"Gun Control"

[sculptor]

I think #1 is misleading. Many households have more than one gun. However, surveys are also misleading. I know several people who would say "nope, no guns here" if asked. I know I surely would not tell a stranger, over the phone, if I had a gun in my house. I would disregard who they claimed to be working for.

Just like I wouldnt tell them whether I had cash on me at all times, sometimes, seldom... lol...

Number of households in US
2014 / 123,229,000
number of firearms 310 million
= about 2.5 guns per household (as an average)
and, many have none. And some have many (I know a drywaller who has at least 20.---i've never known exactly why---but then again, i have well over 20 clamps, saws, measuring tapes, hammers, chisels, gouges, etc... so, who am i to judge?)

Long ago: After I refused permission for him to search the car: A cop asked me if I had any weapons in the car--------I said "No"---He said: You wouldn't lie to me would you?"(while staring at a pick handle through the back window)---I said: I would if I did, but I don't so I won't."

 

[billvon]

understanding gun violence would go a very short way towards reducing the incidence of injury for United States citizens.

Understanding Ebola would do even less. But that's their job too.

All injury deaths Number of deaths: 192,945/year(from CDC fast facts)
of which 600 were gun accidents (see post 64 above)

And 11,000 by homicide
21,000 by suicide
300 "undetermined intent"

Understanding what is killing over 30,000 Americans a year (and injuring over 80,000) would help in making those numbers smaller.

 

[sculptor]

Are not suicide and many homicides both mental health issues?

Understanding pain and alienation would be even more beneficial.

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)

 

[billvon]

Are not suicide and many homicides both mental health issues?

That is a large part of them, yes.

Understanding pain and alienation would be even more beneficial.

Sure. Fortunately we do not have the NAA (national alienation association) lobbying to ban funding for research into pain and alienation - to ensure a "captive market" for themselves.

 

[milkweed]

Number of households in US
2014 / 123,229,000
number of firearms 310 million
= about 2.5 guns per household (as an average)
and, many have none. And some have many (I know a drywaller who has at least 20.---i've never known exactly why---but then again, i have well over 20 clamps, saws, measuring tapes, hammers, chisels, gouges, etc... so, who am i to judge?)

Yeah but that is still misleading. Somewhere between 32 and 50% of households own a gun. No one knows for sure because, like I said, I wouldnt admit it. And my gramma insisted she didnt have a gun because she didnt consider her .22 bolt action a 'real gun'. So she would have (in her mind) been telling the truth when she said Nope.

Damn i still miss her... lol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...as-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before​/

Long ago: After I refused permission for him to search the car: A cop asked me if I had any weapons in the car--------I said "No"---He said: You wouldn't lie to me would you?"(while staring at a pick handle through the back window)---I said: I would if I did, but I don't so I won't."

I wouldnt consider an axe handle a weapon either... but in a pinch...

 

[milkweed]

Sure. Fortunately we do not have the NAA (national alienation association) lobbying to ban funding for research into pain and alienation - to ensure a "captive market" for themselves.

Well that sounds like a staffing issue and not a gun issue.

 

[sculptor]

I wouldnt consider an axe handle a weapon either... but in a pinch...

Remember Lester Maddox?---Accused of having ax handles in his restaurant(s) for driving away negroes, (which he denied) and was then shown pictures of the alleged ax handles, he replied: "Any damned fool can see that those are pick handles."

 

[billvon]

Well that sounds like a staffing issue and not a gun issue.

It is not an issue at all, because most other areas of politics do not generate the irrationality that gun control does.

 

[milkweed]

It is not an issue at all, because most other areas of politics do not generate the irrationality that gun control does.

aw baloney. Extremists exist on ALL levels of political interests. There is always some kinda control freak begging for new harsher laws to protect us all from some hyper-imagined threat to safety.

 

[billvon]

aw baloney. Extremists exist on ALL levels of political interests.

Not to the degree they exist on the gun issue. Look at the threads on any political board and compare the number of angry pro- or anti- gun posts vs. the number of angry pro- or anti- mental health care posts, for example.

 

[milkweed]

Not to the degree they exist on the gun issue. Look at the threads on any political board and compare the number of angry pro- or anti- gun posts vs. the number of angry pro- or anti- mental health care posts, for example.

Oh well now you've moved the goal posts from:

because most other areas of politics do not generate the irrationality that gun control does
to
any political board and compare the number of angry pro- or anti- gun posts vs. the number of angry pro- or anti- mental health care posts

You so convinced its irrationality rather than people bloviating?
Hyperbole maybe?
Puffery even.

Now I am not saying there are zero extremists on either end of the issue. But that isnt 39.4 millon households of extremism (0.08 % of which fall under the 33,000 combo gun deaths per year).

Who exactly holds the extremist position?

 

[iceaura]

There are about 66,000 gun deaths in the US every 24 months, most of them of innocent people; there are 41,000 zip codes in the US. Indeed, for every use of a gun to stop a criminal there are 34 homicides, 78 suicides and 2 accidental deaths.

Suicides are not innocent people. Neither are many victims of gang violence, police shootings, etc. So the statement "most gun deaths are of innocent people" is obviously false.

And the stat on "use of a gun to stop a criminal" is completely invalid, no sound basis whatsoever - I have never seen even a solid attempt at a rough guess of how many times a gun or the threat of a gun has stopped a criminal in a given small region.

Long ago a newspaper columnist named Larry Batson, writing about something else entirely, mentioned in passing that in his gun filled upbringing and early community (first job as a reporter on the crime beat, etc) there were no police calls for "burglary of an occupied dwelling". None of his friends or relatives could even remember where or when such a crime had last been attempted, or (as he put it) where the perpetrator was buried.

Notice that "burglary of an occupied dwelling" is one of the crimes taken most seriously by law enforcement. It's got implications far beyond "property". Preventing that crime would be a great benefit, with significant crime prevention ramifications in general.

If we take a crime beat reporter's impressions as reasonably accurate, we see that figuring out how many crimes have been prevented by guns would take a lot of work, work that nobody with the means in the US is attempting afaik.

 

[billvon]

Suicides are not innocent people.

What crime were they convicted of?

And the stat on "use of a gun to stop a criminal" is completely invalid, no sound basis whatsoever - I have never seen even a solid attempt at a rough guess of how many times a gun or the threat of a gun has stopped a criminal in a given small region.

In a paper by David McDowall, he estimated that guns were used by criminals 800,000 times a year (either by firing them or by brandishing them in pursuit of a crime) and were used defensively 65,000 times a year (again, by either firing them or brandishing them.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Note that you have moved the goalposts a bit from "justified killing" to "use of a gun to stop a criminal" - hence the change in focus of the above study.

Long ago a newspaper columnist named Larry Batson, writing about something else entirely, mentioned in passing that in his gun filled upbringing and early community (first job as a reporter on the crime beat, etc) there were no police calls for "burglary of an occupied dwelling". None of his friends or relatives could even remember where or when such a crime had last been attempted, or (as he put it) where the perpetrator was buried.

And a friend of mine was shot and killed by a criminal about five years ago for no apparent reason. He had a gun; after the crime, it was missing.

 

[iceaura]

What crime were they convicted of?

Is that your criterion of "innocence"? That would explain your numbers - there aren't very many dead people tried and convicted of crimes posthumously.

In a paper by David McDowall, he estimated that guns were used by criminals 800,000 times a year (either by firing them or by brandishing them in pursuit of a crime) and were used defensively 65,000 times a year (again, by either firing them or brandishing them.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

So you agree that those posted ratios - 34/1, 78/1, etc - are garbage.

And notice that those stats, which already make garbage out the 34/1 homicide to defense ratio posted, fail to account for the kinds of situations I illustrated with the comparative "burglary of an occupied dwelling" rates. They are the mere beginning of a rough guess of the kind required. It's not an easy number to establish.

Note that you have moved the goalposts a bit from "justified killing" to "use of a gun to stop a criminal"

I responded in the same terms as the post I addressed, in which you posted "use of a gun to stop a criminal". They're your goalposts, right where you put them.

And a friend of mine was shot and killed by a criminal about five years ago for no apparent reason. He had a gun; after the crime, it was missing

So?

 

[joepistole]

"Have you ever dreamed of a place
Far away from it all
Where the air you breathe is soft and clean
And children play in fields of green
And the sound of guns
Doesn't pound in your ears (anymore)
Have you ever dreamed of a place
Far away from it all
Where the winter winds will never blow
And living things have room to grow
And the sound of guns
Doesn't pound in your ears anymore.
Many miles from yesterday before you reach tomorrow
Where the time is always just today
There's a lost horizon________waiting to be found.
There's a lost horizon
Where the sound of guns
Doesn't pound in your ears
anymore." - Burt Bacharach

It's nice to dream.

 

[pjdude1219]

Suicides are not innocent people.

do you seriously think demonizing and attacking the mentally ill and depressed is a good argument? I'd just love to know what kind of fucked up mental gymnastics allowed you to come to this conclusion

 

[billvon]

Is that your criterion of "innocence"?

Well, my definition is "not committing any crime." And to me, there are things (like trying to kill yourself, drug addiction or alcoholism) that are measures of mental illness, not criminal intent or action.

So you agree that those posted ratios - 34/1, 78/1, etc - are garbage

Nope.

So?

So you listed an anecdote, I listed an anecdote. If your response to anecdotes is "so?" then perhaps you might want to reconsider using them.

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem with making guns illegal, are guns will still be available via the black market. A gun prohibition will allow criminals to have a monopoly on guns. Criminals are not under the law, nor do they have to pay taxes.

As a way of a trend, if you look anything illegal, such as drugs and prostitution, most honest citizens will try to be law abiding or avoid these out of fear of getting caught. Yet drugs are plentiful for anyone who does not obey the law. The same will be true for guns.

If law enforcement was able to back up all prohibitions, so nobody, including criminals, could get any illegal contraband, then the debate would at least begin with common sense middle ground. However, since all things illegal, can be bought in the black market, by criminals, who ignore the law, this tells us, with reasonable certainty, the inevitable result of banning guns. Criminals will have the guns and honest civilians will beg not be shot.

I often wonder why liberalism favors the criminals, since this was not hard to infer?

 

[pjdude1219]

The main problem with making guns illegal, are guns will still be available via the black market. A gun prohibition will allow criminals to have a monopoly on guns. Criminals are not under the law, nor do they have to pay taxes.

As a way of a trend, if you look anything illegal, such as drugs and prostitution, most honest citizens will try to be law abiding or avoid these out of fear of getting caught. Yet drugs are plentiful for anyone who does not obey the law. The same will be true for guns.

If law enforcement was able to back up all prohibitions, so nobody, including criminals, could get any illegal contraband, then the debate would at least begin with common sense middle ground. However, since all things illegal, can be bought in the black market, by criminals, who ignore the law, this tells us, with reasonable certainty, the inevitable result of banning guns. Criminals will have the guns and honest civilians will beg not be shot.

I often wonder why liberalism favors the criminals, since this was not hard to infer?

Says the right wing nut job advocating policies that help arm terrorists. This is a tired andpiss poor argument that is prefaced on your own sides desire to allow criminals to still get guns

 

[iceaura]

Well, my definition is "not committing any crime." And to me, there are things (like trying to kill yourself, drug addiction or alcoholism) that are measures of mental illness, not criminal intent or action.

But you can understand that many people - those who regard "intentional perpetrators" and "criminals" as not among the "innocent" - will either be misled by the common word used in an uncommon way,

or will see your claim (that most deaths by gunshot are of innocent people) to be a product of your private definition of "innocent"; not informative for those lacking immediate access to your personal dictionary.

"So you agree that those posted ratios - 34/1, 78/1, etc - are garbage"
Nope.

So you're not taking your link's numbers seriously, as solid estimates, either. Ok. That was my observation without it.

So you listed an anecdote, I listed an anecdote.

No, I named an authority for a piece of evidence backing an argument for a claim - that the number of crimes prevented by private guns in private hands was significantly larger than anything visible in your sources, and included entire categories of crime prevention no one has even realistically attempted to estimate.

No anecdote visible.

You posted an anecdote, which is fine as far as it goes - but you made no argument from it (so it wasn't example or evidence), and made no claim. So there was no visible reason for posting it. Hence the query: So?