Ever wondered how many times guns saved the day?

Started by Monfang, February 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Monfang

Well, someone at the CATO Instatue (which sounds like a comic book villen organization) did the research and gave us a big map to show us.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

Now you might notice areas that are completely blank or very sparse, it explains that often criminals run once they know the person they are targeting has a gun and this isn't covered in the media, and it often isn't reported. However it still concludes: "The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year."

So what say you? Are they right that gun ownership by law abiding citizens saves just as many or more lives than not?

Silverfyre

You do realize that the source you are using is a rather biased conservative 'think tank" rather than any sort of objective research facility, yes?  It's owned by Charles Koch after all.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/305928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute



Kythia

Randomly clicking on a few icons, I see one from 2005 and one from 2012.  There are at least seven years worth of data here, and it still looks pretty sparse.
242037

Beguile's Mistress

Cato Institute finds and sends mailings to anyone who publicly comes out in support of fighting any sort of gun control legislation, registration and regulation.  They also lobby lawmakers at the state and federal levels.


Monfang

Quote from: Kythia on February 15, 2013, 03:46:35 PM
Randomly clicking on a few icons, I see one from 2005 and one from 2012.  There are at least seven years worth of data here, and it still looks pretty sparse.
As it says, most of the cases aren't reported and aren't recorded by the media. If the rate is the same as crime unreported. (50-40%) then we might only be looking at half of the total data if not more.

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 03:47:00 PM
Cato Institute finds and sends mailings to anyone who publicly comes out in support of fighting any sort of gun control legislation, registration and regulation.  They also lobby lawmakers at the state and federal levels.
Lobbing is a big part of politics nowadays, both gun control and gun freedom have lobbiests. I don't see what this has to do with the data.

Silverfyre

The data, if not recorded and analyzed, is thus worthless to those trying to create an objective portrayal of statistics for their platform.  I also question the validity of the data from such an organization.


Beguile's Mistress

Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.

Silverfyre

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.

BeMi says it better than my muddled brain could.  Well said.


Monfang

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Beguile's Mistress

#9
Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.  I personally know two people who have accidentally killed friends in hunting accidents through carelessness.  There are cases reported across the nation where people have turned legally owned firearms on others when no crime was intended and when they failed to first identify the target have shot at, injured or killed the innocent person. 

You can say that there are incidents where a civilian with a gun may have deterred the commission of a crime but not every situation resolves itself in this way.  My self-protection instructor taught us that in a confrontation with a criminal you'll probably lose due to hesitation before you can defend yourself adequately.




As a bit of information for future posting, Monfang, please understand that Elliquiy, unlike some other sites on the internet, encourages open discussion of topics relevant to today's culture and society.  We have a diverse membership including may religions, cultures, races and nationalities as well as members who are representative of all sexual orientations and gender groups. 

Discussions of any sort are expected to have links to back up factual statements and those links should come from objective sources.  Presenting yourself or an organization in the light of an authority on a subject leaves the door open for discussion of that as well as the question you pose.

We love to see new members with a desire to become active in our community, however, the environment in which you find yourself may be unfamiliar.  It might help if you take a look around the forums open to you and get a feel for how we do things.  That way when you post about such hot button issues as gun rights, feminism and such you'll have a better idea of how to get your point across in a way that is acceptable.

Star Safyre

A good article I read/hear on this topic is Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman on NPR.  It speaks to what many gun-carrying folks I've known have shared with me: the fantasy/belief that they can save everyone with one clean shot.  The reality of most situations is that a civilian rarely has the training needed to use deadly force effectively, especially if oneself or loved ones are in mortal danger and the chaos that accompanies violent altercations.  Those who have had training, the knowledge must be maintained rigorously:

Quote"The ability to safely handle and use a gun in a lawful manner is a perishable skill," [assistant chief Jim Pugel, a 30-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department] says. "If you don't practice on a regular basis, psychologically, physiologically, you will likely not respond properly."
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Monfang

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
As a bit of information for future posting, Monfang, please understand that Elliquiy, unlike some other sites on the internet, encourages open discussion of topics relevant to today's culture and society.  We have a diverse membership including may religions, cultures, races and nationalities as well as members who are representative of all sexual orientations and gender groups. 

Discussions of any sort are expected to have links to back up factual statements and those links should come from objective sources.  Presenting yourself or an organization in the light of an authority on a subject leaves the door open for discussion of that as well as the question you pose.

We love to see new members with a desire to become active in our community, however, the environment in which you find yourself may be unfamiliar.  It might help if you take a look around the forums open to you and get a feel for how we do things.  That way when you post about such hot button issues as gun rights, feminism and such you'll have a better idea of how to get your point across in a way that is acceptable.
Is there any way that I could send you a private message instead of replying to you in a public way?

Pumpkin Seeds

Speaking in absolutes is never wise when holding a debate or even conversation.  Certainly someone, somewhere in the United States has been saved by a civilian brandishing a pistol.  Someone somewhere would have benefitted from having a gun on them at a particular movement where their life could have been saved.  To say otherwise is simply wrong.  At the same time how many lives would have been saved if someone was not in possession of a firearm?  How many accidental deaths would have been prevented if a weapon was not allowed into a household in the first place or how many accidental shootings would never have occurred? 

The problem with gun rights is not that guns can save lives.  Weapons in the hands of civilians have saved lives in the past and will do so in the future.  The question is whether the number of lives saved is worth those lost and the consequences to society for having such weaponry available.  A fine balance has to be struck between the protection of self and the good of society.

Monfang

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on February 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
Speaking in absolutes is never wise when holding a debate or even conversation.  Certainly someone, somewhere in the United States has been saved by a civilian brandishing a pistol.  Someone somewhere would have benefitted from having a gun on them at a particular movement where their life could have been saved.  To say otherwise is simply wrong.  At the same time how many lives would have been saved if someone was not in possession of a firearm?  How many accidental deaths would have been prevented if a weapon was not allowed into a household in the first place or how many accidental shootings would never have occurred? 

The problem with gun rights is not that guns can save lives.  Weapons in the hands of civilians have saved lives in the past and will do so in the future.  The question is whether the number of lives saved is worth those lost and the consequences to society for having such weaponry available.  A fine balance has to be struck between the protection of self and the good of society.
One of the arguments that I heard of late is that guns helps women overcome the strength that a man may have.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/02/11/us/20130211-WOMEN.html

Pumpkin Seeds

.....

........

I feel that a curse word is appropriate here.


Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Thing is.. your 'source' is obviously curved/skewed in their approach. I'm pro-gun.. but I also feel that gun control laws need to be enforces (and they aren't.. only 11 states give data to the offenders database).

Right now we're in the middle of a literal s-storm of the 'anti' and 'pro' gun lobbies. And like most things somewhere in the middle is where things should be.

Banning gun sales won't fix the problem. Banning guns won't fix it. You have violence in countries 'without guns'. There was a movement to ban pointed kitchen knives in the UK of late.

You don't see a lot of the 'gun stops spree' events because.. well.. you never know when they will occur..they are stopped before they happen. Also.. you don't get as much jazz on 'security officer prevents gun man entry into school.' Half the time it's hard to prove a 'non-event' and when you do have a tragedy averted..well.. it's not tragic..therefore not 'newsworthy' in todays ratings battle for ad revenue.

Honestly, the folks in power failed us in preventing things from coming so commercialized. Look at today's media conglomerates compared to the way when Reagan pulled the fairness doctrine and before the creation of CNN, though in all fairness events even back then were in motion to strangle diversity in the Media.

You want a more 'responsible' media reporting and representation of how guns effect things.. well you get how to handle that.. you're going to be ahead of me.

Don't expect a cut and dried presentation like what you cited from the Cato Institute to be entirely truthful

Brittany

#16
Does civilian carrying guns save more lives than it costs?

I'm sure there are facts and figures that go towards answering this question.  But the gun issue itself is so complicated.  A mish mash of history, the value of human life, the question of whether they would just use another weapon.. there is so much to talk about.  If your son or daughters life is lost, I don't know how much you would care about the ones that were saved.

As an English girl,  I'm going to do what all smart British people do and duck this question, because I don't think we can ever fully understand.  I mean the right to bear arms is such an important part of American history and culture but there are negatives too.  I don't feel qualified to talk about it honestly, but I hope they can find a way to keep more people safe and happy.  Love the Americans.

P.S Piers, come home or be quiet, you are embarrassing yourself!!  ;D

Monfang

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on February 15, 2013, 06:04:13 PM
Thing is.. your 'source' is obviously curved/skewed in their approach. I'm pro-gun.. but I also feel that gun control laws need to be enforces (and they aren't.. only 11 states give data to the offenders database).

Right now we're in the middle of a literal s-storm of the 'anti' and 'pro' gun lobbies. And like most things somewhere in the middle is where things should be.

Banning gun sales won't fix the problem. Banning guns won't fix it. You have violence in countries 'without guns'. There was a movement to ban pointed kitchen knives in the UK of late.

You don't see a lot of the 'gun stops spree' events because.. well.. you never know when they will occur..they are stopped before they happen. Also.. you don't get as much jazz on 'security officer prevents gun man entry into school.' Half the time it's hard to prove a 'non-event' and when you do have a tragedy averted..well.. it's not tragic..therefore not 'newsworthy' in todays ratings battle for ad revenue.

Honestly, the folks in power failed us in preventing things from coming so commercialized. Look at today's media conglomerates compared to the way when Reagan pulled the fairness doctrine and before the creation of CNN, though in all fairness events even back then were in motion to strangle diversity in the Media.

You want a more 'responsible' media reporting and representation of how guns effect things.. well you get how to handle that.. you're going to be ahead of me.

Don't expect a cut and dried presentation like what you cited from the Cato Institute to be entirely truthful
I fully agree with the better gun control laws and not a gun ban. Especially with mental health.

And the only reason why I put up a link to the CATO Institute was because I just got it on my newsfeed and it interested me, thought I would share it.

Pumpkin Seeds

Alright, now that I have cursed and taken my deep breath.  A gun certainly allows a weaker opponent to match against a stronger.  That is true regardless of man or woman.  So does martial arts training, non-lethal weaponry such as pepper spray/mace/tasers and knowledge of simple self-defense techniques of avoiding danger.  A gun often gives people a false confidence that can lead them to make bad choices for their own personal safety.  So I am unclear how the article presented, which is basically highlighting the benefit of “bringing a gun to a knife fight”, is supposed to push forward the point of discussion.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 05:55:06 PM
Is there any way that I could send you a private message instead of replying to you in a public way?

Private messaging privileges are not available to unapproved members.  Please post your questions here.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Star Safyre on February 15, 2013, 05:54:40 PM
A good article I read/hear on this topic is Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman on NPR.  It speaks to what many gun-carrying folks I've known have shared with me: the fantasy/belief that they can save everyone with one clean shot.  The reality of most situations is that a civilian rarely has the training needed to use deadly force effectively, especially if oneself or loved ones are in mortal danger and the chaos that accompanies violent altercations.  Those who have had training, the knowledge must be maintained rigorously:

So citing Cato Institute doesn't jive but NPR is okay?

NPR has a long history of controversies. I don't doubt Cato Institute does too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-10-NPR10_CV_N.htm

But I suppose a pissing contest over whose sources are more legitimate is probably pointless anyhow. No one is going to agree.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 07:15:33 PM
So citing Cato Institute doesn't jive but NPR is okay?

The thing is, Zeitgeist, conservatives still haven't gotten their heads around the fact that their massively skewed echo chamber just has a huge, huge credibility problem as a whole that other media outlets, whatever controversies they may find themselves embroiled in (and it's not possible to report news and avoid controversy entirely) don't have. Treating NPR as more objective than the Cato Institute is really just a recognition of facts. It's unfortunate, but it's something the conservative movement has done to itself by its own free choice.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Zeitgeist

Like I said, it is pointless to debate it. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Frankly I just really don't give that much of a damn anyhow.

Branwen

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:04:29 PM
Like I said, it is pointless to debate it. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Frankly I just really don't give that much of a damn anyhow.

Then why enter a debate thread?  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking.  It's clearly causing you concern and stress. 

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Branwen on February 15, 2013, 08:06:40 PM
Then why enter a debate thread?  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking.  It's clearly causing you concern and stress.

Sure, I appreciate that but we're also way off topic now (partially my fault) and so I was just trying to cut it short. What I really should have said I don't give a damn what Cyrano Johnson thinks of Republicans and the Conservative Movement.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:11:17 PMI don't give a damn what Cyrano Johnson thinks of Republicans and the Conservative Movement.

That's your prerogative. But it's not just my opinion that I'm describing, is the point. I didn't tank the Cato Institute's reputation, I didn't give Fox News its well-earned "Faux News" nickname. Conservatives did that and many similar things to themselves, on their own; the movement deliberately chose propaganda over facts at a certain point in its history, and now has to live with the consequences of that. You're going to find political debates in this day and age incredibly frustrating if you can't face up to this.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Branwen

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:11:17 PM
Sure, I appreciate that but we're also way off topic now (partially my fault) and so I was just trying to cut it short. What I really should have said I don't give a damn what Cyrano Johnson thinks of Republicans and the Conservative Movement.

That's a different thing then. :)  Thank you very much for clarifying and I hope the debate remains enjoyable for you and everyone else involved.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on February 15, 2013, 08:16:49 PM
That's your prerogative. But it's not just my opinion that I'm describing, is the point. I didn't tank the Cato Institute's reputation, I didn't give Fox News its well-earned "Faux News" nickname. Conservatives did that and many similar things to themselves, on their own; the movement deliberately chose propaganda over facts at a certain point in its history, and now has to live with the consequences of that. You're going to find political debates in this day and age incredibly frustrating if you can't face up to this.

Well you can stick that patronizing tone where the sun don't shine skipper. You know next to nothing about my ideological and political persuasions. And yet your every word drips of bias:

massively skewed
echo chamber
huge credibility problem


I mean for fucks sake, the country elects then reelects a mixed race man with a Middle Eastern middle name not long after the smoke clears from 9/11 and people still act like Fox News, Bush and Rupert Murdoch run the country or something. What would you do if you didn't have Fox News to point to? Golly, you might have to look in the mirror once in awhile.

Breaking news for you. Neither ideological angle has all the answers or is right about everything.


Cyrano Johnson

#28
Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:30:51 PMWell you can stick that patronizing tone where the sun don't shine skipper.

I'm sorry my tone offends you, I'm simply stating a fact. The conservative movement and its media have credibility problems unique to themselves, which they've created. The words "echo chamber" and "massively skewed" are called-for, and accurate. I'm not going to say otherwise because you throw a tantrum, and if my criticisms have nothing to do with your ideology or your politics, then you have no reason to be intemperate.

Incidentally:

QuoteBreaking news for you. Neither ideological angle has all the answers or is right about everything.

What's that you were saying about a "patronizing tone"? And you're changing the subject. Nobody is "right about everything," but that doesn't mean that some people can't have worse credibility problems than others. If an "ideological angle" is making its mistakes because it has chosen propaganda over facts -- and one of them is -- there comes a point where you can't obscure that fact. We're at that point. We've been there for a long time.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

elone

I read most of what has been said here and have a few observations. As an indicator of my own bias, I am a fan of NPR and dislike Cato.

That being said, I clicked a few of the pins on the map to actually see what they said. They seem to be factually presented stories and unless someone can actually prove they are false, then maybe they may be true. They are, after all trying to make their point. One thing that does stand out is how few of these instances there are given the time span. I also looked at Florida, and could not find the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting listed. Nor did I see listings where anyone who used a gun in a self protective manner was charged for doing so. And of course Cato gave no such map for accidental shootings or gun offenses by people with legal ownership.

One problem with gun debates is that there are unknowns, both pro and con. For instance, how many home invasions/burglaries are prevented because criminals know that many people keep guns in their homes. Likewise, how many gun crimes are committed with guns stolen from said homes. (there may actually be stats for that somewhere). In countries where gun ownership is basically prohibited, do people feel safe in their homes versus people in countries that allow gun ownership.

Then there are the second amendment fans who say we need guns to protect us from the possible abuse by government in the future.

Since getting rid of guns won't happen, some common sense laws on registration and background checks seem reasonable. Large capacity magazines aren't really necessary for anyone either. The whole issue over assault weapons is a little murkier. It seems like an issue over appearance, because all semi automatic rifles are equally dangerous and capable of killing rapidly. Also, why ban an assault rifle and not a semi automatic pistol?

I am not pro assualt rifle, I just think that the press and public don't really know what the hell they are talking about.
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

ShadowFox89

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:30:51 PM
I mean for fucks sake, the country elects then reelects a mixed race man with a Middle Eastern middle name not long after the smoke clears from 9/11 and people still act like Fox News, Bush and Rupert Murdoch run the country or something. What would you do if you didn't have Fox News to point to? Golly, you might have to look in the mirror once in awhile.

Breaking news for you. Neither ideological angle has all the answers or is right about everything.

Ah, the sweet sweet smell of a hypocrite.

Fox News is irrelevant to anyone who doesn't actively try to listen to the trash they spew. Bush got shoved under the bus almost as fast as Romney did. Murdoch owns just about every conservative media outlet in the major English speaking nations.

What would be done if there were no Fox News? Trolls would be out of a job, because they'd have no one to astroturf for. Old white men with nothing better to do would have to go back to watching Judge Judy and screaming at the minority kids to stop walking by their property. The other media outlets rarely even say anything about Fox News, unless it's Fox acting like morons again.

9/11 happened. It was a tragedy, yes. But the smoke is long cleared. To live in the past is to forget the mistakes made. To refuse to move forward is to live with your head in the dirt.

And the repubs love shoving their own faces in the dirt, when they aren't trying to do so to anyone who isn't rich, white, or male.
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Callie Del Noire

Ah..shadowfox.  I'm a republican. Granted not a good one according to the ruling cadre but still. I find those comments divisive and not at all helpful in anyway towards the situation we have going on. Now I agree about the issues that Fox brings to the news but there are similar, though less heavy handed, similar issues going on with folks at CNN and MSNBC.


My major issue with Fox is that like most of Rupert Murdochs media empire, it's HIS mallet to wield. Want to see how he electioneers everywhere else he has businesses. The slams he does to political rivals overseas is MINDBOGGLING. He'd be in court for libel every day here.

Fox isn't a GOP tool, it's a Murdoch tool, and if the DMC was in his pocket live certain parts of the GOP were, Fox would be slamming the GOP reps instead of the president. It's not politics, it's business.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: ShadowFox89 on February 16, 2013, 02:49:39 AM
Ah, the sweet sweet smell of a hypocrite.

Fox News is irrelevant to anyone who doesn't actively try to listen to the trash they spew. Bush got shoved under the bus almost as fast as Romney did. Murdoch owns just about every conservative media outlet in the major English speaking nations.

What would be done if there were no Fox News? Trolls would be out of a job, because they'd have no one to astroturf for. Old white men with nothing better to do would have to go back to watching Judge Judy and screaming at the minority kids to stop walking by their property. The other media outlets rarely even say anything about Fox News, unless it's Fox acting like morons again.

9/11 happened. It was a tragedy, yes. But the smoke is long cleared. To live in the past is to forget the mistakes made. To refuse to move forward is to live with your head in the dirt.

And the repubs love shoving their own faces in the dirt, when they aren't trying to do so to anyone who isn't rich, white, or male.

I'm simply pointing out that blaming Fox News is a tired, old, limp wet dish rag of an argument. If you require an example of a sane argument you need only look as far as above you at elone.

Mithlomwen

Looks as if things are starting to get a bit heated. 

I'm going to lock the thread for 24 hours to allow things to cool down a bit. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Cyrano Johnson

#34
Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 16, 2013, 08:11:06 AM
I'm simply pointing out that blaming Fox News is a tired, old, limp wet dish rag of an argument.

Fox News still has all the characteristics that long ago earned it its extremely poor reputation. So do other conservative media outlets like WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report & c. The question I was addressing was whether conservative media outlets are the equivalent of NPR, and the answer is still no, they aren't, and pretending that they are [seems potentially] disingenuous. In my opinion it's the "what about NPR's controversies?!" [gambit] that is [tired and old], the decades-old tactic of [shouting] about "bias" in order to derail objectivity.

(EDITED in the interest of elevating the tone, per Remiel's request.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Remiel

Please watch the tone, Cyrano.  That goes for you as well, Zeitgeist. 

If you guys cannot keep it civil, we're going to lock this thread permanently.

Will

There are not a lot of pins in that map in the OP.  Maybe if it was meant to cover the span of one year, it would be meaningful.  But the criteria for inclusion seems to be "any incident, ever, that you can source."

Let's contrast that with some data with specified time ranges.

QuoteIn 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
This seems pretty insane to me.  Just within the space of one year?  31,000 people dead by gunshot.  How many of those were criminals in the process of committing a crime?  And of those, how many were committing a crime that deserved death?  How many were even armed and/or dangerous?

QuoteIn 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
Just over 600 people dead, by accident, in the space of one year.  Comparing that to a map that plots incidents from any year - even a quick gloss-over shows that the number of pins doesn't even come close to 600.  For all time, ever.

QuoteA federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
Kids, man.  I hate to say 'think of the children,' but seriously.  It's a very small number compared to all gun-related deaths, but it's the only number that's anywhere near as small as the number of pins on that map.

Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
So what say you? Are they right that gun ownership by law abiding citizens saves just as many or more lives than not?
Not even close.  It just barely edges out accidental gun death involving children.

Also, conjecturing about how many criminals fled the scene and escaped after being confronted with a gun isn't going to get you anywhere.  We could hem and haw about any number of unknowns, such as how many police actions were fucked up by pistol-wielding vigilante citizens, how many unremarkable situations were escalated into violence, and how many deaths that caused.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Love And Submission

Quote from: Will on March 03, 2013, 08:46:23 PM
There are not a lot of pins in that map in the OP.  Maybe if it was meant to cover the span of one year, it would be meaningful.  But the criteria for inclusion seems to be "any incident, ever, that you can source."

Let's contrast that with some data with specified time ranges.
This seems pretty insane to me.  Just within the space of one year?  31,000 people dead by gunshot.  How many of those were criminals in the process of committing a crime?  And of those, how many were committing a crime that deserved death?  How many were even armed and/or dangerous?
Just over 600 people dead, by accident, in the space of one year.  Comparing that to a map that plots incidents from any year - even a quick gloss-over shows that the number of pins doesn't even come close to 600.  For all time, ever.
Kids, man.  I hate to say 'think of the children,' but seriously.  It's a very small number compared to all gun-related deaths, but it's the only number that's anywhere near as small as the number of pins on that map.
Not even close.  It just barely edges out accidental gun death involving children.

Also, conjecturing about how many criminals fled the scene and escaped after being confronted with a gun isn't going to get you anywhere.  We could hem and haw about any number of unknowns, such as how many police actions were fucked up by pistol-wielding vigilante citizens, how many unremarkable situations were escalated into violence, and how many deaths that caused.


Well since no crime deserves death short of I don't now....  killing a thousand people. I'm going to say the number of people who were killed committing a crime that deserved death is somewhere around zero.
'
Actually you know what? I'm in favor of the death penalty but only for people who killed the equivalent or more then a thousand people. I feel like that's a just enough crime to deserve. Short of that we'll put   you in prison for life like   a civilized society instead of   a bunch feral 1st century Romans nailing the second coming through his hands and leaving him out in the sun to die.



Discord: SouthOfHeaven#3454

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: DTW on March 04, 2013, 01:22:25 AM

Well since no crime deserves death short of I don't now....  killing a thousand people. I'm going to say the number of people who were killed committing a crime that deserved death is somewhere around zero.
'
Actually you know what? I'm in favor of the death penalty but only for people who killed the equivalent or more then a thousand people. I feel like that's a just enough crime to deserve. Short of that we'll put   you in prison for life like   a civilized society instead of   a bunch feral 1st century Romans nailing the second coming through his hands and leaving him out in the sun to die.

I disagree. To me some folks have clearly moved past the point of redemption without having killed more than one or two folks.  For example a couple kidnaps, rapes and totures a woman for 72 hours and after they get bored with her stab her over two dozen times with a screwdriver then when she doesn't die immediately from her wounds injects her with drain cleaner. Sorry mad dogs, human or animal need to be put down. The woman in that couple was executed when I was in high school. My teacher partnered with one of the officers who caught them. They were on the hunt for another victim.

Charles Manson was given plenty of time to reform his habits, but each time he came out the institutions worse. There is a point when you have to accept some folks can't be changed by the system

That being said, we also need MASSIVE reform in the prison system. We create a lot of our own problems with some of the laws in place today.

owen84

Banning gun dose not stop people from getting them. Most countries ban drugs but they still hit the streets.
I live in Wales where guns are ban. But I know at least 3 people who could get me one by the of the day.
The problem is control and what kind of weapons are needed and should be sold.
A teacher of mine once said "give every one guns for free, then charge them one million per bullet" the idea is any one can kill any one but is it worth the price.

At the end of the day now when have discover it you can't un-discover it.
Why is it that only in death do we truly learn about life.

Kythia

I'm sorry, Im confused.  Your argument is that anyone can get guns even here in the UK where they are illegal.  But then you say that making bullets expensive is the solution.  Surely the same smugglers or whatever that sold guns would just sell ammo instead?  I don't fully understand what putting the price up would do. 
242037

owen84

Sorry that was not ment to be a solution. I'm not arrogant enough it admit to having that, I don't think any one dose. Just something some one said that I found funny. The idea of every one with a gun but ammo. Rendering one useless with out the other.
Why is it that only in death do we truly learn about life.

Kythia

Ah, I get you.  Sorry, obviously feeling oddly literal today.

Welcome to E, by the way
242037

owen84

Why is it that only in death do we truly learn about life.

Caehlim

#44
Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 04, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
I disagree. To me some folks have clearly moved past the point of redemption without having killed more than one or two folks... (sorry can't bring myself to even quote this bit)... Sorry mad dogs, human or animal need to be put down.

I don't necessarily disagree with you Callie, though the thought makes me uncomfortable. Some people just don't belong in a world with anyone else and I think in some cases execution can be preferable in a variety of factors to lifetime incarceration.

QuoteThere is a point when you have to accept some folks can't be changed by the system

That being said, we also need MASSIVE reform in the prison system. We create a lot of our own problems with some of the laws in place today.

Our system (By 'we' I mean western civilization in general) can't decide whether it's meant to deter people, "punish" them or rehabilitate them. It's no surprise that it doesn't work. How can we expect it to work when it can't even decide what its goal is?
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Sethala

Well, I've got a few thoughts on the issue.

First, our hypothetical ideas of how many crimes can be prevented by guns... well, they don't have to be that hypothetical.  We can look at crime rates for various things in the US, and compare them to other countries with similar factors (such as the UK, Japan, Austrailia) and contrast the amount of gun ownership with the number of crimes committed.

Here's a study I'd like to find (though my brief searches haven't gotten anything yet): Make a list of how many violent crimes occur in each year, by country.  They should be rated by as close to the same criteria as possible (I know that some countries have different definitions for "violent crimes", so hopefully that can also be taken into account somehow).  Then, look at the number and rate of violent crimes that involved a firearm, violent crimes that involved a fatality from a firearm, and violent crimes that involved a fatality from something other than a firearm.

I think what you'll find is that: the US and other countries that have a lot of guns will have a lot more crimes involving guns, and a lot more fatalities that involve guns.  The rate of violent crimes that don't involve guns but end in a fatality will likely be pretty close to the same between countries.

However, whether the US has more violent crimes than other countries can be... difficult.  The "obvious" response is that violent crimes will be less frequent in the US, but those that are violent will escalate to a fatality much more often because guns are much easier to obtain here.  Perhaps it would also be worth looking at how often a violent crime with a fatality has the aggressor as the fatality, compared to the victim; the former case wouldn't be anywhere as unfortunate as the latter.  (As an aside, I'm not saying that the attacker would deserve death... but the victim wouldn't deserve the attack, either, and I'm of the opinion that if you get into a fight with someone, you can't complain if things go horribly wrong for you.)

On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the US has higher violent crime rates, despite the supposed protection of guns.  The reason for this is that while the victim is much more likely to have a gun, the criminal does as well.  Further, he's more likely to go into a crime prepared than a victim is, so it's not entirely clear that more people having guns will actually prevent crimes, just make the aggressor more likely to have a gun of his own before committing it.

But that applies mostly to premeditated crimes; someone lurking in a bad spot of town waiting to mug someone, or someone breaking into a store to rob it.  What about spontaneous crimes, someone lashing out?  Well unfortunately, guns are a hell of a lot easier to lash out with than a knife, at least if they're not kept somewhere safe and somewhat difficult to get into (and, as gun nuts would argue, what good is a gun if you can't get to it quickly in an emergency).  And while a lot of people in the US are big fans of carrying around a gun, I don't think that mentality applies to carrying around a knife (even in other countries), meaning most sudden outbursts would probably end with fists instead of weapons if it weren't for concealed guns.  Further, the mentality that someone has to gt into in order to pull a gun on someone else and threaten/shoot them is usually not the same mentality that would make someone stop and think that maybe that guy also has a gun, and decide to do something else.

Ok, I'm rambling here.  But the point is, I want to see more data.  Mainly, crime rates between the US and other countries, and not just a list of anecdotes.

Caehlim

Quote from: Sethala on March 11, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
We can look at crime rates for various things in the US, and compare them to other countries with similar factors (such as the UK, Japan, Austrailia) and contrast the amount of gun ownership with the number of crimes committed.

That can at best indicate correlation, not causation. Wouldn't it be just as likely that in a country with less crime, people feel less need to purchase a gun to feel safe?

Besides, those countries do not have very similar factors. Australia has a 3.9% gun ownership rate, The US has 36% so they are clearly different on gun ownership. However are the other variables similar enough to draw anything from?

Australia has universal free healthcare, you're paid by the government while you're unemployed (for some people for their entire lives), all medication is heavily subsidized and the housing commission provides subsidized housing. (Yeah... we're pretty much socialist already over here).

Those factors will hugely affect the level of desperation people feel, which is at least one factor in how much violent crime you'll see.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

BCdan

#47
The main problem is that it is hard to report on crimes that do not occur because of the use of guns in self defense.  How many crimes don't happen because someone backed off or re-evaluated committing a hostile act because they knew their target was not a soft target?  This I feel is one of the main problems that self-defense advocacy has. Its hard to prove that a rape or murder or robbery would have happened had the victim not had a gun save for those rare circumstances where the person doing the attacking literally spelled out their plans. 

Edit for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings   Just imagine if someone during that horrible mass shooting in Norway had a concealed weapon. Even incredibly restrictive laws can't stop gunman. 


~I enjoy random PM's~

Sethala

Quote from: Caehlim on March 11, 2013, 05:41:07 PM
That can at best indicate correlation, not causation. Wouldn't it be just as likely that in a country with less crime, people feel less need to purchase a gun to feel safe?

Besides, those countries do not have very similar factors. Australia has a 3.9% gun ownership rate, The US has 36% so they are clearly different on gun ownership. However are the other variables similar enough to draw anything from?

Australia has universal free healthcare, you're paid by the government while you're unemployed (for some people for their entire lives), all medication is heavily subsidized and the housing commission provides subsidized housing. (Yeah... we're pretty much socialist already over here).

Those factors will hugely affect the level of desperation people feel, which is at least one factor in how much violent crime you'll see.

Those are good points, actually, and I didn't really think about that yet.  Overall though, what I want to say is that we need to make arguments and decisions based on full data sets, not just on anecdotal evidence (which, as far as I can tell, is all that the OP's link offers; a bunch of anecdotes with no real measurement as to whether they're the rule or just the exception).  Sadly, there's a lot of other stuff we have to fix here before the government can even start on an honest discussion about gun control, but that's another topic entirely.

Quote from: BCdan on March 11, 2013, 08:59:37 PM
The main problem is that it is hard to report on crimes that do not occur because of the use of guns in self defense.  How many crimes don't happen because someone backed off or re-evaluated committing a hostile act because they knew their target was not a soft target?  This I feel is one of the main problems that self-defense advocacy has. Its hard to prove that a rape or murder or robbery would have happened had the victim not had a gun save for those rare circumstances where the person doing the attacking literally spelled out their plans. 

Edit for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings   Just imagine if someone during that horrible mass shooting in Norway had a concealed weapon. Even incredibly restrictive laws can't stop gunman. 

Perhaps.  But let me give you a scenario: let's say that Bob is at that shooting (or a similar one).  He's got a gun with him, and hears shots go off around a corner.  Being the brave, good Samaritan that he is, he pulls out his gun, turns off the safety, and goes around the corner.  He sees a man, clearly shaken, holding a gun while a crowd of people forms around both him, and a body lying on the ground.  Bob quickly takes aim and fires just as the man turns to face him.

Ok, now let's go back a few seconds, and go into that room.  Dave's also got a gun.  He's actually there when the shooter pulls out his gun and starts firing wildly, injuring a few people.  Dave's got good reaction time however, and quickly pulls out his own gun and shoots the shooter.  As soon as he does, he looks around the corner, and spots Bob, already with a gun out pointed right at himself....

The problem with envisioning what might happen at a mass shooting if someone has a gun, is that the person that started the shooting, and the person that shot them to save everyone, can look pretty similar when you're in a panic and don't have time to find out what's going on.  And unfortunately, in real life, there's no way to turn off friendly fire.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should all just try to run and hide if someone's shooting up the building.  But thinking that adding more guns to a situation will make it less dangerous, instead of escalating the situation, seems naive.  Sure, it might work sometimes, but it might not.  And going back to my scenario, what if there were five gun-owners instead of only Dave and Bob?  How many would-be saviors would get shot because no one knows who the original shooter is?  And worse, how many people are going to get caught in the crossfire if that happens?

Retribution

If I might add something here, but let me confess am a lifelong gun owner and was a long time NRA member. But what gets lost in debates like this are some fundamental things that well turn the initial question kind of anecdotal.  Neither will side give an inch on the gun issue and it just breeds more extremism. I was having a discussion with a gun control advocate friend, well former friend. It was a reasonable talk but he just kept taking it farther until he reached a point where my general reaction was screw this and you as well while we are on the topic.

That is the reason the NRA and so many gun proponents will not give an inch. It never seems to stop and reasonable keeps inching into more restrictions.  Both sides have agendas the NRA obviously does and well the main stream media may claim they do not but funny how it has not been heavily covered that the “assault weapon” was not used in the Sandy Hook shooting. Stolen yes, used in the shooting no those were hand guns. So then with each side trying to justify their point we end up with debates like well the title of this thread.

I would like to see some compromise. There are things I would give on like background checks, a national registry so on. Problem is “assault weapon ban” if you read the laws really means semi auto ban and while we are at it assault weapon is a term that was made up for political reasons. The point is gun ownership is central to my life style. The government has no more right to discriminate against my life style than it does to say discriminate against homosexuality.  But the gun control crowd uses their anecdotes to keep justifying more and then I reach that screw it point when I will not give an inch.  Then we go back to things like the topic of this thread and the whole circle starts all over again.

owen84

Well like I have said I live in Wales where gun ownership is illegal so I can only give Limited impute.
But during my time in UNI I did stay with a guy from america and he was against gun ownership and a member of the NRA. This confused me at first, but after talking to him he explained, that his dad was a member and no mater what people thing NRA members are not gun totting idiots. In an ideal world he said no one would have guns, but we don't  live in an ideal world, and the NRA do more for teaching correct gun correct use than the government.

As far as I know Switzerland Train every one between 20 to 30 to use a gun, Its some kind of peoples military, And they have half the gun crime USA dose so possession of guns is not everything.
Why is it that only in death do we truly learn about life.

Retribution

Honestly education is a very valid point. I have taught boy scout classes and the like on proper firearm handling. And in most states with concealed carry, well there is only one state without concealed carry..anyway you have to take a course to get the permit. This IMHO is a more valid way of dealing with self defense than just buying a gun when you do not really know how to use it. At the risk of sounding arrogant, me with a gun bad guy has a problem, I was raised around them, they are no mystery to me. Some other people that have guns not so much.

I also really want to see mental health in general addressed. It has gotten fleeting lip service in the whole gun debate, that goes from both sides. I do not care if it is government sponsored mental health care or what have you, but I think most the heinous heck all the way back to the shooting of President Reagan have been carried out by some disturbed people.  We need to try and see that these people get help as well as not becoming a threat to the rest of us. And the gun control crowd likes to throw rocks at security guards in schools, public places so on.  Honestly I think we have to have guards, I hate what it says about society, but this is a post 911 world. So weather it is terrorists or someone wanting to shoot up a school I think we have to address security. Heck after 911 I have gone through a metal detector at most amusement parks I enter.

Formless

A gun is practically a tool.

However , since its so lethal it is oftenly condemned as the source of trouble.

It all depends on the major concept of the community regarding weapons in general and not guns.

There is no denying that , owning a weapon is like a tailsman that wards 90% of burglers of any sort. But take it from a politician's eye. He HAVE to think of a gun holder as someone who might use it on any whim.

not sofar in the past many people used to go hunting and they had rifles as lethal as pistols yet violence was not an issue.

In the end It is he who hold the tool to be blamed.

Kythia

Quote from: Ark Noah on March 12, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
There is no denying that , owning a weapon is like a tailsman that wards 90% of burglers of any sort.

Honestly, I think I would deny that.  Happily its pretty easy to get a rough idea.  Is the burglary rate in the US roughly 10% of the burglary rate in the UK?

What do you know, it isn't.  Sure there are a lot of other factors but if 90% of burglaries are being warded off then you'd expect to see some evidence of that rather than them being roughly the same
242037

Caehlim

Quote from: Retribution on March 12, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Problem is “assault weapon ban” if you read the laws really means semi auto ban and while we are at it assault weapon is a term that was made up for political reasons.

Oh wow, I thought they meant assault rifles, looking that up I see what you mean. That's an incredibly manipulative word choice.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Kythia on March 12, 2013, 05:49:48 PM
Honestly, I think I would deny that.  Happily its pretty easy to get a rough idea.  Is the burglary rate in the US roughly 10% of the burglary rate in the UK?

Actually just mathematically, to prove that number the burglary rate in the US would need to be roughly 73% of the burglary rate in the UK based on comparative gun ownership in the two countries.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Formless

@ Kythia : I guess My judgement wouldn't suffice then since I am from niether of these two countries.

I just think the way people handle the guns is the problem.

Kythia

Quote from: Caehlim on March 12, 2013, 05:56:30 PM
Actually just mathematically, to prove that number the burglary rate in the US would need to be roughly 73% of the burglary rate in the UK based on comparative gun ownership in the two countries.

How did you get that?  As a gut that feels way too high.  I'm not arguing per se, just wondering how you got there.  Sure my 10% was a simplification but, yeah. 73 feels too high.
242037

Retribution

#58
Quote from: Caehlim on March 12, 2013, 05:51:08 PM
Oh wow, I thought they meant assault rifles, looking that up I see what you mean. That's an incredibly manipulative word choice.

Well assault rifles generally have a fully automatic selection point on well the safety if you are talking about an M16. The civilian version being an AR15 or in some cases the military/assault rifle version will shoot in three round automatic bursts basically because a soldier tends to waste ammo and melt barrels with a full auto setting. There are various configurations.

Point is for the most part, unless one has some serious licensing fully auto rifles are illegal in civilian hands in the US.  Just like on those same news clips talking about "assault weapon" bans they show rifles firing fully automatic while speaking of banning a semi automatic. Now, I am not sure if this is "incredibly manipulative" but it is tweaking things to one's liking to make a point. For the record the NRA and Cato Institute so on do similar things.

That is why I say I would be willing to talk about gun control if we got this other none sense out of the way.  But as this thread shows the none sense does not get out of the way. So *shrugs* okay I am a gun owner and I will not give an inch without a fight because of said none sense.  I simply do not feel I can trust the opposing side. Also after watching the government in action I know I do not trust them. Note I do not distrust the government due to conspiracy, I mistrust them because I think the system is incompetent.

BCdan

Quote from: Sethala on March 12, 2013, 02:40:28 AM
Those are good points, actually, and I didn't really think about that yet.  Overall though, what I want to say is that we need to make arguments and decisions based on full data sets, not just on anecdotal evidence (which, as far as I can tell, is all that the OP's link offers; a bunch of anecdotes with no real measurement as to whether they're the rule or just the exception).  Sadly, there's a lot of other stuff we have to fix here before the government can even start on an honest discussion about gun control, but that's another topic entirely.

Perhaps.  But let me give you a scenario: let's say that Bob is at that shooting (or a similar one).  He's got a gun with him, and hears shots go off around a corner.  Being the brave, good Samaritan that he is, he pulls out his gun, turns off the safety, and goes around the corner.  He sees a man, clearly shaken, holding a gun while a crowd of people forms around both him, and a body lying on the ground.  Bob quickly takes aim and fires just as the man turns to face him.

Ok, now let's go back a few seconds, and go into that room.  Dave's also got a gun.  He's actually there when the shooter pulls out his gun and starts firing wildly, injuring a few people.  Dave's got good reaction time however, and quickly pulls out his own gun and shoots the shooter.  As soon as he does, he looks around the corner, and spots Bob, already with a gun out pointed right at himself....

The problem with envisioning what might happen at a mass shooting if someone has a gun, is that the person that started the shooting, and the person that shot them to save everyone, can look pretty similar when you're in a panic and don't have time to find out what's going on.  And unfortunately, in real life, there's no way to turn off friendly fire.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should all just try to run and hide if someone's shooting up the building.  But thinking that adding more guns to a situation will make it less dangerous, instead of escalating the situation, seems naive.  Sure, it might work sometimes, but it might not.  And going back to my scenario, what if there were five gun-owners instead of only Dave and Bob?  How many would-be saviors would get shot because no one knows who the original shooter is?  And worse, how many people are going to get caught in the crossfire if that happens?

Actually this did sort of happen when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, but both men carrying personal weapons relaxed and calmed down when they understood the situation.  It is rare for legal gun owners to be trigger happy or poorly trained with their guns.  While you paint an example of something that could theoretically go wrong, it doesn't really convince me or change my stance that law abiding gun owners should have their civil liberties left alone.  Regulate the bad guys and look at the root causes of violence, don't turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.


~I enjoy random PM's~

MHaji

QuoteIt is rare for legal gun owners to be trigger happy or poorly trained with their guns.

Do you mean rare in a statistical sense? Because over 600 fatal gun accidents in a year (before the gun lobby stopped the CDC from collecting subsequent data) suggests that even when we only consider cases where someone actually dies, people accidentally kill themselves and others with guns pretty often - and that's not even in situations where a target's hard to identify.
Ons and offs, in song form.

-

AUCUUCUACGAACGUGAAGCUGACACUCAUAUUAGUCCCAUGAUGGAA

Retribution

Quote from: MHaji on March 13, 2013, 03:05:30 AM
Do you mean rare in a statistical sense? Because over 600 fatal gun accidents in a year (before the gun lobby stopped the CDC from collecting subsequent data) suggests that even when we only consider cases where someone actually dies, people accidentally kill themselves and others with guns pretty often - and that's not even in situations where a target's hard to identify.

This actually kind of illustrates my point. If I wanted to follow the dance script I could answer with a factoid about per capita vehicle ownership and injuries and deaths or the like. Or comparisons of the numbers of injuries and deaths to the number of firearms owners. Suffice to say both sides can supply factoids to justify their stance.

We can meet in the middle though if someone actually acknowledges that say I am not a beer swilling redneck just because firearms are integral to my life. And I will acknowledge that there are some things that can be changed to make life safer and just because you think that way it does not mean you are a communist.

Beguile's Mistress

I grew up with guns, own a few and have had self-defense training.  I don't carry a concealed weapon even though I have a permit.  I go to the range on a weekly basis for target practice and work with an instructor.

The first thing my personal safety instructor told our class is that the gun will only do what you tell it to do. 

My hope is that any hand holding a gun is connected to a fully functioning brain of a sober person exercising common sense. 

Kythia

Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.
242037

Retribution

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

I agree Beguile and now onto addressing Kythia's issues...

Okay, lets assume it is 600. Those deaths only end if when a ban is enacted every single firearm in the hands of private citizens magically vanishes. Not to put too fine a point on it they are not going to vanish  so those deaths will still be taking place and I would vote that deaths would increase. Why? we had prohibition on alcohol in the US at one time the crime that lead to was horrific and full of murder. And lets not get into how ineffective the whole war on drugs has been. Not to mention, well come to take my firearms and we will be testing weather that whole "well armed militia" portion of the second amendment is really still applicable as many pro gun control types say. And I am not the only one who feels strongly enough about this to fight in the very literal sense.

On a similar note, I view the whole lets outlaw guns because a gun lets say killed one person as a cop out. I view it in the same light as saying we should persecute homosexuals because the AIDs epidemic started in that community. That is blatant discrimination and is well wrong. I know comparing apples to oranges, but I hope it makes my point.

And yes guns and ammo are taxed pretty heavy.  There is a law called Pitman Robertson that taxes guns, ammo, hunting equipment so on. Those funds are then put into or supposed to be put into wildlife conservation. It was one of the building blocks of the modern conservation movement funded by hunters like me who have put their money where their mouth is through various taxes that we essentially asked be applied to us. Same as hunting license funds and such. There has been talk of putting a "sin tax" on guns. I would go with that to a point, problem is the other side then starts ranting about making the tax so high no one can afford to own a gun. *Smiles faintly and shakes his head no* alright now me and that crowd have a fight.  That tactic is how the former friend I was speaking of in my first post became a former. There are also charges for background checks and the like on gun sales that vary from state to state.


Kythia

Quote from: Retribution on March 13, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
we will be testing weather that whole "well armed militia" portion of the second amendment

Regulated.  It's a well regulated militia.

Sorry, that just made me laugh.

Anyway, thanks for answering.  Honestly I don't think we're gonna agree here but that's groovy.  Thanks very much for answering my question and a belated welcome to E.  It's always nice to talk to a new (to me) person.
242037

BCdan

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

In a perfect world a blanket ban might save some lives, but definitely not everyone.  You have to remember that there is the 'pandora's box' effect.  Its easy for a country that never had a large number of modern firearms to enforce a ban compared to a country like the US which already has something like 88 guns for every 100 people.  So far strict bans in cities have only resulted in larger numbers of deaths from gun violence. 

Theres actually an interesting study by Harvard that talks about this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf  Basically the study talks about 'minimization' especially during the cold war in which many countries had a major incentive to lie about their gun related murder rates.  Theres also a negative correlation between firearms deaths and number of weapons when it comes to homicide when you look at a local level breakdown. 

So you might be getting fewer accidents with an all out ban on weapons, but you could be trading that in for a significantly higher homicide rate. Mainly because the worst thing for a criminal is a gun owning victim.  An armed victim presents the potentially highest possible cost for a criminal. 


~I enjoy random PM's~

Oniya

Out of curiosity, what do you think of something similar to the regulations placed on car ownership - the applicant needs to pass a written and performance test that must be renewed periodically, and must also meet certain health guidelines (for cars, it's vision, but for guns it could be a mental health evaluation).  A licensing fee would be assessed to cover the necessary exams, much like you pay the DOT/BOT for your auto license.  Insurance against accidents would also be required - just like with cars.  Having a license would allow you to own and operate as many legal firearms as you want, but insurance must be covered on each one.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caehlim

Quote from: Kythia on March 12, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
How did you get that?  As a gut that feels way too high.  I'm not arguing per se, just wondering how you got there.  Sure my 10% was a simplification but, yeah. 73 feels too high.

American gun ownership = 36% of the population.
British = 6% of population.
Difference = 30%.

So if guns saved you 100% of the time, the 30 extra percentage points of gun ownership would make burglaries 70% as common in the US as in the UK.

But since the figure was only 90%, then that makes it a 27% difference. (90% of 30%).

Therefore 100%-27% = 73%.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm so tired I'm basically sleep-typing and higher reasoning and mathematical functions aren't available to my brain. I'm not entirely sure I did the math right the first time, I think I may have grossly oversimplified and created a false equivalency between percentages, but... tired. Don't know.

That's what I was thinking anyway.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Retribution on March 13, 2013, 09:16:28 AMWe can meet in the middle though if someone actually acknowledges that say I am not a beer swilling redneck just because firearms are integral to my life.

I'm personally not all that interested in guns. They're a cool piece of technology but I have no need for them in my day to day life.

However my best friend adores guns and we've had some fun down at the shooting range with him dragging me along. I've helped him study for his firearms license and admired the groupings on the targets he brings back from his competition shoots.

When I'm writing a story and need some details on a gun, I always ask him. He can give me a ton of detailed information on any firearm topic and doesn't mind weird questions like "What kind of gun would a vampire use to execute a wizard?". (If you're curious, his eventual opinion on that was an original model 1911 chambering .45 after we talked about the setting/situation/characters a bit).

As much as I might tease him for his obsession (just like he teases me about loving fantasy and science fiction), I've never lost any respect for him because of his firearms enthusiasm. Just because someone likes guns doesn't make them a beer-swilling redneck.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kythia

Quote from: Caehlim on March 13, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
American gun ownership = 36% of the population.
British = 6% of population.
Difference = 30%.

So if guns saved you 100% of the time, the 30 extra percentage points of gun ownership would make burglaries 70% as common in the US as in the UK.

But since the figure was only 90%, then that makes it a 27% difference. (90% of 30%).

Therefore 100%-27% = 73%.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm so tired I'm basically sleep-typing and higher reasoning and mathematical functions aren't available to my brain. I'm not entirely sure I did the math right the first time, I think I may have grossly oversimplified and created a false equivalency between percentages, but... tired. Don't know.

That's what I was thinking anyway.

The burglary rate in both countries is identical

The only thing preventing a burglary from happening is the presence of a gun, which has a 90% chance of prevention

Obviously both of those are horrific over simplifications but  for the sake of maths...

There are x burglaries per 100 people.  The ones targeted against a non-gun-owning household are succesful.  Therefore there will be 0.94x burlgaries in the UK, 0.64x in the US

The ones against gun owning households have a ten percent chance of success.  Therefore there will be 10% of 0.06x = 0.006x burglaries in the UK and 10% of 0.36x = 0.036 burglaries in the US of gun owning households.

Total burglaries in the UK then is 0.94x+0.006x = 0.946x

Total burglaries in the US is 0.64x+0.036x = 0.676x

(0.676/0.946)*100 = 71.45

So the burglary rate in the us should be 71.45% of the burglary rate in the UK. 

I think what was making it look so wrong was that I was assuming the gun ownership rate in the US wasy waaaaaaaaaay higher than 36%.  I guess the "guns owned per capita" figure was throwing me off, must be a shed load of houses with multiple guns.
242037

Caehlim

Though come to think of it, that's guns per person, not per household so the problem would actually be more complex.

Oh well. I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Retribution

Regulated *shreds his degree* ahem my alma matter might be wanting to ditch that minor in government they gave me now and stick with strictly biology.

On to one of the other questions! I personally have no problem with national licensing and such to a point. The point being when it is used as a backdoor method of banning as I have touched on before. I would have no problem buying insurance for my firearm ownership, but sadly the person suggesting such then goes on a little tirade about how they can then make the insurance so expensive I cannot own a gun.

So when we reach this point there was an old movie out one time called The Sword and the Sorcerer.  Good guy goes to get bad guy who is having his soul sucked out by a demon. Good guy looks at demon "I have no quarrel with you." Demon looks at him "I am taking the wench" good guy pulls his sword "now we got a quarrel."  My view on many of these regulations is very similar stay reasonable cost and cumbersome and we have no quarrel.

On a side note a little homework. Google the pictures of the Sandy Hook shooter, the Colorado shooter, and the fellow who shot Gabby Gifford. I say Google so I do not get accused of doctoring the pics. But I think if you take a look at those pics we can agree something needs to be done about mental health. Talking guns over it is sort of like talking soft drinks and obesity in NYC in my opinion.

Oniya

Ah, but if you make the insurance so high that no one can own an insured gun, then it works like cars - lots of people running around with uninsured guns.  ;)  If it were up to me, I'd not only keep the insurance costs reasonable on the average, but actually implement things like discounts on the insurance for people that have gotten extra certified training, or who are in a demographic that doesn't have a lot of firearms accidents (or 'on-purposes'), the same way that car insurance is less expensive if you're a reliable, safe driver.

And completely with you on the mental health side of things.  People should not have to reach a breaking point before the system lets them get help.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Valerian

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

According to that link, the number of U.S. households with guns is about 47%, the highest for almost two decades.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/Americans-Guns-Danger-Defense.aspx

According to this link (slightly older than the first; I couldn't find anything more current) among those who own guns, 31% own just one, while 62% report owning more than one gun.  This includes 29% who say they own five or more guns.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

CNN says that about 20% of of gun owners own about 65% of the total guns in the U.S.  (On a side note, the U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population, owns about 50% of the world's guns.)



If you want those numbers crunched, though, you're on your own.  <.<
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

This can be deceptive. I ran the numbers on this once here in Canada - cigarette tax revenue vs health care burden. In the end, it turned out that each smoker cost the government about $5/year.

Quote from: BCdan on March 13, 2013, 10:30:34 AMTheres actually an interesting study by Harvard that talks about this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf  Basically the study talks about 'minimization' especially during the cold war in which many countries had a major incentive to lie about their gun related murder rates.  Theres also a negative correlation between firearms deaths and number of weapons when it comes to homicide when you look at a local level breakdown.

Err... not sure how to put this gently, but that study is crap. Not only is it extremely unprofressional and transparently biased (just look at how they sneer at anything they perceive as anti-gun), but... its data is highly suspect. As in completely untrustworthy. See the bit about homicide rates in Europe, upon which their entire argument that guns and homicide are uncorrelated rests? Cherry-picked from four years of reports by a non-European country that didn't source its data well enough to verify. Interestingly, despite mining its data, the authors barely mention Canada, except to say that murders are less common where there is one person per two square kilometers than in cities. This might strike you as rather obvious, and it is - until you mask it by saying that regions with higher gun ownership have lower murder rates.

Quote from: BCdan on March 13, 2013, 10:30:34 AMSo you might be getting fewer accidents with an all out ban on weapons, but you could be trading that in for a significantly higher homicide rate. Mainly because the worst thing for a criminal is a gun owning victim.  An armed victim presents the potentially highest possible cost for a criminal.

Even if we accept your source as legitimate - which I certainly do not - the second half of this paragraph does not follow from anything prior and makes some huge assumptions. First, you're assuming a gun-owning person is an armed person. Gun-owners, how many of you have a loaded weapon within arm's reach right now? Second, you're assuming that guns reduce the desirability of a target. This is not necessarily the case; my local police have found the opposite. Guns themselves are highly desirable targets for criminals.

Retribution

Oniya -> I am just fine with that and valid point on some would just say screw it and not get insured.

Valerian -> Between me and my son I honestly would not know how many guns are in our house without an inventory *sheepish smile* But for example on demographics, I have a teenage son and daughter. Both have been taught and would probably be ticked if I hid the key to the gun cases from them. I also live in a very rural area where literally every house has multiple guns. The only firearms incident we have had in the 20 years I have lived here is the fool who tried to rob the Subway last month. He was not even close to well enough armed for his task. This is all anecdotal but the only murder I recall in town was committed with a hammer.

But my reality is different from that of a major city part of the reason I chose to live where I do.

Beguile's Mistress

A police officer who is pro-gun was talking with another pro-gun person who was ranting about the 2nd Amendment.  When the guy finally shut up the officer said that if you want to define the 2nd Amendment strictly (as the guy was trying to do) it gives you the right to "keep and bear arms" but doesn't say anything about shooting them.


Kythia

#78
Quote from: Ephiral on March 13, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
This can be deceptive. I ran the numbers on this once here in Canada - cigarette tax revenue vs health care burden. In the end, it turned out that each smoker cost the government about $5/year.

Yeah, it varies country to country.  Over here smoking brings in money to the treasury on net(here's a largely anecodotal source if you want better then let me know and I'll put better figures together) but its a function of tax rate, smoking habits, etc etc etc so yeah, I can see how it would vary country to country.

ETA:  Alsos, BCDan - the study is in a Harvard owned journal, its not a Harvard study.  World of difference.
242037