You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Not G. Ivingname:

pyrate:
Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence. If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

As for criminals, the idea that they deserve to die for their crimes is unjust. The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year). The US also has the largest prison population by far. Why is it then that the US also has a high recidivism rate?

1. The highest percentage of death penalties per percent of population is Signapore, not the US.

2. Most of the serving time are in jail for drug crimes or "third strike" crimes, I.E. do three misdonmeaners and get big penalities. There are MANY things wrong with this system (I am for legalization of drugs), but it isn't in of it self an indecator of the level of violent of the nation.

3. A person is armed without your expressed consent on YOUR property. That is a crime in of it self. How many logical reasons can you come up with if you saw a man, in YOUR house, on YOUR property that you did not invite or give permission to bring that in? I will wait.

4. If a crimminal is using a gun during a crime with you around, no matter their intentions, your ALWAYS at risk. Even if you give the guy what he wants, he is likely going to be disregaurding the rules "do not have finger on trigger" and "don't point at what you do not want to shoot," which can easily lead to an accidental death. Or, of course, he may decide to kill you once he is done to have no witnesses/make sure you can't call the police the second he is gone/for the LOLs.

you are obviously looking at stats for singapore in the mid 90s, when they were executing 60ish people a year. in 2008 they executed just 6 people, 4 people in 2009 and 0 in 2010

statistically it is illogical to think a person on your property with a firearm is going to murder you, there are many far more likely scenarios. this is of course why we have the argument that killing someone in self defense is generally not equal or reasonable force

the argument that a criminal using a gun during a crime is always a risk but adding another gun is self defense is laughable. as pyrate posted earlier

"Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense."

2 guns are not better then 1. adding another firearm just adds risk to the situation.

I can understand why people would dislike it. In many cases, owning a gun causes far more problems than it solves.

On the other hand, I'd love to own a collection of firearms, and the Constitution is pretty clear on where the country should stand on guns.

Suijen:
and the Constitution is pretty clear on where the country should stand on guns.

So should slavery become legal again, and women be stripped of all their rights? After all, it also says so in the constitution. The 14th amendment alone mentions both slavery and voting rights being purely restricted to men.

Besides, the US constitution clearly speaks of firearms possession in relation to militias. That article says that government-loyal militias must not be disarmed. It in no way says that everyone should be able to own every kind of weapon, that's just an interpretation that favoured people who wanted to keep guns around because they're insecure and delude themselves by thinking you can defend yourself with weapons.

Blablahb:

Suijen:
and the Constitution is pretty clear on where the country should stand on guns.

So should slavery become legal again, and women be stripped of all their rights? After all, it also says so in the constitution. The 14th amendment alone mentions both slavery and voting rights being purely restricted to men.

Besides, the US constitution clearly speaks of firearms possession in relation to militias. That article says that government-loyal militias must not be disarmed. It in no way says that everyone should be able to own every kind of weapon, that's just an interpretation that favoured people who wanted to keep guns around because they're insecure and delude themselves by thinking you can defend yourself with weapons.

Apparently, you haven't read the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. Go ahead.

Also, it's not an interpretation favored "only" by those people. 73% of Americans think it's an individual right, while only 20% of people agree with your idea. Also, your argument has since-forth been rejected in Heller and McDonald. You may as well cite Dred Scott v. Sandford. The "Only to state militias" argument holds as much legal weight as a helium balloon.

EDIT: By the way, how is your quest for world peace going?

Blablahb:

Suijen:
and the Constitution is pretty clear on where the country should stand on guns.

So should slavery become legal again, and women be stripped of all their rights? After all, it also says so in the constitution. The 14th amendment alone mentions both slavery and voting rights being purely restricted to men.

Besides, the US constitution clearly speaks of firearms possession in relation to militias. That article says that government-loyal militias must not be disarmed. It in no way says that everyone should be able to own every kind of weapon, that's just an interpretation that favoured people who wanted to keep guns around because they're insecure and delude themselves by thinking you can defend yourself with weapons.

You still have yet to show any statistical studies showing a link between increased legal gun ownership and increased deaths and violence. NOT gun deaths or gun violence. OVERALL deaths and violence. Of course, backing up your opinion with logic might be asking too much for an internet discussion, but really, it shouldn't be.

As to your opinion on the constitution, either your grammar teachers were lacking, you napped in class, or English is not your first language. The prefatory clause has exactly ZERO control over the nature of the justification clause.

ravenshrike:

Blablahb:

Suijen:
and the Constitution is pretty clear on where the country should stand on guns.

So should slavery become legal again, and women be stripped of all their rights? After all, it also says so in the constitution. The 14th amendment alone mentions both slavery and voting rights being purely restricted to men.

Besides, the US constitution clearly speaks of firearms possession in relation to militias. That article says that government-loyal militias must not be disarmed. It in no way says that everyone should be able to own every kind of weapon, that's just an interpretation that favoured people who wanted to keep guns around because they're insecure and delude themselves by thinking you can defend yourself with weapons.

You still have yet to show any statistical studies showing a link between increased legal gun ownership and increased deaths and violence. NOT gun deaths or gun violence. OVERALL deaths and violence. Of course, backing up your opinion with logic might be asking too much for an internet discussion, but really, it shouldn't be.

As to your opinion on the constitution, either your grammar teachers were lacking, you napped in class, or English is not your first language. The prefatory clause has exactly ZERO control over the nature of the justification clause.

He's Dutch, if I'm not mistaken. So he can be excused a tad bit for not fully understanding English if it's not his first language. But only a tad bit.

ravenshrike:
You still have yet to show any statistical studies showing a link between increased legal gun ownership and increased deaths and violence.

You're trying to say you ignored the post pointing out the US had a firearm homicide rat between 6 and 33 times higher than that of countries of comparable wealth, and that you could see within EU and other European countries there was a similar link, with Switserland having skyrocketing murder rates despite very favourable local circumstances, and Portugal still dealing the past of loose guns laws.

Then it would appear you need to read previous posts. I'm not going to retype that huge story only so that gun nuts will ignore it again and cry on page 7 or 8 of this discussion 'omg, you never proved this!'.

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
You still have yet to show any statistical studies showing a link between increased legal gun ownership and increased deaths and violence.

You're trying to say you ignored the post pointing out the US had a firearm homicide rat between 6 and 33 times higher than that of countries of comparable wealth, and that you could see within EU and other European countries there was a similar link, with Switserland having skyrocketing murder rates despite very favourable local circumstances, and Portugal still dealing the past of loose guns laws.

Then it would appear you need to read previous posts. I'm not going to retype that huge story only so that gun nuts will ignore it again and cry on page 7 or 8 of this discussion 'omg, you never proved this!'.

We also have a knife homicide rate greater than britain's entire homicide rate. You point? There's not a single study that shows the institution of gun control led to reduced OVERALL deaths and violence. Nor that it was actually responsible for reduced gun deaths and violence without the substitution effect, but we'll stick with overall rates. It makes for a simpler discussion.

TechNoFear will of course say that Australia's program shows such a trend, except those trends started before the law was passed and fully implemented. Not to mention the same laws passed in the US would justifiably end up with a bunch of dead federal agents. Whereas after the McDonald decision(which said that communities were not allowed to ban handguns) the murder rate in Chicago mysteriously and without any increase or major shift in police protection not only started dropping faster than the trend overall, which is unprecedented for Chicago, but beat the average drop by over 16%, which is fucking miraculous.

reonhato:

tsb247:

EDIT: America offers it's citizens the unique right of being able to defend their lives to the greatest extent if need be. Does your country afford you the right to self-defense? From what you have said so far, I will venture a guess and say no.

yes my country affords me the right of self-defense with reasonable force. the difference of course being that in my country killing someone is not considered reasonable in most cases.

america has a super high murder rate compared to the rest of the developed world. your gun crime is through the roof. there is a truckload of evidence to show that owning a gun increases the chance of you or a family member being killed by a gun.

it simply comes down to americans thinking about themselves again. i think pyrate posted some stats on it earlier that showed the chances of being killed during a home burglary is astronomical, but of course some americans would much rather put others at risk just to make themselves feel safer, despite the fact that there is no evidence that owning a gun is going to make you any safer, in fact its quite the opposite.

homicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

suicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

doesnt take a genius to figure out what to do

america has a super high murder rate compared to the rest of the developed world. your gun crime is through the roof. there is a truckload of evidence to show that owning a gun increases the chance of you or a family member being killed by a gun.

Again, please present that evidence. It had better be from a reliable, unbiased source. I am skeptical already simply because those surveys usually take into account all gun related deaths; including those where firearms are present in a home illegally. Does this study specifically cover legal gun ownership? I highly doubt it.

it simply comes down to americans thinking about themselves again. i think pyrate posted some stats on it earlier that showed the chances of being killed during a home burglary is astronomical, but of course some americans would much rather put others at risk just to make themselves feel safer, despite the fact that there is no evidence that owning a gun is going to make you any safer, in fact its quite the opposite.

I don't trust my one life to internet statistics, and neither should any sane human being. The fact is that if you go into an unknown situation unprepared for as many outcomes as possible, you are gambling with your own life. You claim that the odds of being murdered during a home invasion are astronomical, I beg to differ.

I could have kept going. The simple fact is that the likelihood of being murdered during a home invasion is far higher than you imply. The fact is that is happens often enough to be a real threat, and it is something one should be prepared for.

homicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

suicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

doesnt take a genius to figure out what to do

Again, I would like to see undisputable proof of this, and it had better differentiate between legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. A study that does not account for the difference between legal and illegal gun ownership is invalid when used specifically for the purposes of disproving the validity of legal gun ownership as it includes data that is not specifically relevant to the overall goal you seem to have.

The simple fact is that most studies on the supposed links to gun ownership and violence are inconclusive. So many studies have been done, and nearly all of them can be shown to be conflicting.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

If you look at the table of results near the bottom of the report, you will notice that the end results (Key Findings) when evaluating all categories read, "Evidence insufficient."

EDIT: In other words, there can be no correlational link between U.S. gun laws and the outcome of violent crime at all. Therefore, it's a waste of time to rely on data, and instead one should focus on practical examples.

I will also address your suicide point specifically: Having a firearm available does not increase the chances of suicide. In fact, I find it laughable that anyone would think so. It may increase the chances of success, but if someone is dead set on killing themselves, a gun is not required. They will do it whether a gun is present or not.

