Even Biden knows gun control won't do much.

[fskimospy]

I can believe that less new homes are buying guns, but not that less homes have guns than say 10 years ago. Even if it were true I don't see how it could even reach a statistical relevance.

I would have to dig up the stats when I get home. What do you mean by statistical relevance? Do you mean if the change is statistically significant?

Basically it boiled down to that if you are going to own a gun you tend to own several. Fewer people as a percentage of population choose to own guns however.

 

[thraashman]

Gun deaths annually 14k
Handgun Deaths: 10k
Rifle Deaths 600

THESE INCLUDE SUICIDE. Estimated 6k handguns are HOMICIDES.

If you want to save lives, maybe go for the "low hanging fruit" and work on handguns first?

Better yet, work on drunk driving, of which causes 11k deaths annually. That's only a 1/3 of the total number of traffic related deaths. Why aren't we looking at that? that's MANY times higher than death by "assault weapon".

Or 10,000 deaths per year from bludgeoning with a blunt object such as a hammer or fists? That's even more! What are we doing about these travesties?

Oops, forgot it's not part of the agenda.

Drunk driving doesn't get ignored. Local and state law enforcements often come up with new proposals to reduce drunk driving incidents and deaths. You don't have an entire political party refuse to look at ways to fix deaths when it comes to drunk driving though as you do when it comes to gun violence.

As far as your blunt objects reference, what's the purpose of a hammer? To build. The purpose of a car? To transport. The purpose of a hand (the thing that makes a fist)? To grasp. The purpose of a gun? To kill. The purpose of a handgun? To kill a human being.

Making false equivalencies doesn't help your argument, it in fact hurts it.

 

[HumblePie]

Drunk driving doesn't get ignored. Local and state law enforcements often come up with new proposals to reduce drunk driving incidents and deaths. You don't have an entire political party refuse to look at ways to fix deaths when it comes to drunk driving though as you do when it comes to gun violence.

As far as your blunt objects reference, what's the purpose of a hammer? To build. The purpose of a car? To transport. The purpose of a hand (the thing that makes a fist)? To grasp. The purpose of a gun? To kill. The purpose of a handgun? To kill a human being.

Making false equivalencies doesn't help your argument, it in fact hurts it.

You are the one making false equivalencies and assignments. The purpose of a gun for example is NOT to kill. It's to provide life with the potential of violence.

A hunter kills a deer to feed his family. Yes something died, but life was provided for many more.

A law abiding citizen, a cop, or even a soldier all own guns to deter those who would otherwise cause harm. None of them want to use them for the taking of life. Thus the purpose of the gun purchase is NOT to kill, but to preserve life.

I certainly did not buy my guns with the purpose to kill anyone. Everyone I know that owns a gun didn't obtain theirs to kill other people either. I do know some that bought guns to kill game for food though.

People do not buy cars to kill others, just like people don't buy guns to kill others. They buy them with another specific outcome in mind. Both the gun and the car have the capacity to cause deaths though.



As for your political reference. Drunk driving doesn't have politicians at the federal level trying to ramrod stupid asinine laws in attempts to curb drunk driving deaths unlike firearms.

 

[HumblePie]

As for individual homes that own guns.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/index.html

Basically the statistic has always fluctuated on how honestly people have answered the surveys. But typically the answer has been around 40% of those polled have admitted to own guns. This hasn't changed much in over 50 years.

 

[xj0hnx]

I would have to dig up the stats when I get home. What do you mean by statistical relevance? Do you mean if the change is statistically significant?

Basically it boiled down to that if you are going to own a gun you tend to own several. Fewer people as a percentage of population choose to own guns however.

Significance, relevance, whatever.

As for individual homes that own guns.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/index.html

Basically the statistic has always fluctuated on how honestly people have answered the surveys. But typically the answer has been around 40% of those polled have admitted to own guns. This hasn't changed much in over 50 years.

Thank you. Yea, it appears that since around the early 90's it's been pretty much stagnant.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Columbine proved that theory wrong. More that 75% of the rounds fired were from 10 round magazines that were reloaded atleast 8 times.

Not just Columbine. The Virginia Tech spree killer used nothing more than 2 hand guns (A Walter P22 and Glock 19) and had several smaller capacity magazines and he killed 32 people.

 

[CrackRabbit]

You are the one making false equivalencies and assignments. The purpose of a gun for example is NOT to kill. It's to provide life with the potential of violence.

A hunter kills a deer to feed his family. Yes something died, but life was provided for many more.

A law abiding citizen, a cop, or even a soldier all own guns to deter those who would otherwise cause harm. None of them want to use them for the taking of life. Thus the purpose of the gun purchase is NOT to kill, but to preserve life.

I certainly did not buy my guns with the purpose to kill anyone. Everyone I know that owns a gun didn't obtain theirs to kill other people either. I do know some that bought guns to kill game for food though.

People do not buy cars to kill others, just like people don't buy guns to kill others. They buy them with another specific outcome in mind. Both the gun and the car have the capacity to cause deaths though.

I see your point, but you seem to be missing thraashmans.
Guns are tools designed to do one thing, and that one thing is kill.
Use of that tool, or the threat thereof is what gives them their power. That power can be used for both destruction or preservation.

When gunpowder and pneumatics didn't exist, bows and swords were the same way. They exist for the singular purpose of killing something else, and the threat of using them gave them the same power.

 

[HumblePie]

I see your point, but you seem to be missing thraashmans.
Guns are tools designed to do one thing, and that one thing is kill.
Use of that tool, or the threat thereof is what gives them their power. That power can be used for both destruction or preservation.

When gunpowder and pneumatics didn't exist, bows and swords were the same way. They exist for the singular purpose of killing something else, and the threat of using them gave them the same power.

No. The point is that guns are tools with a secondary function being that they can cause death.

They are a tool designed for more than one thing. The major thing they are designed for is the preservation of life and defense of it. That was what it was originally invented for. Those unable to protect themselves from those with a strong sword arm were now able to do so evenly. The earliest depiction of a "firearm" was a "fire lance" that was used in China by the Song dynasty to repel invasion by the Jurchen forces. Unfortunately, it didn't work so well at the time for them.

However, the further modification, improvements, and further inventions of firearms were all for the same purpose. To allow the common man to defend himself from those that would deprave him. But just like any efficiently well made tool, while the common man found a use for defense, those looking to harm others saw the tool as a way to make offense.

However, the point being, a firearm has been used exponentially more times in it's entire history for a defensive self preservation use than an offensive evil use. More law abiding good people own and employ a fire arm around the world than the scum. Just the scum make more headlines unfortunately.


As for swords. No. Swords were always designed as a weapon to harm others. They were never designed for defense. They were always too expensive, and required specialized training to employee effectively. Something the common man was not able to do anywhere in the world during the time period in history where the strongest sword arm ruled the land.

 

[CrackRabbit]

No. The point is that guns are tools with a secondary function being that they can cause death.

They are a tool designed for more than one thing. The major thing they are designed for is the preservation of life and defense of it. That was what it was originally invented for. Those unable to protect themselves from those with a strong sword arm were now able to do so evenly. The earliest depiction of a "firearm" was a "fire lance" that was used in China by the Song dynasty to repel invasion by the Jurchen forces. Unfortunately, it didn't work so well at the time for them.

However, the further modification, improvements, and further inventions of firearms were all for the same purpose. To allow the common man to defend himself from those that would deprave him. But just like any efficiently well made tool, while the common man found a use for defense, those looking to harm others saw the tool as a way to make offense.

However, the point being, a firearm has been used exponentially more times in it's entire history for a defensive self preservation use than an offensive evil use. More law abiding good people own and employ a fire arm around the world than the scum. Just the scum make more headlines unfortunately.


As for swords. No. Swords were always designed as a weapon to harm others. They were never designed for defense. They were always too expensive, and required specialized training to employee effectively. Something the common man was not able to do anywhere in the world during the time period in history where the strongest sword arm ruled the land.

You're getting yourself lost with nonsense about history, and how firearms are better than a sword at self defense. That doesn't matter.

Guns, swords, bows, spears, pikes, war hammers, cannons, mortars, tanks, anything that is classified only as a weapon. All of them are the same, tools designed to do one thing, kill something.

Their ability to kill is what gave them their power, again that power could be used for either destruction (murder) or preservation (self-defense).

That is the simple point that is being made.

 

[HumblePie]

You're contradicting yourself with nonsense about how firearms are better than a sword at self defense. That doesn't matter.

Guns, swords, bows, spears, pikes, war hammers, cannons, mortars, tanks. All of them are the same, tools designed to do one thing, kill something.

Their ability to kill is what gave them their power, again that power could be used for either destruction or preservation.

That is the simple point that is being made.

No. They are not designed to kill. They can be used for that, but they are designed for defense. A tool the common man can employee with very little training to use correctly and is easy to acquire becomes a tool for good usage. A tool that is only designed for the hands of those that would use them to seek their own greed is not a tool for good but evil.

Swords, and I own MANY, for a long time were not a tool for the common man. They were strictly designed to be handled by men of warfare and used by men of warfare. They were designed to wage war and was only used for that purpose and oppression. Name one country before the advent of the firearm that was as free from oppression as America has been? Or any country since the advent of the firearm?

Do you not see the direct difference? Swords = a tool designed to kill others. It can be used for other purposes. Like I have them for martial training and display because I like the way they look. But their original design from conception was never for protection or defense. A sword being in the hands of a person does not dissuade violence from being brought to bear against that person unlike a firearm. There is no contradiction here at all.

Let me put it to you this way....

A person well trained in the use of a sword see's a common man or peasant at the time with a sword in hand. Do you think the well trained person is at all remotely scared of that sword in the hands of someone incapable of really using it? No. That has always been the case. If the well trained person was seeking to harm that common man with the sword they would have no fear in doing so.

Change that to a common man with a gun. A person seeking to inflict their will upon that man with a gun is going seriously think twice about it. They are more than likely going to outright dissuaded from making the attempt. Because even if they suspect that the common man may not have that much training in the use of that firearm, the risk it has for successful employment in a defensive situation compared to an untrained sword user is far greater.

It can arguably be said that the advent of the firearm and it's usage by the common man as a tool for good has led to the rising of much politer societies. While the world has some throw back to the dark ages countries out there, they aren't the same level of conquering threat they would have been before the invention of the gun. The quote, "An armed society is a polite society" hits the nail on the head in that regard.

 

[CrackRabbit]

No. They are not designed to kill. They can be used for that, but they are designed for defense. A tool the common man can employee with very little training to use correctly and is easy to acquire becomes a tool for good usage. A tool that is only designed for the hands of those that would use them to seek their own greed is not a tool for good but evil.


Change that to a common man with a gun. A person seeking to inflict their will upon that man with a gun is going seriously think twice about it. They are more than likely going to outright dissuaded from making the attempt. Because even if they suspect that the common man may not have that much training in the use of that firearm, the risk it has for successful employment in a defensive situation compared to an untrained sword user is far greater.

It can arguably be said that the advent of the firearm and it's usage by the common man as a tool for good has led to the rising of much politer societies. While the world has some throw back to the dark ages countries out there, they aren't the same level of conquering threat they would have been before the invention of the gun. The quote, "An armed society is a polite society" hits the nail on the head in that regard.

The simple purpose of any weapon is to kill. Firearms are weapons.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Heck the second rule of handling a firearm is; "Never point your weapon at anything you aren't willing to kill or destroy."

Philosophy on how firearms made the world a better place for the common man, while I agree with you, is completely superfluous to my point.

 

[klinc]

http://www.crimefree.co.za/propaganda/propagan.htm#Logical fallacies

http://www.crimefree.co.za/website.htm

 

[Lithium381]

I see your point, but you seem to be missing thraashmans.
Guns are tools designed to do one thing, and that one thing is kill.
Use of that tool, or the threat thereof is what gives them their power. That power can be used for both destruction or preservation.

When gunpowder and pneumatics didn't exist, bows and swords were the same way. They exist for the singular purpose of killing something else, and the threat of using them gave them the same power.

I disagree.
Guns are tools with a primary function, and many secondary ones. Hammers are tools with a few primary functions and not so many secondary ones. I don't use my gun to kill. I use mine to put holes in paper because it's a hobby, a sport. I didn't buy my guns with the idea of killing people in mind. I'd hope to NEVER have to use it for that purpose. MOST people use hammers to drive nails, but apparently, 10000 people a year decide they want to use it for a different purpose. You're more likely from a pure statistical standpoint to be killed by a hammer/bat/etc over the course of a year than a rifle.


If the purpose of all of this debating about new legislation is to save as many lives as possible, wouldn't it make sense to tackle the largest sector first instead of focusing on a very small slice?? I don't see national media constantly covering stories about drunk driving deaths or death by hammer, even though they happen many times more often than death by rifle. We don't hear about the daily murders in Chicago which likely don't use rifles, but stolen/black market handguns. Many of the mass shootings had more deaths via handgun than via rifle. The obvious answer is that politicians have a specific agenda to get rid of rifles. Why?

 

[Mr.Mischief]

He shot about 30 rounds with the extended magazine and people were close enough to interrupt him when he tried to reload.

Exactly. The fact that he was tackled as he struggled to reload is irrelevant.

I haven't been on in a while, but I would like to respond.

You guys make good points, but your info isn't entirely correct.

Someone was able to stop him because he tried to reload his 33 round magazine by hand.

My comment was directed at the possibility that gunmen will bring more than one loaded magazine, thus lowering the reload time to a few seconds.

 

[Smoblikat]

The simple purpose of any weapon is to kill. Firearms are weapons.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Heck the second rule of handling a firearm is; "Never point your weapon at anything you aren't willing to kill or destroy."

Philosophy on how firearms made the world a better place for the common man, while I agree with you, is completely superfluous to my point.

Guns are designed to kill people, but they dont. People kill people, or if that answer is too realistic for you then how about bulltes kill people, either way its not guns.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh by the way, here's the data on the decline in household gun ownership from the General Social Survey:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...ght-guns2/18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

Interesting note that came with this is that nearly all the decline has come from Democrats and Independents. Republican gun ownership has remained pretty stable.

This could explain why conservatives would be reluctant to believe this data as the people they associate with haven't changed their habits much at all.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Oh by the way, here's the data on the decline in household gun ownership from the General Social Survey:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...ght-guns2/18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

Interesting note that came with this is that nearly all the decline has come from Democrats and Independents. Republican gun ownership has remained pretty stable.

This could explain why conservatives would be reluctant to believe this data as the people they associate with haven't changed their habits much at all.

So gun ownership by democrats who support more gun control have less guns. I fail to see how this is a big deal.

 

[fskimospy]

So gun ownership by democrats who support more gun control have less guns. I fail to see how this is a big deal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. People earlier didn't seem to believe that gun ownership in America has declined.

Also it's not just Democrats, it's independents too. The only group where ownership has stayed equally high is the right wing.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. People earlier didn't seem to believe that gun ownership in America has declined.

Also it's not just Democrats, it's independents too. The only group where ownership has stayed equally high is the right wing.

I won't argue that gun ownership may have declined but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Besides they do these reports at the University of Chicago every two years. Where's 2012 data? Think you can fish that up?

 

[fskimospy]

I won't argue that gun ownership may have declined but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Besides they do these reports at the University of Chicago every two years. Where's 2012 data? Think you can fish that up?

For whatever reason the question wasn't asked in the 2012 survey. I linked that report because someone earlier asked for it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

For whatever reason the question wasn't asked in the 2012 survey. I linked that report because someone earlier asked for it.

I find it odd that it wasn't asked this time around. Maybe it had something to do with politics? I mean it is one of the more important topics since Obama has taken office. You would think that questions around guns would increase, not disappear entirely.

 

[Abraxas]

No. The point is that guns are tools with a secondary function being that they can cause death.

They are a tool designed for more than one thing. The major thing they are designed for is the preservation of life and defense of it. That was what it was originally invented for. Those unable to protect themselves from those with a strong sword arm were now able to do so evenly. The earliest depiction of a "firearm" was a "fire lance" that was used in China by the Song dynasty to repel invasion by the Jurchen forces. Unfortunately, it didn't work so well at the time for them.

You are talking out your ass here. The earliest depiction of the fire-lance predates the siege of De'an by over a century. There is no known written record of why precisely the fire lance was developed, however, if we look at the Song Chinese society at the time, what we see is they were attempting to expand territory during the period the fire lance was invented, which means it was probably developed as a way to conquer. Now, from a practical perspective the fire lances were primarily used from the tops of walls during a siege situation because of their limited range and power, but that was not an intentional design feature, that is not why they were invented. We can reason that when a weapon is designed by a people intent upon conquest it was probably designed with helping them conquer in mind.

However, the further modification, improvements, and further inventions of firearms were all for the same purpose. To allow the common man to defend himself from those that would deprave him. But just like any efficiently well made tool, while the common man found a use for defense, those looking to harm others saw the tool as a way to make offense.

This is even more off base than your initial supposition. Most of the advances in firearms that followed were for the state to be able to conquer more effectively. the first real, proper gun, a hand cannon really, was used by the Ottoman Empire as part of their general infantry during the 1400s. By the way, in case there was any doubt, they spent that time period trying to conquer their neighbors. Until very modern history, the development of the firearm was pushed primarily by state actors as a way to expand their power, this nonsense about them being designed for the common man a gross mischaracterization of history.

However, the point being, a firearm has been used exponentially more times in it's entire history for a defensive self preservation use than an offensive evil use. More law abiding good people own and employ a fire arm around the world than the scum. Just the scum make more headlines unfortunately.

...

Are you fucking kidding me? It has been used more often than anything else in war and generally by attackers. If you want to say in civilian hands it has been used for self-preservation more than aggression you can make your case and present your data but my guess is you are probably wrong - every case where a gun is used for self-preservation requires some threat and I will bet a very large portion of those threats were using guns too which makes it a wash, plus all the cases were an aggressor used a gun on someone who was not so armed.

As for swords. No. Swords were always designed as a weapon to harm others. They were never designed for defense. They were always too expensive, and required specialized training to employee effectively. Something the common man was not able to do anywhere in the world during the time period in history where the strongest sword arm ruled the land.

Are you trying to imply guns were not a weapon to harm others? Is it your supposition that guns were developed for hundreds of years by armies and empires as a means to tickle their enemies? Even if you want to claim guns were designed to protect people, you have to at least be honest enough to admit you use a gun to protect yourself by harming something or someone else, right?

 

[fskimospy]

I find it odd that it wasn't asked this time around. Maybe it had something to do with politics? I mean it is one of the more important topics since Obama has taken office. You would think that questions around guns would increase, not disappear entirely.

Very unlikely that it had to do with politics.

Up until this shooting though, gun control really hasn't been an important issue under Obama. He seemed totally disinterested in it, as he took basically no actions regarding guns in his first term.

 

[xj0hnx]

Oh by the way, here's the data on the decline in household gun ownership from the General Social Survey:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...ght-guns2/18fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png

Interesting note that came with this is that nearly all the decline has come from Democrats and Independents. Republican gun ownership has remained pretty stable.

This could explain why conservatives would be reluctant to believe this data as the people they associate with haven't changed their habits much at all.

nvm, found it.

 

[Lithium381]

Very unlikely that it had to do with politics.

Up until this shooting though, gun control really hasn't been an important issue under Obama. He seemed totally disinterested in it, as he took basically no actions regarding guns in his first term.

It could be because if he had taken actions against guns it would have jeporadized his ability to get a second term. Actually Obama hasn't been the scariest one in the whole deal. . . I think Diane Feinstein is much more agressive with the agenda.