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
30-04-2015, 01:10 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  The idea of restricting magazine size does seem to come up fairly often though, and IIRC there are some states that have implemented such laws? Is there any obvious effect?

I don't think such laws are useful, for the simple fact that most gun crimes in America come from the act of brandishing, firstly. There need not be any rounds in the sleeve for the other guy to be scared shitless.

Magazine laws are very often enacted not because some guy shot 30 rounds without pause, but because those sorts of laws allow legislators the right to claim that they're doing something about gun crime and yet not alienating gun-accessory mfrs or slellers.

(30-04-2015 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  What about requiring the buyer to present a license in the same vein as a driver's license? Something for which e.g. there would be a written exam on gun laws and an authorized instructor could confirm that they know how to operate a gun safely with a test down at the range?

I don't like that. I would prefer that the buyer should have to pass a background check each time he wishes to purchase a gun. While you're right that having a certified knowledge of firearms law is needed, I think there should also be a requirement to demonstrate sound mental health at the time of each purchase.

(30-04-2015 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  That's one aspect of it - making sure the *user* is OK. The other aspect would be regulating the actual weapons - again, by analogy to car ownership. Every car has a license number and can be traced (with some effort)... Of course, criminals put illegal plates on cars and do other such things, but it does make their lives more difficult.

Are these proposals unrealistically onerous?

Onerous? No. Unrealistic? Yes. Numbers will get scraped; papers will be forged.

I'm not very popular in the gun-rights crowd in that I think the best solution lays in the advent of smart guns: guns keyed to shoot only for a legitimate owner who has demonstrated soundness of mind.

(30-04-2015 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  
Quote:As for long arms, I don't think the strictures should be so tight.
Um... why not? Are handguns inherently more dangerous? Easier to conceal - I can see that...

Yes, concealment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 01:12 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Anyway, out for the evening, g'night, bud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
30-04-2015, 05:57 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 10:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 02:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Matter of opinion, and my opinion is that your response displayed a pervasive childishness and was an immature and fallacious response.

The same criticism could be leveled at many, many of your posts in this thread.

Physician, heal thyself.

You continually wave away counterpoints without supporting your rejections. Your polemics are sometimes apt, and just as often baseless. You seem to be trolling your own thread.

Here's a question: how many guns have you owned in your life?

As far as the pissing contest where I point out the similarities between the pro-gun arguments and theist arguments, I've provided examples to back my interpretations up.

Once again, I don't know what the purpose is of asking how many guns I've owned, as if it's gun ownership itself that is the defining quality of being able to understand the subject at hand or to understand the statistics. I've only ever owned 2. A 30-06 hunting rifle (Remington I thin) and a 20 gauge pump shotgun (Winchester I think, that one is still in the house). I grew up in the south shooting .22's, 20 gauge and 12 gauge shotguns as a kid and squirrel hunting.

As for pointing out the statistics for being assaulted or having your home invaded, it's clear you don't understand why I've posted these points. It has been claimed that guns are 1) necessary for self-defense 2) the most effective form and 3) that the threat is persistent enough to warrant constant armament.

When you have events that occur infrequently, like natural disasters, that produce some sort of chaotic scenario where it is presumed that you'll need a gun to protect yourself from the collapse of society. This is a fear-based tactic. I find it unconvincing as a real threat, and unconvincing as an argument that guns are a necessity.

And then, when you have rates of assault and home invasion that are on the order of 0.005% annually, that hardly warrants the notion that these threats are imminent and requires a constant armament as if this is the old west (I guess I should say hollywoods portrait of the old west).

And the other point is that there are other forms of self defense and protection of your property. Why are guns necessary when you have other less lethal options available? Are guns the best solution given the collateral damage they incur? (Things like the compulsory suicide rate with guns and domestic violence, points I've raised before)

And at the end of all of this, I've still not supported the position that it is necessary to remove all guns from our society, but I keep getting flak and resistance when I point out alternatives (a litany of excuses why they aren't as good for one reason or another while ignoring the fact that a gun could jam or primer cap could fail to ignite, rendering the gun useless too) or when I ask questions that require more than anecdotes.

If that's all that the pro-gun side has is anecdotes, then so be it. But, as I said earlier, that basically boils the argument back down to "fuck off, I like guns." Which is a fair opinion, just not a particularly strong one at all.

As for the "hot headed posts" comment, I don't recall being the one to tell people to "fuck off" because they didn't like what was being pointed out to them. If you think my posts were in anger, you'd hate to read my posts when they really were!

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 06:07 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Asking me how many guns I've owned or what my experience level is with guns, is akin to a theist asking an atheist about their experience with the bible as a way of dismissing the atheist's opinion if they haven't read it or haven't read it as much as the theist. It's a flawed argument that has no actual bearing on the subject.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 06:14 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
We still have the guns.

And will tomorrow.

Keep bellowing though.

It's sorta amusing - in a Sisyphean way.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 06:19 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Here is an argument that does have actual bearing on the subject. I posted this information earlier in the thread, but I assume you missed it because you keep asking for evidence that guns are an effective form of self defense.

Quote:Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16

There it is. According to the studies that directly address the question of the effectiveness of firearms as a form of self defense using a gun is the method of resistance that is least likely to result in injury to the victim.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
30-04-2015, 06:24 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:19 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Here is an argument that does have actual bearing on the subject. I posted this information earlier in the thread, but I assume you missed it because you keep asking for evidence that guns are an effective form of self defense.

Quote:Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16

There it is. According to the studies that directly address the question of the effectiveness of firearms as a form of self defense using a gun is the method of resistance that is least likely to result in injury to the victim.

Thanks for the source. I like this assessment that immediately follows your line:
"it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

This is why I keep bringing up those other points (note that I don't know that a gun being the least likely to injure the user is what I'd equate to most effective. I'd say the form of protection most likely to stop or deter the assailant) about suicide and domestic abuse. Statistically, having a gun in the household provides opportunity for increased chances of successful compulsory suicide, and increased chances for use on a spouse during a domestic dispute.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:19 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Here is an argument that does have actual bearing on the subject. I posted this information earlier in the thread, but I assume you missed it because you keep asking for evidence that guns are an effective form of self defense.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16

There it is. According to the studies that directly address the question of the effectiveness of firearms as a form of self defense using a gun is the method of resistance that is least likely to result in injury to the victim.

Thanks for the source. I like this assessment that immediately follows your line:
"it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

This is why I keep bringing up those other points (note that I don't know that a gun being the least likely to injure the user is what I'd equate to most effective. I'd say the form of protection most likely to stop or deter the assailant) about suicide and domestic abuse. Statistically, having a gun in the household provides opportunity for increased chances of successful compulsory suicide, and increased chances for use on a spouse during a domestic dispute.

What is compulsory suicide?

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
30-04-2015, 06:47 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Thanks for the source. I like this assessment that immediately follows your line:
"it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

This is why I keep bringing up those other points (note that I don't know that a gun being the least likely to injure the user is what I'd equate to most effective. I'd say the form of protection most likely to stop or deter the assailant) about suicide and domestic abuse. Statistically, having a gun in the household provides opportunity for increased chances of successful compulsory suicide, and increased chances for use on a spouse during a domestic dispute.

What is compulsory suicide?

Compulsive. I meant compulsive. Stupid fat fingers

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is compulsory suicide?

Sounds like a terrific idea for most politicians.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: