Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2012, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2012 08:20 AM by germanyt.)
Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate







It's really no surprise we have such an energized anti-gun crowd when you consider the stupidity and misinformation that is being spread throughout the media. This is pretty par for the course when it comes to the media's knowledge and understanding of guns. This woman clearly shouldn't be involved in this conversation thinking that a semi automatic weapon can be 'easily turned into' and machine gun. And she thinks that if a handgun had been used only 2 or so people might have been killed. All the while ignoring the fact that 2 handguns were used in Newtown. Not the assault rifle that they are trying to demonize. Then you hear the comment that this doesn't happen in Switzerland. O RLY? At least Penn is there to be the voice of reason. Also, note the crowd's response to the comments. They applaud conflicting statements because they too have no idea what is really going on. They are just cheering to cheer for something. Guns are the flavor of the month.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2012, 08:28 AM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
Interesting find

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 10:57 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
I think this is an unsinkable situation, GT. The sheer savagery of the killings in Newton, CT, makes any kind of rational discussion about this drowned out by emotion.

On of my favorite YouTube gun guys, Hickock45, made this piece a few days ago.





I do think some new regulations addressing access to guns by those with mental illness are necessary. I do not support assault weapons bans as they are superfluous and counterproductive.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
28-12-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
(25-12-2012 08:28 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Interesting find

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
I would say that this evidence is the smoking gun.

[Image: cecab66b48142f6f3eee7ccfabd307d8_vice_670.jpg]

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 01:19 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
(28-12-2012 10:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-12-2012 08:28 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Interesting find

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
I would say that this evidence is the smoking gun.

[Image: cecab66b48142f6f3eee7ccfabd307d8_vice_670.jpg]

Great. Now try explaining that to the America public, who is changing to being in favor of an AWB. And what the public sees is 20 dead 6 year olds and a mother of a lunatic son was easily able to buy these kinds of guns. She carelessly left them loaded where said son could easily access them, use these guns to kill her, and then go on a killing spree in an elementary school. The public's take: If mom didn't have the guns, the murders would never have happened.

Now convince them why that's not true.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 02:40 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
(28-12-2012 01:19 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 10:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I would say that this evidence is the smoking gun.

[Image: cecab66b48142f6f3eee7ccfabd307d8_vice_670.jpg]

Great. Now try explaining that to the America public, who is changing to being in favor of an AWB. And what the public sees is 20 dead 6 year olds and a mother of a lunatic son was easily able to buy these kinds of guns. She carelessly left them loaded where said son could easily access them, use these guns to kill her, and then go on a killing spree in an elementary school. The public's take: If mom didn't have the guns, the murders would never have happened.

Now convince them why that's not true.
If you remove all the drugs from an addict's house, and you take extreme precautions in keeping him from getting drugs, do you think that will prevent him from getting drugs?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
28-12-2012, 02:55 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
I'm going to be outvoted, here, seeing that there has been no one else discussing why high powered weaponry itself is superfluous and invites tragedy. I'll just say that when you look at the other countries that have stricter gun laws, you surprisingly see less gun violence. And if you have no desire to see a tank in your neighbors garage, you're also amongst the anti-gun crew. Just sayin'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 03:35 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
(28-12-2012 02:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 01:19 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Great. Now try explaining that to the America public, who is changing to being in favor of an AWB. And what the public sees is 20 dead 6 year olds and a mother of a lunatic son was easily able to buy these kinds of guns. She carelessly left them loaded where said son could easily access them, use these guns to kill her, and then go on a killing spree in an elementary school. The public's take: If mom didn't have the guns, the murders would never have happened.

Now convince them why that's not true.
If you remove all the drugs from an addict's house, and you take extreme precautions in keeping him from getting drugs, do you think that will prevent him from getting drugs?

Again going back to my original point, the majority of the public sees the drug war as a good thing though the facts point to it being a complete failure. The same is now coming true for gun control - or at least another assault weapons ban. The publics point of view: the guns enable this kind of horror show so get rid of them. If you continually show them this stuff, they disregard it and it becomes like talking to a brick wall.

I agree with your POV KC. I just don't know how to sell the public on it.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
(28-12-2012 02:55 PM)otakursed Wrote:  I'm going to be outvoted, here, seeing that there has been no one else discussing why high powered weaponry itself is superfluous and invites tragedy. I'll just say that when you look at the other countries that have stricter gun laws, you surprisingly see less gun violence. And if you have no desire to see a tank in your neighbors garage, you're also amongst the anti-gun crew. Just sayin'.

There's more to that than meets the eye. Your comment about other countries having less crime and stricter gun laws ignores the fact that BEFORE those countries passed those gun control measures, they NEVER had rates of violent crime on par with that found in the United States. They also never had as much interest in gun ownership and their countries were not as saturated with guns as the US is.

And the US is literally SATURATED with guns. It's estimated that there are some 600,000,000 guns in worldwide circulation. Of those approx 300,000,000 guns are in the United States. 1 out of every 2 guns in circulation is available in the United States for consumer purchase.

As a person who owns guns and has been shooting for over 30 years, I'll admit to the following.

1) A gun is a deadly weapon - in fact, it is currently the most effectiver personal arm in existence, having replaced swords, bows, and spears over 600 years ago.
2) By statistics, about 1% of the public are criminals, whether behind prison walls or not.
3) The more guns are readily available the more likely to they are to be obtained and used by criminals.
4) The more careless, indifferent and irresponsible people are with guns, the more likely they will be criminally misused.
5) Criminals buy guns on the black market or borrow or steal guns from relatives or easily accessible guns during robberies.
6) Personal responsibility can make a difference in preventing gun crimes. If you own a firearm, make sure it is not accessible to minors, the unstable or mentally ill, other unauthorized persons or could easily be stolen by criminals during a break in. Do not sell your firearm to anyone who cannot or will not submit to a NICS background check. Do not sell a gun to anyone who is severely depressed, suffering from severe mental illness, or has been making suicidal ideations.
7) The average gun owner, gun collector, a person who holds a concealed weapons license, or enjoys shooting as a hobby is NOT a criminal. They are also NOT killers in the making. In order to solve the problems of gun crime, we must refrain from treating them as such.
8) a well trained, and properly motivated person can use a use a firearm very effectively to prevent a crime or protect oneself in a life threatening emergency. Guns may be used as often as a million times every year to deter crime. And 90% of these encounters end bloodlessly. The sheer sight of a firearm makes people behave.
9) if you're going to own a gun for personal defense buy one designed to take out a human. It works for the military and or police.
10) If you're going to use a gun for personal defense, remember the old saying 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' Oftentimes guns are NOT the solution and can get you into a lot of trouble.
11) An assault weapons ban has never prevented a crime, is easily circumvented by gun manufacturers and only restricts legitimate owners. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebald shot up Columbine HS without using assault weapons. And the North Hollywood Bank Shootout was done by people using fully automatic rifles, not covered under the terms of the AWB.
12) If you are no longer using a gun and wish to sell it or get rid of it, do so with an FFL licensed pawn shop or dealer. If you cannot sell it, surrender it to your local police department or have the weapon destroyed so it is no longer in circulation. Never simply throw a gun away in the trash.

So where does this leave us? Well it seems the discussion should center more on people being responsible and accountable with the guns they own, reducing the numbers of guns produced and in circulation and taking steps to prevent criminal misuse. This is where the dialog about guns should be.

The problem comes in that people demand that you either be totally for all gun control or totally against it. Not true. We need to have a rational discussion about guns as well as the attitudes on guns. We will only find solutions there.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
29-12-2012, 03:23 AM
RE: Another example of logic vs emotion in the gun debate
Just to insert some facts into the debate for a change, here are the headline numbers in Australia and trends from 1996 to 2007:
[Image: fig003.png]
The following figures are the number of recorded instances per 100000 people and are 2007 figures.
* Assault: 840
* Robbery: 86
* Kidnapping: 3-4
* Homocide: 1.3
* Sexual assault: 94
Source: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
In 2007 in the US the following figures are recorded:
* Violent crime: 466.9
* Property crime: 3263.5
* Homocide: 4.9 (my calculation based on 14831 incidents and a 2007 population of 302.2 million)
Source: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

After the Port Arthur massacre[1] killed 35 people in 1996 and wounded 23 Australians further restricted already tight gun controls and instituted a buy back program for the newly restricted firearms. The legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns was heavily restricted and controls were tightened on their legal use.

It's difficult to make direct comparisons between the statistics due to different classification techniques in use, but a comparison of homocide rate suggests that the US suffered 3.8 times the homocide rate of Australians in 2007 while Australians suffered assault at something like twice the US rate.

Another quick comparison chart can be found here: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Aust...ates/Crime
This chart includes the statistic that Australia suffers 16.3 gun homocides per 100,000 while the US suffers 39.6 gun homocides per 100,000 - 142% more than the Australian figure.

Here are the conclusions of a 2006 paper (yes, a paper not a blog post)[2]:
Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments
united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key
component of gun law reforms.
Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in
rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in
firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.
Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.
Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass
shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur...Australia)
[2] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets...revent.pdf

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: