|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2008 : 10:19:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Right. So you have no grounds, at all, for supporting the banning of firearms. |
Complete non-sequitor.| Nice cherry-pick from that journal article btw. Good work. |
The article was about the defensive use of guns by victims of crimes, and the authors say, in no uncertain terms, that they have no idea how much benefit derives from such actions, which you have asserted are irrelevant, anyway. That's cherry picking?| You really want to bring this down to the level of personal insult? |
You made it personal by irrationally deciding that I support the banning of firearms. That you are insulted by the fact that your arguments are clearly irrational is not something I can do anything about.| I'll take that as an admission that you are incapable of responding to the points presented. |
Massive irony, there.| 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... |
What you can't seem to grasp is that you argued against having to justify your possession of "any inanimate object" (my bold). Having a reasonable basis for banning any particular object means that you would have to justify your ownership of it. You indicated that you feel that banning "any inanimate object" is such a horrible thing to do you would have to leave the country, but my point is that we make such bans all the time. Owning child porn was a person's right until laws were passed prohibiting it. Possession and use of heroin was a person's right until we made it illegal.Yes, that is the acme of rational discussion and responding to the points presented.You've been throwing lots of red herrings around, I agree.| 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. |
Perhaps you missed the part where I said that I'm interested in discussing the data. Your inability to think rationally about this subject has twisted those clear words into a perception on your part that I wish to make a case for banning firearms, and so you ask me to support such a position even though I haven't expressed such a position. And when I fail to make a case that I never intended to make, you will irrationally declare victory.| 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!) |
Complete deflection, and continuance of attempting to play the victim.| 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. |
I don't give a hoot what you think is likely, Dude, no more than you (appropriately) care about my hunches as to what might or might not be true.| My comparison to accidental firearms deaths is valid. We are looking at accidental deaths from two seperate sources. |
You go ahead and look at that. I'd prefer to discuss the whole benefit/risk ratio of firearms ownership. If you would prefer to not engage in such a discussion, that would be fine, but you should also stop insisting that I make a case I never wanted to make.| ...there are ~192M privately owned guns in the US. |
That number seems awfully low. It would mean that nearly 100 million guns have been taken out of private hands in the last ten years.| Comparing how many people accidentally die from each source every year isn't fair? Really? |
Not when I'm talking about overall benefit/risk ratios, no.| Only if it goes against your case. |
You must mean the fictional case that you dreamt up.| Now, who was it you had accused of being "crazy" and "off the deep end" here? |
You, obviously. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 12:48:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
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? |
That's why I had linked to the section of wikipedia that discussed regulation and legality of lockpick ownership. Did you read it?
A lockpick set is used to open locks for which one doesn't have a key. This is generally considered an illicit activity.
A gun is used to kill or severely injure people and other animals. For both a lockpick set and a gun, certain restrictions and regulations exist governing their ownership. If you are a locksmith, you can own a lockpick. If you are a member of a well-regulated militia, you can own a gun. There is, of course, more to it than that, but this is the general principle.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. |
I don't think I can explain this any better than Dave W. or Kil did, but I'll try anyway:
Cars aren't designed to kill people. Guns are. Any comparison you attempt to make fails that simple test. If you want to make a risk assessment, you have to consider the benefit as well.Dave_W said:
.
.
.
| 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... |
And Dave W. is trying to find evidence to decide if there is a case for restricting gun ownership. Why the hostility, Dude? Do you have a personal stake in this matter?
On second thought, I suppose we all have a personal stake in this matter, eh? Some people want the freedom to own a tool that can be used for sport and for self defense, and others want the freedom to not get accidentally shot. It's a tough argument for either side.| 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. |
You're probably right. The number of accidental vehicular injuries and fatalities is likely to far outweigh the number of intentional vehicular injuries and fatalities. What's your point?| My comparison to accidental firearms deaths is valid. We are looking at accidental deaths from two sepera |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 16:51:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| What you can't seem to grasp is that you argued against having to justify your possession of "any inanimate object" (my bold). Having a reasonable basis for banning any particular object means that you would have to justify your ownership of it. You indicated that you feel that banning "any inanimate object" is such a horrible thing to do you would have to leave the country, but my point is that we make such bans all the time. Owning child porn was a person's right until laws were passed prohibiting it. Possession and use of heroin was a person's right until we made it illegal. |
My bolding.
This is a point we are not going to agree on. The default position for ownership of any inanimate object is that I can own one. In order to restrict that right you must present a case that demonstrates ownership of the object in question should be restricted.
You keep saying that you want to "discuss" the risk/benefit of personal firearms ownership, but you have yet to initiate that discussion. Don't ask me to do a risk/benefit analysis... that is your task at this point, if you actually intend to hold this discussion.
And seriously, you need to scale back your tone. I have not offered you a single insult (beyond sarcasm) in this thread, yet you have tossed off a handful and are apparently unapologetic. Get ahold of yourself.
B10 said:
| If you are a member of a well-regulated militia, you can own a gun. There is, of course, more to it than that, but this is the general principle. |
This is easily dealt with. Every citizen is a member of the militia. When the constitution was drafted, and the bill of rights added, the second ammendment was plainly about the right of personal gun ownership. Yes, the organization of the militia has changed today, as has the technology of warfare, but the second was and is all about private gun ownership.
And Dave W. is trying to find evidence to decide if there is a case for restricting gun ownership. Why the hostility, Dude? Do you have a personal stake in this matter?
|
Because Dave_W is being an ass. Talk to him about that.
| You can't compare the number of items to the number of deaths. To make a more valid comparison (but still flawed, for my above stated reason), you have to compare the use of each item to the number of fatalities. |
Nonsense.
Your comparison only works if the two objects had similar function and method of use. With different object (guns vs cars) the only comparison you can make here is the total number of accidental deaths vs the number of those objects.
I'll grant you it isn't a very good comparison, but it was intended more for sarcasm (and to demonstrate the stupidity of Kil's argument) than anything else. Same for the hospital thing.
800 accidental deaths a year is a very low number. For Kil to feel he is at risk of accidentally being shot to death... or to attempt to use that in a discussion on this topic, shows that he doesn't have any valid point. He is 47 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than accidentally shot to death.
Dave_W said:
| That number seems awfully low. It would mean that nearly 100 million guns have been taken out of private hands in the last ten years. |
Ok, ~292million privately owned guns.
So more guns than cars. Awesome.
That just solidifies my point. If Kil has this irrational fear of accidentally b |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2008 : 19:44:37 [Permalink]
|
[sarcasm]Dude:
My guns put food on my table as well. |
Ahhhh. I didn't know that you're a gun dealer. Or do you regularly hunt with a handgun? How many meals a week does hunting with a handgun provide for you? 3? 5? A rough estimate will do...
Of course, you know that banning motor vehicles would result in the crash of our economy, probably within a day of the ban. Closing the hospitals would make the current health care crisis look like the good old days.
How would strict handgun control effect us? I mean besides making Dude unhappy and a little less free? (But not nearly as less free at the Patriot Act made you.)
What's a few deaths when compared with Dude's happiness freedom?
I know. Stupid argument. What we need are figures.
Note: I just threw that Patriot Act thing in because Dude didn't pack up and move to another country over it. Generally speaking, it has nothing to do with this debate and is really just a red herring. Such is my stupidity. [/sarcasm]
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 20:51:49 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| What's a few deaths when compared with Dude's happiness freedom? |
Lets weigh 37K+ lives every year vs the convenience that private transportation affords you. The system of private transportation could be replaced by commercial only transport, mass transit and bicycles for people to get to and from work, expert and highly trained drivers to move materials around (including your construction materials), etc. We could easily accomplish such a thing with time and money.
It could prevent fourty thousand accidental deaths every year! But fuck it, what are a few deaths when compared to making your job a little easier? Lets leave out the harm your vehicle does to the environment...
To answer your question about how many meals my guns provide... it varies. Some years it could be a meal a day. Wild boar in Florida are a pest animal, they can be hunted as often as any hunter wants to put in the effort. The primary weapon used for hunting them is a handgun (.45 Winchester Magnum in my case). I have hunted them with a bow, but the situation often ends up being close quarters. A large handgun is best. In IL, where my father lives, we hunt deer, ducks, and geese in the winter, turkey in the spring, and rabbit and squirrel when they are in season. These are not killed with handguns typically, though there is a handgun season for deer (thats a challenging hunt). Its very rare that more than a few days go by without some wild game on the menu. My dad is from a very very poor family. Growing up he and his dad and brothers hunting was a primary food source for the family, along with an extensive garden (enough to can produce to last through the winter) and the gift of a hog from the farmer my grandfather worked for.
And fuck... if gas prices hit $6/gallon (as i heard an analyst say they could by december this year), my guns will be seeing a lot more action in the field. Can't afford food prices to keep rising by 5% every year because of the increased cost of transporting it around.
So really Kil, do you have anything other than that ridiculous emotional appeal? Can you make an evidence based case for restricting gun ownership?
|
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 21:19:30 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I just want to look at the whole question. If you don't want to be a part of that, then don't be. But if a case - built by following the evidence - can be made in favor of private gun ownership, then I'll be arguing just such a case in the future. If a case can be made against it, then there is where my tentative conclusion will be. Right now, I simply don't know. And the fact that there is a Constitutional Amendment protecting firearms rights doesn't mean that there ought to be such rights. I would simply like to find out.
You, obviously, have a hard time believing me, and your inability to grant the premise - even for the sake of discussion - that I do not want to strip you of your rights is where your own insulting behavior began, and apparently it's still flowing ("Get ahold of yourself" and "ffs" being two examples). You made this personal, Dude, and you continue to keep it personal and insulting, all the while playing at being the victim of mean ol' Dave. It's not credible.
And the default legal position is for ownership of any particular item. I have no idea why you say we cannot agree on when you're saying exactly the same thing that I said. Banned items are banned for a reason. After a ban is in place, ownership must be justified. But does that mean that we cannot discuss such justification anyway, on a skeptical (not legal) basis, whether a ban is in place or not? Since it is currently legal to own a sofabed, we shouldn't ever discuss the pros and cons of sofabed ownership? (I've gotta say, if I knew then what I know now about sofabeds, I probably would have avoided buying one, let alone the two I have.)
Apparently, as far as you're concerned, it means exactly that. You're not being forced by law to justify gun ownership, so therefore you refuse to do so. So be it. That was all you had to say - you didn't need to go off on me with your strawman attacks. You're not the sole source of firearm statistics, nor are you the only person here who can speak from personal experience on the benefits of gun ownership. The idea that you (specifically you) were being asked to make a case for gun ownership is, frankly, baffling. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 21:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
So is a bow/arrow. You want to restrict those too? |
It's funny you mention this, 'cause here in Virginia bows can only be used if you're a hunter or a part of an archery club, at an approved range. Practicing in your backyard for either activity? Strictly prohibited. Hell, it's even "unlawful to discharge an arrow in a manner that can be reasonably expected to result in the impact of the arrow upon the property of another without permission from the owner, fee holder, or tenant."
There is no blade-length limit for knives in Virginia, though. One can legally stroll down the street with a zweihander. Go figure. |
- 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 : 21:37:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
So really Kil, do you have anything other than that ridiculous emotional appeal? |
Nope. Not really.
Nice story...
By the way, it would be impossible to do home remodeling using the scenario you describe. It's not a matter of convenience. I simply couldn't do it. I move tools, materials and myself sometimes to more than one job site everyday. Yesterday, for example, I had a meeting in Topanga in the morning and then had to finish a job in Seal Beach, pack my tools and bring them home for the job in Topanga that I will start on Monday. I drove nearly 90 miles yesterday in order to accomplish that. I would have to have a publicly provided chauffeur with a truck if I didn't do the driving.
Might work with major jobs like high-rise construction because there is much less moving around. But I doubt it... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 23:38:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| You, obviously, have a hard time believing me, and your inability to grant the premise - even for the sake of discussion - that I do not want to strip you of your rights |
 Seriously....
I get it! I said it, I though, quite clearly.
I have yet to hear anything that resembles an argument for banning guns from any of you (yes yes Dave_W, I understand that you aren't trying to make that argument...ffs).
|
Dave_W said:
| Dude, I just want to look at the whole question. If you don't want to be a part of that, then don't be. |
I'm more than willing to look at whatever you have to say on the subject, as long as it isn't "Dude is off the deep end and riding the crazy train!" I'm not sure any data out there is adequate (read neutral/objective and comprehensive enough) to the task of even a casual discussion of risk vs benefit for personal gun ownership.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 23:45:15 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
Nothin but the truth. My dad's family was seriously dirt poor in the 50s. Hell, he was the first person in his family to get a HS diploma. Serious rednecks!
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 06:29:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
To answer your question about how many meals my guns provide... it varies. Some years it could be a meal a day. Wild boar in Florida are a pest animal, they can be hunted as often as any hunter wants to put in the effort.
|
You do have justification for gun ownership. A general ban on guns will not affect you, since any reasonable ban would include a licence for a justified reason of owning one. Such as hunting.
In Sweden, anyone is allowed to practise at firing ranges in clubs, but to get in order to get a licence to own a gun you have to show you are proficient with it, and keep it locked up. But then, death by gun is much lower in Sweden than in the US. We have a completely different culture.
Of all situations I've heard about in Swedish news where there have been violence against a person, not once would carrying a gun have made a difference. By the time the situation escalated to personal threat, there would not have been time to use it. And flashing it would only have made the situation worse by forcing the criminal to act more rashly to defend his or their lives (regardless of the legality of the criminal's acts. It's self-preservation that kicks in).
This is why Norwegian police are rarely armed: by packing firearms, the threat level is increased to create balance. A balance that a criminal isn't comfortable with. For a burglar, stealth in the night is an advantage. By offsetting his advantage by increasing the threat level to the criminal by owning a gun, he'd need a gun too to again tip the field to his advantage. The end result is an escalation of the potential of lethal violence.
As for my views on gun control:
There are too many morons and idiots in the world. People who wouldn't be responsible gun owners. With cars, you have proficiency test to show that you are qualified for handling it (though unfortunately not using it responsibly, and there aren't enough control of unsafe users but that's another discussion). A general ban on guns, with a practise of granting licence to people who know how to handle the gun correctly (with proficiency tests, including knowledge about legislation) seems to me like a good idea.
Sweden does not have any constitutional rights to own firearms like USA has, and I'm not an American Constitutional lawyer, so I cannot say what is right or wrong from an American perspective. I just think that a strict gun control seems reasonable.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 08:39:51 [Permalink]
|
Dr Mab said:
But then, death by gun is much lower in Sweden than in the US. We have a completely different culture.
|
When you take guns away from people... obviously the "death by gun" rate will go down.
To bad that your "death by person" rate is still comparable to that of all the other western democracies, in the 3-5/100,000 range.
You guys just use different tools to get the job done!
So your restriction of guns has had no effect. It was a pointless waste of time, taxpayer money, and a needless restriction on your freedoms. Good job.
A general ban on guns, with a practise of granting licence to people who know how to handle the gun correctly (with proficiency tests, including knowledge about legislation) seems to me like a good idea.
|
I am not opposed to background checks, mental health record checks, and requiring people to be proficient with firearms operation and safety (and proving it by passing a test).
|
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 12:46:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I'm more than willing to look at whatever you have to say on the subject... |
Yes, thank you for once again saying that you have no intention of helping to answer the question I'm interested in.| I'm not sure any data out there is adequate (read neutral/objective and comprehensive enough) to the task of even a casual discussion of risk vs benefit for personal gun ownership. |
Thank you for saying that you think it may be impossible to answer the question.
You also said:| To bad that your "death by person" rate is still comparable to that of all the other western democracies, in the 3-5/100,000 range. |
This report says Sweden's homicide rate was at 1.94 and the USA was at 6.26 per 100K (from 1997 to 99). The only Western democracy within the 3-5 range was Northern Ireland at 3.13. Estonia, Russia, the US and South Africa were all well above that range, while all other European countries (except N. Ireland) were below it (and the EU member states' average was 1.7).
The trend is followed by individual cities:Stockholm: 2.67
New York City: 9.38
Washinton, D.C.: 50.82 |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 20:40:59 [Permalink]
|
By the way, here is what I would think would be a fair metric for comparing accidental deaths: deaths per amount of use. For example, we have good data that the average American spends 24.3 minutes per day commuting. Given a 47.21-to-1 ratio of vehicle deaths to accidental gun deaths, then if gun owners spend less than 30.88 seconds per day using their guns (on average) it could be shown that on a per-hour basis, gun use is more deadly than car use. If gun owners spend more than 30.88 seconds per day using their gun, then firearms would be more safe on an actual usage basis.
30.88 seconds per day is about three hours and eight minutes per year.
This metric eliminates several problems of raw numbers comparisons, and also biases the comparison in favor of guns (because fatal vehicular accidents include big rigs crashing into cars, but big rigs aren't included in the 297 million registered private vehicles - and also because the time spent commuting doesn't include trips to the store or "let's go driving" Sundays). I'd consider that acceptable if "time spent using a gun" only includes hunting, range practice and competitive shooting, because such a number will eliminate all registered guns that do nothing but sit in collections or in a shoebox in the closet (the ones that are never used and so unfairly crank the number-of-guns/accidental-deaths ratio upwards).
Of course, that's where we run into problems. I can find statistics on the average length of a bear hunt using dogs in Virginia, or the average time a Native American in Wisconsin spends fishing, or the average time a New Guinea native spends hunting for food. I can't find anything on the average time spent hunting in general. Perhaps someone else might have better luck with Google keywords than I. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
SCOTUS Hand Gun Decision
