Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

What that suggests to me is areas where people are known get shot, bludgeoned and stabbed regularly, they tend to arm themselves.

The reverse makes no sense at all. More armed citizens emboldens criminals? I think not.

In most countries in the world, you can't just 'decide to arm yourself' because you happen to live in a high crime area. I think that's a fairly long bow you're drawing there.

The far simpler explanation seems to me to be more armed citizens = more guns = more people killing each other.

 

[Hypoxia]

The far simpler explanation seems to me to be more armed citizens = more guns = more people killing each other.

That's almost Copernicus-level thought. Heliocentric! It leaves out all the epicycles, the statistical games played with subgroups. "But if we factor in all the racial-economic-social criteria and parms, we get this result I like..."

Yeah, sure. The simple equation: more firearms ==> more homicides. Since USA isn't about to reduce firearm levels anytime soon, now is a good time to invest in hospital chains with large emergency rooms. And in undertakers.

 

[Que]

In most countries in the world, you can't just 'decide to arm yourself' because you happen to live in a high crime area. I think that's a fairly long bow you're drawing there.

The far <less logical..fyp, yw> explanation seems to me to be more armed citizens = more guns = more people killing each other.

If the GUNS are magically inspiring people to kill other people, why aren't they using the GUNS to kill with?!??

 

[KimGordon67]

If the GUNS are magically inspiring people to kill other people, why aren't they using the GUNS to kill with?!??

They are. My reading of that link is that the increased homicide rates are explained by the greater number of gun-related deaths.

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."​

This suggests that non-gun-related homicide stays relatively similar regardless of levels of gun ownership - what increases overall homicide rates in states with high levels of gun ownership is gun-related homicides.

 

[AngusBridie]

The only way to control guns is to get rid of the people...

 

[Que]

Do you derive some sort of sexual satisfaction from circular arguments?

That's the opposite of what your previous statement said about increases in ALL homocides and not JUST gun homocides.

We already have a Phrodeau to cherry-pick anti-gun nut sponsered "studies" and to provide meaningless anecdotes involving misuse of guns while ignoring each and every news clipping about a gun being used in defense.

We get it, you hate guns. Lots of people in America hate guns too. They aren't going to get their way now, or ever. I'm glad about that. I'm glad that I live in a state where I can walk into a gun store today, purchase a gun, ammunition, and a concealed holster, load the magazine, insert it into the gun, conceal it on my person, and walk out of the gun store completely legally.

I worry not at all about any of my fellow citizens who are permitted to do just that if they are not felons doing that.

you like statistics that prove your point and you completely ignore any and all statistics that don't. We are a large metropolitan area adjacent to Los Angeles. We are now larger geographically than Los Angeles although we have less people. You are more likely to be shot in Los Angeles with heavy gun restrictions then you are in Phoenix Arizona with no gun restriction of any sort. We have just as many impoverished people as they have in LA probably more as expressed as a percentage since our wages are lower and our cost of living is lower.

So, you go ahead and quake with fear on my behalf from thousands of miles away and remember the LA and Chicago are more dangerous than where I live in the home of gun nuts.

 

[KimGordon67]

Do you derive some sort of sexual satisfaction from circular arguments?

That's the opposite of what your previous statement said about increases in ALL homocides and not JUST gun homocides.

Gun homicides are a sub-set of all homicides. Clearly, higher levels of gun ownership will result in a greater number of gun-related homicides. Your prior argument was that those homicides would have happened anyway, by some other means. These data would tend to suggest otherwise:

1. in areas marked by high levels of gun ownership, there seems to be little change in non-gun related homicide levels. So knives and blunt instruments are being used at the same rate.
2. in areas marked by high levels of gun ownership, there are more gun-related homicides. Point 1 above suggests they aren't replace knives/blunt instrument homicides - they're additional.
3. as a result the overall level of homicide increases.

 

[Hypoxia]

We get it, you hate guns.

Love and hate are irrelevant. USA is flooded with firearms, they ain't going away, we'll only have more, so we'd better be ready. Stock up now.

http://roncobb.net/img/cartoons/cuu/dd6047-on-Family_Guns_Loaded-cuu.jpg

 

[KimGordon67]

Do you derive some sort of sexual satisfaction from circular arguments?

That's the opposite of what your previous statement said about increases in ALL homocides and not JUST gun homocides.

We already have a Phrodeau to cherry-pick anti-gun nut sponsered "studies" and to provide meaningless anecdotes involving misuse of guns while ignoring each and every news clipping about a gun being used in defense.

We get it, you hate guns. Lots of people in America hate guns too. They aren't going to get their way now, or ever. I'm glad about that. I'm glad that I live in a state where I can walk into a gun store today, purchase a gun, ammunition, and a concealed holster, load the magazine, insert it into the gun, conceal it on my person, and walk out of the gun store completely legally.

I worry not at all about any of my fellow citizens who are permitted to do just that if they are not felons doing that.

you like statistics that prove your point and you completely ignore any and all statistics that don't. We are a large metropolitan area adjacent to Los Angeles. We are now larger geographically than Los Angeles although we have less people. You are more likely to be shot in Los Angeles with heavy gun restrictions then you are in Phoenix Arizona with no gun restriction of any sort. We have just as many impoverished people as they have in LA probably more as expressed as a percentage since our wages are lower and our cost of living is lower.

So, you go ahead and quake with fear on my behalf from thousands of miles away and remember the LA and Chicago are more dangerous than where I live in the home of gun nuts.

Which stats have I ignored? As I've stated before, I've been pretty agnostic in my (admittedly slightly random) research on the topic. I quite neutrally reported the comparison I made between the ten states that had the highest level of gun ownership and the ten states that had the highest level of violent crimes - I went looking for those figures fully expecting to find a correlation, but I didn't, and I said that. We agreed, quite some time back, that in fact it was unlikely that you could prove one way or the other that gun ownership either reduced or increased crime rates. Today I happened across something that tends to suggest, at least in the case of homicide, there maybe is a positive correlation between levels of gun ownership and rate of homicide, so I chucked in that in the thread.

I don't think I personally have said in this thread or elsewhere that I hate guns. And I'm not quaking with fear on anyone's behalf.

 

[Rightguide]

Sad day for libs and totalitarian Democrats everywhere. The U.S. Court Of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has just decided the combined cases of Wrenn v District of Columbia and Grace v District of Columbia. Washington DC is now going to become a "shall issue" concealed carry district. The court ruled two to one the District of Columbia cannot require an otherwise qualified applicant to state a acceptable reason why they want a CCW. The District has said it will not appeal decision to the SCOTUS. This will have far reaching ramifications for gun grabbing places like California and Illinois.

 

[cowslinger64]

Sad day for libs and totalitarian Democrats everywhere. The U.S. Court Of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has just decided the combined cases of Wrenn v District of Columbia and Grace v District of Columbia. Washington DC is now going to become a "shall issue" concealed carry district. The court ruled two to one the District of Columbia cannot require an otherwise qualified applicant to state a acceptable reason why they want a CCW. The District has said it will not appeal decision to the SCOTUS. This will have far reaching ramifications for gun grabbing places like California and Illinois.

Awesome...cause you can just never have enough guns. Just ask the husband of the woman that was shot by some guy carrying a pistol, taking advantage of his By God 2nd amendment rights, who thought she was a deer so he blew her away.


But hey...at least the 2nd amendment and all. Nothin to see here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Awesome...cause you can just never have enough guns. Just ask the husband of the woman that was shot by some guy carrying a pistol, taking advantage of his By God 2nd amendment rights, who thought she was a deer so he blew her away.


But hey...at least the 2nd amendment and all. Nothin to see here.

Damn civil rights!!!!

Gubbmint should get rid of those regressive backward things.

 

[Rightguide]

Awesome...cause you can just never have enough guns. Just ask the husband of the woman that was shot by some guy carrying a pistol, taking advantage of his By God 2nd amendment rights, who thought she was a deer so he blew her away.


But hey...at least the 2nd amendment and all. Nothin to see here.

Just some more of your bullshit.

 

[Hypoxia]

Do you derive some sort of sexual satisfaction from circular arguments?

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/1/626671_v2.jpg

 

[KimGordon67]

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/7/1/626671_v2.jpg

Y'need a girl version of that.

 

[richard_daily]

In most countries in the world, you can't just 'decide to arm yourself' because you happen to live in a high crime area. I think that's a fairly long bow you're drawing there.

The far simpler explanation seems to me to be more armed citizens = more guns = more people killing each other.

That's fucked up.

If your government can't clean up the crime, and you cant' defend yourself legally, then you're in effect, a slave.

If you trust your government in times of need, all you need to do is look at Haiti after a disaster, or Puerto Rico right now, or the incidents of rape against random women in Australia (where guns are outlawed).

The polite society dissolves in a natural disaster. If you believe that the government is going to protect you in those times, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[KimGordon67]

That's fucked up.

If your government can't clean up the crime, and you cant' defend yourself legally, then you're in effect, a slave.

If you trust your government in times of need, all you need to do is look at Haiti after a disaster, or Puerto Rico right now, or the incidents of rape against random women in Australia (where guns are outlawed).

The polite society dissolves in a natural disaster. If you believe that the government is going to protect you in those times, you're sorely mistaken.

We've had this discussion before - there's no conclusive evidence that gun ownership protects people from crime, other than the thoroughly anecdotal, and as I've said before, I equally have anecdotal evidence that bad guys NOT having guns has meant crimes such as rape from being seen through. And it's also blatantly obvious that rape stats are a woefully unreliable indicator of anything.

There isn't, and has never been, a society in the world where the government -
or in fact anyone else - could 'clean up crime'. Guns don't stop crimes being committed ... but they result in armed criminals. There's also plenty of places where natural disasters have NOT resulted in things going feral. That's not linked to gun ownership or otherwise - it's a function of the situation prior to the disaster.

Opening this debate up again is silly. This thread was finished ages and, as with every single gun control thread on here, it's clear that neither side is going to change it's position, and both sides are able to marshall 'logical' arguments to support their perspective. As I noted earlier, I've gained a fair bit of insight into the rationale of gun ownership, which has shifted my understanding a little, but my basic position hasn't changed.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's fucked up.

If your government can't clean up the crime, and you cant' defend yourself legally, then you're in effect, a slave.

If you trust your government in times of need, all you need to do is look at Haiti after a disaster, or Puerto Rico right now, or the incidents of rape against random women in Australia (where guns are outlawed).

The polite society dissolves in a natural disaster. If you believe that the government is going to protect you in those times, you're sorely mistaken.

If you believe the government is going to protect you in all but the most freak rare occurrences where they actually do that job....you're sorely mistaken.

The government is little more than a society sanctioned organized crime ring...always has been always will be.

We've had this discussion before - there's no conclusive evidence that gun ownership protects people from crime,

That must be why cops and soldiers and every other type of security force out there uses cookies and hot coco to do their job of protecting their communities from hostile threats instead of guns.

 

[KimGordon67]

If you believe the government is going to protect you in all but the most freak rare occurrences where they actually do that job....you're sorely mistaken.

The government is little more than a society sanctioned organized crime ring...always has been always will be.



That must be why cops and soldiers and every other type of security force out there uses cookies and hot coco to do their job of protecting their communities from hostile threats instead of guns.

This is a fallacious argument - the army/police/etc do not constitute 'people' in the sense that I was using it, which was clearly intended to indicate the general population. (You'll also obviously be surprised to learn that in many countries the police force aren't routinely armed.)

 

[Rightguide]

Y'need a girl version of that.

Instead of a protruding head, it could have a giant intake.

Perfect for a head on collusion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is a fallacious argument - the army/police/etc do not constitute 'people' in the sense that I was using it, which was clearly intended to indicate the general population. (You'll also obviously be surprised to learn that in many countries the police force aren't routinely armed.)

I promise you 100% of the military and police are all regular people from the general population. I'm not surprised at all I've spent a lot of time abroad and been to more countries than most people, even most Europeans. But even in jolly ol' England your cops carry guns. Not all, but the ones in high risk situations absolutely do just like every other state authority.

Know why?

Because the bottom line is if you want to defend yourself from attack, the better armed you are the better your odds of survival. Fact.

 

[Wats_butthole]

That's fucked up.

If your government can't clean up the crime, and you cant' defend yourself legally, then you're in effect, a slave.

If you trust your government in times of need, all you need to do is look at Haiti after a disaster, or Puerto Rico right now, or the incidents of rape against random women in Australia (where guns are outlawed).

The polite society dissolves in a natural disaster. If you believe that the government is going to protect you in those times, you're sorely mistaken.

No rape in the us where people carry guns? Wow, got a link?

 

[Aphro]

No rape in the us where people carry guns? Wow, got a link?

No, no. It's just much better being raped at gunpoint, is what I think he's saying.

 

[removed9556]

 

[Wats_butthole]

No, no. It's just much better being raped at gunpoint, is what I think he's saying.

Oh, I see. I was a little confused at the point he was making there. Rape without guns is like raping in another country, or something like that.