Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

393 replies to this topic
Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#391

Posted 3 weeks ago

 

My point still stands. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. There's gun violence worldwide, not just America. 

Speaking of the US, look at Chicago - it has strict gun laws and it has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the country.

wrong. in France yeah we have pretty much lot of robberies with weapons, but they are toys (can't shoot) in 99% of the cases

in Chicago? you mean where you have 3 states within 100 kms, come on.

full auto are probably fun yeah. but go say this to the Columbine kids (that are probably adults now) that still have the bullets in their bodies. with hunting weapons, slaughters like Columbine would have been 10x less deadly

 

i have a side by side at home that i inherited from my uncle which him inherited from his father (my grand father). and if it didn't have such a strong sentimental value, i would have separated from it. i keep it probably because of my survivalist  side lol

 

 

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll. He killed almost as many people, though spread out over an hour and many miles.  But if you think about the University of Texas sniper incident too, he was using a bolt-action rifle, which many would consider a "hunting" rifle even though it was initially designed for war.

 

sivis,

 

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

 

 

Personally, I know I've seen quite a few stories locally about a person shooting a home intruder, or even a case of someone shooting a person on the street or thwarting a robbery, but those incidents pale in comparison to the number of stories I see in the local paper about gang shootings, accidental shootings, and things of that nature.

 

I believe the true metric is to examine how many home invasion deaths are the result of a firearm.  Most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides if I remember right, but I don't know if they distinguish between accidental and intentional in that context.  I know that's about 20k a year, and then there's gun homicides which are about 10k a year, and of those probably a fraction are justifiable homicides but that can't begin to count incidents where no crime or incident occurred as the result of a firearm being pointed as a deterrent, so it's really not an argument that can really be made in my opinion.

 

I think though the only thing you can really accurately see form the statistics is that you're far more likely to die of an accidental shooting or suicide than of a homicide with a firearm, regardless of context.  When you do look further into the context it's a little trickier because they don't really catalog "gang" shootings, but going by the "local paper" example, the grand majority of shooting deaths are from gang shootings.  I'd really bet that the same can be said for Chicago as well.

 

So in America the real danger seems to be 1) Accidentally shooting yourself or 2) Being mistaken for a gang member and being shot dead on the street at random.  Having a gun doesn't really help to prevent either of these, and just increase incidents of number 1. In a kind of ironic way, if you look at shooting victims, the propensity of them being armed is much more likely than a shooting victim being unarmed. Take a gun to a gun fight, and you're still just as likely to be shot.

 

All that being the case though, I do think that in a country of 300 million people, and firearm fore every one of them and more, it's the volume that counts more than the percentages.  If only 1% of the population is killed in a home invasion every year, that's still kind of a lot of people given the overall population.  It only takes one gruesome incident like that to strike fear into people and so I think it's reasonable that they feel this need to cling to some kind of sense of power and defense.  I think though that Americanism culture has always been to "fight fire with fire," so the concept that armament and the proliferation of firearms is exactly what has caused this problem doesn't really occur to people when they say they're worried about someone breaking into their homes and shooting them.  

 

But in a way it's kind of crying over spilled milk, because the guns are there, and even if we tried to collect them all, there's going to be people to make them or import them and sell them on the black market.  In a way that would only be worse since then the guns would be in the hands of the criminals and there wouldn't even be the "unknown" factor of who might be armed to deter them from muggings and the like. I'm not sure that the American problem can be solved the same way as other country's were.  Sure they had guns, but did they have gun culture?

 

Besides that, home invasions can be scary even if the perpetrators don't have guns, and especially if the victims are young or eldery. There was some drug addict here that broke into some old people's homes, like people in their 90s, and bludgeoned them to death. Not to mention they lived at least 30 minute drive from town so the police response time couldn't have saved them even if a home alarm had went off.  Now, I remember reading a story about something similar happening, maybe elsewhere in the country I'm not sure...  But it was a woman home alone and some guy trying to break in through her door, and she couldn't even get him to leave despite poking him with a fire poker.  She was on the phone with 911 the whole time and this guy got through the door and she shot him.  Kind of hard to convince someone they don't need a gun after they hear about stuff like that.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Nškyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#392

Posted 3 weeks ago

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll.

I don't think anyone is denying this. The Derek Bird case was a law enforcement failing; he should have had his firearms confiscated when he was placed under criminal investigation for fraud.

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.
  • Saggy and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#393

Posted 3 weeks ago

 

Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll.

I don't think anyone is denying this. The Derek Bird case was a law enforcement failing; he should have had his firearms confiscated when he was placed under criminal investigation for fraud.

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.

 

 

jpm1 was saying he thought the Columbine shooting massacre wouldn't have been so deadly if they'd had hunting weapons instead of automatics.

 

Well, it would seem that anecdotes are the only thing to go on, which is why I was curious about what statistics you were looking at that showed such incidents were in fact very rare.  In my mind there's not really any telling how common place they are or are not.

 

But what I'm saying is that even if you could find those statistics, there's the other ones that show possessing and carrying a firearm increases your own likelihood of being shot.  But that's just kind of common sense...  Swimming in pools increases your chances of drowning.  However I do think there is a clear and unnecessary danger added to your life by carrying a firearm around, and there are just as many anecdotal cases to reference where someone shoots themselves accidentally while getting out of their car or something.

 

When do the statistics become a moot point, though?  As you were saying correlation is not the same thing as causation, right?  Maybe all these people accidentally shooting themselves are the same Darwin Award candidates that are going to be killed in a drunk-driving accident if not for the shooting death?  There's a million ways to spin that one I guess, but in some respects I think anecdotal evidence might be a more powerful motivator in this context, especially in the lack of more clear statistical evidence.

 

But what I'm getting at is I think it's really a lot more of like...  The feeling like having a gun is an insurance policy rather than being based in practical need.  With phrases like, "I'd rather have it than not need it, then need it and not have it," it seems to gesture more towards ideals of preparedness and self-preservation.  But that's truly ironic because by "having it" you exponentially increase your odds, statistically and not just anecdotally speaking, of being shot.

 

If you looked at the most common causes of death statistically, then outside of your health maladies, the most common preventable deaths in the U.S. are caused by car accidents and drug overdoses.  With that in mind, you have people in this "prepared" mindset who are at the same time texting and driving, and taking whatever their doctors prescribe them with no questions, and pretending they're "safe" for having a firearm on their side while doing so.  I think this just gets wrapped back up into the sociopolitical "gun culture" that makes the U.S. gun issue such a dangerous one.  It really comes back to this being an issue of ideology over logic.

  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#394

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 3 weeks ago.

^ It's largely cultural indeed.  Guns are inherently menacing in much of the western world.  Yet in the US South and various rural locations, they are just an accessory to be handled with care.  We've desensitized to it in many places.  That gun culture is phasing out as our population urbanizes, people become less exposed to firearms, and the gun regulations adapt accordingly.

 

Sometimes notions of safety and security don't neatly overlap. For as long the assumed risk of gun carrying is as limited to the carrier as possible, then any incidental self-harm that might result could be moot in the broader context of protecting public safety.



 

 

Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense.  On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.

I wasn't referring solely to actual shootings but any incident in which a criminal situation was devised by an armed citizen. People who champion the defensive value of firearms in response to home invasions etc only ever seem able to cite anecdotes, rather than actual statistics to demonstrate their worth.

 

Not to mention the difficulty of tracking crime that never happened as a result of a potential victim being openly armed on foot, or some other deterrent factor that involves never actually firing the gun, the difficult part about presenting statistics to demonstrate the defensive value of guns is that much of the actual use of guns in self-defense situations is undocumented.  In any given urban American neighborhood with high gun violence, people just don't talk to the cops.  I know that might sound radically deviant to those elsewhere in the western world or even those in American suburbs, but the trust factor isn't there between residents and law enforcement in most of these high-crime areas.
 
So while I agree that introducing more guns in response to a criminal threat is not likely to enhance personal safety, there will likely never be a reliable statistic that tracks the use of guns to thwart home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc.  Nonetheless there are other statistics suggesting that non-gun factors are stronger contributors to gun violence than the mere prevalence of gun possession.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users