"Cold Hard Facts the Anti-Gun Forces can no longer escape."

[DanG 1]

Quote

I am not such a proponent.

Really? Because that's exactly what the essay you posted, and said you agree with, proposes.

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

I am not such a proponent.

Really? Because that's exactly what the essay you posted, and said you agree with, proposes.

Mr. President be an example. American citizen pay attention.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[champu 1]

Quote

According to the department of justice, in 2004 knives were about 3 times more likely to be used to kill someone than a rifle or a shotgun -- and about twice as likely to kill someone than than rifles AND shotguns. handguns were on the other hand, about 5 times more likely to be used to kill someone than knives.

So it seems there is no reason to be trying to ban these so-called 'assault rifles'.

People are jumping back and forth between annual statistics and what one nutcase can pull off in a single episode a little too freely.

If people are talking about banning weapons with certain features or characteristics then do so in the context of how many people are killed or injured as a result of those features or characteristics. Saying there are X gun deaths per year, and epsilon percent of those were mass shootings, and mass shootings tend to involve rifle Y, so we need to do away with Y because look how big X is, does not follow.

I honestly don't think there are enough mass killings happening to have a realistic expectation of how additional gun bans would affect them. And I don't mean, "hyuk hyuk, they wouldn't have guns, idiot." I mean people who would do such a thing may just turn to homemade IEDs if the threshold for access to a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine is raised. You can't outright discount culture and world events when comparing to other countries or time periods. We could say, "screw it, let's ban the guns and find out." But that's not a controlled experiment, and if it doesn't stop nut jobs from killing people then now we've got attacks AND law abiding citizens have had their guns taken away.

I think mental health and popular culture portrayal of violence are the heart of the problem. That includes, btw, both inappropriate fandom and fear towards certain types of weapons that needs to be moderated back towards simple respect.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

bottom line is that fewer guns will mean fewer gun related deaths. Fewer cigarettes results in less smoking related deaths. Fewer teenagers driving on Saturday night results in fewer teenage related driving deaths. Fewer bowls of ice cream results in less weight gain.

Fewer parachutes? How about fewer nukes? Your examples are formed in dreamland. As long as a market exists there will be someone to supply it. Stop looking at the weapon and take a harder look at the shooter(s). Your answer lies somewhere in the mind of the guy with the weapon.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Okay, so you disagree with these parts:

Quote

call on the leaders of public education to put God back at the center of our school systems.
Make this Christmas the most Christ centered Christmas in our history

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

I do!

The only time this christ guy has been in my house was when the jahovah's witness slipped a pamphlet through the mail slot.......which summarily landed in the litter box.
Seemed like that's where he wanted to be imo.

[toolbox 0]

15,000 is not a very big percentage of the more than three hundred million people in the US.
There are around 80,000 deaths per year from acute alcohol poisoning so we should outlaw booze.
Wait a second,we tried that already and it did not work out very well.
Killing a bunch of people because mommy did not hug you enough or killing one person because you have mental issues is f*#cked up.
But more gun control will not stop angry,crazy,or misled people from killing individuals or large groups.
Even in countries where private gun ownership is banned people get shot by someone other than law enforcement or,they have more frequent mass killings using BOMBS!
Most gun deaths in our country are probably gang related,which is why these crazy mass shooters never go on a rampage in the rough part of town because they would not get very far before the homies lit them up.
It seems the mass killers stick to the theaters,malls and,schools because they can kill people with little if any resistance.
Should we ban hot dogs because some people eat to many and they might get to fat and then become angry and suicidal and go on a road rage rampage on the playground or sidewalk. I hope not,I like hot dogs as much as you do,but they can be dangerous if consumed without self control.

[Shredex 0]

Either way, we are going to most likely see many more shooting in the next few days. People actually think the world is ending so they are going on their little rampages.

Just wait for the 22nd and things will calm down again. No need to jump the gun(No pun intended) and ban anything.

[OHCHUTE 0]

I enjoy reading these arguments. Less guns= less death by guns etc.
Guns are hunks of metal (plastic) whatever and are benign. You could have a trillion Glocks in Arkansas but if no one lived in Arkansas there wouldn't be any gun deaths there, unless of course a person, or two from outside the state went into Arkansas and used one of the guns to killl themselve or their passenger in the Buick while in Arkansas
You must count the number of guns per capita, number of people, number of suicides by gun, number of accidents by guns and make your comparisions etc that this study is lacking. Number of guns vs death by gun. And whether or not gun clubbing deaths, not shooting by gun is a consideration.

Fact of the matter is: CARS are more deadly than guns, yet I don't see any car banning in the future.

[billvon 2,402]

>CARS are more deadly than guns, yet I don't see any car banning in the future.

But you do see a lot of regulation of cars.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>CARS are more deadly than guns, yet I don't see any car banning in the future.

But you do see a lot of regulation of cars.

As we do with guns

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

According to the department of justice, in 2004 knives were about 3 times more likely to be used to kill someone than a rifle or a shotgun -- and about twice as likely to kill someone than than rifles AND shotguns. handguns were on the other hand, about 5 times more likely to be used to kill someone than knives.

So it seems there is no reason to be trying to ban these so-called 'assault rifles'.

Semi auto rifles are, however, weapons of choice for nutjobs on killing sprees.

Have you tabulated the numbers, or are you just guessing?

In terms of potential killing, the handgun + magazines are lighter. The bullets are substantially lighter. The ability to conceal is obvious far better. Indoors, the range advantage of the rifle matters not. The only advantage for the rifle is from a sniper location, but then once everyone gets under cover, you're done.

So ignoring the actual use and saying "assault rifles" have greater potential for killing in order to support a ban is missing reality.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I find it interesting that any discussion of "gun control" is off the table, as it would violate 2nd amendment rights. Yet, some of the same people have no problem with proposing that the solution to the problem is to be found in eliminating our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, proposing instead that the government impose Christianity on us all regardless of our personal beliefs.

this has been said enough times to be a poor cliche.

The response is also old hat- it's it funny how many ACLU types will defend Nazi's right to march and Christian Scientists the right to let their kid die rather than get improper medical attention...no infringement on the 1st will be tolerated. But fuck the second amendment, the one that talks about the right of the people and is the one that actually maintains our right to the first.

Real Americans (Fuck Ya!) are somehow able to support both.

[billvon 2,402]

>As we do with guns

True - and both are effective to some level. The trick is writing good law instead of reactionary law that sounds good but doesn't do anything.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>As we do with guns

True - and both are effective to some level. The trick is writing good law instead of reactionary law that sounds good but doesn't do anything.

And proper enforcement of the good laws we already have

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

Billvon,

You have been busting out good posts all day long...you feeling ok?

[SkyDekker 1,127]

Quote

But fuck the second amendment, the one that talks about the right of the people and is the one that actually maintains our right to the first.

Really? You think half the American households owning guns maintains your right to free speech?

I constantly hear people talking about their rights being taken away, yet nobody has taken up armed revolt yet. Do you really think that if the right of the Westboro Church to spew hatred is taken away, there will be an armed revolt to protect the 1st Amendment?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

I find it interesting that any discussion of "gun control" is off the table, as it would violate 2nd amendment rights. Yet, some of the same people have no problem with proposing that the solution to the problem is to be found in eliminating our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, proposing instead that the government impose Christianity on us all regardless of our personal beliefs.

this has been said enough times to be a poor cliche.

The response is also old hat- it's it funny how many ACLU types will defend Nazi's right to march and Christian Scientists the right to let their kid die rather than get improper medical attention...no infringement on the 1st will be tolerated. But fuck the second amendment, the one that talks about the right of the people and is the one that actually maintains our right to the first.

Real Americans (Fuck Ya!) are somehow able to support both.

Usually I'm at least able to discern what you are talking about, but not this time. If you think I was arguing for gun control in my post, you are quite mistaken. I was simply responding to RonD's post that stated that the remedy to the gun issue is to force us all to be Christian. Nothing more than that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

oversimplified argument that has no merit. Australia's stats, and for that matter the stats of many other regulated-gun countries demonstrate that overall, fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

simple STATISTICAL math.on a LARGE scale, not on a single-sample-one-school-size scale.

try statistics 101 at your local college perhaps.

Dude, stop embarrassing yourself. Statistics 1, not even 101, have lots of nice evenly distributed populations. Just like in Physics 1, you have no atmosphere and frictionless planes. It leads to a lot of simplistic equations that don't really work in reality.

In reality, populations are not evenly distributed bell curves.
Men are more likely to have guns than women.
Rural residents are more likely than city dwellers.
Criminals are more likely to than law abiders.
People at threat of attack are more likely to than those without concerns (which is why you see higher victimization rates for owners - correlation, not causation).

We have 300M guns in the US. For sake of "simple math," lets say that 280M are in the hands of law abiding citizens, and 20M are in the hands of criminals. These are used to commit 10,000 murders, 1000 justifiable homicides (700 by LEOs), and 15,000 suicides.

Now we pass a wide reaching gun ban, like the Brits where you may be able to have .22s and shotguns under club lock and key. The 280M figure drops to 28M. (I think most gun owners would say fuck you, but let's just presume high compliance). The criminals, otoh, only drop by half to 10M as there are now far fewer to steal, and no illegal straw purchases.

So what changes with gun deaths? And why do you care if there are gun deaths versus deaths? Aren't lives what matter, not the means by which they die? Seems like a stupid thing to worry about.

The vast majority of gun suicides were by legal owners, so figure that 15k drops to less than 1000. But of course, those people can still drugs themselves, drive the wrong way down the freeway, jump off bridges. Figure at least 10k substitute successfully, but a few are saved by using less effective methods. And a few innocents are also killed because instead of a solo suicide, the guy did something outdoors and there was bad luck for others.

For the 10k homicides - most were felons fighting each other, for drug turf. They didn't turn in any guns, and they still have access the same way they can smuggle in drugs. They also add gun sales as a product line. So figure you still have the same level of violence, and the few guys that did target practice don't anymore so maybe a tiny increase in bystanders shot. For the violence committed by the formerly law abiding types, few guns available now, unless they buy on black market. Not impossible, but figure some will substitute other weapons to kill their wives/girlfriends, and a few will be thwarted. So 10k drops to 9k.

For the 1000 justifiable shootings, the 700 by cops doesn't really change much. They still have guns, and the bad guys still do. But the 300 self defense kills by civilians drops to 0, and unfortunately that means 150 of them get killed instead.

---
So in the end, you cut the number of guns from 300M to less than 40, but the 26k deaths moves down to perhaps 20k, and nearly all of that improvement is found in fewer success suicides.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But fuck the second amendment, the one that talks about the right of the people and is the one that actually maintains our right to the first.

Really? You think half the American households owning guns maintains your right to free speech?

I constantly hear people talking about their rights being taken away, yet nobody has taken up armed revolt yet.

rights haven't been taken away. People talk about doing it, but I don't worry about hot air.

And yes, I do believe exactly that.

[Shredex 0]

Honestly, although I am against it, I wish they would ban guns, cause then a bunch of states would secede and it would be the 1860's all over again! Wouldn't that be fun!? :D

I'll be on the side with the guns.

[SkyDekker 1,127]

Quote

And yes, I do believe exactly that.

Iraq had some really high gun ownership as well. Their free speech didn't fare so well.

Did they just not have enough guns? Or were they just not willing to fight like you think Americans will?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Imagine what a great place Iraq would have been if nobody except the government could own guns.

[kallend 1,632]

Quote

I enjoy reading these arguments. Less guns= less death by guns etc.

www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tkhayes 127]

again you are extrapolating your own made up scenarios. I prefer facts.

For example, a fact would be something like.....countries with tighter guns restrictions and fewer gun have less death by guns.

imagine that.... a fact!