downwardspiral 0 #51 February 24, 2009 QuoteThe average person has a very low probability I would really like to know what makes you think you have the authority to know whats best for every individual out there when it comes to self defense. What makes you think you know what MY circumstances are? How about the little old lady who lives in the ghetto because her only income is social security? Want to disarm her too? How about the guy and his family who live 30 minutes from the nearest police station? Take their guns and tell them to move closer to the city? How about the woman who lives by herself and an exboyfriend is turning out to be a stalker? Tell her to get a dog? Or do you really think the police can protect her? I had a gang banger climb on my roof and attempt to open my bedroom window one night while I was asleep. This was thanks to my dumbass (now former) roommate who decided to call the cops on them because they were partying too loud. I didn't have a gun at the time but you better believe I have one now since it wasn't MY choice to put myself in danger. I don't even live in the ghetto but as it turns out some gang bangers aren't dirt poor. The fact of the matter is you DO NOT have any authority what so ever to decide what is best for me or anyone else.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #52 February 24, 2009 QuoteI would really like to know what makes you think you have the authority to know whats best for every individual out there when it comes to self defense. Never said I did. I said that statistically people and their families are safer without a gun in the house. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do what you think is best for any specific situation. Where'd you get that? Some folks seem very confused on the subject. Of course there are specific circumstances where the gun is a good idea. Those specific circumstances simply do not apply to most people. Most people can live their entire lives and never encounter those circumstances at all.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 February 24, 2009 Quote Never said I did. I said that statistically people and their families are safer without a gun in the house. Yes, you said that. Not quite the same as it being true, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #54 February 24, 2009 Please detail the facts in this report that you feel are untrue. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;105/4/888.pdfquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #55 February 24, 2009 Well now. Proof that even the most idiotic bilge is all that's needed to kick off the same old point-counterpoint (which of course nobody's ever heard before). Why even waste the time embarrassing yourself? Just barf out "GUNS!!"; then go get the popcorn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 February 24, 2009 QuotePlease detail the facts in this report that you feel are untrue. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;105/4/888.pdf I answered that when I asked if you were deliberately misleading or not. Self defense is not about killing intruders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #57 February 24, 2009 Quote Quote Next you're going to say that I don't count. I believe you've placed yourself in those positions. The average person has a very low probability that they will ever have an armed criminal break into his home while he is there and somehow thwart the criminal with his gun. That was the side issue being discussed, not the probability of a law enforcement officer drawing his weapon. Not sure why you focus on an intruder with a gun. I don't care if the bad guy has a gun or not. If he comes into a home, he's gonna get shot. Man I love Texas.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #58 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI would really like to know what makes you think you have the authority to know whats best for every individual out there when it comes to self defense. Never said I did. I said that statistically people and their families are safer without a gun in the house. Can you provide some evidence of that?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI would really like to know what makes you think you have the authority to know whats best for every individual out there when it comes to self defense. Never said I did. I said that statistically people and their families are safer without a gun in the house. Can you provide some evidence of that? Probably based off Kellerman's "43 times" bullshit - most of the AMA stuff regarding guns is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #60 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote ... Well... Criminals, and the police. We rely on the state to keep us safe... And in my opinion, they are doing that quite well. It's too bad the justice system in the U.S. can't seem to do that. Cops are overworked and the courts don't bury the bad guys like they should. The result is that if a person in the U.S. wants to stay safe, they must take it upon themselves. And for that, we have the second amendment (which some want to take away). Ehm... a couple of unfounded assumptions here. You assume that harsher sentences would in some way cut down crime. The incarceration rate in the US is approximately five times that of the average European country (source). At the same time your gun laws are a lot looser. However, your homicide rate is still nearly seven times higher than in Denmark as the_sarge posted. I consequently see no evidence for neither of your assumptions. I will give you this, though. The strict gun laws make sense here because it has always been so. There just aren't that many guns around. In the US, on the other hand, you have had hand-guns floating around forever. There you are right that it shouldn't pose too much of a problem for a criminal to get hold of a firearm. I guess what I am saying is that loose gun laws make sense in the US because there are so many bloody guns everywhere. On the other hand I am perfectly content with the Danish rules... in Denmark. For the interested reader Buying a gun is not that difficult. It will be stored in your gun club. To store it in your home you need to have been a member of a gun club for two years and the board of your club need to co-sign your application for a permit Storage is in a safe Carry permits practically don't exist. A firearm must always be disassembled when being transported (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) For the record, I like shooting hand-guns myself. Preferably revolvers.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #61 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote ... Well... Criminals, and the police. We rely on the state to keep us safe... And in my opinion, they are doing that quite well. It's too bad the justice system in the U.S. can't seem to do that. Cops are overworked and the courts don't bury the bad guys like they should. The result is that if a person in the U.S. wants to stay safe, they must take it upon themselves. And for that, we have the second amendment (which some want to take away). Ehm... a couple of unfounded assumptions here. You assume that harsher sentences would in some way cut down crime. The incarceration rate in the US is approximately five times that of the average European country (source). At the same time your gun laws are a lot looser. However, your homicide rate is still nearly seven times higher than in Denmark as the_sarge posted. I consequently see no evidence for neither of your assumptions. I will give you this, though. The strict gun laws make sense here because it has always been so. There just aren't that many guns around. In the US, on the other hand, you have had hand-guns floating around forever. There you are right that it shouldn't pose too much of a problem for a criminal to get hold of a firearm. I guess what I am saying is that loose gun laws make sense in the US because there are so many bloody guns everywhere. On the other hand I am perfectly content with the Danish rules... in Denmark. For the interested reader Buying a gun is not that difficult. It will be stored in your gun club. To store it in your home you need to have been a member of a gun club for two years and the board of your club need to co-sign your application for a permit Storage is in a safe Carry permits practically don't exist. A firearm must always be disassembled when being transported (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) For the record, I like shooting hand-guns myself. Preferably revolvers. It has been well documented that harsher sentencing deters criminals. Even though there are more people locked up in the U.S. than other countries, you must consider things like population, and why they are in jail. With 300 million people, it stands to reason that there would be more people in jail in the U.S. than in a country 1/10 the size. And the vast majority of people in U.S. prisons are there for drug crimes, not murder by gun. An armed society is a polite society.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 February 24, 2009 Quote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W.... I think the magnum trumps the wider diameter on most of these. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #65 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ... Well... Criminals, and the police. We rely on the state to keep us safe... And in my opinion, they are doing that quite well. It's too bad the justice system in the U.S. can't seem to do that. Cops are overworked and the courts don't bury the bad guys like they should. The result is that if a person in the U.S. wants to stay safe, they must take it upon themselves. And for that, we have the second amendment (which some want to take away). Ehm... a couple of unfounded assumptions here. You assume that harsher sentences would in some way cut down crime. The incarceration rate in the US is approximately five times that of the average European country (source). At the same time your gun laws are a lot looser. However, your homicide rate is still nearly seven times higher than in Denmark as the_sarge posted. I consequently see no evidence for neither of your assumptions. I will give you this, though. The strict gun laws make sense here because it has always been so. There just aren't that many guns around. In the US, on the other hand, you have had hand-guns floating around forever. There you are right that it shouldn't pose too much of a problem for a criminal to get hold of a firearm. I guess what I am saying is that loose gun laws make sense in the US because there are so many bloody guns everywhere. On the other hand I am perfectly content with the Danish rules... in Denmark. For the interested reader Buying a gun is not that difficult. It will be stored in your gun club. To store it in your home you need to have been a member of a gun club for two years and the board of your club need to co-sign your application for a permit Storage is in a safe Carry permits practically don't exist. A firearm must always be disassembled when being transported (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) For the record, I like shooting hand-guns myself. Preferably revolvers. It has been well documented that harsher sentencing deters criminals. Even though there are more people locked up in the U.S. than other countries, you must consider things like population, and why they are in jail. With 300 million people, it stands to reason that there would be more people in jail in the U.S. than in a country 1/10 the size. And the vast majority of people in U.S. prisons are there for drug crimes, not murder by gun. . You seem to be having a little problem there with the concept of "rate". I guess you're saying that Americans are just plain nastier people than Europeans.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #66 February 24, 2009 QuoteIt has been well documented that harsher sentencing deters criminals. “Well-documented” by whom? Various studies show that mandatory sentencing does not have a significant deterrent effect on crime. “Many [studies] show no change in deterrent effect. Those that purport to show a deterrent effect commonly have persuasive non-deterrence explanations, such as a change in incapacitative effect. The few studies that segregate deterrent and incapacitative effects tend to reinforce the conclusion that rule formulation has a deterrent effect only in those unusual situations in which the preconditions to deterrence exist. Even there, the deterrent effects are quite minor and unpredictable, hence inadequate grounds to influence criminal law rule making.” "We find no evidence that imprisonment reduces the likelihood of recidivism. Instead, we find compelling evidence that offenders who are sentenced to prison have higher rates of recidivism and recidivate more quickly than do offenders placed on probation." Incapacitation has more effect -- relatively --than harsher criminal sentences. But ... "The Lethal Effects of Three-Strikes Laws"Three-strikes laws provide very long prison terms for certain criminals with prior convictions of serious violent crimes. It is likely that the laws increase homicides because a few criminals, fearing the enhanced penalties, murder victims and witnesses to limit resistance and identification. With a state-level multiple-time-series design, we find that the [Three Strikes] laws are associated with 10–12 percent more homicides in the short run and 23–29 percent in the long run. The impact occurs in almost all 24 states with three-strikes laws. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the laws have any compensating crime reduction impact through deterrence or incapacitation. How well has harsher sentencing worked in deterring illegal drug use, ilegal drug sale, or illegal drug distribution? There’s a wealth of data to mine. Don’t worry – we all know: you don’t care. It’s hard to have a dialogue with you when you’ve acknowledged you don’t/won’t respond constructively or relevently. The information is available for those who want it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #67 February 24, 2009 Quote... a little problem there with the concept of "rate". I guess you're saying that Americans are just plain nastier people than Europeans. You bring up, perhaps inadvertantly ... perhaps not, a related issue: relative incarceration rates. Why is it that the US has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners? [url http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal]Absolute number of prisoners by nation-state: USA 2.3M China 1.6M Russia 0.9M Comparative incarceration rates: USA 737 per 100,000 people Russia's 611 per 100,000 St. Kitts and Nevis' 547 per 100,000 (that's adjusted, as they don't have a population of 100,000) Perhaps we enforce laws better? Perhaps we have better trained and rewarded monetarily lawyers as prosecutors than most nation-states, i.e., we have a cultural value that considers enforcement of criminal law important therefore reward those who prosecute? (How much do we pay our police officers, tho'?) Are we more restrictive and creating more laws that one could break? Do we just have more law breakers? One hypothesis put forward by Dave Grossman is that it's due to exposure to television and video game violence: "Trained to Kill: Are We Conditioning Our Children to Commit Murder?" (Btw, that's the same Dave Grossman, Lt Col USA (ret) that popularized the sheepdog/sheep/wolf metaphor.) He presents a mix of intellectually provocative ideas; rhetoric, including self-reinforcing rhetoric; and pseudo-science, im-ever-ho, but he does ask interesting questions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #68 February 24, 2009 I do not own a gun, but if this continues i will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #69 February 24, 2009 Quote It has been well documented that harsher sentencing deters criminals... No, it is a common assumption but it is very much up for discussion. Quote ... it stands to reason that there would be more people in jail in the U.S. than in a country 1/10 the size. True, but I was referring to the incarceration rate: Percentage of the population in prison. This number is independent of the size of the population. Edit: Damn you nerdgirl! HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,129 #70 February 24, 2009 Come on, it is abundently clear that guns have made the US safe. And, as originally intendend it has kept rogue governments out of governing...okay, well maybe that one is open for debate... Anyways, can't you see that having guns around has clearly made the US much safer than most if not all other Western Countries. Just go to, lets say an area in LA with the highest number of guns in circulations, like south central and go for a nice summer evening after dinner stroll at around 10 pm. Don't you all know that an armed society is a polite society? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W.... I think the magnum trumps the wider diameter on most of these. He said caliber, not power factor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #72 February 24, 2009 Quote Come on, it is abundently clear that guns have made the US safe. And, as originally intendend it has kept rogue governments out of governing...okay, well maybe that one is open for debate... Anyways, can't you see that having guns around has clearly made the US much safer than most if not all other Western Countries. Just go to, lets say an area in LA with the highest number of guns in circulations, like south central and go for a nice summer evening after dinner stroll at around 10 pm. Don't you all know that an armed society is a polite society? Hmmmm, a survey of Speakers Corner participants exploring correlations between polite behavior and gun ownership. Number & frequency of warnings or bannings might serve as a stand-in metric for "politeness." Any speculations on what that correlation would look like? One might be hard-pressed to argue that posters in Speakers Corner are indicative of the wider population, tho' ... If one compares 3 nation-states: Netherlands, Norway, & USA (see Table 2): Households w/firearms: 1.9%, 32.0%, & 41.0% Gun homicides per 1M: 2.7, 3.6, & 62.4. There is a huge disparity btw Netherlands and Norway w/r/t gun possession but the homicides rate are close (if not w/in statistical variance by year; data not given), which strongly suggests presence or absence of guns is not the sole variable w/r/t homicide rate. Norway is a comparatively homogenous state (ethnically, religiously, and economically & beautiful from an out-of-doors perspective!) That may suggest acase for the argument that it’s cultural issues, i.e., homogeneous culture may correlate to lower violence … & the gun ownership is unrelated. It's a lot easier to count dead bodies and count guns than measure culture. Need some data that reflects other non-gun-related crime and some way to control for the relatively larger heterogeneity in Netherlands, which has a substantial young, non-integrating minority of Northern African and other Muslims (I think it’s close to 10% ....). I remain curious as whether there is a correlation between civil/human rights and gun/private armament rights in the US? We know places like China have very low civil/human rights and no private gun ownership. OTOH, Norway has fairly high percentage (32%) of households having guns as well as extensive civil & human rights. Totally acknowledge that’s speculation on my part. In what situations are high rates of private gun ownership observed? (1) wealthy countries or (2) countries with recent, intense violent conflicts. The former is the case for US & western Europe; the latter reflects the situations in places like Angola and Columbia. See page 21 this report for a graph showing the range of GDPs and correlation with per capita civilian gun ownership. The authors discuss where that model breaks down, which it does. Where does gun ownership intersect with gun violence? My hypothesis is that there will not be a direct dependency found, i.e., crime levels and extent of gun ownership are independent variables, i.e., not causation. One known physiological link (correlation … possible causation) has been found for increase in violent crime: lead poisoning in US cities in the late 1970s & 1980s and with the accompanying decrease in crime in the 1990s as exposure to lead has decreased (via elimination of lead in gasoline & paint). Lead … not gun availability or gun control. Is that likely to be the only factor? No. Very, very rarely (if ever) are there single independent variable explanations for observed social phenomena, of which incidence of crime is an example. And this is contrasted with violence levels in the UK, which did not beginning eliminating lead until the mid-1980s and early 1990s and saw increase in violent crime in the 1990s. Popular press accounts and links to primary data here. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,129 #73 February 24, 2009 I don't care....I just go by what the NRA tells me. By the way, where do you jump? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #74 February 24, 2009 QuoteI don't care....I just go by what the NRA tells me. Bwahahah!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #75 February 24, 2009 QuoteI'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do what you think is best for any specific situation. Where'd you get that? So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
