Some facts about guns in the US

Tobacco's still worse. And if guns have no purpose but to kill, tobacco has less even than that, addicting you in the meantime. Tobacco also has the amusing benefit of killing you with lots of slow, painful suffering. If one of the two needs banning, I know which must go first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert Title Here)

I wouldn't disagree. But, at the same time, an outright ban of all firearms is not a serious consideration in the current public discourse, and I doubt it ever will be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that type of argument sort of detracts from progress, and sort of the same language that bureaucrats and politicians speak to drag on the process. Well why are we focusing on burgulars when murderers are on the loose!? We have to fight each battle. I definitely agree with more regulation, but not banning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The vast majority of death and injuries, by guns, is done with illegal guns; gang violence. Instead of using science standards to infer the correct course of action, what appears to be happening is legal guns are the only data presented by media, in an attempt to stack the data set. If a scientist needed to draw a curve of all shooting incidence, a good scientist would use legal and illegal gun data points; all the data. But politics is not rational or scientific. The democrats, for some reason, throw out the majority of the data points and use only legal gun data points. The curve then suggests this is the main problem, due to inference from the fixed data set. Liberals are not rational, so this works, with no liberal asking to see all the data. It reminds you of the global warming data scam.

If we did this scientifically, and used all the data points, the curve would say we can actually save more lives if we go after illegal guns. But since this is not where liberals want to go, one might infer liberals seem to side more with criminals and will stack the deck againt legal activity to support the criminals.

Why would liberalism prefer to stack the data against legal, instead of use all the data which sides against illegal? I prefer all the data and a path that maximizes lives with the least amount of resources; attack the main source first.

Say we could take away all legal guns. We can't or won't be able to stop illegal guns any better than illegal drugs, which generates billions of dollars of illegal sales. Now only criminals are allowed to possess guns; by default. How does this benefit liberalism? Is crime part of the liberal philosophy since decisions are not based on science or truth.

 

The Obvious Point

Given the number of "legal" guns that become "illegal" guns, I'm not certain this is a problem facing "liberalism".

 

Instead of using science standards to infer the correct course of action, what appears to be happening is legal guns are the only data presented by media, in an attempt to stack the data set. If a scientist needed to draw a curve of all shooting incidence, a good scientist would use legal and illegal gun data points; all the data.[/QUOTE] actually most guns used in crime are purchased legally and than illegally given to others.

which probably explains why conservatives problems with it.

untrue.

actually liberals being more intellectual and scientific so they are the rational party but nice misrepresentation. and there was no global warming data scam. it was typical right wing lack of understanding of science.

more lies to attack the left. most guns used in crime are purchased legally.

 

Agreed. This is done primarily by conservatives; they attempt to use gun violence to push their agendas. The NRA, for example, has used recent shootings to push for more gun sales. This enriches the group they lobby for - the gun industry. No regard is given to actual science. Instead every data point is spun to try to present the case that the solution to the gun problems is more guns.

One of the reasons that conservatives are so in favor of guns is that they tend to use threats and violence to solve their problems. Recently several prominent republicans have threatened armed revolution if they don't get their way; one outspoken NRA supporter said he was "going to start killing people" if he did not like the results of the gun discussion. It is difficult (to say the least) to have a rational discussion with people if their response is "if you don't agree with me I'm going to start killing people."

This isn't surprising; conservatives are, on the whole, less educated and less intelligent than liberals. From Lazar Stankov, of Singapore’s National Institute of Education:

===============
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated … At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education … and performance on mathematics and reading assessments.
===============

When they cannot express themselves intelligently, they fall back on threats of violence. The better armed they are, the more credible the threat of violence. Thus conservatives have a real fear that if they don't have enough guns, no one will take them seriously.

The irony, of course, is that while they readily threaten armed revolution to achieve their political agendas, they also can't be bothered to get off their couches and vote. They tend to prefer threats over the democratic process. And while this might work in a street gang, it tends not to work in more advanced systems of government.

 

I note that the discussion has digressed to 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives' again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I find it most unfortunate that we cannot just be practical, moderate and common - sensible about the issue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Last week, here in Detroit, 2 shootings caught our attention. The first: a 70 year old basketball coach escorts 2 of the Martin Luther King high school girls basketball team from the school to their cars in the parking lot after practice. 2 teen aged boys (1 an 11th grade student at that school) jump them in the parking lot, pull pistols and demand money. 1 grabs the gold chain around the coaches neck. The coach pulled a pistol and shot both boys. The 11th grader died at the scene, the other "suspect" is in critical condition at hospital. The coach is a police reserve officer (required to carry his weapon at all times) and has a license to carry the pistol.

Meanwhile, at a bus stop a distance away, a fellow waiting for a bus was approached by an armed man who demanded his valuables. Instead of his wallet he produced a firearm and killed the robber. He was also licensed to carry the weapon.

I see good points on both retaining second amendment rights AND restricting the type of weapons available to pretty much anyone along common sense lines. Single shot muzzle loaders were the most sophisticated firearms on the planet when the constitution was written, this needs to be taken into serious consideration in this discussion. We need to throw in some minimal barriers to criminals obtaining firearms as well - merely check anyone who wants to own a firearm, like we do with cars. It would be a good idea to keep real close tabs on sociopathic people with known violent tendencies even if that bordered on invasion of their privacy for the practical purpose of protecting society.

 

@Stoniphi
Are you saying that those two deaths were a good use of guns?

Wouldn't it have been better to give the muggers money
and then tell the police. One of them was a child.

 

Bizarrely, America's greatest crack shot, Chris Kyle, was shot dead at a shooting range a few days ago by a fellow Iraqi veteran.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21313208

Any thoughts on this?

 

Probably not. But, foreigner as I am, the Second Amendment does make a crude practical sense. How much do you trust your government, really? In the US, crazy is only a vote away, and the whole country hangs on the knife edge.

This is a good point: my argument was that guns don't necessarily serve 'no purpose'. I don't own any, but I'm undecided on the role they should have.

 

Maybe you can help me, I have been asking this same question of everyone I have ever herd put forward this argument.

Say your right and tomorrow Obama loses the plot and proclaims himself ruler for life and imprisons congress and the court justices. Cabinate and the military go along with it.


What chance do you think you have even if you are allowed to buy full auto M16s?
After all this is not another country, this is the Army, Navy and Airforces home ground, there is no elections to worry about flag draped coffins, he can just throw as much hardware and lives at you as needed.

You really think you would have a hope in hell?

Don't you think you would be far better to ensure this never happens? to strengthen the arms of government and ensure that the people are educated and vote in ways to make sure that democracy is always protected. Not by guns but by the people in services, the courts and those you elect. THAT is the first and only line of defence against a rouge government, not your peashooters next to a Raptor and Apache

 

I guess other people, too, have seen accuracy problems with that quote about only a good guy with a gun being able to stop a bad guy with a gun. It's anybody with a gun, really. There are bad guys who stop bad guys with guns a lot, for example. And on another note, it's important to remember that bad guys and good guys are largely products of nature and nurture, arguably, there really aren't any good guys and bad guys.

 

Because, "Oh, it’s so cute!"

Marketing Success

David Edwards of RawStory explains, "Pink handguns and Hello Kitty assault rifles have been part of an effort to get firearms in the hands of women and younger groups in recent years."

It would seem this marketing ploy is successful:

A 3-year-old boy in Greenville, South Carolina was shot in the head and killed on Friday after he started playing with a pink handgun because he thought it was a toy.

Police responding to the shooting at Haywood Plantation Apartments said that Tmorej Smith was found with a gunshot wound to the head, according to The Associated Press.

Investigators determined that Tmorej and his 7-year-old sister had been playing with a pink handgun when the incident occurred.​

Congratulations to the firearm manufacturer. Condolences to everyone else.
____________________

Notes:

Edwards, David. "3-year-old S.C. boy killed after mistaking pink handgun for toy". RawStory. February 5, 2013. RawStory.com. February 6, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/...-killed-after-mistaking-pink-handgun-for-toy/

 

WIKI
In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 vehicular crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000. The 32,367 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949) - roughly 90 people a day. A little more than are shot.

WIKI
Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.

FBI
A total of 12,664 people died of gun-related violence in 2011. Approximately 71% are criminal on criminal and is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving black male juveniles or young black adult males.

 

After 10 years, even after dropping MOAB, the US military is STILL fighting and STILL losing in Afghanistan. Likewise in Iraq. Likewise we lost in Vietnam. Likewise in Korea. Not to mention, most in the US military, if ordered to shoot Americans, wouldn't do it. Agencies like the TSA, the way they're trained (which is to say they aren't), yeah, they would.

 

Oh so you think that Pakistan's intelligence are going to support the US resistance and allow them to flee over the boarder mountains?

Or is it China?

 

Americans fighting against their own government, certainly wouldn't need Pakistan or China to help The 'Resistance'. Also, the US military isn't some all powerful god-like entity for one. Where is the food going to come from? Magic? Where is the fresh water going to come from? Magic? Where is the fuel coming from? Magic? etc.... ALL of these things are provided BY the Citizens to their Government. If a Revolution happened, people in the military would find themselves hungry in short order, thirsty in even shorter order. Just stop and think about this logically for a second. Think of all the people who work in companies supporting the military - just how many of them would quit? How many would sabotage everything from the water to the food to electrical grid? How about internet attacks? Etc..... Secondly, it's a totally ridiculous scenario! You'd have people in the military turning on their commanders and shooting them if they were told to drop heavy bombs on US civilians. Not to mention the total ineptitude of the US military leaders.

It would never happen. Such a discussion should be opened up in SyFy or alternate history it's THAT ridiculous IMO.

You're much more likely to die in a traffic jam than be shot by a gun, 2/3 people who are killed by a gun are killing themselves, if they didn't have a gun, they'd jump from a bridge or down a mouth full of their SSRIs or their "Chronic Pain" pills - doesn't it make much more sense to talk about WHY people are committing suicide? Between 50-80% of all violence-related gun deaths are gang-bangers killing one another, mainly inner city young black men but also young white and Latina inner city youths. Isn't THAT something we should address? Most of this kids have no father at home, they are being raised by single mothers, or even their mothers have left them in the care of elderly grandparents. Some are shoveled into daycare at about 42 days old (and if they were born premature, then realistically 14 days past their planned delivery date). Many of these kids lack a father role model - which has been found to be one of the leading indicators childhood dysfunction.

HERE

So, please go back to why guns should be banned or how The Resistance would do this or do that...... and for Gods sake, do not talk about any of the real underlying issues.

 

The aim isn't to reduce firearms being carried by the average law-abiding American. The aim is to reduce firearms coming into the hands of criminals and those mentally incompetent to handle it. Would background checks prevent law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms? No, you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong. Would they help prevent them getting into the wrong hands, Yes.

As for slippery slope argument, we'll have that debate if it ever comes to it - I doubt it though. Regulations do not automatically turn into a ban. You have freedom of speech, but there are certain limitations put on it, like you can't say "I'm GOING TO kill you" and not have any repercussions. That is not an infringement of your right, its just a necessary regulation.

As for the idea that: you need guns in the hands of good people to stop the bad guys with guns -- this is just not the proper way to solve things. The police should be the primary force to deal with criminals. We don't need self-proclaimed vigilantes everywhere ready to shoot any perceived criminals in sight. They aren't trained like police and certainly may cause more harm than good. This will just polarize the triggerhappy mentality. People will start carrying a pistol for safety, and criminals will just bring more guns/men because of the rise in self-defensive shootings. Let me tell you this - criminals will always bring more firepower, because they are in the business of committing crimes and causing damage. If the general public would always have more gunpower than criminals, then they wouldn't be very successful criminals. If its going to be an arms race, then the criminals will win. Because that is their primary objective. the general public's primary worry is not to defend themselves at all times from a prospective burgular or mass murderer. and even then, who wants to live in a country where everyone has to carry around a gun to feel safe that they can defend from their neighbor also carrying a gun.

The main argument should NOT be "Oh, if a good person with a gun was there, that wouldn't have happened." The main argument should be "why was he/she ever issued that weapon in the first place." There are statistics that can back up either side of this argument. But ALL of the statistics involve a gun, and one person killing another human being. If regulations were in place, they won't affect if a good person will be there or not for a future altercation, but they WILL affect if a gun will be there or not.

 

The argument that people suffering from mental illnesses should not be allowed to have firearms is absurd, and demonstrates how little people in general understand these things. Especially in the united states, where people are pushed guns as a right.

In essence, when you are defending a right to own a gun with an argument like that, you are assuming that others (in this case, people with mental illnesses) will just stroll in and give up their rights happily at the next doctor's appointment. Of course they will, who wouldn't want to be treated as a second class citizen...considering people still view mental illness like it's the black death. If anything, that will be just one more procedure to make mental illness an even more shameful thing for anyone to admit. That's how you make those really desperate and tired people who will not care for anything.