The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4121 - 4140 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 7, 2014 - 07:37pm PT
What we DO know is that in the US there is a clear correlation between increasingly restrictive handgun laws and increased incidents of homicides by handgun.

very true

for example: Alaska, the state with the least restrictive gun laws has the highest rate of guns deaths per capita

example: Massachusetts, the state with the most restrictive gun laws, has the lowest rate of gun deaths per capita

thanks for pointing out that there is a clear correlation
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 7, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
Where are you getting those stats? What I see is that Alaska has one of the lowest gun-murder rates per capita. Cite your source(s).
couchmaster

climber
Jul 7, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
Anyone who is desiring gun control should be happy to move to Mexico, strict gun control in place for years. Sigh, if only they could get the criminals to co-operate. Of interest is the gun crime stats of Laredo Tx and right across the border. In the US, guns everywhere, and there is minimal gun crie. Oh - there is some. In Mexico, big gun control, BIGGER issues with all kinds of huge craziness entailing crime, often with guns and grenades. Lots of kidnappings by "authorities" and "police" preying on the population.

So move. Simple. But you will be unarmed and at the mercy of criminals and rogue police. Goodby Norton. Hable amigo?
scrubbing bubbles

Social climber
Uranus
Jul 7, 2014 - 08:43pm PT
Actually, you yet again reveal that you have no clue what you are talking about.

haha! madbolter1, I wish you luck in becoming the Wyatt Earp of your suburban hood, sounds like you have memorized all the NRA manuals for sure!!!

BUT, madbolter1, please describe in full detail all the armed confrontations and citizens arrests you have engaged in...if the list is not substantial, you have no real credibility


a few people in my family were lieutenant-level and watch-commander level police in the Inland Empire, one was high-level CHP brass, AND I truly believe the last thing they want in these counties are millions and millions of "citizen dorks" wearing open pistols on their belts and legal AKs strapped to their backs

they'd advise you instead to just take that Sig Sauer money and put it toward a home security system, and greatly increase your situational awareness of probable criminal threats

!!!
couchmaster

climber
Jul 7, 2014 - 08:50pm PT
Good advice from scrubbing bubbles although I have a soft spot for Sigs. Mr Bubbles said:
"... advise you instead to just take that Sig Sauer money and put it toward a home security system, and greatly increase your situational awareness of probable criminal threats"
.

And get a good safe too. A big one. LOL

johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 7, 2014 - 09:04pm PT
Would somebody please explain how ANY of the federally-proposed gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Would somebody please point out any current federally proposed gun control laws.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 7, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
Put your "odds" up against hundreds of millions of handguns owned and tens of millions carried, and I'd say that the "odds" are looking pretty good that you're gonna get hit by lightening many times before you're gonna shoot yourself or be shot by your own gun.

I'd say your odds of getting hit by your own gun are much higher then being hit by your own lightening bolt.

Nice comparison switch there.
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 7, 2014 - 09:33pm PT
I hope armed people understand they are far more likely to die from other things than some attack from an unknown assailant

Table B. Percentage of total deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 2010, percentage change in age-adjusted death
rates in 2010 from 2009, and ratio of age-adjusted death rates by race and sex for the 15 leading causes of death for the total
population in 2010: United States
[Crude death rates on an annual basis per 100,000 population; age-adjusted rates per 100,000 U.S. standard population. Rates are based on populations enumerated as of
April 1 for 2010 and estimated as of July 1 for 2009 using revised intercensal estimates. The asterisks preceding the cause-of-death codes indicate that they are not part of
the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD10), Second Edition; see Technical Notes. Race categories are consistent with the 1977 Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) standards]
Age-adjusted death rate
Percent
2010 change Ratio
Percent crude 2009 Male Black2
of total death to to to
Rank1 Cause of death (based on ICD10, 2004) Number deaths rate 2010 2010 female white
. . . All causes .................................. 2,468,435 100.0 799.5 747.0 0.3 1.4 1.2
1 Diseases of heart ................(I00I09,I1 1,I13,I20I51) 597,689 24.2 193.6 179.1 2.0 1.6 1.3
2 Malignant neoplasms ..................... (C00C97) 574,743 23.3 186.2 172.8 0.4 1.4 1.2
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases ............. (J40J47) 138,080 5.6 44.7 42.2 1.2 1.3 0.7
4 Cerebrovascular diseases ....................(I60I69) 129,476 5.2 41.9 39.1 1.3 1.0 1.4
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) ......... (V01X59,Y85Y86) 120,859 4.9 39.1 38.0 1.3 2.0 0.8
6 Alzheimers disease .........................(G30) 83,494 3.4 27.0 25.1 3.7 0.8 0.8
7 Diabetes mellitus ........................(E10E14) 69,071 2.8 22.4 20.8 1.0 1.4 2.0
8 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis .......(N00N07,
N17N19,N25N27) 50,476 2.0 16.3 15.3 1.3 1.4 2.1
9 Influenza and pneumonia ................... (J09J18) 50,097 2.0 16.2 15.1 8.5 1.4 1.1
10 Intentional self-harm (suicide) ........ (*U03,X60X84,Y87.0) 38,364 1.6 12.4 12.1 2.5 4.0 0.4
11 Septicemia ...........................(A40A41) 34,812 1.4 11.3 10.6 3.6 1.2 2.0
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis .......... (K70,K73K74) 31,903 1.3 10.3 9.4 3.3 2.1 0.7
13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal
disease ............................ (I10,I12,I15) 26,634 1.1 8.6 8.0 2.6 1.0 2.4
14 Parkinsons disease ..................... (G20G21) 22,032 0.9 7.1 6.8 4.6 2.3 0.4
15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids ............... (J69) 17,011 0.7 5.5 5.1 4.1 1.9 0.9
. . . All other causes ........................ (residual) 483,694 19.6 156.7 . . . . . . . . . . . .
...Category not applicable. 1
Rank based on number of deaths; see Technical Notes. 2
Multiple-race data were reported by 37 states and the District of Columbia in 2010. The multiple-race data for these reporting areas were bridged to the single-race categories of the 1977 OMB
standards for comparability with other reporting areas; see Technical Notes.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 7, 2014 - 11:03pm PT
I hope armed people understand they are far more likely to die from other things than some attack from an unknown assailant

I hope unarmed people understand that such a statistical list contains countless items that may not even apply to them.

Apparently death by HIV is very low on the list (doesn't appear in the section you quoted). Well, since there are SO many other things that are "more likely" to get you, by all means start practicing as much unsafe sex as you can.

Etc., etc.

Fallacy of accident (technical name, not applying to accidental death).

Statistics are SO fun.

How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?

Until somebody can produce some clear causal chains on that one, proposed gun laws are prima facie ineffective, and there is no reason to have yet more laws just to have more laws.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 7, 2014 - 11:11pm PT
How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?

If you have to ask, you'll never accept the answers.

I'm a gun owner. I have a shooting range on my property. But the NRA guns nuts are beyond reason. Their arguments as seen on this thread are a bunch of tripe designed to make them feel better about needing a gun to feel safe.

Shooting is fun once in a while but I'd much rather pick up my guitar and play.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 12:04am PT
If you have to ask, you'll never accept the answers.

Huh?

Are you serious?

I guess what you are saying is something like, "If you could just 'see' the magnificent 'truth' that is there for all (reasonable) people to just intuitively apprehend, you would not need to ask."

For myself, I do need to ask because not one single argument has ever been produced that I've seen (so help me) to explain HOW, say, background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you really think they are walking into gun store and going through any process?

Seriously, explain! Don't lamely punt.

And your psycho-babbling is just that. I guess you didn't read the passage from Jefferson's book I quoted above. By your lights, Jefferson was just another "NRA gun nut..." blah, blah, blah.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 8, 2014 - 01:49am PT
I guess what you are saying is something like, "If you could just 'see' the magnificent 'truth' that is there for all (reasonable) people to just intuitively apprehend, you would not need to ask."

For myself, I do need to ask because not one single argument has ever been produced that I've seen (so help me) to explain HOW, say, background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you really think they are walking into gun store and going through any process?

No, what I'm saying is you are just asking for example laws so you can shoot them down with a variety of fallacies. I think you don't really want to know what could work, you want to reinforce your beliefs.

Here how's this, requiring background checks at gun shows will keep criminals from easily buying guns at guns shows. To which you would argue but criminals could still purchase them through straw sales. Which is true, But making guns more difficult for criminals to buy will mean less guns in the hands of criminals. At the very least by simply making them more expensive on the black market. Of course you can't eliminate all the guns that are out there (nor would I want to) but we can and should take the reasonable steps to help reduce the numbers of the thousands of new guns being produced out of the hands of criminals.

You can't stop the hardcore criminals from getting a gun. But many shootings do happen or are made worse by relatively easy access to guns. The harder you make it for criminals and unstable people to get guns the less guns they will have and the less gun violence our country will be victim to. The idea that more guns means greater safety is completely ridiculous on its face to all except gun nuts.

I wonder if there is anyone out there that agrees with the NRA that doesn't own guns?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 8, 2014 - 01:55am PT
The Fet,

It's already illegal for a felon to even attend a gun show, access to firearms and all. Five years in the Federal Joint, if caught.

What's another extra added law going to do that can't be done right now with the laws already on the books?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 02:10am PT
I think you don't really want to know what could work, you want to reinforce your beliefs.

Now you're questioning my intellectual honesty, and at that point you lose all credibility in my mind. It's the lowest form of punt: "Well, you WON'T see the truth, so I won't be bothered to try to express it."

But then, you do go on to try....

Here how's this, requiring background checks at gun shows will keep criminals from easily buying guns at guns shows. To which you would argue but criminals could still purchase them through straw sales. Which is true, But making guns more difficult for criminals to buy will mean less guns in the hands of criminals.

And the rest of your claims make this same point in various ways, summed up this way....

The harder you make it for criminals and unstable people to get guns the less guns they will have and the less gun violence our country will be victim to.

And THIS is the point that seems so obvious to you but that is never argued for and is not obvious to people like me!

How did that line of logic work out for prohibition? How did that line of logic work out for the endless war on drugs?

I think that the feds have made it pretty darn hard to get hold of drugs, but has that reduced the incidence of drug use? Has it reduced the number of people in jail, who as soon as they get out go right back to the drugs? Has it accomplished ANYTHING of substance?

What people like you don't seem to ever tumble to is that when the feds declare a "war" on something, ALL that means is that the something will become more expensive but will still be ENTIRELY accessible to ANYBODY that wants the something. And the government will just spend more and more of MY money on yet another exercise in futility!

So, now you want a mini-war on guns. Make the more expensive and "harder to get." Seems obvious to YOU, but it is far, FAR from obvious to anybody who really assesses the government's effectiveness in its other efforts to stop or make inaccessible anything that people actually want.

Guns are NO different, and you even admit that criminals will get them. What you have not even begun to demonstrate is that fewer criminals will get fewer of them. And every "war on..." that the government has engaged in has proved that such "wars" can't even slow the flow!

So don't accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, when in fact I have very considered reasons for thinking that the whole prospect is yet another exercise in futility. And unless you can indicate why somebody should believe that the government is even CAPABLE of virtually shutting down the flow of guns into criminal and nut-job hands, the need of self-defense against gun-toting bad guys remains real and alive.

The idea that more guns means greater safety is completely ridiculous on its face to all except gun nuts.

Nobody is saying "more guns" in general terms. What people like me are saying is: More guns in the hands of law-abiding and well-trained citizens, with a public presence of same. That is not only not ridiculous on its face, there is a long history of belief in this deterrent that traces all the way back to the founders (again, see my quoted passage above).

I don't belong to the NRA and probably never will. I'm no "NRA gun nut." Nor do I think that "guns make me safe." NOTHING makes a person safe! But having a gun does provide a measured response to a certain sort of risk, and it's a relatively easy way to address that risk. Why wouldn't I do so?

You can try to paint all "NRA gun nuts" with the same brush and thereby oversimplify what is typically a fairly layered set of perspectives about the efficacy of governmental "wars" on anything. But I for one have exactly zero confidence that ANY slate of gun laws is going to have any significant effect on the criminal element. It's not "nutty" to be cynical about our government, particularly on subjects like this one!
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 03:32am PT
When guns are scrutinized, the gun crowd points to auto accidents, cancer deaths, etc. as statistically far more dangerous. When those statistics also bear out the irrelevancy of guns to real safety, they ignore the stats. Convenient truths, I suppose.

I'm not against responsible gun ownership, but, c'mon, just admit you like your toys and fantasy Bronson vigilante BS and take up some paint ball already!

Ending the war against drugs would probably do much more to take guns out of the hands of criminals than Citizen Dumbshit believing he's part of the posse armed with his glock and a side order of paranoia.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:40am PT
Put your "odds" up against hundreds of millions of handguns owned and tens of millions carried, and I'd say that the "odds" are looking pretty good that you're gonna get hit by lightening many times before you're gonna shoot yourself or be shot by your own gun.
That's a most curious claim.
I can only assume you'd had a few too many whiskies.

How many people shoot themselves in the US in a year?
We can start with about 4000 successful suicides. I'm not going to look it up for the umpteenth time, so find out yourself and correct me. That doesn't count the hundreds or more like two guys last week who made the news for shooting themselves in the groin and stomach while driving. Go figure.
And while you're at it, how many struck by lightning in the US? I'd truly like to know.
I personally know 4 people who've killed themselves with guns, two in the last 8 years. I personally know zero, none, zilch ever struck by lightning including climbers who get out in the stuff more than the average citizen.

Being struck by lightning is truly chance and bad luck, sometimes mixed with a little idiocy. Shooting yourself is you own friggin' stupidity and there's more than enough of that to go around.

And about Chicago's murder rate?
Yes, it's horrendous. How many of those guns are originally bought in Chicago? A small number, it's illegal. They're mostly brought in from outside the city. Or from the gun shops in NRA friendly Indiana and Missouri. Or stolen from other gun owners.

80 something people shot in Chicago last weekend and 14 or more dead. Let's assume 1/2 of it was gang shootings. Don't you suppose a large number of the shot gangbangers were also carrying? Did them a lot of good eh?
Again, be my guest and look it up. There are plenty of us anti-gun liberal pinko socialist do-gooders keeping track and posting on the internet.
7SacredPools

Trad climber
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:16am PT
No doubt carrying a gun around makes some people feel safe.
For others, it is a power trip, and for a few it is something beyond even that.

Taking firearm safety courses at a gun club to acquire my FAC (Firearm Aquisition Permit) I witnessed the expression on the faces of some of the guys when handling a big gun. It can be best described as "orgasmic." To each his own I guess.

Back to my point...while carrying a gun around might make someone feel safe personally, it has the opposite effect on society. Of course we are talking America here, land of the individual not necessarily concerned with the common good.

The vast majority of the world gets along well enough that it doesn't feel the need to carry a gun and looks upon those that do as dangerous freaks.
It would behoove people that promote such anti-social behavior to get out and travel a bit. But perhaps not having the ability to shoot a potential aggressor in the face is just too terrifying.

GR
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:18am PT
And THIS is the point that seems so obvious to you but that is never argued for and is not obvious to people like me!

How did that line of logic work out for prohibition? How did that line of logic work out for the endless war on drugs?

When a crazy person bursts into a school room and starts injecting overdoses of heroin into all the kids, I'll accept that argument.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:59am PT
Ron, seriously, I'd hate to live in your world.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:53am PT
stopped a party of litter bugs on the river near me that also had gang tatoos making them pick up the trash they had just deposited on MY clean river bank.

well then eco-warrior. good thing you had a gun. carry on.
Messages 4121 - 4140 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews