CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
I mean it. These guys are just like toddlers. They throw a tantrum at the mere suggestion you might want to take away their lethal toys.
All I ever hear from Americans is how it is their "right" to possess dangerous weapons, without the slightest consideration for the danger it puts other people in. Since when is it a "right" to put other people in danger? It is impossible to reason with people who think like this because they necessarily abandoned reason somewhere along the road to deciding 30,000 unnecessary, completely preventable deaths per year is a price worth paying so they can fantasise about being John Rambo.
Guns are a short, simple reminder of just how regressive and backwards American culture is.
It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .
Of course this sacred “ right “ cannot be tampered with why ?
One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over .
Surely Americans have to ask themselves why their society has a need for guns ?
How are guns a sign of a progressive civilized society ?
The really hilarious thing is when one hears mostly American Christians throw a temper tantrum at the thoughts of not being allowed to bear arms ; Jesus no doubt would have Carried a “ piece “ if they were around back in the day .
Also the amount of near injuries from guns yearly in the U S is truly staggering ; and of course there’s no gun problem any one that thinks that must be an anti American socialist mustn’t he /she 😂
There’s no arguing this with American supporters of gun rights it’s akin to attempting to feed an Infant with Beluga caviar , pointless and a total waste of time
Gun violence in the United States is a major national concern that results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).
It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .
Exactly. It's circular reasoning. If people kill people then it's a really stupid idea to give them guns. It's like saying: "Now look see, there are a lot of people wanting to kill ye, so we've gone right on ahead and made it as convenient as possible for them."
One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over
I know. More backward reasoning. Aside from what you mentioned, there's also the fact that no civilised leadership has had to use force to maintain control for decades, or perhaps hundreds of years. The Nazis ushered in a new era of lies, propaganda and disinformation. Ever since then, manufactured consent has been the method despotic governments (such as, ironically, the current United States government) use to get their own way. Trump wasn't sending out troops to press-gang people into voting for him because he was too busy paying people to retweet bullshit on Twitter and upvote it on Reddit.
It is indeed circular reasoning but one idiotic commentator recently said well “ why don’t you ban knives and forks then “ I still cannot make head nor tails of such an idiotic statement
It’s absurd to think the unorganized American population could even challenge the might of the American military , this retarded reasoning demonstrates such individuals should not have access to arms as they’re mentally unwell as they do not even realize they are ignorantly following a misinterpretation of their own constitution which the meaning of a 4 year year old over here easily comprehends
It is indeed circular reasoning but one idiotic commentator recently said well “ why don’t you ban knives and forks then “ I still cannot make head nor tails of such an idiotic statement
Yes brother, false equivalences like this gain massive traction despite being overtly fallacious, because they are spammed out en masse by the American gun lobby. America is a culture of salesmen, and one of the tricks salesmen use is to encourage you to feel mockery or pity towards those without their product.
Every object in existence is potentially dangerous, right down to a rubber pencil. But obviously the point is that, in designing the rubber pencil, a man has not purposefully tried to find the easiest, most effective way to kill other people. You should ask these buffoons whether they would feel comfortable if their military was armed with knives and forks instead of guns. In fact, ask them if they would like to swap their own guns for a knife and fork.
Its astonishing they love their military and proudly drape American flags from their porches yet their biggest fear is ......a tyrannical government take over ; talk about mixed up
The thoughts of the American military armed with knives and forks is hilarious and worth of a python sketch 😂
Its astonishing they love their military and proudly drape American flags from their porches yet their biggest fear is ......a tyrannical government take over ; talk about mixed up
On every occasion the American government has used the military against its own people (for example during the Kent State University student Vietnam War protest, where four people were shot dead) the people have done absolutely nothing. It's silly. I don't want to lump them all into the same basket, but a lot of them really do have their own version of reality over there. One based on advertising slogans and highly questionable logic.
A rational conversation is impossible as long as one point of view is anything but. I will settle for a civil and polite discourse. I take no offense but I refuse to resort to name calling while engaged in some good debates!!
Oh, no. Far from it!! I thoroughly enjoy topics that I care about. Being an American first and a Texan second make me immune to insults. The only bad thing I can say about Britain or Australia is that the people allowed their elected officials to take away a fundamental right.
I find your train of thought absurd. Even the unorganized and mentally unwell armed force of citizens is preferable to defenseless mensa members. It's easy to forget the fact that most servicemen have friends and family all over the country who are likely armed as well. Putting aside a theoretical conflict with domestic forces, the future may have a foreign invasion in store.
No as meaningless as a culled and defeated caged animal that didn't fight hard enough against rulers afraid of armed citizens and now adore the harmless citizens. Just cawing over and over...30,000...30,000, 30,000. Do have a statistic of innocent victims who were saved by a gun? How bout the number of deaths by guns in countries supposedly gun less?
Just cawing over is a most unusual way of dismissing 30; 000 gun deaths , so tell me guns are now necessary to save lives from others who have ..... guns , is that your argument ?
So you’re now interested in deaths by illegally held guns in other countries why’s that ?
Why not just use your main account instead of TX43 and all the others? (although Quantumhead has been perhaps just as involved in CD as your current account)
Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to these nations. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. Adding to this the ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in a more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry.
"One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over ."
The fact that there are more guns than people in the U.S. would make for a difficult occupation, in addition to the inevitable multitude of military turncoats. If no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is because, in addition to the trauma of having to kill one's own people, resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.
There is also self-defense issue; to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after a crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Note also that Switzerland has no such gun violence problem, presumably due to cultural differences.
I wonder what makes the U S such a violent society that its citizens seem to be in a constant state of anxiety about threats from thugs ; thieves and a hostile government ?
Over here we are totally unarmed as are the majority of our police force and I’ve never felt under threat from any of the above mentioned, if Americans feel 30,000 deaths and 70,000 gun injuries yearly are a “ fair price “ to pay for such a right well maybe they need to give it some real thought
"I wonder what makes the U S such a violent society that its citizens seem to be in a constant state of anxiety about threats from thugs ; thieves and a hostile government ?"
These threats exist everywhere but there is a real gang-culture problem in the U.S., similar to the one we have in London.
"Over here we are totally unarmed as are the majority of our police force and I’ve never felt under threat from any of the above mentioned, if Americans feel 30,000 deaths and 70,000 gun injuries yearly are a “ fair price “ to pay for such a right well maybe they need to give it some real thought"
That's only half the story, sexual abuse is thought to be prevented 200k times a year by gun use, for but one example (Source 1, pg36-37). Note also the total yearly incidents of defensive gun use are over 2 million (Source 1, pg36).
I provided Dermot with a link to CDC statistics. The page is a stats too by which a user can look directly at the numbers. You can parce the demographics too. I would think he would be happy to see this. Instead he now seems unwilling to acknowledge that CDC statistics are credible.
Another total misrepresentation of my position by you , I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make at this stage as you’re making no sense at all
Using CDC data, I am going to provide the numbers from 2015, which was a worse year for gun deaths than earlier years.
In 2015 there were 36,252 total gun deaths. Of those, only 489 were unintentional. 12,979 were homicide. 22,018 were suicide. The population of the US is 323.1 million. That means the odds of dying from unintentional gunshot in the US, where almost half of all households have a firearm, is approximately .0000015 or 3 in 2 million. 4,814 people were murdered by means other than a gun. You are more likely to be murdered with something other than a gun, than you are to die from unintentional gunshot.
Now let’s consider children (Child = 17 and under).
In 2015 1,458 juveniles were killed by guns. Of those, only 77 were unintentional. 791 were homicides. 566 were suicides. The population of the US under 18 is 73.9 million. That means the odds of a juvenile dying from unintentional gunshot in the US, is approximately .000001 or 1 in 1,000,000.
In 2015 there were 179 children under the age of 10 killed by guns. Of those, only 35 were unintentional.
For whatever its worth, of the 632 children under the age of 4 that were murdered in 2015, 58 of them were murdered with a gun.
Lets look at some other ways to die in the US.
In 2015, 3,602 people unintentionally drowned. Given that 489 were unintentionally killed by gun, an American with a gun in his house is safer than an American who goes swimming.
In 2015, 3,352 people died from non-drug unintentional poisoning. 44,126 died from unintentional drug poisoning. 33,381 died from unintentional fall. All significantly higher than the 489 unintentional firearm deaths.
The US has a crime problem, not a gun problem. Switzerland and Finland do not have a gun problem and their crime seems to be well-managed. The above data comes from the CDC.
If someone wants drugs to be legal despite the deaths that they cause then they should in theory want guns to be legal despite the deaths that they cause. I suppose we don't know what fraction is caused by illegal drugs though.
Yes the sources seem to be as good or bad as each other
The U S does indeed have a massive gun problem it’s truly tragic the way you never mention non fatal accidents which are unintentional which are by guns in any of your pieces or the 75, 000 yearly non fatal shootings in the U S , why’s that ?
It’s also rather telling that you neglect to mention mass shootings
according to data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.
Despite your denial the U S most definitely has a gun problem
"you never mention non fatal accidents which are unintentional which are by guns in any of your pieces"
Moving the goal post huh? That’s ok. In 2015 there were 17,311 unintentional gun related non-fatal injuries. There are 125.82 million households in the US and approximately 43% of those have firearms. That means the chances of a gun in the household correlating to a non-fatal unintentional gun related injury is approximately .000319 or just over 3 in 10,000. Let’s combine that with fatal injury and add the 489 deaths. The chances that a gun in the household will correlate to an unintentional shooting that I fatal or non-fatal is .000329, still just over 3 in 10,000.
On the other hand, about 16% of homes have swimming pools. With 9,816 non-fatal drowning related incidents and another 4,425 fatal drowning related incidents, the chances that having a swimming pool will correlate to a fatal or non-fatal drowning is .000707 or just over 7 in 10,000. That means that a swimming pool in the household is more than twice as dangerous as a gun in the household. And that’s being generous. Consider the number of drownings that lead to death vs the number of accidental gunshots that lead to death. If you drown, your chances of death are 45%. If you are accidentally shot, your chances of death are 2.8%.
Would you say the US has a swimming pool problem? I wouldn’t. There are 342,882 annual injuries due to dog bites, but I would say we have a dog problem either.
"or the 75, 000 yearly non fatal shootings in the U S , why’s that ?"
In 2015 there were actually just under 85,000 non-lethal shootings. Just under 63,000 of those were assaultive in nature. Given that there were just under 13,000 actual gun homicides in 2015, the success rate of someone who is trying to kill you with a gun is just 17%. Perhaps they should try to drown you instead.
"It’s also rather telling that you neglect to mention mass shootings"
Mass shootings are a bit trickier, since the definition is fuzzier. When defined as at least 4 people killed or wounded, the rate is much higher than under previous definitions, such as when defined as at least 4 people killed or wounded indiscriminately. Removing the indiscriminate nature often associated with mass shootings opens up the definition to gang violence, such as targeted drive by shootings or gang shootings in clubs. For my purposes, 4 dead people shot is 4 people shot. It’s a cleaner analysis.
Even so, you must know that 475 is a low number when compared to the population, right?
I am curious to see your response to my the numbers given, rather than just a move of goal posts. Though, if you slightly shift topic again, I will likely just look at the new numbers again.
So you’re saying only talk about guns used in killings .
Also if it’s “ ok “ why are you moaning about it ?
So your rather long point is that guns are not a problem but swimming pools are ?
It’s interesting to note that you said the Irish have a drink problem because they drink and it’s cultural yet 30,000 people a year die by guns and 70,000 are injured but it’s a gang related problem and nothing to do with guns , how does that work ?
Let’s see drunk driving is not a drink problem but a car problem is that the way it works ?
Incidentally you do realize swimming pools were made for pleasure guns were made to kill do you see a difference there ?
Your swimming pool example is pure bullshit and a favourite ploy of the N R A , it’s a pity you resort to deception as in misrepresentating the figures to attempt to make a case , it’s also pathetic , this piece contains stats from your own favorite site the C DC thanfully the author has represented the facts as written and hasn’t resorted to deception
From RTB
Repeat a lie often enough, and people (who don’t bother to look into the facts, and who like the sound of the lie) will repeat it along with you.
With a few well-spent minutes with the latest Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics, I quickly realized that the claim was completely false.
Now, if you want to say that more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than die from being shot, that is actually true. Of course, this is something like saying more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than from heroin overdoses. More nine-year-olds go swimming than are shooting up or packing heat.
However, once you add in the next age-based demographic group, which is 15- to 24-year-olds, the total number of deaths by drowning is easily eclipsed by the total number of deaths by firearm.
For a quick comparison of the 2013 CDC statistics:
Age 14 and under, deaths by drowning: 625
Age 14 and under, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 408
Age 15 to 24, deaths by drowning: 501
Age 15 to 24, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 6085
So, by including those people over the age of 14 in the statistics, the numbers skew undeniably toward guns being much more dangerous than swimming pools. Including all age groups in the U.S., there is a total of 3,391 drowning deaths to a total of 33,169 deaths by firearm.
Also, keep in mind that drowning does not only include swimming pools. It includes all drowning that is non-boating-related. Anybody who drowns in a bathtub, a lake, a river, an ocean, or any other body of water is included in the statistics. So, really, swimming pools would appreciate it if you would quit blaming them for all of the drowning deaths.
But, even if the statistics weren’t so blatantly obvious in spelling out the relative danger of guns versus drowning, the assertion of the relative danger of swimming pools versus guns is, on its face, rather stupid.
For instance, I could not pick up a swimming pool and walk into a school, a movie theater, or a church, and start drowning people with it.
Similarly, when a woman asks her estranged husband for a divorce, there’s something of a greater threat that he will get a gun, shoot her, all their children, and himself, than there is that he is going to drug any of them and pitch them into the backyard swimming pool. And, in case you hadn’t thought about it, a big chunk of those homicide-by-firearm statistics for the 14-and-under crowd involve fathers murdering their families.
We can even use the pro-gun folks’ favorite (albeit highly unlikely) scenario of a home invasion to show the ridiculousness of weighing the threat level of swimming pools versus guns. Your front door is kicked in, and three men storm in—shoot them (with the gun you keep at your side at all times in your home, just in case anybody kicks in your front door), or try to lure them into the swimming pool?
Just by the stationary nature of swimming pools, it’s relatively easy to steer clear of them, as well as most other bodies of water. But with the NRA pushing for everybody to have access to guns everywhere and at all times, concealed or open carry, who knows when you’re going to find yourself dealing with some Frank Castle wannabe or an aspiring Dylann Roof–who, by the way, thinks he’s one of the good guys with guns?
I suppose I could throw a bone to the pro-gun folks and say that in terms of accidental deaths, there are more deaths by drowning than deaths by accidental discharge of firearms across all age categories. Those totals—drowning: 3,391, accidental discharge of firearms: 505. Even if we add in the 281 deaths by firearm that may or may not have been intentional, deaths by drowning win by a pretty hefty margin over accidental and possibly-accidental deaths by firearm. Still, a swimming pool, even in your own backyard, is less likely to be involved in the death of a family member than a gun you own, especially when you factor in the extreme number of suicides by firearm—21,175. Again, the swimming pool (or, I should say, bodies of water) could have an edge on killing your kids who are still under the age of 14, but after that age, the gun surges ahead by thousands.
Okay—I know that actually citing statistics with pro-gun people is about as useful as, say, asking my dogs to brush their own teeth. In fact, I can easily imagine the pro-gunners reading the paragraph immediately preceding this one and taking it as evidence that swimming pools are, in fact, more dangerous than guns. But I included it anyway, so that the overall picture is hopefully clearer, and so that any readers will have all the information they need to refute anyone who wants to claim that swimming pools are deadlier than guns.
The rest of your post is just you burying your head in the sand and firing off stats in an attempt to convince yourself that the U S does not have a gun problem , so childhood deaths through guns not a problem , injuries through guns no worries , 22,000 suicides yearly through guns no worries if it wasn’t that could have been a swimming pool etc , etc,
It’s a pity you’re so upset at me asking about gun accidents and feel the need to childishly state it’s moving the goalposts , if you look at any numbers I post at all I will be surprised as you tend to avoid anything that’s uncomfortable for you
So you’re saying only talk about guns used in killings.
So you are reading things I haven’t written. Your read my post right? It deals quite a lot with injury.
So your rather long point is that guns are not a problem but swimming pools are ?
I’m starting to think that any post you start with “so” is going to be a misrepresentation. In my last post I specifically said “Would you say the US has a swimming pool problem? I wouldn’t.”
It’s interesting to note that you said the Irish have a drink problem because they drink and it’s cultural
You forgot to start this with “so”. What I said was “Should Ireland ban alcohol? No. You guys like alcohol”. I also said “Americans drink less but have a higher alcohol related death rate than Ireland”. This implies an American drinking problem, not an Irish one. My point was that a Saudi operating on your premises, would be justified in thinking you should ban alcohol the way Saudi’s do.
Let’s see drunk driving is not a drink problem but a car problem is that the way it works ?
No it isn’t. Claiming that drunk driving is a car problem would be more akin to your position on guns.
Incidentally you do realize swimming pools were made for pleasure guns were made to kill do you see a difference there ?
Doesn’t it bother you that a product designed for pleasure is more effective at killing than a lethal weapon?
Your swimming pool example is pure bullshit and a favourite ploy of the N R A
The data comes straight from the CDC. I got the idea from Freakonomics. I don’t read NRA publications.
it’s a pity you resort to deception as in misrepresentating the figures to attempt to make a case
You and everyone has access to the CDC data just the same as me. I haven’t altered any numbers.
Repeat a lie often enough, and people (who don’t bother to look into the facts, and who like the sound of the lie) will repeat it along with you
I literally crunched these numbers from the CDC database specifically for this debate. I haven’t repeated anything. I discovered it just today. You are free to check the CDC yourself.
With a few well-spent minutes with the latest Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics, I quickly realized that the claim was completely false
Since everything I said was true and derived from CDC data, please provide whatever data you believe to be the correct CDC data. If I have made any mathematical error, I will gladly admit it. You realize one of my stats was actually worse than what you initially claimed right?
For a quick comparison of the 2013 CDC statistics:
Age 14 and under, deaths by drowning: 625
Age 14 and under, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 408
Age 15 to 24, deaths by drowning: 501
Age 15 to 24, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 6085
My data was for all age groups in 2015 unless otherwise stated. So let’s use your age groups and year (I don’t know why you didn’t use 2015)
I am finding 667 deaths by drowning for ages 14 and under in 2013 (I don’t know why there’s a discrepancy. Are you using the same CDC link?). Age 14 and under for firearm deaths, I am finding 409 (again, not sure why the slight discrepancy). You didn’t mention Age 14 and under for unintentional firearm deaths, that’s a mere 69.
I’m finding that the Age 15 to 24 death by drowning is 573 in 2013. I find firearms deaths for ages 15 to 24 to be slightly higher than yours at 6,181. Unintentional firearm deaths for the same group and year is a mere 107. That tells me that most firearm deaths for this group, as for any group, is a problem of criminality. It further illustrates the demographic where crime is highly problematic. No one will be surprised to see it is the typical age group for street gang involvement.
So, by including those people over the age of 14 in the statistics, the numbers skew undeniably toward guns being much more dangerous than swimming pools. Including all age groups in the U.S., there is a total of 3,391 drowning deaths to a total of 33,169 deaths by firearm
You using straight numbers rather than rates, rates will give a more accurate risk factor. Remember, I accounted for the number of households in the US, the number of households with guns, and the number of households with pools. I won’t re-post here, I’ll let you or any interested reader just scroll up. I thought it went without saying, but I get all household and population figures from the census.
Also, keep in mind that drowning does not only include swimming pools
I was pretty careful about this. Just as having a gun in the house doesn’t mean your gun is the one you accidentally get killed by, owning a pool doesn’t mean your pool is the cause of your drowning. That’s why I used the word correlate. Causation may be inferred, but it cannot be assumed. So I only presented the information as a correlate, not a causation. We don’t have the information for anything more.
But, even if the statistics weren’t so blatantly obvious in spelling out the relative danger of guns versus drowning, the assertion of the relative danger of swimming pools versus guns is, on its face, rather stupid
It’s not uncommon for human intuition to be completely out of step with statistical reality. Consider the risk of terrorism. The number of deaths due to terrorism in 2015 was a questionable 5 (low numbers are considered automatically questionable). Yet terrorism is, on its face, a very dangerous problem.
But with the NRA pushing for everybody to have access to guns everywhere and at all times, concealed or open carry
I don’t really know the NRA, but I haven’t seen anyone pushing for the gun rights of felons, or the mentally unstable; quite the opposite. The ridiculous number of people who shouldn’t have guns, committing gun crimes, makes people who are perfectly safe with guns want to keep them. Since they aren’t criminals or mentally unstable, why not?
I suppose I could throw a bone to the pro-gun folks and say that in terms of accidental deaths, there are more deaths by drowning than deaths by accidental discharge of firearms across all age categories.
No bone necessary. I’m concerned with facts.
Still, a swimming pool, even in your own backyard, is less likely to be involved in the death of a family member than a gun you own
The correlation death by gun and drowning to gun ownership and pool ownership respectively, tells a different story.
but after that age, the gun surges ahead by thousands.
You stopped at 24. My last post included all age groups.
Okay—I know that actually citing statistics with pro-gun people is about as useful as, say, asking my dogs to brush their own teeth
That’s weird since I have been citing statistics this entire time. By the way, that dog is more likely to bite you than you are to be accidentally shot by a gun when you are in the US.
I can easily imagine the pro-gunners reading the paragraph immediately preceding this one and taking it as evidence that swimming pools are, in fact, more dangerous than guns.
Good, that means you are statistically savvy. The number of households with guns far outnumber the number of households with pools. That’s why any given pool is more dangerous than any given gun.
The rest of your post is just you burying your head in the and firing off stats
When considering the weight we should give to an issue, it is appropriate to consider how many deaths or injuries are caused by various things. Including simple things that cause more death or injury than firearms is an appropriate comparison.
so childhood deaths through guns not a problem
See? You started with “so”. Any preventable death is a problem and ways to prevent more of them should be considered. But compared to other various dangers out there, gun deaths are not a concern for the vast majority of US citizens. Obviously gun deaths become a significant concern if you are in a neighborhood with high criminality or, as is often the case here, your child is a gun toting criminal.
22,000 suicides yearly through guns no worries
I haven’t mentioned suicides. But I’m pretty sure owning a gun hasn’t increased my risk.
It’s a pity you’re so upset at me asking about gun accidents and feel the need to childishly state it’s moving three goalposts
As I said before, crunching the number has been pretty enjoyable, even if you don’t understand/accept what they mean. When you moved the goal post to injuries, I was happy to find the CDC data that related. The links for my data are as follows. Please look closely at the variable you entered as I would like to see where the slight discrepancies came from (I don’t think they made a significant different in the argument).
I’m not misrepresentating you as you do a good job of it by yourself as is , you’re throwing stats about like confetti ar a wedding and I’m trying to sort the chaff from the wheat
Why does the word “so “ rankle with you so much ?
Maybe the U S has a problem with adults supervising children at swimming pools ?
There’s that reference to “ so “ again yet you seem to start a lot of your statements with “ You “ why’s that ?
I happen to agree that we have a cultural drink problem over here you are the reverse as in you state yous do not have a gun problem but a gang problem
But you’re claiming a gun problem is a gang problem, while my analogy seems consistent with your position
It concerns me that parents in the U S cannot effectively supervise children around swimming pools
The Freakonomics data is open to further analysis which I will address later
My piece provided a link C D C data
My piece provided a link to C D C data
My piece provided a link to C D C data
What point are you trying to make as all your doing is throwing stats about the place you originally said .......
The chances that a gun in the household will correlate to an unintentional shooting that I fatal or non-fatal is .000329, still just over 3 in 10,000.
On the other hand, about 16% of homes have swimming pools. With 9,816 non-fatal drowning related incidents and another 4,425 fatal drowning related incidents, the chances that having a swimming pool will correlate to a fatal or non-fatal drowning is .000707 or just over 7 in 10,000. That means that a swimming pool in the household is more than twice as dangerous as a gun in the household..........
Your whole point is swimming pools in the house are more dangerous than a gun in the house and that’s it ?
But if guns were not in the house in the first place that means the chances of death and accidents are lessened even more , less guns , fewer accidents , homicides and suicides by guns in the house
Let’s cut to the chase your position as stated by you is this ,
Studying your figures your position seems clear , your assertions are swimming pools in a house are more effective at killing minors than guns ; and that the in the U S yous do not have a gun problem but a gang problem ; also you own a gun for defensive reasons
If you own a gun for defensive reasons it’s to protect yourself from other gun carriers but guns are not the problem , how does that work ?
Why are all minors in the U S not wearing rubber rings before getting into a swimming pool for ” defensive “ reasons ?
You stated the chances of getting bitten by a dog were higher than a gun related incident , do you wear padding for defence against dog attacks or does your gun serve this purpose ?
How are 70, 000 injuries and 22, 000 suicdes by gun a gang problem ?
You admit swimming pools are very effective at ending life as are guns so you have no problem with more guns in the U S as it’s not a problem ?
Incidentally I understand figures perfectly and I never moved the goalposts we are debating guns after all , you want to totally narrow the debate into swimming pool deaths amongst minors in the home v gun deaths amongst minors in the home
Regarding Freakonomics and Levitts piece ,
From B.A. wordpress
1. It compares the number of homes with pools with the number of guns. The problem is that while almost all homes only have one pool while most homes with guns have more than one gun. When you look at households with pools versus households with guns and then do the comparison the numbers change. The chances of a child dying by gun increases from 1 in a million to 1 in 250,000. Still well below that of pools, but coming closer.
2. There have been several more recent studies strongly indicating that not all child deaths by gun get reported as such. They are often reported as just suicides or homicides. What this means is that the CDC data that Levitt used for his study may be seriously undercounting the number of gun deaths among children.
It would be nice if the anti-gun control groups were not so afraid of what further research would show and would allow further research to happen in order to clarify these questions. But no, they continue to obstruct and deny funding for this much needed data and research.
3. Other factors may be at play than just the safety of guns and pools – which is a risk of any straightforward comparison like this, it doesn’t really give us the reason for the difference in numbers. In this case it could be that:
a. Most parents consider guns more dangerous than pools and so guns are usually hidden away from children. If guns were left lying around and had the same level of supervision that pools do, then there is a good chance that children dying by guns would increase to the level of pools or possibly surpass it. Or possibly not. Intuitively I know it would increase. What is uncertain is the amount.
b. Given what I just wrote, then the simplistic comparison done by Levitt is really not valid. A better comparison would be a comparison of one activity when it is properly supervised and when it is not properly supervised against another activity when it is properly supervised and when it is not.
I eagerly await the results of such a study. I have a strong feeling it is only going to make that elephant the anti-gun control crowd is so studiously ignoring even bigger and stronger.
But if guns were not in the house in the first place that means the chances of death and accidents are lessened even more
That’s true, but here is the point of all of my stats. The increased danger by a gun in my house in negligible, as the number have shown. And that danger can be brought even lower by simply being responsible. The danger is certainly there, but there are many dangers out there and guns aren’t even at the top. Your more likely to drown. Alcohol is more likely to kill you. We aren’t talking about alcohol because we both value having it in our lives. We are talking about guns because only I value it in my life. But the reasoning you apply to justify me loosing my gun is equally applicable to other products, such as alcohol and pools. But people like those things.
The gun homicide rate is pretty high. As are all crime rates in the US. Our jails are a revolving door and we cannot effectively disincentivize criminality. That fact is not justification for my gun to be taken from me. Switzerland and Finland are European countries with very high gun ownership (Though less than the US) and very low crime. That’s because guns aren’t the problem. Not there and not here. Crime is.
Around 43% of households have guns. Those guns are rarely used in murder. Rather the murder rates come from inner cities, where guns are already significantly restricted and the people using them are already barred from having them. It is not reasonable to address gun violence by taking guns from 43% of the households when they aren’t the source of our problems.
If guns were left lying around and had the same level of supervision that pools do, then there is a good chance that children dying by guns would increase
There is a reason you will never hear a gun advocate say that gun owners should leave their guns lying around. Gun advocates are gun safety advocates. When states began requiring young hunters to take a safety course before receiving a hunting license, shooting accidents decreased significantly. It’s always gun and hunter enthusiasts who teach those classes. In my state it is always gun enthusiasts that provide the course required for a concealed carry permit, and they have denied to pass people they thought to be unsafe.
It compares the number of homes with pools with the number of guns. The problem is that while almost all homes only have one pool while most homes with guns have more than one gun
Yes, and they concluded the danger of any given gun to any given pool. I didn’t do that though. I compared the households with guns compared to the households with a pool. I’m sure my findings appeared less significant than Levitt’s, but they nonetheless illustrated more danger from pools than from guns. Drowning has a 45% chance of death. That’s higher than the odds of death from being shot, even assaultively.
There have been several more recent studies strongly indicating that not all child deaths by gun get reported as such
Since the CDC goes off official reports, that would mean a significant number of investigation into a shooting would have to get it wrong. I don’t know how a study could arrive at that conclusion. But if it were true, then our real problem is retarded investigators.
It would be nice if the anti-gun control groups were not so afraid of what further research would show
We aren’t. Taking the data already available makes a strong enough case. Another study will only confirm my bias. Literally no one is blocking this kind of research. The lack thereof is more likely due to researches not wishing to be called unprofessional or dishonest, as will happen such a polarizing issue regardless of the outcome.
Given what I just wrote, then the simplistic comparison done by Levitt is really not valid
Good thing I didn’t present his analysis. I found the greatest source of inaccuracy to be comparing number of guns rather than number of households with guns. I adjusted for that and the numbers still support my position.
So what’s the point of all my stats? Well, I am using the same stats commonly used to make a case against gun rights. But I am providing some context to make a case for gun rights. Guns are dangerous, but let’s keep some perspective. Guns are used in murder and suicide, but my gun isn’t. The vast vast majority of guns are not. I don’t want to take away anyone’s alcohol, nor their pool, nor their dogs. I am simply pointing out that a consistent application of the logic used against gun rights would necessarily go against a number of things that people value.
Ok , in fairness that’s a well reasoned piece and I can appreciate that you’re genuine when you speak about guns and your realationship to them , as an outsider it’s incredibly difficult to understand the mindset of the “ average” American regarding guns especially when you hear some of the macho gun nuts on C D .
I’ve actually enjoyed the exchange and it’s refreshing to debate on guns with an American without it turning into an all brawl
Well that’s something they need to work on isn’t it ?
Half the story ? It’s enough of a story for most rational people 30, 000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries are living proof of how bad the problem is ; so again are you saying guns do more good than damage ?
It appears from your piece that not alone are citizens of the U S terrified of break in’s and hostile government take overs , but now it seems sexual abuse attacks are yet another significant threat the average citizen faces daily , personally I would emigrate ☺️
Regards the study you cite the findings have been rubbished by experts in the field
Another clarification, of the 30,000, about 2/3rd of them are suicides.
I know your emigration quip wasn’t serious, even so, consider how big the US is. Most of the violence is focused in little pockets in cities that, to many of us, are far away. It would be like Paris having a problem with violence and people telling you all about how bad your Europe is.
Almost half of us have legal guns in our homes. Around 10,000 of us are murdered each year by a gun. Most of those murdered are young black men dying in gang violence. That means the vast majority of us are perfectly reasonable in having guns.
If you are going to discount a source on the basis that it has been “rubbished by experts in a field”, you should at least provide your own source so we can see what is rubbish.
The emigration quip was indeed just that , but Winston worried me with that snippet about Americans warding of sexual predators in such large masses ☺️
Again for every stat you bring up for the pro gun side I can do likewise for the anti side , this issue is beyond resolution
I’ve asked before and will do so again ..... If a total gun ban was enforced in the U S what do you think would happen ?
I do indeed discount the source and I’m surprised you and Winston who are normally well up on such matters have not even heard of the various experts and sources who rubbish Gleck and Kertzs “ findings “
Don’t take my word do your own research if you wish
I do. That’s why we disagree. Incidentally, I haven’t read that source he provided. I just don’t know on what grounds you were discounting it.
Winston worried me with that snippet about Americans warding of sexual predators in such large masses
Regardless of the source, there is cause for concern. As I said, America has a crime problem.
If a total gun ban was enforced in the U S what do you think would happen ?
Wouldn’t happen. First, it would be illegal. If it was done without a Constitutional Amendment, the law would go largely unenforced. Where it is enforced, it would be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Then the legislators who are responsible would be voted out.
If the government attempted to alter the Constitution without due process, there would be a massive social upheaval with the support of most law enforcement and much of the military. That would end similarly, with the removal of the responsible parties and the ban overturned.
Doing a gun ban legally is politically impossible. The amount of support necessary for a Constitutional Convention to remove the 2nd Amendment just isn’t there. If it was there, then the US would be quite a bit different than it currently is. If that were the case, a few people would be upset and then quiet down.
Regardless of the legality, a successful gun ban would not do anything to eliminate what is already illegal firearm possession. It would only criminalize what is currently legal, responsible gun ownership. It would also create stronger financial incentives for black market weapons trafficking. Similarly, a ban hasn’t done anything for heroin reduction, as heroin use has recently skyrocketed.
If a total ban on guns was implemented mainly criminals would have them so what ?
In a country with such a crime problem as the US, saying “so what” to arming only criminals is callously dismissive. Furthermore, since the vast majority of gun homicides are committed by people who are already blocked from legal ownership, a ban that still fails to stop their possession will still fail to stop their murder.
why are you upset at the thoughts of criminals eliminating each other ?
Those criminals do more than that. Ask any small business attempting to serve the neighborhoods most affected by these criminals and you will understand the callousness of your question.
I wonder where you got the stats for gun homicides ?
Often the same as you. When I google your data I get the CDC as the source. Then I look into their information more to get the nuance, such as the suicide distinction from homicide. That’s why I clarify your data more than refute it. When you said X number of children die, I googled your numbers to find that “children” referred to people aged 19 and under.
So American criminals now target mainly small businesses ?
But you stated before that the main cause of deaths regarding guns was “ gang related “ and you’re still not answering what I asked
No you don’t clarify my data you dispute it by going to your own source , and most recently you now ignore it as your recent posts demonstrate
Just to further clarify your data rather than refute it what my numbers actually said was ......
The study also found that an average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries, making guns the third-leading cause of death for children in America (behind illnesses and unintentional injuries like drownings or car crashes). The number is based on data taken from 2012–2014 for children up to the age of 17.
So American criminals now target mainly small businesses ?
When you misrepresented my position as being that peer reviewed journals are 100% credible, it was similar to this misrepresentation. You haven’t been doing it until just recently. But it reflects poorly on your position. You should go back to not doing it.
American criminals target those around them. In gang infested neighborhoods, that means mostly other criminals. Incidentally, that’s where most of the gun homicides in question occur. Now tell an innocent shop owner that he can no longer keep that shotgun behind the counter because all those assholes in his neighborhood are too dangerous with their guns that you aren’t getting rid of. It’s absurd. And when he counter argues that they all still have guns with which to rob him, your callous response is “so what?”
No you don’t clarify my data you dispute it by going to your own source
Most of your sources are drawn from the CDC. That’s where I am getting my data as well. If you wish to challenge my source, you’ll be challenging your own. The CDC is credible.
(I just checked. Your study come from the journal Pediatrics. I’ll have to look at it. Your other numbers, 70,000 and 30,000 comes from the CDC.
What I actually said was ......You don’t have to trust anyone or anything that’s why I asked to research the findings yourself , also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurate.........
How is that misrepresenting you as you seem to place an awful lot of trust on peeer reviewed papers
Yes it’s still “ so what “ criminals mostly kill other criminals and shopkeepers are nightly fighting off armed criminals by threatening them with shotguns ...... really ?
The last figures I posted are not from the C D C the very ones that gave the actual age of 17 years of age as opposed to the 19 you stated
This is where people start to get pissed at you. I show a preference for a peer reviewed journal over a news story and you ask “why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed that it’s 100 percent accurate”.
I point out that innocent shop owners in high crime areas have a valid increased interest in keeping a firearm and you say “So American criminals now target mainly small businesses?”
I know the last one you posted wasn’t CDC. They were from the journal Pediatrics. I told you I just checked and saw that. I haven’t read that piece. But tell me, is CDC data credible?
Really ? This is where I get pissed at you , I post a news story with a link to a peer reviewed paper destroying the claims made by Gluck and Kertz and you get upset , why’s that ?
Yes your point about small shopkeepers is absurd to say the least , you keep ignoring my broader point as in so what if only criminals have guns
Is the journal of pediatrics credible ? Is C D C credible ? Which one is more credible and why ?
This is where I get pissed at you , I post a news story with a link to a peer reviewed paper destroying the claims made by Gluck and Kertz and you get upset , why’s that ?
I didn’t get upset at that article, I addressed what it said directly. I got upset at your misrepresentation of my position. It’s what you do when you start to get frustrated.
you keep ignoring my broader point as in so what if only criminals have guns
Saying “so what if criminals have guns” isn’t exactly a point. Nonetheless here is my counter. Criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence. If a ban does not take guns away from them, then it is not only fruitless, it is detrimental to those non-criminals who may benefit from a firearm, such as a shop owner in a bad neighborhood. Since non-criminals account for such a small portion of the gun violence, the real question is, so what if non-criminals have guns?
Is the journal of pediatrics credible ?
I don’t know anything about it.
Is C D C credible ?
It’s the source I most often see cited for statistics of the kind we are discussing. Are you willing to acknowledge it as credible?
