Firearms and Freedom

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Feb 24, 2016.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    This comparison always amuses me.

    Do you understand that there are laws that govern driving a car, from having to pass a test to obtain a driver's license to speeding laws, to having to follow road laws to prevent harm and injury to others, and yet, any yahoo can buy a gun in the US and most of the time, not even have to do a test to do so?

    For example, we know driving at high speed can kill. So laws are passed to control how fast people drive on roads to try to reduce the number of deaths. If your brakes are bad and you just leave it like that and drive and you kill someone, even someone in your own car, say like your spouse or your child or injure them, you will be charged and possibly face prison. But in the US, if a mother leaves her loaded gun within reach of her toddler and her toddler takes the gun and shoots her in the back, she is not likely to face any charges because 'she has suffered enough'. So if you harm your spouse or your child because of something you do or don't do with your car, you would be charged. But if you leave your loaded gun within reach of your toddler and your toddler shoots you in the back, you more than likely won't be charged because 'you have suffered enough' and it is considered an accident.

    And let's go back to reality...

    Gun deaths are a serious public health issue in the United States and the scope of the problem is often difficult to illustrate. A new study published in The American Journal of Medicine lays out the risk in concrete terms. When compared to 22 other high-income nations, Americans are ten times more likely to be killed by a gun than their counterparts in the developed world. Specifically, gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in the U.S. and, while the overall suicide rate is on par with other high-income nations, the U.S. gun suicide rate is eight times higher.

    In order to help put America's relationship with guns into perspective, researchers from the University of Nevada-Reno and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analyzed mortality data gathered by the World Health Organization in 2010. Investigators found that despite having similar rates of nonlethal crimes as other high-income countries, the U.S. has much higher rates of lethal violence, mostly driven by extremely higher rates of gun-related homicides.

    The study reveals some stark truths about living and dying in the United States. When compared to other high-income nations, as an American you are:

    • Seven times more likely to be violently killed

    • Twenty-five times more likely to be violently killed with a gun

    • Six times more likely to be accidentally killed with a gun

    • Eight times more likely to commit suicide using a gun

    • Ten times more likely to die from a firearm death overall

    Homicide is the second leading cause of death for Americans 15 to 24 years of age, and the third leading cause of death among those 25 to 34 years of age. Investigators found that for these two groups, the risk relative to their counterparts in other developed nations is alarmingly elevated. Americans 15 to 24 years of age are 49 times more likely to die from firearm homicide compared to similarly aged young people in other high-income nations. For those aged 25 to 34, the risk is 32 times higher.

    "More than two-thirds of the homicides in the U.S. are firearm homicides and studies have suggested that the nongun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high," explained Erin Grinshteyn, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Nevada-Reno, School of Community Health Science. "For example, offenders take into account the threat posed by their adversaries. Individuals are more likely to have lethal intent if they anticipate that their adversaries will be armed."

    Now compare US gun deaths, even gun homicides or mass shooting deaths to death by tornado in your country. Hell, let's just compare mass shootings and tornadoes. I won't even look at gun homicides.

    Mass shootings in 2015 alone, killed over 1300 people and injured over 3000 people. There were 372 mass shootings in 2015.

    In 2011, there were 1704 tornadoes in the US. They killed 533 people.

    On average, 60 people are killed from tornadoes in the US every year.

    Any other ridiculous comparisons you wish to make to excuse it?

    And yet, the Government and health departments strive to lower the number of deaths in hospitals. They are prevented from reducing the rate of death from guns because of the pro-gun factions in the US.

    For example, the mentally ill are able to purchase firearms in your country.

    Now, tell me how many hospitals allow the mentally ill to operate on patients?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    You mean third world countries?

    A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and ManagementMatthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

    So? indeed...

    Actually it does.

    It is astonishing how people immediately accuse others of deception when the figures are there there for all to see. How long can you keep your proverbial heads in the sand on the issue while proclaiming it is your right?

    The comparison is just to gun violence.

    Clearly, you did not read any of the links provided. Then again, it's better to just deny reality than to face up to it.

    If you must know, the travel advisory to Iran shows "crime" as being petty crime, like theft. The travel advisory to the US for Australians wishing to visit the US has a long spiel about gun violence and mass shootings in public spaces. Certainly, the advisory to Iran has warnings about avoiding their border regions because of the ongoing war in the region itself. But outside of the war zones, there's no warnings about the risk of gun violence and mass shootings.

    It's ironic. You demand your rights to own your guns, which results in much higher rates of mass shootings and gun violence in your country and then you get pissy when other countries advise their travelers to your country of the result of your having more guns in circulation in your population.

    The science is clear on the matter. More guns result in more mass shootings. That's just how it is. It is useless getting snarky about it and being offended that other countries warn their citizens of that when they travel to the US.

    If you don't like the reputation the US has in regards to its guns, then do something about it. But that would entail some forms of gun control, even basic gun controls and you can't have that, can you?

    And if your neighbours are armed..?

    Hey, let's just pretend it doesn't exist.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Your ability to reason, if any.

    Do you understand why requiring a license to exercise a right is a contradiction in terms? Do you understand why I posted the example of freedom from arbitrary search and seizure? Now if somebody advocated requiring a license for home ownership rights - for immunity to arbitrary search of one's home, searches which would be of great help in combatting all manner of serious crime including murder, and many threats to neighborhood security including the lives of children - you would have no trouble perceiving the flaw: amirite?
    Hence the word "serious" in my reply.

    Hence part of the problem. You even include suicides, for pity's sake. What kind of "gun control" do you anticipate for the US?
    Your posting of them is deceptive.
    So the regulations are more intelligently written for Iran than for America. Avoid the obvious hazards, don't get in between gangs who are shooting at each other, and you face little danger from gunfire. Your point?
    Moi? A little more self awareness, please, amid the derangement.
    If? This is the US. I live in a small town amid a rural population, an area in which the schools never schedule major exams or activities during deer hunting season. They probably are. A couple of them certainly. At almost no risk to me. I face much greater danger from the chemicals they spread on their lawns.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    And even when I just looked at mass shootings, you were still way out in front.

    So it is better to just ignore all facts and figures because looking at them can be deceptive to you?

    My point is that your country has such a problem with guns and gun violence and mass shootings that visitors to your country have to be specifically warned of it.

    I mean I get it, you want it to all just go away, to the point where you are now arguing that posting the figures becomes deceptive, but the reality is that is just how it is.

    Says the guy who declared that posting figures on gun violence and mass shootings in the US is deceptive.

    Then I would suggest you stop licking their grass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is a matter of when. Especially for your neighbours. And especially if there are issues such as domestic violence or mental illness in the fray.

    That's just how it is.

    But then again, you believe that your neighbour has a Constitutional right to be a threat to you and your family.
  8. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Do you understand that it is a very small step from a "Firearm Safety Certificate" to a license? Or is your hypothetical "ability to reason" crumbling about you - as it invariably does on this topic?

    California (amongst others) has such a program in effect now - this is not opinion, this is fact.

    Effective January 1, 2015, the Handgun Safety Certificate program was replaced with the Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) program. Under the FSC program, requirements that previously applied to handguns only now apply to all firearms (handguns and long guns), unless exempt. A list of exemptions is available on this website.

    A valid Handgun Safety Certificate can still be used to purchase/acquire handguns only until it expires. For long gun purchases/acquisitions made January 1, 2015, and thereafter, an FSC will be required. Once an FSC is obtained, it can be used for both handgun and long gun purchases/acquisitions.

    FSCs are acquired by taking and passing a written test on firearm safety, generally at participating firearms dealerships and private firearms training facilities.​

    In addition:

    Licensing laws facilitate responsible gun ownership by requiring a person to obtain a license before purchasing a firearm. Although licensing laws vary, the most comprehensive laws require all gun owners to possess a license and regularly renew it.​

    Training and testing requirements in licensing laws are designed to ensure that gun owners understand relevant firearms laws, and know how to safely store and handle firearms.

    Licensing laws also help prevent the trafficking of crime guns, and make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns.
    • A September 2010 report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that states that require purchase permits for all handgun sales are the sources of guns recovered from crimes in other states at less than one-third the rate of states that do not have such laws.1
    • A 2001 study analyzing firearm tracing data from 25 U.S. cities revealed that states with some form of both registration and licensing systems have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such systems in place.

    So, I categorically reject your statement that licensing would violate 2nd Amendment rights on it's face. Furthermore, your protestations that "That's too obviously a conflict to have been seriously attempted, and it has zero chance of ever becoming law." is demonstrably false and provable wishful hallucination.

    What I suggest and what is already in place in many jurisdictions differs only in degree - not in kind. Get over it.

    Now do the shuffle normally reserved for right-wingnuts and split those hairs as to why this does not constitute an undue burden but a "license" would emphatically violate the 2nd amendment. Full stop, in your opinion.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In front of what?
    It's better not to make deceptive arguments from misleadingly described partly relevant facts. In severe forms, it even has a name: Gallop
    But it doesn't. Your point is false. I have no idea why your country puts out such advisories, or why you spla out about them, but I suggest you pay a bit more attention to the lead sentence in your link - the advisory leads off by noting that gun violence in the US seldom involves visitors or tourists. Sometime, look up that number - the number, per million, of noncriminal visitors and tourists who get shot in a given year.
    From the person concerned with the level of snark - essentially none of which has appeared in my posts.
    And the when would be something on the order of once every few hundred thousand years. This is not a big worry.
    It's not a "belief", it's a fact. Fortunately, the threat is very small.
    No, I don't. I think it's a large step. And as soon as it's taken, it will end up in Court as an undue burden. But see below:
    I accept your correction - I mistook what you were referring to as a license for my own meaning of the term.
    "Licenses" that do not unduly burden the exercise of the right are of course Constitutionally ok. They are often opposed by gun owners and liberals because they tend to creep - as the driver's license so flagrantly has, or things like parade licenses or pet licenses, or the Social Security number - and become means of coercion or serious restriction.

    And rightly or wrongly, the irrationality and intensely emotional unreasonableness of the most visible and vocal faction of the gun control advocates focuses attention on the threat of such creep. Because for so many of them, that appears to be the agenda.
    That's always the difference between a burden and an undue burden. Hence the existence of a Supreme Court. Good luck.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  10. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    should i bother to point out that comparing apples to Firetrucks because they're red doesn't make sense at all ??
    not all apples are red, and not all firetrucks are red either...

    more to the point - the Japanese culture includes crime into it's culture with the Yakuza, as in their culture, they perceive a need to have a means to an ends that circumvents law enforcement but supports culture and business. To the American, this may seem ridiculous, but to an elderly Sicilian (who experienced life during the early 1900's), it makes more sense because there is a certain similarity in their culture. Why? because the Yakuza arose to fill a need (as noted in the documentary)

    so if we want to start talking realistic comparisons, we need better stat's from similar locations around the US... and never compare them to other cultures

    just because we're a melting pot of cultures doesn't mean we can be arbitrarily compared to any other nation

    there are no cultures that are the same, so comparing cultures and countries is irrelevant and stupid
    again - if you want realistic statistics, you need to compare areas of the US.

    You would also need more statistical data that isn't collected by the gov't.

    Take the number of criminal offenses that are stopped by firearms, or the lives saved by firearms, or the situations defused, etc. Then you have to differentiate between types of use (was the firearm even fired? was it used, but only injuries? was it injuries and death? was it only death that occured?)

    so when you see the total gun deaths, how do you differentiate the death of a criminal killed during the commission of a felony with other deaths? (especially if, say, said felon doesn't use a gun in the commission of the felony, but tried to use a car as a weapon?)... but that will count as a gun death (won't even mention the bus of gun deaths a little bit back...)
    And why should that count towards gun deaths when you want to concentrate on illegal activity? Cops using a gun in the line of duty create gun deaths, but is that a justifiable death to save a life or should it be part of the more negative statistic you are talking about and want to focus on?

    your link also included another link to an article called : Rep. Jim Moran says U.S. gun homicide rate 20 times higher than other western nations

    Since when is the opinion of anyone considered legitimate scientific fact? yet it is quoted. Worse still, even in that article it states "So Moran’s figures are outdated and on the high side. His terminology is loose" and it's mostly true... but again, how comparable are the numbers really?

    so, no one takes anything into consideration except that there was a gun and a death... so how does that really compare?

    the core problem still isn't addressed at all, BTW.. so the problem will remain.
    focusing on the tool will only affect the commercial aspects of the tool... it will not affect the core problem.

