduce emissions and take steps to increase fuel economy.
The auto industry resisted as they always did. What happened? Eventually EPA emissions standards and CAFE fuel standards were legislated. Took the control of how their product was made and sold. And for a long time we had huge V8 ci engines strangled with both poor economy and no horsepower. Not any car guys favorite era.

What I'm saying is, now is the time for many gun enthusiasts and advocates to step up and face the challenges of suggesting ways to bring down gun violence or they won't have either the choice to do so and/or the object they want to keep so badly may be taken away.

Why sit still arguing all these other points, or doing nothing, waiting for the inevitable?
By doing nothing, its almost like the NRA and others WANT the government to come for their guns.
I don't understand that. ???


Good points...  You make a stronger argument than most.  I'll put it this way.  I favor the idea of adding psychological screening to background tests.  A mentally unstable person should not be allowed to have a gun.

And you go to school :o


Well, I'm not going to take an AK-47 and kill off an entire classroom if that's what you're scared about :-\\

I currently do not own any guns as we have a very VERY curious and resourceful child in the home.

You could say the same for ANYTHING.  Like cars, alcohol, etc.

If you honestly believe that this is a rational argument, then I'm afraid you're far more stupid than I originally took you for.

Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?  Take away *all* cars - has life changed significantly for you?  Damn right it has.  Now take away all guns - what difference has that made?  Are you still trying to suggest that there's some equivalence between guns and cars because they both cause death?

Face it: you want to keep your guns because you like playing with them, and don't want your toys taken away.  All the other arguments are just window-dressing.

Are you still trying to suggest that there's some equivalence between guns and cars because they both cause death?


Is death not equivalent? Can one person be more dead than another?  Cars or guns or other means, the person is DEAD. GONE. As in NOT EVER COMING BACK. For someone who does not believe in the afterlife, you have an odd view of death. That guns are (and I quote an implication, not a direct statement here) 'designed solely to kill' (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself) is debateable. Try me.

Everyone is ignorant in some respect. Calling MacPhisto "stupid" is a massive display of ignorance, especially since you provide no contrary proof to refute his statement.  Quite unlike you, Phil.

Bottom line to this thread: gun deaths are far more complex than anyone cares to admit or realize. If it were *that* simple, we'd already have a solution to them.


Now take away all guns - what difference has that made? 

Oh, I dunno, a little thing called the American Revolution, for starters?

gumbypiz: apology accepted.

Now, we can we all move on to real solutions?

Ant

Is death not equivalent? Can one person be more dead than another?  Cars or guns or other means, the person is DEAD. GONE. As in NOT EVER COMING BACK. For someone who does not believe in the afterlife, you have an odd view of death. That guns are (and I quote an implication, not a direct statement here) 'designed solely to kill' (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself) is debateable. Try me.

Everyone is ignorant in some respect. Calling MacPhisto "stupid" is a massive display of ignorance, especially since you provide no contrary proof to refute his statement.  Quite unlike you, Phil.

People are just as dead whether they die from guns, cars or influenza (regular or Swine).  However, to suggest that because they all cause death the causes are therefore equivalent *is* stupid.




Bottom line to this thread: gun deaths are far more complex than anyone cares to admit or realize. If it were *that* simple, we'd already have a solution to them.

I agree - the other thing I think we agree upon is that I don't think it would actually be possible to get rid of all of the guns in the US.


Oh, I dunno, a little thing called the American Revolution, for starters?

You think there's going to be another one?  Come to think of it, there probably would be if someone tried to take your precious guns away.

I agree - the other thing I think we agree upon is that I don't think it would actually be possible to get rid of all of the guns in the US.



Yes, we agree upon that.


You think there's going to be another one?  Come to think of it, there probably would be if someone tried to take your precious guns away.


No, I don't think we'll have another one. And I hope you used "your" in the collective plural (i.e., the gun owners of the USA), not in the singular, otherwise your statement holds no water.


BTW, you might find it interesting to know that, not only am I no longer a member of the NRA (I let that lapse in 2005) or any other pro-gun group, but that I also do not own a firearm at this time.

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to Macphisto's post other than 'the guy is stupid'. Certainly you can do better than that, Phil.

Ant

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to Macphisto's post other than 'the guy is stupid'. Certainly you can do better than that, Phil.

Ant
is this the post claiming that gun deaths are inherently no different than deaths from cars, alcohol, knives, etc.? because i really feel like we've covered this, but i guess we'll do it again.

cars serve an invaluable function in current society, in that they allow commerce to take place. therefore the price we have to pay in order to have cars needs to be balanced against the good that they do society. high price, high utility. therefore automobile deaths -- although they are regrettable and should be minimized if at all possible -- pay dividends in terms of allowing us to live in a functional industrial society.

many fewer people are killed by knives than are killed by guns; however, knives also offer a necessary service to society, they are an essential tool for any number of tasks. medium price, high utility.

guns, now here's something else entirely. they claim a massive toll in terms of life every year, but offer no real practical benefit to offset the toll they exact. i understand that hobbyists are enthusiastic about them, and that people think (i believe incorrectly) that they would be useful in the case of a fascist government crackdown. (the american revolution was obviously a very different time; i just don't see small arms being particularly useful against the current US government, were it to come to that.) guns are useful for hunting, and that's about it. foo bar interestingly mentions his toolkit, and how many dangerous tools he has in it. i'm not sure what the relevance of that was, unless it was another variant of the
'spoons-can-kill-too' argument, but the first thing i wondered is: how many guns does foo bar have in his toolbox? and what does he use these guns to fix, repair, straighten, splice, or otherwise remedy? guns simply largely lack the usefulness of actual tools. they put holes in things. that's all they do. therefore, high price, low utility.

that's the difference between guns and cars, knives, spoons, or any other tool that actually has an alternative use that offsets the cost it exacts on society in terms of accidental or otherwise unnecessary death. it's a cost-benefit analysis, and guns come off sorely lacking.

If you honestly believe that this is a rational argument, then I'm afraid you're far more stupid than I originally took you for.

Thanks for the arrogance -- you can keep it though.

Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?  Take away *all* cars - has life changed significantly for you?  Damn right it has.  Now take away all guns - what difference has that made?  Are you still trying to suggest that there's some equivalence between guns and cars because they both cause death?

While not having a car would change my life more, the fact that I live in an area where my brother has already been robbed at gunpoint implies that, without a gun myself, I'm less able to defend myself against local dangers should they attack me.

Face it: you want to keep your guns because you like playing with them, and don't want your toys taken away.  All the other arguments are just window-dressing.


Face it: you've gotten to the point of making personal attacks because your arguments keep failing.  Nice try though.

guns, now here's something else entirely. they claim a massive toll in terms of life every year, but offer no real practical benefit to offset the toll they exact. i understand that hobbyists are enthusiastic about them, and that people think (i believe incorrectly) that they would be useful in the case of a fascist government crackdown. (the american revolution was obviously a very different time; i just don't see small arms being particularly useful against the current US government, were it to come to that.) guns are useful for hunting, and that's about it. foo bar interestingly mentions his toolkit, and how many dangerous tools he has in it. i'm not sure what the relevance of that was, unless it was another variant of the
'spoons-can-kill-too' argument, but the first thing i wondered is: how many guns does foo bar have in his toolbox? and what does he use these guns to fix, repair, straighten, splice, or otherwise remedy? guns simply largely lack the usefulness of actual tools. they put holes in things. that's all they do. therefore, high price, low utility.

that's the difference between guns and cars, knives, spoons, or any other tool that actually has an alternative use that offsets the cost it exacts on society in terms of accidental or otherwise unnecessary death. it's a cost-benefit analysis, and guns come off sorely lacking.


Alright, I'll accept that.  However, you say you're against banning guns.  By stigmatizing guns (which, by the way, we already do as seen by various areas that ban them from the area), does this really accomplish anything?

We stigmatize alcohol and tobacco, but people still use them.  We tax the hell out of them, and people still buy them.  Are you suggesting we should put a "death" tax on guns?  Honestly, I don't really even know what we're debating if you're against bans but just like to talk about guns being evil.

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to Macphisto's post other than 'the guy is stupid'. Certainly you can do better than that, Phil.

If you can quote where I said "the guy is stupid", then you might have a point.  That isn't what I said - that particular argument, that there is an equivalence between guns and cars because both kill the same sorts of numbers each year *is* stupid, it's a diversion.  By no sense of the word "rational" can it be described as such.


