Are You For Or Against Guns?

[Guest]

Well,  statistically speaking it is not about absolutes but about rates.  There will always be guns, but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact.  So all my questions are not to prove anything other than to get people to think about prevalence and the effect that has on outcomes. If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29.  Given that majority of people don't shop on the black market that will significantly impact gun related deaths. 

 

The classic example is Australia with 1.06 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, and the USA is 10.4.  That's tens times higher.  In fact if you look at any country with loose gun control you can see that the gun related death rate is significantly higher than countries with gun control.

Yes, if there are less guns OF COURSE gun related death will decrease but it has bee proven that crime rate dramatically increases. Also there are more guns in America than ever an yet homicides and crime rate had decreased by 50% since the 1980s. If you don't believe me look up the FBI's crime stats.If you don't believe that countries with gun bans have more crime than those that don't check the UK's OFFICAL crime stats.  

[MegaTechPC]

The right to self protection is a natural born right meaning no person or government has the right to prevent you from doing so.  Owning a gun is just a natural extension of that self protection right.  The premise of whether or not a government should allow its people the right to bear arms is a flawed premise.  No government has the right to deny its people to defend themselves, in my view.  

 

Someone earlier on said that people can't be trusted to own guns but I guess in that person's view governments CAN be trusted?  I think you will find that history is riddled with instances where that is far from the case....

[JustTooDank]

Well,  statistically speaking it is not about absolutes but about rates.  There will always be guns, but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact.  So all my questions are not to prove anything other than to get people to think about prevalence and the effect that has on outcomes. If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29.  Given that majority of people don't shop on the black market that will significantly impact gun related deaths. 

 

The classic example is Australia with 1.06 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, and the USA is 10.4.  That's tens times higher.  In fact if you look at any country with loose gun control you can see that the gun related death rate is significantly higher than countries with gun control.

If there are 89 guns per 100 people, and you make 60 of them illegal, how do you propose the government acquire those 60 guns? People won't just give up their rights. This has been made evident in the State of New York just recently. "Assault weapon" registration was made mandatory and over a million NY residents didn't do it.

If you make pissing in the ocean illegal it won't filter out the piss that's already there, nor stop more people from continuing to piss in the ocean.

[mr moose]

Yes, if there are less guns OF COURSE gun related death will decrease but it has bee proven that crime rate dramatically increases. Also there are more guns in America than ever an yet homicides and crime rate had decreased by 50% since the 1980s. If you don't believe me look up the FBI's crime stats.If you don't believe that countries with gun bans have more crime than those that don't check the UK's OFFICAL crime stats.  

 

Not all crime is gun related, there is no way to prove that gun prevalence has any effect on crime rate outside of gun related crime.

 

According to this report the only crime that is lower is robbery.  I have yet to see some real analysis as to why.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/michael-bloomberg-shoots-50-million-blanks-on-gun-control/

 

EDIT: this article actually shows that gun ownership was in decline, so if you compare the rising population, declining gun ownership and declining crime rate there are a lot more questions that spring to mind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-gun-ownership-renaissance/

 

 

 

If there are 89 guns per 100 people, and you make 60 of them illegal, how do you propose the government acquire those 60 guns? People won't just give up their rights. This has been made evident in the State of New York just recently. "Assault weapon" registration was made mandatory and over a million NY residents didn't do it.

If you make pissing in the ocean illegal it won't filter out the piss that's already there, nor stop more people from continuing to piss in the ocean.

 

I don't propose anything, I am presenting a statistical observation not providing a solution, as I said about 5 pages ago, I don't have the answers, I just ask the questions and have provide my perspective. 

[JustTooDank]

I don't propose anything, I am presenting a statistical observation not providing a solution, as I said about 5 pages ago, I don't have the answers, I just ask the questions and have provide my perspective.

It's a statistical observation based on an impossibility though.

If everyone was black, skin cancer rates would be lower.

That's basically what you're saying.

[mr moose]

It's a statistical observation based on an impossibility though.

If everyone was black, skin cancer rates would be lower.

That's basically what you're saying.

what?

[JustTooDank]

what?

It's a statistical fact that black people are less likely to get skin cancer. If everyone was black, there would be less skin cancer. But the chances of everyone being a black person is near impossible.

That is the level of observation you are making.

Of course if nobody had guns then gun crime would go down. But without a method to make people not have guns, it is a pisspoor worthless statement.

[mr moose]

It's a statistical fact that black people are less likely to get skin cancer. If everyone was black, there would be less skin cancer. But the chances of everyone being a black person is near impossible.

That is the level of observation you are making.

Of course if nobody had guns then gun crime would go down. But without a method to make people not have guns, it is a pisspoor worthless statement.

 

I don't normally link to wordpress or personal blogs, but this guys makes some interesting observations about the statistics of murder rates and gun ownership because he got dragged into a debate once.

 

http://cuzwesaidso.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/some-thoughts-on-gun-ownership-and-murder-rate/

 

I don't think you understand the importance of proper evaluation and understanding of  said statistics, you can't just ignore them or right them off as "pisspoor" because you disagree with them, there needs to be a proper understanding of why they are.  To use statistics in an argument that effects many people (and possibly will effect laws governing a nation) without giving those statistic due consideration is dangerous.

[JustTooDank]

I don't normally link to wordpress or personal blogs, but this guys makes some interesting observations about the statistics of murder rates and gun ownership because he got dragged into a debate once.

 

http://cuzwesaidso.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/some-thoughts-on-gun-ownership-and-murder-rate/

 

I don't think you understand the importance of proper evaluation and understanding of  said statistics, you can't just ignore them or right them off as "pisspoor" because you disagree with them, there needs to be a proper understanding of why they are.  To use statistics in an argument that effects many people (and possibly will effect laws governing a nation) without giving those statistic due consideration is dangerous.

I'm not ignoring it because I disagree, I'm ignoring it because it is built on a false premise. You can't make guns magically disappear. Any "if people didn't have guns, X would be the result" argument is nonsensical because there is no realistic scenario where people don't have guns. You said

If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29.

This is simply NOT true unless you have a method to make those 60 guns disappear. Making something illegal doesn't make it disintegrate.

People will always have guns. If you make them illegal, there will be more bad guys with guns than good guys with guns. This puts the good guys at a disadvantage and primes them for victimhood.

[DroPouT1999]

Well then tough shit. They're the one that tried to kill you in the first place. If you end up killing them you're not to blame for that because their actions caused it.

But i believe murder is wrong no matter the cause, unless it's an animal.

[mr moose]

I'm not ignoring it because I disagree, I'm ignoring it because it is built on a false premise. You can't make guns magically disappear. Any "if people didn't have guns, X would be the result" argument is nonsensical because there is no realistic scenario where people don't have guns. People will always have guns. If you make them illegal, there will be more bad guys with guns than good guys with guns. This puts the good guys at a disadvantage and primes them for victimhood.

 

I guess you didn't read the thread then,  It has already been established that you will never make guns completely disappear, in fact I don't think anyone has even tried to suggest you could. You are arguing that the statistics are wrong based on a premise that you have created.  I have linked to several articles that comment on the statistics and their relevance, they are not impossible, they are very real. 

[Whiskers]

Personally, I do not think the general public should have access to firearms of any kind. A gun is a weapon - it is a tool designed and built specifically for the purpose of intimidating, injuring or eliminating a target. It has no practical purpose outside of that and as such I do not see a reason for a normal person to have access to one.

 

People have this strange idea that all criminals are masterminds who have amazing connections and can obtain a weapon whenever they want even if they are outlawed - but I think they've watched too many action movies. Criminals are generally opportunistic... how do you suppose they get access to their guns? They've most likely acquired the gun legally or stolen it from someone who has. In either case, if guns are not available for civilians to buy then they won't be available for the majority of criminals to buy or steal either.

[cae]

I guess you didn't read the thread then,  It has already been established that you will never make guns completely disappear, in fact I don't think anyone has even tried to suggest you could. You are arguing that the statistics are wrong based on a premise that you have created.  I have linked to several articles that comment on the statistics and their relevance, they are not impossible, they are very real. 

 

I believe the statistics he did not care for were those pertaining to gun-related crime and/or murder rates after a gun ownership decrease. Because it's such a no-brainer that it really doesn't bear repeating.

 

Targeting the violent crimes committed only with firearms is both hard to trace and staticize, and it doesn't serve victims of non-gun-related violent crime. It's one of the things that irks me about anti-gun groups - they insist on focusing on one subset of violent crime (firearm-related violent crime), and sometimes even a further subset of that (rifle-related violent crime).

[JustTooDank]

I guess you didn't read the thread then,  It has already been established that you will never make guns completely disappear, in fact I don't think anyone has even tried to suggest you could. You are arguing that the statistics are wrong based on a premise that you have created.  I have linked to several articles that comment on the statistics and their relevance, they are not impossible, they are very real.

What does the rest of the thread have to do with your post I quoted? You said if 60 out of 89 guns were made illegal there would be 29 guns left in a community, which is completely not true. Unregistered "assault" weapons were made illegal in the State of New York and over a million previously law abiding people did not/are not complying.

 

Personally, I do not think the general public should have access to firearms of any kind. A gun is a weapon - it is a tool designed and built specifically for the purpose of intimidating, injuring or eliminating a target. It has no practical purpose outside of that and as such I do not see a reason for a normal person to have access to one.

 

People have this strange idea that all criminals are masterminds who have amazing connections and can obtain a weapon whenever they want even if they are outlawed - but I think they've watched too many action movies. Criminals are generally opportunistic... how do you suppose they get access to their guns? They've most likely acquired the gun legally or stolen it from someone who has. In either case, if guns are not available for civilians to buy then they won't be available for the majority of criminals to buy or steal either.

It doesn't take a mastermind to buy an illegal gun. All it takes is a trip to a bad neighborhood and $50. It's as easy as buying weed. That may not be the case in Scotland though.

[Whiskers]

It doesn't take a mastermind to buy an illegal gun. All it takes is a trip to a bad neighborhood and $50. It's as easy as buying weed.

 

For now, yes. However if gun control is enacted and the government properly disarms the populace then such would no longer be true. I live next to a pretty bad neighbourhood in my country, yet it would still be nigh impossible for me to obtain a gun there. Without connections and a lot of money, at least.

[cae]

I don't believe there is a way to properly disarm the US. "Properly disarm" made my stomach turn a bit just typing it.

[mr moose]

What does the rest of the thread have to do with your post I quoted? You said if 60 out of 89 guns were made illegal there would be 29 guns left in a community, which is completely not true. Unregistered "assault" weapons were made illegal in the State of New York and over a million previously law abiding people did not/are not complying.

 

 

you do know what the difference is between an example used for explaining a concept and a prediction don't you?

[Lyons]

My take:

 

Have as many guns as you want, but keep them at the firing range. They should be outlawed on the street, in homes, etc.

 

'The US has a very high number of guns... therefore, there's going to be more chances of somebody being killed by a gun' - Phillip Van Cleave, Virginia Citizen's Defense League. *EXACTLY*

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eL58XO9hBE

 

[Guest Kloaked]

I guess we should ban cars too. Those things are dangerous! Why do you need one? Just get a bike and start your trek to work early.

[mr moose]

I guess we should ban cars too. Those things are dangerous! Why do you need one? Just get a bike and start your trek to work early.

I found this:

 

[Guest]

I found this:

 

Many of the things on this list are true.Mainly the first 4. To carry a gun there are requirements you must meet.

[Blade of Grass]

Many of the things on this list are true.Mainly the first 4. To carry a gun there are requirements you must meet.

You sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

[Blade of Grass]

I guess we should ban cars too. Those things are dangerous! Why do you need one? Just get a bike and start your trek to work early.

Except, cars have a very useful purpose in society, guns, other than killing people/animals, just don't have relevant uses.

[Guest Kloaked]

Except, cars have a very useful purpose in society, guns, other than killing people/animals, just don't have relevant uses.

 

Naw, you don't need one. Just ride a bike. Ambulances should be made into those quad bikes with a small trailer hitched to it to carry a sick passenger.

 

They'll get to your house to save your life, eventually. When they pick you up, they'll get you to the hospital, eventually.

[Blade of Grass]

Naw, you don't need one. Just ride a bike. Ambulances should be made into those quad bikes with a small trailer hitched to it to carry a sick passenger.

 

They'll get to your house to save your life, eventually. When they pick you up, they'll get you to the hospital, eventually.

I see you're making a hyperbole, but sadly it's just entirely incorrect.

The issue with your statement (and I think you know it) is that cars obviously have a much more useful role in our society then guns currently do.