You also side-stepped nearly my entire post.

tsb247:

I will also address your suicide point specifically: Having a firearm available does not increase the chances of suicide. In fact, I find it laughable that anyone would think so. It may increase the chances of success, but if someone is dead set on killing themselves, a gun is not required. They will do it whether a gun is present or not.

You also side-stepped nearly my entire post.

Nice pun there, however that's the thing.

A gun increases chances of success, ergo people who are not "dead set" but still seriously contemplating might consider to pull the plug when a simpler and more certain option is available. It's the "not entirely dead set" people that are more likely to go "Well fuck it" if all they have to do is pull a trigger, as opposed to finding a train, bridge, or enough rope which are all more of a hassle.

Vegosiux:

tsb247:

I will also address your suicide point specifically: Having a firearm available does not increase the chances of suicide. In fact, I find it laughable that anyone would think so. It may increase the chances of success, but if someone is dead set on killing themselves, a gun is not required. They will do it whether a gun is present or not.

You also side-stepped nearly my entire post.

Nice pun there, however that's the thing.

A gun increases chances of success, ergo people who are not "dead set" but still seriously contemplating might consider to pull the plug when a simpler and more certain option is available. It's the "not entirely dead set" people that are more likely to go "Well fuck it" if all they have to do is pull a trigger, as opposed to finding a train, bridge, or enough rope which are all more of a hassle.

I can agree with that. However, I still stand by the notion that if someone really wants to die, they will find a way to do it, gun or not.

I have personally witnessed a suicide by firearm (I was in the wrong place at the wrong time). It was tragic, yes, but it wasn't the gun's fault. He could have just as easily walked in front of a train, drank bleach, or simply overdosed on cough syrup and gently faded away.

My main argument is that it is illogical and irrational to blame a machine for the problems of mankind.

If someone wants to kill someone, they they can find a way to do it. A firearm may make that job slightly more easy, but then again, so could many other (far more dangerous) devices. Bombs, poisons, and even cars can kill just as effectively if not moreso. I can think of far more terrible ways to die than a gunshot... A broadhead for example... *Shivers*

reonhato:
2 guns are not better then 1. adding another firearm just adds risk to the situation.

So are you arguing that the police should be disarmed? After all guns just make things worse. If a police officer comes up against an armed criminal he should be trying to deescalate the situation not escalate it. So, all he should say is, "I know you are a good person, you are not like those pro-gun people who hate babies and rainbows, you are a good anti-gun person who believes in the sanctity of human life, so just put the gun down, surrender, and go to jail for the rest of your life". Is that the scenario you are envisioning?

Or....

image

I told you before that a little consistency would be nice from you.

reonhato:

Not G. Ivingname:

pyrate:
Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence. If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

As for criminals, the idea that they deserve to die for their crimes is unjust. The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year). The US also has the largest prison population by far. Why is it then that the US also has a high recidivism rate?

1. The highest percentage of death penalties per percent of population is Signapore, not the US.

2. Most of the serving time are in jail for drug crimes or "third strike" crimes, I.E. do three misdonmeaners and get big penalities. There are MANY things wrong with this system (I am for legalization of drugs), but it isn't in of it self an indecator of the level of violent of the nation.

3. A person is armed without your expressed consent on YOUR property. That is a crime in of it self. How many logical reasons can you come up with if you saw a man, in YOUR house, on YOUR property that you did not invite or give permission to bring that in? I will wait.

4. If a crimminal is using a gun during a crime with you around, no matter their intentions, your ALWAYS at risk. Even if you give the guy what he wants, he is likely going to be disregaurding the rules "do not have finger on trigger" and "don't point at what you do not want to shoot," which can easily lead to an accidental death. Or, of course, he may decide to kill you once he is done to have no witnesses/make sure you can't call the police the second he is gone/for the LOLs.

you are obviously looking at stats for singapore in the mid 90s, when they were executing 60ish people a year. in 2008 they executed just 6 people, 4 people in 2009 and 0 in 2010

statistically it is illogical to think a person on your property with a firearm is going to murder you, there are many far more likely scenarios. this is of course why we have the argument that killing someone in self defense is generally not equal or reasonable force

the argument that a criminal using a gun during a crime is always a risk but adding another gun is self defense is laughable. as pyrate posted earlier

"Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense."

2 guns are not better then 1. adding another firearm just adds risk to the situation.

Sorry, didn't know those dropped that much.

Again, WE CANNOT READ MINDS. What I do know, when I see a man with a gun coming onto my property with a gun means that he is going to do some crime, I don't know what. Robbery, assault, arson, murder, rape, theft of my toaster? Yes, robbery is more likely, BUT I AM NOT TAKING THAT CHANCE.

Here is a nice sasistic, (which comes from a site that lists all possible problems with the sasistics and how they avoided them, here: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html ) is that when their is a crime comminted without a gun present in the victums hands, the success rate of that crime was 88%. Didn't matter the crime was murder, or just purse snatching, and victum mortality rate was 28%. Gun in the hands of defender, the success rate of the crime when down to 30%, and the victum mortality went down to 17%! By that satistic, the gun makes me over 50% safer if their intent is to kill. And another one (from the FBI) is that only 1% of crimminals die in defensive uses of guns. A 1% increase of crimminal death compared to a 60% decrease in victum death. The gun makes the person being attacked safer.

farson135:

image

I told you before that a little consistency would be nice from you.

Now, I'm only referring to this particular comic and why I think that last panel is actually wrong.

I don't know how it is in USA, but around here, policemen do not own the service guns they use while on duty; in the same way you do not own the computer you happen to use at work. They are not "their" guns, they're the police's guns. If they want to have a gun at home, they need to purchase it separately, and the same rules apply as for any civilian.

That's the thing, service weapons are not something the people in a profession that utilizes them own privately. A policeman is, after all, just an ordinary civilian when off duty, so there's no really "elitism" there, when a policeman is off duty, he has no need for a gun either.

Of course the "no weapons at all" would be a peaceful option, but getting rid of all pointy sticks in this world would be a hassle...I mean, everything can be used as a weapon, the thing with guns is simply that they are not designed to be anything but a weapon.

Vegosiux:
I don't know how it is in USA, but around here, policemen do not own the service guns they use while on duty; in the same way you do not own the computer you happen to use at work. They are not "their" guns, they're the police's guns.

Around here police officers are not even provided their own ammo (except for half or quarterly training), holsters, or uniforms nevertheless firearms. There are certain firearms you are allowed to buy but overall you have to purchase it. Also "work" computers are sometimes brought home (especially if they are laptops) here in the US.

That's the thing, service weapons are not something the people in a profession that utilizes them own privately. A policeman is, after all, just an ordinary civilian when off duty, so there's no really "elitism" there, when a policeman is off duty, he has no need for a gun either.

Here is the thing, I am a professional and I have "work" guns that I only use at the range. Others would still attack my use of said firearms. Also in the US police officers sometimes carry two guns off duty, their main side arm and a pocket pistol in an ankle holster.

Beyond that the simple fact is that police officers are given firearms and some people say that is fine (throughout the next few sentences I am going to assume that the antis are right for the sake of argument). They also say that people who buy guns are more likely to commit suicide but the highest suicide rate is in the 16s-mid 20s and the average age of your duty police officer is in the mid 20s. They say that guns only escalate situations but apparently a gun in the hands of an LEO is just fine. They say that concealed carry will lead to murders over parking spaces while some LEOs are REQUIRED to conceal carry when off duty. They say that people are more likely to kill family members when guns are present yet LEOs are allowed to carry guns all the time. Finally they say that guns only make things worse yet apparently guns in the hands of LEOs make things better.

It is elitism. Some people believe that police and soldiers are better than other people and therefore should be allowed to carry while someone like me (who is a professional firearms instructor and RSO) should be barred from the use of firearms because I am ill trained (do I have to earn a gold medal before some of y'all will acknowledge that I am better trained than guys who shoot 50 shots in practice per year) or simply because I cannot be trusted.

Of course the "no weapons at all" would be a peaceful option, but getting rid of all pointy sticks in this world would be a hassle...I mean, everything can be used as a weapon, the thing with guns is simply that they are not designed to be anything but a weapon.

So you are trying to argue that my AR-10 that was SPECIFICALLY designed for target shooting is a weapon? There was a discussion of this earlier so I will just give the highlights. Weapon is a situational term. A hammer can be a weapon but it is not perpetually a weapon because it is not used as such. Right now my hunting rifle is sitting in my closet. At times it is a weapon because I use it to kill animals. However at this moment the rifle is unloaded and in its case, the ammunition is stored in a box and is separated from the rifle by about 10 feet, and the bolt of the rifle was removed and is locked in my gun safe (the safe is not big enough to hold the entire rifle). In other words the firearm does not even have the capability to fire nevertheless be a weapon.

Let me ask you, why is a rifle always a weapon when a hammer is only a weapon when it is used as such? The answer is that it isn't. My firearms are only weapons when I use them as such because weapon is, once again, a situational term and there are plenty of situations where firearms are not used as weapons.

for the people who keep asking for proof, go read the last gun thread, im not going to bother posting it all again, especially since last time farson kept forgetting about all the proof and kept asking for it over and over again.

as for police. they are trained professionally (well at least you would hope so, american cops seem to fuck up way more then aussie cops). you may notice that (well in australia at least) cops generally do not shoot first ask questions later. they have very strict guidelines on when they can discharge their weapon

reonhato:
for the people who keep asking for proof, go read the last gun thread, im not going to bother posting it all again, especially since last time farson kept forgetting about all the proof and kept asking for it over and over again.

Actually you provided "proof" and I showed that it was worthless. Maybe you should actually provide some actual proof instead of simply insulting people who disagree with you.

If anyone wants to read my reaction to his "proof" that I apperently forgot about (I write so many 10 page papers on this forum that it is hard to remeber them all (sarcasm)) look here-

as for police. they are trained professionally (well at least you would hope so, american cops seem to fuck up way more then aussie cops)

Bullshit. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. Police are professional police officers but they are not professional shooters. I am a professional marksman and trainer, they are not.

you may notice that (well in australia at least) cops generally do not shoot first ask questions later. they have very strict guidelines on when they can discharge their weapon

Theoretically so do American officers. Guidelines mean nothing if they are not followed. What proof do you have that they are followed?

Anyway that is besides the point. If you allow that police officers and the military should remain armed but civilians should be disarmed then you lose what little credibility you have. Read-

"Beyond that the simple fact is that police officers are given firearms and some people say that is fine (throughout the next few sentences I am going to assume that the antis are right for the sake of argument). They also say that people who buy guns are more likely to commit suicide but the highest suicide rate is in the 16s-mid 20s and the average age of your duty police officer is in the mid 20s. They say that guns only escalate situations but apparently a gun in the hands of an LEO is just fine. They say that concealed carry will lead to murders over parking spaces while some LEOs are REQUIRED to conceal carry when off duty. They say that people are more likely to kill family members when guns are present yet LEOs are allowed to carry guns all the time. Finally they say that guns only make things worse yet apparently guns in the hands of LEOs make things better."

The day I trust a police officer that would rather taze me into cardiac arrest than protect me is the day I freeze in hell.

Why must I depend on someone else and not myself to protect my own life? Can anyone answer that question?

matrix3509:
Why must I depend on someone else and not myself to protect my own life? Can anyone answer that question?

Given that in the Supreme Court case South v. Maryland the court decided that Police have no obligation to protect the individual but only to maintain the general order of society, I would say that you should not trust the police with your life. If you want to see that ruling in action take a look at Gonzales v. Castle Rock and Warren v. District of Colombia.

ravenshrike:
There's not a single study that shows the institution of gun control led to reduced OVERALL deaths and violence. Nor that it was actually responsible for reduced gun deaths and violence without the substitution effect, but we'll stick with overall rates. It makes for a simpler discussion.

What about YOU provide a study that shows firearms do NOT increase overall deaths/violence?

You ignored my link to M Killias's study which shows EXACTLY that; firearm controls lead to lower rates of violence (due to the lack of a substitution effect).

"Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun
ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

ravenshrike:
TechNoFear will of course say that Australia's program shows such a trend, except those trends started before the law was passed and fully implemented.

Prove it!

It should be easy for you to find evidence that Australia is awash with firearm crime, now that all Aussies are 'victims' now we are disarmed (and only criminals have firearms).

Any Australian will laugh at you, criminals in Australia do not have guns (as most will not risk the manditory 5-8 extra years in jail plus up to US$100k fine for just possesing an illegal firearm).

You also ignore the 7 scientific, peer reviewed studies showing the opposite. (the current trend was down but the removal of firearms accelerated the effect, especially in suicide rates, with no weapon substitution found.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-30/howards-gun-buyback-slashed-firearm-suicides/962424

Try reading the latest study "A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback"
by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh

"Re-analysing these results either with a longer time series or using the log of the death
rate, however, strengthens the evidence against the null hypothesis that the NFA had no
effect on firearm suicides or homicides, and more than doubles the estimated number of
lives 'saved', from 128 to 282 lives per year. In particular, our re-analysis shows a
statistically significant reduction in deaths due to both firearm homicides and suicides.
"

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP555.pdf

ravenshrike:
Not to mention the same laws passed in the US would justifiably end up with a bunch of dead federal agents.

Here is the crux of your opinion; the average US citizen is more violent than the average citizen of comparable developed countries (and so you require a firearm to protect yourself against fellow Americans).

Australia went from >40% of the population owing a firearm to <15% during the "Gun Buy Back".

Australia did not see an increase in weapon substitution, nor in violent crime but infact the opposite happened (see the linked study).

ravenshrike:
Whereas after the McDonald decision(which said that communities were not allowed to ban handguns) the murder rate in Chicago mysteriously and without any increase or major shift in police protection not only started dropping faster than the trend overall, which is unprecedented for Chicago, but beat the average drop by over 16%, which is fucking miraculous.

BTW the bolded bit is incorrect. Chicago police installed a complex camera system in 2004.

Prove it!

Why is it when I show statistics, linked to credible sources like the FBI UCR, you gun nuts keep saying; "Correlation does not show causeation".

But when you use some random, uncorroborated numbers, pulled from thin air, it is OK?

Link me to the scientific, peer reviewed study detailing this effect (as I have provided you above).

Because the Chicago police credit the drop in homicides to installing all those camera systems (over 2,000 in 2004) capable of pinpointing gunshots within 2 block radius.

matrix3509:
Why must I depend on someone else and not myself to protect my own life? Can anyone answer that question?

According to the FBI, much of the time you will be defending yourself against your friends and family.

Do you really want to be using a firearm to protect yourself against your own family?

[NOTE: the FBI does not include members of rival gangs in 'acquaintance', the FBI has seperate numbers for gang related crime.]

"In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. "

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls

call me a crazy hippie or whatever but I don't think that your average citizen should be allowed to just have a gun, for whatever reason.

As a libertarian (of sorts) I think people should be allowed to own guns.

However, that doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid to do so, in pretty much all circumstances.

flamingjimmy:
As a libertarian (of sorts) I think people should be allowed to own guns.

However, that doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid to do so, in pretty much all circumstances.

Which is why I am utterly paranoid about following the four rules of gun safety.

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
There's not a single study that shows the institution of gun control led to reduced OVERALL deaths and violence. Nor that it was actually responsible for reduced gun deaths and violence without the substitution effect, but we'll stick with overall rates. It makes for a simpler discussion.

What about YOU provide a study that shows firearms do NOT increase overall deaths/violence?

You ignored my link to M Killias's study which shows EXACTLY that; firearm controls lead to lower rates of violence (due to the lack of a substitution effect).

You precious study is bunk. It differentiates between swiss militia firearms and private firearms, even though any suppressive effect, if evident, would necessarily not give a fuck the source of the firearm. More importantly to the discussion on whether his study is a useful measure, he cites Kellerman as a valid source, which means that we can ignore him utterly. End of discussion really. Kellerman is the gun study equivalent of the guy in your science class who would write a bunch of numbers on a grid, throw darts at the grid, and then use them as the results for whatever experiment he was actually supposed to perform. Nice try though.

But, just for you, one night only, proof positive that an increased gun supply does not end up in increased violence.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

If an increased gun supply were responsible for the violence, as you study author makes claim to, violence would be climbing through the fucking roof in America. This is not the case.

ravenshrike:

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
There's not a single study that shows the institution of gun control led to reduced OVERALL deaths and violence. Nor that it was actually responsible for reduced gun deaths and violence without the substitution effect, but we'll stick with overall rates. It makes for a simpler discussion.

What about YOU provide a study that shows firearms do NOT increase overall deaths/violence?

You ignored my link to M Killias's study which shows EXACTLY that; firearm controls lead to lower rates of violence (due to the lack of a substitution effect).

You precious study is bunk. It differentiates between swiss militia firearms and private firearms, even though any suppressive effect, if evident, would necessarily not give a fuck the source of the firearm. More importantly to the discussion on whether his study is a useful measure, he cites Kellerman as a valid source, which means that we can ignore him utterly. End of discussion really. Kellerman is the gun study equivalent of the guy in your science class who would write a bunch of numbers on a grid, throw darts at the grid, and then use them as the results for whatever experiment he was actually supposed to perform. Nice try though.

But, just for you, one night only, proof positive that an increased gun supply does not end up in increased violence.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

If an increased gun supply were responsible for the violence, as you study author makes claim to, violence would be climbing through the fucking roof in America. This is not the case.

Have you ever once considered that the relationship of firearm killings and number of guns is not a linear relationship. You look at countries with 30-40 guns per 100 people and say that since homicide is not that much higher then places with 10 guns per 100 people, guns are not a problem.

Have you ever considered though that the relationship is exponential. Guns do not cause violence, I mean why would they. What they do however is allow a violent situation to result in killing. When you have 10 guns per 100 people the chance of a violent encounter involving firearms is very low, especially considering the overall control of firearms in a country with so few guns. The same goes for 30-40 guns per 100, the chance of someone involved in violence of having a weapon on them at that moment is still pretty low. When you start getting up to the 80+ mark though and have looser restrictions on firearm handling then the chance of an act of violence involving someone with immediate access to a firearm is considerably higher.

This is the reason that handguns are generally seen as more dangerous. You are much more likely to either carry a handgun on you, or have one easily accessible in the house then you would a rifle. When there is a violent situation a handgun owner is more likely to have their firearm readily available when compared to someone who has a rifle that is all locked up.

ravenshrike:

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
There's not a single study that shows the institution of gun control led to reduced OVERALL deaths and violence. Nor that it was actually responsible for reduced gun deaths and violence without the substitution effect, but we'll stick with overall rates. It makes for a simpler discussion.

What about YOU provide a study that shows firearms do NOT increase overall deaths/violence?

You ignored my link to M Killias's study which shows EXACTLY that; firearm controls lead to lower rates of violence (due to the lack of a substitution effect).

You precious study is bunk. It differentiates between swiss militia firearms and private firearms, even though any suppressive effect, if evident, would necessarily not give a fuck the source of the firearm. More importantly to the discussion on whether his study is a useful measure, he cites Kellerman as a valid source, which means that we can ignore him utterly. End of discussion really. Kellerman is the gun study equivalent of the guy in your science class who would write a bunch of numbers on a grid, throw darts at the grid, and then use them as the results for whatever experiment he was actually supposed to perform. Nice try though.

But, just for you, one night only, proof positive that an increased gun supply does not end up in increased violence.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/09/graphics-matter-year-the-third.html

If an increased gun supply were responsible for the violence, as you study author makes claim to, violence would be climbing through the fucking roof in America. This is not the case.

was the person who wrote that even looking at the same data as me? i mean wtf how the hell do you look at that an see firearms not causing death. the whoe crime going down so guns cannot be bad things is irrelevant. we know crime as been going down substantially in most developed nations since the 90s, countries that do not have guns. the fact that firearm deaths are going up yet pretty much every other crime stat known to man is going down says it all to me.

this is the problem with pro-gun supporters, they look at figures and simply see things that are not there. crime going down does not equal guns being good. crime was going to go down anyway, the argument is that guns kill people, and the data shows that to be true

reonhato:
this is the problem with pro-gun supporters, they look at figures and simply see things that are not there. crime going down does not equal guns being good. crime was going to go down anyway, the argument is that guns kill people, and the data shows that to be true

Apparently Great Britain is not a first world nation anymore? Cause crime, including gun crime, is going up there. But apparently they don't count. More importantly, TNFs study was performed in 1993, which is BEFORE the current trend of massively declining crime across the US, so your entire stream of babble as to that being accounted for in the study is utter bunkem. Again. So, when you can come up with something more relevant, we'll talk. I'll also note, again, that he uses Kellerman's data in his study, which applies a strong GIGO effect and invalidates its conclusions even more. Sooo, yeah, come back with a better study. Cause the one you presented doesn't even make it as a college term paper.

ravenshrike:

reonhato:
this is the problem with pro-gun supporters, they look at figures and simply see things that are not there. crime going down does not equal guns being good. crime was going to go down anyway, the argument is that guns kill people, and the data shows that to be true

Apparently Great Britain is not a first world nation anymore? Cause crime, including gun crime, is going up there. But apparently they don't count. More importantly, TNFs study was performed in 1993, which is BEFORE the current trend of massively declining crime across the US, so your entire stream of babble as to that being accounted for in the study is utter bunkem. Again. So, when you can come up with something more relevant, we'll talk. I'll also note, again, that he uses Kellerman's data in his study, which applies a strong GIGO effect and invalidates its conclusions even more. Sooo, yeah, come back with a better study. Cause the one you presented doesn't even make it as a college term paper.

because its not like economic stability has ever been linked to crime rates

guns cause violence to turn lethal. you are tying to argue that a man with a gun is no more likely to kill then a man with a knife, not only is that statistically simply not true it logically makes no sense. gun violence is through the roof in america. gun violence leads to death. does not take a genius to figure out that if you reduce gun violence you reduce death.

btw i didnt even read TNFs linked study. i have read enough reports and seen enough data for a life time. i just find it hilarious that you instantly say it is wrong because he uses kellermans data, yet pro gun supporters consistently bring up reports from people like lott and kleck. the former being a guy who apparently think more people use guns to defend themselves from burglary than actual houses with guns get burgled

ravenshrike:
You precious study is bunk.

Both the studies I linked were conducted by trained scientists, from a prestigious universities, and peer reviewed.

Your only example is a poster on a gun nut forum.

Which has more credibility?

ravenshrike:
More importantly to the discussion on whether his study is a useful measure, he cites Kellerman as a valid source, which means that we can ignore him utterly.

Try reading the actual study, rather than skimming it.

Killias mentions 2 of Kellerman's studies, each in a single sentence; once to criticise the methodology and once to reference data on gun ownership rates.

Please explain how that makes the whole study bunk?

ravenshrike:
But, just for you, one night only, proof positive that an increased gun supply does not end up in increased violence.

LOL!

You clearly don't know what was criticised in Kellermans 1986 study (and later corrected in his 1993 response) or you would not post a graph based on ONLY DEATHS!

One might hypothesise that in the last 30 years other effects such as;
medical science/response might have improved the survival rates of gunshot victims,
or that policing methods (ie cameras, DNA) might have deterred some criminals,
or legislation banning handguns, machineguns or AWs had the desired result (clearly Brady had a measurable effect on that graph!)
hence invalidating his entire argument.

EDIT: I did note that there are only 2 times on that graph that firearm related deaths trend down.

Firearm deaths were trending down when only 2 states were Shall Issue (81-85).

As Shall Issue states increased (2 -> 17) so firearm death rates increased (86-93).

The big trend down (94-99) was when the US had stricter firearm laws (Brady, FOP and the AW ban).

Once those laws expired (especially Brady), and as CC became more common, then firearm deaths again trended upwards (2000-2008).


Don't you see that clearly in the data?

TechNoFear:

You ignored my link to M Killias's study which shows EXACTLY that; firearm controls lead to lower rates of violence (due to the lack of a substitution effect).

"Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun
ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

I remember this study being brought up a while back. As I pointed out that other time the study has a major flaw by trying to draw a conclusion by comparing multiple countries. It say's that because there is a relation between suicide with firearms and the amount of firearms a country has while the amount suicides by other means is not related to the amount of firearms said country had it is the firearms's fault. It makes the flawed assumption that total suicides should be comparable between multiple countries, so if on country has more suicides due to firearms than it should have fewer suicides by other methods than a country that has fewer firearm related suicides.

TechNoFear:

Any Australian will laugh at you, criminals in Australia do not have guns (as most will not risk the manditory 5-8 extra years in jail plus up to US$100k fine for just possesing an illegal firearm).

You also ignore the 7 scientific, peer reviewed studies showing the opposite. (the current trend was down but the removal of firearms accelerated the effect, especially in suicide rates, with no weapon substitution found.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-30/howards-gun-buyback-slashed-firearm-suicides/962424

Try reading the latest study "A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback"
by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh

"Re-analysing these results either with a longer time series or using the log of the death
rate, however, strengthens the evidence against the null hypothesis that the NFA had no
effect on firearm suicides or homicides, and more than doubles the estimated number of
lives 'saved', from 128 to 282 lives per year. In particular, our re-analysis shows a
statistically significant reduction in deaths due to both firearm homicides and suicides.
"

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP555.pdf

This study came up in the last time this topic and I pointed the flaws of that study as well, but more importantly two major facts, One was the researchers for that study sought out for help and collaborate with a man who had an obvious agenda and in fact who's own previous study on the topic was discredited by the Australian government. The second was there was another study using the exact same data concluded that there was a lack of evidence that the firearm buyback program had any effect at all (For every study saying the buyback had an effect another says it did not)

TechNoFear:

matrix3509:
Why must I depend on someone else and not myself to protect my own life? Can anyone answer that question?

According to the FBI, much of the time you will be defending yourself against your friends and family.

Do you really want to be using a firearm to protect yourself against your own family?

[NOTE: the FBI does not include members of rival gangs in 'acquaintance', the FBI has seperate numbers for gang related crime.]

"In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. "

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls

The problem is you are throwing acquaintance in that statistic. Acquaintance does not necessarily mean you know them. A shop owner that sees a particular costumer come in a few times can be considered an acquaintance. Which means it's just as valid to group it in with murders committed by strangers or unknown relation which makes than make up 77.4% of murders.

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
You precious study is bunk.

Both the studies I linked were conducted by trained scientists, from a prestigious universities, and peer reviewed.

Your only example is a poster on a gun nut forum.

Which has more credibility?

ravenshrike:
More importantly to the discussion on whether his study is a useful measure, he cites Kellerman as a valid source, which means that we can ignore him utterly.

Try reading the actual study, rather than skimming it.

Killias mentions 2 of Kellerman's studies, each in a single sentence; once to criticise the methodology and once to reference data on gun ownership rates.

Please explain how that makes the whole study bunk?

ravenshrike:
But, just for you, one night only, proof positive that an increased gun supply does not end up in increased violence.

LOL!

You clearly don't know what was criticised in Kellermans 1986 study (and later corrected in his 1993 response) or you would not post a graph based on ONLY DEATHS!

One might hypothesise that in the last 30 years other effects such as;
medical science/response might have improved the survival rates of gunshot victims,
or that policing methods (ie cameras, DNA) might have deterred some criminals,
or legislation banning handguns, machineguns or AWs had the desired result (clearly Brady had a measurable effect on that graph!)
hence invalidating his entire argument.

EDIT: I did note that there are only 2 times on that graph that firearm related deaths trend down.

Firearm deaths were trending down when only 2 states were Shall Issue (81-85).

As Shall Issue states increased (2 -> 17) so firearm death rates increased (86-93).

The big trend down (94-99) was when the US had stricter firearm laws (Brady, FOP and the AW ban).

Once those laws expired (especially Brady), and as CC became more common, then firearm deaths again trended upwards (2000-2008).


Don't you see that clearly in the data?

I see a big correlation = causation fallacy.

Did you notice something else that correlates with your data?

From the top of my head, it seems to correlate well with economic times.
http://www.moralityindex.com/crime.html

Not so sure about the overall correlation, but all crimes decreased during that period in the 90s when gun control boomed, do you wish to indicate that gun control alone caused larceny and assault to decrease?

This is the problem with stats, comparing 2 nations isnt relevant as they might have other distinct differences, and correlation is very difficult to actually prove

ahh the good old you cannot compare countries because america is special reasoning. surprised it took this long for it to show up

reonhato:
ahh the good old you cannot compare countries because america is special reasoning. surprised it took this long for it to show up

Its not about being special, its about being different, all nations are different and ignoring those differences shows intentional ignorance.

How about we make actual comparisons, for instance the police powers in britain would make an american cops day, and the average brit seems more willing to tolerate them than the average american. I suggest this would have a greater impact on crime than legal firearm possession.

There are also differences in record keeping, for instance, outside of the gun debate, america has a very high infant mortality rate, at first glance people might say "bah, its because of socialized healthcare" when in reality the biggest share of difference is how different nations classify a live birth. Abortion politics in america mean that amaerican statistics declare a child a live birth if they show any signs of life, or take a single breath, others call a child who dies immediately as a fetal death, even if born briefly alive

____________

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/46796773.pdf
Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations
among countries in the registration of premature deaths of infants (whether they are reported as live births
or fetal deaths). In several countries, such as in Canada, Japan, the Nordic countries and the United States,
very premature babies with relatively low odds of survival are registered as live births. This increases
mortality rates compared with other countries that register them as foetal deaths instead of live births
____________

When gun control is not the only difference between nations, it cannot be declared as the cause of some other difference.

Mathurin:

reonhato:
ahh the good old you cannot compare countries because america is special reasoning. surprised it took this long for it to show up

Its not about being special, its about being different, all nations are different and ignoring those differences shows intentional ignorance.

How about we make actual comparisons, for instance the police powers in britain would make an american cops day, and the average brit seems more willing to tolerate them than the average american. I suggest this would have a greater impact on crime than legal firearm possession.

There are also differences in record keeping, for instance, outside of the gun debate, america has a very high infant mortality rate, at first glance people might say "bah, its because of socialized healthcare" when in reality the biggest share of difference is how different nations classify a live birth. Abortion politics in america mean that amaerican statistics declare a child a live birth if they show any signs of life, or take a single breath, others call a child who dies immediately as a fetal death, even if born briefly alive

____________

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/46796773.pdf
Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations
among countries in the registration of premature deaths of infants (whether they are reported as live births
or fetal deaths). In several countries, such as in Canada, Japan, the Nordic countries and the United States,
very premature babies with relatively low odds of survival are registered as live births. This increases
mortality rates compared with other countries that register them as foetal deaths instead of live births
____________

When gun control is not the only difference between nations, it cannot be declared as the cause of some other difference.

yep americas gun crime is because of poor book keeping.

ok ignoring the fact that america crime statistics are artificially lowered compared to britain and australia, at least in terms of violent crime, being shot has 1 cause, that cause is a gun, remove the gun and you no longer get shot.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked