Gun Control

[magekillr]

Statistics are nothing more than irrelevant numbers when not placed into context. Numbers fluctuate just because [there doesn't have to be a reason, perhaps less people robbed that year just by chance], perhaps 50% of the population moved away, or perhaps the police department saw an increase of 200 cops that year. Just because the burglary rate dropped that year doesn't mean it should be attributed solely to that firearms law, as it was obviously not the only thing that occurred that year.

 

Ha, your criticisms against pro-gun statistics sound exactly the same as mine against anti-gun statistics. Can we all agree to stop using statistics and outlandish scenarios from now on? It becomes a stalemate for both sides.

 

He wasn't criticizing statistics, but the use of them without any context. Statistics are certainly not useless, only if they're used improperly or without any context. When used by people who know wtf they're talking about, they're very useful.

 

However, it is a dumb thing to say without any source. Who made this claim? What study? Who funded it? Can it be independently repeated using the same tools? Etc. It'd be useful if people would use links more frequently in their posts...

 

I do question the number to a T, though, considering guns aren't even a factor in other countries, and yet here is the Netherlands shutting down prisons because they don't have enough crime to house people in them:

 

http://media.www.jsons.org/media/storage/paper139/news/2009/05/31/EmersonNews/Netherlands.To.Shut.Down.Prisons.Due.To.Lack.Of.Criminals-3748334.shtml

[Zierro]

He wasn't criticizing statistics, but the use of them without any context. Statistics are certainly not useless, only if they're used improperly or without any context. When used by people who know wtf they're talking about, they're very useful.

 

Criticizing the usage of statistics.* And yeah, my point still stands that I can do the same exact thing to the stats that "prove" that stricter gun laws in America will prevent more deaths.

[Furah]

However, it is a dumb thing to say without any source. Who made this claim? What study? Who funded it? Can it be independently repeated using the same tools? Etc. It'd be useful if people would use links more frequently in their posts...

And how does one estimate 2.5million crimes a year are prevented by guns? That's extremely subjective.

Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

[BlindBaker]

[hide]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMoJ-9G68k[/hide]

 

I don't really know where I stand on gun control, to be honest. There's good arguments for both sides. On one hand, gun control could only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals would still have guns, while citizens are left defenseless. On the other hand, gun control could make it harder for criminals to acquire guns as well. It all depends on how well the guns would be regulated.

[Furah]

I don't really know where I stand on gun control, to be honest. There's good arguments for both sides. On one hand, gun control could only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals would still have guns, while citizens are left defenseless. On the other hand, gun control could make it harder for criminals to acquire guns as well. It all depends on how well the guns would be regulated.

Not at all, I could talk with 2-3 people and get my hands on a .45 handgun (at that calibre the handgun would be illegal here) with a suppressor (also illegal, even though a suppressor only makes a big gun sound like a smaller gun.) Alternatively I could get a crate of military weaponry off the back of an army truck.

[Skeptical]

Civilians do not need pistols. No pistol should ever be offered for sale if it is capable of being fired.

 

No civilian ever needs an automatic rifle. Ever. Period. No "magazine limits" no rate-of-fire restrictions. No. Automatic. Rifles.

 

If you want a rifle to hunt, that's fine. Keeping a shotgun at home is stupid. If you really want one though, you can get a license, go through a background check, and have it in a month.

 

Restrictions on amount of ammo that can be purchased. Ammunition and firearms should only be available from a system similar to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

[Alg]

I don't really know where I stand on gun control, to be honest. There's good arguments for both sides. On one hand, gun control could only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals would still have guns, while citizens are left defenseless. On the other hand, gun control could make it harder for criminals to acquire guns as well. It all depends on how well the guns would be regulated.

Not at all, I could talk with 2-3 people and get my hands on a .45 handgun (at that calibre the handgun would be illegal here) with a suppressor (also illegal, even though a suppressor only makes a big gun sound like a smaller gun.) Alternatively I could get a crate of military weaponry off the back of an army truck.

If it's that easy the best option is to ensure that everyone is trained to use their guns. Doesn't make much sense to bar the responsible gun owners from having one legally when criminals will probably be able to get them in the same manner as they do drugs.

