gun nutters . . . . scary stuff!

[HAL9000]

While we're at it, let's ban alcohol and automobiles. People drink and drive, so they both must be to blame, right? Why stop there? Let's just pass a plethora of nanny state laws, so we can all just sit on our asses, twiddling our thumbs, but being ultra-safe about doing that.....because if just ONE PERSON sprains a thumb, Hal might want us to ban twiddling too! 🙄

The ONLY people who would be affected by a total ban of firearms in this country would be the legal owners.....who would then be wide open to being victims of violent crimes, because the bad guys, who would laugh at the new law (like they do every other one) would know it was safe to just walk in and take/do whatever they want.

Lol I love how pro gun people always equate guns and cars, like people travel around on their guns and cars are built exclusively as weapons to kill.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think people are arguing (or are thinking) that the murders are of no consequence, but when the responses from the pro-gun people are uniformly about concern for gun-control, it certainly seems like their priority isn't the people who were shot.

Part of my problem is that it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to use this situation as a way to discuss gun control. I can't think of a better anecdotal argument against gun control than someone using his legally purchased guns to shoot up a theater full of people. Obviously this has the same problem as any other anecdotal argument, but saying the incident has nothing at all to do with gun control sounds ridiculous.

I understand the defensive feelings, particularly because our culture as a whole is incredibly stupid when it comes to dealing with anecdotal arguments. But instead of conceding the point on this particular case and trying to win the larger argument, the pro-gun folks seem to feel pushed into not giving any ground whatsoever on anything and arguing the strange position that someone using legally owned guns to shoot a bunch of innocent people has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

How is that different than most things in America? I submit that the recent healthcare issue was much the same. No one trusted anyone else, and while it's not a good justification for avoiding well intentioned discussion, the past few decades does not have many shining moments of reasoned and civil debate, certainly not in DC. There is little basis for trust so trust is not given. It's a tragedy of our times.

 

[shortylickens]

I don't think people are arguing (or are thinking) that the murders are of no consequence, but when the responses from the pro-gun people are uniformly about concern for gun-control, it certainly seems like their priority isn't the people who were shot.

Part of my problem is that it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to use this situation as a way to discuss gun control. I can't think of a better anecdotal argument against gun control than someone using his legally purchased guns to shoot up a theater full of people. Obviously this has the same problem as any other anecdotal argument, but saying the incident has nothing at all to do with gun control sounds ridiculous.

I understand the defensive feelings, particularly because our culture as a whole is incredibly stupid when it comes to dealing with anecdotal arguments. But instead of conceding the point on this particular case and trying to win the larger argument, the pro-gun folks seem to feel pushed into not giving any ground whatsoever on anything and arguing the strange position that someone using legally owned guns to shoot a bunch of innocent people has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

Every time we ban guns, violent crime goes up.

If I actually thought giving up my weapons would make the average american safe I would do so. It would be a small sacrifice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol I love how pro gun people always equate guns and cars, like people travel around on their guns and cars are built exclusively as weapons to kill.

Why is the gun homicide rate in your country higher that the US state with no limits on carrying firearms at all? If you look at the homicide to ownership ratio you look positively bloodthirsty by comparison. Why are you such killers?

 

[Rainsford]

How is that different than most things in America? I submit that the recent healthcare issue was much the same. No one trusted anyone else, and while it's not a good justification for well intentioned discussion, the past few decades does not have many shining moments of reasoned and civil debate, certainly not in DC. There is little basis for trust so trust is not given. It's a tragedy of our times.

I don't think it's much different, sadly. That's something you and I can agree on. I think a big part of it is the rise of identity politics in our culture. Debates like this aren't seen as being between people who think gun control is bad and people who think gun control is good, they're between violence obsessed lunatics and freedom hating communists. And the more people act like that's the case, the more the other side is convinced that it really is.

 

[HAL9000]

Why is the gun homicide rate in your country higher that the US state with no limits on carrying firearms at all? If you look at the homicide rate to gun ownership rate you look positively bloodthirsty by comparison. Why are you such killers?

Because of a thousand reasons.

 

[PJABBER]

I don't think people are arguing (or are thinking) that the murders are of no consequence, but when the responses from the pro-gun people are uniformly about concern for gun-control, it certainly seems like their priority isn't the people who were shot.

Part of my problem is that it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to use this situation as a way to discuss gun control. I can't think of a better anecdotal argument against gun control than someone using his legally purchased guns to shoot up a theater full of people. Obviously this has the same problem as any other anecdotal argument, but saying the incident has nothing at all to do with gun control sounds ridiculous.

I understand the defensive feelings, particularly because our culture as a whole is incredibly stupid when it comes to dealing with anecdotal arguments. But instead of conceding the point on this particular case and trying to win the larger argument, the pro-gun folks seem to feel pushed into not giving any ground whatsoever on anything and arguing the strange position that someone using legally owned guns to shoot a bunch of innocent people has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

Singular events such as Aurora may indeed have very little to do with a determination of proper policy, though they do too often provide the impetus for intemperate actions on the political front, where the gain of relative power overwhelms the cause of common good.

A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound
study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5
million protective uses of guns by adults annually.[22] As many as 65
lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun
tragedy sensationalized, dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported.
Whether or not "newsworthy," scientific method begs accounting of the
benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented,
the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is
absent from the medical literature. The protective benefits of guns - and
the politicized "science" that has been used to underestimate or totally
deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been
extensively reviewed.[4-12]

22 Kleck G and Gertz M. Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and
nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
Summer 1995: 86. forthcoming.

....

4 Suter EA. Guns in the medical literature - a failure of peer review.
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.

5 Kates DB, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH, Schaffer HE, and Southwick
L. Gun control: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda. University
of Tennessee Law Review. Spring 1995.

6 Kates DB, Lattimer JK, and Cottrol RJ. Public health literature on
firearms - a critique of overt mendacity. a paper presented to the American
Society of Criminology annual meeting. New Orleans, LA. November 5, 1992.

7 Blackman PH. The federal factoid factory on firearms and violence: a
review of CDC research and politics. a paper presented to the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences. Chicago IL. March 8-12, 1994.

8 Blackman PH. Criminology's astrology: the Center for Disease Control
approach to public health research on firearms and violence.. a paper
presented to the American Society of Criminology. Baltimore, MD November
7-10, 1990.

9 Blackman PH. Children and firearms: lies the CDC loves.. a paper
presented to the American Society of Criminology. New Orleans, LA. November
4-7, 1992.

10 Suter E. 'Assault weapons' revisited - an analysis of the AMA report.
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. May1994; 83: 281-89.

11 Kleck G. Point blank: guns and violence in america. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter. 1991.

12 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, crime, and violence in America:
executive summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, National Institute
of Justice. 1981.

From Violence in America - Effective Solutions

 

[Rainsford]

Every time we ban guns, violent crime goes up.

I doubt there is much factual basis for that argument. For one thing, I don't see us going through cycles of gun bans/no gun bans, so I'm not sure how you can say "every time we ban guns" anything happens.

So far as I'm aware, there is basically no good study anywhere finding a causal relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. Most arguments point to lowering crime rates in the last several years while gun rights have generally become more liberal. Except crime rates are generally going down everywhere, even places where gun ownership is still more limited.

I'm genuinely interested in any factual information about this, but so far that's been pretty hard to find.

 

[Rainsford]

Singular events such as Aurora may indeed have very little to do with a determination of proper policy, though they do too often provide the impetus for intemperate actions on the political front, where the gain of relative power overwhelms the cause of common good.



From Violence in America - Effective Solutions

The part of the article you quoted made it pretty obvious they're coming into the issue with a massive agenda, which makes it a little hard to believe their findings. But I will agree that the Aurora shooting isn't a way to make policy. Personally I think intelligent policy is extremely hard to come up with when it comes to guns, since I don't think "common good" is necessarily at the forefront of either side's arguments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because of a thousand reasons.

Then I suggest that enlightened but specious attitudes of condemnation of those who choose to own firearms are less than helpful. The real issue is how to instill a sense of right and wrong when moral absolutes are considered foolish.

 

[PJABBER]

I'm genuinely interested in any factual information about this, but so far that's been pretty hard to find.

You can start by reading the reference I link in the post right above yours.

 

[HAL9000]

Then I suggest that enlightened but specious attitudes of condemnation of those who choose to own firearms are less than helpful. The real issue is how to instill a sense of right and wrong when moral absolutes are considered foolish.

Of course that's important.

But my concerns regarding America allowing gun ownership won't dissipate until I stop hearing about regular shootings in America.

Murders per 100,000

US: 4.8
UK: 1.23

So.... Why are you killing each other 3.9x more than we are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[PJABBER]

The part of the article you quoted made it pretty obvious they're coming into the issue with a massive agenda, which makes it a little hard to believe their findings. But I will agree that the Aurora shooting isn't a way to make policy. Personally I think intelligent policy is extremely hard to come up with when it comes to guns, since I don't think "common good" is necessarily at the forefront of either side's arguments.

The authors, medical doctors and scientific researchers all, are reaching conclusions derived from the peer reviewed references they provide.

If you refuse to consider their conclusions out of hand, why do you bother to ask for primary research at all? You might as well stick with the anecdotal and political statements made by so many with particular and political agendas.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Do you realize the U.S. has the largest standing army in the world, except for maybe china?

Once a nations military is defeated, the war would be pretty much over.

In the case of the U.S., after the military is defeated, the invaders would have to defeat millions of armed citizens.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[soundforbjt]

Just remember McVeigh killed 10x more people with just some diesel fuel, fertilizer, and a rental truck.

And I bet you'd have a harder time buying that much of that fertilizer now than you would a gun.

 

[Infohawk]

If you refuse to consider their conclusions out of hand, why do you bother to ask for primary research at all? You might as well stick with the anecdotal and political statements made by so many with particular and political agendas.

I hate when people do this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course that's important.

But my concerns regarding America allowing gun ownership won't dissipate until I stop hearing about regular shootings in America.

Murders per 100,000

US: 4.8
UK: 1.23

So.... Why are you killing each other 3.9x more than we are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Because of the same reason murder in the inner city environment of Philadelphia where I grew up is far higher than Vt where I also lived. In the latter people accepted that it was wrong to kill another. In fact the statistics are misleading since a number of crimes were committed by non-natives. Regardless of the exact figure, people there avoid murder by any means. In contrast, my upbringing taught me that life is considered cheap and one way of killing is as good as another. A knife or club will work and might be more entertaining. Lack of a gun does not matter. If someone wanted you dead, you were dead. Most likely you have no concept of what thats like, but I'm glad if thats true. Some o of us are practiced executioners.

 

[HAL9000]

Because of the same reason murder in the inner city environment of Philadelphia where I grew up is far higher than Vt where I also lived. In the latter people accepted that it was wrong to kill another. In fact the statistics are misleading since a number of crimes were committed by non-natives. Regardless of the exact figure, people there avoid murder by any means. In contrast, my upbringing taught me that life is considered cheap and one way of killing is as good as another.

This argument works for your statement earlier.

Why is the gun homicide rate in your country higher that the US state with no limits on carrying firearms at all? If you look at the homicide rate to gun ownership rate you look positively bloodthirsty by comparison. Why are you such killers?

A knife or club will work and might be more entertaining. Lack of a gun does not matter. If someone wanted you dead, you were dead. Most likely you have no concept of what thats like, but I'm glad if thats true. Some o of us are practiced executioners.

I'm pretty sure that the guy at the Dark Knight Rises premiere would have struggled to kill 12 and wound 50 with a club.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because of the same reason murder in the inner city environment of Philadelphia where I grew up is far higher than Vt where I also lived. In the latter people accepted that it was wrong to kill another. In fact the statistics are misleading since a number of crimes were committed by non-natives. Regardless of the exact figure, people there avoid murder by any means. In contrast, my upbringing taught me that life is considered cheap and one way of killing is as good as another.

This argument works for your statement earlier.





I'm pretty sure that the guy at the Dark Knight Rises premiere would have struggled to kill 12 and wound 50 with a club.

No, in his case he would not have used a club and could have killed many more. He demonstrated that he had the knowledge

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not anti-gun, at all- in fact, I own a few.

OTOH, gun owners in general get a bad name from the paranoid ravers who manage to get out front in every discussion, who are obsessed with semi-mythical gun grabbers, govt oppression, and the laughable notion of foreign invasion. For them, it's all looneytunes all the time, apparently a way to achieve sexual arousal, or something, something really weird.

There is no consensus for gun confiscation in this country, never will be unless the looneytunes actually get organized & start shooting, which might change things. Even though gun advocates have won significant legal victories as of late, the fringe is as nutty as ever, maybe even more so. When some tragedy of gun violence brings out the rare voices from the opposite pole, they turn all twitchy, revert to their fantasies. When silly people restrict magazine size to 10 rounds, they act like it's the end of the world, act like they think they really need 30 round mags to keep the commies out of the living room. Instead of appreciating the incredible variety of firearms available to them, they pine for the forbidden fruit of what they can't get. If full auto weapons were available w/o extra permits, they'd want belt-fed. If that were legal, they'd want grenade launchers, then mortars, then their very own backyard howitzers.

The good news is that damned few people want to grab yer guns, with the vast majority recognizing it as a quixotic quest, anyway. There are way, way too many firearms in this country for any rational person to even consider that such might be successful. Even 100 year old firearms that were never registered will function perfectly if taken care of...

Some states will attempt to be more restrictive, particularly those that are highly urbanized, who've had past problems with heavily armed thugs, but that's part & parcel of the whole States' Rights routine that Righties go on about when it suits their purposes.

So, uhh, other than that, buy all the guns you want, use them well, enjoy them. If you live in some locale where ownership is historically more restrictive than you'd like, you have alternatives. You wouldn't move to Colorado if being near the ocean meant the world to you, I suspect.

It is, for sure, impossible to say how the framers of the constitution would feel about modern firearms, anyway. All they had were black powder flintlocks, mostly smoothbores.

 

[CPA]

This thread will end well....

America should have banned guns a long time ago.

In your mind, you think we should have banned then just prior to 1775.

 

[HAL9000]

In your mind, you think we should have banned then just prior to 1775.

Them.

No idea what happened in 1775...

I'd have banned them around the 70's.

 

[Orignal Earl]

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Cit..._Gun_Deaths_A_Year__What_Is_Our_Role_.11.aspx

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Cit..._Gun_Deaths_A_Year__What_Is_Our_Role_.11.aspx

Well thats nice.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Well thats nice.

Why would you think that's nice?
That's pretty horrible to most people