Are You For Or Against Guns?

[NInety]

For all you people saying that the police have a duty to protect us.....

 

 

Yeah..... some police are just stupid.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah3a7dQqyZI

[MegaTechPC]

Not sure what is so hard to comprehend about the point that passing more anti-gun laws won't change the behavior of criminals who obviously pay no attention to law in the first place?  Look at the utter blood bath that Chicago has become and the city has some of the strictest anti-gun laws on the books of anywhere in the country.  How can it be that the gun kill rate is so high in a city with such aggressively anti-gun legislation on the books?  I mean, how could that possibly be????  Hmmm...   :rolleyes:

[JustTooDank]

Not sure what is so hard to comprehend about the point that passing more anti-gun laws won't change the behavior of criminals who obviously pay no attention to law in the first place?  Look at the utter blood bath that Chicago has become and the city has some of the strictest anti-gun laws on the books of anywhere in the country.  How can it be that the gun kill rate is so high in a city with such aggressively anti-gun legislation on the books?  I mean, how could that possibly be????  Hmmm...   :rolleyes:

Gun control supporters like to say that it's because they get their guns in different states that have lax gun laws. But when you bring up the fact that the states with lax gun laws have way lower murder rates there is usually silence...

[mr moose]

The figures are that way because they are obvious. You take guns away, they can no longer be used in crime. They are presented to make a (very poor) case for confiscation or to demonize a firearm, but are ultimately pointless in relation to the US because the individual's right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected.

 

These figures are presented poorly by all sides of the debate, they are used to justify laxer guns laws as much as they are used to garner support for gun control. But very few are actually looking to see what the figures actually say, or why.

 

 

Not sure what is so hard to comprehend about the point that passing more anti-gun laws won't change the behavior of criminals who obviously pay no attention to law in the first place?  Look at the utter blood bath that Chicago has become and the city has some of the strictest anti-gun laws on the books of anywhere in the country.  How can it be that the gun kill rate is so high in a city with such aggressively anti-gun legislation on the books?  I mean, how could that possibly be????  Hmmm...   :rolleyes:

 

because if it was as clear cut as you put it then we would also have a better understanding of why people become criminals.  To understand the impact of gun prevalence on society we have to first understand what drives a person to commit a crime with a gun.  If criminal nature is a choice, like choosing to be dentist or carpenter, then the level of gun crime will drop with increased prevalence of firearms. plenty of stats to support that.  by the same token,  If crime is the result of opportunistic behaviour or environmental forces, then  one can predict gun crimes will drop with a decrease in gun prevalence,  there are also plenty of stats to  support that.

 

The argument is not about whether the stats are right or wrong (although there are some stats/videos that are just dodged or made up) but what they mean. 

[mr moose]

11,000 gun related deaths is almost a statistical anomaly at that point. And the large majority of those deaths are gang related. The nut job that shoots up a school is even more rare than that. But it's what the media pays attention to. And when they parade the same story for weeks at a time, until it happens again, it makes it seem like mass murders are commonplace, when really they're not.

 

You could argue it to be an anomaly if you exclude it from any other comparative measures, but that would be just as bad as blowing them up to make it sound like every gun owners is the next mass murderer.  It would be better to look at those stats in reference to other countries with different gun regulations.

 

Like gun homicide rate per 100,000

 

USA 3

Australia 0.1

UK 0.06

 

It's no longer an anomaly but a significant figure that should be better understood before considering laws/policies that effect citizens.

[cae]

There's those gun related stats again. It brings nothing to the table. UK and AU have banned guns. US is constitutionally protected from that. If the tool is available for use, of course the GUN homicide rate is going to be higher. How many times must we go over this? There's nothing to better understand about that figure.

[Guest]

Like gun homicide rate 

Yes, it has already been determined that outlaw of guns will decrease GUN RELATED HOMICIDES but what about how it causes an increase in crime in general. Or do you just care if people are injured or killed with a gun?

[niksuto]

Haha.. gunssss

[JustTooDank]

You could argue it to be an anomaly if you exclude it from any other comparative measures, but that would be just as bad as blowing them up to make it sound like every gun owners is the next mass murderer.  It would be better to look at those stats in reference to other countries with different gun regulations.

 

Like gun homicide rate per 100,000

 

USA 3

Australia 0.1

UK 0.06

 

It's no longer an anomaly but a significant figure that should be better understood before considering laws/policies that effect citizens.

Australia and the UK are islands with way less population density, and way less gang problems. It is not a valid comparison.

[mr moose]

Yes, it has already been determined that outlaw of guns will decrease GUN RELATED HOMICIDES but what about how it causes an increase in crime in general. Or do you just care if people are injured or killed with a gun?

 

Crimes rates across most developed nations are falling and have been since the 90's,  this is regardless of gun control laws.

