A well regulated militia...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:23 am

You're making a good case for guns to only be used for suicides. Though I suppose there's the equally-effective (and cheaper!) method of buying a vaguely realistic toy gun, then suddenly drawing it on police. That should do the trick pretty well.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:38 am

Hm.

Guns as crime prevention hey. I like it.

Oh hey? Was that just a gun shot? Oh look that guy just shot a guy, he has a gun in his hand, I better get my gun out and shoot that murdering gun man! BANG!

Oh hey? Why is that guy over there looking at me and drawing his gun...

But anyway isn't it so INTERESTING that gun nuts are so obsessed with the largely discredited concept of guns for shooterizing baddies with.

I mean they COULD run with pro gun arguments about Recreation and Pest Control and Recreational Pest Control that are significantly more provably valid. But they neglect them to talk up fantasies and anecdotes about shooting the fucking baddies. Why?

Because they are FUCKING CHILDREN obsessed with a desire to play grown up cops and robbers.

Interestingly some of the er, lets say "biggest" studies into "Defensive Gun Use" are actually SO badly rigged and flawed that about the only useful thing they tell us is that there are incredibly massive numbers of insane mentally retarded gun nuts in the USA who are prepared to actively lie to pollsters about how fucking personally awesome they are and how totally "this one time at band camp they totally shot this like baddie dead (purely defensively of course), bang bang, no backsies, nuh uh they I totally got you you have to stay dead now, nya nya nya."

No really, to the point that compared to the most credible and sweeping ACTUAL data recorded ever there "DGU" lobby claims that no less than ninety seven percent of DGU's somehow aren't reported in official data, but DO (reliably no less!) self report to the DGU lobby's personal polsters. They claim such LUDICROUSLY large amounts of DGUs that there is actually a a yearly shortfall of no less than 30,000 criminal corpses!.

Defensive Gun Use is a retarded concept bandied about by retarded children who want to play cops and robbers. About the only things we learn from actual crime figures and surveys into "DGU" events are that...

A) The few reputable studies indicate that having a gun for self defense has almost no impact and if anything slightly worsens things for the defender in a variety of ways, including being shot in incidents that wouldn't even occur at all if they didn't have a stupid gun.

B) People who support the "DGU" angle live in a retarded fictional alternative cops and robbers fantasy reality and are knee deep in imaginary criminal corpses no one else can even see.

But hey. Lets not have an argument about at what point the ability to shoot a rabbit or some other vermine balances out it's benefits against the risk of shooting yourself in the foot with a low power, low fire rate shot gun not especially suitable for mass manslaughter.

That argument isn't the argument the gun nuts want to have, it's too boring, too mature and doesn't satisfy their cops and robbers fantasies. And the fact of that they choose the cops and robbers lala land alternative argument tells us everything we need to about these people and whether we should be letting them have guns.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:00 am

lost in all the chopped up quotes so just replying to what Frank presents on guns as the current topic at hand....

guns kill people, self or other inflicted...

the problem, and this comes form someone who is a great marksman but HATES guns; is the disposition of people in the first place.

society has bred fear into many people where using a gun is the only course of action they can think of to be safe, be it used on someone else, or themselves.

for SO many people to commit suicide int he first place, then there is something making them not happy or afraid to live contrary to popular belief that people should be happy jsut to be alive. this belief often comes form those people that are well to do...yet there are many people commited suicide that are better off than even those people.

the fear of living causes loss of life but removes that fear, then the fear of not living or being injured by another causes others threatening someone to get hurt.

really a gun was designed to kill, dont point a gun at anything you dont intend to kill.

there are MANY other problems than just who has a gun. the main ones being society itself that creates the need for people to use guns on themselves to free themselves from life, as well the society that makes people have to use guns to defend themselves in their own home, and also the society that makes it where people have to use guns on other people to survive.

people robbing licqour stores are all spending the money on crack...

who has numbers on violent crimes committed and the money being spent on basic needs such as food?

that i something i want to know about, but rarely if ever have seen anything on. those people are not very different than those who would use the gun for suicide, just they chose to fight society and live, rather than end themselves and "let society win".

either way the problem with gun use stems form one simple thing...money. if people didnt need it or want it, then would guns be used as much as they are to try to take it?

the basic necessities of life ALL cost money...and a gun is the msot effective weapon to take money from another person....

