|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/27/2008 : 13:11:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The crime rates (even murder) are not significantly different in those countries. |
Actually, nevermind my previous request for data.
If I grant this as accurate, it means that gun ownership (concealed or not) doesn't do anything to deter crimes.
So that's out of the way from both sides of the argument. Banning guns doesn't reduce crime. Owning guns doesn't reduce crime. Gun laws have zero effect on crime rates.
Now we can look at the risk/benefit ratio from angles other than crime. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 16:37:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Now we can look at the risk/benefit ratio from angles other than crime. |
Specify your context and make a case.
Mine is simple. You, nor the government, have the right to arbitrarily infringe upon my rights.
Gun ownwership does not increase crime rates, so there is no reasonable case you can make that justifies removing the right to own them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 17:13:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Specify your context and make a case. |
Didn't I specify the context already?| Mine is simple. You, nor the government, have the right to arbitrarily infringe upon my rights. |
Then your case is irrelevant to the question of whether or not firearms represent a net benefit or harm to society.| Gun ownwership does not increase crime rates, so there is no reasonable case you can make that justifies removing the right to own them. |
Only if the only possible context is crime. If there is even one accidental death per year from a firearm, then eliminating firearms would lower the all-cause death rate, while (as you agree) not increasing crime.
The question (not case, not Constitutional law issue) is whether the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. You are assuming that because you have a right to gun ownership, you don't need to make a case that you should have such a right, and you're trying to deflect from a rational discussion of whether or not such a right makes sense today.
I'm not a gun owner, and I don't want to strip people of their rights, so I don't have a dog in this race. But I'm interested in which way it would go, and so I want to see the data. And if there is no data, then any people who say that the benefits outweigh the risks (or vice versa) are the ones who have no case. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 17:18:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Well sigh...
I have debated this before and I really have nothing new to add accept to say that I still favor stringent gun control laws. If it were up to me, hand gun owners would have to keep their handguns at the shooting range where they could visit them now and then.
I keep waiting for the news story where a person successfully defended themselves against an intruder. What is mainly reported are the tragic accidents that happen. Perhaps that is a media bias. I dunno.
Anyhow, my opinion hasn't changed and I am pissed that the supreme court didn't call me and ask my opinion on the issue before issuing theirs. But then, they hardly ever call me...
|
Keeping their arms at the range wouldn't work for competitive shooters. All of us practice constantly in our spare time. When I was active, I'd dry-fire for an hour or so almost every day, with both hands and eyes. I'm not active now -- can't afford the gasoline -- but I still do a little just to keep my hand(s) in, mostly with the belly-gun rather than the match pistols. And I still occasionally fire local, pickup matchs for that very arm.
We all dream of Utopia, but we will never see it. It does not, cannot, exist and it really is a tough, ol' world. We must deal with it as best we can.
A few times a year, we hear about someone foiling a car-jack or a convience store clerk taking down an optomist, but it doesn't happen often because so few people have a firearm handy and too many that do, don't know what the hell they're doing, and therefore shouldn't. Sad really, but true.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 18:39:41 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Mine is simple. You, nor the government, have the right to arbitrarily infringe upon my rights. |
Well, it wouldn't be arbitrary if the data shows that your gun ownership posed a significant risk to me. I consider it extremely rude to be shot, even by accident, which I have been.
Now admittedly, I wasn't shot with a hand gun. But I guarantee that the knuckleheads who were packing those shotgun shell casings with gunpowder and lighting them off also owned handguns. I know it because I saw one of them.
But you know. Being permanently injured because one of those casings shattered the bone in my left middle finger has probably clouded my thinking.
On the other hand, it did give me the time to become fairly proficient at bottlenecking. (Slide guitar.)
Let freedom ring!!!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 19:15:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Well sigh...
I have debated this before and I really have nothing new to add accept to say that I still favor stringent gun control laws. If it were up to me, hand gun owners would have to keep their handguns at the shooting range where they could visit them now and then.
I keep waiting for the news story where a person successfully defended themselves against an intruder. What is mainly reported are the tragic accidents that happen. Perhaps that is a media bias. I dunno.
Anyhow, my opinion hasn't changed and I am pissed that the supreme court didn't call me and ask my opinion on the issue before issuing theirs. But then, they hardly ever call me...
|
I could write a book on why I agree with you.  |
Paul C. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 21:52:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
The question (not case, not Constitutional law issue) is whether the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. You are assuming that because you have a right to gun ownership, you don't need to make a case that you should have such a right, and you're trying to deflect from a rational discussion of whether or not such a right makes sense today.
|
I reject the notion that the burden of making this case lies with me. If you want to restrict something, you have to make the case for restricting it.