 

If you want to know what the effect outlawing guns has on general crime then you need to research what drives the average criminal and if there is a causality between gun prevalence and general crime. 

[mr moose]

Australia and the UK are islands with way less population density, and way less gang problems. It is not a valid comparison.

just so you know the UK's population is significantly more dense than the USA and whether it is an island or not means nothing.

 

comparing like for like statistics is the only valid way.

[mr moose]

There's those gun related stats again. It brings nothing to the table. UK and AU have banned guns. US is constitutionally protected from that. If the tool is available for use, of course the GUN homicide rate is going to be higher. How many times must we go over this? There's nothing to better understand about that figure.

 

There is a lot to better understand about these figures, to start with these figures don't care about your constitution, they reflect reality, If people want to use statistics to support their constitution, their ideals or their opinions or whatever, then they need to use all the statistics and not just cherry pick the ones they like. To dismiss a statistic without first working out why it is even a statistic is blind.

 

EDIT: Maybe I should say, if you don't think those statistics are relevant to the debate or have no bearing on crime, then show me the research, show me the mechanism that causes these statistics and why they don't apply to the USA.

[cae]

There is a lot to better understand about these figures, to start with these figures don't care about your constitution, they reflect reality, If people want to use statistics to support their constitution, their ideals or their opinions or whatever, then they need to use all the statistics and not just cherry pick the ones they like. To dismiss a statistic without first working out why it is even a statistic is blind.

 

What? ... What?

[mr moose]

What? ... What?

 

You said there is no more to understand from these statistics, I am refuting that, saying that if you wish to dismiss these as relevant then show me why these statistics exists, if they are wrong then show me the flaw, explain what might have caused it and why it doesn't apply to the USA.

[cae]

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying they're irrelevant. You're comparing two countries that have banned guns with no constitutionally protected right to them, with the US - a country that has not banned guns and so long as the 2nd amendment stands, maintains the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Those statistics exist to serve as talking points for those who favor gun control. "See? We could have low numbers like this too! All we have to do is destroy the constitution."

 

I already linked them before, but here they are again. He explains it a lot better than I can or care to.

 

  

[JustTooDank]

just so you know the UK's population is significantly more dense than the USA and whether it is an island or not means nothing.

 

comparing like for like statistics is the only valid way.

Islands are much more difficult to import/export weapons to/from. It does matter. If you ban guns in the UK it's easier to keep new guns out than in the US, where guns will flood from Mexico and the rest of Central America. Americans also have a history of gun culture, which means there is a large demand for guns, which the UK does not have. You can see by this very thread that there are a lot of Americans that WANT guns, and a lot of Brits that don't. Supply will meet demand. It's basic economics.

The UK also does not have as much farmland and rural areas as the United States. A more valid comparison would be to a US city with similar population density.

UK's population density is 660 per square mile, and there isn't a single major US city that has a density that small. When people are living on top of each other, there is a lot more crime.

The 95409 zip code, which is PART of the City of Santa Rosa, CA, has a population density of 700 people per square mile, just slightly more than the UK. The violent crime rate (couldn't find stats for gun-only crime) is 401 per 100,000 people. The violent crime rate of the UK is 1,300 per 100,000 people.

http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/UCR_SRPD_AnnualUpdate_2002-2011_20121106_Public.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

If you are going to throw stats out, compare apples to apples plez.

EDIT: I wasted so much time finding stats for this post when that video ^ does it much better.

[mr moose]

Islands are much more difficult to import/export weapons to/from. It does matter. If you ban guns in the UK it's easier to keep new guns out than in the US, where guns will flood from Mexico and the rest of Central America. Americans also have a history of gun culture, which means there is a large demand for guns, which the UK does not have. You can see by this very thread that there are a lot of Americans that WANT guns, and a lot of Brits that don't. Supply will meet demand. It's basic economics.

The UK also does not have as much farmland and rural areas as the United States. A more valid comparison would be to a US city with similar population density.

UK's population density is 660 per square mile, and there isn't a single major US city that has a density that small. When people are living on top of each other, there is a lot more crime.

The 95409 zip code, which is PART of the City of Santa Rosa, CA, has a population density of 700 people per square mile, just slightly more than the UK. The violent crime rate (couldn't find stats for gun-only crime) is 401 per 100,000 people. The violent crime rate of the UK is 1,300 per 100,000 people.

http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/UCR_SRPD_AnnualUpdate_2002-2011_20121106_Public.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

If you are going to throw stats out, compare apples to apples plez.

EDIT: I wasted so much time finding stats for this post when that video ^ does it much better.

Again, you have missed the point entirely, there is no causation link.  The only stats you can compare are LIKE stats.  If you wish to link gun ownership to violent crime stats (either conversely or inversely) then you have to have a rational hypothesis as to why people choose to enact criminal behaviour. There are so many studies that conclude deterrence does not effect a persons likelihood of committing a crime, so to extend the argument to firearms by extension is just as erroneous.  The fact that the crime rate is falling has already been pointed out. The fact that it is falling across many nations is indicative of cultural and socioeconomic change, not necessarily gun ownership.

[mr moose]

I watched that video, it's clear he isn't a statistician or social scientist. Because neither a statistician nor a social scientist makes assumptions about why the statics are the way they are.

 

All that information is out there and always has been,  no one is claiming they know the reason crime is dropping because no one knows why exactly.

[mr moose]

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying they're irrelevant. You're comparing two countries that have banned guns with no constitutionally protected right to them, with the US - a country that has not banned guns and so long as the 2nd amendment stands, maintains the right to keep and bear arms.

 

 

So?  just because your Constitution protects our right to bear arms doesn't change the relevance of statistics.   The constitution of America does not nullify reality.

 

EDIT: sorry for the multiply posts, I'm having a prick of a time keeping up with my laptop.

[cae]

Nah, I'm just gonna give up. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't understand what I'm trying to say. I think we can move on.

[mr moose]

Nah, I'm just gonna give up. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't understand what I'm trying to say. I think we can move on.

 

O.K,  If makes any sense, I am a Nazi for statistical accuracy. 

 

P.S I also thought it ironic that some people think I am opposed to guns given my avatar is one of Australia's best known gun toten' outlaws.

[nicehat]

Saying a gun just fires projectiles is like me saying that a howitzer does the same . Saying a gun just fires accurate projectiles is like saying the same for a cruise missile. 

No, it's not.

 

I was arguing that guns have a designed purpose. That is to kill or injure the target, to which cae replied guns are devices that simply shoot projectiles. I then said ok, if you want to completely dehumanize and subjectify them, howitzers, mortars, and cruise missles are also subjectively mechanisms to launch projectiles or projectiles themselves. If you want to talk about guns that way, we should also talk about other weapons in the same manner. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of that argument. So I dont know what you are disagreeing about. 

 

 

You're comparing a blatant war weapon with a civilian firearm. That's unfair because what you're doing is assuming everyone who has a legal CCW are looking for someone to kill.

I also don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this: criminals do not follow laws. I'm pretty sure you're right, if the kid had nothing but access to some knife, he wouldn't have gotten far at all. However, using Sandy Hook as an example for the rest of the country's law abiding citizens isn't fair.

I would also suggest that if there was a trained armed guard at the school, it would also have ended before it started, but that's also unfair of me to say as a fact because I don't know what in the world would have happened.

You cannot simply use tragedies such as Sandy Hook to get your point across about guns. There are plenty of cases of home invasions that could have gone wrong, but instead a family/family member decided to defend their house with firearms.

 

Don't ever cite ABCnews, Faux News Entertainment, CNN or MSNBC. Lol.

 

 

Again, if you want to talk about guns so subjectively and dehumanize them by saying that they simply fire projectiles, then other weapons can also be used in the same fashion as I have said above. Im not calling every gun owner a criminal, in the same way I dont consider the armed forces, or police forces criminal. Why does having a legal firearm whose purpose is to kill or injure automatically make you a criminal? It doesnt. I never said it. 

 

Im not saying that criminals follow laws. They usually dont by their nature  . Arming everyone for the sake of a few is ridiculous. The chances of an accident, a theft, a sandy hook, are much greater than the owner running into a situation where he/she has to brandish the firearm. Let me ask you. When was the last time you felt the need to pull out your pistol to protect yourself or the ones around you? I am willing to bet that you havent, and you will live your life not having to. But I will tell you something else, as long as you own that firearm, there is a statistical probability of it being misused, stolen accidentally discharged etc etc. Now multiply that probability by every american. All of a sudden Sandy Hooks become alot more probable. 

 

Please see the video I posted. Whether you trust abc fox etc, this is subjective news, it happened. If you want to ignore it, do it at your peril. This act happened whether you pay attention or not. Australia expressly used massacre tragedies to buy back and outlaw guns for the most part. Their mass shootings are down as a result of people not owning or being able to access guns. 

[Guest Kloaked]

I was arguing that guns have a designed purpose. That is to kill or injure the target, to which cae replied guns are devices that simply shoot projectiles. I then said ok, if you want to completely dehumanize and subjectify them, howitzers, mortars, and cruise missles are also subjectively mechanisms to launch projectiles or projectiles themselves. If you want to talk about guns that way, we should also talk about other weapons in the same manner. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of that argument. So I dont know what you are disagreeing about.

Again, if you want to talk about guns so subjectively and dehumanize them by saying that they simply fire projectiles, then other weapons can also be used in the same fashion as I have said above. Im not calling every gun owner a criminal, in the same way I dont consider the armed forces, or police forces criminal. Why does having a legal firearm whose purpose is to kill or injure automatically make you a criminal? It doesnt. I never said it.

Im not saying that criminals follow laws. They usually dont by their nature . Arming everyone for the sake of a few is ridiculous. The chances of an accident, a theft, a sandy hook, are much greater than the owner running into a situation where he/she has to brandish the firearm. Let me ask you. When was the last time you felt the need to pull out your pistol to protect yourself or the ones around you? I am willing to bet that you havent, and you will live your life not having to. But I will tell you something else, as long as you own that firearm, there is a statistical probability of it being misused, stolen accidentally discharged etc etc. Now multiply that probability by every american. All of a sudden Sandy Hooks become alot more probable.

Please see the video I posted. Whether you trust abc fox etc, this is subjective news, it happened. If you want to ignore it, do it at your peril. This act happened whether you pay attention or not. Australia expressly used massacre tragedies to buy back and outlaw guns for the most part. Their mass shootings are down as a result of people not owning or being able to access guns.

I know what you're saying, I'm just saying you're wrong. You're comparing weapons made for self defense to blatant war weapons. Yes they do the same thing, but what you're trying to do in your entire post is quantify weapons in one category. You simply cannot do that.

Not everyone is going to want a firearm or a ccw, which is fine. No one feels threatened when they go shopping or whatever their daily life is. No I personally have not had to use a firearm to defend myself, but someone has broken into my house before and stolen valuable stuff while no one was home. So that's part of the reason there's weapons in my house.

But I understand what you're saying, but again you're wrong. Yes you have a super low chance of something actually happening to you to where you should defend yourself. However, should that happen I will be prepared. I can't say the same for liberals who think guns are the devil.

Also, I'm saying this to be constructive, so don't take it like I'm arrogant or anything. I would also *snip* your quote but posting at all from my Shield is difficult enough, lol.

[LarsReviews]

I live in a German town and the police sucks. We had so many house roped in the last months, that I see a gun as the only option around here. If I call 110 (911) they need 20+ minutes.  I'm not aggressive and don't get angry, but if someone would mess with my stuff, that would tick me off. 

 

They roped 2 bakeries in 5 minutes, they broke into my neighbor's house. When our windows were replaced in 2010, my parents got special ones that cannot be opened from the outside, no matter how hard you try. When I lived in MIchigan, we could leave the door and car open and nothing ever happened there. T

 

This is unacceptable for a country like Germany. Shame on you, Angela Merkel!!!

[cae]

I was arguing that guns have a designed purpose. That is to kill or injure the target, to which cae replied guns are devices that simply shoot projectiles. I then said ok, if you want to completely dehumanize and subjectify them, howitzers, mortars, and cruise missles are also subjectively mechanisms to launch projectiles or projectiles themselves. If you want to talk about guns that way, we should also talk about other weapons in the same manner. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of that argument. So I dont know what you are disagreeing about. 

 

Again, if you want to talk about guns so subjectively and dehumanize them by saying that they simply fire projectiles, then other weapons can also be used in the same fashion as I have said above. Im not calling every gun owner a criminal, in the same way I dont consider the armed forces, or police forces criminal. Why does having a legal firearm whose purpose is to kill or injure automatically make you a criminal? It doesnt. I never said it. 

 

This is what's called a straw man. You're trying to misrepresent the original topic (the purpose of civilian owned firearms pertaining to the second amendment) by attempting to shift focus to an unrelated topic (heavy artillery and missiles) in hopes that it's easier for you to argue that side. You then try to discredit the argument by calling it "subjective" and "dehumanizing," both are incorrect (unless you're referring to the dehumanization of a gun, in which case - guns aren't humans). It's objective because it's a view of a firearm's purpose without being influenced by the emotional appeals of all the senseless killings in which a firearm is used.

 

Arming everyone for the sake of a few is ridiculous. The chances of an accident, a theft, a sandy hook, are much greater than the owner running into a situation where he/she has to brandish the firearm. Let me ask you. When was the last time you felt the need to pull out your pistol to protect yourself or the ones around you? I am willing to bet that you havent, and you will live your life not having to. But I will tell you something else, as long as you own that firearm, there is a statistical probability of it being misused, stolen accidentally discharged etc etc. Now multiply that probability by every american. All of a sudden Sandy Hooks become alot more probable.

 

Here's another straw man, right out of the gate. You insert your own argument (everyone should be armed) and dismiss it as ridiculous, without that argument having ever been made. That's followed up with some unsubstantiated claims. And more unsubstantiated claims. And an appeal to emotion to round it off. This is why people become frustrated - not because you're delivering a scathing argument, but because debating you is like a bullet hell of red herrings.