air: 3 minutes
this is getting to where breathable air will before too long be sold because there isnt healthy air in most of the country

water: 3 days
water isnt free by any means... this is a resources owned by the city or someone else that you have to pay for

food: 3 weeks
not free here either, you are paying someone for this

shelter: 3 months
sure homeless people survive, but they have shelter, they are under bridges, in lean-tos, etc. you dont see someone in the desert even that doesnt build some form of primitive shelter. a house costs more money than any of the other necessities. not to mention you have to pay for permits or even to use land because SOMEONE else already owns it.

remove the need for money for these things, and you should see a drop in gun use to end lives, be it suicide or murder.

humans are an animal, and EVERY animal will fight for the necessities of life...to the death even, with whatever means that are most effective and available to them.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:16 am

"When deciding whether to issue a firearms licence, the first question to ask should be 'do you want to own a gun?' If they answer yes, then clearly they are not suitable to own a gun." - Inspector Fowler, Thin Blue Line

Paraphrased slightly based on having not watched it in a very long time.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:29 am

i dont find that would work.. i want to own a gun, and want to use a gun, but i like long distance target shooting.

the problem is people see guns as sporting equipment and hunting is the sport most see, and you only hunt animals of which humans are.

the reason i dont own a gun is because it is not something i want to fall into the hands of someone else, because i dont trust other people with them. so no longer own a gun.

"when giving someone money the first thing you should ask is do you want money. if they answer: yes. then they are not capable of understanding or suitable to use money."

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:19 pm

"hurr durr guns kill people".

Besides that and a bunch of "citation needed" fake statistics, there's isn't much on the anti-gun field. Besides that annoying leftie tendence of wanting Big Daddy Goverment to clean your ass and tuck you on bed.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:23 pm

All Suicides combined: 11.1 per 100,000 residents.
Suicides performed with a gun: 53%
Suicide attempts per suicide: 11
Overall Suicide success rate: 9%
Gun Suicide success rate: 90%
...

This brings up an interesting question:

Are suicide rates in countries/regions/cities/zones without guns LOWER than in countries with?

I mean, those statistics show guns are more effective at suicide than other ways...but I don't think anyone disputes the effectiveness of guns for killing.

If we get rid of guns, won't just some other means (hanging) become more likely via suicide? Then when we get rid of ropes, won't something else become more likely?

Or are you saying that there are more suicides because of guns?

What's really odd is Frank's 'no statistics in their favor' claim is I seem to find statistics after statistics showing that when gun control laws are rescinded, crime rates drop. I mean, stuff like http://kuruc.info/r/40/28418/ is faily common, and certainly counts as some sort of statistic, I think.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:12 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:Okay, so let's get on the same page: your actual point (as stated in like three different places in that post) is that we said something obviously hyperbolic, and you decided to take that literally, even though when you do that it leads to (by your own admission) a completely stupid and obviously fallacious claim that probably should have made you second guess your interpretation.

When people start making exaggerated claims without evidence, I'd like them to step back and, y'know, look at what they wrote and realize they sound like a moron.

How do you think people should take a hyperbolic statement? As 'not literally true, but definitely true anyway'?

Here's a protip: using hyperbole makes you a dumbass.

DSM wrote:I don't think you understand what "equalizer" means. Was the jewelry store owner at a disadvantage when the criminals walked in prepared and he did not have his gun in his hand? If so, then that gun's existence didn't equalize shit, so claiming guns as some great big equalizer is just flat out wrong. What actually 'equalized' that situation or swung it the other way was the criminals not paying enough attention to him to notice him going for a gun.

No, you don't realize what an equalizer means.
In a violent or potentially violent confrontation, you may have the opportunity to resist. But this opportunity is meaningless if you do not also have the ability or means to resist. What a gun does is provide that ability to people who lack it.

The fact that the criminals weren't paying attention to let him go for a gun wouldn't have helped him a bit if he didn't have a gun to go for!

PoliteNewb wrote:This is a well-hidden bullshit response: lawfully used firearms by definition don't create a danger to bystanders or other people (or else your laws suck). When you do that, the use stops being lawful.

Thank you for the admission. So since you just agreed that problems only arise when people break the law, why should we prevent people from owning guns if they obey the law?
People who own and carry guns safely and lawfully are no threat to others. So why should they be denied the usefulnes of guns?
If people DO misuse guns, I fully support punishing them...for misuse, not merely for owning a defensive tool.

The point is that letting people lawfully carry firearms provides a lot more opportunities for their unlawful use. Like getting pissed over bullshit at somebody and instead of escalating to a fight in the street it escalates to gunshots.

And yet another unsupported claim! Hooray!
Just to let you know: things that you think are "perfectly obvious" are not, at all. If you want to make a claim like "someone lawfully carrying a gun is much more likely to try to kill people when he gets angry", you need to provide actual evidence of that claim.

You cannot both admit that it does not reduce crime and claim that we will successfully scare people away from committing crimes. These are literally two opposing claims, because if it does successfully scare people away from committing crimes, then we have less crime.

You also can't claim that it leads to criminals always stabbing people first, because then crime stats would show a huge rise in murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault.

Or if they have some group to go commit crimes against ("go somewhere else") who is less likely to be armed, and I don't think we've accomplished anything there except changed victims. That's individually desirable, but from a social engineering perspective not a whole lot.

Why should social engineering trump individual desire for self-defense? Are you saying, "you can't be armed, so you can get robbed and beaten, for the good of society"?

If one person wants to carry a gun so that he does not become a victim of violent crime, I believe we should let him do that...even if the only result it that the crook victimizes someone else. That is not a particularly desirable state of affairs, I grant...but it is better than the alternative, which is that people have no ability to choose if they wish to defend themselves.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:27 pm

Suicide attempt rates vary wildly by country. In countries where firearms are rare, suicide success rates run from 1:20 to 1:30. The United States has one of the highest rates of suicide "success" per attempt on Earth. But it still has about a third the rate of successful suicide per person than Japan or Hungary, because people in those countries are culturally predisposed to off themselves and attempt suicide at a rate that is inconceivable in other areas.

And of course: suicide statistics are basically not reported in lots of countries. Iran claims a suicide rate that is about 1% of that of the US, and Honduras literally has not provided statistics since 1976 and the numbers they reported back then were obviously fake. However, even when you look at OECD countries that keep good stats, the impact of cultural attitudes to suicide are clearly larger than any other available factor (times of economic crisis double suicide rates but "being Hungarian" triples them).

However what is clear is that for every 1100 suicide attempts there are 100 deaths. Of those attempts, 58 of them will be with firearms and will contribute 53 deaths. Of the remaining 1042 suicide attempts, there will be only 47 deaths. If the gun suicide attempts were instead randomly assigned to other ways of attempting suicide, the number of suicide deaths would drop by more than half (about 51%). And since the suicide death rate is more than twice the homicide rate, that's a really big deal.

It is literally and specifically true that the increased effectiveness in suicides by firearms accounts for more deaths than the entire homicide rate. Including firearm related deaths.

But the bottom line on statistics is that the NRA has spent the last century or so trying to prove that having guns makes you safer and they have come up with precisely fuck all. They come up with elaborate stories to try to explain away the fact that people who own guns are more likely to die violently than people who don't, but they have no evidence at all that guns actually reduce violence in any way.

-Username17

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:59 pm

Politenewb wrote:Why should social engineering trump individual desire for self-defense?

We should not let people set themselves on fire to protect themselves from the dark. There is no evidence that people who carry guns are safer than people who don't. People who carry guns are more likely to be shot. We can speculate as to why that is, but the bare facts are that gun owners are less safe than non-gun owners.

People being so afraid that they volunteer themselves for higher risk groups is stupid and irrational, and not the sort of thing that public policy should cater to. This is seriously like people being afraid of being in accidents so they decide to drive faster to spend less time on the road. Public policy should not cater to that sort of thing, because even though there is an explainable logic to it, the statistics do not bear out "speeding" as a way to reduce traffic fatalities.

Similarly: statistics do not bear out gun ownership as a way to reduce violence. If people are afraid of violence, they should not own guns.

-Username17

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:22 pm

"If people are afraid of violence, they should not own guns."

Hey fuckface, that's not a decision that you or the govt should take. Is an individual one.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:17 pm

Gx1080 wrote:"If people are afraid of violence, they should not own guns."

Hey fuckface, that's not a decision that you or the govt should take. Is an individual one.

"If people are afraid of traffic accidents, they should not drive fast."

Hey fuckface, that's not a decision that you or the govt should take. Is an individual one.

your logic is fucking terrible. Clearly there is a point where a maladaptive "safety" strategy is sufficiently counter productive that it becomes a public concern. The question is merely whether quadrupling your chances of being shot and killed is enough of a safety liability that the government should intervene. It is perfectly permissible to argue that an action that increases fatalities by four times is below the threshold that the government should concern itself with.

But claiming that the government does not have an interest in regulating stupid and dangerous behavior is clearly wrong. That is not an argument that makes any sense. The argument you would have to make is that gun ownership is not stupid and dangerous enough to warrant punitive measures.

-Username17

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:56 pm

I heard that driving puts you in risk too. Maybe the govt should ban cars?

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:29 pm

Gx1080 wrote:I heard that driving puts you in risk too. Maybe the govt should ban cars?

The government should absolutely regulate cars and driving in general, demand certain car safety standards, require a certain training period and/or test performance before driving cars and take driving privileges away from those who abuse them.

Besides which, cars serve a far more legitimate and necessary daily function than guns do. Without mass car ownership, American society would collapse (especially given how comparatively shitty its public transport is). Without mass gun ownership...well, thousands fewer people would die every year for bullshit stupid reasons. What's the upside to mass gun ownership?

EDIT: And no, I'm not asking you to quote the Second Amendment at me. I'm asking you to justify it for me. What's the utility that outweighs the harm?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:30 pm

Here's your cite, PoliteNewb: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

If you're objecting to the Steve Kangas interpretation or the Kellerman study I can find something more recent/direct (including FBI crime statistics), as long as you're not going to be an asshole about it.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:51 pm

@Gnosticism

Easy. Is for allowing actual rebellion if the goverment gets tyrannical.

You know, like most countries on the American continent were created.

Also, gun bans only make sure that criminals and cops are the only ones armed. And the line between the two of them is blurry these days.

Note that I don't expect leftists to undestand a Constitution or why is bad to surrened full control of our lives to the Goverment.

PS: Fuck you and your anti-freedom stance.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:02 pm

Gx1080 wrote:Easy. Is for allowing actual rebellion if the goverment gets tyrannical.

1) Do you actually believe that you can use your handguns to overthrow the government with tanks and nuclear missiles and armed and trained soldiers who have better guns?

2) In preparation for your answer: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:34 pm

Gx1080 wrote:
Note that I don't expect leftists to undestand a Constitution or why is bad to surrened full control of our lives to the Goverment.

PS: Fuck you and your anti-freedom stance.

U mad, bro?

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 am

@Kaelik

Tell that to Egypt. Or the examples of revolution through history.

No goverment is invincible.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:33 am

Gx1080 wrote:@Kaelik

Tell that to Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

The 2011 Egyptian revolution (Arabic: ثورة 25 يناير‎ thawret 25 yanāyir, Revolution of 25 January) took place following a popular uprising that began on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 and is still continuing as of October 2011. The uprising was mainly a campaign of non-violent civil resistance, which featured a series of demonstrations, marches, acts of civil disobedience, and labour strikes. Millions of protesters from a variety of socio-economic and religious backgrounds demanded the overthrow of the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Despite being predominantly peaceful in nature, the revolution was not without violent clashes between security forces and protesters, with at least 846 people killed and 6,000 injured.[22][23] The uprising took place in Cairo, Alexandria, and in other cities in Egypt, following the Tunisian revolution that saw the overthrow of the long-time Tunisian president. On 11 February, following weeks of determined popular protest and pressure, Mubarak resigned from office.

Emphasis mine.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:38 am

Check the edit. "And examples of revolutions through history."

It seems like you want tons of civilian deaths for overthrowing tyrannical goverments.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:17 am

Gx1080 wrote:Check the edit. "And examples of revolutions through history."

It seems like you want tons of civilian deaths for overthrowing tyrannical goverments.

So a modern revolution of the people can't beat a modern army of tanks, nukes, and well trained soliders.

Great, when one side has muskets, and the other side has muskets also, maybe you stood a chance. But you know what, you don't have nukes and tanks, so you can't beat the people with nukes and tanks (and bombers, and better trained soldiers with assault rifles).

Now try to name a single revolution that has occurred since 1960 in which a bunch of people with guns, but no tanks or training, managed to overthrow their government who had tanks and trained soldiers.

Protip, everyone who owns civilian guns could all rise up right now, and the Military would murder them all, because the military is fucking awesome at killing people.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:32 am

Gx1080 wrote:Easy. Is for allowing actual rebellion if the goverment gets tyrannical.

That ship has fucking sailed long ago. Seriously. If America hasn't risen up and stormed the White House already, for instance, when all of their other, non gun-related were taken away, then it's never going to happen.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:35 am

"Protip, everyone who owns civilian guns could all rise up right now, and the Military would murder them all, because the military is fucking awesome at killing people."

Yeah, how are Afg and Iraq going again?

@Koumei

Stay tuned on the OWS channel....

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:44 am

Gx1080 wrote:Yeah, how are Afg and Iraq going again?

I believe a small US military force that has been expressly told to not kill innocents has occupied and pacified large urban areas with minimal casualties, and then instituted governments that actually run large parts of the country.

So... all those not dead US troops... seem to prove that your rag tag piece of shit untrained AK 47 wielding true heroes lose to the military.