[mattyb]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Why do you seam to think that guns are the cause or the solution to crime?

I don't. You didn't understand my question.

How many murders are committed with fully-automatic weapons in the US?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Glad you brought these up. All of the events in the UK you mention were before firearms were severely restricted. That is less than 50 deaths in those incidents BTW. In 15 years.
Are you referring to the Norway attacks in 2011?

Yes, the one that started with the bombing that killed 8 people. I see that I said Netherlands earlier and I apologize for the error.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And did you go through the other countries that are above the US in terms of safety, or is it only the figures from France that support your view?

No, France I reserved specifically for you. The point is, the government can go to great lengths to make people feel secure, but the fact is these measures don't make people feel more secure. I cite these figures to throw wrenches into the simpleton logic that gun control legislation is the panacea many seem to be seeking and that there's a cost to limiting freedom.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Since allowing unrestricted access to firearms has not addressed any of these problems in the US, what do you propose, besides issuing everyone a firearm?

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Why do you seem to think that guns are the cause or the solution to crime?

Yeah, I feel that the issue itself has polarized people to the point it's clouding their minds. Instead of "what do we do about guns?" it should be "what can we do about mass murderers?" Most of the bombs that kill thousands each year can be made with stuff from Home Depot and a chemistry textbook.

Guns scare some folks, and they want them gone because of that fear. Makes sense, my mom as an irrational fear of chainsaws and refuses to let my dad keep his near the house, making him store it in a neighbor's shed. It's a tool, it isn't going to magically jump up and kill you, but she doesn't care. "A chainsaw is for cutting down trees, but what's a gun for?" Well, Virginia, it's for hunting, sport, and specifically, defense, because no one out there is going to do that for you. The police exist to "clean up" and incarcerate, not to keep another person from harming you. If they do, it's purely incidental.

[BadKosh]

It was liberals in the 1970's who 'felt' it was inhumane to keep the wack-jobs in the mental institutions, so they were let out onto the street (or driven to different towns/cities as they do now) and it was liberal lawyers who helped them hide the fact they WERE wack-jobs from employers and the authorities. This makes a background check pretty much moot. Seems like liberal policies caused most of this. Lets not ask them for help in fixing it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It was liberals in the 1970's who 'felt' it was inhumane to keep the wack-jobs in the mental institutions, so they were let out onto the street (or driven to different towns/cities as they do now) and it was liberal lawyers who helped them hide the fact they WERE wack-jobs from employers and the authorities. This makes a background check pretty much moot. Seems like liberal policies caused most of this. Lets not ask them for help in fixing it.

"liberal lawyers"? I'm so tired of this nonsense...

It is so silly to assume that everybody cannot separate their own politics (assuming they are highly opinionated in the first place) from basic professionalism. Nobody can be just a journalist, a doctor, a mental health specialist, a scientist, a movie director, an environmentalist, a whatever - everybody needs a "liberal" or "conservative" preface before their name, huh?

It couldn't be that lawyers take on whatever case they feel they can win at, or one that would advance their careers from a legal standpoint? They need to be driven by a political agenda, huh?

Try being a human being BadKosh, not a conservative human being, or should I say robot that just does and thinks whatever everybody else in their party thinks/does.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It was liberals in the 1970's who 'felt' it was inhumane to keep the wack-jobs in the mental institutions, so they were let out onto the street (or driven to different towns/cities as they do now) and it was liberal lawyers who helped them hide the fact they WERE wack-jobs from employers and the authorities. This makes a background check pretty much moot. Seems like liberal policies caused most of this. Lets not ask them for help in fixing it.

Now I understand, its paranoia.

Love to know how you would categorize a "wack-job" before he (or she) actually did some mass murder.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"liberal lawyers"? I'm so tired of this nonsense...

It is so silly to assume that everybody cannot separate their own politics (assuming they are highly opinionated in the first place) from basic professionalism. Nobody can be just a journalist, a doctor, a mental health specialist, a scientist, a movie director, an environmentalist, a whatever - everybody needs a "liberal" or "conservative" preface before their name, huh?

It couldn't be that lawyers take on whatever case they feel they can win at, or one that would advance their careers from a legal standpoint? They need to be driven by a political agenda, huh?

Try being a human being BadKosh, not a conservative human being, or should I say robot that just does and thinks whatever everybody else in their party thinks/does.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

It was liberals in the 1970's who 'felt' it was inhumane to keep the wack-jobs in the mental institutions, so they were let out onto the street (or driven to different towns/cities as they do now) and it was liberal lawyers who helped them hide the fact they WERE wack-jobs from employers and the authorities. This makes a background check pretty much moot. Seems like liberal policies caused most of this. Lets not ask them for help in fixing it.

Making the decision to commit someone to an institution is a huge responsibility; one that neither conservatives nor liberals look forward to. These commitments can include medication against the will of the patient. IMO, they pose a huge potential for abuse perpetrated by a host of players. Neither political side is very eager to call for greater institutionalization, they're just both saying we have to seriously look at identifying and addressing mental illness more effectively. Well... yeah?!?

Ronald Reagan is held responsible (by zealots mind you) for "crazy" people running around the streets of California because he was not a proponent of state-run institutionalization and signed legislation starving the bureaucracy. He had a great many conservatives and corporate interests behind him as well. I happen to agree with Reagan's move, but there's no easy-button here either and that's why I believe the discussion keeps returning to gun control.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree with this.

Unless these statistics have changed significantly, about 10% of the general population is politically ideological, this is something I have to remind myself of in public settings while assessing some particular conversation. Most people are not all that intense about things.

Therefore, the probability of some lawyer having this grand political agenda is pretty low, even if you tack on a bunch of extra percentage points if you think that lawyers are generally more ideological than the general population. There are most likely more apolitical or swing-voter lawyer types than there are ideologues.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Unless these statistics have changed significantly, about 10% of the general population is politically ideological, this is something I have to remind myself of in public settings while assessing some particular conversation. Most people are not all that intense about things.

Therefore, the probability of some lawyer having this grand political agenda is pretty low, even if you tack on a bunch of extra percentage points if you think that lawyers are generally more ideological than the general population. There are most likely more apolitical or swing-voter lawyer types than there are ideologues.

Bess, you don't need to be ideological to be greedy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Bess, you don't need to be ideological to be greedy.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

I've just found in my experience much of the cause for behavior that appears to be ideologically driven is in fact driven by greed in the name of ideology. No issue with what you said, just pointing that out

[lpkmckenna]

The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea: Scientific American

Originally Posted by Micheal Shermer

Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense. I harbored this belief for the 20 years I owned a Ruger .357 Magnum with hollow-point bullets designed to shred the body of anyone who dared to break into my home, but when I learned about these statistics, I got rid of the gun.

Over the past quarter of a century, guns were involved in greater number of intimate partner homicides than all other causes combined. When a woman is murdered, it is most likely by her intimate partner with a gun.

All other causes combined.

Whenever a conservative sputters the BS line about "if they didn't have a gun, they'd just use something else," just laugh in their face.

[Shaddim]

A study by whom? Oh, it's a Shermer article, nevermind.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A study by whom?

These people: Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home : The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. You know, the actual study which was mentioned in the article.

Oh, it's a Shermer article, nevermind.

Oh, it's dismissive snark by Shaddim, nevermind.

Guns in the home are more likely to kill people who live there than anyone else. Anyone who denies that is a fool.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea: Scientific American





All other causes combined.

Whenever a conservative sputters the BS line about "if they didn't have a gun, they'd just use something else," just laugh in their face.

And how do you account for the times that a gun was used for self-defense but not fired?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And how do you account for the times that a gun was used for self-defense but not fired?

The same way you account for all the times guns were used in crimes but never fired, I suppose.

[Snow-i]

The article you've cited is so full of holes the task of rebutting it seems almost a waste of time, but here we go.

Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense. I harbored this belief for the 20 years I owned a Ruger .357 Magnum with hollow-point bullets designed to shred the body of anyone who dared to break into my home, but when I learned about these statistics, I got rid of the gun.

Shermer's statistics fail to address times that a gun was used but not fired. When you take into account this much larger number, Shermer's statistics break down.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.[85] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[86][87][88][89][90][91][92]

Take that against the 107,000 injuries by all firearms by all causes. In 1993, for each gun-related injury whether it be accidental, criminal, justifiable, fatal or non - approximately 25 crimes were prevented by using a firearm in a self-defense capacity..
Citation: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf

For example, of the 1,082 women and 267 men killed in 2010 by their intimate partners, 54 percent were shot by guns.

Do you think the the existence of guns would have any effect on this number? Stands to reason that a crime of passion would occur whether or not there was access to a firearm. You cannot make a case for access to guns as a causal factor in domestic abuse, and no one in the field would lay that claim.

When a woman is murdered, it is most likely by her intimate partner with a gun. Regardless of what really caused Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius to shoot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (whether he mistook her for an intruder or he snapped in a lover's quarrel), her death is only the latest such headline.

Is he serious? A preponderance of the evidence clearly shows possible premeditation and intent to murder - an act whereby the firearm cannot be blamed as a causal factor for his actions. This is why Pistorious was charged with murdering his girlfriend. This is the example he chose? It didn't even occur in or was in any way related to the United States.

Next:

Another myth to fall to the facts is that gun-control laws disarm good people and leave the crooks with weapons. Not so, say the Johns Hopkins authors: “Strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers—defined as having a state law that required state or local licensing of retail firearm sellers, mandatory record keeping by those sellers, law enforcement access to records for inspection, regular inspections of gun dealers, and mandated reporting of theft of loss of firearms—was associated with 64 percent less diversion of guns to criminals by in-state gun dealers.”

What Shermer fails to address here is corollary statistics for the number of criminals obtaining guns by other means, such as burglary, sale of illegally obtained guns, out-of-state illegal purchases, and illegal firearms already in existence etc, etc. This statistic is cherry-picked and fails to address the larger issue of criminals obtaining guns by any means - in other words it's meaningless.

Finally, before we concede civilization and arm everyone to the teeth pace the NRA, consider the primary cause of the centuries-long decline of violence as documented by Steven Pinker in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: the rule of law by states that turned over settlement of disputes to judicial courts and curtailed private self-help justice through legitimate use of force by police and military trained in the proper use of weapons.

This paragraph is a classic Strawman argument. No one advocates vigilante, citizen administered justice in place of justice being administered by the proper authorities. This has nothing to do with administering justice and everything to do with one's own right to protect himself, his family, his neighbors and his country. No one advocates reducing legitimate use of force by police and military in settling disputes. Not even the most ardent supporters of gun-rights argue for the reduction and/or abolition of state-authority for dispute settlement.

So let's recap based on the "facts" and "science" shermer offers:

-Shermer believes his personal anecdote about his ruger .357 supports tougher gun-control.
-Shermer believes that only times a gun was fired for self-defense as an instance of the value of a firearm for self-defense.
-Shermer believes that criminals only illegally obtain guns via in-state licensed dealers.
-Shermer believes that firearms are a root cause of homicide via domestic dispute. Pistorious's murder of his girlfriend is a modern example of this.
-The Sandyhook massacre was solely caused by Lanza's access to firearms. I didn't even address this paragraph because well, Shermer didn't say anything other than an emotional plea to "recall" this event.
-Shermer believes that supporting gun rights are tantamount to supporting anarchy and mob-rule for dispute settlement.

I'm sorry mckenna, but I wrote more persuasive and well-supported essays in high school. Even at a left-leaning University this is a D paper at best, and attempts to obscure a rational argument by appealing to his audience's emotions. The paper doesn't even attempt to address it's click-bait title - not even in the opening paragraph.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The same way you account for all the times guns were used in crimes but never fired, I suppose.

And how is that? Those are counted in violent crime stats.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

These people: Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home : The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. You know, the actual study which was mentioned in the article.

Oh, it's dismissive snark by Shaddim, nevermind.

Guns in the home are more likely to kill people who live there than anyone else. Anyone who denies that is a fool.

and I don't debate subjects with you because you're an abuser who is incapable of having constructive conversations.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and I don't debate subjects with you because you're an abuser who is incapable of having constructive conversations.

Really? I thought it was because I'm "a foreigner." That's what your obnoxious signature says.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Really? I thought it was because I'm "a foreigner." That's what your obnoxious signature says.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[subego]

It says "foreigners who are only here to argue".

Example of wanting to argue: focusing on one word in a sentence.

That's focussing for you foreigners.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The article you've cited is so full of holes the task of rebutting it seems almost a waste of time, but here we go.

From your "analysis," it isn't very clear when you're attacking Shermer, and when you're attacking the study Shermer is referencing, and when you're attacking the words you're stuffing in Shermer's mouth. But it's overwhelmingly the later.

Shermer's statistics fail to address times that a gun was used but not fired. When you take into account this much larger number, Shermer's statistics break down.

Like here, for example. These aren't Shermer's stats, he's citing someone else.

And like I already said, if we're gonna compare stats about guns fired or not fired, we need to also compare guns not fired in commission of a crime as well as guns not fired in self-defence.

And I'm not sure which numbers you're referencing as "disproving" Shermer. You have referenced two wildly divergent numbers available regarding how often guns are using in self-defence. Kleck's "study" says "2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot," while the other study you reference (McDowell) says it's only about 65,000 crimes a year thwarted by a firearm.

By the way, Kleck's "study" is really a random phone survey, and it's wildly out of step with real studies that use police reports and other crime stat material. I think Kleck is a crank.

But going back to McDowell's study, he says "For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense." Think about what that means. You've brought a gun into your home, it's 22 times more likely to be used against a member of the home than an intruder, yet the potential benefit from this is a less than 1% chance of being useful against a violent criminal. I don't care how you spin it, that's a ridiculous risk for limited chance of any benefit.

Take that against the 107,000 injuries by all firearms by all causes. In 1993, for each gun-related injury whether it be accidental, criminal, justifiable, fatal or non - approximately 25 crimes were prevented by using a firearm in a self-defense capacity..
Citation: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf

Ok, what the fnck is this? Seriously, I just searched your link for "107,000" and "107000" and not a single match came up. And I searched the link for the words: self-defense, self-defence, prevented, 25 crimes. I couldn't find what you are citing in this document. Do me a damn favor and point out where in this link you're getting this stuff?

Until then, I regard your claim that "for each gun-related injury ... approximately 25 crimes were prevented by using a firearm in a self-defense capacity" to be a load of complete crap.

Now if the actual source of your ratio of 1:25 comes from ~100,000 total injuries and deaths compared to Kleck's ~2,500,000 incidences of self-defence with guns, fine, but like I said, Kleck's phone survey results seem as reliable as Karl Rove's estimates from the last Presidential election. So I still think it's crap.

And it still doesn't affect the reality: a gun is 22 times more likely to be used against the residents of the home than any criminals. You claim there are lots of times that gun isn't fired against intruders? I'll bet my ass it's many more times used to threaten spouses and children and yet never fired, and no one phones the cops regardless.

Do you think the the existence of guns would have any effect on this number?

Yes! Guns make the violence many times more severe and many times more lethal.

Stands to reason that a crime of passion would occur whether or not there was access to a firearm.

Maybe, but a person stabbed or struck by a spouse is far more likely to live than if he or she was shot.

You cannot make a case for access to guns as a causal factor in domestic abuse, and no one in the field would lay that claim.

I don't care if it's a "cause," I only care how much more likely a person is to be severely maimed or killed. Maybe you should stop shoving words in people's mouths. I've never heard someone say "guns cause domestic violence," but lots of people will say "guns make domestic violence far, far worse."

Is he serious? A preponderance of the evidence clearly shows possible premeditation and intent to murder - an act whereby the firearm cannot be blamed as a causal factor for his actions. This is why Pistorious was charged with murdering his girlfriend. This is the example he chose? It didn't even occur in or was in any way related to the United States.

Are you illiterate? Shermer never claims the gun was a causal factor. Get off that lame horse already, and stop shoving words in people's mouths.

And, Oscar Pistorius is innocent until proven guilty. You're not remotely qualified to make any statement about "preponderance of the evidence clearly shows" and frankly you have no friggin' idea what you're blabbering about.

What Shermer fails to address here is corollary statistics for the number of criminals obtaining guns by other means, such as burglary, sale of illegally obtained guns, out-of-state illegal purchases, and illegal firearms already in existence etc, etc. This statistic is cherry-picked and fails to address the larger issue of criminals obtaining guns by any means - in other words it's meaningless.

Do you know what would really put a dent in guns obtained by burglary? Mandatory weapon safes. It would have been a lot harder for Adam Lanza to kill his own mom with her own gun if it was locked in a safe that only she could access.

Besides, there is nothing "corollary" about your claim. The issue was how weapons in the home are actually used, and the fact is, they used against the people in the home at a far, far, far greater rate than in defence of the home. How weapons are obtains by thugs is not corollary to that fact, it's irrelevant.

This paragraph is a classic Strawman argument. No one advocates vigilante, citizen administered justice in place of justice being administered by the proper authorities.

Really? There's a guy in Florida who's been charged with doing exactly that, and a drooling horde of people are defending him.

No one advocates reducing legitimate use of force by police and military in settling disputes.

I do. Cops often shoot when they should taze, and they taze when they should persuade. Watching cops taze argumentative but non-violent people just sitting in their cars after being pulled over, or peppering-spraying protestors in the face who are doing nothing but sitting on the ground, I think we definitely need a re-assessment of the "legitimate use of force." And after the pointless slaughter in Iraq, a re-assessment of "legitimate use of force" in the military is loooooong overdue.

-Shermer believes his personal anecdote about his ruger .357 supports tougher gun-control.

You see, here's yet another example of you shoving words in his mouth. He never claimed his person gun ownership supported anything. The stats proved he was opening his home to unnecessary risk, not his gun.

-Shermer believes that only times a gun was fired for self-defense as an instance of the value of a firearm for self-defense.

Yet again, you shove words in his mouth. He never said this, only you did.

-Shermer believes that criminals only illegally obtain guns via in-state licensed dealers.

Yet again, you're shoving words in his mouth. He never says this, he never implies it, it's never a logical inference from anything he says, and so on.

-Shermer believes that firearms are a root cause of homicide via domestic dispute. Pistorious's murder of his girlfriend is a modern example of this.

Guess what I'm about to say! That's right, he never says firearms a root cause of domestic violence, only that guns make domestic violence more likely to become homicide. There's nothing "via" about it.

-The Sandyhook massacre was solely caused by Lanza's access to firearms. I didn't even address this paragraph because well, Shermer didn't say anything other than an emotional plea to "recall" this event.

Shermer's face is getting sore from having your words shoved in it over and over again. He never says "caused," and he definitely doesn't say "solely caused." But you know what might have mattered? A fncking gun safe in the home.

-Shermer believes that supporting gun rights are tantamount to supporting anarchy and mob-rule for dispute settlement.

Nope, he never says that, not even close. He says organized police reduces crime, but guns in the home do not. He says it in the first damn paragraph.

I'm sorry mckenna, but I wrote more persuasive and well-supported essays in high school.

Are you sure? You couldn't even properly cite two stats in your own "argument" with a link.

... attempts to obscure a rational argument by appealing to his audience's emotions.

Nope, that's a description of your silly mouth-stuffing rant you engaged in.

You might be more open to your opponent's point of view if you actually listened to want he said instead of imagining things you think he says.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

It says "foreigners who are only here to argue".

Example of wanting to argue: focusing on one word in a sentence.

That's focussing for you foreigners.

You mean there are people here in the PL who are not here to argue? Could you point one of them out for me? Because I'm 100% positive everyone here is here to argue.

[subego]

I'm not here to argue. I may do so at times, but that's a failing on my part.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not here to argue. I may do so at times, but that's a failing on my part.

Ok, I'll bite: why are you here?

[subego]

I like the people here. They aid me in my quest for objective truth.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by subego 

It says "foreigners who are only here to argue".

Example of wanting to argue: focusing on one word in a sentence.

That's focussing for you foreigners.

There are many "foreigners" who aren't just "here to fight", and there are countless other forums out in the internet multiverse that can accommodate those who are.

[Snow-i]

I'm just going to go ahead and skipthrough the parts where you don't really say anything.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Like here, for example. These aren't Shermer's stats, he's citing someone else.

He cites them to make his own point. I'm not sure if you went to school, but when you cite something to support an argument you are essentially taking their work to support your own idea while giving them due credit.

And like I already said, if we're gonna compare stats about guns fired or not fired, we need to also compare guns not fired in commission of a crime as well as guns not fired in self-defence.

Mckenna, your stats already include guns not fired in a commission of a crime.

And I'm not sure which numbers you're referencing as "disproving" Shermer. You have referenced two wildly divergent numbers available regarding how often guns are using in self-defence. Kleck's "study" says "2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot," while the other study you reference (McDowell) says it's only about 65,000 crimes a year thwarted by a firearm.

So do you discount Kleck's number? Based on what?

By the way, Kleck's "study" is really a random phone survey, and it's wildly out of step with real studies that use police reports and other crime stat material. I think Kleck is a crank.

So.... I just want to make sure we're clear. You're debunking Kleck's study because you think Kleck is a crank? Do you have anything...well...substantive to back up your claim? You need to provide something a little more substantial then how you feel about the author.

Ok, what the fnck is this? Seriously, I just searched your link for "107,000" and "107000" and not a single match came up. And I searched the link for the words: self-defense, self-defence, prevented, 25 crimes. I couldn't find what you are citing in this document. Do me a damn favor and point out where in this link you're getting this stuff?

You serious dude? It's on the second page is big bolded font in the left column. I'll quote it for you. If you couldn't find that, you're not trying very hard. My apologies, the number is actually 104,200. It was late and that actually supports my argument further.

Firearm injury
from all causes
Total 411,800
1993 104,200
1994 89,600
1995 84,200
1996 69,600
1997 64,200
-38%

Until then, I regard your claim that "for each gun-related injury ... approximately 25 crimes were prevented by using a firearm in a self-defense capacity" to be a load of complete crap.

Consider yourself rebutted.

Yes! Guns make the violence many times more severe and many times more lethal.

I want to make sure we're absolutely clear here. You believe that guns are a root cause of domestic homicide?

Maybe, but a person stabbed or struck by a spouse is far more likely to live than if he or she was shot. There's a reason there's no such thing as a "murderous knife rampage."

Let me google that for you
The entire first page is news articles about exactly that.

I don't care if it's a "cause," I only care how much more likely a person is to be severely maimed or killed.

And here folks is exactly why history is doomed to repeat itself. You don't care what the cause is? How can you be sure the measures you're taking to save lives won't have the opposite effect (as has been demonstrated throughout history) without understanding the cause?

Maybe you should stop shoving words in people's mouths. I've never heard someone say "guns cause domestic violence," but lots of people will say "guns make domestic violence far, far worse."

"Far, Far Worse?" Because an otherwise defenseless woman would actually be able to fend off her attacker? Shermer implies as much in his article. That each of the murders with a firearm in a domestic violence setting are because of the gun. You can't possibly say that guns make domestic violence "much much worse" while completely ignoring the plethora of situations that a gun could actually reduce or prevent the violence altogether.

Are you illiterate? Shermer never claims the gun was a causal factor. Get off that lame horse already, and stop shoving words in people's mouths.

So why is it in this article titled "The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea: Scientific American."

What about Pistorious has to do with guns other then he used one to murder his girlfriend?

And, Oscar Pistorius is innocent until proven guilty. You're not remotely qualified to make any statement about "preponderance of the evidence clearly shows" and frankly you have no friggin' idea what you're blabbering about.

Was he not charged with murder? Was she not shot 4 times and beaten with a cricket bat? Are you claiming that you believe him to be a victim of an evil gun going off four times through a door and into someone he supposedly loves? come on Mckenna, you're not even trying now.

Do you know what would really put a dent in guns obtained by burglary? Mandatory weapon safes. It would have been a lot harder for Adam Lanza to kill his own mom with her own gun if it was locked in a safe that only she could access.

Hey! A constructive idea!! I don't disagree!!! I actually just bought one for when I get the paperwork back on mine. Gun Safes are a great idea and should be encouraged for anyone looking to store a gun on their property.

Besides, there is nothing "corollary" about your claim.

What?

The issue was how weapons in the home are actually used, and the fact is, they used against the people in the home at a far, far, far greater rate than in defence of the home. How weapons are obtains by thugs is not corollary to that fact, it's irrelevant.

Uh...Mckenna...We're already past that. What part of the quoted text says anything about how guns are used in the home? Shermer cites a study that shows greater oversight of firearms dealers leads to less firearms dealers selling to criminals and tries to extrapolate the obvious findings to a greater scope then the study covers. It has nothing to do with the total number of illegal weapons obtained by criminals, how they are used, where they are used, how they are obtained etc etc. It simply says that better oversight of gun stores leads to less criminals buying guns from gun stores. It does not claim that the overall number of guns obtained by criminals decreased nor does it show any indication of a difference in firearms related crime rates. In otherwords, it's so narrow in scope that it's meaningless to the discussion at hand

Really? There's a guy in Florida who's been charged with doing exactly that, and a drooling horde of people are defending him.

This statement alone shows your lack of understanding of the issue and further, your unwillingness to understand the issue better.

I do. Cops often shoot when they should taze, and they taze when they should persuade. Watching cops taze argumentative but non-violent people just sitting in their cars after being pulled over, or peppering-spraying protestors in the face who are doing nothing but sitting on the ground, I think we definitely need a re-assessment of the "legitimate use of force." And after the pointless slaughter in Iraq, a re-assessment of "legitimate use of force" in the military is loooooong overdue.

Agreed. Don't you think it would get worse if there was no one to stop the cops however?

You see, here's yet another example of you shoving words in his mouth. He never claimed his person gun ownership supported anything. The stats proved he was opening his home to unnecessary risk, not his gun.

Then why is it in the article? I'm not sure if you went to school, but when you're writing an article you choose a topic, then support that topic with citations from primary sources. I don't see how a personal anecdote can pass as a source. You're never supposed to refer to yourself in a scholarly article. (This is usually learned in 7th or 8th grade).

Yet again, you shove words in his mouth. He never said this, only you did.

What other inference can you draw about the incomplete data set he used to come up with his figures? The only other options are that he is grossly incompetent or wildly dishonest.

Yet again, you're shoving words in his mouth. He never says this, he never implies it, it's never a logical inference from anything he says, and so on.

Guess what I'm about to say! That's right, he never says firearms a root cause of domestic violence, only that guns make domestic violence more likely to become homicide. There's nothing "via" about it.

Shermer's face is getting sore from having your words shoved in it over and over again. He never says "caused," and he definitely doesn't say "solely caused.

Excuse my hyperbole. I think it's intended effect may have been lost on you.

But you know what might have mattered? A fncking gun safe in the home.

Lets stay on topic, shall we?

Nope, he never says that, not even close. He says organized police reduces crime, but guns in the home do not. He says it in the first damn paragraph.

First off he never makes the claim that guns do not reduce crime, only that the costs of such protection are staggeringly high (which, when viewing a more complete dataset, is shown to be false). Second, Shermer cited an article that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and tried to draw some wild connection between the advancement of society from a sociological perspective as it relates to crime rates (as his source addresses) and individual gun ownership in the United States. A 10th grader should be able to spot the bullshit.

Are you sure? You couldn't even properly cite two stats in your own "argument" with a link.

You not being bothered to even skim through the second page of my sources does not count as me failing to properly cite them.

Nope, that's a description of your silly mouth-stuffing rant you engaged in.

Jesus dude, and I'm the intolerable one? I'm sorry man. I can't do it anymore. You're not interested in any sort of constructive debate or understanding anyone else's point of view, no matter how well supported. If you learn how to communicate on these boards without coming across as an angry 7 year old, let me know and I'll be happy to pick this up. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and don't waste the time responding to me as you've made my ignore list.

[lpkmckenna]

Good riddance to annoying, poorly-argued tripe, then.

I find it absolutely hilarious that he blames me for "not being bothered to even skim through the second page of my sources does not count as me failing to properly cite them" while at the same time he admitted that he completely screwed up the citation. I'm at fault because I couldn't find what he meant to say? :roll eyes:

Regarding Klerk, he's a crank because he conducts statistical analysis of gun violence with random phone polling, and nothing else. Sorry, that's the methodology of a market researcher, not a scientist.

The statistics are clear: bring a gun in the home, you endanger your family far more than you protect it. Might was well buy a rabid wild hyena to protect your family, since it would have similar statistical results.

Hey! A constructive idea!! I don't disagree!!! I actually just bought one for when I get the paperwork back on mine. Gun Safes are a great idea and should be encouraged for anyone looking to store a gun on their property.

Here's a pretty good example of why talking to Snow-i is so damn annoying. I didn't say gun safes should be encouraged, I said they should be mandatory. Don't say you agree with me when you don't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've just found in my experience much of the cause for behavior that appears to be ideologically driven is in fact driven by greed in the name of ideology. No issue with what you said, just pointing that out

Isn't all ideology greed though? Maybe not greed of direct financial wealth, but greed for power and control. Even if some entity getting their way doesn't translate to immediate power and control, it puts that entity closer to their selfish goals.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I like the people here. They aid me in my quest for objective truth.

No one's gonna be aiding anyone if they aren't arguing for their point of view.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No one's gonna be aiding anyone if they aren't arguing for their point of view.

That's not the only meaning of the word "argue".

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not the only meaning of the word "argue".

Which one am I being blamed for?

[subego]

2 [no object] exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way

[lpkmckenna]

You mean I shouldn't say things like "Good riddance to annoying, poorly-argued tripe, then" ??

Yeah, that's not gonna change. I'm hard on people when they deserve it.

I mean, look at this dismissive attitude from Snow-i, despite having made no cogent arguments to support it:

I'm just going to go ahead and skipthrough the parts where you don't really say anything.

Consider yourself rebutted.

Excuse my hyperbole. I think it's intended effect may have been lost on you.

This statement alone shows your lack of understanding of the issue and further, your unwillingness to understand the issue better.

Lets stay on topic, shall we?

Then there's the aggressive mouth-stuffing:

I want to make sure we're absolutely clear here. You believe that guns are a root cause of domestic homicide?

You're debunking Kleck's study because you think Kleck is a crank?

Then there's the deliberately playing stupid:

Was he not charged with murder? Was she not shot 4 times and beaten with a cricket bat? Are you claiming that you believe him to be a victim of an evil gun going off four times through a door and into someone he supposedly loves? come on Mckenna, you're not even trying now.

And that's all from a single post.

I mean, when you stoop to the level of pretending you don't know what presumed innocent means, it gets really tiresome fast.

When people argue like that, I go for the throat. I owe no one an apology for it.

I'm here to argue. It "gets heated" because sometimes people deserve to get blasted. I don't care if anyone else likes it or not.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Good riddance to annoying, poorly-argued tripe, then.

Does anyone like you IRL? Good God man, by decency alone you hurt your argument.

I find it absolutely hilarious that he blames me for "not being bothered to even skim through the second page of my sources does not count as me failing to properly cite them" while at the same time he admitted that he completely screwed up the citation.

If pressing a 7 instead of a 4 on the numpad counts as completely screwing up a citation. You got me. At least I admit when I make a typo that has no material effect on my argument whatsoever. You're trolling.

I'm at fault because I couldn't find what he meant to say? :roll eyes:

I'll quote it for you again with the correction inline, since you can't be bothered. The stat is in big font on the second page. I even quoted it for you in my last How in the world you had trouble finding it is beyond me. Again, you're trolling.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Take that against the 107,000 104,200 injuries by all firearms by all causes. In 1993, for each gun-related injury whether it be accidental, criminal, justifiable, fatal or non - approximately 25 crimes were prevented by using a firearm in a self-defense capacity..
Citation: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf

Here you are deflecting again....claiming my typo completely through you off the trail and unravelled my argument. Could you address my actual argument now?

Regarding Klerk, he's a crank because he conducts statistical analysis of gun violence with random phone polling, and nothing else. Sorry, that's the methodology of a market researcher, not a scientist.

What about his method do you find objectionable? Is the sample too small? Biased? People lie for no reason? Could you explain where the stats fall short?

The statistics are clear: bring a gun in the home, you endanger your family far more than you protect it. Might was well buy a rabid wild hyena to protect your family, since it would have similar statistical results.

The statistics are clear. You've failed to demonstrate how Kleck's numbers might be in error where I've clearly torn Shermer's Square-peg into round hole statistical analysis apart.

Here's a pretty good example of why talking to Snow-i is so damn annoying. I didn't say gun safes should be encouraged, I said they should be mandatory. Don't say you agree with me when you don't.

I've answered my opening question. Forgive me, Mckenna. I didn't realize the thought of us agreeing on something as simple as Gun Safe's being a good thing turned your stomach so.


Do you concede the rest of my post you left unaddressed? I'll assume so, as your posts seem to increasingly include more vitriol the further in the hole you get.

[andi*pandi]

I'm really sick of reading about all the preschoolers accidentally shooting themselves, their siblings, or neighbors, with their father's unlocked gun, a child-sized .22 or whatever. Even a bb gun can kill. What are the parents thinking?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm really sick of reading about all the preschoolers accidentally shooting themselves, their siblings, or neighbors, with their father's unlocked gun, a child-sized .22 or whatever. Even a bb gun can kill. What are the parents thinking?

Agreed. Parents who don't properly secure potentially lethal weapons, of any kind, need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Isn't all ideology greed though? Maybe not greed of direct financial wealth, but greed for power and control. Even if some entity getting their way doesn't translate to immediate power and control, it puts that entity closer to their selfish goals.

What if their goals were selfless?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm really sick of reading about all the preschoolers accidentally shooting themselves, their siblings, or neighbors, with their father's unlocked gun, a child-sized .22 or whatever. Even a bb gun can kill. What are the parents thinking?

They aren't.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

They aren't.

This. In spades. And the problem is getting worse not because guns are "more available," but because parents are less able to parent. Adults who have children are increasingly less prepared to be parents, in part because the way one learns parenting is by being parented, and in certain groups there is less and less parenting skill with each generation. (And in some groups those generations are coming faster and faster because of poor parenting, but that's another issue.)

There are basically 3 rules of gun safety: a gun is ALWAYS considered loaded unless proven otherwise just now, never point any gun (or anything that looks like a gun) at anything you do not plan to destroy, and anyone not capable of understanding and complying with the first two rules must NEVER have access to a firearm without very close supervision. Obviously there are lots of ways for tragedy to occur when any of these rules is not followed very carefully.

My wife's father had guns, and her family was brought up to respect that these were particularly powerful tools that were not to be touched without supervision and careful adherence to the rules. Her family NEVER had any safety or inappropriate behavior issues with guns because her father was an active parent who set and enforced these simple rules. That is all it takes to prevent these accidents: active parenting by informed and educated parents.

Now, how do we get parents to be active and informed in enforcing firearms safety when we can't get a lot of them to provide nutritious meals, not leave their kids locked in a hot car while they're at work, make sure the kids get to school regularly, etc... Unfortunately our society is breeding for stupid, and for precocious sexual experience instead of smart enough to survive today's world.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This. In spades. And the problem is getting worse not because guns are "more available," but because parents are less able to parent.

Actually, it isn't getting worse. What's "getting worse" is the instant availability of news to go viral, and the resultant emotional impact it has on people who want to grab the low hanging fruit to "support" their argument. America is no doubt a violent country and has a higher homicide rate than many other nations, but the problem is not getting worse (and the link is one of many that corroborates that).

Gun deaths are down as debate rages - Chicago Sun-Times

"These declines came as the population of the United States increased, gun sales soared, and concealed-carry laws multiplied. Yes, the decline came as overall violent crime fell, guns account for 70 percent of murders, and major cities like Chicago are plagued by violence. But the bottom line is firearm violence has fallen to the point that most gun deaths aren’t murders — six in 10 of them are suicides."

[ghporter]

Very accurate. Many people get the impression that, instead of being the safest generation to date (backed up by real data), that we are all much less safe because the 24/7 news cycle always has something bad to report-often over and over. It makes it look like far more very bad things happen, when the opposite is the case.

I still believe there is more opportunity for bad (ineffective) parenting to precipitate firearms accidents, even if they don't actually happen. Not a "gun" issue at all, but a major one in any case.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Very accurate. Many people get the impression that, instead of being the safest generation to date (backed up by real data), that we are all much less safe because the 24/7 news cycle always has something bad to report-often over and over. It makes it look like far more very bad things happen, when the opposite is the case.

I still believe there is more opportunity for bad (ineffective) parenting to precipitate firearms accidents, even if they don't actually happen. Not a "gun" issue at all, but a major one in any case.

Too many react to news with their emotions; rather than verifying statistics, they believe what they want to believe because it fits the narrative they've chosen. Child kidnappings are almost always carried out by a known person, yet people drive their children to bus stops (there's an upscale neighborhood 1/2 mile from where I live, which I go through multiple times daily. There are many children in the neighborhood, and when the busses roll through, the moms are there, dropping them off, and then picking them up later. The whole neighborhood consists of one circular street, with three cul de sacs branching off, for a total of 2 miles of road, so it's not a big sub). Nobody is going to steal their children. Many of the houses have ADT signs near the bushes or by a door (nobody is breaking in). In fact, ADT, the giant alarm company, gets tax breaks from the government, which essentially covers it's advertising expenses, so it makes more money, even though burglaries, like violent crime, have steadily decreased. Americans, although better off than most of the rest of the world, can be quite gullible.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Too many react to news with their emotions; rather than verifying statistics, they believe what they want to believe because it fits the narrative they've chosen. Child kidnappings are almost always carried out by a known person, yet people drive their children to bus stops (there's an upscale neighborhood 1/2 mile from where I live, which I go through multiple times daily. There are many children in the neighborhood, and when the busses roll through, the moms are there, dropping them off, and then picking them up later. The whole neighborhood consists of one circular street, with three cul de sacs branching off, for a total of 2 miles of road, so it's not a big sub). Nobody is going to steal their children. Many of the houses have ADT signs near the bushes or by a door (nobody is breaking in). In fact, ADT, the giant alarm company, gets tax breaks from the government, which essentially covers it's advertising expenses, so it makes more money, even though burglaries, like violent crime, have steadily decreased. Americans, although better off than most of the rest of the world, can be quite gullible.

Damn, OldManMac. This is your topic, brother.

I think we can close this thing now.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"liberal lawyers"? I'm so tired of this nonsense...

It is so silly to assume that everybody cannot separate their own politics (assuming they are highly opinionated in the first place) from basic professionalism. Nobody can be just a journalist, a doctor, a mental health specialist, a scientist, a movie director, an environmentalist, a whatever - everybody needs a "liberal" or "conservative" preface before their name, huh?

It couldn't be that lawyers take on whatever case they feel they can win at, or one that would advance their careers from a legal standpoint? They need to be driven by a political agenda, huh?
.

I don't know, of all of the agenda-driven nutjobs I've met in my life, nearly all of them have been Leftists. Also, if I count up the Leftists I've known, most of them have ended up as agenda-driven nutjobs who refused to acknowledge reality in one way or another. I don't know why they needed to be driven by a political agenda, but they stand out in real life because everyone else is just trying to get by whereas they're driven by their "causes." I've also known plenty of professionals of Lefty persuasion who became professionals just to pursue some wacko cause. Your mileage may vary (until or unless you decide to swim outside your comfort zone of friends and acquaintances). If you hang around the same people all of the time you may never experience this level of diversity.

If we want to look at labeling as a political trait of one group or another, I'd say that would have started on the Left. Nobody in this country works harder to define people based on their income levels or other demographics than the Lefties - the politics of division. Whatever Karl Rove and his slimy ilk learned about this, they learned from neoSocialists in the Democrat party.

It's hard to square the political position of "LEAVE ME THE F*CK ALONE" with "I HAVE THE NEED TO LABEL AND DIVIDE EVERYONE I MEET". Look at the gun rights argument as a prime example - there's a need to vilify those who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights as near terrorists or "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion."

One more thing: Freedom of speech and assembly started with newspapers and street corners. I haven't heard the 1st Amendment interpreted that way in a while. The question should be "Why do you NEED free speech? Do you run a newspaper?" or "Why do you NEED to assemble? Do you have a political group?"

[besson3c]

Labeling people as labelers? That sounds like way too much effort to prove or dispute. Why not just say that some people label - some of them liberal, some conservative, and some independent or apolitical and call it a day?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Labeling people as labelers? That sounds like way too much effort to prove or dispute. Why not just say that some people label - some of them liberal, some conservative, and some independent or apolitical and call it a day?

Or, we can point out how one side of the political spectrum has historically been driven by a pathological need to label everyone and use that to divide them using their differences and fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This. In spades. And the problem is getting worse not because guns are "more available," but because parents are less able to parent.

...

...or because the government and legal systems either don't allow parents to parent as they see fit or the governments try to parent via legislation.