Gun control in the USA

Waking-Dreams · 03-01-2013 01:10PM

Anyone see the latest Sam Harris blog post?

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Belfast · 03-01-2013 05:02PM

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Anyone see the latest Sam Harris blog post?

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

He makes good points in his Blog.

equivariant · 04-01-2013 03:31PM

Belfast wrote: »

He makes good points in his Blog.

On the contrary, I think that this article is an apalling mess of faulty logic. I mean look carefully at the article. Does he actually (intentionally, at least) make any point at all. It mostly consists of some misuse of statistcs to vaguely hint that gun violence ifs not a big problem in the US. For example, he says

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child’s dying in a school shooting are remote.

Oh please. This is utterly ridiculous. Lets apply the same logic to the 9/11 attacks. So 100 million (I made that up but it can't be far wrong) Americans went to work on the day that 3000 died in the 9/11 attacks, so even in the US, the chances of ... blah, blah. blah. You see - utter rubbish

There is also some general sneering at gun control advocates. FOor example, referring to the NY Times article, he says

The phrase “designed to kill people as quickly as possible” should tell us everything we need to know about the author’s grasp of the issue. The entire editorial is worth reading, in fact, because it makes the NRA’s response to Newtown seem enlightened by comparison.

Perhaps, he would be better off explaining why he thinks that the writer has a poor grasp of the issue, rather than just claiming that it is self evident (it is not self evident to this reader)

And then he has this beauty

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.

How dumb is this argument? A world with guns is one where the "aggressive men" have the means to wreak even more havoc. This point is so bloody obvious, yet it seems to be a blind spot for all the gun culture fans out there. It is not only the "good guys" (copyright NRA) who can train with a weapon. The bad guys are just as likely (more in fact) to get lots of training and experience with lethal weapons (Mr. Lansa was trained in the use of the weapons that his mother posessed). The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is NOT a good guy with a gun - that has at best a 50-50 chance and probably much less as the bad guy will probably be better trained and will probably be more determined and more desperate to inflict lethal harm. The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to stop him getting a gun.

Sertus · 04-01-2013 11:25PM

Funny most the the atrocities involving firearms have been carried out with 'Good Guy' legally obtained weapons. They're all 'Good Guy's' until the 'Good Guy' with the legally obtained weapons and a grudge shows up at a kids schools and starts shooting children in the face.

A legally obtained gun does not make a person a 'Good Guy'

'Good Guys' - What a feeble attempt at brainwashing propaganda

Witcher · 04-01-2013 11:45PM

Always found it amusing that in the US you have to send off forms to the BATFE and pay $200 to own a suppressor but the rifle it goes on is much easier to get. Can't think of anywhere else that it's harder to buy a suppressor than the actual rifle.

Obliq · 08-01-2013 11:32AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/08/piersmorgan-gun-control

"Deport Piers Morgan founder rants in face of his nemesis
Alex Jones drowns out CNN presenter with on-air tirade about '1776 commencing again' and Britain being a 'police state' "

Thought this thread would be the right place for this hilarious CNN report!

Penn · 08-01-2013 11:39AM

Obliq wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/08/piersmorgan-gun-control

"Deport Piers Morgan founder rants in face of his nemesis
Alex Jones drowns out CNN presenter with on-air tirade about '1776 commencing again' and Britain being a 'police state' "

Thought this thread would be the right place for this hilarious CNN report!

As Morgan tried to interject with questions, Jones continued with his browbeating delivery, declaring that Morgan would not deter him with "little factoids"

Yeah, let's not let facts get in the way of proper, reasoned debate where you challenge the other person to a boxing match.

Alex Jones is an idiot.

robindch · 08-01-2013 07:34PM

Penn wrote: »

Alex Jones is an idiot.

He represents his listeners quite well though.

MadsL · 08-01-2013 07:53PM

robindch wrote: »

He represents his listeners quite well though.

Reported.

MadsL · 08-01-2013 08:02PM

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, let's not let facts get in the way of proper, reasoned debate where you challenge the other person to a boxing match

This is the Piers Morgan show we are talking about - not any "proper, reasoned debate" both of them are a waste of electricity and oxygen.

The Black Oil · 08-01-2013 09:32PM

The likes of Jones seem to suffer heavily from confirmation bias. When Obama's birth cert nonsense was going on, and he released it, you knew the likes of Jones wouldn't accept it. Ignore.

MagicMarker · 10-01-2013 07:42PM

Another school shooting.

stevejazzx · 10-01-2013 09:49PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Another school shooting.

I'm actually (irrationally or not) really quite afraid of the visiting the US such is the level of gun violence. This argument over mental illness being the main cause is so frustratingly stupid. We ban bombs for a reason; they're super dangerous - we ban super dangerous things as they can cause great harm in the wrong hands. Guns are super dangerous - guns should be banned.

Witcher · 10-01-2013 09:51PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Guns are super dangerous - guns should be banned.

All guns?

MadsL · 10-01-2013 11:16PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm actually (irrationally or not) really quite afraid of the visiting the US such is the level of gun violence. This argument over mental illness being the main cause is so frustratingly stupid. We ban bombs for a reason; they're super dangerous - we ban super dangerous things as they can cause great harm in the wrong hands. Guns are super dangerous - guns should be banned.

Don't be. The US is actually a very safe place, violent crime rates have been dropping steadily since '93, sadly we saw a small spike this year, but overall you will be lucky to see a crime as a tourist, never mind being a victim of one.

stevejazzx · 11-01-2013 12:26AM

Blay wrote: »

All guns?

IMO yes; I don't know enough about guns to imagine that some are not dangerous? Strikes me, if it can kill a person, it is.

MadsL · 11-01-2013 12:32AM

stevejazzx wrote: »

IMO yes; I don't know enough about guns to imagine that some are not dangerous? Strikes me, if it can kill a person, it is.

You can kill someone with a potato, is that a definition of dangerous?

Mark Hamill · 11-01-2013 12:49AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Another school shooting.

The teacher, who had been grazed by a pellet, then intervened. He is reported by US media to have warned the suspect that there would be no shooting in his class, at which point the gunman put down his weapon and police officers arrested him.

The teacher sounds bad-ass. Fair play to him/her.

Turtwig · 11-01-2013 12:57AM

MadsL wrote: »

You can kill someone with a potato, is that a definition of dangerous?

I'm intrigued. How can you kill someone with a potato?

MadsL · 11-01-2013 01:01AM

Jernal wrote: »

I'm intrigued. How can you kill someone with a potato?

A nice, fast blow to the temple would do the trick, or ram it down their throat.

Dangerous things potatoes.

Of course you could combine them with the other dangerous thing, a plastic pipe and make a potato gun. Lethal them things, they should really control the distribution of potatoes and run background checks at grocers.

You should see what spoons can do.

stevejazzx · 11-01-2013 01:49AM

MadsL wrote: »

You can kill someone with a potato, is that a definition of dangerous?

But not efficeintly - not easily - and anything you can do with a potato in terms of killing someone you could also do with most other everyday objects or even your fists. So let's not play semantics; it's boring and really does not offer a very challenging argument 'don't ban guns as potatoes can kill people'.

I get your poorly made point; I have stumbled over it before wondering what such a poorly thought out argument was doing in the way real social enlightenment. No one has ever argued to ignore the other aspects (mental health etc) everyone acknowledges that people are ultimately the 'killers' but the argument cannot be to legalise everything and let the people work it out. That way madness lies at least for the foreseeable future as the current mix of fundamentalism, superstition and downright backwardness does not lend itself well to an enlightened gun culture.

Addressing social educational and growth issues is an ongoing task and allowing such easy access to lethal weapons is an obvious flaw. Painfully obvious; only the truly blind sighted, one dimensional troll mind could think that more guns equals more security (that's a reference to Alex Jones on Pierse Morgan by the way) - more guns lead to increased fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and ultimately chaos.

The gun availability and access in the States at present is totally banannas as was witnessed by Sandy Hook and Aurora. The inevitability of further gun crime without strict controls is again painful. The trite counter productive arguments of the gun lobbying far right make about as much sense as creationists do; who incidentally they are often associated with.

MadsL · 11-01-2013 02:31AM

stevejazzx wrote: »

But not efficeintly - not easily - and anything you can do with a potato in terms of killing someone you could also do with most other everyday objects or even your fists. So let's not play semantics; it's boring and really does not offer a very challenging argument 'don't ban guns as potatoes can kill people'.

My point is clear however, even if it is clumsy semantics. A potato could be a murder weapon, equally killing someone with a .177 hmr varmint round would take some precision. Dangerous is a subjective term. A paintball gun is a 'gun'.

I get your poorly made point; I have stumbled over it before wondering what such a poorly thought out argument was doing in the way real social enlightenment.

As poorly thought out as your "ban all guns" proposition? I'm guessing you haven't thought that through very hard.

No one has ever argued to ignore the other aspects (mental health etc) everyone acknowledges that people are ultimately the 'killers' but the argument cannot be to legalise everything and let the people work it out. That way madness lies at least for the foreseeable future as the current mix of fundamentalism, superstition and downright backwardness does not lend itself well to an enlightened gun culture.

Your characterisation of gun owners as fundamentalist, superstitious and backward doesn't really help that debate now does it. US gun law has never held a position of "legalise everything" and few gun owners would advocate such a position.

Addressing social educational and growth issues is an ongoing task and allowing such easy access to lethal weapons is an obvious flaw. Painfully obvious; only the truly blind sighted, one dimensional troll mind could think that more guns equals more security (that's a reference to Alex Jones on Pierse Morgan by the way) - more guns lead to increased fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and ultimately chaos.

Do they now? I assume that you would be able to point me to peer-reviewed studies that highlight such increased fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and chaos. Perhaps you would also explain how violent crime has steadily decreased since 1993 in the US despite the fact that gun ownership rates have steadily increased in the same period?

The gun availability and access in the States at present is totally banannas as was witnessed by Sandy Hook and Aurora.

The Sandy Hook killings were done by illegally obtained weapons, an Aurora gun range unfortunately failed to identify Holmes as deranged. Had he shown up there the owner may well have alert authorities.
You describe this as a bananas system, yet similar availability exists in Europe (Czech Republic for example) is that equally 'bananas'?

The inevitability of further gun crime without strict controls is again painful.

There are strict controls on knives in the UK - has knife crime dropped? There are strict controls on guns in Ireland - have shootings ceased to exist?

The trite counter productive arguments of the gun lobbying far right make about as much sense as creationists do; who incidentally they are often associated with.

Slosh some tar around will ya (far right, creationist) neither religious belief nor political persuasion have any place in this debate. Sloppy name-calling won't help your case.

Manic Moran · 11-01-2013 08:21AM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Just saw this on facebook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256161/Sister-19-accidentally-shoots-brother-head-posing-gun-Facebook-picture.html

I call that Darwinian selection in action.

NTM

stevejazzx · 11-01-2013 11:04AM

MadsL wrote: »

My point is clear however, even if it is clumsy semantics. A potato could be a murder weapon, equally killing someone with a .177 hmr varmint round would take some precision. Dangerous is a subjective term. A paintball gun is a 'gun'.

This isn't working out - you're supposed to understand when you're wrong otherwise the conversation goes nowhere. Just because a potato can kill someone doesn't make it as lethal as a gun. We covered the 'person is ultimately responsible thing' last post. And yes a paintball gun is a gun shape again not a lethal firearm capable of many killing people efficiently.
I don't know where you imagine you're going with this line of argument.

As poorly thought out as your "ban all guns" proposition? I'm guessing you haven't thought that through very hard.

Why not have a gun ban? There can be exceptions of course and these can be regulated. I am not proposing a specific bill here on boards.ie but simply my support of a much higher level of gun control.

Your characterisation of gun owners as fundamentalist, superstitious and backward doesn't really help that debate now does it. US gun law has never held a position of "legalise everything" and few gun owners would advocate such a position.

Whether you've directly tried to mis-quote me or not remains to be seen in following arguments but I [COLOR="Red"]did not[/COLOR] say that. Re-read it.

Do they now? I assume that you would be able to point me to peer-reviewed studies that highlight such increased fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and chaos. Perhaps you would also explain how violent crime has steadily decreased since 1993 in the US despite the fact that gun ownership rates have steadily increased in the same period?

I must concede on not having a peer reviewed article on this. I can only tell you that scientists are bunch lazy bast**ds but they are getting around to it. :rolleyes:

Here are some articles

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__academics__colloquia__lawyering_theory_multidisciplinary_methods/documents/documents/ecm_pro_058850.pdf

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/paranoia-feeding-american-gun-culture

From Gallop Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
47% of people think it makes a home safter to have a gun.
That's a lot people buying guns to protect themselves from perceived threats. That's a lot of fear.

The Sandy Hook killings were done by illegally obtained weapons

I haven't checked this but in all the reports I've heard the guns belonged to and were licensed to his mother?

an Aurora gun range unfortunately failed to identify Holmes as deranged. Had he shown up there the owner may well have alert authorities.
You describe this as a bananas system, yet similar availability exists in Europe (Czech Republic for example) is that equally 'bananas'?

Oh their is no system
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

article wrote:

Reasonable fears of such confiscation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such (registration) laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

There are strict controls on knives in the UK - has knife crime dropped? There are strict controls on guns in Ireland - have shootings ceased to exist?

These are the first interesting points you've raised and i don't know the answers. However gun massacres in the US are out of control. Knife massacres in the UK....? They're both serious of course and both of these matters need something done about them immediately.

Slosh some tar around will ya (far right, creationist) neither religious belief nor political persuasion have any place in this debate. Sloppy name-calling won't help your case.

Oh it's not just creationism here's a whole slew of religious fervor from the leadership
http://meetthenra.org/issues?field_issue_value_many_to_one=Religion

Incidentally it's not just my case - hundreds of millions of normal people around the world feel the same way. Japan is a case in point. Look at Japanese system and tell me that is not better in every single way.

MadsL · 11-01-2013 07:59PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

This isn't working out - you're supposed to understand when you're wrong otherwise the conversation goes nowhere. Just because a potato can kill someone doesn't make it as lethal as a gun. We covered the 'person is ultimately responsible thing' last post. And yes a paintball gun is a gun shape again not a lethal firearm capable of many killing people efficiently. I don't know where you imagine you're going with this line of argument.

I'm trying to point out to you that 'lethal' is a pretty relative and subjective term. 95% of people shot with firearms survive if they have access to more or less immediate medical treatment. source

Hell, if you were to give me the choice of being attacked by a machete or being shot once by a .22 handgun from 25 yards I think I would take the handgun thanks. In fact, were you to give a 6ft 4inch offensive lineman a potato and instructions to beat me to death with it, I think I would also take the single .22 round thanks very much.

Why not have a gun ban? There can be exceptions of course and these can be regulated. I am not proposing a specific bill here on boards.ie but simply my support of a much higher level of gun control.

There is a gun ban. There are bans in the US on full auto weapons. Everything else goes trigger, bang; trigger, bang. You say higher level, what would that entail? As you said earlier:

stevejazzx wrote: »

Guns are super dangerous - guns should be banned.

So you are now changing your position? And what else is in the "superdangerous" category? I shave with straight razors, they are also superdangerous, they would slice open a artery in superdoublequicktime, yet I use them to remove hair. Should they be banned?

Whether you've directly tried to mis-quote me or not remains to be seen in following arguments but I did not say that. Re-read it.

You said

stevejazzx wrote: »

the current mix of fundamentalism, superstition and downright backwardness does not lend itself well to an enlightened gun culture...The trite counter productive arguments of the gun lobbying far right make about as much sense as creationists do; who incidentally they are often associated with.

Calling your opposite point of view names in a discussion is not usually considered a winning strategy.

I must concede on not having a peer reviewed article on this. I can only tell you that scientists are bunch lazy bast**ds but they are getting around to it. :rolleyes:

Funny that. I thought it a well observed phenomena.

Here are some articles

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__academics__colloquia__lawyering_theory_multidisciplinary_methods/documents/documents/ecm_pro_058850.pdf

Did you just google "fear" - that is an article on jurisprudance and government and attitudes to the death penalty. Are you trying to waste my time?

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/paranoia-feeding-american-gun-culture

Oh sweet god. An opinion piece from the organ of former publisher of motherjones. As far from a study as you could have found.

From Gallop Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
47% of people think it makes a home safter to have a gun.
That's a lot people buying guns to protect themselves from perceived threats. That's a lot of fear.

Guess what, 98.9% of people have a lock on their door in the US. And in Ireland. Therefore people in Ireland are living in "fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and ultimately chaos" according to that measure. I have a supply of bottled water of about 25 gallons in my garage, it is a precaution against something happening to our wells. I don't expect it to happen but it is good to be prepared. For most Americans owning a gun for home protection is a response to the very worst that can happen. Trust me, they are not shaking in fear behind heavily locked doors every night.

Perhaps you should actually come to the US and meet some of the people you think live in fear and paranoia. You find that most of them are normal human beings who just want appropriate tools to prevent the worst happening.

A friend of mine woke one night, as a women living alone, to find a man astride her with his hand clamped over her mouth, preparing to rape her. A neighbour had loaned her a gun which she had in the nightstand, and promised to take her to the range to teach her to shoot (she was a new immigrant/ asylum seeker fleeing the communists who were pressuring her to inform on her lover - this was in the early 80s) She managed to reach the gun, and put two .22 rounds in his chest, and another in his ass as he ran for the door. The cops found him collapsed on her lawn. He survived and got 15 years for attempted rape and burglary.

Now that woman protected herself and prevented her own rape and potential death. She had an appropriate reaction using an appropriate tool.

But you would prevent that from happening by a ban?

I haven't checked this but in all the reports I've heard the guns belonged to and were licensed to his mother?

And therefore his possession of them was illegal.

Oh their is no system
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

What is that link supposed to make the argument for?

These are the first interesting points you've raised and i don't know the answers.

If you don't know the answers to local issues, I find it hard to accept how you can preach on the answers in a country you have never even visited.

However gun massacres in the US are out of control.

Medical error kills at least 100,000 preventable deaths each year in the US, yet no-one talks about it. Much could be prevented by IT investment.

Knife massacres in the UK....? They're both serious of course and both of these matters need something done about them immediately.

Ban knives? The UK has pretty much done that, very strict knife controls have done nothing to prevent knife crime in the UK.

Oh it's not just creationism here's a whole slew of religious fervor from the leadership
http://meetthenra.org/issues?field_issue_value_many_to_one=Religion

Why are you insisting on dragging religion into this??? Because this is A&A?

Incidentally it's not just my case - hundreds of millions of normal people around the world feel the same way. Japan is a case in point. Look at Japanese system and tell me that is not better in every single way.

You are holding Japan up as a model society??? Jesus, in 2006 Japan had the ninth highest suicide rate in the world. I see you haven't even looked at the Czech Republic for comparison as I suggested earlier.

Nice 'Appeal to the Crowd' fallacy there by the way...do you often suggest sovereign nations set their laws in accordance with some other nations do rather than democratic process.

stevejazzx · 12-01-2013 01:56AM

MadsL wrote: »

I'm trying to point out to you that 'lethal' is a pretty relative and subjective term. 95% of people shot with firearms survive if they have access to more or less immediate medical treatment. source

Hell, if you were to give me the choice of being attacked by a machete or being shot once by a .22 handgun from 25 yards I think I would take the handgun thanks. In fact, were you to give a 6ft 4inch offensive lineman a potato and instructions to beat me to death with it, I think I would also take the single .22 round thanks very much.

You still on this potato thing eh?. I'll give potato's were once pretty lethal but I believe it was because they were extremely scarce at the time. Apart from that potatoes are generally safe.

There is a gun ban. There are bans in the US on full auto weapons. Everything else goes trigger, bang; trigger, bang. You say higher level, what would that entail? As you said earlier:
So you are now changing your position?

No i'm clarifying it.
I'm in favor of an all out ban with provisions as stated in last post.

And what else is in the "superdangerous" category? I shave with straight razors, they are also superdangerous, they would slice open a artery in superdoublequicktime, yet I use them to remove hair. Should they be banned?

This is absurd - you simply refuse to accept a gun is infinitely more lethal than a potato then a knife and now it's a razor blade. If something deadly exists, or even a potato (so goes your argument) then there's no point banning guns as people will just use knives or potato's depending on their mood/location etc. Is this your argument - what the hell is your argument? I note you mention time wasting a bit lower here. Hmmm...

Calling your opposite point of view names in a discussion is not usually considered a winning strategy.

I can't believe you're making me do this as I promised myself I wouldn't do this but i believe in your naivete so i will.
I said

me wrote:

That way madness lies at least for the foreseeable future as the current mix of fundamentalism, superstition and downright backwardness does not lend itself well to an enlightened gun culture.

This doesn't mean at all (as you have claimed twice now) that all or even some gun owners are fundamentalist, superstitious and or downright backward (although we cannot discount the possibility) it means that there exists a pool of people in the world who are (fundamentalist, superstitious etc.) and that if gun ownership is allowed, in the casual manor as it currently is in some places, then this populace would not lend itself well to it.
i.e., in my opinion of course, the world needs to civilise a great deal more first in order for it to have the maturity necessary to handle and manage gun possession.
If you could not discern this point from reading my comment then I have little hope for this conversation.

Did you just google "fear" - that is an article on jurisprudance and government and attitudes to the death penalty. Are you trying to waste my time?

I googled fear and gun culture this article came up. I've read quite a bit of now - it's highly regarded albeit not exclusively about guns it is nonetheless about crime and fear.

Oh sweet god. An opinion piece from the organ of former publisher of motherjones. As far from a study as you could have found.

I didn't purport to offer you a study as explicitly outlined in the opening line of that specific response.

Guess what, 98.9% of people have a lock on their door in the US. And in Ireland. Therefore people in Ireland are living in "fear, paranoia social detachment, distrust and ultimately chaos" according to that measure.

No it doesn't - you again appear to be having a major issues understanding the scale of any given thing.

1. A potato is not as lethal as a gun.
2. Lock on the door for general safety does not equate to owning 6 guns because of persistent fear of armed burglar etc.

I have a supply of bottled water of about 25 gallons in my garage, it is a precaution against something happening to our wells. I don't expect it to happen but it is good to be prepared. For most Americans owning a gun for home protection is a response to the very worst that can happen. Trust me, they are not shaking in fear behind heavily locked doors every night.

There is no one saying that (that they are shaking in fear)
Making a ridiculous straw man type argument like this is nonsense.
I am obviously talking about a general culture of fear as preyed upon by the likes of Fox News etc.
Something like this

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Minorities-Microbes/dp/0465003362

Perhaps you should actually come to the US and meet some of the people you think live in fear and paranoia. You find that most of them are normal human beings who just want appropriate tools to prevent the worst happening.

I've been to the US.
I know there are great people living there - why wouldn't there be?
I love their culture to a great extent (with an obvious exception to their mass consumerist modern culture like most normal people.

A friend of mine woke one night, as a women living alone, to find a man astride her with his hand clamped over her mouth, preparing to rape her. A neighbour had loaned her a gun which she had in the nightstand, and promised to take her to the range to teach her to shoot (she was a new immigrant/ asylum seeker fleeing the communists who were pressuring her to inform on her lover - this was in the early 80s) She managed to reach the gun, and put two .22 rounds in his chest, and another in his ass as he ran for the door. The cops found him collapsed on her lawn. He survived and got 15 years for attempted rape and burglary.

Now that woman protected herself and prevented her own rape and potential death. She had an appropriate reaction using an appropriate tool.

But you would prevent that from happening by a ban?

Here we go - more guns equals less violence, increase safety?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431220

The bottom line is that recent work by Kovandzic and Marvell confirms the growing consensus that the best evidence does not support the thesis that adoption of RTC laws reduces crime. Nonetheless, this now discredited thesis continues to influence public policy as John Lott continues to try to persuade state legislators that RTC laws will lower violent crime despite the great weight of the evidence to the contrary.

More Guns Less Crime fails again PDF

More Guns more crime.pdf - Mike Duggan

Shooting Down the More Guns,
Less Crime Hypothesis
Ian Ayres* & John J. Donohue III*

There are so many more good studies.....

And therefore his possession of them was illegal.

You said

The Sandy Hook killings were done by illegally obtained weapons

I said his Mother actually owned them lawfully. You made it sound like he went out and stole them?. He took them from his own house. He's a great reason to support better gun regulations.

What is that link supposed to make the argument for?

Myth that gun control reduces crime (no.10) and that gun owners abide by ownership registration laws.

If you don't know the answers to local issues, I find it hard to accept how you can preach on the answers in a country you have never even visited.

You're right I don't know the answers - don't mean to preach it's just my honest opinion.

Medical error kills at least 100,000 preventable deaths each year in the US, yet no-one talks about it. Much could be prevented by IT investment.

Ok agreed... but therefore leave guns alone?

Ban knives? The UK has pretty much done that, very strict knife controls have done nothing to prevent knife crime in the UK.

Ok agreed... but therefore leave guns alone?

Why are you insisting on dragging religion into this??? Because this is A&A?

You asked me to qualify my comments in relation to NRA leadership. There happens to be many far right religious nutjobs there - what can I say?

You are holding Japan up as a model society??? Jesus, in 2006 Japan had the ninth highest suicide rate in the world. I see you haven't even looked at the Czech Republic for comparison as I suggested earlier.

Yes I am; read this (below link)- I'll check out Czech
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Nice 'Appeal to the Crowd' fallacy there by the way...do you often suggest sovereign nations set their laws in accordance with some other nations do rather than democratic process.

No I'm outlining a working example. I don't care which country we use but clearly America needs a working model. After it's recent record of high school shootings and now with Sandy Hook where 5 year olds were massacred by an unhinged teen who casually grabbed some guns from his estranged mothers house the American gun system is in disarray; how much bloodshed with guns will it take to convince you?

joseph brand · 12-01-2013 03:44AM

MadsL wrote: »

A nice, fast blow to the temple would do the trick, or ram it down their throat.

Dangerous things potatoes.

Of course you could combine them with the other dangerous thing, a plastic pipe and make a potato gun. Lethal them things, they should really control the distribution of potatoes and run background checks at grocers.

You should see what spoons can do.

Why don't soldiers use potatoes instead of guns?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 03:57AM

joseph brand wrote: »

Why don't soldiers use potatoes instead of guns?

Stops them eating them.

If you want to make an argument based on binary lethal/non lethal it gets silly don't you think. Seems to me what the UK is trying to do, to the point where it is illegal to walk across to the neighbours with a kitchen knife to lend her.

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 01:21PM

MadsL wrote: »

Stops them eating them.

If you want to make an argument based on binary lethal/non lethal it gets silly don't you think. Seems to me what the UK is trying to do, to the point where it is illegal to walk across to the neighbours with a kitchen knife to lend her.

Source?

jank · 12-01-2013 02:33PM

The UK is well on its way to becoming a police state, give it another 20-30 years. Government there is much too powerful. Banning something through legislation wont solve anything. We would all like a world without guns but we understand why guns exist. Some use it to force their terror onto others, some use it to protect us from that terror, being in Irish we kinda forget that there is a big bad world out there outside our own parish that doesn't have the same protections on civil liberties and life as we have in the west and the US.
Lefties love blathering on about guns and their control, they love getting government to do their bidding yet then say that they have no right to tell them what religion they must follow. How about a country where the state has no right to tell you either way that you cannot own a gun or tell you to follow a religion, isn't that is what freedom is about?

Gun control in the USA

Comments