Thanks for the arrogance -- you can keep it though.

Arrogance?  No.  You keep coming up with stupid arguments, I'll keep describing them as stupid.


While not having a car would change my life more, the fact that I live in an area where my brother has already been robbed at gunpoint implies that, without a gun myself, I'm less able to defend myself against local dangers should they attack me.

Read what I actually said, and reply to that - not to a point I wasn't making.


Face it: you've gotten to the point of making personal attacks because your arguments keep failing.  Nice try though.

Where's the personal attack?  You came up with a an argument that *is* just plain stupid.  I'd appreciate it if you actually answered what I wrote rather than misrepresenting it, too.

If you can quote where I said "the guy is stupid", then you might have a point. 


In response to something Macphisto said:


If you honestly believe that this is a rational argument, then I'm afraid you're far more stupid than I originally took you for.


Seems like you did call him stupid.

*leaves thread again*

Semantics.

If you can quote where I said "the guy is stupid", then you might have a point.  That isn't what I said - that particular argument, that there is an equivalence between guns and cars because both kill the same sorts of numbers each year *is* stupid, it's a diversion.  By no sense of the word "rational" can it be described as such.

But using stats of how many people they kill to justify demonizing them without actually breaking down why these people are killed and without considering that all the instances of where guns prevented a conflict from occurring aren't recorded is also....  a diversion.

You're claiming that I'm being irrational for comparing cars to guns, but I can make the same claim against you for not recognizing that guns can have a positive influence in preventing conflict, which isn't easily quantifiable.

If anything, the comparison I made should drive home what using statistics can justify.  If I solely looked at how many people cars kill, they'd be easy to demonize.  You're doing that with guns, and your logic is no more solid.  Yes, guns are designed to kill, but design does not dictate behavior.

Arrogance?  No.  You keep coming up with stupid arguments, I'll keep describing them as stupid.

And by only labeling them as stupid without giving a rationale for why you think they're stupid, your response looks....  well...  stupid.
Read what I actually said, and reply to that - not to a point I wasn't making.

How did I not respond to what you said?  You specifically asked if not having a car would change my life and went on to say that not having a gun would affect my life less.  While I agreed, I pointed out that not having the gun still significantly affects me more than you were implying it would.

Where's the personal attack?  You came up with a an argument that *is* just plain stupid.  I'd appreciate it if you actually answered what I wrote rather than misrepresenting it, too.


I'll refer you to Jessica's post.

But using stats of how many people they kill to justify demonizing them without actually breaking down why these people are killed and without considering that all the instances of where guns prevented a conflict from occurring aren't recorded is also....  a diversion.

You're claiming that I'm being irrational for comparing cars to guns, but I can make the same claim against you for not recognizing that guns can have a positive influence in preventing conflict, which isn't easily quantifiable.
It's not that it isn't easily quantifiable - it isn't quantifiable at all, so you're left with anecdote against statistics, and your entire argument is predicated on your unsupportable belief that unreported positive results outweigh recorded statistics.  My not taking the same position isn't irrational, I simply don't have the same belief in the overwhelming unreported goodness of guns.


If anything, the comparison I made should drive home what using statistics can justify.  If I solely looked at how many people cars kill, they'd be easy to demonize.  You're doing that with guns, and your logic is no more solid.  Yes, guns are designed to kill, but design does not dictate behavior.

And by only labeling them as stupid without giving a rationale for why you think they're stupid, your response looks....  well...  stupid.

How did I not respond to what you said?  You specifically asked if not having a car would change my life and went on to say that not having a gun would affect my life less.  While I agreed, I pointed out that not having the gun still significantly affects me more than you were implying it would.

I can answer all of those with the request that you read what I actually wrote:

Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?  Take away *all* cars - has life changed significantly for you?  Damn right it has.  Now take away all guns - what difference has that made?  Are you still trying to suggest that there's some equivalence between guns and cars because they both cause death?
Did I say "if *you* didn't have a car/gun?  No.. what I said was "take away *all* cars" and "take away *all* guns" and see the difference in effect it would have. You came back with having been robbed at gunpoint, which in the thought experiment world obviously couldn't have happened.

Life without all guns would be considerably different to life without all cars - therefore the cars/guns analogy *is* invalid.  Therefore as an argument to validate gun ownership, it *is* stupid.

I can answer all of those with the request that you read what I actually wrote:Did I say "if *you* didn't have a car/gun?  No.. what I said was "take away *all* cars" and "take away *all* guns" and see the difference in effect it would have. You came back with having been robbed at gunpoint, which in the thought experiment world obviously couldn't have happened.

But in reality, it does happen, which is why your thought experiment is invalid.  You simply can't take away all guns.  Then again, you can't take away all cars either.

So since your experiment is only hypothetical in worth, it's not a very strong argument at all.

This is getting remarkably frustrating: I have said on many occasions that I didn't think that it would be possible to take guns out of American culture - that's why it has to be a thought experiment, rather than a real life one.  It doesn't make it a weaker argument, it's a way to try and make you think about the arguments you're proposing, which you seem to be incredibly reluctant to do.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

This is getting remarkably frustrating: I have said on many occasions that I didn't think that it would be possible to take guns out of American culture - that's why it has to be a thought experiment, rather than a real life one.  It doesn't make it a weaker argument, it's a way to try and make you think about the arguments you're proposing, which you seem to be incredibly reluctant to do.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Are you being intentionally condescending?

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the merit of it.  I was pointing out that anytime a society has a lot of something with deadly potential, a lot of death occurs.  That's why I used cars as an example.  Drugs work as well.

In fact, alcohol would probably be a better example.  Life without alcohol wouldn't be that different to life without guns.  Still, the fact that we aren't dependent on guns or alcohol for our lifestyles doesn't justify trying to demonize them.

People blast guns when they should blast irresponsibility.  I know Tia will probably complain that I've already said that, but seriously, when have you guys ever actually bothered to refute this argument?

Are you being intentionally condescending?

When I'm driven to it, yes.


I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the merit of it.  I was pointing out that anytime a society has a lot of something with deadly potential, a lot of death occurs.  That's why I used cars as an example.  Drugs work as well.

In fact, alcohol would probably be a better example.  Life without alcohol wouldn't be that different to life without guns.  Still, the fact that we aren't dependent on guns or alcohol for our lifestyles doesn't justify trying to demonize them.
Yes, alcohol is a better example than cars - pretty much anything would have been - banning alcohol didn't and will never work; stigmatising misuse is pretty much the only way for society to reduce it.  Stop making drinking glamorous, and you'll reduce the harm it does.  Hold on a sec... does this sound familiar to you?


People blast guns when they should blast irresponsibility.
It isn't an either/or: irresponsibility is definitely "blastable", but irresponsibility with guns around causes tragedy.


I know Tia will probably complain that I've already said that, but seriously, when have you guys ever actually bothered to refute this argument?
Because it isn't an argument: nobody has argued that irresponsibility isn't a problem, but just because something else is a problem doesn't mean that guns aren't.

Yes, alcohol is a better example than cars - pretty much anything would have been - banning alcohol didn't and will never work; stigmatising misuse is pretty much the only way for society to reduce it.  Stop making drinking glamorous, and you'll reduce the harm it does.  Hold on a sec... does this sound familiar to you?

Well, if you're proposing the stigmatizing of misuse, then I'll agree.  What Tia seemed to be suggesting is to stigmatize guns themselves.

It isn't an either/or: irresponsibility is definitely "blastable", but irresponsibility with guns around causes tragedy.
Because it isn't an argument: nobody has argued that irresponsibility isn't a problem, but just because something else is a problem doesn't mean that guns aren't.

You just contradicted yourself again.  You admitted that stigmatizing the misuse of alcohol was the answer to that problem.  Now, you're saying guns are a problem, despite the fact that logically, it's misuse of guns that is the problem, not guns in and of themselves.

Well, if you're proposing the stigmatizing of misuse, then I'll agree.  What Tia seemed to be suggesting is to stigmatize guns themselves.
I didn't think it was that hard a point to understand: the more guns there are about, the higher the potential for misuse.  If guns themselves are considered unglamorous, so people don't think they're a cool thing to have around, then the levels of ownership and therefore of misuse will fall.  You can't misuse what you don't have, after all.

Maybe I wasn't quite explicit enough in what I was saying about alcohol: drinking is considered "cool", and in this country especially, drinking until you're so drunk you can't remember what happened when you wake up is considered a good thing by some... now, anyone with any brains at all would realize that the latter habit is not sensible and worth being stigmatised; however,  while alcohol consumption is seen as having its glamorous side, more people will drink and more people will misuse alcohol. Make it less cool to drink alcohol - stigmatise it, if you like - and you will have fewer incidents of alcohol misuse.


You just contradicted yourself again.  You admitted that stigmatizing the misuse of alcohol was the answer to that problem.  Now, you're saying guns are a problem, despite the fact that logically, it's misuse of guns that is the problem, not guns in and of themselves.

No, I'm not contradicting myself - irresponsiblity is not good, but becomes far, far worse when there's a gun involved. With no guns involved, there's a lot lower chance of anyone (gun owner/bystander/whoever) being shot by accident.

Can I go back to a point I made earlier: all the reported statistics show that having a gun around makes you more likely to be shot; against that is the belief that guns "in the hands of the good guys" prevent incidents from happening in such a way as they don't get reported.

Whether you believe guns are a net positive or not hangs purely on whether you think that unreported incidents of gun presence (but non-usage) outweigh the times the wrong person gets shot, by accident or design.  There hasn't been a study that I can find which has managed to find the level of this in any kind of rigorous way - until that is the case, we can only argue hypothetically.

Whether you believe guns are a net positive or not hangs purely on whether you think that unreported incidents of gun presence (but non-usage) outweigh the times the wrong person gets shot, by accident or design.  There hasn't been a study that I can find which has managed to find the level of this in any kind of rigorous way - until that is the case, we can only argue hypothetically.
a friend of mine once said, "if you bring a weapon to a fight, be prepared to have it be used against you."

one of the things not considered in this idea that brandishing a firearm in a criminal situation is likely to defuse it. such an act also runs the risk of complicating it. say you're confronted with a mugger and you display your gun. you're hoping the mugger will run away but if he calls your bluff and doesn't, you're now forced to deal with this decision of whether you're going to shoot him, thus turning a petty crime into a potential homicide (justified or no, i imagine those tend to hang on one's conscience), or you might end up with the mugger (who, let's face it, a lot of people who spend a lot of time on city mean streets are likely to be better grapplers than the largely middle-american folks who are big on gun ownership but really haven't seen a lot of violence in their lives) taking your gun and using it against you or just stabbing you before you can use the gun yourself.

thus a situation in which you were going to lose your wallet becomes a situation in which someone loses their life. i'm not sure how useful or productive that is.

Well, if you're proposing the stigmatizing of misuse, then I'll agree.  What Tia seemed to be suggesting is to stigmatize guns themselves.

i'll own up to that to an extent. guns, as i've said, have no practical purpose other than to put holes in things, living or otherwise. to that extent they, themselves, are not particularly useful or helpful to have around. i understand a lot of people like to play with them but that isn't the same thing as saying they're useful. i think philbo made an excellent point earlier -- guns, when properly used, that is, used for the purpose for which they're designed, maim and cause death. so i don't really subscribe to your idea that "misuse" of guns is the issue. this would imply they have a purpose other than that for which you'd claim they would be "misused," that they can be used to accomplish goals other than that of causing harm or death, or threatening same. and i just don't see it.

so i'd say guns in and of themselves are, yeah, not particularly helpful or useful as tools. in the hands of police or soldiers they are, i suppose, but only to the extent the people the police and soldiers are meant to regulate, control or oppose also have them.

http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/04/gun-show-nation/

I didn't think it was that hard a point to understand: the more guns there are about, the higher the potential for misuse.  If guns themselves are considered unglamorous, so people don't think they're a cool thing to have around, then the levels of ownership and therefore of misuse will fall.  You can't misuse what you don't have, after all.

Maybe I wasn't quite explicit enough in what I was saying about alcohol: drinking is considered "cool", and in this country especially, drinking until you're so drunk you can't remember what happened when you wake up is considered a good thing by some... now, anyone with any brains at all would realize that the latter habit is not sensible and worth being stigmatised; however,  while alcohol consumption is seen as having its glamorous side, more people will drink and more people will misuse alcohol. Make it less cool to drink alcohol - stigmatise it, if you like - and you will have fewer incidents of alcohol misuse.

I see where you're coming from, but I guess here's the question.  Do you see this stigmatizing as a personal responsibility or a governmental one?  I see it as personal.

Groups like MADD already stigmatize alcohol somewhat.  Plenty of religious groups are against drinking altogether (and were mostly responsible for Prohibition).  Yet, with all the laws and regulations we've put on alcohol, it hasn't done much good, has it?  People still die from drunk driving.  Alcoholism is still a serious disease that affects thousands.

If more groups want to advertize and stigmatize guns, that's fine with me.  They have the freedom of speech to do that.  But the government should mostly take a hands-off approach.  It's not the government's duty to push social agendas on the populace.  Plenty of us can responsibly handle gun ownership and don't need to be judged for it -- especially by the government.

No, I'm not contradicting myself - irresponsiblity is not good, but becomes far, far worse when there's a gun involved. With no guns involved, there's a lot lower chance of anyone (gun owner/bystander/whoever) being shot by accident.

Can I go back to a point I made earlier: all the reported statistics show that having a gun around makes you more likely to be shot; against that is the belief that guns "in the hands of the good guys" prevent incidents from happening in such a way as they don't get reported.

Whether you believe guns are a net positive or not hangs purely on whether you think that unreported incidents of gun presence (but non-usage) outweigh the times the wrong person gets shot, by accident or design.  There hasn't been a study that I can find which has managed to find the level of this in any kind of rigorous way - until that is the case, we can only argue hypothetically.


Again, I see where you're coming from, but as a gun owner myself, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

a friend of mine once said, "if you bring a weapon to a fight, be prepared to have it be used against you."

one of the things not considered in this idea that brandishing a firearm in a criminal situation is likely to defuse it. such an act also runs the risk of complicating it. say you're confronted with a mugger and you display your gun. you're hoping the mugger will run away but if he calls your bluff and doesn't, you're now forced to deal with this decision of whether you're going to shoot him, thus turning a petty crime into a potential homicide (justified or no, i imagine those tend to hang on one's conscience), or you might end up with the mugger (who, let's face it, a lot of people who spend a lot of time on city mean streets are likely to be better grapplers than the largely middle-american folks who are big on gun ownership but really haven't seen a lot of violence in their lives) taking your gun and using it against you or just stabbing you before you can use the gun yourself.

thus a situation in which you were going to lose your wallet becomes a situation in which someone loses their life. i'm not sure how useful or productive that is.



You're assuming people who own guns don't train.  Note that experience with violence alone does not dictate skill with guns.  You can have lived a violent life and still be quite unskilled with guns.  This is why many gang members aren't exactly sharpshooters.

Now, it is true that many gun owners don't go to the firing range much.  Those owners will be less likely to wield a gun effectively.  However, you're also making the assumption that a criminal is desperate enough to risk death in committing a crime.  Most criminals aren't THAT desperate.  Self-preservation still usually prevails.

One thing to remember about most criminals is that they are cowards.  They go for easy marks.  They aren't committing a crime for the challenge -- they do it for the ease of getting what they want.  If you show that you have a deadly weapon on you, the criminal is less likely to take a chance at attacking you and dying in the process.

Essentially, your argument defies human nature.

i'll own up to that to an extent. guns, as i've said, have no practical purpose other than to put holes in things, living or otherwise. to that extent they, themselves, are not particularly useful or helpful to have around. i understand a lot of people like to play with them but that isn't the same thing as saying they're useful. i think philbo made an excellent point earlier -- guns, when properly used, that is, used for the purpose for which they're designed, maim and cause death. so i don't really subscribe to your idea that "misuse" of guns is the issue. this would imply they have a purpose other than that for which you'd claim they would be "misused," that they can be used to accomplish goals other than that of causing harm or death, or threatening same. and i just don't see it.

so i'd say guns in and of themselves are, yeah, not particularly helpful or useful as tools. in the hands of police or soldiers they are, i suppose, but only to the extent the people the police and soldiers are meant to regulate, control or oppose also have them.


To your earlier point...  I don't have a problem with the maiming and death of criminals.  If someone tries to rob me, I will shoot to kill.

You're assuming people who own guns don't train.  Note that experience with violence alone does not dictate skill with guns.  You can have lived a violent life and still be quite unskilled with guns.  This is why many gang members aren't exactly sharpshooters.how so? what does training have to do with it? if you are the victim of a mugging and you introduce a firearm into the situation, you've added a weapon that the mugger can potentially take from you and use against you. does training with firearms teach you hand to hand combat? not really. and is training a substitute for actually fighting on the street? not really. basically what it comes down to is you introduce a gun into a criminal situation, you've upped the likelihood that the situation will end in death. that's essentially all you've accomplished.

Now, it is true that many gun owners don't go to the firing range much.  Those owners will be less likely to wield a gun effectively.  However, you're also making the assumption that a criminal is desperate enough to risk death in committing a crime.  Most criminals aren't THAT desperate.  Self-preservation still usually prevails.no, i'm making no assumptions at all. some criminals will, some won't. you're assuming "most criminals aren't desperate" -- when they're doing something desperate by mugging you in the first place, so that assumption seems quite unfounded.

One thing to remember about most criminals is that they are cowards. now who's assuming?


They go for easy marks.  They aren't committing a crime for the challenge -- they do it for the ease of getting what they want.  If you show that you have a deadly weapon on you, the criminal is less likely to take a chance at attacking you and dying in the process.

Essentially, your argument defies human nature.
all completely unfounded assumptions. what evidence do you have that this is so?

To your earlier point...  I don't have a problem with the maiming and death of criminals.  If someone tries to rob me, I will shoot to kill.
this again is that tough-guy syndrome that caused me to start the "gun dependence" thread to begin with. there's something about guns that makes it enticing to contemplate homicide. they seem to be intoxicating.

but have you ever actually killed anyone? if you haven't you frankly don't know what you'll do in that situation. in WWII something like 60% of the people called on to kill in combat balked at the moment of truth. i doubt most of them thought they would, but the reality of it is evidently very different from clint-eastwood-fueled, wish-fulfillment, conquering-hero fantasy. unless you've actually killed someone you don't know whether you're capable of it. and if you are i'm not sure that's something to be proud of.

how so? what does training have to do with it? if you are the victim of a mugging and you introduce a firearm into the situation, you've added a weapon that the mugger can potentially take from you and use against you. does training with firearms teach you hand to hand combat? not really. and is training a substitute for actually fighting on the street? not really. basically what it comes down to is you introduce a gun into a criminal situation, you've upped the likelihood that the situation will end in death. that's essentially all you've accomplished.

Who do you think is a better fighter: a gang member, or a soldier that has never seen any combat?  I'll put my money on the soldier.

no, i'm making no assumptions at all. some criminals will, some won't. you're assuming "most criminals aren't desperate" -- when they're doing something desperate by mugging you in the first place, so that assumption seems quite unfounded.

Why would you choose to mug someone for money if you weren't already poor or lower income?  The only reason I can come up with is psychosis.  I suppose a psychotic criminal will be a greater threat to the average person by not having as much of a self-preservation instinct, but I doubt most criminals are truly psychotic.

now who's assuming?

How many victims of robbery are soldiers in military fatigues?  How many bodybuilders get robbed?  How many men of larger stature get robbed?  They specifically target people who seem less able to defend themselves.  That is the definition of cowardice.

all completely unfounded assumptions. what evidence do you have that this is so?


If you were trying to rob someone and they pulled a gun on you, would you continue trying to attack them, or would you slowly back away?  I would back away.

this again is that tough-guy syndrome that caused me to start the "gun dependence" thread to begin with. there's something about guns that makes it enticing to contemplate homicide. they seem to be intoxicating.

but have you ever actually killed anyone? if you haven't you frankly don't know what you'll do in that situation. in WWII something like 60% of the people called on to kill in combat balked at the moment of truth. i doubt most of them thought they would, but the reality of it is evidently very different from clint-eastwood-fueled, wish-fulfillment, conquering-hero fantasy. unless you've actually killed someone you don't know whether you're capable of it. and if you are i'm not sure that's something to be proud of.


Would you rather allow yourself to be vulnerable to being killed by the criminal, or would you rather have the option of defending yourself?

Who do you think is a better fighter: a gang member, or a soldier that has never seen any combat?  I'll put my money on the soldier.

In WWII, most of the soldiers who went to the front did so with a tiny amount of training compared to today's armies - one of the lessons learnt from their inability to act (have to admit I don't remember the figure - 60% seems high, but entirely possible) was to make training a lot more rigorous, so that the reflex to kill became.. well, a reflex rather than something that requires active thought.  Today's soldiers are in a different league.

Would you rather allow yourself to be vulnerable to being killed by the criminal, or would you rather have the option of defending yourself?

A question for you: how many people walk the same streets as you without guns and without being killed?

Obviously, we live in very different environments, but I'm finding it very hard to believe in the sort of lawless dystopia where people actually are made safer by carrying firearms..  I mean, they give you the perception of being safer, but have you any idea what the actual statistics are?

Who do you think is a better fighter: a gang member, or a soldier that has never seen any combat?  I'll put my money on the soldier.

Why would you choose to mug someone for money if you weren't already poor or lower income?  The only reason I can come up with is psychosis.  I suppose a psychotic criminal will be a greater threat to the average person by not having as much of a self-preservation instinct, but I doubt most criminals are truly psychotic.

How many victims of robbery are soldiers in military fatigues?  How many bodybuilders get robbed?  How many men of larger stature get robbed?  They specifically target people who seem less able to defend themselves.  That is the definition of cowardice.

If you were trying to rob someone and they pulled a gun on you, would you continue trying to attack them, or would you slowly back away?  I would back away.

I work with people for a local support group, lots of these people are or have been criminally active or in gangs.

One thing you learn very quickly, is the mentality and thought process of many criminals is not a rational one, it IS PSYCHOTIC. Both poverty and their environment has altered their way of thinking, they do not think or react in the same way you or a normal person would. That they are satisfied to commit a crime by threat of violence is in itself irrational and goes against the norms of our society, they're thinking crazy to begin with.

To even believe that using you're own rational or normal cues to predict theirs in a confrontational situation, "to back off", is completely an assumption and a dangerous one at that. Especially compared to one who obviously doesn't care about the risk, punishment, his own physical health or yours, and who on any given day will continue to escalate the situation. The fact that he is there or exists to rob or mug you already predetermines that they're somewhat psychotic and completely unpredictable, not worth your life in trying to play odds otherwise.

They have nothing to lose, they are not thinking that you have a weapon to defend yourself, or that it matters.

And while I understand that training may help, you have to admit that the situation or circumstances you may find yourself in will not be in the controlled environment of a training situation or exercise. If most criminals are truly the cowards you say they are, and are preying on the weak and unprepared, they'll come at you in the most unplanned, unseen and vulnerable way possible, one that has either little or no way for you to gain the upper hand.
Now the training, it may help you feel safer, but in reality you're playing the odds that both your gun and the training you've had will even be applicable in that event. In dealing with the people on the streets that are carrying a gun AND without question willing to use it, you're going to have to use yours (or hope that you can) and hope for the best.

With my understanding of your point of view, and how you feel you have to be prepared for the worst, you going to have to use that weapon in such an environment.

That mentality guarantees an escalation of violence in any situation and ensures a more dangerous environment for everyone, but doesn't reduce crime or persuade a criminal not to commit them. If gun ownership is supported as a way to stop crime, its a limited point at best, and a risky one at its weakest.

A question for you: how many people walk the same streets as you without guns and without being killed?

Obviously, we live in very different environments, but I'm finding it very hard to believe in the sort of lawless dystopia where people actually are made safer by carrying firearms..  I mean, they give you the perception of being safer, but have you any idea what the actual statistics are?


Conveniently, that is something nearly impossible to measure.

See, here's the problem with this discussion.  You're looking at statistics that are easy to quantify (death by guns), but most of the positive aspects of guns aren't measured by a government agency.  We don't keep track of how many cases where a gun prevented an assault or where a visible gun on a person made a criminal decide to look for a different target.

So, unfortunately, as we discussed in a previous post, we're debating something with only part of the situation being recorded.

As a result, we're left having to decide (without the facts to back it up) whether or not guns are a net positive.  Your view on this is no more and no less defensible than mine because of this lack of full knowledge.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

A couple random tidbits...

I was watching Hot Fuzz last December and someone told me that one of the reasons it was so funny is because England has such strict gun control laws, yet everyone in the village being defended by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost had guns...made for a great climactic scene :D

Anyone know when Boondocks will come back to newspapers with new strips?  I miss Boondocks :(  Riley fits the profile of the psychotic wannabe gangsta who thinks committing crimes is cool...

I work with people for a local support group, lots of these people are or have been criminally active or in gangs.

One thing you learn very quickly, is the mentality and thought process of many criminals is not a rational one, it IS PSYCHOTIC. Both poverty and their environment has altered their way of thinking, they do not think or react in the same way you or a normal person would. That they are satisfied to commit a crime by threat of violence is in itself irrational and goes against the norms of our society, they're thinking crazy to begin with.

To even believe that using you're own rational or normal cues to predict theirs in a confrontational situation, "to back off", is completely an assumption and a dangerous one at that. Especially compared to one who obviously doesn't care about the risk, punishment, his own physical health or yours, and who on any given day will continue to escalate the situation. The fact that he is there or exists to rob or mug you already predetermines that they're somewhat psychotic and completely unpredictable, not worth your life in trying to play odds otherwise.

They have nothing to lose, they are not thinking that you have a weapon to defend yourself, or that it matters.

And while I understand that training may help, you have to admit that the situation or circumstances you may find yourself in will not be in the controlled environment of a training situation or exercise. If most criminals are truly the cowards you say they are, and are preying on the weak and unprepared, they'll come at you in the most unplanned, unseen and vulnerable way possible, one that has either little or no way for you to gain the upper hand.
Now the training, it may help you feel safer, but in reality you're playing the odds that both your gun and the training you've had will even be applicable in that event. In dealing with the people on the streets that are carrying a gun AND without question willing to use it, you're going to have to use yours (or hope that you can) and hope for the best.

With my understanding of your point of view, and how you feel you have to be prepared for the worst, you going to have to use that weapon in such an environment.

That mentality guarantees an escalation of violence in any situation and ensures a more dangerous environment for everyone, but doesn't reduce crime or persuade a criminal not to commit them. If gun ownership is supported as a way to stop crime, its a limited point at best, and a risky one at its weakest.


I have to admit... you make a strong argument.

Still, if we're agreeing that a ban won't work, then I have to ask how you guys plan to stigmatize guns in a way that actually makes a difference.

With alcohol and cigarrettes, it clearly doesn't work.

Here's a Q...

How many people who want to ban guns or at least have stricter gun control still play violent video games where the #1 objective is to blow an enemy's brains out with high-caliber weapons?

I do admit that while I would never do it in real life unless in self-defense, there is something satisfying about watching a little Grunt's head explode after getting a triple-tap from my battle rifle in Halo :)

"One thing you learn very quickly, is the mentality and thought process of many criminals is not a rational one, it IS PSYCHOTIC." 

"....completely unpredictable".

If quite a few criminals are psychotic or completely unpredictable, then what's to say that handing over your wallet, jewelry, complying with their wishes, and so on (which, to a rational person, would indicate passiveness and no real threat) will result in a better outcome? Sounds to me like you're describing a criminal encounter as a complete craps shoot. If you are correct then the victim's actions have little to no bearing on the outcome of an encounter. If this is true then avoiding the encounter is a better option than either having a gun (or trying to defend yourself through other means) or complying with the criminal (or anything else in between). And in that respect you are correct.

Having a firearm (or any other means of self defense available) places more of the outcome, or at the very least the perceived outcome, of a criminal encounter with the target rather than the aggressor. For those that don't feel safe having or carrying a firearm, there are many who feel safer by doing the opposite.

I feel safer by avoiding conflict; I am safer for avoiding it, and by not being involved in activities that tend to lead to gun violence/death. I still have all of those other causes of death to worry about, but (as you all have pointed out innumerable times), they are not in the scope of the argument or discussion.

Ant

"One thing you learn very quickly, is the mentality and thought process of many criminals is not a rational one, it IS PSYCHOTIC." 

"....completely unpredictable".

If quite a few criminals are psychotic or completely unpredictable, then what's to say that handing over your wallet, jewelry, complying with their wishes, and so on (which, to a rational person, would indicate passiveness and no real threat) will result in a better outcome? Sounds to me like you're describing a criminal encounter as a complete craps shoot. If you are correct then the victim's actions have little to no bearing on the outcome of an encounter. If this is true then avoiding the encounter is a better option than either having a gun (or trying to defend yourself through other means) or complying with the criminal (or anything else in between). And in that respect you are correct.

Having a firearm (or any other means of self defense available) places more of the outcome, or at the very least the perceived outcome, of a criminal encounter with the target rather than the aggressor. For those that don't feel safe having or carrying a firearm, there are many who feel safer by doing the opposite.

I feel safer by avoiding conflict; I am safer for avoiding it, and by not being involved in activities that tend to lead to gun violence/death. I still have all of those other causes of death to worry about, but (as you all have pointed out innumerable times), they are not in the scope of the argument or discussion.

Ant

You're completely right on both points, but kind of missed mine.

You don't have any more control over the outcome without a gun, but with it you're ensuring a escalation. You have to use that gun now and each and every time if we do consider the criminal who is unpredictable, if you don't let me assure you, if your attacker sees you try to use it or that you have one, you are now most assuredly going to be shot (at). What could of been a gimme your wallet and then they're gone deal, is now absolutely a life threatening event (if it wasn't before).

Now if you are trained enough or lucky enough to shoot them or scare them off, great, but if not, not only are you putting your life in danger (not to mention anyone with you) we have to think about the consequences of stray bullets and injuries from this encounter too.

Know this one guy, who is/was a gang member, he knows full well that one of his stray bullets almost killed a little 4yr old girl. His matter of fact attitude is "Just defending himself", which is true, but he never once even thought of how his actions to defend himself endangered others or that he other options...not that he cared in the least.

I'll say it again, not banning guns, and don't in anyway think you can afford to have a criminal decide if they're going to kill you or not in a robbery/assault situation IF you don't have a gun.

BUT how do we ensure these people don't get them? Gun advocates say its their right and banning them wont work. OK then so what does that leave us?
Either, reduce the number and availability of them. (Most agree that there are already regulations to do this, but obviously, the don't work or are not enforced, why? I strongly believe the NRA and the republican party has done their best to undercut most of the bite out of them to begin with)
Or, as many gun advocates claim, EVERYONE should have a gun. Unworkable in even a small extrapolation. If we just compare the number of licensed drivers that are complete idiots on the road, theres no way we can ever expect responsible use of a gun in every Americans hand.

So none of those work, then what?

Hey, I'm not saying I have the answers, but we can't think that doing nothing will work either, something has to change.

I think everyone should smoke a bowl and just STFU. :)

Conveniently, that is something nearly impossible to measure.

I'd have thought the number of people without guns who don't get mugged *is* quantifiable, and consists of the major part of the population.  You make it sound as though it's convenient *for me*, yet it is you who bases your whole position on this unquantifiable number.


See, here's the problem with this discussion.  You're looking at statistics that are easy to quantify (death by guns), but most of the positive aspects of guns aren't measured by a government agency.  We don't keep track of how many cases where a gun prevented an assault or where a visible gun on a person made a criminal decide to look for a different target.

So, unfortunately, as we discussed in a previous post, we're debating something with only part of the situation being recorded.

As a result, we're left having to decide (without the facts to back it up) whether or not guns are a net positive.  Your view on this is no more and no less defensible than mine because of this lack of full knowledge.
Thank you for quoting back at me what I was saying to you only a couple of days ago.  However, this does not make the two positions equivalent - given that all the statistics are against you, and you're left claiming that the uncountable events mean you must be right, I'm reminded of something Bertrand Russell said:

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

I'd have thought the number of people without guns who don't get mugged *is* quantifiable, and consists of the major part of the population.  You make it sound as though it's convenient *for me*, yet it is you who bases your whole position on this unquantifiable number.
Thank you for quoting back at me what I was saying to you only a couple of days ago.  However, this does not make the two positions equivalent - given that all the statistics are against you, and you're left claiming that the uncountable events mean you must be right, I'm reminded of something Bertrand Russell said:

Well then, if we're going to use that logic, then premarital sex is a net negative to society that should be stigmatized.  We don't have statistics to back up the number of people who don't get venereal diseases or don't get pregnant from it, so I guess I have to assume that it's bad for society because of all the people who do.

You're completely right on both points, but kind of missed mine.

You don't have any more control over the outcome without a gun, but with it you're ensuring a escalation. You have to use that gun now and each and every time if we do consider the criminal who is unpredictable, if you don't let me assure you, if your attacker sees you try to use it or that you have one, you are now most assuredly going to be shot (at). What could of been a gimme your wallet and then they're gone deal, is now absolutely a life threatening event (if it wasn't before).

Now if you are trained enough or lucky enough to shoot them or scare them off, great, but if not, not only are you putting your life in danger (not to mention anyone with you) we have to think about the consequences of stray bullets and injuries from this encounter too.

Know this one guy, who is/was a gang member, he knows full well that one of his stray bullets almost killed a little 4yr old girl. His matter of fact attitude is "Just defending himself", which is true, but he never once even thought of how his actions to defend himself endangered others or that he other options...not that he cared in the least.

I'll say it again, not banning guns, and don't in anyway think you can afford to have a criminal decide if they're going to kill you or not in a robbery/assault situation IF you don't have a gun.

BUT how do we ensure these people don't get them? Gun advocates say its their right and banning them wont work. OK then so what does that leave us?
Either, reduce the number and availability of them. (Most agree that there are already regulations to do this, but obviously, the don't work or are not enforced, why? I strongly believe the NRA and the republican party has done their best to undercut most of the bite out of them to begin with)
Or, as many gun advocates claim, EVERYONE should have a gun. Unworkable in even a small extrapolation. If we just compare the number of licensed drivers that are complete idiots on the road, theres no way we can ever expect responsible use of a gun in every Americans hand.

So none of those work, then what?

Hey, I'm not saying I have the answers, but we can't think that doing nothing will work either, something has to change.

You're assuming there is a solution.  I don't believe there is.

Well then, if we're going to use that logic, then premarital sex is a net negative to society that should be stigmatized.  We don't have statistics to back up the number of people who don't get venereal diseases or don't get pregnant from it, so I guess I have to assume that it's bad for society because of all the people who do.

Back to using inappropriate examples again?  er.. but you're wrong about not having the stats re premarital sex, anyway.

Is it too hard to accept that you're basically making up numbers just so that you can justify to yourself your own desire to own/carry a gun?  You don't need to come up with spurious examples of other things that aren't provable with statistics - really, they're not relevant.

You're assuming there is a solution.  I don't believe there is.
that's the spirit!

i'd be all for these, except the death penalty bit. and i imagine if these measures were passed and enforced, it might ameliorate the death rate from guns enough that i wouldn't feel the need to complain.

you realize, of course, though, that the main obstacle to common-sense measures like these is coming from the right, not the left. arguing with the likes of me is going to get you no closer to your goal here. you need to take it up with your fellow travelers in the NRA and elsewhere.


The fight is because the rules that the anti-gun want to pass are to extreme the other way.

For example, look at California's ban on "Assault Rifles".  It's stupid, insane, and pointless.  They do nothing to stop gun violence.  To give you an idea how bad it is, if your gun has a Flash Supressor, a Bayonet Lug and a Pistol Grip, it's an "Assault Rifle".  Now what kind of sense does that make?

I am all for registration, and most people are.  Same goes with "reasonable waiting periods".  I am all for a 3-7 day period to wait for a background check.  But waiting 30-45+ days is insane.  And in some "enlightened areas", they are requiring registration and waiting periods to buy ammunition.  All those kinds of laws do is make people feel threatened by the Government.  And it puts them in a "stockpile" mode.

I keep 100 rounds in my house.  50 are cheap led-tip I use for target practice.  The other 50 are copper tips I use for "action".  And why 100?  Because ammunition comes in boxes of 50.  I feel no need to have any more in my house.  Besides, I only have 3 clips, so that limots me to no more then 24 rounds loaded at any one time.

The minute I hear some kind of reasonable "Gun Control" from the left, I will support it.  But when the laws proposed continue to be "BOHICA" because they do not like them at all, I will resist.

Back to using inappropriate examples again?  er.. but you're wrong about not having the stats re premarital sex, anyway.

Is it too hard to accept that you're basically making up numbers just so that you can justify to yourself your own desire to own/carry a gun?  You don't need to come up with spurious examples of other things that aren't provable with statistics - really, they're not relevant.


I'm just saying, I can justify nearly anything with statistics.  These are no more spurious than the logic you're using.


that's the spirit!


Hey, sometimes, reality's a bitch.  We can agree that bans don't work.  Clearly, our current system isn't preventing enough deaths by your standards, but then again, what system would?

You can come up with any regulations you like, but like crime itself, it's always going to be around.

Well then, if we're going to use that logic, then premarital sex is a net negative to society that should be stigmatized.  We don't have statistics to back up the number of people who don't get venereal diseases or don't get pregnant from it, so I guess I have to assume that it's bad for society because of all the people who do.


This is my rifle, this is my gun,
      this is for fighting this is for fun!
:D

Marines = killing machines.

I'm just saying, I can justify nearly anything with statistics.  These are no more spurious than the logic you're using.

You don't seem to get it, do you?  This isn't about justifying with statistics - you *can't* go with the stats, because they're all against you, so you have to make up numbers (and we're not talking about twisted recorded stats, we're talking about completely made-up numbers) to justify your position.  If that doesn't fit the Bertrand Russell quote I used earlier, I don't know what does.

You want to believe, therefore the numbers of unrecorded non-uses of guns to prevent serious crime *must* outweigh the recorded stats... I know this must be hard for you to take in, given that it directly attacks your self-justification, but it is considerably more spurious than the logic I'm using.

http://tinyurl.com/cqegrg

Sheriff: Fla. father kills wife, 2 sons, himself
9 hours ago

LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) — Police say a central Florida man shot and killed his wife and two of his sons — one of them an infant — before killing himself.

Polk County Sheriff's office spokesman Scott Wilder says investigators believe that 34-year-old Troy Ryan Bellar used a rifle in the Sunday night attack in Lakeland.

Wilder says wife Wendy Bellar was trying to leave the couple's home with two of the children when her husband shot her on the front porch. He also shot and killed 5-month-old son Zack James Bellar and 7-year-old son Ryan Patrick Bellar.

Another 13-year-old son was able to evade his father's gunfire and flee the home.

Authorities say the father then shot and killed himself in the front yard.



course if he hadn't had any guns he would have just used a butter knife.

http://tinyurl.com/cqegrg

course if he hadn't had any guns he would have just used a butter knife.

Yeah, but for every one of these that gets reported, didn't you know there must be fifteen thousand* people who don't get hurt because their pals Smith & Wesson were there to scare off the bad guy...



*or whatever other made-up number you want to fill in here

You don't seem to get it, do you?  This isn't about justifying with statistics - you *can't* go with the stats, because they're all against you, so you have to make up numbers (and we're not talking about twisted recorded stats, we're talking about completely made-up numbers) to justify your position.  If that doesn't fit the Bertrand Russell quote I used earlier, I don't know what does.

You want to believe, therefore the numbers of unrecorded non-uses of guns to prevent serious crime *must* outweigh the recorded stats... I know this must be hard for you to take in, given that it directly attacks your self-justification, but it is considerably more spurious than the logic I'm using.


Phil.  I'll concede.  I'm gonna sell my guns to the local pawn shop and buy some stuff at Walmart, since guns are evil and so is Walmart.

http://tinyurl.com/cqegrg

course if he hadn't had any guns he would have just used a butter knife.


Or maybe he runs them all over with his car, which would be okay because vehicles have a net benefit to society.


Phil.  I'll concede.  I'm gonna sell my guns to the local pawn shop and buy some stuff at Walmart, since guns are evil and so is Walmart.


You can't sell them! Then a criminal will get them!! You have to turn them into the police department, where they will be destroyed. You are responsible for round trip airfare for Tia and Phil to witness the destruction of the guns, so that there is no doubt in their mind that the weapons were destroyed. Also, the destroyed firearms must then be disposed of in a landfill (screw the ecopussies), because if you recycle the steel, it could be made into more guns. Now all we need is for all gun owners to do the same, and all of society's problems will go away - like magic. Meanwhile, we won't worry about traffic deaths, because vehicles have a "real" use, and so the cost benefit analysis means deaths caused by them are okay. Convenience and societal advances over lives, remember?  I wonder, since some can apparently put a price on needless vehicle deaths, can they do the same for other crimes? What's a rape go for these days? How about a mugging?

In fairness, I realize Tia and Phil are not advocating the banning of firearms, but istm they are not offering anything constructive to solve problems either. Which brings me to gumbypiz:

You are suggesting means to reduce gun violence, which is commendable. Reducing the numbers of guns that get into criminals' hands is a start. Enforcing existing gun laws would do wonders in that regards. Police actually catching the bad guy more than 1/4th of the time would be nice as well. Many problems with guns are not truly with the guns themselves. Gun deaths fall into basically five categories for me: suicide, self defense/ justifiable deadly force, homicide, accidents, and police actions.

Those who are suicidal could be helped with concelling, therapy, medication, etc so that they are less likely to end their own life, through any means. This would entail more programs and availability to them for those who are contemplating taking their own lives. Think about this: if all suicidal people could be helped, gun deaths would drop almost 60% a year, all with 0 changes to gun policies. Suicide by other means would also be drastically reduced. That's a perk of addressing the problem, not the specific action.

Self defense cases are such a small number of gun deaths per annum and their use is, imo, just, so I don't see a need to change much there.

Accidents are a big sore point for me. True firearm accidents are exceedingly rare, most of what are classified as accidents I call negligence. Training and education need to be stepped up here big time, and I'd also like to see mandatory training for each gun sold. A semi auto is enough different from a revolver that knowing how to operate one means little toward knowing how to operate the other, just like driving a car doesn't mean you know how to drive a big-rig or a motorcycle.

Mandatory safety training for specific firearms would no doubt increase the cost of  one, but I think it would reduce the number of accidents they cause. I think it would also have a trickle down effect in reducing other gun crimes since they do cost more (it's rare to see a gun crime committed with a high-dollar firearm, or, in this case, a lower dollar firearm with a not-free safety course). I'm not sure how many new guns are bought with the express purpose of being turned over to the black market, but it would be much harder for Joe Crook to buy an arsenal of weapons (say, 20) from a dealer if he had to sit through 20 hours of classes and pay an extra 2k for all the safety training.

Homicide is due to a large variety of social factors including poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. This is the hardest one to solve, and, unfortunately, is a large percentage of gun deaths per year.

Police action also accounts for a relatively small number of firearm deaths per year. Police departments are looking more toward non-lethal means of peacefully ending encounters (tazers, bean bag guns, pepper spray fired from paintball guns, stun grenades, etc).

I understand where everyone is coming from, but the question not asked yet is "Why do people pick up a gun to commit a violent act?" The answer "because it's there" is woefully lacking. Reducing the number of guns would help a bit, but there are so many underlying issues and possible answers to the above question that, if addressed and figured out, would do far more for society's benefit than simply reduce the numbers of firearm deaths per year.

And Gumbypiz, I do see your point now about the escalation if a firearm is presented in a situation like you describe.

Ant

Or maybe he runs them all over with his car, which would be okay because vehicles have a net benefit to society.

well, if he could somehow carefully arrange them in front of his car and get them to stand still while he ran them over, maybe his car would offer something like the convenience and ease-of-killing his gun apparently offered him in this case. then you'd have a point.

You can't sell them! Then a criminal will get them!! You have to turn them into the police department, where they will be destroyed. You are responsible for round trip airfare for Tia and Phil to witness the destruction of the guns, so that there is no doubt in their mind that the weapons were destroyed. Also, the destroyed firearms must then be disposed of in a landfill (screw the ecopussies), because if you recycle the steel, it could be made into more guns. Now all we need is for all gun owners to do the same, and all of society's problems will go away - like magic. Meanwhile, we won't worry about traffic deaths, because vehicles have a "real" use, and so the cost benefit analysis means deaths caused by them are okay. Convenience and societal advances over lives, remember?  I wonder, since some can apparently put a price on needless vehicle deaths, can they do the same for other crimes? What's a rape go for these days? How about a mugging?

not much to work with here, of course.


In fairness, I realize Tia and Phil are not advocating the banning of firearms, but istm they are not offering anything constructive to solve problems either.

the make-it-unpopular solution has actually worked pretty well with cigarettes. i think it would work well with guns too. i know you don't like it, because you'd like for guns to continue to be popular, but i do in fact think it's a "constructive" solution. helluva lot better than macphisto's saying "i don't think there's a solution" and shrugging the whole thing off.


Which brings me to gumbypiz:

You are suggesting means to reduce gun violence, which is commendable. Reducing the numbers of guns that get into criminals' hands is a start. Enforcing existing gun laws would do wonders in that regards. Police actually catching the bad guy more than 1/4th of the time would be nice as well. Many problems with guns are not truly with the guns themselves. Gun deaths fall into basically five categories for me: suicide, self defense/ justifiable deadly force, homicide, accidents, and police actions.

Those who are suicidal could be helped with concelling, therapy, medication, etc so that they are less likely to end their own life, through any means. This would entail more programs and availability to them for those who are contemplating taking their own lives. Think about this: if all suicidal people could be helped, gun deaths would drop almost 60% a year, all with 0 changes to gun policies. Suicide by other means would also be drastically reduced. That's a perk of addressing the problem, not the specific action.

Self defense cases are such a small number of gun deaths per annum and their use is, imo, just, so I don't see a need to change much there.

Accidents are a big sore point for me. True firearm accidents are exceedingly rare, most of what are classified as accidents I call negligence. Training and education need to be stepped up here big time, and I'd also like to see mandatory training for each gun sold. A semi auto is enough different from a revolver that knowing how to operate one means little toward knowing how to operate the other, just like driving a car doesn't mean you know how to drive a big-rig or a motorcycle.

Mandatory safety training for specific firearms would no doubt increase the cost of  one, but I think it would reduce the number of accidents they cause. I think it would also have a trickle down effect in reducing other gun crimes since they do cost more (it's rare to see a gun crime committed with a high-dollar firearm, or, in this case, a lower dollar firearm with a not-free safety course). I'm not sure how many new guns are bought with the express purpose of being turned over to the black market, but it would be much harder for Joe Crook to buy an arsenal of weapons (say, 20) from a dealer if he had to sit through 20 hours of classes and pay an extra 2k for all the safety training.

Homicide is due to a large variety of social factors including poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. This is the hardest one to solve, and, unfortunately, is a large percentage of gun deaths per year.

Police action also accounts for a relatively small number of firearm deaths per year. Police departments are looking more toward non-lethal means of peacefully ending encounters (tazers, bean bag guns, pepper spray fired from paintball guns, stun grenades, etc). all of these are good ideas! and once again, if you want to realize them, i imagine you should argue more with the NRA and gun-show frequenters than with us. i imagine there isn't a citizen concerned about guns out there who wouldn't endorse most or all of this. doesn't seem to be helping, so long as the pro-gun-proliferation side can take any effort in this regard and effectively twist around to "obama (or libs, or marxists, or whoever) wants to take our guns!"


I understand where everyone is coming from, but the question not asked yet is "Why do people pick up a gun to commit a violent act?" The answer "because it's there" is woefully lacking. and if it weren't there...?


Reducing the number of guns would help a bit, i actually think it would help a hell of a lot, but that's the crux of the biscuit, innit?


but there are so many underlying issues and possible answers to the above question that, if addressed and figured out, would do far more for society's benefit than simply reduce the numbers of firearm deaths per year. again, me, gumbypiz and philbo probably aren't the obstacles in this regard.

^ If a gun wasn't there, they'd just find another way.  Guns just make things easier, I guess.

^ If a gun wasn't there, they'd just find another way. i keep hearing this, but i simply do not believe it's true. i think often guns put the idea in people's heads.

plus there's a world of difference between shooting someone and stabbing/strangling/beating to death, etc. there's a distance from the act with guns that no other form of murder really permits. just about anything other than guns requires you to get your hands dirty, really feel the act you're committing. with a gun, it's point, flex your finger, done.

well, if he could somehow carefully arrange them in front of his car and get them to stand still while he ran them over, maybe his car would offer something like the convenience and ease-of-killing his gun apparently offered him in this case. then you'd have a point.


Something like this?


the make-it-unpopular solution has actually worked pretty well with cigarettes. i think it would work well with guns too.

Making them unpopular has worked to an extent. Uncovering a ton of internal documents from various cigarette companies stating they knew cigarettes are dangerous has helped too. No TV ads for them in almost 40 years has helped reduce deaths (I can't recall the last time I saw a TV ad for S&W or Glock either...). Warning labels were added roughly the same time. Alternatives to cigarettes have helped some.

Those actions are more or less passive, i.e. "We can help you if you help yourselves" type solutions. Active solutions include bans in restaurants, planes, public areas (no smoking allowed) and the enormous price hike in cigarettes over the past few months (I know it's different by state, but I know here smokes have increased almost 50% in price). If you are a smoker, you have higher insurance premiums (which is understandable, but what about having higher insurance for people who eat fast food? Slippery slope there, really). I've seen jobs that flatly state they will not hire smokers (wtf?).


i know you don't like it, because you'd like for guns to continue to be popular, but i do in fact think it's a "constructive" solution.

Stigmatizing improper firearm use is constructive - it's just my view that, like cigarettes, it will only get us so far. Society has stigmatized the hell out of tobacco and we still have 20% or so that smoke (myself unfortunately included).

My own personal view is that guns are neither popular or unpopular. I could point out that responsible gun use (at least on TV) comes from the right: hunting shows and gun shooting exhibitions are constantly pointing out safety first (and are fairly low-key and, for the most part, incredibly boring to watch), where as Hollywood makes several blockbuster sheeshfests each year glamorizing the misuse of firearms: how many people have been blown through plate glass windows in film?


all of these are good ideas! and once again, if you want to realize them, i imagine you should argue more with the NRA and gun-show frequenters than with us. i imagine there isn't a citizen concerned about guns out there who wouldn't endorse most or all of this. doesn't seem to be helping, so long as the pro-gun-proliferation side can take any effort in this regard and effectively twist around to "obama (or libs, or marxists, or whoever) wants to take our guns!"


It's like the issue of abortion. My guess is that between the number of pro-choice, neutral/don't care, or "i don't like it" types, there are only a few extreme anti-choice people who care enough about it to go through the effort of picketing clinics and what not. Wouldn't you agree that alternatives and education do far more to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion than shouting "BABY KILLER" does?

Real change takes everybody's effort to meet in the middle, so to speak. It's not just a 'right' problem - even if I were to convince a substantial number of gun owners that our ideas are sensible, reasonable feasible, not too restrictive and, above all else, actually useful, there are still many on the left who would say they don't go far enough. That's where you come in.

If it were just you and I in charge of making gun and other social policy, we probably, in a few hours or days, could work out enough solutions and implement them so that we were both mostly satisfied with the outcome. Then again, we are both *fairly* moderate to begin with on this issue. I'm no Charleton Heston and you're no Dianne Feinstein.  We're not really in a position to bring about policy change, so that still leaves this whole thread as largely academic, but at least we got some good ideas on the table.

Ant

i keep hearing this, but i simply do not believe it's true. i think often guns put the idea in people's heads.

plus there's a world of difference between shooting someone and stabbing/strangling/beating to death, etc. there's a distance from the act with guns that no other form of murder really permits. just about anything other than guns requires you to get your hands dirty, really feel the act you're committing. with a gun, it's point, flex your finger, done.


You speak as if you get into steel cage deathmatches all the time :o

If the psychotics out there didn't have guns, my opinion is that they'd find some other way.  Probably more gruesome than a couple bullet holes through the head too.

You speak as if you get into steel cage deathmatches all the time :oi do? not really, but it kinda just comes along with the subject. no real pretty way of murdering someone. gun's probably the easiest, except for the mess afterward.

If the psychotics out there didn't have guns, my opinion is that they'd find some other way.  Probably more gruesome than a couple bullet holes through the head too.
well, we're both speculating, but i dont get the impression most of these people are incorrigible "psychotics" per se, many of these things appear to be crimes of passion or acts based on temporary distress, largely economic. hard to deny that guns make it easier to act on a momentary urge and then find you've done something that can never be undone. strangulation, stabbing, etc., strike me as requiring more premeditation.

the make-it-unpopular solution has actually worked pretty well with cigarettes. i think it would work well with guns too. i know you don't like it, because you'd like for guns to continue to be popular, but i do in fact think it's a "constructive" solution. helluva lot better than macphisto's saying "i don't think there's a solution" and shrugging the whole thing off.
First step is actually to admit there's a problem (rather than the current evidence-free belief held by many that guns somehow make things better)

ISTM that the only way to have much of a chance of moving the debate forward would be a large-scale bit of research to find out just how many of these "my-gun-protected-me non-events" actually occur, including the "I didn't have a gun, but didn't need one anyway" stories.  But the research would have to be very large scale and independently funded and delivered: it would be very easy to skew the results by asking the right questions, so a completely trustworthy body would be required.


^ If a gun wasn't there, they'd just find another way.  Guns just make things easier, I guess.

If the gun wasn't there, some people would find another way; others wouldn't.

^ Right, but how do you know that a passionate/economically or otherwise distressed/whatever person won't just find the nearest blunt and/or sharp project and bludgeon/stab his victims to death?  That would be the obvious flip-side to the whole guns=kill argument.  It doesn't matter if the kill was "easy" or "hard", it's still a kill.

^ Right, but how do you know that a passionate/economically or otherwise distressed/whatever person won't just find the nearest blunt and/or sharp project and bludgeon/stab his victims to death?  the fact that, largely, they don't? but instead resort to guns? i mean the actual available record should be at least somewhat instructive here.

Just a thought, but wouldn't more be accomplished if the people who are so adamantly opposed to guns were out in the community working with people to eradicate gun use?  Or maybe writing letters to whichever party in the government handles this sh*t?  Or maybe even out protesting guns and their criminal uses?  Forgive my thought if you have already done this though. :)

Just a thought, but wouldn't more be accomplished if the people who are so adamantly opposed to guns were out in the community working with people to eradicate gun use?  Or maybe writing letters to whichever party in the government handles this sh*t?  Or maybe even out protesting guns and their criminal uses?  Forgive my thought if you have already done this though. :)
i'm actually trying to find out what the arguments are on both sides. if i hung about with the like-minded i wouldn't learn much, i don't think.

there's a lot of issues out there; on this i dont feel strongly enough to become an activist. that energy goes to things like the anti-war movement.

i'm actually trying to find out what the arguments are on both sides. if i hung about with the like-minded i wouldn't learn much, i don't think.

It seems to me that your side (against guns) and their side (for guns) aren't learning much from each other's viewpoints at all.  All of you are set in your ways, and damned if you're going to budge.  I find it rather amusing, especially coming from people who are supposed to be so open minded.

there's a lot of issues out there; on this i dont feel strongly enough to become an activist. that energy goes to things like the anti-war movement.


But you've spent how many pages arguing about it...? ???

My opinion isn't worth dick, but here it is:  I personally don't like guns, but I'm not going to go to the extreme and say that they should all just magically disappear.  There should be some better methods of keeping track of who owns what, though.  Simple solution on paper, maybe not so much in real life.  Doesn't hurt to try it out.

I know in Illinois they've started the thing where if you buy a gun for a criminal, you'll be tossed in jail for a minimum of 10 years.  It's not much, but it's a start, and it's kind of shocking in the most corrupt state of the union. :D

It seems to me that your side (against guns) and their side (for guns) aren't learning much from each other's viewpoints at all.  All of you are set in your ways, and damned if you're going to budge.  I find it rather amusing, especially coming from people who are supposed to be so open minded.i think we're both finding areas of compromise without giving on our essential positions. both sides (except macphisto) agree that gun violence is excessive and more regulation would be helpful. both sides agree that banning guns isn't feasible or necessarily desirable. in between that we disagree on a lot but i've learned a lot about the other side's point of view, i think. i just haven't changed my mind in essence, and neither has ant. that seems reasonable to me.

i think we're both finding areas of compromise without giving on our essential positions. both sides (except macphisto) agree that gun violence is excessive and more regulation would be helpful. both sides agree that banning guns isn't feasible or necessarily desirable. in between that we disagree on a lot but i've learned a lot about the other side's point of view, i think. i just haven't changed my mind in essence, and neither has ant. that seems reasonable to me.



Ah, excellent.  I have only read bits and pieces here and there, and I made an assumption.  And you know what they say about those.... ;D

Carry on then, although I think the perfect solution was the one I suggested earlier: let's all just smoke a bowl and STFU.

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww157/Springtimevoodoo/budget.jpg

But you've spent how many pages arguing about it...? ???

Yes, but the arguing is kind of fun in itself - I also find explaining them helps me to define more exactly what my beliefs are.  This thread has crystallized in my mind something that had previously been only a nagging antagonism towards gun ownership.  But for me it's largely hypothetical, anyway: the guns we're talking about are a few thousand miles away..