Can we intelligently discuss civilian gun ownership?

[Master Gunner]

One more thing, on the whole gun = tool discussion? That's 100% NRA bullshit. Yes, a gun is a tool, but its primary (and only) function is to administer injury and death at range. We don't outlaw cars when they kill people because when a car functions correctly it transports persons and goods all over the world. We don't outlaw sports equipment when it's used to kill someone because when it functions correctly there is competition and mirth. Those deaths are caused by misuse or malfunction of those tools. When a firearm functions correctly, people die. It's that simple. So if you say "a gun's just a tool" in defense of weapon ownership, you too are a tool.

We're all fully aware that the primary and majority use of a firearm is to injure or kill someone. My point is that they do have other uses that do have to be taken into consideration when forming policy that effects those uses, and the principles behind firearms and the technology used in them and their manufacture have even more uses elsewhere, which just adds to the difficulty of eliminating black-market manufacture and trade of guns.

[Theremin]

Well, I highly doubt anyone's protesting over the control of grappling hooks or flare guns.

[Tetsubo]

Gun laws only apply to the law abiding. The type of people you can trust to own firearms. A criminal is not going to be stopped, not even slowed down, by firearm bans. If a criminal is willing to harm another to achieve their goal, breaking one additional law is trivial. So long as there is a single firearm in the world, I want in *MY* hand. I fully endorse a legal requirement for every adult American to own and maintain a long-arm and a sidearm. If I had more disposable income, I would own more firearms.

[sdhonda]

Gun laws only apply to the law abiding. The type of people you can trust to own firearms. A criminal is not going to be stopped, not even slowed down, by firearm bans. If a criminal is willing to harm another to achieve their goal, breaking one additional law is trivial. So long as there is a single firearm in the world, I want in *MY* hand. I fully endorse a legal requirement for every adult American to own and maintain a long-arm and a sidearm. If I had more disposable income, I would own more firearms.

Sorry, that's just too simplistic to be worthy of consideration.

[Matt]

Tetsubo: I'm pretty sure I've dismanteld that specific argument in this thread already.

-m

[sdhonda]

So, if there was gun control in place, there would be no way for guns to get into the hands of criminals?

[Cybren]

Matts argument isn't that it will be impossible for criminals to get, only that it would be more difficult for criminals go get, and that if a criminal couldn't easily get a hold of a firearm, it would make fewer petty crimes escalate to violent crime.

[sdhonda]

And those few who do end up victims of gun crimes are SOL then?

[Matt]

If someone's got a gun on you, you're already SOL. Guns only work as deterrent (a highly questionable conclusion in itself), or if you get the drop on someone. They are not defensive weapons.


-m

[Tetsubo]

Sometimes simple is the answer. I know this is a complex problem. But if I could make every gun on the planet disappear and every manufacturing device to make guns disappear, new guns would appear within hours. Hours. It isn't that hard to make a firearm that is capable of killing a fellow human being. It isn't that hard to make a firearm, with simple power tools, that will waltz right through a metal detector.

Not to mention all of the killing that took place prior to the age of gunpowder. Or the massacres that took place in Nigeria without any firearms at all. Machetes are horrifyingly efficient.

There is no 'solution' to this problem without magic. And without magic the least worst solution is to allow the law abiding access to firearms.

[Theremin]

Yeah, a machete can kill lots of people very quickly.

Completely unlike a firearm.

Clearly the fact that the magical abscence of guns wouldn't single-handedly put a stop to all human killing is a compelling argument.

[Matt]

Sometimes simple is the answer. I know this is a complex problem. But if I could make every gun on the planet disappear and every manufacturing device to make guns disappear, new guns would appear within hours. Hours. It isn't that hard to make a firearm that is capable of killing a fellow human being. It isn't that hard to make a firearm, with simple power tools, that will waltz right through a metal detector.

Not to mention all of the killing that took place prior to the age of gunpowder. Or the massacres that took place in Nigeria without any firearms at all. Machetes are horrifyingly efficient.

There is no 'solution' to this problem without magic. And without magic the least worst solution is to allow the law abiding access to firearms.

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

in other words, the USA is not the world, while it may sometimes seem like it, and most everywhere else, gun crime is not a wirdespread and common problem. and where it is, it is typically only so in situations where private gun ownership wouldn't do anything to stop it.

-m

[Tetsubo]

Yeah, a machete can kill lots of people very quickly.

Completely unlike a firearm.

Clearly the fact that the magical abscence of guns wouldn't single-handedly put a stop to all human killing is a compelling argument.

Within every category of tool there will be those of lesser or greater efficiency. Firearms are admittedly more efficient at killing people than machetes. I'm just not sure if that ss an argument for or against them.

Regardless. There is no way to stop the existence of firearms. So, what do we do? In a very practical, where the rubber meets the road sort of a situation? Banning won't stop it. It just puts them into the hands of people who are already willing to break the law. So, what do we do?

I argue that you put them in the hands of the law abiding. Obviously others disagree. I just don't see many practical alternatives.

[MattAn]

Again, ideally responsible gun ownership would avoid this, but how do you maintain, measure and enforce it effectively?

That's called negligent homicide in most jurisdictions. It's already a criminal offense.

Another thing, not one other country other than the United States of America has "the right to bear arms" or whatever other absolutely absurd amendments that you guys seem to have. Has anyone else ever though that it doesn't mean "YOU MUST HAVE A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF, MAN. IT'S THE LAW!"
No, you're a twat if you believe that.

I don't know what you're saying. No one thinks that. Because it doesn't say that. That's just dumb.

The military protects their country for a reason. They have every right to carry weapons. Mr. J.T Winterbottom from 72 Ballsdeep Lane should not. It's more of a figure of speech, not a BLATANT FACT. You have the right to protect yourself, but if you're carrying a weapon, intending to cause harm, whether you're defending yourself/family/etc or not, you're just as much of a tool as the one who's trying to kill you.

The military does not protect the population (nor do the police, whose primary function is one that occurs after a crime. Also: the US supreme court are jerks and ruled that a police officer has no requirement to put himself in harms way to protect a civilian). The military might serve as a deterrent against foreign aggressors, (as police might serve as a deterrent against crime), but that is not the reason they exist- that would be to carry out the will of the politicians.

Okay, I read your post, I understand your facts.. But it leads me to one assumption that I've felt for a long time. America is a complete wankstain on society o.O No wonder I <3 Canada more. >.>

As Matt stated, pretty much every other country aside the US has basically outlawed guns. They're illegal to have them in possession. It's punishable by arrest and everything. Even replica ones that are spotted by police here in Australia.. If they even -look- like a real weapon that can cause bodily harm, you're going straight to hell, fast.

Emphasis on the America is the only country in the world (yes, other countries exist too! O:) that allows civilians to readily carry guns around like they're toys or "protection".

It's pathetic. Really.

[Tetsubo]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

in other words, the USA is not the world, while it may sometimes seem like it, and most everywhere else, gun crime is not a wirdespread and common problem. and where it is, it is typically only so in situations where private gun ownership wouldn't do anything to stop it.

-m[/quote]

*shrug*

In a world without private gun ownership I would feel less safe than in a world with private gun ownership. Not to mention, I would be conceding even further power to my government. I'm not comfortable with that.

[Friend]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

Gun crimes may have gone down. Violent crimes do not. A violent person will use a knife, baseball bat or a steal-toed boot. And with US citizens owning the most guns ever in US history, overall crime is at a 30 year low.

One more thing to think about.

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

[Matt]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

in other words, the USA is not the world, while it may sometimes seem like it, and most everywhere else, gun crime is not a wirdespread and common problem. and where it is, it is typically only so in situations where private gun ownership wouldn't do anything to stop it.

-m

*shrug*

In a world without private gun ownership I would feel less safe than in a world with private gun ownership. Not to mention, I would be conceding even further power to my government. I'm not comfortable with that.

You live in a world with largely restricted private gun ownership. You live in a nation that is very lax about it.

Among the western world, The US is unique in it's willingness to let it's citizens arm themselves, and it is subsequently unique in the extent to wich gun violence is a problem.


-m

[Matt]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

Gun crimes may have gone down. Violent crimes do not. A violent person will use a knife, baseball bat or a steal-toed boot. And with US citizens owning the most guns ever in US history, overall crime is at a 30 year low.

One more thing to think about.

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

That is possibly the weakest argument I've seen yet.

-m

[Theremin]

Yeah, a machete can kill lots of people very quickly.

Completely unlike a firearm.

Clearly the fact that the magical abscence of guns wouldn't single-handedly put a stop to all human killing is a compelling argument.

Within every category of tool there will be those of lesser or greater efficiency. Firearms are admittedly more efficient at killing people than machetes. I'm just not sure if that ss an argument for or against them.

Regardless. There is no way to stop the existence of firearms. So, what do we do? In a very practical, where the rubber meets the road sort of a situation? Banning won't stop it. It just puts them into the hands of people who are already willing to break the law. So, what do we do?

I argue that you put them in the hands of the law abiding. Obviously others disagree. I just don't see many practical alternatives.

It's an argument against...because killing people is bad...and being able to kill people more efficiently isn't a good thing.

And, yeah. Wrong. Banning guns doesn't automatically leave a polpulation defenceless, and doesn't mean that every criminal is going to have one.

Citation: Europe.

[Master Gunner]

Not to mention, I would be conceding even further power to my government. I'm not comfortable with that.

I've always wondered, why? Say you trust your neighbor, maybe not with your life, but say to tell you when someone tries to break into your house, and if you're not available, to call the police to stop them. What makes you suddenly stop trusting this person to help you out once you elect him to represent you? Why do you distrust your government so much, especially compared to corporations (not necessarily in your case, but I know many who do trust corporations over the government)?

[Tetsubo]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

in other words, the USA is not the world, while it may sometimes seem like it, and most everywhere else, gun crime is not a wirdespread and common problem. and where it is, it is typically only so in situations where private gun ownership wouldn't do anything to stop it.

-m

*shrug*

In a world without private gun ownership I would feel less safe than in a world with private gun ownership. Not to mention, I would be conceding even further power to my government. I'm not comfortable with that.

You live in a world with largely restricted private gun ownership. You live in a nation that is very lax about it.

Among the western world, The US is unique in it's willingness to let it's citizens arm themselves, and it is subsequently unique in the extent to wich gun violence is a problem.


-m

And I would not want to live in any of those other nations. Private gun ownership being one of the primary reasons. You still haven't presented a solution to what you perceive as a problem. What do you do about tens of millions of guns in private hands? What do you do with a criminal element that will not be stopped by bans? What do you do about the ease with which guns can be manufactured?

[Theremin]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

Gun crimes may have gone down. Violent crimes do not. A violent person will use a knife, baseball bat or a steal-toed boot. And with US citizens owning the most guns ever in US history, overall crime is at a 30 year low.

One more thing to think about.

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

That is possibly the weakest argument I've seen yet.

-m

Did....did he just say that being seen by a doctor is just as dangerous as owning a gun?

Did he just compare a service whose role it is to keep people alive with the owning of an instrument specifically designed to make people dead.

One heals. One kills. And he's saying that the healer is more dangerous. And that such a comparison is valid. Huh.

So, that's a clever and well-reasoned argument.

Bravura, even.

[Friend]

Except that every other westernized nation on eath clearly demonstrate the opposite, with lower rates of gun ownership correlating with lower rates of gun crime. And typically lower rates of violent crime overall.

Gun crimes may have gone down. Violent crimes do not. A violent person will use a knife, baseball bat or a steal-toed boot. And with US citizens owning the most guns ever in US history, overall crime is at a 30 year low.

One more thing to think about.

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

That is possibly the weakest argument I've seen yet.

-m

Oh sorry. You led me to believe we were just spouting off random bullshit.

[Tetsubo]

Not to mention, I would be conceding even further power to my government. I'm not comfortable with that.

I've always wondered, why? Say you trust your neighbor, maybe not with your life, but say to tell you when someone tries to break into your house, and if you're not available, to call the police to stop them. What makes you suddenly stop trusting this person to help you out once you elect him to represent you? Why do you distrust your government so much, especially compared to corporations (not necessarily in your case, but I know many who do trust corporations over the government)?

I trust corporations far less than my government. But corporations don't have armies. And frankly I don't really trust my neighbors. I don't know their names. I would probably not recognize them in a crowd. I would not hesitate to offer them aid. But that doesn't mean I would be willing to surrender my firearms too them. Not to mention the sentimental attachment.

[Tetsubo]

Did....did he just say that being seen by a doctor is just as dangerous as owning a gun?

Did he just compare a service whose role it is to keep people alive with the owning of an instrument specifically designed to make people dead.

One heals. One kills. And he's saying that the healer is more dangerous. And that such a comparison is valid. Huh.

So, that's a clever and well-reasoned argument.

Bravura, even.[/quote]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.