[Kriegsmier]

Civilians do not need pistols. No pistol should ever be offered for sale if it is capable of being fired.

 

No civilian ever needs an automatic rifle. Ever. Period. No "magazine limits" no rate-of-fire restrictions. No. Automatic. Rifles.

 

If you want a rifle to hunt, that's fine. Keeping a shotgun at home is stupid. If you really want one though, you can get a license, go through a background check, and have it in a month.

 

Restrictions on amount of ammo that can be purchased. Ammunition and firearms should only be available from a system similar to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

 

Ah, so naive. Keeping a shotgun at home is stupid? Really? Thats the best weapon for home defense! And no handguns for civilians? Seriously? Why not? You don't have any good reason why you should limit that. There is no good reason.

 

No automatic rifles, yes true....and thats why its already law.

[das1330]

Civilians do not need pistols. No pistol should ever be offered for sale if it is capable of being fired.

 

No civilian ever needs an automatic rifle. Ever. Period. No "magazine limits" no rate-of-fire restrictions. No. Automatic. Rifles.

 

If you want a rifle to hunt, that's fine. Keeping a shotgun at home is stupid. If you really want one though, you can get a license, go through a background check, and have it in a month.

 

Restrictions on amount of ammo that can be purchased. Ammunition and firearms should only be available from a system similar to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

 

Do you have any justification for banning guns other then that "you don't need one"? While guns do have numerous legitimate uses, as mentioned above, even if we assume they don't have any use this reasoning is still illogical. You don't "need" runescape. You don't "need" the internet, or fast cars, or a television, or nearly all the other objects you interact with on a daily basis. Is lack of direct use reason enough to ban something?

[Furah]

Civilians do not need pistols. No pistol should ever be offered for sale if it is capable of being fired.

Handguns make great self-defence weapons. The light weight of a handgun compared to a rifle makes it easier for you to pick one up and aim it at someone should the need arise.

 

No civilian ever needs an automatic rifle. Ever. Period. No "magazine limits" no rate-of-fire restrictions. No. Automatic. Rifles.

This I do agree with, they chew through too much ammunition and aren't effective at hunting unless you're trying to hunt the whole forest. However, in America atleast, you have a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Needs.

 

If you want a rifle to hunt, that's fine. Keeping a shotgun at home is stupid. If you really want one though, you can get a license, go through a background check, and have it in a month.

As Kriegsmier has stated, shotguns make the best home defence weapon. They're also used for bird hunting and are becoming increasingly popular in deer hunting.

 

Restrictions on amount of ammo that can be purchased. Ammunition and firearms should only be available from a system similar to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

What would that serve? A person could buy the max amount of ammunition and wait until he can purchase that amount again until he has the ammunition he needs. He could also have a friend or family member purchase it for him.

[Skeptical]

It's about making it HARDER to purchase large quantities of ammunition. They could also smuggle it into the country, but that would make it just a wee bit harder to go on a shooting spree, wouldn't it?

 

And keeping a shotgun is a great idea, as long as you don't mind it being stolen, or used by someone who breaks in. Guess what, that scary black man that broke into your house now has a gun. Where do you think the weapons that are on the streets come from? As for effectiveness, even my grandfather, how owned guns, knew it was stupid to keep them at home. Some drunk kid ends up in the wrong house? Someone in your family sleepwalking? You starting to see things? You can keep a shotgun at home, but you should be liscence for it, have to pass a background check, etc.

 

Want to keep your house safe? Buy a dog.

[Kriegsmier]

It's about making it HARDER to purchase large quantities of ammunition. They could also smuggle it into the country, but that would make it just a wee bit harder to go on a shooting spree, wouldn't it?

 

And keeping a shotgun is a great idea, as long as you don't mind it being stolen, or used by someone who breaks in. Guess what, that scary black man that broke into your house now has a gun. Where do you think the weapons that are on the streets come from? As for effectiveness, even my grandfather, how owned guns, knew it was stupid to keep them at home. Some drunk kid ends up in the wrong house? Someone in your family sleepwalking? You starting to see things? You can keep a shotgun at home, but you should be liscence for it, have to pass a background check, etc.

 

Want to keep your house safe? Buy a dog.

 

Why does he have to be black? So we are racist now too? I've said it MANY times in this thread. KEEP IT HIDDEN OR LOCKED UP. If you have it sitting by the door old west style, sure you might of just signed your death warrant....otherwise there is no reason to expect to have it stolen while you are home. Keep it unloaded as well, it takes all of what, a few seconds to pop some shells into a gun?

 

Do you have any numbers to support your "most guns on the streets are stolen guns" theory?

[Zierro]

And keeping a shotgun is a great idea, as long as you don't mind it being stolen, or used by someone who breaks in. Guess what, that scary black man that broke into your house now has a gun. Where do you think the weapons that are on the streets come from? As for effectiveness, even my grandfather, how owned guns, knew it was stupid to keep them at home. Some drunk kid ends up in the wrong house? Someone in your family sleepwalking? You starting to see things? You can keep a shotgun at home, but you should be liscence for it, have to pass a background check, etc.

 

If you fire at every shadow or creek in the floor, this is a problem of irresponsibility for handling the gun - not the gun itself. Just like leaving knives on the floor with a baby crawling around. This situation could have been prevented if you were simply more responsible - taking away knives altogether is not the proper solution.

 

Want to keep your house safe? Buy a dog.

 

Dogs have been known to attack and kill their owners though. Your sentiment on dogs shouldn't be much different from that of guns when it comes to home protection.

[Skeptical]

Only is you abuse them. I nominate that post for TIF's stupidest post of the year.

 

Look at the death toll: http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics

 

65 THOUSAND. And all because a few people don't understand statistics, or the effect that the booming bark and 300lbs of bite pressure have. Ever been bitten by a dog? Ever seen wild dogs take down prey? Ever seen a police dog tackle a suspect? My father was pulled off a bicycle and left with half-inch deep incisions by a dog that weighed only a few pounds more than a cat. An elderly great dane crashed into me once and knocked me half unconscious, entirely on accident. That dog could shred tires. Our family's dog (a roddy) could squash lacrosse balls and once scared off a full grown bear. This dog can go just about anywhere with you, cannot be used against you, and will defend your family literally to the death.

[Alg]

So a death caused by a dog is somehow less horrific than one caused by a gun?

[Skeptical]

So a death caused by a dog is somehow less horrific than one caused by a gun?

 

A gun doesn't scare a criminal away.

 

And I have no statistics to back it up, but I strongly suspect that most dogs would stop after incapacitating: it's not a predatory assault; they don't intend to eat their opponent.

[Zierro]

Only is you abuse them.

 

This dog can go just about anywhere with you, cannot be used against you, and will defend your family literally to the death.

 

Dogs that have not been abused and are seemingly loyal to the owners have been known to "snap out of the blue" and kill.

 

I nominate that post for TIF's stupidest post of the year.

 

I apologize for the rude wording, but the point you made is honestly just not very good.

 

A gun doesn't scare a criminal away.

 

Alright, now I get the impression you're just playing with us. :shades:

 

1. They do. All the time, in fact.

2. Guns can't get loose and run into the neighbor's yard and attack them.

[Skeptical]

Nope. How does a potential invader know a gun is in the house? And it doesn't matter if many do: all he's looking for is a house that is least likely to have a means of defending itself.

 

If you've ever had a dog, then you know how sensitive they are: establish with them what their territory is, and they will both alert you to any unwanted presence, and if trained to do so, defend it.

 

I'm sure a ridiculously small number of dogs have some form of brain damage, which could trigger violence, although it is amazingly unlikely, I'm sure.

[Zygimantas]

I nominate that post for TIF's stupidest post of the year.

Well that's not nice :mellow:

 

But anyways I have a solution. How about you get a dog or a gun, or neither one, or both, and then just let everyone else make their own decisions. ;)

[Zierro]

Nope. How does a potential invader know a gun is in the house?

 

They can't unless you have a sign I suppose. And in that respect, having a dog would be similar to just having an alarm system.

 

I do think the invader would be much more afraid to see a gun pointing at them than a dog growling at them though.

 

If you've ever had a dog, then you know how sensitive they are: establish with them what their territory is, and they will both alert you to any unwanted presence, and if trained to do so, defend it.

 

Like I said, even after proper breeding and raising, dogs have still been known to snap on innocent people - even their owners.

 

I'm sure a ridiculously small number of dogs have some form of brain damage, which could trigger violence, although it is amazingly unlikely, I'm sure.

 

They are dogs. It doesn't take brain damage for a dog to do something irrational or violent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/rottweiler-news-forum/61566-dog-attacks-owner-nj.html

 

Notice how many people were killed by their own dogs or family's dogs?

 

PS: I got nothing against owning dogs. I just find it funny that someone militantly against firearms recommends having a dog as a means of protection. You complain that people will just jump at every little shadow and noise and shoot at it, but you're extremely skeptical about dogs attacking the undeserving. This reveals your bias.

[das1330]

So a death caused by a dog is somehow less horrific than one caused by a gun?

 

A gun doesn't scare a criminal away.

 

See:

 

They prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year in the US alone. Every day in the US; 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

 

Use all the "reason" and "logic" you want; the statistics don't lie.

 

Incidentially, swimming pools are statistically around 15 times more dangerous then guns in terms of accidential deaths.

[Furah]

It's about making it HARDER to purchase large quantities of ammunition. They could also smuggle it into the country, but that would make it just a wee bit harder to go on a shooting spree, wouldn't it?

 

And keeping a shotgun is a great idea, as long as you don't mind it being stolen, or used by someone who breaks in. Guess what, that scary black man that broke into your house now has a gun. Where do you think the weapons that are on the streets come from? As for effectiveness, even my grandfather, how owned guns, knew it was stupid to keep them at home. Some drunk kid ends up in the wrong house? Someone in your family sleepwalking? You starting to see things? You can keep a shotgun at home, but you should be liscence for it, have to pass a background check, etc.

 

Want to keep your house safe? Buy a dog.

I'm saying they could stockpile it. It's not like they wake up one morning and say "I think I'll go on a shooting spree." These things are usually planned years or months in advanced. That gives the person ample time to purchase enough ammo, or to even have someone else purchase some for them.

 

Maybe you shouldn't have a loaded gun in a visible spot. As Kriegsmier has stated, keep it unloaded. All but the most determined criminals would run when you audibly have the means to kill them.

[1_man_army]

So a death caused by a dog is somehow less horrific than one caused by a gun?

 

A gun doesn't scare a criminal away.

 

See:

 

They prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year in the US alone. Every day in the US; 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

 

Use all the "reason" and "logic" you want; the statistics don't lie.

 

Incidentially, swimming pools are statistically around 15 times more dangerous then guns in terms of accidential deaths.

 

 

I really don't want to jump into this debate too much but I'd be interested to see what is considered an accidental death in relation to gun violence. For example, a stray bullet that hits a civilian in a drive-by shooting was still meant for somebody (just not the actual recipient) - can that really be classed as an accidental shooting? You were still trying kill somebody. A shooting where the wrong person is killed - like a case of mistaken identity - isn't really an accidental shooting to me atleast. My point really is, how are accidental shootings quantified in this case?

[Skeptical]

How would a criminal know if there is a gun in the house? They wouldn't.

 

And letting people possess something dangerous is a scary path: why can't they just possess bombs, or booby traps? That would scare the crap out of anyone considering a B&E.

 

Also, I want to see the source from the above statistics, if you don't mind.

[Furah]

How would a criminal know if there is a gun in the house? They wouldn't.

 

And letting people possess something dangerous is a scary path: why can't they just possess bombs, or booby traps? That would scare the crap out of anyone considering a B&E.

 

Also, I want to see the source from the above statistics, if you don't mind.

A sign saying trespassers will be shot on sight should suffice.

 

Brilliant idea, I'll bring that to the next senate hearing. I'll tell them I can reduce B&E by 100% by having everyone rig their house to explode should the windows ever be opened. Clearly nobody has common sense these days. The slippery slope argument is also flawed, is cannibalism a common occurrence here in western society? No? Well it should be, after all we started eating animals so by now we should have gone down the slope and have arrived at eating each other.

 

He most likely got it from here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm, I cannot download the pdf for myself as I am capped at 8KB/s until the 8th of October. I'm sure you're perfectly capable looking for yourself though, a thank you would be nice too.