There is no requirement in any rational world that says I have to justify ownership of any inanimate object. None. I reject your suggestion that such should be the case, and I sure as shit don't want to live in a place where any significant majority agrees with your thinking.
Because you'd have to justify that your ownership and use of a car (cars kill far more people than handguns every year in the US) (see links below, 11k firearm homicides vs 37k crash fatalities in 2001) has a benefit that outweighs the risks. Walking is better for you anyway. You'd have to justify your right to eat bacon, in that a bacon free diet clearly bears less risk and less cost to soceity, than a diet that includes bacon. You'd have to justify your right to own a swiming pool, as the elimination of all swimming pools would prevent children from drowning in them. You'd have to justify your right to buy ans smoke tobacco, the risks to yourself from tobacco are well documented.
And so on.
Kil said:
| Well, it wouldn't be arbitrary if the data shows that your gun ownership posed a significant risk to me. |
Define significant.
Then compare the risk of accidental fatal shootings to the risk of accidental fatalities from motor vehicles.
Now justify your right to risk my life by driving your car. Get back to me when you figure that one out.
In 2001 there were 37,862 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the US.
In 2001 there were 802 accidental firearms deaths in the US.
Time for anti-gun people to give up their cars! Because if I have to give up guns due to the risk of unintentionally shooting you, then you definitely have to retire your cars. 47 times more likely to die in a car crash than be accidentally shot to death.
DOWN WITH CARS!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/27/2008 21:54:32 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 22:12:58 [Permalink]
|
This is an interesting read.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 22:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:
| The question (not case, not Constitutional law issue) is whether the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks. You are assuming that because you have a right to gun ownership, you don't need to make a case that you should have such a right, and you're trying to deflect from a rational discussion of whether or not such a right makes sense today. |
I reject the notion that the burden of making this case lies with me. If you want to restrict something, you have to make the case for restricting it. |
Good point.| There is no requirement in any rational world that says I have to justify ownership of any inanimate object. None. I reject your suggestion that such should be the case, and I sure as shit don't want to live in a place where any significant majority agrees with your thinking. |
How about a lockpick set? You don't think it's necessary to justify ownership of something that is primarily used for illicit activities?Because you'd have to justify that your ownership and use of a car (cars kill far more people than handguns every year in the US) (see links below, 11k firearm homicides vs 37k crash fatalities in 2001) has a benefit that outweighs the risks. Walking is better for you anyway. You'd have to justify your right to eat bacon, in that a bacon free diet clearly bears less risk and less cost to soceity, than a diet that includes bacon. You'd have to justify your right to own a swiming pool, as the elimination of all swimming pools would prevent children from drowning in them. You'd have to justify your right to buy ans smoke tobacco, the risks to yourself from tobacco are well documented.
And so on. |
False analogy.
The fundamental difference between guns and your examples above is that guns are tools designed to more efficiently kill things. A car is a tool designed to more efficiently transport things, and so on. You are overlooking the fundamental function of the device.Kil said: | Well, it wouldn't be arbitrary if the data shows that your gun ownership posed a significant risk to me. |
Define significant.
Then compare the risk of accidental fatal shootings to the risk of accidental fatalities from motor vehicles.
Now justify your right to risk my life by driving your car. Get back to me when you figure that one out.
In 2001 there were 37,862 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the US.
In 2001 there were 802 accidental firearms deaths in the US.
Time for anti-gun people to give up their cars! Because if I have to give up guns due to the risk of unintentionally shooting you, then you definitely have to retire your cars. 47 times more likely to die in a car crash than be accidentally shot to death.
DOWN WITH CARS! |
False analogy.
You're smarter than this, Dude. Go back to your legitimate argument of rights and constitutionality and drop the comparison of apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 23:13:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I reject the notion that the burden of making this case lies with me. If you want to restrict something, you have to make the case for restricting it. |
I always find it interesting when we find a topic that makes an otherwise rational person go off the deep end. I've expressed my desire to examine whatever evidence might be available, and you've freaked out and decided that I want to restrict your rights.| There is no requirement in any rational world that says I have to justify ownership of any inanimate object. None. I reject your suggestion that such should be the case, and I sure as shit don't want to live in a place where any significant majority agrees with your thinking. |
You'd better move, then, because the laws we live under require you to justify your possession of nuclear weapons, dynamite, narcotics, pictures of naked children, etc., etc., etc.| Because you'd have to justify that your ownership and use of a car (cars kill far more people than handguns every year in the US) (see links below, 11k firearm homicides vs 37k crash fatalities in 2001) has a benefit that outweighs the risks. |
It's great that you bring this up. My car enables me to provide food for my family. Does your gun? Sure, there are some trick-shooters and hunters who actually use firearms to provide tangible benefits (in terms of a salary or food), and those are some of the benefits I'd love to talk about if you could get off this "you want to restrict my rights" nonsense.| Walking is better for you anyway. |
It would be if I could walk 79.7 miles a day, or if my family of three could make do on a single-earner income of perhaps seven bucks an hour with no benefits.| You'd have to justify your right to eat bacon, in that a bacon free diet clearly bears less risk and less cost to soceity, than a diet that includes bacon. |
And Chicago has open-fired on that front by banning foie gras.| You'd have to justify your right to own a swiming pool, as the elimination of all swimming pools would prevent children from drowning in them. |
Which is one reason I drain the kiddie pool every day my son uses it (always supervised).| You'd have to justify your right to buy ans smoke tobacco, the risks to yourself from tobacco are well documented. |
And addiction is powerful. I await the day I can overcome it, or the state or federal legislatures take the choice out of my hands. Whichever way is faster.Quite right. And I've argued in favor of things like special risk insurance, too, so that the rest of us don't have to suffer higher general health insurance premiums because of a small minority who engage in high-risk behavior (like skydiving or skiing) and get hurt.See what I mean? You've gone completely off-the-rails crazy here. Comparing all vehicle fatalities to only accidental firearms deaths is apples-to-oranges, because some vehicle deaths are on purpose.
The CDC has data on all deaths, firearms-versus-vehicles, and it shows that the ratio only climbs as high as a car being four times as likely to result in death as a gun for kids 1-4 years old. The question is: do we as a society get more than four times the benefit from cars as we do from guns? How much food have your firearms put on your table, Dude?
But really, I'd like to have more data than that. For example, this data, with its 1.46 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles stat, suggests that I would have to commute for over 2,148 business years before I had a 50/50 shot at accidentally killing one person while driving (and I've got a long commute). If we consider that many of the hundreds of million of firearms in the U.S. are locked away in collections or rusting in closets, how many deaths are there for every 100 million bullets fired?
If we're going to compare deaths by firearms to deaths by cars, lets find a metric that compares them fairly, and then try to figure out whether the benefits are also fair. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 23:26:40 [Permalink]
|
You're right:It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But the problem is that you have already asserted (and I've agreed) that firearms have no effect on crime rates, so a paper about crime victims' use of firearms is irrelevant, even if the authors had been able to tell us how many lives are saved that way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 01:17:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
I reject the notion that the burden of making this case lies with me. If you want to restrict something, you have to make the case for restricting it. |
I always find it interesting when we find a topic that makes an otherwise rational person go off the deep end. I've expressed my desire to examine whatever evidence might be available, and you've freaked out and decided that I want to restrict your rights. |
Yeah Dude, you're confused. I'm the one who wants to restrict your rights.
Dave is trying to figure out the cost/benefit ratio. I would define significant when the cost outweighs the benefit. Wouldn't you?
Dude:
Then compare the risk of accidental fatal shootings to the risk of accidental fatalities from motor vehicles.
Now justify your right to risk my life by driving your car. Get back to me when you figure that one out. |
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 05:18:49 [Permalink]
|
Seattle Mayor to make another effort to curb gun violence
Last updated June 7, 2008 3:53 p.m. PT
The accused gunman in the Folklife Festival shooting, Clinton Grainger, 22, carried a concealed pistol license, despite a history of mental illness that didn't meet the standard for denying his license application.
The Snohomish County resident has been charged in King County Superior Court with second-degree assault. Authorities say his gun fired as he tried to remove it from an ankle holster during a fight. A single bullet injured one man's nose, passed through another person's hand and lodged in a woman's leg, authorities said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366221_guns08.html
 |
Paul C. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 07:12:57 [Permalink]
|
B10 asked:
| How about a lockpick set? You don't think it's necessary to justify ownership of something that is primarily used for illicit activities? |
No. You can't equate posession of an item with the intent to use it for illegal purposes. What if I were a locksmith?
False analogy.
The fundamental difference between guns and your examples above is that guns are tools designed to more efficiently kill things. A car is a tool designed to more efficiently transport things, and so on. You are overlooking the fundamental function of the device. |
No, it isn't a false analogy. Kil decided to use "accidental shooting" as a reason why he is opposed to guns. The result he is worried about is actually "accidental death". Cars cause many more accidental deaths than guns. You are demonstrating prejudicial thinking and bias here.
Dave_W said:
| But the problem is that you have already asserted (and I've agreed) that firearms have no effect on crime rates, so a paper about crime victims' use of firearms is irrelevant, even if the authors had been able to tell us how many lives are saved that way. |
Right. So you have no grounds, at all, for supporting the banning of firearms. Nice cherry-pick from that journal article btw. Good work.
| I always find it interesting when we find a topic that makes an otherwise rational person go off the deep end. |
You really want to bring this down to the level of personal insult? I'll take that as an admission that you are incapable of responding to the points presented.
| You'd better move, then, because the laws we live under require you to justify your possession of nuclear weapons, dynamite, narcotics, pictures of naked children, etc., etc., etc. |
Wrong again! Those items have all had a reasonable case made against them, with reasons for restricting their ownership. If you can't grasp that...
It's great that you bring this up. My car enables me to provide food for my family. Does your gun? Sure, there are some trick-shooters and hunters who actually use firearms to provide tangible benefits (in terms of a salary or food), and those are some of the benefits I'd love to talk about if you could get off this "you want to restrict my rights" nonsense.
|
Blah blah blah Dave. Red herring. If you have some case to make, just make it. Who knows, maybe you have some convincing insigt on the subject? Based on what you have put forth so far I doubt it, but who knows.
See what I mean? You've gone completely off-the-rails crazy here. Comparing all vehicle fatalities to only accidental firearms deaths is apples-to-oranges, because some vehicle deaths are on purpose.
|
Ummm... what? (again, do you really want to engage in personal insults? I think you need to check yourself. As a moderator of this site you are setting a bad example. Hate to see you get some red text from Kil!)
Show me some stats on "on purpose" vehicle crash fatalities. I can see that there might be some, but the number isn't likely to be any significant fraction of the total fatal crash number.
My comparison to accidental firearms deaths is valid. We are looking at accidental deaths from two seperate sources. Kil said that accidental shooting is why (one reason) he disapproves of guns. In order to remain consistent he should be looking at the major cause of accidental death in the US (cars) and have something to say on the subject. Accidental death by guns in pracically insignificant by comparison, and there are ~192M privately owned guns in the US. Even with 247million vehicles in the US, the risk of accidental gun death is far less.
| If we're going to compare deaths by firearms to deaths by cars, lets find a metric that compares them fairly, and then try to figure out whether the benefits are also fair. |
Comparing how many people accidentally die from each source every year isn't fair? Really? Only if it goes against your case. Now, who was it you had accused of being "crazy" and "off the deep end" here?
B10 said:
| You're smarter than this, Dude. Go back to your legitimate argument of rights and constitutionality and drop the comparison of apples and oranges. |
_i_
Kil said:
Yeah Dude, you're confused. I'm the one who wants to restrict your rights.
|
Kil, there was a study out a while back that found ~100k preventable deaths a year in US hospitals, from mistakes, incompetence, and accidents. You, being and old, fat diabetic should be much more concerned with thiis issue than with the insignificant chance that you may be accidentally shot to death! And before Tim jumps in with "apples vs oranges": We are talking about the risk of accidental death. It is appropriate to evaluate the same risk from other sources as well, to determine the most efficient use of your time/energy to prevent as many accidental deaths as possible.
So, down with cars AND hospitals(until they get fixed anyway)!
Unless you have some case against guns that doesn't involve accidental deaths?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/28/2008 07:14:06 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 09:14:12 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
So, down with cars AND hospitals(until they get fixed anyway)! |
You are only looking at one side of the equation. For some reason you are refusing to look at the benefit side of this issue. When talking about accidental deaths and injury (another side step you did) you must consider all factors.
A hospital saved my life. My truck puts food on the table. There are risks involved but the benefits are clear and obvious. Sorry but you don't get to ignore that part as irrelevant when discussing accidental deaths or injury.
Again, when the cost outweighs the benefit, (the part of my last post that you have ignored) something should probably be done about it. The actual number of accidental deaths or injury is not relevant unless you look at the whole equation.
This is basic stuff Dude. Ignoring the benefit side of the equation is not logical. I have defined "significant" as it pertains to this discussion, as per your request, and you chose to ignore it. Please don't keep saying that I was only talking about the risk of accidents and so those are the only legitimate comparable figures. If you honestly believe that, I honestly believe that you read what you wanted to read in my reply and willfully missed the point completely.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
SCOTUS Hand Gun Decision
