Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

itsthesheppy:
Also, it's a little unfair to say that clearly the problem is Detroit and not, say, East Bumfuck, Idaho, because you have to take into account population density.

It is. Talking about gross murders would be ridiculous since we'd be unable to compare cities. We convert them into per capita rates so we can compare different areas.

America's love affair with guns and the fantasies gun owners enjoy

And this is where people are lost. I'm pro-gun control(close to a European model, actually), but I also own guns and you've now made me the adversary. In fact, a majority of gun owners are in favor of gun control measures(not all of them, obviously) including federal database for sales, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, ban on online sale of ammunition, and background checks for private sales and and gun shows.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/1/

So when people start throwing aspersions at gun owners[1] they're now making an enemy of someone who held significant common ground with them. Not a good way to progress forward and the NRA profits from people being driven to them.

[1] The commonly used gun masturbating one is my favorite.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:
Also, it's a little unfair to say that clearly the problem is Detroit and not, say, East Bumfuck, Idaho, because you have to take into account population density.

It is. Talking about gross murders would be ridiculous since we'd be unable to compare cities. We convert them into per capita rates so we can compare different areas.

America's love affair with guns and the fantasies gun owners enjoy

And this is where people are lost. I'm pro-gun control(close to a European model, actually), but I also own guns and you've now made me the adversary. In fact, a majority of gun owners are in favor of gun control measures(not all of them, obviously) including federal database for sales, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, ban on online sale of ammunition, and background checks for private sales and and gun shows.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/1/

So when people start throwing aspersions at gun owners[1] they're now making an enemy of someone who held significant common ground with them. Not a good way to progress forward and the NRA profits from people being driven to them.

So you would reverse your opinion on those issues you and I both agree on because I think you own the guns you do because of the fantasy they represent, and not because of their material value? Out of what, spite? I think not. I don't see why we can't agree on some issues and not on others.

You're not my 'adversary'. You're just a little wounded I called your guns toys. That's something we can have a conversation about, but don't act like suddenly we're throwing those issues we do agree on out the window.

[1] The commonly used gun masturbating one is my favorite.

Nikolaz72:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Nikolaz72:
Only 11.000 more people than anywhere else in the west died from gunshots in your country from unnecessary gun violence in 2011? How quaint. I'll go off and amuse myself with the fact that I don't have to worry about these stats at all, regardless of what they had shown, while this thread inevitably turns to flame-war *tips his hat*

There won't be a flame war. If either of the above posters follow their pattern, they won't post again in this thread. Same thing Hardcore_Gamer does.

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
image

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

I hate to say this, but your charts disregard an important thing, in order to make the desired point -- a gun homicide that ceases to have a gun doesn't cease to be a homicide -- instead it becomes a knife homicide, or a bludgeoning homicide, or a vehicular homicide, or a drowning, or whatever.

Instead of counting "gun homicides", why don't you look at total rate of homicide scaled to population and gun homicide as a subset of that number? Oh, yeah, because it doesn't show the US as dramatically more violent than everywhere else in the world except maybe Mexico -- it just shows that someone looking to kill another person will generally choose the best tool available to them to do so, and in the US that's often guns. In comparison, I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

So we can't point out the differences between suicides and homicides (or possibly any gun violence), or it looks like suicides are irrelevant? With this logic I'm left to assume that guns and their owners are just bad for the same reason: people die.

And I see we're still not over the "it's like rape" comparisons. Even the Nazi atrocities are still relevant to shooting down gun rights arguments. Seriously?

All of this blow-back flies in the face of the national/international conversation about gun control, which focuses almost entirely on violence, not suicide prevention. It's not even swept under the vague category of mental health, which tends to be regarded as a means to an end here (i.e. "let's catch people before they start a shooting spree").

I'd like to see a real solution and explanation of why it would work in the U.S., not other countries, without it being Unconstitutional. The incomprehension and disregard of the real issues, playing with data and class-action demagoguery of the U.S. as if it just can't get over its gun-porn obsession, that people don't care about innocent fatalities is abominable and ignorant.

itsthesheppy:

So you would reverse your opinion on those issues you and I both agree on because I think you own the guns you do because of the fantasy they represent, and not because of their material value? Out of what, spite? I think not. I don't see why we can't agree on some issues and not on others.

Someone isn't going to change their opinions because you insult them. They will change their opinions about you, however, and rightfully so. If you can't have a discussion with someone without being inflammatory, then you need to rethink how you discuss it. If you care to actually have a discussion in the first place.

You're not my 'adversary'. You're just a little wounded I called your guns toys. That's something we can have a conversation about, but don't act like suddenly we're throwing those issues we do agree on out the window.

If I'm not your adversary, then don't act like it. I know better than to get offended by "fantasies" or "toys", but most are going to take that as a personal attack as it directly demeans them as a person. If you are hell bent on getting the point across that you think gun owners are just living out a fantasy and playing with toys, don't expect them to do anything but respond in kind, enter the NRA.

Schadrach:

Nikolaz72:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

There won't be a flame war. If either of the above posters follow their pattern, they won't post again in this thread. Same thing Hardcore_Gamer does.

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
image

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

I hate to say this, but your charts disregard an important thing, in order to make the desired point -- a gun homicide that ceases to have a gun doesn't cease to be a homicide -- instead it becomes a knife homicide, or a bludgeoning homicide, or a vehicular homicide, or a drowning, or whatever.

Instead of counting "gun homicides", why don't you look at total rate of homicide scaled to population and gun homicide as a subset of that number? Oh, yeah, because it doesn't show the US as dramatically more violent than everywhere else in the world except maybe Mexico -- it just shows that someone looking to kill another person will generally choose the best tool available to them to do so, and in the US that's often guns. In comparison, I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

I don't think you have any statistical evidence to back up your claim that murder rates remain static in countries that enact stricter gun control laws. I believe England and Australia stand as examples to that fact. you are welcome to provide those figures, if you have them.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:

So you would reverse your opinion on those issues you and I both agree on because I think you own the guns you do because of the fantasy they represent, and not because of their material value? Out of what, spite? I think not. I don't see why we can't agree on some issues and not on others.

Someone isn't going to change their opinions because you insult them. They will change their opinions about you, however, and rightfully so. If you can't have a discussion with someone without being inflammatory, then you need to rethink how you discuss it. If you care to actually have a discussion in the first place.

You're not my 'adversary'. You're just a little wounded I called your guns toys. That's something we can have a conversation about, but don't act like suddenly we're throwing those issues we do agree on out the window.

If I'm not your adversary, then don't act like it. I know better than to get offended by "fantasies" or "toys", but most are going to take that as a personal attack as it directly demeans them as a person. If you are hell bent on getting the point across that you think gun owners are just living out a fantasy and playing with toys, don't expect them to do anything but respond in kind, enter the NRA.

I do the same thing everyone else does, friend. I form opinions for myself, express them in public, and then vote. If folks want to array against me, that is their right.

Saying that your guns are toys isn't demeaning you. I'm not just saying it to say it; my position is firmly that most people own guns because of the illusion of safety that they represent, rather than the reality. They entertain fantasies of heroically defending themselves or others, whereas we find that in reality these instances, while they exist, are exceedingly rare. Statistically speaking you're more likely to die as a result of eating too many hamburgers than by gun violence, and yet people are more than happy to buy guns for self defense, while at the same time taking their kids to Burger King. In fact, some studies have suggested that the mere act of owning a gun makes you more at risk of violently dying by a gun, not less. Because, well, duh.

I firmly believe that unless you live in a particularly crime-ridden area, or you work in a law enforcement or military profession, if you're buying a gun what you're buying is fantasy. It's a prop, an extension of the ego, a middle finger to the world you imagine is out to get you, when in reality, your trip to the beach is more statistically fatal. How many people go boating without life jackets who then go home and admire their gun collections, feeling safer for doing so?

We're a species that values feels over facts, always have been. I'm suggesting that, far from being less of a person, you are more of a typical person in joining in this practice. But that doesn't mean I can't point it out.

itsthesheppy:

I do the same thing everyone else does, friend. I form opinions for myself, express them in public, and then vote. If folks want to array against me, that is their right.

Saying that your guns are toys isn't demeaning you. I'm not just saying it to say it; my position is firmly that most people own guns because of the illusion of safety that they represent, rather than the reality. They entertain fantasies of heroically defending themselves or others, whereas we find that in reality these instances, while they exist, are exceedingly rare. Statistically speaking you're more likely to die as a result of eating too many hamburgers than by gun violence, and yet people are more than happy to buy guns for self defense, while at the same time taking their kids to Burger King. In fact, some studies have suggested that the mere act of owning a gun makes you more at risk of violently dying by a gun, not less. Because, well, duh.

I firmly believe that unless you live in a particularly crime-ridden area, or you work in a law enforcement or military profession, if you're buying a gun what you're buying is fantasy. It's a prop, an extension of the ego, a middle finger to the world you imagine is out to get you, when in reality, your trip to the beach is more statistically fatal. How many people go boating without life jackets who then go home and admire their gun collections, feeling safer for doing so?

We're a species that values feels over facts, always have been. I'm suggesting that, far from being less of a person, you are more of a typical person in joining in this practice. But that doesn't mean I can't point it out.

Your dedication to talking about the character of the people on the "other side" of the issue, even though they actually agree with you quite a bit, instead of the actual issue is the problem. If you're unwilling or unable to divorce yourself from your preconceived bias of what constitutes a "gun owner", then entering into a discussion is futile at best and a flamefest at worst. If that's the way you like things, so be it. Do not expect those seeking a reasonable discussion to entertain your arguments.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:

I do the same thing everyone else does, friend. I form opinions for myself, express them in public, and then vote. If folks want to array against me, that is their right.

Saying that your guns are toys isn't demeaning you. I'm not just saying it to say it; my position is firmly that most people own guns because of the illusion of safety that they represent, rather than the reality. They entertain fantasies of heroically defending themselves or others, whereas we find that in reality these instances, while they exist, are exceedingly rare. Statistically speaking you're more likely to die as a result of eating too many hamburgers than by gun violence, and yet people are more than happy to buy guns for self defense, while at the same time taking their kids to Burger King. In fact, some studies have suggested that the mere act of owning a gun makes you more at risk of violently dying by a gun, not less. Because, well, duh.

I firmly believe that unless you live in a particularly crime-ridden area, or you work in a law enforcement or military profession, if you're buying a gun what you're buying is fantasy. It's a prop, an extension of the ego, a middle finger to the world you imagine is out to get you, when in reality, your trip to the beach is more statistically fatal. How many people go boating without life jackets who then go home and admire their gun collections, feeling safer for doing so?