    as i said: we have far greater death rates from Cars, Hospitals and hammers, but i don't see people clammoring to ban them because they're not scary enough looking and they're not able to allow grandma moses to defend her life against mike tyson on crack...

    spreading fear without a clear source of information with necessary details and an unbiased methodology (like the scientific method) is no different than fanatical fundamental religious acolytes clamoring for the revelations and the end of days.

    so... you think making more laws will actually help?
    we have great laws that are active now, but (as i noted to T) they're not enforced...
    the second amendment exists every bit as much for self preservation as it does for defense against tyranny.

    so, you didn't get the point... gonna just ignore the rest because there is one pertinent part

    one thing about that... you are ignoring the actual point of the purpose of the Yakuza too

    this was part of my point... guns are tightly restricted. very, very restricted. almost to the point of being outlawed. and, in fact, like the US, they're definitely outlawed to criminals... and yet, almost all Yakuza own them.

    so, my point is really made there.
    you want to argue about the tool, but i want to point out that you are ignoring the core problem, which will actually not do much
    and i'm sorry but... i don't think suicide should be included in gun deaths of any nation simply because a sufficiently motivated suicidal individual will find a way to kill themselves. it also means the core problem is still not being addressed.

    and yet you can't actually prove this with any scientific information
    just biased sites quoting from their biased perspective. the reason i don't get my info from there (or from the other side, mind you) is bias

    there are no unbiased sources of info out there, and the DOJ and gov't do not actually collect enough info to make an unbiased interpretation of the stat's

    i know you will argue against that, but it is true. like i pointed out above: you can't actually differentiate the numbers enough to get a clear picture and...
    most importantly, there are far, far, far too many missing factors to get a clear picture of civilian gun use and stopped crime.

    until that happens, neither side will have a leg to stand on when it comes to the numbers from any reporting agency

  11. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    i wanted to reply to these seperately
    my grandchildren go to a school that has an armed cop at the school as well as a shooting team.

    i would prefer to be able to defend them myself, but i will take any armed resistance on school grounds to protect my grandchildren over the "gun free zone" of the idiot schools where even pointing your fingers like a gun gets you suspended or worse

    it also shows that eating fatty foods with a sedentary diet will kill you, just not as quick

    and apparently, driving while using a cell phone is far deadlier to anyone around you while you operate a vehicle, yet it isn't really outlawed (and even where it is, hardly enforced) while seatbelt laws only affect the person who does or doesn't use them (not other drivers)... so why is the seatbelt law so strictly enforced while the cell phone law (or lack thereof) not?
    Anyone see a lot of stupidity with that one?
    (in no way, shape or form to i advocate not using a seat-belt. I see the need for better education, that's all. same for firearms. force isn't the key. neither is making laws or banning.)
    what i find even more sad is:
    you're willing to advocate for the removal of a true fundamental right (of self defense) while ignoring the core problem

    there is only one true fundamental right for everyone - and it is hard coded by nature into your brain. it is the fight or flight response and it is the right to survive and defend yourself


    that is what i find embarrassing and sad

    i've owned and operated firearms for at least 35 years as a civilian and never had a single injury to myself or others (not including military, law enforcement or service to country). Not one injury or death (again, see qualifier). I've had to, as a civilian (off duty as well as a bystander/civilian), draw my firearm to stop a crime more than a few times, but i've never fired a shot and i've saved lives. had i not been there, it would have been far worse. but that is anecdote, not scientific or in any way evidence other than my personal perspective, just like what you've posted.

    and your posts are all about perspective because, as i noted, you do not have all the data required to make a true informed decision.
    because it just isn't collected ... i don't know of a nation that actually does collect enough data like that (what i stated above) to get a true result
    and that, IMHO is the wort part of it all!

    we can't make an informed decision either way because the data isn't collected for us to study!!!...
    but we have people trying to ignore the actual problem to make judgements on the data that is collected!

    now that is truly sad, and that, more than anything else said on this thread, should be a big hairy clue about the state of the bias and opinions here
    i can admit my opinion is driven by my experience
    i can also admit that i can't make an informed decision either way because of the lack of data

    can anyone else actually admit to that?
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That is an excellent point - and one of the primary reasons I oppose the NRA and their dedication to banning such research.
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    i am honestly split two ways....

    on one hand, i want answers and seek actual information
    ... and for that we would need unbiased research with more data and facts. we would need to add a great deal of data to the reporting process and also consider the implications of crimes stopped with firearms by civilians.

    looking at existing data would not be telling the whole story.
    and that is important to remember with current research ... it is severely limited looking at the existing statistics because too much is left out and you can't separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff

    on the other hand, i actually think it would be a bad idea to remove the 2nd amendment for any reason because of the primary purpose for it being there
    (as in defense against tyranny. IOW - i think the gov't is more likely to remain honest as long as we have it. but that is also IMHO)
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    So after all that we arrive full circle: For what it's worth, my own personal two cents would be a license to operate a firearm.

    Problem is, this can't even be raised for discussion without bringing the "irrationality and intensely emotional unreasonableness of the most visible and vocal faction of the gun control advocates" screaming from their caves. Not that this just happened in our recent exchange or anything. To even suggest any seemingly commonsense measures such as requiring a simple license to demonstrate firearm proficiency and provide a standardized vehicle for tracking legal gun ownership - plus facilitate prevention of criminals and the mentally ill from operating guns - is immediately and overwhelmingly greeted with some sort of deeply primal response akin to "They're comin' fer our guns!".

    Normally rational and intelligent people completely lose it. The psychology behind such responses could be fodder for many pages of its own thread.

    Anyway, once we step beyond the knee-jerk reflex of "That violates my 2nd Amendment rights" perhaps a productive discussion can be had. What degree of licensing would not be an undue burden in your opinion? If any? What are some restrictions on who should be able to get such a license to own / operate firearms that you would support? Conversely, at what point would licensing requirements cross the line from your point of view? Is there any merit on the face of any such a licensing proposal? If such a licensing program was in place what would be a suitable punishment for those caught carrying a gun without license? Then there are the finer nuances - should such a license be required to operate a firearm on your own property? Or only if you carry that gun off of your own property? Etcetera, and so on...

    Disregard, if you will for a moment, whether the "Constitutionality" of a firearms license will be upheld or not - clearly, it's not as cut and dried as your first somewhat emotional outburst characterized it. The courts could, would and should decide that. However, the Supreme court will never get a chance to hear arguments if even mention of the subject instills such fear in the typical gun owner that they run screaming for the hills. I mean really - if we can't even discuss this rationally and dispassionately here on an "enlightened" forum then what chance is there of convincing Billy Bob and Martha how licensing might be a good thing - might actually make life safer for their family and friends - without allowing the government free rein to fulfill that "comin' fer our guns" prophecy?

    Now that you appear to have taken a deep breath and calmed a bit - now that you know I'm not advocating "comin' fer yer guns" - could you address the questions in the preceding two paragraphs?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yet another consensus approved nice thing we can't have because of this screwed up gridlock.

    C'est la vie.

    Illustrating the "screaming from their caves" style of rhetoric to perfection.

    My point, above, was simply that your actual proposal, which you describe again, would immediately run foul of the 2nd Amendment. That's not screaming, it's an ordinary and not at all odd observation. You are proposing a demonstration of "firearm proficiency" - which you directly compared with a driver's license exam - and a "vehicle for tracking legal gun ownership". I don't think you can do that without unduly burdening the citizen.

    I don't think a citizen is - or should be - required to demonstrate "proficiency" to an agent of the government before being allowed to exercise any Constitutional right, and I would bet good money that any Supreme Court - even a newly "liberal" one - would agree with me in that.

    And I am absolutely positive that "tracking legal gun ownership" through licensure requirements is a red flag and a nonstarter and a mistaken agenda - as damaging as it is unnecessary to the cause of reasonable gun control.

    I'm supposedly screaming from my cave, snarky, emotional, in need of calming down, - - where, exactly, am I any of that? Because I made the perfectly reasonable point that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and as long as that is true one cannot burden it?

    As long as gun control advocates cannot rid themselves of this condescending and accusatory and inflammatory approach, cannot see calm reason when they are faced with it, the people who can see that they are not being reasonable or even paying attention will refuse to endorse trusting them with political power. And that is a lot of people.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Funny this is still in effect then:

    Effective January 1, 2015, the Handgun Safety Certificate program was replaced with the Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) program. Under the FSC program, requirements that previously applied to handguns only now apply to all firearms (handguns and long guns), unless exempt. A list of exemptions is available on this website.

    A valid Handgun Safety Certificate can still be used to purchase/acquire handguns only until it expires. For long gun purchases/acquisitions made January 1, 2015, and thereafter, an FSC will be required. Once an FSC is obtained, it can be used for both handgun and long gun purchases/acquisitions.

    FSCs are acquired by taking and passing a written test on firearm safety, generally at participating firearms dealerships and private firearms training facilities.​

    I guess we'll never find out. This is your opinion and I anticipated it:
    "Disregard, if you will for a moment, whether the "Constitutionality" of a firearms license will be upheld or not - clearly, it's not as cut and dried as your first somewhat emotional outburst characterized it. The courts could, would and should decide that. However, the Supreme court will never get a chance to hear arguments if even mention of the subject instills such fear in the typical gun owner that they run screaming for the hills."

    I guess the courts will never get a chance...

    How so damaging? In what way? What are these dire consequences you fear? How so "unnecessary"? What is necessary? Status quo? Removal of existing restrictions?

    Is your position that such licensing will be ineffective and therefore not resource efficient? Or maybe based on an intrinsic objection to the "burden" of obtaining some form of firearms license? Or because it will never pass the courts? Or both of the latter two, in some sort of weird, iterative, catch-22 circle where one premise depends upon the other which in turn depends upon the first?

    Alternatively, we can all just... *sigh* - I guess that's it then. There is absolutely nothing to be done. No other country's experiences are relevant to the US of A. No solutions are viable. No solutions should even be proposed, for that matter.

    I'm sure people of your mindset would absolutely love to reduce gun violence - but we just cain't ma!!!
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    That's the thing. The facts and figures don't lie. You view them as deceptive because you choose to ignore them because it does not fit in with your beliefs. It's like people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old despite all facts that point directly to the contrary.

    The advisory is there because gun violence in the US is a major problem and people who choose to visit your shores have to be made aware of them, just as, for example, people visiting Iran have to be made aware that visiting the border regions of Iran is dangerous.

    I mean, I would be embarrassed if it were my country and I would want change. Hiding it is not change.

    You are representative of the NRA belief and advocacy that gun violence in America should not be tabulated or researched, because you all view it as being "deceptive". And why do you view it that way? I don't get it, iceaura, why are you so against the results of research that clearly shows your country has a major problem when it comes to guns?

    Not only are you snarky about this issue because you are so defensive about it, but you literally react like a small child with fingers in ears singing 'la la la' when confronted with something you simply do not want to hear. You try and reformulate the debate, you try to suppress the facts and figures, you try to suppress the rights of others to speak out about it while proclaiming your "rights" to own guns.

    I mean, the absolute irony of your stating that the facts and figures from research on the subject is deceptive while you then advocate that people have a "right" to pose a threat to others and then declare that your neighbours probably own guns and aren't a threat to you.. talk about deceptive.

    You had how many mass shootings in your country last year? Tell me, is it deceptive to discuss how many died or were injured in those mass shootings? Is it deceptive to you to research such mass shootings and try to formulate some forms of laws and regulations to prevent it from happening with such frequency in the future? You label the mere mention of all research as being deceptive because you are afraid that if people discuss it, then it might result in a movement that could very well force the Government to act on it which could result in even basic forms of control over who can obtain firearms.

    Most countries have already implemented such laws to great effect.

    I'll put it this way, while you cling with both hands and feet to those "rights", more people will die. The research is clear. More guns in the population results in more mass shootings and more gun homicide deaths. So what do you think should be done about it?

    Or do people not have a fundamental basic human right to not live under threat of being shot in America?

    Well good for you personally. Too bad about the thousands of other people who also live next to neighbours who they don't think posed a risk until those respectable gun owners who were their neighbours ceased being respectable gun owners.

    But hey, it's all about you and your rights and screw everyone else.

    As I noted above, too bad for the thousands of other people who die, shot and killed by people they know or even love.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They don't say what you want them to say. So you just claim they do.
    Where do these people get this stuff?

    Look, this should be obvious: Nowhere in my posting have I denied that the US has a major problem with gun violence. I think it does. Nowhere have I suggested that anything of interest anywhere not be "tabulated" or researched, gun violence in the US least of all - few matters of law enforcement and basic public order need careful and accurate research more. The US is not even raw counting police shooting fatalities, let alone collecting the relevant evidence surrounding the shootings (fatal or not) in the general public - and world's away from data around the employment of firearms in general, discharged or not, carried or kept at home. This means public policy is uninformed. That's bad, imho. I have never even hinted otherwise.

    So is uninformed and obviously screwed up rhetoric.
    Deranged, is a fair description.

    And it's not just foreigners - we get this kind of verbiage from Americans who then want their political agenda endorsed. This seriously damages the prospects for reasonable gun control. This is not a trivial problem - it's at the core of the gridlock.

    A mythical category. There are no such thousands of other people. And so there will not be the millions of voters those thousands of people might generate, willing to endorse anything - anything at all, no matter how ineffective or onerously oppressive or politically destructive - that describes itself as offering relief from this terrible threat from one's neighbors.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If you can't tell the difference in burden between "demonstrating firearm proficiency" and taking a fifteen minute checklist test on firearm safety, I assure you most gun rights defenders can. And so can the Supreme Court.​
    Again: observers can tell who is screaming and running around, and who is calm and reasonable. Compare your posts with mine. Some may even remember that I am not a gun owner, and have on this forum engaged in (gentle) mockery of some gun owning neighbors. Funny that. I used to think it was just the wingnut Right who based their responses to my posts on these unnecessary and invariably inaccurate presumptions of personal circumstance.
    I think you overlooked most of the sentence, and the entire meaning of the post.
    All of the above is true, but none of it is my position as taken in that post. Obviously.
    A projection of an imaginary "mindset", with three exclamation marks - from another one of these posters who describe other people as "screaming". The only thing missing is the all caps sentence.

    Hint: it's possible that your bad ideas above do not exhaust the possibilities of reasonable US gun control. It's possible that I might even favor my own, multiple and often repeated on this forum, suggestions for reasonable gun control. They have been endorsed by several other posters in the category you describe as "screaming out of their caves", after all, so if you were willing to consider them - or even, say, notice that they exist - we might have a consensus right here.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  20. Bells Staff Member

    So you would prefer to continue to be compared to third world war torn countries?

    The fact that you are completely trying to change the subject escaped you?

    Japan, even with the threat of the armed Yakuza has less gun violence and less gun threats than your country does. Compare the US to Canada if you want to and the results will be the same.

    Japan had higher gun violence rates until they employed a few basic forms of gun control (I know, those two words scare the pants off you), and their gun violence rates and deaths went down. Pretty much every country who has employed such measures saw a similar result.

    Do you understand the point of the article now?

    Let's do that then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Even within your own country, states with more gun control laws have fewer gun violence rates than states with less to no restriction to access guns and with more guns.

    In other words, the research within your own country and within your own culture supports what the rest of the world has found. That restricting access to guns results in less gun violence.


    Paranoid that they are 'commin fer ye guns'?

    The studies I have been posting and posting about are conducted by universities for the most part.

    About that..

    Do you really want to compare? Because I can assure you, you won't like the results.

    If you had read the links that were provided, those questions would have been answered.


    The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.

    Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

    Source: UNODC.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So.. You were saying?
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Do you also disagree with removing someone's driving license from them if they use their car to mow down other people?

    After all, that's just focusing on the tool and not the core problem, yes?

    I'll put it this way..

    Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

    Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared.”

    The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.

    About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.

    “I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going to die!”

    Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her lifeand quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs with their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering, hysterical, on the floor.

    For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.

    Do you think this is acceptable. Yes or no?

    Should someone who threatened to kill another person to the point where they had to get an order for protection against them, be allowed to keep the very guns they threatened to shoot the other person with?

    You have strict laws that govern your use of cars. Hospitals and the law in general have strict laws to try to prevent deaths in hospitals. As for hammers, it is a fallacy parroted by the NRA that has no actual basis in reality.

    In 2012, 8,855 people were murdered by firearms, according to the FBI’s numbers. By comparison, 518 people were murdered by blunt objects (defined not just as hammers, but clubs and other similar items too). Even if you just compare blunt objects to long arms, more people were killed with the latter than the former last year.

    Most importantly, the vast majority of murders in America are committed with guns. Firearms made up nearly 70 percent of all homicides in 2012. More people were murdered with guns last year than by beating, blunt objects, knives, poison, and explosives combined.

    So, would you like to try again? I noticed you've left out homicide by forks and spoons.

    The science is still there, with the facts and the figures.

    Let's see, we have one spouting that it is deceptive to mention such facts, figures and research and you are trying to claim that it is simply spreading fear and you doubt the source of the information, clearly without having read all the links and all the studies contained in many of those links.

    Tyranny from whom?

    The Government that has a nuclear arsenal at its fingertips?

    It is laughable that you think your guns would preserve you from that.

    I mean, is this why the GOP is so hard against allowing their voters to be armed for the GOP convention? Which is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Seeing how they are so supportive of the NRA and the whole spiel about protecting against tyranny, but they deny their voters and members the right to bear their arms at their convention.

    Do I think more laws will help? Yes. I think having a register of gun users, restricting access to certain forms of firearms and ammunition, requiring safety lessons and requiring that guns be housed in secure (ie locked) cabinets, and not allowing people with a history of violent or mental illness from being allowed to legally obtain guns would be a start. I also think that laws should be in place to remove guns from one's possession if they threaten other people (such as their spouse) or if there is a history of domestic violence for example.

    Clearly, guns cannot be abolished from the public realm in the US like it has been in Australia, where we have very strict gun laws and to obtain a permit here involves an intensive police investigation and mental health care checks and the like. But even basic restrictions would go a long way, as they have in the few States that have implemented them.

    But heaven forbid any laws or restrictions be put in place to stop the mentally ill or domestic violence abusers from obtaining firearms as is their "right".

    I am not ignoring it. I am simply curious as to why you are trying to change the subject and move the goal post.

    And yet, which you keep ignoring, even with criminal gangs still having guns, their rate of gun crime is still below yours.

    Americans have gun coming out of their proverbial eyeballs. One would think that the whole 'more guns means less crimes' spiel would be in effect. But you have even more crimes than in countries where access to guns are restricted and criminals have guns. You would think that criminal gangs would have a field day and be shooting everyone up. But they still have less gun violence than your country and its millions upon millions of people owning them for "self protection"...

    There is a wealth of scientific research on this subject. Some of which I posted or posted articles that links to them.

    Perhaps you can do your own research on the matter and see for yourself. There's only so much scientific studies I can put in front of you and you ignore it and claim there is none before you will start to look a tad foolish at claiming there is no scientific research on the issue.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Firstly the NRA and gun advocacy groups have lobbied successfully to prevent the Government from collating the data that is out there. So you can thank them for that.

    Secondly, had you read the studies and articles posted, you would see how well the numbers are differentiated to provide a clear picture.

    Thirdly denying the numbers that are put in front of you exists does not really help you that much.

    And I will address the rest of your post later because I need to go out for a bit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    well, they also eat a lot more lean seafood, rice, pickled/boiled veggies, Kelp and Fugu, because it is part of the culture - because it's different than typical US culture

    you don't seem to be getting the point, do you?

    the culture in Japan is more about strict adherence to a code than the US culture. the modern US culture doesn't have a firm grasp on what "face" and honour mean to the Japanese culture, who also uses far different types of denigration or slurs (try listening to the Japanese version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail translated back to English... you might actually understand what i'm talking about)

    they are a strict xenophobic society who worries a lot about their public perception and their cultural rules... they're a very different world than the US, so you still can't really compare them to us.

    but then, you don't seem to be worried about actual facts so long as you can post something that makes your belief look like it should be legitimate, right?
    i mean... as i keep pointing out: you are comparing two things that are very, very different
    apples and horseturds.
    toyota and Kay jewlers.
    methodist and beef jerky
    get it yet?
    sure - but skip the biased sites and take all your numbers from the following info:

    more to the point, you will have to include the fact that not all places are equally represented in the statistics, then also include the fact that not all statistics information required are actually available or even recorded

    i would point out again the problem with the whole process of statistics and making an informed decision, but you are going to ignore it...
    or should i say "still"?
    Dr_Toad likes this.

Share This Page