Guns, ammunition, rednecks, liberals, Gun Fabricators, and the Constitution

[#686578]

I would be interested to see the per 100,000 statistics with respect to population density. I am willing to bet the farm that the homicide per 100K increases with a decrease in area per 100K.

I don't believe you own a farm.

[#686578]

I don't believe you own a farm.

he does.

also it's not just crime, most gun related deaths are suicides or accidental shootings.

Now, to consider that guns are more symptom than cause, you would have to show that the US is inherently a more violent society absent guns. As a quick test I subtracted the per capita firearm homicide rate from the total homicide rate according to FBI uniform crime rate 2005. I'm not sure at all if this is a valid comparison, but the non-gun related homicide rate per 100,000 people in the US (1.9 is actually lower than the average of all countries(5.72) (including outliers like Mexico) and roughly on average with western industrialized countries (1.20).

do you think taking away guns would stop accidental deaths or suicide? Any statistics on the amount of gun owners that don't harm themselves or others versus those that do?

[#686578]

It's like I'm talking to myself.

Except the other me ignores proper capitalization.

[aurik]

do you think taking away guns would stop accidental deaths or suicide? Any statistics on the amount of gun owners that don't harm themselves or others versus those that do?

Stop, no, reduce, yes. We don't spend millions on "suicide nets" at famous bridges because we think it's going to prevent people from slashing their wrists, but we spend that money anyway.

[archibaldcrane]

pro-gun advocates should really take notice if they're genuinely interested in the betterment of society.

See, but this is the problem - if you see no value in guns whatsoever, then you feel that there are only negatives to their existence. Most pro-gun legality people actually like guns, enjoy firing them, and so forth, so to remove them hurts their quality of life. If everyone is safe, but no one can do anything, how much does that improve the "betterment of society"?

What I am saying here is that, plain and simple, it's worth the increased gun deaths in America to continue to allow people to own guns, and I understand that is on a sliding scale for everyone to place themselves on. However, things that do not substantially result in the restriction of access to guns (waiting periods, mandatory training, etc.) that actually -will- reduce gun deaths, I'm all for. Things like the joke of an "assault weapons ban" I'm not.

People are so ready to ban "military-style rifles" because of some sense they are "unnecessary" when they are used so fucking rarely in murders that the ban is a negligible and unable to be statistically quantified drop in murder rates just to feel like they are doing something good, when the gesture is purely political and completely empty.

[#686578]

Stop, no, reduce, yes. We don't spend millions on "suicide nets" at famous bridges because we think it's going to prevent people from slashing their wrists, but we spend that money anyway.

Let's spend the money on banning abortions, they are unnecessary.

[aurik]

See, but this is the problem - if you see no value in guns whatsoever, then you feel that there are only negatives to their existence. Most pro-gun legality people actually like guns, enjoy firing them, and so forth, so to remove them hurts their quality of life. If everyone is safe, but no one can do anything, how much does that improve the "betterment of society"?

What I am saying here is that, plain and simple, it's worth the increased gun deaths in America to continue to allow people to own guns, and I understand that is on a sliding scale for everyone to place themselves on. However, things that do not substantially result in the restriction of access to guns (waiting periods, mandatory training, etc.) that actually -will- reduce gun deaths, I'm all for. Things like the joke of an "assault weapons ban" I'm not.

People are so ready to ban "military-style rifles" because of some sense they are "unnecessary" when they are used so fucking rarely in murders that the ban is a negligible and unable to be statistically quantified drop in murder rates just to feel like they are doing something good, when the gesture is purely political and completely empty.

You and I are on the same page. It's not a black and white issue; it's all about how deep in the gray you draw the line.

[Grievear]

You're retarded. I didn't say either of these things, I said Korea has very strict gun control laws and has a low rate of firearm deaths and injuries.

I also took 5 seconds to Google this https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=66868 which would have saved you alot of embarrassment. Don't post unless you have something to contribute, moron.

Last time I checked. Korea no longer exists. When it did exist, it was very violent. Had you said South Korea, I would have ignored that post like the rest of your moronic dribble. There is a difference between Korea, North Korea and South Korea...

Now who feels embarrassed?

[aurik]

Last time I checked. Korea no longer exists. When it did exist, it was very violent. Had you said South Korea, I would have ignored that post like the rest of your moronic dribble. There is a difference between Korea, North Korea and South Korea...

Now who feels embarrassed?

You should, for making such a terrible post. "OMG YOU SAID KOREA INSTEAD OF SOUTH KOREA, YOUR ARGUMENT MUST BE NULL AND VOID"

[Grievear]

There is a HUGE difference between the three. It's like saying China and Peoples Republic of China. Just because it's a little difference doesn't mean it's not significant.

I also never said his argument wasn't valid. Nor do I argue that locking everyone's guns away in a central police station wouldn't reduce the crime rate. The only thing is that the only way something like that would work in this country is to limit that law to only "assault" style rifles. This would have absolutely NO impact on violent gun crimes.

That's the beauty and the curse of living in a free society, protected by a constitution. If you want to be perfectly safe from scary guns, go live in South Korea or Japan. I won't miss you.

[archibaldcrane]

There is a HUGE difference between the three. It's like saying China and Peoples Republic of China. Just because it's a little difference doesn't mean it's not significant.

If you're going to be on my side of the gun control debate, don't bring up stupid off-topic practically semantic bullshit like this. It's annoying.

[aurik]

There is a HUGE difference between the three.

So spend 3 seconds and make an educated guess which of the 3 he meant. SO DIFFICULT.

[Grievear]

Or we could take Korea to mean the areas of North and South Korea. Let's take an average of those and recompute his argument.

Or he could take the time to have some attention to detail, I mean we are arguing on the internet. Srs business.

Lets make other wild assumptions on gun control. Australians aren't allowed guns for self defense.

NationMaster - Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country

OMG! No guns = more rapes!

NationMaster - Suicide rates in ages 15-24 (most recent) by country

OMG! No guns = more suicides, just less with a gun.

Before you call my arguments stupid. Lets take a look at what I'm doing... There is some correlation between gun laws and the statistics I posted. Sure it's a VERY thin thread but it does exist. Now if I fully believed I was right, do you think you could change my mind? If you do, you're probably retarded.

The whole point I'm trying to make here is why get so heated about it? People have their opinions. Until they harm you, respect their opinions. Then shoot them.

[aurik]

Before you call my arguments stupid...

I'm not calling your arguments stupid. No, I'm calling you stupid.

[Grievear]

I'm not calling your arguments stupid. No, I'm calling you stupid.

NO U

[Tristam]

Or we could take Korea to mean the areas of North and South Korea. Let's take an average of those and recompute his argument.

Or he could take the time to have some attention to detail, I mean we are arguing on the internet. Srs business.

Lets make other wild assumptions on gun control. Australians aren't allowed guns for self defense.

NationMaster - Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country

OMG! No guns = more rapes!

NationMaster - Suicide rates in ages 15-24 (most recent) by country

OMG! No guns = more suicides, just less with a gun.

Before you call my arguments stupid. Lets take a look at what I'm doing... There is some correlation between gun laws and the statistics I posted. Sure it's a VERY thin thread but it does exist. Now if I fully believed I was right, do you think you could change my mind? If you do, you're probably retarded.

The whole point I'm trying to make here is why get so heated about it? People have their opinions. Until they harm you, respect their opinions. Then shoot them.

Except from those links, you didn't post a correlation, or even close to it. Is there some data there year-by-year? Or am I missing something?

[Grievear]

See the line above the links? See how high Australia is on those lists? It's related!

EDIT: For those to whom this is too subtle: It's supposed to be a stupid argument.

[Tristam]

See, but this is the problem - if you see no value in guns whatsoever, then you feel that there are only negatives to their existence. Most pro-gun legality people actually like guns, enjoy firing them, and so forth, so to remove them hurts their quality of life. If everyone is safe, but no one can do anything, how much does that improve the "betterment of society"?

What I am saying here is that, plain and simple, it's worth the increased gun deaths in America to continue to allow people to own guns, and I understand that is on a sliding scale for everyone to place themselves on. However, things that do not substantially result in the restriction of access to guns (waiting periods, mandatory training, etc.) that actually -will- reduce gun deaths, I'm all for. Things like the joke of an "assault weapons ban" I'm not.

People are so ready to ban "military-style rifles" because of some sense they are "unnecessary" when they are used so fucking rarely in murders that the ban is a negligible and unable to be statistically quantified drop in murder rates just to feel like they are doing something good, when the gesture is purely political and completely empty.

See here's the thing, I don't think there's no value in guns whatsoever, the national guard is a great idea, armed police forces are OK in my book, guns used for hunting purposes are fine, and I think responsible handgun ownership should be protected but restricted to a much greater extent than it is today. I've fired guns on a range and yeah, I got a kick out of it, but I'd still never own one.

The consequences of gun ownership *to society* (not to an individual's quality of life) are largely negative. But when people use guns on other people, in the majority of interactions (and especially in personal protection situations) a gun is used as a threatening device rather than a weapon. In cases of self defense where a weapon is fired, even assuming the victim tells the story accurately most judges consider that the person firing the weapon broke the law in some way. I think it's important to at least acknowledge this and not pretend that guns prevent crime or death or suffering. You seem to have a good grasp of this and realize that the argument actually boils down to "are we willing to accept the negative consequences of poorly regulated civilian gun ownership in exchange for personal pleasure?"

This last paragraph isn't directed at anyone but is more me just thinking at loud. As for use in home defense, for the life of me I can't figure out why it's always guns and not some sort of less lethal device. Many states have laws about securing guns in homes, safety locks, and perhaps even storage. If you are actually in a life-threatening situation (and you're likely not), how quickly would you be able to arm yourself to face the threat? Even so, homes in America are armed to the teeth yet crime still happens, home armament has been shown to not be any sort of deterrent to a person planning a crime. Why a gun firing real bullets and not a less-lethal device? Why not save handgun use with real bullets for the firing range, the forest, and the professionals?

[#686578]

This last paragraph isn't directed at anyone but is more me just thinking at loud. As for use in home defense, for the life of me I can't figure out why it's always guns and not some sort of less lethal device. Many states have laws about securing guns in homes, safety locks, and perhaps even storage. If you are actually in a life-threatening situation (and you're likely not), how quickly would you be able to arm yourself to face the threat? Even so, homes in America are armed to the teeth yet crime still happens, home armament has been shown to not be any sort of deterrent to a person planning a crime. Why a gun firing real bullets and not a less-lethal device? Why not save handgun use with real bullets for the firing range, the forest, and the professionals?

because we've become a society where the criminal has a foothold to be able to sue the person he was accosting because he was injured. dead men tell no tales, as I was told by a US attorney.

[Grievear]

Why a gun firing real bullets and not a less-lethal device? Why not save handgun use with real bullets for the firing range, the forest, and the professionals?

Less than lethal devices can still kill. Beanbag shotguns and the like are still very dangerous. When fired, they still do cause massive bodily damage. Pair this with an over zealous personal injury attorney and you're looking at a major civil lawsuit, even if the guy loses his criminal trial. Wait till the judge hears you shot him with a beanbag shotgun and the lawyer starts asking you why you used such an aggressive form of offense. In Florida, you are better off killing the person because of the Castle Doctrine, from a legal perspective anyway.