This is a discussion on More guns, more gun deaths within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Let me also just state, part of my goal with this thread is to find and vett enough data that holds up even from an ...
Let me also just state, part of my goal with this thread is to find and vett enough data that holds up even from an anti-gun bias that no anti-gun person that wishes to maintain the appearance of rationality can deny it. That would be extremely useful. I'm very thankful for the one person at least who understood what I am trying to do several days ago and sent me a nice PM, and for the supportive comments on this thread. We may have different approaches but I am on your side.
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
If you are looking for the "holy grail" of pro-gun arguments you are fighting a losing battle. How do I know, because no one can change my opinion about my right to bear arms and I won't waste my time trying to convice anti-gunners that they are wrong. People are WAY passionate about this issue.
The argument you seek doesn't exist. People have to be conviced that the loss of any right, even 2A, is a precedent that has the potential to cost us even more; this is a fact that any rational anti-gunner should possess simply by default. If they don't understand fascism they aren't worth your effort.
Over 10,000 people died in 2011 as a result of DUI and there is no big push for prohibition. In 2010, 211 children died as a result of DUI, that my friend, is 10.55 times times higher than Newtown. It may be time to pick your battle.
There's one friend in particular I argue with about this, an economist, who is very good at pointing out when I am wrong. My goal is to find enough evidence to convince him, because he does listen to evidence, and if he can be convinced so can any rational person.
I'm a scientifically-minded person, and it is an empirical fact that countries with more guns per capita have more gun deaths per capita, with the exception of Mexico. This makes sense to me. More guns around means more available to criminals (via theft), and more available to law-abiding citizens that turn criminal.
What does it matter? Statistical evidence tell us nothing other than what happened.
It does not predict the future.
Anyone that gets into the stock market is familiar with the phrase,"past history performance is no indicator of future performance" or words to that effect.
I am totally against any form of gun control. ANY. Form of GUN CONTROL.
I own guns for two reasons.
The one that gets used the most is because I like to shoot them.
The one that is the most important that I hope I never use is to shoot any sumbich that messes with me or my family. That might be some crook breaking into my house at 2 in the morn, or it could be some tyrant with an official title that wants me to bend a knee to him.
Anything else is just so much gibberish and wasted band space. All the discussions, all the contemplation,all of the hand wringing, all of the speculation, none of it matters in the big scheme of things. No amount of statistics, good or bad, is going to sway how I think about the ownership of guns. All this talk about guns that you can reload fast or guns that look dangerous or guns being the scourge of society is mostly being brought up by weak minded pansy's that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack. Its likely that they never have to do a day of physical labor in their miserable little lives, never had a callous on them, only sweat when someone challenges their opinion and they don't know how to refute it, and lots of them never had a Dad to steer them straight when they got stupid. Most of them have no perception of life outside of the little cubicle in which they sit.
Statistics? Who cares? We can argue about this one or or that one for eternity.
Lets go back to common sence and start using it.
If you are worried about your children being slaughtered like cattle while they attend school do something about it. Allow the teachers that would to be armed.
If you are worried about mass shootings in malls, restaurants,movie theaters or anywhere else, do away with the gun free zones and the target rich environments and let people be able to defend themselves.
Lets do what needs to be done and quit entertaining the thoughts of lesser men. Lets just man up and get it done and put the whining,touch feely crap that is getting people killed under a rock where it belongs and make some Changes that account for something.
Anything else is just a waste of time.
Further, your claim, while seeming plausibly defensible on it's face, is at best such an oversimplification as to be misleading, and stated in language designed to create emotional reactions which prejudice rational analysis. Barring war, no one I personally know has ever used guns to deal out "death and destruction", except in the most slanted and prejudice-serving definition, and certainly most here know of many instances which could be reasonably categorized only as the opposite. We could continue a "lawyer-esque" argument about definitions, but I am certain you can understand my point.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you do seem to redeem your purpose in your last post (6:26 p.m. yesterday). If you are indeed honestly trying to discover and analyze real arguments on both sides, I commend you for your industry and for taking the responsibility do so -- and even for putting us through our paces here. Your honest research (as you indicated you will do) will stand you in good light.
Though I did at first take your early post(s) in that positive light, it no longer seemed that way (to me) as the thread went on -- although perhaps that was by your design.
Since I am apparently so unable to grasp what guns are *really* designed for, would someone care to enlighten me?
I know how you guys love Wikipedia, but whether or not you agree with me this is a fascinating read: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm
Guns...or handgonnes as they were known...Since I am apparently so unable to grasp what guns are *really* designed for, would someone care to enlighten me?
started out as defensive mechanisms for troops to be able to defend against attacks by Knights on horseback. These guy were armored up and very hard to counter against. Troops standing should to shoulder had a very hard time standing against a full charge mounted Knights.
The hand gonnes were basically just pieces of pipe mounted to a stick with a black powder charge and a lead ball. They started out shooting rocks, nails, glass and such, but soon it was realized that round lead projectiles were much better suited for the purpose.
Although they were primitive, they worked. That small invention basically made the Knights in shining armor obsolete as any one that could point a stick and hold it long enough to shoot made years of training and a small fortune in armored suits be canceled out by a mere pheasant.
So, going all the way back to history, they were made as equalizers, defensive tools.
They all of a sudden made anyone that had one "more equal" to each other. The rulers continued to lose the ability to lord their power over the classes because they no longer had the monopoly of force to use against anyone that refused to yield to them.
It is still their primary purpose and it is still to this day, hated by the ruling elite, just as it was then.
Everything else is semantics.
I, as many others, have spent quite a lot of time looking at numbers recently. One thing I have tried to do is look at the numbers from sources that would not immediately be dismissed from someone wanting gun control because of the biased source. Although these numbers won't sway many they are enlightening. They are 2011 numbers from the FBI of total murders in US.
Total Murders - 12626
Firearms - 8552
Handguns - 6193
Rifle - 323
Shotguns - 356
Unknown Firearm - 1680
Unknown non firearm - 1657
Hands, fists, feet etc. - 728
Yes, the numbers are way too high. Not as high as the 1.2 million abortions annually in the US, but that is a different conversation altogether. The statement I hear and read most often is we don't want to take away all guns, but there is no need for someone to have an 'assault weapon'. I find it interesting that rifles, which includes, but is not limited to AR 15 etc., accounts for less murders than Knives, hands, and shotguns. Again, the numbers won't change anyone's opinion, but they do show that the 'big black gun' is not the problem.
With a Ph.d in Engineering I would assume you have a wealth of experience in locating and using primary source data.
I also don't know if John Lott's Data and Conclusion were disproven although there appears to be controversy regarding his alleged behavior regarding some articles written.
If I really wanted to understand the issues, I'd skip the economists and engineers and go straight to Epidemiologists. Have you looked at CDC data, understanding their bias may taint their conclusions?
I don't know if you've seen this, not really on point but interesting if speaking to an economist:
FBI Top 10 Killers.jpg
What you do with your statistics is your business.
I have also seen comments made FBI analysis show the prior AWB ineffective, although I have never studied the source or data.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."