Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Having a swimming pool in your back yard increases your chances of drowning.
Having a knife in your kitchen drawer increases your chances of cutting your finger off.
Driving a car increases your chances of getting into a car accident.
Crossing the street increases your chances of getting hit by a bus.
Owning a boa increases your chances of getting killed by a boa.
Going out in the rain increases your chances of getting your hair wet.
How do we prevent these things from happening? Being responsible helps. Regardless of what any of you say, freedom is a responsibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
25-04-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(25-04-2015 08:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A report on consensus gun science:
- Having a gun in the home increases suicide
- Having a gun in the home increases the risk a woman living there will be the victim of homicide
- Having a gun in the home makes the home more dangerous to its inhabitants rather than safer
- Guns are more likely to be used in a crime than self-defence
- More permissive carry laws do not reduce crime rates
- Strong gun laws reduce homicide
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

It takes a bit of the bite out of the link since it includes 'opinion' and 'op-ed'.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
25-04-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(25-04-2015 08:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A report on consensus gun science:
- Having a gun in the home increases suicide
- Having a gun in the home increases the risk a woman living there will be the victim of homicide
- Having a gun in the home makes the home more dangerous to its inhabitants rather than safer
- Guns are more likely to be used in a crime than self-defence
- More permissive carry laws do not reduce crime rates
- Strong gun laws reduce homicide
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

I'll say it again because it can't be said enough: statistics apply to populations not to individuals.

The sample population includes the untrained and uneducated and careless along with the trained, educated, and careful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
I agree - I would prefer to see a report on such a consensus that is in a published paper.

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
25-04-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(21-04-2015 10:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Okay I will. You're wrong. Was just stating stats. No further intention. I'm ambivalent about gun rights.

"Just stating stats" ... okay. Stats devoid of context are essentially meaningless. Thanks for your contribution, though.

(21-04-2015 10:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I may be ambivalent towards gun rights but I am not ambivalent about suicide rights. Like I said the only truly inalienable right we have. You can't take that away from me. If you want to use a gun go right ahead. Just pointing out some implications you might want to be aware of.

Thanks, I'm pretty aware of the efficiency of guns when it comes to checking out.

(21-04-2015 10:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If all I did was mention statistics how is that a complaint?

Again, I had taken what you wrote in what I had mistakenly assumed was the context of the discussion. Now that you've written that your numbers were simply thrown out without any background to give them meaning, you can safely disregard any point I was making, as I had thought we were having a discussion, rather than simply regurgitating numbers.

(21-04-2015 10:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You clearly haven't thought this through as thoroughly as I have.

Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe I've come to the conclusion that a single-car accident is a much harder scheme to detect. Maybe I prefer to leave irrelevancies out of the discussion.

(21-04-2015 10:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Takes less than 5 minutes to dispose of the bag and tubing and put the tank back on the paintball gun. As to who's on clean up duty? Well, that's what life insurance beneficiaries are for now isn't it.

I suppose so. I don't know what it is to be worth more dead than alive to my loved ones, so I can't comment about making such arrangements. And there's that whole criminal charge thing they might be incurring in there.

Anyway, my apologies for thinking you had wanted a discussion. Have a nice day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Freedoms all come with a cost. The automobile has given us the freedom to travel vast distances at a low cost. But is that convenience worth the death of 40,000 vehicular fatalities a year? (US)

So too with guns. The invention of the modern firearm meant that for the first time in human history, all humans were on a level playing field. "Lincoln freed the slaves, but Sam Colt made them equal." In modern society, this means that people are not at the mercy of larger human predators. A 90 year old woman, a paraplegic, or a young woman alone on the street with a gun has parity with the most aggressive sociopath. Of course the necessary consequence of this is that plenty of people are killed with guns; fatalities that would not be possible if no guns existed.

I have a lot of guns. I have a wife and 4 children. I live in a quiet suburb. But last summer we had a crime spree with vehicle theft, home invasions, and vandalism on our block. It takes about 5 minutes on a good day for the police to get here. If someone busts down my door in the middle of the night, 5 minutes is a lifetime.

I keep an AK-74 next to my bed each night. I doubt I'll ever have to use it, just as I doubt I'll ever use my fire extinguisher. But I keep it just the same. If someone breaks into my home with my wife and children present, they are going to lose.

I'm also out of town a lot with my work. Thankfully, my petite wife is a crack shot. So I can be at ease knowing she sleeps with her gun on the nightstand.

I've seen statistics spun to confirm whatever one's biases are about guns. But statistics don't carry much weight when it comes to defending your family's lives. I can name countless people (myself included) who owe their lives or health to having a firearm at the right time. Once you've experienced something like that, you never look at the gun argument the same way again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(25-04-2015 12:01 PM)Kalashnikov_Kuffar Wrote:  Freedoms all come with a cost. The automobile has given us the freedom to travel vast distances at a low cost. But is that convenience worth the death of 40,000 vehicular fatalities a year? (US)

So too with guns. The invention of the modern firearm meant that for the first time in human history, all humans were on a level playing field. "Lincoln freed the slaves, but Sam Colt made them equal." In modern society, this means that people are not at the mercy of larger human predators. A 90 year old woman, a paraplegic, or a young woman alone on the street with a gun has parity with the most aggressive sociopath. Of course the necessary consequence of this is that plenty of people are killed with guns; fatalities that would not be possible if no guns existed.

I have a lot of guns. I have a wife and 4 children. I live in a quiet suburb. But last summer we had a crime spree with vehicle theft, home invasions, and vandalism on our block. It takes about 5 minutes on a good day for the police to get here. If someone busts down my door in the middle of the night, 5 minutes is a lifetime.

I keep an AK-74 next to my bed each night. I doubt I'll ever have to use it, just as I doubt I'll ever use my fire extinguisher. But I keep it just the same. If someone breaks into my home with my wife and children present, they are going to lose.

I'm also out of town a lot with my work. Thankfully, my petite wife is a crack shot. So I can be at ease knowing she sleeps with her gun on the nightstand.

I've seen statistics spun to confirm whatever one's biases are about guns. But statistics don't carry much weight when it comes to defending your family's lives. I can name countless people (myself included) who owe their lives or health to having a firearm at the right time. Once you've experienced something like that, you never look at the gun argument the same way again.

Hmmmm, an AK-74 wouldn't be my home defense weapon of choice in the suburbs - too much danger of rounds exiting the house and ending up in the neighbors' vicinity. Consider

I rely on a 9mm handgun and 12 Ga. shotgun for that purpose.

But it's good that your wife shoots. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-04-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
The layout of the house and neighborhood makes it feasible.

That's just at night though since the rifle has a 500 lumen light on it. Normally I just carry a Glock all the time. No license needed to carry where I live.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(25-04-2015 08:43 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Having a swimming pool in your back yard increases your chances of drowning.
Having a knife in your kitchen drawer increases your chances of cutting your finger off.
Driving a car increases your chances of getting into a car accident.
Crossing the street increases your chances of getting hit by a bus.
Owning a boa increases your chances of getting killed by a boa.
Going out in the rain increases your chances of getting your hair wet.
How do we prevent these things from happening? Being responsible helps. Regardless of what any of you say, freedom is a responsibility.
My neighbor having a swimming pool does not increase my chances of drowning.
Nor does it increase my chances of being robbed or murdered.
People don't tend to murder their girlfriend/wife by drowning them in the swimming pool.
Owning/possessing a swimming pool does not make someone brave enough to attack me.

People don't force others to cross the road right in front of busses.

People don't rob or rape or murder people with boa constrictors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(25-04-2015 09:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-04-2015 08:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A report on consensus gun science:
- Having a gun in the home increases suicide
- Having a gun in the home increases the risk a woman living there will be the victim of homicide
- Having a gun in the home makes the home more dangerous to its inhabitants rather than safer
- Guns are more likely to be used in a crime than self-defence
- More permissive carry laws do not reduce crime rates
- Strong gun laws reduce homicide
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

I'll say it again because it can't be said enough: statistics apply to populations not to individuals.

The sample population includes the untrained and uneducated and careless along with the trained, educated, and careful.
It doesn't seem that there is an effective way to ensure only well trained, educated, careful people without anger issues and without jealousy issues and without vigilante heroism dreams and without murderous motives have guns.

If you open up gun access it seems you need to include access to people ill suited to gun possession.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: