Here it comes - gun control!!!

Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
And for the record, I'm not advocating banning any type of firearm, unless it could be considered a bomb or something else that no one but the military or other trained professionals has any business owning.

I just think more sensible precautions need to be taken. I know it's every persons right to personal liberty and protection of that liberty, but close-minded, pig headedness towards firearms isn't helping society become a better place.

Yes, I know it's no ones 'duty' to make society a better place that's safer for everyone; but if you have any common sense at all it should at least be considered when deciding how you act with your firearms. Everyone has the right to be a greedy, narcissistic chauvinistic, racist, assholes; but that doesn't mean everyone should. Likewise, you can continue to be irresponsible with firearms, but people who love their country and the freedoms they enjoy, should want to live in a place where less violence takes place, not more. Where the lowest common denominator is raised to the median, not the median lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Giving everyone more guns is just lowering the bar; creating a society where people don't need guns to feel safe would be ideal. That way, the people who enjoy guns for recreation could still freely enjoy them, while people who would rather not deal with guns would no longer need one to feel safe. The amount of guns per 100 people would drop, and the total number of guns would fall. The total number of gun related homicides would also drop.


I own lots of guns btw, here's a few of my favorites!

Remington Model 7 .243
Thompson Encore Pro-Hunter .300 Win mag
Remington 870 12ga. shorty - 12" barrel
Winchester Semi-auto 20ga.
x2 Winchester Semi auto 12ga.
Marlin 1894 .44mag
Ruger 10/22 w/ Nordic kit

Just to name a few ;)
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
Developed countries, compare apples with apples, not Apples with Somali Pirates.


"Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people."

Why is the USA such an statistical outlier if guns aren't contributing to the problem?

"the estimated number of guns held by US civilians in 2009 is 270 million -- 88.9 firearms per 100 people. The country with the second-most guns is India, with an estimated 46 million guns in private hands -- or about four firearms for every 100 people."

Clearly, there is some sort of correlation between these figures. To ignore it is blatantly ignorant, but the instant anyone brings up these facts, some people fly off the handle and deny, deny, deny. Well denial doesn't change facts.
Click to expand...
You get all your facts from the Huffington Post?

I got mine from the CIA world fact book, which is nicely presented by wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Even this one shows how wrong you are and its not even per capita, its just number of murders by gun and even then USA is #4
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms


The UN Doesn't agree with you, at all.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Huffington post is what you come at me with?

Next you'll be linking us articles from the World News Daily and submitting it as fact.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
And for the record, I'm not advocating banning any type of firearm, unless it could be considered a bomb or something else that no one but the military or other trained professionals has any business owning.

I just think more sensible precautions need to be taken. I know it's every persons right to personal liberty and protection of that liberty, but close-minded, pig headedness towards firearms isn't helping society become a better place.

Yes, I know it's no ones 'duty' to make society a better place that's safer for everyone; but if you have any common sense at all it should at least be considered when deciding how you act with your firearms. Everyone has the right to be a greedy, narcissistic chauvinistic, racist, assholes; but that doesn't mean everyone should. Likewise, you can continue to be irresponsible with firearms, but people who love their country and the freedoms they enjoy, should want to live in a place where less violence takes place, not more. Where the lowest common denominator is raised to the median, not the median lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Giving everyone more guns is just lowering the bar; creating a society where people don't need guns to feel safe would be ideal. That way, the people who enjoy guns for recreation could still freely enjoy them, while people who would rather not deal with guns would no longer need one to feel safe. The amount of guns per 100 people would drop, and the total number of guns would fall. The total number of gun related homicides would also drop.


I own lots of guns btw, here's a few of my favorites!

Remington Model 7 .243
Thompson Encore Pro-Hunter .300 Win mag
Remington 870 12ga. shorty - 12" barrel
Winchester Semi-auto 20ga.
x2 Winchester Semi auto 12ga.
Marlin 1894 .44mag
Ruger 10/22 w/ Nordic kit

Just to name a few ;)
Click to expand...
No one has advocated for irresponsible use of firearms. If less firearms = less death by guns, why has the number of deaths by guns been falling steadily for 20 years, yet the number of guns in the country has increased prodigiously?
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
You get all your facts from the Huffington Post?

I got mine from the CIA world fact book, which is nicely presented by wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Click to expand...
This is not a list of developed countries. This is a list of every country. So, congratulations the USA, a supposed leader in the world, has less homicides per capita than;

El Salvador
Jamaica
Honduras
Guatemala
Swaziland
Colombia
Brazil
Panama
Mexico

So, you are less likely to be shot to death in the USA than several South American and African countries, how exciting!

Even this one shows how wrong you are and its not even per capita, its just number of murders by gun and even then USA is #4
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Click to expand...
Ok, now let's look at these stats! USA is ranked 4th with 9369 total gun deaths, the next closest developed nation is Germany with 269. USA has 3.8 times as many people, but 34 times as many gun homicides. Again, congrats on losing to "South Africa", "Columbia", and "Thailand" in the total amount of deaths, that's something to brag about I guess?

The UN Doesn't agree with you, at all.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Huffington post is what you come at me with?

Next you'll be linking us articles from the World News Daily and submitting it as fact.
Click to expand...

I can dismantle your argument using your own stats, I don't need anything else. In your chart, Canada, being the closest in culture to the USA, has 4.78 deaths per 100,000 people from guns, and the USA has 10.2.

So that's 2.13 times the amount of people being killed per 100,000 citizens. The main difference being the amount of guns per capita. USA being 88.9 guns per 100 people, Canada being 30.8 guns per 100 people. I;m not saying there is 100% direct causation between the two, but surely you can't simply 'explain away' these stats.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
So you're trying to compare a country of 82 million to a country of 320 million, a country with 1/20th as many guns as the USA and you are going to call that a apples to apples comparison? Then you are going to call my comparisons flawed somehow?

Show me a country with 240 million guns that doesn't have any crimes with guns. Show me a country that doesn't have crime.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
No one has advocated for irresponsible use of firearms. If less firearms = less death by guns, why has the number of deaths by guns been falling steadily for 20 years, yet the number of guns in the country has increased prodigiously?
Click to expand...
All crime, across all states, has dropped for the most part. Indiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana have all seen an increase in gun related crime.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
So you're trying to compare a country of 82 million to a country of 320 million, a country with 1/20th as many guns as the USA and you are going to call that a apples to apples comparison? Then you are going to call my comparisons flawed somehow?

Show me a country with 240 million guns that doesn't have any crimes with guns. Show me a country that doesn't have crime.
Click to expand...
The point is this;

Countries that have similar living conditions, wealth, and development should have similar crime rates. Pretty much every country has similar gun related crime rates except for the USA. The only statistical anomalies between the USA and other first world nations are;

Number of guns per capita, which is grossly larger than other countries, amount of gun related crime, which is also grossly larger than other countries, and incredibly lax gun regulations.

These three things combined are obviously creating issues, all you have to do is look at the number of gun related deaths in the USA to see it. The USA is a vast outlier in the data when it comes to gun crime.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Beefbisquit said:
There is definitely an issue with SOMETHING in the USA. The murders from firearms per capita is much higher in the USA than other countries. Even when you consider that the USA has more guns per capita, about x3 more than the next closest country, the murders per capita due to firearms are vastly, vastly more than x3 the next closest country.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned (I own many guns :D), but people need to take a realistic approach to changing SOMETHING to do with the way guns are procured, owned, and stored. The constitution made sense (and still does to a point) but it was written hundreds of years ago. Laws need to be changed to ensure that the public remains safe, because obviously there is SOMETHING wrong with the current way that gun ownership is being looked at.

I keep trigger locks on all my guns to ensure they're safe. I store ammo separately from my guns and rifles, and make sure they're stored unloaded.

It seems like people who are extremely 'pro-gun' can't take even the slightest criticism to how gun ownership is approached or they fall into a slippery slope argument and refuse to even consider amendments. There is a middle ground that could let gun owners keep their firearms, but also make sure that people who own guns are responsible, AND trained in the usage, storage, and safety of their firearms.

This clearly isn't a black and white issue, personal liberty as well as personal protection are at stake, but if both sides dig in with both feet no progress can be made. One thing anyone, regardless of left/right leaning should be able to agree upon is that obviously progress NEEDS to be made so the total number of firearms related fatalities in the USA can be reduced to a number that is more consistent with other industrialized nations. Denying a problem exists is blatant ignorance, and blaming the problem on any one type of firearm is equally ignorant.

I guess the real question is;

"What is the real reason people in the USA are more prone to shooting one another than anywhere else in the world?"

Mis-communication? Belief that violence should be used to solve problems? Influx of easily accessible weapons? Readily available semi/fully automatic weapons? Lax storage laws? Lax laws regarding gun trades and obtaining firearms? The list could be endless...

I'm pretty certain that more guns isn't the answer, USA already has the most guns of any nation, so perhaps something else should at least be considered...

