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
30-05-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-05-2015 06:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And on the "unconvincing rebuttals" type comment, I considered myself firmly on the "pro-second amendment" side up until about 3 years or so ago. Until I started looking into guns and gun laws and statistics just a bit. I've posted these before but these were a couple of interesting articles I've read on the subject from Skeptic Magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/tag/gun-control/

I have read that hack piece written by someone that is supposedly a skeptic. The paper is rife with issues, here are just a few:

Quote:A 1998 study published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery on “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” stated that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” In other words, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt, or a homicide, than it is for self-defense.

I believe the study looked at the persons that had suffered gunshots and asked if they had a gun then measured it against a control group that still had landline telephones that were willing to do a lengthy phone survey.

Do you want me to believe that persons that get shot are comparable to people that sit down and complete phone surveys?

A second point is that how the author classifies self defense gun use. With this crap research, did the victim have to kill the attacker or just shoot the guy? I am just wondering because most gun uses are resolved without a shot being fired, so it seems to be a rather biased data point.

Quote:According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 2010 a total of 19,392 U.S. residents killed themselves with a firearm;13 in 2010 there were 11,078 gun-caused homicides and in 2011 there were 55,544 gun-caused injuries treated in emergency rooms;14 in 2010, 606 people died by unintentional shooting, while in 2011 14,675 were wounded in an unintentional shooting.

I believe the stats are now around 8,000 homicides (including police actions and self defense) and close to 20,000 suicides. The suicides issue bring forth an interesting question. What is the approximate percent of lives lost to suicide would be saved if all guns were confiscated? My guess is not that many, and we have plenty of other unconstitutional actions that could prevent even more deaths. Perhaps mandatory mental health evaluations every month is something we should look forward too. Miss your appointment? No matter the US Marshal raids the home, arrests the subject, detains them, and the subject is finally evaluated for mental health for that month? Or perhaps a significant life event should be met with a mandatory stay at a mental hospital? I mean,

Quote:“If there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Quote:The proposed legislation on the table, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (whose husband was killed in the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting), is called The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, and it would prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 bullets (the maximum now is 100).46 That seems reasonable to me, and hunters who claim otherwise can give their game a more sporting chance of escape— if you can’t nail them in 10 rounds they deserve to live.

That would be practical, if magazines were not that difficult to construct. In fact, I made a couple in an afternoon using basic metal machining tools (though getting the specifications was a bit of a pain) and I have multiple copies of a 3D printer program used to create these magazines.

Quote:Even though it is not clear that the two suggested laws banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines over 10 bullets would have a significant effect on mass murders, there could be a net gain, and it seems to me to be no great threat to liberty if we lump them with the already-existing bans on private citizens owning and operating bazookas, tanks, drone aircraft, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons.

That is a false equivalence. One cannot state that area of effect weapons are similar to discriminate weapons.

Quote: Bans on semi-automatic assault rifles and high-volume ammo clips will not stop Sandy Hook Events, but there is some evidence that they could curtail the level of carnage, and that strikes me as a rational response that even freedom-loving libertarians can live with.

So would mandatory police checkpoints at every main highway and random warrentless searches. After all, if you have nothing to hide how is a persons freedom being curtailed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gatheist's post
30-05-2015, 02:13 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-05-2015 12:45 PM)Gatheist Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 06:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And on the "unconvincing rebuttals" type comment, I considered myself firmly on the "pro-second amendment" side up until about 3 years or so ago. Until I started looking into guns and gun laws and statistics just a bit. I've posted these before but these were a couple of interesting articles I've read on the subject from Skeptic Magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/tag/gun-control/

I have read that hack piece written by someone that is supposedly a skeptic. The paper is rife with issues, here are just a few:

Quote:A 1998 study published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery on “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” stated that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” In other words, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt, or a homicide, than it is for self-defense.

I believe the study looked at the persons that had suffered gunshots and asked if they had a gun then measured it against a control group that still had landline telephones that were willing to do a lengthy phone survey.

Do you want me to believe that persons that get shot are comparable to people that sit down and complete phone surveys?

A second point is that how the author classifies self defense gun use. With this crap research, did the victim have to kill the attacker or just shoot the guy? I am just wondering because most gun uses are resolved without a shot being fired, so it seems to be a rather biased data point.

Quote:According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 2010 a total of 19,392 U.S. residents killed themselves with a firearm;13 in 2010 there were 11,078 gun-caused homicides and in 2011 there were 55,544 gun-caused injuries treated in emergency rooms;14 in 2010, 606 people died by unintentional shooting, while in 2011 14,675 were wounded in an unintentional shooting.

I believe the stats are now around 8,000 homicides (including police actions and self defense) and close to 20,000 suicides. The suicides issue bring forth an interesting question. What is the approximate percent of lives lost to suicide would be saved if all guns were confiscated? My guess is not that many, and we have plenty of other unconstitutional actions that could prevent even more deaths. Perhaps mandatory mental health evaluations every month is something we should look forward too. Miss your appointment? No matter the US Marshal raids the home, arrests the subject, detains them, and the subject is finally evaluated for mental health for that month? Or perhaps a significant life event should be met with a mandatory stay at a mental hospital? I mean,

Quote:“If there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Quote:The proposed legislation on the table, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (whose husband was killed in the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting), is called The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, and it would prohibit magazines that hold more than 10 bullets (the maximum now is 100).46 That seems reasonable to me, and hunters who claim otherwise can give their game a more sporting chance of escape— if you can’t nail them in 10 rounds they deserve to live.

That would be practical, if magazines were not that difficult to construct. In fact, I made a couple in an afternoon using basic metal machining tools (though getting the specifications was a bit of a pain) and I have multiple copies of a 3D printer program used to create these magazines.

Quote:Even though it is not clear that the two suggested laws banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines over 10 bullets would have a significant effect on mass murders, there could be a net gain, and it seems to me to be no great threat to liberty if we lump them with the already-existing bans on private citizens owning and operating bazookas, tanks, drone aircraft, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons.

That is a false equivalence. One cannot state that area of effect weapons are similar to discriminate weapons.

Quote: Bans on semi-automatic assault rifles and high-volume ammo clips will not stop Sandy Hook Events, but there is some evidence that they could curtail the level of carnage, and that strikes me as a rational response that even freedom-loving libertarians can live with.

So would mandatory police checkpoints at every main highway and random warrentless searches. After all, if you have nothing to hide how is a persons freedom being curtailed.

Stick to your own threads about idiocy, troll.

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
30-05-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-05-2015 02:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 12:45 PM)Gatheist Wrote:  I have read that hack piece written by someone that is supposedly a skeptic. The paper is rife with issues, here are just a few:


I believe the study looked at the persons that had suffered gunshots and asked if they had a gun then measured it against a control group that still had landline telephones that were willing to do a lengthy phone survey.

Do you want me to believe that persons that get shot are comparable to people that sit down and complete phone surveys?

A second point is that how the author classifies self defense gun use. With this crap research, did the victim have to kill the attacker or just shoot the guy? I am just wondering because most gun uses are resolved without a shot being fired, so it seems to be a rather biased data point.


I believe the stats are now around 8,000 homicides (including police actions and self defense) and close to 20,000 suicides. The suicides issue bring forth an interesting question. What is the approximate percent of lives lost to suicide would be saved if all guns were confiscated? My guess is not that many, and we have plenty of other unconstitutional actions that could prevent even more deaths. Perhaps mandatory mental health evaluations every month is something we should look forward too. Miss your appointment? No matter the US Marshal raids the home, arrests the subject, detains them, and the subject is finally evaluated for mental health for that month? Or perhaps a significant life event should be met with a mandatory stay at a mental hospital? I mean,



That would be practical, if magazines were not that difficult to construct. In fact, I made a couple in an afternoon using basic metal machining tools (though getting the specifications was a bit of a pain) and I have multiple copies of a 3D printer program used to create these magazines.


That is a false equivalence. One cannot state that area of effect weapons are similar to discriminate weapons.


So would mandatory police checkpoints at every main highway and random warrentless searches. After all, if you have nothing to hide how is a persons freedom being curtailed.

Stick to your own threads about idiocy, troll.

That was not trolling. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-05-2015, 06:24 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-05-2015 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 02:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Stick to your own threads about idiocy, troll.

That was not trolling. Drinking Beverage

I called him a troll, not that this specific instance was trolling per se.

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
31-05-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You assume I'm not a gun owner?

No; actually, that is exactly why I was asking, because I'm not making assumptions about you.

(29-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And keep in mind, I understand WHY people want guns, I don't particularly think they are convincing arguments.

That's fine. So long as you understand that people who live in circumstances that you don't find your reasoning, such as it is, unconvincing.

(29-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As for the "being unconvincing" in my posts, I'm not under any delusion that my words alone are going to change people's minds. I do hope that I might say something or post something that makes someone think or causes someone to look for information that might better influence their opinion.

I actually prefer discussions where my interlocutor carries on with intelligence and passion -- and you've certainly done that here -- because I'm much more likely to learn something from the interchange. In that sense, your hope is well placed -- you're making me think, and that is to be appreciated: thanks.

(29-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, I'd hope that with some simple statistics that no one would be stupid enough to use such a general and ignorant statement as "the more guns there are, the safer society will be" as I've encountered before (not necessarily on the forum, I think the specific example I'm thinking of was from a political cartoon on a Facebook page, but even still there are at least a few people who have voted in the poll to ignore reality).

Well, sure, such a simplistic summation is very likely an unintended reductio ad absurdum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
31-05-2015, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2015 01:04 AM by Gatheist.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-05-2015 06:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  That was not trolling. Drinking Beverage

I called him a troll, not that this specific instance was trolling per se.

How did you determine that I am a troll? Perhaps I am a person that is an atheist, skeptic, and gay who believes firearms in the right hands has a negligible or slight beneficial effect for the public.

Personally, I could kill myself a few different was without my gun not that I find eating my pistol to be specifically desirable. I don't associate with the criminal element, live in a middle class community, and work in my little cubical. As to accidental discharge, I find that I am more concerned about the staggeringly high HIV rate in the gay community than that of getting killed by my firearms.

I believe that the accidental deaths from firearms is about 250 (max) per year out of 30 Million. I wonder what the HIV infection rate is among MSM, oh right 1/4 or 1/5 depending on the area. So since I don't have liberals pleading to me to stop taking it in my ass (and liking it) or giving it, you can understand you I am SKEPTICAL when the bemoan the chances of getting killed by my firearms on accident. After all, there is no biologically necessary human need for anal intercourse (the highest sex act for HIV transmission) just as there is no necessary human need for a firearm (except in cases where a person is being attacked).

So back on point, statistics demonstrate that the defensive gun uses per year are about 100,000 incidents [1], which can involve multiple people. Now, one may point out the suicide issue but I need the statistics on how many firearm suicide victims would have been spared if we did not have firearms. As a purely utilitarian construct, I do not believe that the 15-25% of suicidal lives saved are worth 100,000 more crime victims. After all, most the suicide victims have a poor quality of life, so I count it as a few broken eggs (Yes, I will look directly in the face of the surviving family members and tell them I do not care about how their poor pathetic soul hated their life so much that they decided to end should have a bearing on ownership of firearms.)

Now you may comment on the firearm MURDERS, to that I will state that most those individuals were degenerates that would have cost society more money in welfare, incarceration costs, and other factors. Those innocent live lost are tragic, just as those lost to the unnecessary speed limit of 65 MPH. Frankly, I am surprised how many anti-gun proponents care so little about life that they have not campaigned for a speed limit of 50 MPH on all highways and 25 MPH on surface streets? Are they not concerned about life?

As to crimes committed with guns, one would have to provide evidence that said crime (excluding a firearm assault or murder) would have occurred without firearms. Again, since non-murder general crime rates are equal to or higher in OCED countries when compared to the US, I do not think that is a sufficient argument. Revisiting a previous topic, I find the mostly degenerates and criminal offenders that are killed by firearms as a societal benefit with zero shits given to their grieving families or the pathetic lives they have lived.

So when I hear we need more gun control (excluding background checks), I usually feel that the mean this:

Quote:As in example 1, except that the victim has a gun by the bed, which he would, if able, use to defend himself from the killer. As the killer enters the bedroom, the victim reaches for the gun. The accomplice grabs the gun and runs away, with the result that the killer then stabs his victim to death.
[2]

If you have not guessed already, I view gun control activists as the accomplice.

Revisiting the study that was cited by Shermer, I found it as convincing as research indicating gays have an average life expectancy of 20 years less than average:

Quote: A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports
[3]

Mind you they used gays that have died in major cities with deaths being mentioned in major gay newspapers and compared it to nation wide statistics pre-HAART therapy. Similar, is the caliber of most anti-gun studies. Finally, as to the AR-15 that Shermer seeks to restrict, what makes it less deadly than a .45 caliber pistol or a shotgun with #1 shot? Heck, with the handgun those can be concealed possibly increasing danger.

Anyways, feel free to provide your reasons why you feel I am incorrect or am a troll.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/201...lf-defense

[2] http://www.owl232.net/guncontrol.htm

[3]https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-another-study-confirms-gay-life-expectancy-20-years-shorter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2015, 12:57 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-05-2015 06:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sorry, one last flaw in your post to point out.

"Gun owners tend to know more about gun ownership. Crazy, huh?"

And christians claim all the time that because they are christian, they know the bible better. Do you think that being a christian automatically means that they tend to know more about the bible? Or do you believe that they have convinced themselves that it is true?

The problem with this reasoning is that while a gun is a tangible thing that can be taken apart and studied, held and used in practice, standardized through manufacture such that complete strangers can discuss the specific qualities of a specific model, no god can be subject to any of those treatments.

This is an absurd analogy and will not be regarded any further.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2015, 01:00 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-05-2015 02:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Stick to your own threads about idiocy, troll.

You're better than this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2015, 07:04 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(31-05-2015 12:57 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 06:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sorry, one last flaw in your post to point out.

"Gun owners tend to know more about gun ownership. Crazy, huh?"

And christians claim all the time that because they are christian, they know the bible better. Do you think that being a christian automatically means that they tend to know more about the bible? Or do you believe that they have convinced themselves that it is true?

The problem with this reasoning is that while a gun is a tangible thing that can be taken apart and studied, held and used in practice, standardized through manufacture such that complete strangers can discuss the specific qualities of a specific model, no god can be subject to any of those treatments.

This is an absurd analogy and will not be regarded any further.

The bible itself is a tangible object capable of being studied. Which is why I didn't say they understood a god better, but the bible.

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
31-05-2015, 07:04 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(31-05-2015 01:00 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 02:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Stick to your own threads about idiocy, troll.

You're better than this.

I've wasted too much time before on trolls and given the very first thread started by this fella, I don't feel inclined to waste my time.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: