jbscout2002

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    405

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by jbscout2002

  1. I think most of us are in agreement that these type of crazy mass shootings are extremely rare and make up a tiny fraction of murders in the USA, but to say the number of these incidents is so high that it demands gun control, and then tell someone having a gun is unnecessary because the chances of ever being a victim are so extremely low in the same argument is silly.

    Columbine shooters went room to room, V-Tech shooter went building to building, Newtown shooter went room to room. This guy in Oregan only went to one room. There was an armed veteran in the building next door. If the shooter kept going, would you rather be in the room with the armed veteran, or would you have preferred he left his gun in the car?

    I don't fear for my life every day. In fact I feel like I cheated death and I'm on borrowed time so I just try to make the most of it. I have a CCW, but I hardly every carry a gun because I'm in a really low crime small town area. I got a NY CCW because it was the only way I could legally have my handguns here. If all states followed the same rules, I wouldn't have even bothered because all my stuff was legal anyways.

    Simple truth is, if you don't like guns, then you don't have to have anything to do with them. Your rights end where mine begin, and that's that.

  2. Stumpy

    ***
    I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.



    Unless you live in a war zone, the odds of this happening to you are basically zero. The odds of you dying of a head injury in a car crash are much higher. Do you wear a helmet when you drive?? After all - that is likely a much more effective way to save your life than carrying a gun?

    So to quote your side, "I'm sure those 9 families in Oregan will take comfort in knowing that there was a higher likelihood of dying in a car wreck"

    Like with that logic, what's the point of gun control? They probably would have been killed on they way home anyways. Might as well drop it and move on. :S

  5. billvon

    >If you walk into an ER and survey gun shot victims, there is a high likelihood
    >you will be surveying people who were armed when they were shot because
    >they were gang bangers hanging out in a crack ally.

    So "it won't happen to me because I am not a gang banger."

    >In 2013 16,000 people committed suicide by overdosing on prescription
    > medication, so I don't think other people's suicide has any impact on my
    >chances of being shot.

    Irrelevant.

    This argument parallels two common arguments in skydiving - the camera and the small canopy. I have found that facts really don't matter. The person wants to jump with the camera at 50 jumps, or wants to jump the Velocity at 100 jumps, and will ignore any statistical information about the dangers - because they are certain that they are exceptional, the statistics do not apply to them, they are not an idiot, they have mad skillz, they ride motorcycles so are used to high speed sports, their father was a pilot so they understand more than most skydivers, their instructors all say they are doing great, some guy said he was ready for a camera and besides, how hard can it be? What's the worst that can happen? They see people landing small parachutes all the time without dying.

    So I give them the info and they decide what to do with it.

    If you carry a gun your odds of being injured or killed go up. If you still want to carry a gun, it's up to you. Heck, if you want to tell yourself that you are actually safer, and that makes you feel good, that's up to you too.



    In this argument, the 50 jump cameraman would be the gang banger. He is engaging in higher risk activities.

    The average citizen would be a 1.0 jumper with no camera at 50 jumps.

    The CCW would be the 1.0 jumper with a 1.0 reserve, just to play it safe.

  6. billvon

    >But it is a means of defense against them.

    Yes, it is. However, owning and carrying a gun means that you are more likely to be harmed or killed. There are several studies that demonstrate this, and no studies that I have ever seen that show otherwise.

    Does that mean that it's wrong to carry a gun? No, it's just a risk you take. The only person who can decide if that risk is worthwhile is the person carrying it. Indeed, even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that carrying a gun increased the odds that you and your family would be killed, I am sure many would still carry them, simply because they like them.



    I'm not a philosopher, nor do I have any scientific data to back this up, but I feel like if you and I stopped at Taco Bell, and someone whips out a street sweeper because his burrito was folded wrong, that the odds of survival would be slightly in my favor.

  7. And I don't think I "won't" be shot. I got shot holding an assault riffle with a pistol on my thigh wearing body armor and surrounded by guys with assault riffles ans squad automatic riffles.

    I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.

  8. If you walk into an ER and survey gun shot victims, there is a high likelihood you will be surveying people who were armed when they were shot because they were gang bangers hanging out in a crack ally.

    In 2013 16,000 people committed suicide by overdosing on prescription medication, so I don't think other people's suicide has any impact on my chances of being shot.

    Again when you are surveying homicides from households containing illicit drug users and people with criminal or domestic violence records......these people aren't permitted to own firearms anyways.

    These reports are just as skewed as any others.

  9. jakee

    Quote

    Everyone in my family is pretty comfortable with guns.



    I bet all the guys who shot themselves while giving gun safety classes were/are pretty comfortable with guns too. How many of them did you ever hear of getting hit by space rock?



    If you accidentally shoot yourself - Darwinism.

    If you are struck down by a space rock - there really is a mythical wizard floating in the clouds, and he hates you.

  11. billvon

    >I carry a gun, so I think I'm more likely to by killed by a meteorite than
    >a criminal.

    Actually you are far more likely to be killed with your own gun than being killed by a meteorite, but that's probably something you can't accept.



    If you say so. My grandfather is a WW2 and Korean War vet. My dad and both of his brothers are Nam vets. My dad has been a police officer since 1992. I got my first gun when I was 10 (only allowed to use it with supervision). I spent 8 months in Kosovo, 18 months in Afghanistan, and 39 months in Iraq.

    Everyone in my family is pretty comfortable with guns.

  12. jakee



    (BTW, do you just not care when you're shown to be wrong on any factual point, or is it just a tactic to skip from one argument to the next, or what?)



    I just don't believe the numbers you are throwing around to be any more "factual" than mine. Contrary to the accusations, I'm not making it up, twisting it, or lying. I'm getting my numbers the exact same way you are. I google shit, pick a link off the first page of results, and copy over numbers.

    Can you conclusively say that each firearm murder would not have happened if e murder was only able to find a knife or some other object rather than a gun?

    Do you believe it to be fact that with 67% of our violent crime being committed by firearms, that our violent crime will simply see a 67% reduction if we remove the guns?

    If handguns are allowed in two cities of equal population, but neither allows CCW, and crime data shows an equal number of murders, then city A bans handguns while city be passes CCW on the same day, then 12 months later, city A has shown a 30% increase in murders and City B has shown a 30% decrease in murders, then I tend to believe gun control is counter productive. In this same scenario, you would see it as inconclusive data, or false reports compiled by right wing nuts.

  13. billvon


    Well, there ya go. Sell your AAD and get a 69 square foot canopy; skydiving is much safer than hospitals. (And sell your gun - you are much more likely to be killed by a hospital than by a criminal.)



    I carry a gun, so I think I'm more likely to by killed by a meteorite than a criminal.

  15. jakee



    Are they? Because if I take the USA's non-firearm murder rate and compare it to the entire murder rate of, say, the UK or Italy or Germany the USA's rate is still at least 60% higher.



    Doesn't this show that the whole theory of guns causing violence is bullshit?

    You can't really compare our gun crime to other countries gun crime without comparing our non gun crime to other countries non gun crime.

  16. Leading causes of preventable deaths by percentage in the USA:

    1. Medical errors in hospitals - 23.1%
    2. Smoking tobacco - 18.1%
    3. Obesity - 4.6%
    4. Alcohol abuse - 3.5%
    5. Infectious diseases - 3.1%
    6. Toxic agents - 2.3%
    7. Traffic collisions - 1.8%
    8. Preventable colorectal cancers - 1.7%
    9. Firearms deaths (all) - 1.3%
    10. Sexually transmitted diseases - 0.8%
    11. Drug abuse - 0.7%

    Put the same amount of effort into providing better oversight in hospitals and banning smoking as you do into banning guns, and you save 31.69 x the number of people gun control would save if it were effective

    That is 12,563 lives lost to firearms x 31.69 = 398,121 lives lost to doctors mistakes and smoking.

  17. jakee

    ***1 homicide per 24 guns in the USA vs 1 homicide per 5.5 guns in Europe means that despite the much larger availability of guns in the USA, people in Europe are between 4 and 5 times more likely to kill each other with guns.

    Not twisting anything. Just using the same numbers and comparisons other people are making and putting them into prospective



    You're twisted in knots. People in Europe (even including what was behind the iron curtain) are much less likely to kill each other with guns than people in the USA.

    They are more likely to kill people with knives and baseball bats

  20. gowlerk

    Just a few stats here on this wiki page including these gems.

    Quote

    Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

    In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]



    I am especially impressed that only 1.3% percent of all deaths in the USA are gun related. A very small price to pay for the excitement and enjoyment of being allowed to treat the tools of war as personal toys. (Until one of your loved ones becomes one of these stats of course.)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States



    This must be fake because I keep hearing it is against the law for the CDC to collect any info on gun related injuries or fatalities

  21. DanG

    Murders per gun is a stupid statistic.

    Especially if you are using all murders. Using gun murders per gun makes more sense, but that's not what you are doing.

    By your methodology, if a small town with one gun had two knife murders last year, you would say they had two murders per gun, even if that gun was never fired. It's meaningless.



    Right. It is so much more meaningful when we take officer involved shootings and self defense shootings and roll them into the category on gun murder.

    Then we take the 1% of gun violence that comes from psychopath mass shootings and push for gun control pretending like it will stop the other 99%

    Then we same "England doesn't have handguns and they don't have as many handgun murders as us, so why can we follow them"

  23. 1 homicide per 24 guns in the USA vs 1 homicide per 5.5 guns in Europe means that despite the much larger availability of guns in the USA, people in Europe are between 4 and 5 times more likely to kill each other with guns.

    Not twisting anything. Just using the same numbers and comparisons other people are making and putting them into prospective

  24. Quote

    for starters, tracking guns by model/serial numbers, purchases and sales, stolen and lost, will help us learn how guns go from 'legal' to 'illegal' and allow some common sense rules that will close many loopholes.



    This already happens. It's actually a crime to fail to report lost or stolen guns.

    Quote

    Unless of course you are OK with the regular flow of guns to criminals.



    My argument is focus on exactly this, rather than stopping non-criminals from buying one.

    Quote

    A better universal background check and inclusion of ALL guns sales as well as the retention of that data, allows us to find out what demographic, what cultural, societal, what environmental and whatever other factors go into a decision that someone makes to buy a gun and better identifies problems.



    Background checks are done and data is retained. Your application has gender and race. The rest is no one else's business.

    Quote

    Unless of course you are Ok with criminals and mentally unstable people buying guns pretty much 'outside the system', in other words, having no problem getting the weapons that they want when they want.



    I'm not ok with this at all, which is why I support the laws against it and support maximum punishment for people who break those laws.