EDIT: Some of my stats are off, I remember I was comparing USA to Canada for guns per capita to homicides via guns per capita. I'll do my best to find the report! Regardless, the disparity between the USA and other developed nations regarding gun violence is staggering.
Click to expand...
What fraction of gun-caused deaths in this country are murders? After you factor out suicides and "righteous shootings" i. e. countenanced defense, what proportion are you discussing here?

One big problem with this debate is what constitutes "reasonable". I've seen that word tossed around lately, with deeply unreasonable ideas behind it. cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Beefbisquit said:
And for the record, I'm not advocating banning any type of firearm, unless it could be considered a bomb or something else that no one but the military or other trained professionals has any business owning.

I just think more sensible precautions need to be taken. I know it's every persons right to personal liberty and protection of that liberty, but close-minded, pig headedness towards firearms isn't helping society become a better place.

Yes, I know it's no ones 'duty' to make society a better place that's safer for everyone; but if you have any common sense at all it should at least be considered when deciding how you act with your firearms. Everyone has the right to be a greedy, narcissistic chauvinistic, racist, assholes; but that doesn't mean everyone should. Likewise, you can continue to be irresponsible with firearms, but people who love their country and the freedoms they enjoy, should want to live in a place where less violence takes place, not more. Where the lowest common denominator is raised to the median, not the median lowered to the lowest common denominator.

Giving everyone more guns is just lowering the bar; creating a society where people don't need guns to feel safe would be ideal. That way, the people who enjoy guns for recreation could still freely enjoy them, while people who would rather not deal with guns would no longer need one to feel safe. The amount of guns per 100 people would drop, and the total number of guns would fall. The total number of gun related homicides would also drop.


I own lots of guns btw, here's a few of my favorites!

Remington Model 7 .243
Thompson Encore Pro-Hunter .300 Win mag
Remington 870 12ga. shorty - 12" barrel
Winchester Semi-auto 20ga.
x2 Winchester Semi auto 12ga.
Marlin 1894 .44mag
Ruger 10/22 w/ Nordic kit

Just to name a few ;)
Click to expand...
Dude. Get thee some revolvers! cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Beefbisquit said:
The point is this;

Countries that have similar living conditions, wealth, and development should have similar crime rates. Pretty much every country has similar gun related crime rates except for the USA. The only statistical anomalies between the USA and other first world nations are;

Number of guns per capita, which is grossly larger than other countries, amount of gun related crime, which is also grossly larger than other countries, and incredibly lax gun regulations.

These three things combined are obviously creating issues, all you have to do is look at the number of gun related deaths in the USA to see it. The USA is a vast outlier in the data when it comes to gun crime.
Click to expand...
Part of this has to do with the USA being a singular outlier in gun rights. Every other advanced nation has decided that gov't gets to decide that question in its interest. This question is made so difficult because the agenda of a government, which inherently wants to gather power, is to remove real power (such as the power to shoot someone) from the hands of a just plain citizen or subject ... compounded by the trivially obvious "fewer guns; fewer gun mishaps or crimes". The sugar coating is thick and sweet.

Deaths by gun are only a part of the story. The other part is violence prevented by guns, which is difficult to tabulate. tabulating deaths is fairly easy. Tabulating potentially deadly situations that didn't actually become so is very difficult. It's easy to dismiss the salutary effect of owned and carried guns with the throwaway "show me that data". But demonstrating that those salutary effects are either present or absent to a given degree is tough. You cannot argue that the prevalence of guns hasn't held our violent crime rates in check. Compare with GB and Australia. Please let's not go there as a nation; there is no way back once they've banned'em. cn
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Part of this has to do with the USA being a singular outlier in gun rights. Every other advanced nation has decided that gov't gets to decide that question in its interest. This question is made so difficult because the agenda of a government, which inherently wants to gather power, is to remove real power (such as the power to shoot someone) from the hands of a just plain citizen or subject ... compounded by the trivially obvious "fewer guns; fewer gun mishaps or crimes". The sugar coating is thick and sweet.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The question is; Is you, 'feeling safer', worth not actually being safer? I tend to say no.

Deaths by gun are only a part of the story. The other part is violence prevented by guns, which is difficult to tabulate. tabulating deaths is fairly easy. Tabulating potentially deadly situations that didn't actually become so is very difficult. It's easy to dismiss the salutary effect of owned and carried guns with the throwaway "show me that data". But demonstrating that those salutary effects are either present or absent to a given degree is tough.
Click to expand...
I agree, it's much harder to tabulate; but I don't think there's any amount of 'preventative violence', that would make up for the insanely disproportionate amount of gun caused murders.

You cannot argue that the prevalence of guns hasn't held our violent crime rates in check. Compare with GB and Australia. Please let's not go there as a nation; there is no way back once they've banned'em. cn
Click to expand...
I agree again, I do not support banning of firearms. I support stricter regulation of firearms, stricter laws on storage, and mandatory licensing/training.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Beefbisquit said:
I agree with you. The question is; Is you, 'feeling safer', worth not actually being safer? I tend to say no.



I agree, it's much harder to tabulate; but I don't think there's any amount of 'preventative violence', that would make up for the insanely disproportionate amount of gun caused murders.



I agree again, I do not support banning of firearms. I support stricter regulation of firearms, stricter laws on storage, and mandatory licensing/training.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the much-reduced incidence of violent crime in the States, esp. in places with "shall-issue" carry laws, vouchsafes that I am indeed safer due to carried handguns. It does not have to be me doing the carrying, but that protection goes away in carry-restrictive places. cn
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I would argue that the much-reduced incidence of violent crime in the States, esp. in places with "shall-issue" carry laws, vouchsafes that I am indeed safer due to carried handguns. It does not have to be me doing the carrying, but that protection goes away in carry-restrictive places. cn
Click to expand...
The problem with people carrying weapons is this;

They are more than likely not professionals, and probably have zero training. Putting a regular, untrained, person in a high risk, stressful situation is tough; giving them a gun and expecting them to use it in a responsible manner, that doesn't endanger other innocent people could be extremely difficult.

At what point does your safety get to encroach on the safety of others? What is a reasonable expectation of safety?

To me, if you want to carry a potentially deadly device in a public place where I could potentially be killed by inappropriate use or negligence, you should at least be trained on how, and when, it's appropriate to use.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
The problem with people carrying weapons is this;

They are more than likely not professionals, and probably have zero training. Putting a regular, untrained, person in a high risk, stressful situation is tough; giving them a gun and expecting them to use it in a responsible manner, that doesn't endanger other innocent people could be extremely difficult.

At what point does your safety get to encroach on the safety of others? What is a reasonable expectation of safety?

To me, if you want to carry a potentially deadly device in a public place where I could potentially be killed by inappropriate use or negligence, you should at least be trained on how, and when, it's appropriate to use.
Click to expand...
Man Beefbisquit, you summed that up well. I'm no expert on the subject, but I just don't understand how anyone could read this post of yours and have any objection to it. It just seems like plain ole common sense to me.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Doc,

Would the dude in my avatar who attempted to assassinate our former peanut farmer in chief be a lefty. It was an alien after all.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Unless providing closer supervision of mentally ill patients is recognized and addressed, the killing sprees wont stop, and we will just have less liberty.
 
Clonex

Clonex

Well-Known Member
Just saw the nra press conference on UK tv.
I love how our news channels take sides and bring on full propaganda
The nra don't hold back huh,
Armed guards in schools under some shield scheme they are willing to fund
Is this viable or is it more money in their pockets ??
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
The problem with people carrying weapons is this;

They are more than likely not professionals, and probably have zero training. Putting a regular, untrained, person in a high risk, stressful situation is tough; giving them a gun and expecting them to use it in a responsible manner, that doesn't endanger other innocent people could be extremely difficult.

At what point does your safety get to encroach on the safety of others? What is a reasonable expectation of safety?

To me, if you want to carry a potentially deadly device in a public place where I could potentially be killed by inappropriate use or negligence, you should at least be trained on how, and when, it's appropriate to use.
Click to expand...
Someone with a gun and no clue how to use it is dangerous in a crowd of people. I agree that if you want to carry a pistol for defensive purposes, you should be able to demonstrate proficiency with that pistol and be able to demonstrate a knowledge of when it's use is reasonable. There was a time in this country when a firearm was a part of everyday life, and people accordingly knew how to use them. Now, there are many people that haven't learned even basic weapons safety who can legally go out and purchase a firearm, and then go walking around with it on their belt. While the presence of that gun may deter crime, if someone tries to test that person's aim, bystanders will likely get shot. So while I appreciate and endorse firearms as a means of violent crime reduction, I also oppose anyone carrying it for defense that cannot demonstrate the skills and knowledge required to do so.

It's illegal to carry while intoxicated in any state I know of, because it's a potential hazard. As we saw in a recent incident in NYC, people with insufficient training can do a lot of collateral damage. Why is it any less reasonable to call for a proficiency test? Clearly, a man who wasn't competent could do just as much damage to an innocent as his attacker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top