Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gun controlFollow

#127 Oct 27 2008 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Nobby wrote:
Higher Gun ownership directly correlates to deaths through gun crime.

With or without USA or Switzerland, the finding holds.

You were saying?


No @#%^ing sh*t, Einstein.

My point is that if you compare the number of responsible gun owners in the U.S. with the number of gun related crimes, you'll notice that the number of safe responsibly owned firearms vastly outweighs the number used for unlawful purposes to kill or otherwise harm a number of people.

Here's an old report I found detailing lawfully owned firearms

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Keep in mind, these are 1997 numbers:

Quote:
o In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.
Although there were enough guns to have provided
every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of
adults actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun
owners possessed two or more.

o The proportion of American households that keep
firearms appears to be declining.

o Sixty-eight percent of handgun owners also
possessed at least one rifle or shotgun.

o Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged,
college- educated people of rural small-town
America. Whites were substantially more likely to
own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than
Hispanics.

o The most common motivation for owning firearms
was recreation. Forty-six percent possessed a gun
primarily for protection against crime.


If we look at the liberal estimate on the number of firearm related deaths from, of all places, the Brady Center, we find the following for 1998.

Quote:
- There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns.
- In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.


If we take the number of firearm related deaths (30,708) as a percent of privately owned firearms(192,000,000), we find that the ratio of firearm misuse to privately and lawfully owned firearms is 0.0001599375.

0.016%

See that?

People rarely consider that number because they insist on focusing on the harm guns do, rather than the harm guns do relative to the number of guns owned. The simple truth is that gun ownership itself is not the problem. Criminal misuse of a very small percentage of guns is a problem, but it is not generally reflective of the safety and responsibility of privately held firearms and their owners.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 11:15pm by BrownDuck
#128 Oct 27 2008 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Quote:
- There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns.
- In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.


There's also another incredibly misleading bit in there. Notice how the percentages all add up? What about police shootings and self defense? They don't appear in the list. That's because this statistic kinda stretches the definition of "murder" to include all homicides. Depending on the state and statute, the word "murder" can apply to justified homicide, so it's technically not lying to call them all "murders", but the assumption of the word is that it's a criminal act and carries a much stronger connotation than "homicide".


Just another bit of semantics I noticed hidden in the statistics... But then most of the anti-gun effort is based on plays on emotion rather than on reason and logic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Oct 27 2008 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
- There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns.
- In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.


There's also another incredibly misleading bit in there. Notice how the percentages all add up? What about police shootings and self defense? They don't appear in the list. That's because this statistic kinda stretches the definition of "murder" to include all homicides. Depending on the state and statute, the word "murder" can apply to justified homicide, so it's technically not lying to call them all "murders", but the assumption of the word is that it's a criminal act and carries a much stronger connotation than "homicide".


Just another bit of semantics I noticed hidden in the statistics... But then most of the anti-gun effort is based on plays on emotion rather than on reason and logic.


I assumed that since they reported the number of privately held firearms, that the statistics would be limited to those privately held firearms, and thus, would not include police use of firearms, but if they do, then yes, it's unfairly shaping the statistics.
#130 Oct 27 2008 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:

People rarely consider that number because they insist on focusing on the harm guns do,


Yeah. We should focus on all the good things that guns are for! Like.....ummmmmm.....eerrrrrr.....ummmm making dickless people feel tough ummmmm.......

No. I'm stuck.


Quote:
What about police shootings and self defense?


I read somewhere that most police who get shot, get shot with their own weapon...

Is that true? Or did I just make it up?

Like I mentioned elsewhere, We've got heaps of guns in New Zealand. But we don't shoot each other with them very often.

I don't think americans are very mature when it comes to guns. (or cars or cocaine and a bunch of other stuff too)

Why you have this mad compulsion to cling to your guns is beyond me, but hey, as long as you're only killing yourselves with them...... If the freedom for 8 year olds to shoot themselves in the face with an uzi is so precious to you,..please, Go Ahead!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#131 Oct 27 2008 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
paulsol wrote:
Quote:

People rarely consider that number because they insist on focusing on the harm guns do,


Yeah. We should focus on all the good things that guns are for! Like.....ummmmmm.....eerrrrrr.....ummmm making dickless people feel tough ummmmm.......

No. I'm stuck.


Recreational use of guns has already been discussed. Did you know that competition shooting is even a part of the Olympics? Active events on the Olympic roster involving firearms include:

- 25 metre rapid fire pistol
- 50 metre pistol
- 50 metre rifle, prone
- 50 metre rifle, three positions
- double trap
- skeet
- trap

You can ignore it because it doesn't support your opinion, but that doesn't make it go away.

Quote:
Like I mentioned elsewhere, We've got heaps of guns in New Zealand. But we don't shoot each other with them very often.


Neither do we. Again, ignoring the numbers won't make them go away.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 11:59pm by BrownDuck
#132 Oct 27 2008 at 9:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
I assumed that since they reported the number of privately held firearms, that the statistics would be limited to those privately held firearms, and thus, would not include police use of firearms, but if they do, then yes, it's unfairly shaping the statistics.


Lol. I tend to have a healthy disrespect for statistics, especially when they're gathered and presented by an advocacy source like that one.

I would actually go the opposite direction and assume that the number of "firearm-related deaths" actually includes all deaths, even from firearms not privately owned. If it doesn't say deaths from privately owned firearms, then it can't be assumed that's what they mean (it is a different bullet point). And since this is an anti-gun advocacy site, we can reasonably assume they're going to present the statistics in a way that best supports their cause.

Including all firearm related deaths gives you a larger number, right? Why wouldn't they include police shootings in there? Do they have a motivation to reduce the number? I don't think so...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Oct 27 2008 at 11:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
[If it doesn't say deaths from privately owned firearms, then it can't be assumed that's what they mean (it is a different bullet point).


Har har!
____________________________
Do what now?
#134REDACTED, Posted: Oct 27 2008 at 11:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think the point everyone is missing with the "lets ban automatic weapons", is, generally in the hands of the average joe a RIFLE is far more deadly than an assault rifle on automatic. The average joe's accuracy with an assault rifle will be **** poor (Take this from someone who has an Expert Assault Rifle ribbon with the US Military). Of course you can argue how can he miss when they are 10 feet away, well, then I will concede that point to you in buildings the AR will be deadlier, however, in open ground it will be less deadlier than a rifle. I guess my point is that, if you want to outlaw automatic weapons on that basis of how deadly it is / can be, then those arguing that point should not stop there because Rifles can be deadlier than AR by a large margin. They are far more accurate and can shoot far greater distances.
#135 Oct 28 2008 at 12:12 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
Do you have any idea how much harder it is to kill someone with a knife or a blunt instrument compaired to a gun? or how much easier it is to control the situations where those kind of deaths would occur?


Not a great deal. You hit someone on the head with a hammer and they're as dead as if you had just shot them. His point is that reducing the number of firearms won't reduce the number of murders. Murderers will simply resort to other means, because presumably they're pretty intent on murdering the guy, or they wouldn't be contemplating murder.

Accidental deaths is an entirely different matter. The real problem with firearms is that they greatly increase the chance of accidental deaths because it's so damn easy to **** it up.

Anyway, regarding the article. The thing that popped out at me is that the kid's father said he has no idea how it happened, and that it was a tragic accident.

Or, you handed an eight-year-old a gun, and they shot themselves in the face. There! That both explains how it happened and why that guy should never have been a parent.
#136 Oct 28 2008 at 12:28 AM Rating: Excellent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Not a great deal. You hit someone on the head with a hammer and they're as dead as if you had just shot them. His point is that reducing the number of firearms won't reduce the number of murders. Murderers will simply resort to other means, because presumably they're pretty intent on murdering the guy, or they wouldn't be contemplating murder.
Don't be so fUcking dence, how many drive by knife killing have you heard of? how much easier is it to get away from a psycho with a knife or hammer than it is a gun. there's also the fact that if you hit someone once with a hammer or stab them once with a knife you're suddenly going to think "Oh fUck what did i just do..." because you have to do it looking at them from tounching distance, you see the pain, it effects you unlike blatting away for 20 feet.

Try applying your one brain cell for half a second and you'll easily understand why the MILITARY USES GUNS NOT KNIVES as it's primary infantry weapon.

Oh yeah it's because it easier to kill somone with a gun than a knife, coloUr me shocked.

In a civilian persective this is even more revelvant when you talk about handguns, what on gods green earth can you use a Glock for other than killing someone? I understand you may want to take a .22 to a range and shoot it but a 9mm?.



#137 Oct 28 2008 at 2:09 AM Rating: Excellent
**
863 posts
As a non-gun owning (and non-flying) Dutchman it's hard to understand why you still cling so much to the 2nd amendment and the right to defend yourselves. Is the US really such an unsafe country to have to keep firearms in your home to fight off burglars? What are your home invaders like, guerilla soldiers? Sappers?

I mean, isn't entertainment today's main purpose of privately owned guns and "self defense" merely justification to have a hobby like that, based on the fear it might be taken away when self-defense is no longer considered a valid reason? I mean, come on - your country isn't that lawless to have to depend on privately owned guns to carry out the law. I am aware that most Americans have a far more aggressive approach and a far harder sense of justice than most Europeans, but still. Is it honestly still an argument for those of you who own guns? Even when annual statistics show that privately owned weapons kill more family members/relations than intruders?

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but it sounds hopelessly outdated to me. Terrorists will not be sneaking into your house at night, there's no Indian raid or English invasion due, mobsters are not interested in your DVD player. You guys deserve a more modern adaptation of that concept and the conservative outlook on gun ownership today sounds rather old fashioned and unrealistic, plus it gets people killed who should not be anywhere near a gun. I'm very fond of Darwinism, but despite all the excessive safety labels on US made cars and applications your ineffective gun laws are shielded as if the fate of the world depended on it. It makes no sense to me, srsly.

Gun ownership is fine by me, both for hunting or for sport. But in my view, anyone who is not a certified adult does not have the proper context, wisdom and responsibility to handle a gun, let alone an automatic one!

I'll probably be defaulted, but I just wanted to throw in my utter amazement about some statements in this thread

#138 Oct 28 2008 at 2:44 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Inner city 'Guns for Tasers' program soon to follow?

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 6:45am by Paskil
#139 Oct 28 2008 at 4:15 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
Not a great deal. You hit someone on the head with a hammer and they're as dead as if you had just shot them. His point is that reducing the number of firearms won't reduce the number of murders. Murderers will simply resort to other means, because presumably they're pretty intent on murdering the guy, or they wouldn't be contemplating murder.
Don't be so fUcking dence, how many drive by knife killing have you heard of? how much easier is it to get away from a psycho with a knife or hammer than it is a gun. there's also the fact that if you hit someone once with a hammer or stab them once with a knife you're suddenly going to think "Oh fUck what did i just do..." because you have to do it looking at them from tounching distance, you see the pain, it effects you unlike blatting away for 20 feet.

Try applying your one brain cell for half a second and you'll easily understand why the MILITARY USES GUNS NOT KNIVES as it's primary infantry weapon.

Oh yeah it's because it easier to kill somone with a gun than a knife, coloUr me shocked.

In a civilian persective this is even more revelvant when you talk about handguns, what on gods green earth can you use a Glock for other than killing someone? I understand you may want to take a .22 to a range and shoot it but a 9mm?.


Tarv, you could arm every man and woman on this earth with nothing but sticks and stones, and people would still murder people.
#140 Oct 28 2008 at 4:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
zepoodle wrote:

Tarv, you could arm every man and woman on this earth with nothing but sticks and stones, and people would still murder people.


"It would appear the earthlings won."

"Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"

Nexa

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 8:29am by Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#141 Oct 28 2008 at 4:49 AM Rating: Decent
Baron von tarv wrote:
In a civilian persective this is even more revelvant when you talk about handguns, what on gods green earth can you use a Glock for other than killing someone? I understand you may want to take a .22 to a range and shoot it but a 9mm?.


Because in the right conditions, a 9mm is more accurate than a 22? When you're talking about hitting 1-4 inch groups at 50 meters in either professional competition or friendly range shooting, it's nice to have options. Same with a 357 - the longer barrel equates to better accuracy and the more powerful round and higher velocity helps reduce the wind effect. My friend also happens to have a 44 special.

You people can argue til you're blue in the face all day long, but a significant portion of the population disagrees with the idiotic "guns r dangerous, let's bam them" philosophy, and I'm glad they do. Protip: the day you take away our legal guns is the day we start obtaining them illegally anyway. It's really not all that different than prohibition of alcohol, and anyone from the states with even a small knowledge of the history on that subject knows how miserably that overzealous self-righteous movement failed.
#142 Oct 28 2008 at 4:54 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
You people can argue til you're blue in the face all day long, but a significant portion of the population disagrees with the idiotic "guns r dangerous, let's bam them" philosophy, and I'm glad they do.
A significant portion of the population believe in God. Another significant portion of those people believe you're a heathen for not.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#143 Oct 28 2008 at 5:57 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Nexa wrote:
zepoodle wrote:

Tarv, you could arm every man and woman on this earth with nothing but sticks and stones, and people would still murder people.


"It would appear the earthlings won."

"Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"

Nexa

Edited, Oct 28th 2008 8:29am by Nexa


i cannot rate you up enough
#144 Oct 28 2008 at 6:13 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Damn, I got to this thread late...

FauxNews.com wrote:
"This accident was truly a mystery to me," said Bizilj, director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford, Connecticut. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."

/doublefacepalm
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#145 Oct 28 2008 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
The second amendment made a lot of sense back then. As of now, I don't know how many guns you will need to overthrow a government that has Tanks, Missiles, Fighter Jets, Battleship, etc. Hey! May be we should be allow to own those too!
#146 Oct 28 2008 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
You people can argue til you're blue in the face all day long, but a significant portion of the population Will put their fingers in their ears and say LALALALALALALALALALALA I am not listening to reason, LALALALA Oh it's a damn shame that 28,000 people died this year so I can own a gun LALALALALA, What was that Oh another kids died because daddy wanted a ***** serogate because he's so ******* fat he can't see his own? LALALALA
This post was brought to you for comic effect and was not designed to make any point other than take the **** out of incorrect stereotypes.

oh yeah and all mussies are terrorists, I know this because my dentist told me last week when he was pulling out my last tooth.
#147REDACTED, Posted: Oct 28 2008 at 8:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It is quite amazing on these boards that the main contention is "Guns are evilzzz". Ever heard the saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people? The same people who commit the crimes with guns, will commit them given any other weapon. It is not the type of weapon, it is the persons state of mind that is the issue.
#148 Oct 28 2008 at 8:17 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Oh, and because I disagree with you people go ahead and sub-default me again. Love this forum ;)


Sweet! I got the sub-default rate.

But it's more because you repeated a lot of already debunked arguments... and went on a tirade full of red-herrings and anecdotes.
#149 Oct 28 2008 at 8:24 AM Rating: Default
Debunked? Debunked by who? Banning guns won't have any impact at all on the vast vast majority of "gun crimes". They will just turn around and instead use Knifes. If you cannot fathom the reasoning behind this, well I guess nothing I can say or show you will ever sway you.

In case you still don't believe, the vast majority of Gun incidents in the US is Gang related. Taking away guns will not deter the gangs going after each other. Instead of using guns they will use another means to kill each other. Taking away everyone's guns doesn't do anything to prevent the same people who would kill, to kill anyways. Retarded logic. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
#150 Oct 28 2008 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.


Look you heathen.

Guns enable people to slay each other much, much more easily than other available methods, such as shanking or strangling; you push a button, and someone dies. It's just utterly stupid to pretend that, were all guns suddenly to vanish, the murder rate would not decrease at all. Think for a minute: when an activity is difficult, it won't be enacted as much as when the activity is easy.
#151 Oct 28 2008 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Every single amendment we have to date should NEVER be revoked because if we start there who is to say what and what not should be in?


Fine

You can't drink anymore alcohol

Ever
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 248 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)