We're a species that values feels over facts, always have been. I'm suggesting that, far from being less of a person, you are more of a typical person in joining in this practice. But that doesn't mean I can't point it out.

Your dedication to talking about the character of the people on the "other side" of the issue, even though they actually agree with you quite a bit, instead of the actual issue is the problem. If you're unwilling or unable to divorce yourself from your preconceived bias of what constitutes a "gun owner", then entering into a discussion is futile at best and a flamefest at worst. If that's the way you like things, so be it. Do not expect those seeking a reasonable discussion to entertain your arguments.

You can't engaged in a reasoned discussion about the psychology of gun ownership? You don't think the psychology of why people own guns is relevant to, you know, owning guns? You continue to act as if this is a personal attack on you, and yet you say that as an exercise in avoiding the conversation.

I believe that says more about you than it does me for bringing it up.

Schadrach:
I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

I hear that a school shooting in the US killed everyone present, and that a same-time school-stabbing in China didn't.

You hear a lot of things.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Both parties depend on your forgetting how badly they fucked you over last time they were in office. If Americans had pattern recognition both parties would have been abandoned a long time ago.

Nikolaz72:

Schadrach:
I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

I hear that a school shooting in the US killed everyone present, and that a same-time school-stabbing in China didn't.

You hear a lot of things.

And I hear that school shootings account for something like 0.00002% of the total deaths in the US for any given year. So I guess you do hear a lot of things.

itsthesheppy:

You can't engaged in a reasoned discussion about the psychology of gun ownership? You don't think the psychology of why people own guns is relevant to, you know, owning guns? You continue to act as if this is a personal attack on you, and yet you say that as an exercise in avoiding the conversation.

I believe that says more about you than it does me for bringing it up.

Throwing out baseless assertions of "fantasies" and "toys" is not reasoned discussion of anything.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:

You can't engaged in a reasoned discussion about the psychology of gun ownership? You don't think the psychology of why people own guns is relevant to, you know, owning guns? You continue to act as if this is a personal attack on you, and yet you say that as an exercise in avoiding the conversation.

I believe that says more about you than it does me for bringing it up.

Throwing out baseless assertions of "fantasies" and "toys" is not reasoned discussion of anything.

Ignoring guns owned for the purposes of hunting wild game (I think we can both agree that the majority of the guns owned privately are not used to shoot deer), handguns are expensive, highly dangerous devices whose sole purpose is the killing of humans. The intended utilization of this purpose is in the act of self-defense. Since you're objecting to them being called toys, I won't even talk about gun collectors who just like taking them to shooting ranges and generally treating them like, well, adult toys. Though if all you wanted to do was shoot targets, airsoft guns will do that for you.

Here's the thing: the likelihood of being put into a situation where a firearm would be necessary for self defense is incredibly small. Looking at the pure numbers, you're far more likely to die of high cholesterol or an automobile accident. However, the statistically more significant threats to our mortal coil are treated with such laissez-faire that we need things like laws to stop people from texting while driving and forcing them to wear seat-belts. Hell, you're a great deal more likely to die choking on food than being murdered in some sort of violent altercation.

And yet, you claim to own multiple guns. So does my dad and literally every other gun owner I am personally aware of. Statistically, individuals who own guns in the country are dropping off, but the number of privately owned guns is going up; gun owners like owning lots of guns. Why? Well, because guns are extensions of power. They appeal to a very core element in human makeup; a strong emotional need for power and the sense of control. We live in mortal fear of home invaders, and yet I'm willing to bet most people reading this haven't seriously considered what they would do if they suddenly started choking on something, right now, if they were alone.

The statistics don't bear out the need for there being so many privately owned guns. We're just not put in those mortally dangerous violent situations enough. And yet people are desperately fighting for the right to unfettered access to guns. They're chasing the feels. They're looking for that illusion of power, that fantasy of one day maybe being put into a desperate scenario where they will be prepared. We know, rationally, that this almost never happens. I can't think of a single spree shooter of the top of my head who was stopped by a privately carrying citizen, despite the colossal amount of privately owned guns.

Baseless? Hell, this is the second time I've gone over this stuff. I don't think you have the right to call it baseless. I think you're just dodging the conversation because you can feel it there. I've touched on something; you know that statistically, you as a gun owner are perhaps in greater danger than myself, but you ignore it because of how owning a gun makes you feel. I'm not even suggesting that it's a bad thing. It's just a human thing. Where's the shame in that?

itsthesheppy:

And yet, you claim to own multiple guns. So does my dad and literally every other gun owner I am personally aware of. Statistically, individuals who own guns in the country are dropping off, but the number of privately owned guns is going up; gun owners like owning lots of guns. Why? Well, because guns are extensions of power. They appeal to a very core element in human makeup; a strong emotional need for power and the sense of control. We live in mortal fear of home invaders, and yet I'm willing to bet most people reading this haven't seriously considered what they would do if they suddenly started choking on something, right now, if they were alone.

And here is the problem again. You have zero basis in which to make this claim. You have only presented your own postulations as if they were true. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Also, "individuals who own guns in the country are dropping off, but the number of privately owned guns is going up" is false.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

A high of 54 and a low of 40 with a current mark at 47 and 12 out of 15 years being within 5 points of each other. With the exception of a handful of temporary fluctuations in different demographics, the rate of gun ownership per household is pretty consistent, which doesn't even bring in the factor of population increase, which would actually skew it in favor of more households having guns than before if anything. Gun ownership per household probably doesn't come out to be exactly the same as gun ownership per individual, but it's still more than what you've provided.

Also, I'm not pointing this out as a good thing. I hate the proliferation of weapons and how easy they are to get. I'm pointing this out to show how, once again, you have nothing to show for what you're saying.

They're looking for that illusion of power, that fantasy of one day maybe being put into a desperate scenario where they will be prepared. We know, rationally, that this almost never happens. I can't think of a single spree shooter of the top of my head who was stopped by a privately carrying citizen, despite the colossal amount of privately owned guns.

More baseless assertions coming from the strawman you've constructed in your own head. You've yet to show anything.

Baseless? Hell, this is the second time I've gone over this stuff. I don't think you have the right to call it baseless. I think you're just dodging the conversation because you can feel it there. I've touched on something; you know that statistically, you as a gun owner are perhaps in greater danger than myself, but you ignore it because of how owning a gun makes you feel. I'm not even suggesting that it's a bad thing. It's just a human thing. Where's the shame in that?

You mean those guns I don't even keep in my house and only take out when I go to the range? If you touched on anything it's my frustration with people on my own side in this debate who end up sabotaging us with ridiculous claims.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:

And yet, you claim to own multiple guns. So does my dad and literally every other gun owner I am personally aware of. Statistically, individuals who own guns in the country are dropping off, but the number of privately owned guns is going up; gun owners like owning lots of guns. Why? Well, because guns are extensions of power. They appeal to a very core element in human makeup; a strong emotional need for power and the sense of control. We live in mortal fear of home invaders, and yet I'm willing to bet most people reading this haven't seriously considered what they would do if they suddenly started choking on something, right now, if they were alone.

And here is the problem again. You have zero basis in which to make this claim. You have only presented your own postulations as if they were true. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Also, "individuals who own guns in the country are dropping off, but the number of privately owned guns is going up" is false.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

A high of 54 and a low of 40 with a current mark at 47 and 12 out of 15 years being within 5 points of each other. With the exception of a handful of temporary fluctuations in different demographics, the rate of gun ownership per household is pretty consistent, which doesn't even bring in the factor of population increase, which would actually skew it in favor of more households having guns than before if anything. Gun ownership per household probably doesn't come out to be exactly the same as gun ownership per individual, but it's still more than what you've provided.

Also, I'm not pointing this out as a good thing. I hate the proliferation of weapons and how easy they are to get. I'm pointing this out to show how, once again, you have nothing to show for what you're saying.

They're looking for that illusion of power, that fantasy of one day maybe being put into a desperate scenario where they will be prepared. We know, rationally, that this almost never happens. I can't think of a single spree shooter of the top of my head who was stopped by a privately carrying citizen, despite the colossal amount of privately owned guns.

More baseless assertions coming from the strawman you've constructed in your own head. You've yet to show anything.

Baseless? Hell, this is the second time I've gone over this stuff. I don't think you have the right to call it baseless. I think you're just dodging the conversation because you can feel it there. I've touched on something; you know that statistically, you as a gun owner are perhaps in greater danger than myself, but you ignore it because of how owning a gun makes you feel. I'm not even suggesting that it's a bad thing. It's just a human thing. Where's the shame in that?

You mean those guns I don't even keep in my house and only take out when I go to the range? If you touched on anything it's my frustration with people on my own side in this debate who end up sabotaging us with ridiculous claims.

Why not an airsoft gun? They're cheaper, you can fire projectiles out of them. If all you like doing is target shooting, why not a (staggeringly) cheaper alternative that accomplishes the same goal?

itsthesheppy:

Why not an airsoft gun? They're cheaper, you can fire projectiles out of them. If all you like doing is target shooting, why not a (staggeringly) cheaper alternative that accomplishes the same goal?

When I initially bought them it was so I could practice qualifying with them. I haven't been doing it as much lately simply because of time. I've always wanted to take a big bag of empty soda cans into the woods and plink them off some logs. In which case I would probably get a cheap airsoft with that. It's pretty much what they're made for. If I had more time and disposable income I'd do that and grab a shotgun to go shoot clay pidgeons with my grandpa. If I were smart I'd invest in something for longer range shooting, as it'd help me with everything else, but that definitely requires more money than I want to spend on it right now.

Strazdas:

psijac:

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22122000/Capture.PNG

So you are comparing gun deaths in 3rd world country with a gruop of 1st world countries, of which USA is in far lead, and claim moral highground on gun violence being low in USA and then you still tell him he is intellectually dishonest?
Gota love those gun apologist, will do anything to ignore the facts.

psijac:
My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun

Thats because a handgun is the easiest weapon to obtain and conceal.

The creator of the original chart felt compelled to specifically point out that he was excluding mexico. Why? WHy is he trying to hide something from me. I would have had no problem had he just left it out and called it a day. Why tell me, "This is a chart of every place I think is awesome, I think mexico is awesome too but I am going to leave it out because it ruins my narrative"

If the vast majority of crime is cause by a handgun and clearly you would agree with that statement, then you have to concede that banning military looking rifles won't a vast majority of crime.

Here is a historical graph of murder rate for both the US and England. Looks like England is quite civilized no? Notice that before any guns laws came about the US murder rate was always higher than the England.

image

Here is a graph of England by itself, notice Murder peaked in 2003 and that was after the gun ban in 1997(gun law introduction noted by the white lines). Its almost as murders are caused by factors unrelated to gun laws! gasp!
image

Some of you will say hey at least England is doing better than the US. That is a bullshit answer. That is like saying Hey at least the US is doing better than Mexico, which several people have called me out on earlier (welcome to my trap card)
I am sure no one on this board from the UK or not would consider an increase in murder a good thing with the caveat that at least its less than the USA. We will always want less murder even if there is only one murder we still want less.

The longer we blame guns or movies or violent videogames on our societies ills the longer it will take for us to realize the true source of our suffer and end it.

psijac:

The longer we blame guns or movies or violent videogames on our societies ills the longer it will take for us to realize the true source of our suffer and end it.

What then, would you say is the cause of the gun violence in America?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that idea that homicide/suicide are largely societal issues (Guns don't kill, motives do.), but that doesn't pinpoint the source.

psijac:
snip

i may be wrong but i think the 2003 blip is due to harold shipman, who killed over a long period of time and all the deaths were registered in 2003.

Sounds like Harold Shipman had a lot of guns, if he did not you kinda proved my point about gun control not having a tangible effect on murder

Kopikatsu:

psijac:

The longer we blame guns or movies or violent videogames on our societies ills the longer it will take for us to realize the true source of our suffer and end it.

What then, would you say is the cause of the gun violence in America?

Gun violence is a misnomer, it implies the violence would be gone if there was no gun. Violence with a gun should not be considered anymore sick or perverse than violence without a gun, the sickness like in the heart of the person who chose to commit violence not the gun. Yes a gun is intended to as a tool that can kill, but even then it is surprisingly bad that that job. According to Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio, a former medical examiner who wrote a book on gunshot wounds, 80 percent of the targets on the body are not fatal places to be shot. And if you're shot and you get to a hospital with your heart still beating, there's a 95 percent chance of survival.

I would say poverty. Connecticut had very high levels of unemployment when Adman Lanza carried out his attack. If he had a job he probably would have chosen to attack at his workplace like what was so common in the 90s. I admit this is pure conjecture

Also over crowded cities, population centers with greater than 250,000 people have significantly higher crime rates than rural areas

Kopikatsu:

psijac:

The longer we blame guns or movies or violent videogames on our societies ills the longer it will take for us to realize the true source of our suffer and end it.

What then, would you say is the cause of the gun violence in America?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that idea that homicide/suicide are largely societal issues (Guns don't kill, motives do.), but that doesn't pinpoint the source.

Gangs, and the cartels that support them.

Its that simple. We take so much drugs, and we don't care who we pay to get them.

Even if the money we give ends up in the hands of cartel who take pot shots at children leaving schools for fun.

But we can't fight cartels, because that would be a bloody battle and America likes to pick on enemies who have no teeth to bite back with. Cartels have the same weapons as the US special forces, just for reference.

Kopikatsu:

Nikolaz72:

Schadrach:
I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

I hear that a school shooting in the US killed everyone present, and that a same-time school-stabbing in China didn't.

You hear a lot of things.

And I hear that school shootings account for something like 0.00002% of the total deaths in the US for any given year. So I guess you do hear a lot of things.

We aren't talking school shootings though, we are talking general lethality. Also, the argument was never a concern that guns might cause a fatal fall in population, the concern is that they do more harm than they do good. Which such stats, you-know. Comparing them to other countries with stricter control/half to about a quarter the deaths in terms of homicide can potentially show.

If they do more harm than they do good when and they are freely available to everyone that wants one, then stricter control may be in order.

Which is what the entire discussions that's been going on for over two hundred years and won't end in the next thousands has been about.

Just in case you were confused which argument we were having. People aren't just numbers, Homicides and Suicide is, in terms of deaths. More special to us than forest-fire's earthquakes, thunderstorms and war-casualties (That still hit us hard) The reason for this is that, that someone had to make the decision.

And countless of evidence shows that giving the person making the decision a few extra hurdles, can prevent the ordeal all-together. And whereas a gun might easily kill another person or yourself instantaneously without even putting yourself in the way of harm, knives have a... Habit of not being as effective. As shown by the mass-stabbings compared to the mass-shootings. With the mass stabbing typically hitting far less, and killing next to none. And the shootings hitting dozens and killing near everything hit.

That's the point of guns. They are really good at killing things. A useful tool if used in the right hands, a recipe for disaster if it falls into the wrong ones. I don't trust the general public with guns, that is my opinion and I stand by it. I realize America is much different, as such in regards to them I generally argue that better regulation might in and of itself do wonders, the entire traffic-accident argument was set up for this purpose.

*clears throat*

It was to compare Cars to Guns, now mind you. There was a specific reason I chose to do this, and not because I personally thought it the 'best' comparison. It is because in the past Gun Control opponents that I have had the pleasure of dealing with have often used, in an argument in which gun-control supporters would raise suggestions for strict gun-control, they would raise that we should ban personal vehicles on account of drunk driving accidents being the cause of more casualties than homicides by guns, it was a faulty comparison back then, I admit. It still is now.

But as this argument is lost, and homicides by guns now cause more deaths than drunk driving accidents (Cars as a whole in fact). . . Maybe this is not enough evidence to warrant strict control as in most of the civilized world. But maybe looking into the regulations and safety-standard enforced upon the personal vehicles, and then enforce the same degree of standards upon small-arms dealers would not be an absolutely terrible idea. I believe it might even save some lives if we knew everyone with a gun knew, how to use it, knew when to use it, and of-course, when NOT to use it. Health checks and regular requirement for re-evaluating the license as a whole, would give people with guns a constant reminder that they are in fact holding things that are capable of killing at a moments notice, I think too many forget that. Especially the ones whom would put such weapons in the hands of their small children because they are 'awesome' and 'cool'. And brand it an unpreventable tragic accident when death occurs.

Kopikatsu:

psijac:

The longer we blame guns or movies or violent videogames on our societies ills the longer it will take for us to realize the true source of our suffer and end it.

What then, would you say is the cause of the gun violence in America?

Guns? :P

Schadrach:
I hate to say this, but your charts disregard an important thing, in order to make the desired point -- a gun homicide that ceases to have a gun doesn't cease to be a homicide -- instead it becomes a knife homicide, or a bludgeoning homicide, or a vehicular homicide, or a drowning, or whatever.

In certain cases, where the intent is murder that might hold some water. Making that a general statement however is a rather tall claim. Effort is a force of deterrence for all but the most determined.

Instead of counting "gun homicides", why don't you look at total rate of homicide scaled to population and gun homicide as a subset of that number? Oh, yeah, because it doesn't show the US as dramatically more violent than everywhere else in the world except maybe Mexico -- it just shows that someone looking to kill another person will generally choose the best tool available to them to do so, and in the US that's often guns. In comparison, I hear beating your victim to death is comparatively popular in Japan, and blades and shivs of every variety are all the rage in China.

Did you actually check those statistics? 2/3 of homicides in the US is gun violence (at a rate of 3.6/100,000/year). The US firearm homicide rate alone is 2-3 times higher than the total homicide rates in many European countries.

Homicide is extremely unpopular in Japan. China, despite the radical social transformation it's going through and the tensions that come with it still only has a homicide rate of 1.0.

As for guns being the best tool to murder people, that's our point.

US homicide rates
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Homicide rates around the world (source is UNODC, linked on top of the list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate#By_country

psijac:
[snip]

If you are going to make statements of 'fact' please provide sources.

You appear to not be very well informed on this subject and do not understand the complexity of the subject matter.

For example;

psijac:
The murder trend began going down before the 1994 assault weapons ban.

No it did not.

The only time in the last 50 years that the US homicide rate has risen above 34,000 is 1991 and 1993.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

psijac:
And the trend continued even after the assault weapons ban expired.

Did the rate of decline remain the same or decrease?

psijac:
Studies show the AWB had no significant effect on crime,

Have you actually read a study on the AWB 1994?

If you have, why do you not understand what the AWB actually banned?

If you haven't, how can you argue it had no effect?

I recommend Koper's study (revised in 2004).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

psijac:
because crime are committed with handguns not rifle class weapons.

The AWB also banned handguns and shotguns, not just rifles.

Prior to the AWB ~5% of firearm crime was committed with firearms banned under the AWB and ~20% with LCMs covered under the AWB.

As Koper states the AWB had difficulty achieving the stated objectives due to the grandfathered weapons.

psijac:
While gun violence has gone up slightly murder is still trending downward.

Correlation does not imply causation...

Do you understand how statistical analysis works? Do you understand what an instrumental variable is?

AgedGrunt:
[snip]

I used the same proof of correlation to causation that the OP did.

I just thought it was funny he chose the year those 2 major pieces of firearm control were introduced (approx.).

I have posted a link to the most highly regarded study into the AWB 1993 (Koper's 2004 revision), so I am familiar with the results and the reason for those results.

Nikolaz72:

But as this argument is lost, and homicides by guns now cause more deaths than drunk driving accidents (Cars as a whole in fact). . .

No they arent. The FBI is clear on this. Deaths by firearms have been dropping, fast. In 2007, the amount of people killed by gun homicide was 10,129 (out of 14,916 homicides) . In 2008, it was 9,528 (out of14,224). 2009, 9,199 (out of 13, 752). 2010, 8,874 (out of 13,164). 2011, 8,583 (out of 12,664). And the prelims for 2012 show that yes, violent crime (but not murder) went up........by 2% (while murder went down by 2%). That really nothing to be obsessing over, that is just a normal increase that will likely go down next year. So it would appear your graph is lying.

Then again, that doesnt suprise me. I mean, it was put out by Micheal Bloomberg, and he has been know to fudge the numbers to fit his own goals.

OT: Of course, my little rant shows exactly what I assumed would happen with this topic. The ones who want guns to remain legal would say "Well of course they will" while those who are against will say "Except they are wrong, heres info that says otherwise *quotes anti-gun source*." Then now here I am saying "Except this says that we are fine *quotes neutral source*."

BOOM headshot65:
Snip

Bloomberg is an independent and OECD is definitely Neutral. And so is UNOEDC.

Sorry mate, just cannot agree with you here. Just because you 'say' someone is scewing the numbers and is biased doesn't necessarily make it so. From my point of view he is a person whose been both in the Democrat party 'and' in the Republican party and is now in none, known for running a centrist financial paper. Probably as neutral as it gets on the American political scene.

BOOM headshot65:
Pro guns does *States incredibly positive portrayal of the intellectually dishonest OP and Willy* whereas Anti guns does *States incredibly negative portrayal of opposition with no factual basis*

Aren't you yourself being obscenely biased in the very post in which you accused the opposition of being biased?

Ehem, I am willing to concede that we know not yet whether numbers will keep rising or falling, but as 'predictions' are always made with the current trend in mind, it's on the rise. And even if not so, cars are getting safer every year and as such the numbers of deaths caused by those keeps falling, so either way by 2015 (Probably even before) if America doesn't just loose guns altogether forcing people to stab/beat eachother to a pulp, it is a certainty that it will be the cause of more death than cars. Which we can use for absolutely nothing, bar the point that perhaps a larger emphasis on control and regulation should be placed on guns as to put them to the same standard as cars. Regular health-checks/written exam/practical exam/renewal at regular intervals Isn't a huge requirement in return for being able to carry... Well. Arms.

It's really amazing that you have to go through so much to drive a car for the very reason that you want to prevent fatalities, but aren't willing to do the same to guns, that. Unlike Cars, does not have a useful function besides killing things.

psijac:

dmase:
snip

At least have the courtesy to read the links I provided you clearly did not or you have the reading comprehension of new born kitten Guns rust and breakdown over time given long enough there will be no more $100 Lorcin pistols to even buy. It was a terrible built pistol in the first place, how much quality can you crank out of $100 worth of gun?

I don't believe one story is indicators of a rampant trend. The ATF loves to too their own horn and will do so every chance they get. just because it is in one newspaper and one progun control site. That story didn't even register on huffpo. why not cite infowars.com next?

250 people is not an accurate sampling size if you believe that why not just 100 people why not just 10?

The toomey-Manchin bill is dead and probably won't come back. A new background check law could be presented, but we don't know how it will be written or what could be in it, the sky is the limit, they could ban gun show all together. Which might be a ban on the right to peaceably assemble but whatever floats your boat.

I read your link and gave you a rebuttal if you don't like the facts then continue to ignore them fine with me.

During the election they had just as large swings in percentage + or - 5% to say there is a plus or minus 6 is not that extreme. Not to mention the scores where weighted so I'd have to look at the direct data for the study to see what their actual swing in percentages would actually be, it could be six or it could be less based on how they weighted their data.

So lets talk about whether guns can be sold for a profit. Gun dealing is a huge market and straw purchasers are a big part of it.

Profit.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/price-of-illegal-guns-soaring-here-in-wake/42677/

Straw purchasers.

http://www.policeissues.com/Sources.pdf

And ATF on the illegal gun market.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

The ATF would like a win and smudging the numbers to show their working would be preferable to saying holy shit look how many illegal guns are being passed right under our noses. There really isn't a more demonized federal agency that is meant to protect a populace for their lies? Or for their honesty in the problem?

I don't think you answered my question about the toomey bill. Did you agree with it's wording, did it sufficiently cover the bases you find important. Also you can thank the NRA for any future more restrictive gun laws, seriously the universal background check bill was the bare minimum and the compromise and now that option is pretty much gone.

Magenera:

dmase:

Verbatim:

Enough with the gun shows already, if a background check is not required in that state gun show or not it wont happen, if it does it will happen in a gun show too. Even private individuals require to run a background check if they transfer a firearm in a state that requires it.

There is a federal requirement for FFL sellers to run background checks this is not the case for gun shows thus gun show loophole. Only FIVE states require that gunshows also run background checks, there should be a federal law mandating all gunshows in every state do this.

Federal law states that FFL must do background checks everywhere they operate including gun shows. A state can pass a law to include private sellers, but to call it a loop-hole would be stupid. There's no loop-hole, just one not liking private sales being done with out background checks.

The definition of a loophole: an ambiguity, omission, etc., as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility.

To avoid a background check you can avoid an FFL dealer at a gun show and instead by from an unlicensed dealer in most states. To be clear loopholes can be designed to never be closed or even voted on, exhibit A, tax code.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

So THAT'S is why Republicans aren't doing so well in California! XD

Nikolaz72:

Bloomberg is an independent and OECD is definitely Neutral. And so is UNOEDC.

Sorry mate, just cannot agree with you here. Just because you 'say' someone is scewing the numbers and is biased doesn't necessarily make it so. From my point of view he is a person whose been both in the Democrat party 'and' in the Republican party and is now in none, known for running a centrist financial paper. Probably as neutral as it gets on the American political scene.

Yes, I know that Bloomberg is Independant. That puts him in the same catagory as Bill O'Reilly and Toby Keith[1]. That doesnt change the fact that most Independants are still partisan and just dont want to sign on to a party, and looking at Bloombergs stances, he is very much Left leaning.

Aren't you yourself being obscenely biased in the very post in which you accused the opposition of being biased?

Thats what you got from that?

Then apparently I didnt present what I was trying to say quite clearly enough. Because I wasnt trying to say "Ha! Look at me and my non-partisan ship. Now watch as I engage in Epic sterotyping of the opposition and and insane partisanship." I was TRYING to say that everyone in this debate is biased and trying to stereotype everyone. At least I am trying to be somewhat neutral. Thats why I used the FBI database and stayed away from ANYTHING that was "pro-gun" (even though I support the NRA, as does most of my state). But I will say all day that "Guns dont kill people. People kill people" and that they should remain right were they are: In civilian hands.

Ehem, I am willing to concede that we know not yet whether numbers will keep rising or falling, but as 'predictions' are always made with the current trend in mind, it's on the rise. And even if not so, cars are getting safer every year and as such the numbers of deaths caused by those keeps falling, so either way by 2015 (Probably even before) if America doesn't just loose guns altogether forcing people to stab/beat eachother to a pulp, it is a certainty that it will be the cause of more death than cars. Which we can use for absolutely nothing, bar the point that perhaps a larger emphasis on control and regulation should be placed on guns as to put them to the same standard as cars. Regular health-checks/written exam/practical exam/renewal at regular intervals Isn't a huge requirement in return for being able to carry... Well. Arms.

I dont know, I think its fine the way it is now. Oh sure, expand those background checks to gun shows, or better yet, do what that one senator from Oklahoma suggested and make the database internet accessable so people can do thier background checks ahead of tiime and bring in a code saying they. But I think its a terrible idea to regulate guns in the same ways as cars.

Also, looking at your graph again, I just noticed something. Your graph is apparently old, because the point where it starts its prediction is at 2011, and it shows it going up. But then the data from the FBI says that it was dropping in 2011 and 2012. It was also dropping in 2010 too, but that graph shows it going up. So I stand by my statement that Bloomberg is engaging in "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." As for the other one, sure, if you only look at guns, then we are highest. But I choose not to look at guns, and at all murders, which puts us on about the same footing as the Europe. Because as someone said earlier, homicides dont disappear just because there was no gun. It just turns into a knife homicide instead.

It's really amazing that you have to go through so much to drive a car for the very reason that you want to prevent fatalities, but aren't willing to do the same to guns, that. Unlike Cars, does not have a useful function besides killing things.

Theres a quote by Werner Von Braun that I think would be relevant here (he was talking about science when he said this, but still): "Its like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon and a criminal, each will use it differently."

What people on here (or in Urban USA) dont seem to get is that the vast, vast, VAST majority of guns in the country are used in completely legal ways. It is very unlikely to that you will be the victum of gun crimes unless you go to a bad area of a BIG city or join a gang, because most of the people killed live in those areas. The gettos and slums. And thats not a problem of guns, that a problem of people strung out on drugs killing and stealing from others for thier next fix. Or joining the gang so they can get thier next fix and then getting shot in a turf war. If you stay away from those situations, you will be fine.

How do I know this?

My state of Kansas has some of the laxest laws in the country, and while many people here are "poor" with the average income being somewhere around $25,000 per capata. However, the cost of living is so low here that few people are actually poor. Then we have the lax laws. Automatic weapons are legal. Bullets up to 40mm in diameter are legal. Bazookas and other explosives are legal (but you need permission from the local fire department and 20+ acres of land to set them off due to the fire hazard). You can even own TANKS!! in the state, but you cant drive them on the road (only if they have tracks), and if the main gun is over 40mm (read: most tanks), then the main gun must be disabled. But you can still have it. Whats our murder rate? 2.1 per 100,000. And thats ALL murder, not just guns. And this puts us well below the national average of 4.1 per 100,000.

So excuse me for thinking guns are not a problem.

[1] Obviously not the only ones, just the ones that I could think of off the top of my head

BOOM headshot65:
and at all murders, which puts us on about the same footing as the Europe. Because as someone said earlier, homicides dont disappear just because there was no gun. It just turns into a knife homicide instead.

No it doesn't, like.. Really no it doesn't. Usually I try to rebute but like, really.. I mean. How did you reach that conclusion? If you look at the overall picture its 'twice' that of most of Europe.

image
image

I would post more sources and actual links but.. I think you're mixing up 'looking at the bigger picture' with all those NRA statistics that just outright remove guns from the equation. Which mind you, isn't looking at the big picture. Just the

Notice how they not only took out guns, but also all crime commited by black people and hispanics and native americans. Huge parts of the American lowerclass, while not taking out the Canadian Lowerclass.

Also, if you wanted to know. The underspecified weapon is machineguns/assault rifles, and actual unspecified weapons. Hence why America is so much higher, it's not like American Murderers use blowdolls and other heavily improvised weapons more than other countries, considering how little reason they have to.

So, ehem. Canada has ofcourse a bit more stabbing/beating going on, but 'If' we are to follow your logic, and I don't suspect following your own logic and proving you wrong will change your opinion on guns. But following your logic, the US have chosen to trade 2 murder by stabbing/beating for 6 murders by guns. How is this in any feasible way an equal trade?

I don't think you said what you did, deliberately so I won't try to rub it in. You were most likely fooled.

Note: As for your surgeon example, you simply restated my point. Knives has other uses than killing, guns do not. Same analogy, different dangerous item.

If not in the hands of a surgeon, a knife may also be used to cut meat, rope, vegetables or cut other things that we might use for things for other things than killing.

Edit: Wait, here's another one. And this one has the EU average printed on to it for 'your' convenience. Only reason I posted it.

image

A gun cannot create, nor improve, nor heal. It's made to destroy, and unlike you whom consider it a blessing I think of it as a curse. I would really not want such a thing forced upon me and my system, endangering my family and those close to me under the guise of it being a 'right'

In case Washingtonpost is considered a valid source, all things considered it's been used by rightwingers on the forum all the time.

image

As Kopikatsu said earlier, no. Mass-shootings don't make up a whole lot of the total gun-deaths, but I still wanted to post it to disprove those whom would claim that the guns used in such shootings are acquired illegally, always.

Ehem, the last part wasn't pointed at you. Just tripped over it while find OECD/Washington/Other Neutral sources.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked