« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 of 227 Next » Last » Search these comments
Criminals aren't as stupid as we'd like to believe they are and act in their own self interest. When they think they're likely to get shot by some one carrying concealed they switch from confrontational crimes (muggings, home invasions) to simple property crimes like theft (which is a lot better - a law suit can't undo personal injury, although insurance with replacement value coverage can come close to making you whole) or crimes against people they suspect won't be carrying (criminals in Florida directed their interest towards rental cars presumably driven by non-carrying non-residents after that shall-issue law pass
Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.
Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.
Especially the ones on World's Dumbest Criminals. Ever see the one where a guy tries to rob a glassware store in Paris with a moped? Really...a moped. How much stuff are you going to carry away in a moped? Sheesh.
100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.
100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.
Waste of time talking about it, I'm afraid. Too many Americans love their guns and won't even listen to you if you tell them it represents (MUCH!) more danger to them than safety. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias
You present evidence, they hear insults. Sorry, we rational people lost this issue and its time to move on.
100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
Incorrect. Earlier, both leoj707 and I explained why this is incorrect. Search for "suicide" (a tragedy but not a crime).
The data was from someone named Kellerman and was published in it's entirety in the NEJM, not from the CDC.
Kellerman's study(s) were almost entirely funded by the CDC.
Suicides weren't included. The study specifically looks at homicides, not accidents.
From what I remember the original paper (this is the source of the 43 times more likely to die by own gun quotes came from) published in The New England Journal of Medicine-October 7, 1993 did include these things.
He did extensive culling of the data to allow for factors like criminal records and drug use. The rates for these factors are broken out.
Yes, and based on his original study in the NEJM warning that people are 43 times more likely to die from a gun in their home I am extremely skeptical of the way Kellermann culls his data. He seems to have an agenda that he is trying to push with his studies.
From what I could learn from a quick search he wrote a few papers from the same data set then released the data in 1997 (after I did my original research into the topic).
I think that this may be his original data, but I don't have time to sift through it right now:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/6898?q=kellermann&searchIn=ALL
A reasonable thinking person would have to give some serious thought to this study.
Yes, and that is why I originally looked into his research back in the early 90s. If I have time I will see if I can look at his original data.
Good thing there are very few reasonable thinking people involved in the gun debate.
Unfortunately Kellermann does not seem like one of those reasonable people.
And speaking of reasonable...
So how do you propose to allow guns in only "normal" households that practice "responsible gun ownership"?
Yeah, this is the million or perhaps trillion dollar question.
Reasonable people believe that some people should not have guns, and even people on both sides of the debate can sometimes agree who should not have access to guns. The problem is how do we limit gun access to these people.
Unfortunately the solutions provided by either side are very unreasonable and most likely entirely noneffective at preventing gun deaths: banning X gun de jour because it was used in a high profile crime; letting everyone carry so that anyone getting out of line could be simply shot; etc.
Also, a big wrinkle is that with any gun control system -- assuming that you are not going house-to-house confiscating guns -- is that so may people would have their current guns grandfathered in that it could take generations for the system to "work".
Also, any system to assure that guns only end up in "responsible" and "normal" homes would be very unpalatable to the American public, because it would require things like extensive databases with access to medical and criminal records so that background checks would be more effective.
We would also have to have stricter testing before someone is "cleared" to own a gun. My last gun purchase was about a decade ago, but the test was a joke. I would advocate that for any gun ownership people should need to pass a test similar to the NRA test/class to obtain a CCW.
Anyway, I guess the short answer is that I don't really know and I don't think that any "workable" solutions will ever get any traction.
I would say most of these are in area's where the need for a gun for household protection is very low to non existent.
Yeah, I agree that the need is very low, but I don't think there is any place where I would say it is non-existent. Maybe places where the chance of needing a gun for home protection is so low that it is effectively non-existent.
You present evidence, they hear insults.
Unfortunately both sides of the issue are deeply affected by Confirmation Bias. It is difficult to find any evidence that has not been tainted by bias.
100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
And this is about as far from evidence that one can get.
1st you are asking me to believe that your number without citing the source.
2nd you are asking me (without evidence) to believe your claim that your number does not include things like accidental shooting and suicides.
3rd you are asking me to assume that without guns these crimes would not have happened.
bdrasin says
You present evidence, they hear insults.
Unfortunately both sides of the issue are deeply affected by Confirmation Bias. It is difficult to find any evidence that has not been tainted by bias.
OK, I'll cop to that; I'm a human being and as fallible as the next guy. The only really objective evidence I can think of (and the only one that matters) is that politicians lose elections when they get dinged by the NRA. So the rest of it doesn't really matter.
1)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence?s=1
In one year, 31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:
12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).
18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).
592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).
Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund, p. 20).
3.) How can 100,000 people be shot if there are no guns?
Also, does anyone have data on the number of unsolved gun shootings?
OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.
12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).
Crimes.
18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).
592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).
Not crimes.
So...56,645 gun related crimes.
Not...
StillLooking says
...guns add 100,000 crimes
When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?
And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.
And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.
It's a sleight of hand - words "shot" and "killed" are used interchangeably or not, depending on the need.
In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.
100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.
Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!
In contrast, approx 30 people die in alcohol related accidents. That's like two Batman-showings a day, every single day, year after year.
So, spend time and money on Gun Control, or spend it on something useful like breathalyzer locks?
How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.
Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!
While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".
In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.
That's just it. Before guns were invented, people were stabbing each other with swords. Not sure how taking all guns away from the law-abiding is going to stop violence.
That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.
While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".
Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature." ;-)
In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.
Not just genocides, but many-many violent crimes right here in the US are perpetrated each year without *gasp* the use of a gun. In fact in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes!
Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature."
Ah, yes very scientific!
I went to that link to Brady's site
The situation may be misinterpreted even more than it seemed.
31,593 - what is it? They write "gun violence". "Gun violence" is a very generic term, it may include suicides, police shootings, and situations where bad guy loses. The breakdown of the paragraph seems to suggest so.
The numbers almost add up - 12,179 + 18,223 + 592 = 30,994. 599 people are missing in this math. However, it's too close to be just a coincidence.
The other number - 12,179 - is quite interesting. It says "people murdered". It doesn't say anything about circumstances. Now, Brady is a very agenda-driven resource, their other statistics included deaths from LEOs on duty (I don't know if this one does). There is exactly 0 data on justified shooting.
Statistics don't lie, omissions and interpretations do
Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.
Histroy's greatest murders believed and pressed for gun control, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. The Jews learned a lesson about gun control in the days leading up to WW2. "Never again".
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
This fucker would have been vaporized instantly.
Except no one knows if this was the guy, or just a patsy.
That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.
You can make a case about that. However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.
Edit: Failure of TSA, on the other hand, is a prime example of why control is a very delicate matter.
Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.
Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.
However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.
Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:
Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
20-30+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
300,000 dead: Idi Amin (Uganda, 1971-1979)
This lone gunman thing is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the real danger: Governments ruling unarmed citizens. Without it, the U.S. sings "God Save The Queen."
Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.
Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.
However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.
Exactly. It's more elegant.
For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.
There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!
Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.
How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.
The constitution is nice and all, but let's cut to the chase. It's liberty that matters. That's what our constitution was intended to protect, and where it failed has been where it didn't extend protections to citizens because of their race or gender, etc.
Constitutional or not, the right to bear arms is one of liberty, granted not by the state and those who desire to control its power for their own human benefit /agendas. It belongs to everyone innately.
However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.
Agree. I was assuming there would be security checkpoints.
For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.
There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!
Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.
Bingo.
Example: why do you think the hard-core gay activists are trying to brand anyone who doesn't agree with "gay marriage" as "homophobic"?
Just label your opposition as "crazy" and you can do anything you want.
bdrasin says
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.
Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:
Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:
Oh come on; there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US, and the great majority of which are basically free democratic nation states. They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever. No, it doesn't prove causality but it should make you think.
They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever.
Not yet. Greece might fairly soon...
there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US
They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.
bdrasin says
there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US
They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.
Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:
the collective republican id said
No! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!
Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:
You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.
Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.
bdrasin says
Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:
You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.
Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.
Well, since it has nothing to do with the original claim (gun regulations inevitably lead to fascism and genocide), I'd rather just ignore it this time.
Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.
I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to be out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.
OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.
StillLooking says
12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).
Crimes.
StillLooking says
18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).
592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).
Not crimes.
So...56,645 gun related crimes.
Not...
StillLooking says...guns add 100,000 crimes
When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?
And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.
So what? We still have 100,000 people with nasty bullet holes in them each year. This means over the course of one's life millions get shot in the USA. This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.
Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?
Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.
Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public
Actually, I have no idea what the facts are on this. I don't think its that important because, as I've mentioned above, the current state of the developed world gives lots of examples which prove that not only is freedom possible in a society with rather strict gun control, it is possible under many different systems.
-however-
If anyone does have a credible source regarding tightening/relaxing of gun laws during the rise of the Nazis in Germany (or the rise of any other totalitarian state), I'd be interested to read it. I've heard lots of claims on this matter but seen no evidence either way.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a Gun."
Liberty belongs to whoever has the political power.
Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.
I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.
So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?
This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.
Horribly wrong logic. However, I think statistics prove the odds of getting shot greatly increase by associating with blacks.
Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?
You can't put the genie back in its bottle. A gun is a simple but very effective tool that when used in an uncivil manner can inflict great injury in a short amount of time.
Criminals, by definition, do not care if something is unlawful or not. By banning guns you would be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.
« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 of 227 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-please-try-to-remember-all-the-wonderful-thing,28858/