The piece I posted makes rubbish of the bold claims made by Gleck and Kertz , how I misrepresented you is beyond me
Well it actually is a point as it’s asking you a direct question , so I get what you’re saying a ban wouldn’t work and that’s that , if non criminals have guns there are still gun deaths and accidents and quiet a lot of them , so you are off the opinion that a certain amount of gun deaths and accidents are just fine once you can have your gun ?
Incidentally your claim that criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence means what exactly ?
Most gun deaths are not the result of gang violence so your point is ?
I don’t know how credible the C D C or any other source are how am I meant to know ?
The CDC is just as credible as the journal of pediatrics I guess ,
Why are you still banging on about the CDC I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make
so you are off the opinion that a certain amount of gun deaths and accidents are just fine once you can have your gun ?
No, I am of the opinion that taking away my gun will not change the data, so I will keep it.
Incidentally your claim that criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence means what exactly ?
If criminals are the primary cause of gun violence, and a ban would not remove their guns, then a ban is not the best way to reduce gun violence.
I don’t know how credible the C D C or any other source are how am I meant to know ?
The CDC has been the standard for most studies, including the one in Pediatrics (They used CDC data). I'm banging that drum so that we can at least agree on sources. It is essential to an argument. To keep it all together, I am posting an actual argument in another thread.
Also, I’m not sure why we are supposed to trust Politico of a peer reviewed scientific journal. Specifically, an article that never even mentions Gleck or Kertz.
You don’t have to trust anyone or anything that’s why I asked to research the findings yourself , also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurate
Actually the article did mention them , did you ever read it ?
In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.
also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurate
That’s a weird assertion. To claim that a peer reviewed scientific journal may be more credible than a news article is reasonable, though it does not imply 100% trust in either.
Actually the article did mention them , did you ever read it ?
No, I hadn’t. I just used the ctrl f function and didn’t find it. Perhaps my page wasn’t expanded.
many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.
According to your article, Kleck and Getz failed to account for respondents lying. They further failed to account for bad memories. While telescoping can be accounted for, respondents lying cannot. It’s not a very appropriate critique to look at a study whose results you don’t like and claim simply that they probably lied.
You would think inflated results produced by such short comings as liars with bad memories would prompt researchers to do follow up studies. The journal article is from 1992.
I provided a piece which I now believe you didn’t even read as a link is provided in the piece called Decisive Rebukes which destroys the claims made ; also if you study it and the journal it’s in I would hardly call it a “ news article “
You need to actually read the piece I mentioned above
Ah so you didn’t read it , as the link in the piece ( Decisive Rebukes ) is printed up in the self same peer reviewed journal as Winston’s , I think you’re just trolling now
I told you I hadn’t read even your politico source at first, and I told you why I thought they didn’t mention Winston’s journal authors. I then read the article, the the links within it.
Don’t assume trolling as a means of avoidance. Once I read the politico article I addressed it. My final thought remains, that the lack of follow up studies is curious.
Winston’s study is the study I was referring to. His was the only study in question. Your countering article was a summary of a peer reviewed critique, not a study. It is in light of the critique that a lack of follow up studies is curious.
My article was a peer reviewed critique of Winston’s piece titled .....
Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates
In light of this critique its curious that a lack of follow up studies regarding Gleck and Kertzs dubious claims has not been presented by them as a valid defence
I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore as you ignore most points made and seem to be having a different debate entirely ; ignore away , I’ve already decided to take this option as you’re making no sense at all
Your going on about Winston’s piece non stop , I provided a peer reviewed paper destroying the dubious claims made by Gleck and Kertzs “ assertions “ so why you want me to read something else is beyond me , maybe you should work on defending Gleck and kertzs flawed “ study “ ?
Incidentally, I haven’t read that source he provided. I just don’t know on what grounds you were discounting it.
Did I even read your article? No, I hadn’t. I just used the ctrl f function and didn’t find it. Perhaps my page wasn’t expanded
Then I read it.
According to your article, Kleck and Getz failed to account for respondents lying. They further failed to account for bad memories.
the point? You would think inflated results produced by such short comings as liars with bad memories would prompt researchers to do follow up studies. The journal article is from 1992
All the rest has been responding to your posts and correcting your misrepresentations.
Regarding Winston’s piece you stated .......If you are going to discount a source on the basis that it has been “rubbished by experts in a field”, you should at least provide your own source so we can see what is rubbish........
I did provide my own source which destroyed the dubious claims made so why are are you still going on about it ?
Why would researchers do follow ups to claims that they proved to be incorrect , maybe to show them even more incorrect?
The misrepresentations have all been on your part I’m afraid as I’ve just pointed out and yet I continue to correct you
Why have these “ experts “ not produced a paper defending their nonsense ?
Is the answer not glaringly obvious ?
The new year has only started in the U S and 70 gun deaths already 114 injuries , 5 children under the age of 11 killed or injured ,12 to 17 year olds killed or injured , I mass shooting and these from all over the country , well on your way to the next 30, 000 odd deaths
Also the latest gun accidents have a four month old baby injured , a 7 , 6 , and 9 year old total of injuries 8 so far and all kids , but hey it’s not a problem is it ?
I did provide my own source which destroyed the dubious claims made so why are are you still going on about it ?
I'm not going on about it. The above post is all I've ever really said about it. The rest is in response to you, just like now.
My point about followup is that the question of the study is one of interest to many people. The article that shows the results to be dubious points to respondents lying and having bad memories. There should be followup studies to get more accurate results, but there having been any that I know of. It doesn't matter who does the study, but someone should. I don't think anyone wants to get into the mess. Whatever the results end up being, someone will say the respondents lied.
I don't know where you already got data from the last 3 days, but I'm going to address firearm deaths in the other thread.
It sure seems that way to me as if you clearly read the rebuttal of the assertions made by Gleck and Kertz you would plainly see the ball was left in their court and as yet they’ve offered no defence , maybe you need to read the conclusion of the rebuttal and offer an opinion based on that
Yes there should be follow up studies by Gleck and Kertz in an attempt to at least defend themselves, as yet nothing
I’m getting my information from the highly reputable G V A
I don't know the methodology of the GVA. But if it is accurate, there are between 1,500 and 2,000 instances of defensive use of a firearm in a year(2,020 in 2017). That mean's that a gun owner is more likely to use his gun defensively than he is to die from it accidentally.
The methodology used is they take their stats from 2, 000 different sources and sites ; accidental gun injuries and deaths far out number defensive use so what’s your point ?
According to data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.
There were 70; 000 non fatal shootings involving guns in the U S in 2015 so your point remains that yous do not have a gun problem ?
Let’s also post a piece from the piece I supplied and you claimed you read but obviously didn’t it destroys the myth you and Winston seem to think is somehow fact ......
In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodore Wafer from his slumber. Unable to find his cell phone to call the police, he grabbed the shotgun he kept loaded in his closet. Wafer opened the door and, spotting a dark figure behind the screen, fired a single blast at the supposed intruder. The shot killed a 19-year-old girl who was knocking to ask for help after a car accident.
Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014, two friends left a party briefly. Upon returning they accidently knocked on the wrong door. Believing burglars were breaking in, the frightened homeowner called the police, grabbed his gun and fired a single round, hitting one of the confused party-goers in the chest.
On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face.
What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
I address the mass shooting stuff in another post to you.
Let’s also post a piece from the piece I supplied and you claimed you read but obviously didn’t it destroys the myth you and Winston seem to think is somehow fact
You should know that supplying 3 anecdotal situations does nothing for a debate concerned with statistics. Especially when 2 of those 3 present an illegal use of a firearm.
And to eliminate the straw man you keep setting up, I haven't supported the data presented in Winston's source, I supported the idea of having followup studies. Nothing I have argued is based on that study.
The only data I used to make an argument concerning defensive firearm use came from your source, the GVA. According to data in your source, a homeowner with a gun is more likely to use their gun defensively than they are to die from it accidentally.
(That's being generous. The GVA estimates are very low, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, apparently indicates 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. Maybe they include law enforcement.)
I didn’t supply any anecdotal situations , I provided a peer reviewed paper that destroys the assertions made by Gleck and Kertz so the straw man you ridiculously accuse me of using is the very thing you are using to salve your obvious frustration at being proven incorrect yet again
You keep stubbornly ignoring the fact as to why would the writer of a peer reviewed paper that destroys the assertions of Gleck and Kertz need follow up studies ? I’ve asked you this several times and you still cannot answer
Constantly ignoring what I ask only make your already very weak position even more so
“In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights…”, “Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014…”, “On Sept. 21, 2014…”. You gave three examples. That’s anecdotal.
the straw man you ridiculously accuse me of using is the very thing you are using to salve your obvious frustration
I'm actually enjoying crunching these numbers quite a bit (almost entirely from the CDC, though I will start to look at NCVS as well). I don't care about the Gleck and Kertz study. I haven't referenced their study. I have said all I have to say about it (kind of a long time ago now). You keep trying to connect me to it, and that’s what I am calling a strawman.
To clarify, I haven't suggested there needs to be followup on the critique of Gleck and Kertz's study. What I have said, several times now, is that there should be followup studies of the kind Gleck and Kertz were attempting.
Just now I searched defensive gun use. According to Wikipedia, studies with low end estimates put defensive gun use at 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year. Prior to just this moment, the only estimate I used was the roughly 2,000 presented in GVA. (and a mention of the NCVS estimate)
But if you read the follow up study I posted you would have gained some insight into the myth of defensive gun use but I guess you just plodded on ignoring what’s uncomfortable
Gleck and Kertz were found out thus no follow up story as how can one back up nonsense ?
Your enjoyment of crunching numbers is obvious as it aids in misrepresentating them as in your sadly weak swimming pool “ argument “ , I’m delighted you favour the CDC as maybe you can accept the corrections on your swimming pool argument
Ah your onto wiki now , good to see you and Winston are down from the yearly 2 million figures for defensive gun use , so sorry to destroy yet another of your arguments read below ,
But if you read the follow up study I posted you would have gained some insight into the myth of defensive gun use but I guess you just plodded on ignoring what’s uncomfortable
Actually, I accepted your data from the GVA (which is far below the estimates of the Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even using those ridiculously low estimates, a gun owner is more likely to use his gun defensively than he is to die from it accidentally. I have stated this a few times now. You keep mentioning Gleck and Kertz, I don't.
I’m delighted you favour the CDC as maybe you can accept the corrections on your swimming pool argument
You should read my post again. There are way more guns than swimming pools. That makes the likelihood of death from any given swimming pool much higher.
Ah your onto wiki now , good to see you and Winston are down from the yearly 2 million figures for defensive gun use
I know you know that I never claimed this. It’s getting pretty overt.
Because you claim the stats are ridiculously low means you don’t agree with them so you just call them ridiculous as they don’t support your claims , your point seems to be defensive use is more likely than accidental gun death , so what ?
If you’re defending yourself it’s from other gun carriers , guns are not a problem gangs are according to you
I mentioned the counter to Gleck and Kertzs “ paper “ as it addresses the myth of defensive gun use which you wish to ignore
I’ve no need to read your post again as you keep changing your position as in your latest re - stating of the your much loved swimming pool argument which dealt with the death of minors in swimming pools now you’re changing that yet again to fit your broader narrative .......
That makes the likehood of death by swimming much higher ......
Amongst who minors , or everyone ?
No , but you jumped the gun and said I shouldn’t rubbish the work of peer reviewed authors which would seem to be a fair indicator of agreement with Winston’s position as it fitted your agenda , I’m pointing out your bias regarding the matter which again seems to upset you
Because you claim the stats are ridiculously low means you don’t agree with them so you just call them ridiculous as they don’t support your claims
I’m sure the number is accurate for what it is, instances listed in the news. But the Bureau of Justice Statistics is obviously more accurate. Even so, using only instances in the news, my position is still supported by the numbers.
your point seems to be defensive use is more likely than accidental gun death , so what ?
Well, since I’m not homicidal or suicidal, then a gun is more likely to save me than to kill me. That means there is no justification to take it from me.
I mentioned the counter to Gleck and Kertzs “ paper “ as it addresses the myth of defensive gun use which you wish to ignore
It addresses bad data presented by Gleck and Kertz. I am using data from the GVA. And that’s being generous. 2000 is a far cry smaller than 108,000. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics seals up my argument completely. Keep attacking Gleck and Kertz, it’s got nothing to do with what I have said.
I’ve no need to read your post again as you keep changing your position as in your latest
I haven’t changed my position. You wanted to talk about death, so I showed you the numbers on death. Then you wanted to talk about injury, so I showed you the numbers on injury. I got the idea to look into swimming pools from Levitt, but the numbers are mine, and the analysis is different.
Amongst who minors , or everyone ?
This is why I suggested you read my post again. I stated clearly what data I was presenting. When you wanted to talk about specific age groups, I talked about those age groups. Though I initially referred to all age groups in 2015, you wanted to talk about people 14 and under in 2013 for some reason. In the demographic you choose, there were only 69 unintentional firearm deaths. For ages 15 to 24 in 2013 there were only 107 unintentional firearm deaths. When you include intentional firearm deaths, for ages 15 to 24 in 2013, the number goes to 6,181, which you would expect from the age group most associated with gang violence and criminality. I really did say all this before. You can literally scroll up.
which would seem to be a fair indicator of agreement with Winston’s position as it fitted your agenda , I’m pointing out your bias
Yes, I am biased toward the position that I have been promoting throughout this entire debate. Go figure. What’s interesting about bias is that your seems to make you incapable of being happy that guns are not the problem you thought they were. That’s good news.
"Half the story ? It’s enough of a story for most rational people 30, 000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries are living proof of how bad the problem is ; so again are you saying guns do more good than damage ?"
Yes, the cited study suggests that over 2 million crimes are prevented yearly by civilian gun use. This is before going into my main point of personal power and the balance of power between citizen and government.
"It appears from your piece that not alone are citizens of the U S terrified of break in’s and hostile government take overs , but now it seems sexual abuse attacks are yet another significant threat the average citizen faces daily , personally I would emigrate ☺️"
200k attempted sexual assaults in a year is less than a tenth of a percent of the population of 320 million.
"Regards the study you cite the findings have been rubbished by experts in the field"
I read the link you gave to Amarel and honestly I too believe that the figures are likely to be exaggerated for the reasons given. Practically every interview/questionnaire/self-report study shares these same flaws, though (apart from telescoping). The NVCS estimate of 108k is far too low because they only took reports from people who reported themselves as "victimized" by a crime. People who have successfully defended themselves from a crime aren't likely to report themselves as victims of crime in a questionnaire.
But the study has was seriously flawed so it’s findings are not to be taken seriously. I link I provided to Amarel destroys the assertions made if you read the conclusion at the finish you will se the actual stats
As I say, the flaws of the study are mostly inherent to questionnaire/interview/survey study designs (apart from telescoping, though it is a common issue in such designs). Kleck did a good job defending his work, particularly against the claims of telescoping, external validity and over-representation (Source 1, pg21-27). I also went into the most major flaw of the study cited in your link; it's guaranteed to give a number lower than reality because those who successfully defend themselves from crime are unlikely to consider themselves as victims of the crime.
Lott performed several studies which all found similar (2 million/yr) estimates (Source 2). By asking about whether the participant had been present when threats, criminal activity, etc. had happened before asking about defensive gun use, they eliminated the possibility that people would lie for either ideological or social reasons (2 of the major criticisms from your link).
I think you are right to point out the fact that the study is likely to overestimate the annual numbers of defensive gun uses (DGU). While Kleck and Gertz did perform preliminary work that estimated the telescoping effect to be small, other studies such as that done by the NVCS estimate telescoping for DGU at a rate of around 30% (with one study even estimating 50%). I personally would conclude, therefore, that the number of DGUs is somewhere between 108k and 2 million, with the number unlikely to reside in the extreme bounds due to flaws in both methodologies.
This reminds me of the differences in counting casualties in Iraq a decade ago. Lancet and ORB surveys overestimated the numbers while Iraq body count underestimated them due to differences in methodology.
Thanks for that Winston, your final point is well made and noted .........
This reminds me of the differences in counting casualties in Iraq a decade ago. Lancet and ORB surveys overestimated the numbers while Iraq body count underestimate
So citizens of countries that do not allow their citizens to bear arms are slaves ?
You claim to be a “ Christian “ yet seem to take pride in the fact that 30,000 Americans die from guns every year in the U S and 70, 000 other Americans are injured by guns carried by idiots like you but hey you’re not a ..... slave
It is very simple. It sorts itself out. You look at these numbers. These numbers are irrelevant to me. I would rather call for personal and moral responsibility than to give another excuse for the pirates to take more loot.
Civilised society 😂😂😂 30,000 gun deaths a year are a mark of a civilised society ?
So that’s it people die every day which includes the 1000s of innocents who die from guns..... but hey the American Christian says people die every day so it’s all good
You do realize what that means? It means it isn't really a problem here.
The population of The United States is about 325,000,000.
Even if we use your number of "30,000 gun deaths", it seems pretty clear to me that there isn't a gun violence problem.
Notice where the gun violence is? Places like Chicago where they have effectively banned guns. The government might as well be waging war on the population.
You don't know what is going on here, quit pretending to. Why don't you pay more attention to what is going on in your own country?
Oh, that's right... Because The United States is important. No one here cares about what is going on in your country.
Maybe we should ban automobiles... How about cutlery? How about anything that can potentially hurt someone?
The American spirit is firmly rooted in the law of liberty. The people who are trying to ban guns are doing so because they are trying to overthrow the government and enslave the people. It's got nothing to do with keeping people safe. You fall for them because if you fall for the whole "God does not exist" thing, you'll fall for damn near everything.
Keep on fallin'. It would be better if you allowed Jesus to pick you back up and carry you.
Christianity and big government are incompatible. Scripture speaks of the law of liberty. It is not Christian to desire a theocracy or any big government in general. The Christian faith is not in government.
The American spirit is very compatible with Christianity. The first amendment practically describes everything a church congregation does.
You don't know what you are talking about. It's the truth.
Oh shut up you moron with your babble I’ve heard all this’s bullshit before
30, 000 gun deaths isn’t a problem or mass murders at the local college or school are not a problem and of course accidents involving children are no problem as it’s your “ right “ to carry a piece
The U S is not “ important “ but gun deaths worldwide are , the U S thanks to Trump is a laughing stock and the only people who fail to see this are idiots like you .
So in your retarded skull “ spoon “ deaths are a cause for concern .
It’s hilarious a two faced knob sucker like you seems to think Jesus if around would be carrying a piece ,your knob sucking psalm singing ( in her sleep 😂) wife most likely agrees with you
"I know everything, you're wrong, everyone is dumb except me and those who agree with me. I'm going to call you names now, tell you what you believe, and insult your wife."
I know a lot but not everything , I’m right you are indeed wrong , and you never stop telling people they are wrong you hypocrite
What I state about your wife is factual your denial is amusing
You never had a “ legitimate “ argument to start
As usual you’re a shining example of a Christian hypocrite , Jesus supports the carrying of a gun come on you hypocrite surely even a prick like you doesn’t believe that ? 🤪
I'm such a bigot that I volunteer to serve, protect, and show love to those who are fooled and tormented by Satan. Yes, people who are very much anti-Christian, like you, I serve these people on a daily basis. I do it because of the love of Christ that strengthens me, I do not make money from it.
If you actually knew me, you couldn't ever call me a bigot. If you were to call me a bigot here in the real world, you would get laughter from probably a more diverse group of people than you yourself would ever be willing to associate with.
That is your problem. You speak as if you have knowledge when you really don't.
Why do I call you a bigot? Because it is obvious that you have it out for Christians. You hate God. In fact, the hatred you have clearly effects your ability to debate effectively. As the scriptures so rightly say, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."
It doesn't have to be like this. It might be good for your spiritual development to practice charity.
What would really be better for you is if you turned from your wicked ways and made peace with God.
Now you’re an egotist and boasting about it , you do it because it makes you feel all superior and Christian, you’re a hypocrite
You keep boasting about how great you are I don’t believe it , I don’t hate Christians I’m married to one you idiot and my family are Christians you see over here we believe in the live and let live ethos , also how can I hate what I don’t believe in you fool ?
Do you hate Zeus , Odin and Thor ?
I didn’t even read your horsehit from the book of bile and why do you preach about charity and you don’t even know what the term means you idiot, boasting about doing good is the opposite of charity and you opened up with ..... boasting of how charitable you are , maybe you should read what Jesus actually said about charity it’s in the book you’re never read also try and find the part where Jesus mentions that his followers should always carry a weapon 🤔
Yes, I am aware that charity doesn't puff itself up. I am not trying to puff myself up.
I must become less so that Christ becomes more. You always want to make it about me, but I know what I am. I am a sinner, and one who does not deny this.
So why do you attack me?
It would be better for you if you turned to Christ.
See, I am not vaunting myself up to those who I am performing charity for. You don't perform charity for someone and then say, "I am doing this out of charity". That is a slap to the face.
Jesus was persecuted for healing people on the sabbath, which was unlawful. How is that any different from what it is you are doing right now? You are persecuting Jesus, not me.
I do not claim to be saintly and great. It is obvious that you are a bigot. Being the arbitrary person you are, you try to turn it around on me and call me a bigot. I am clearly not a bigot. You clearly are. If you want to dispute this, I don't really care to argue, because I believe that the things you say make it very clear what the truth of the matter is. I don't need to add anything to that.
You are not a Christian, but you appeal to my Christianity in a debate about the right to bear arms. You don't debate honestly. You are a troll, and for the sake of trolling... Which is simply trouble making.
Besides that, you are a loser. That is what it means to deny The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It means you lost from the get go. If you do not believe in God, it can be understood that the things you say come from a place of deception.
So what? Are you going to insult me, my wife, my faith, my country? What else are you going to attack?
Bout anything except for whatever subject it is we are actually talking about.
You truly are pathetic.
As I said from the get go, the way the constitution is written, to give up the right to bear arms is to consent to slavery. That is why the right to bear arms is important. It has very little to do with actually owning arms. I don't have to have arms to believe that we have the right to bear them.
There ya go again comparing yourself to Jesus you just cannot help it can you as you’re a puffed up egotist aren’t you ?
Actually you do claim to be saintly and calling me what you are a bigot is sadly typical of a true bigot like you ; you’re certainly not a Christian as you believe Jesus would have carried a gun that makes you yet again a liar and a hypocrite doesn’t it ?
Jesus approved of slavery you idiot read your Bible only a fucked in the head American Bible thumper believes Jesus would approve of carrying a weapon , if you claim to believe in god you are coming from a place of deception and denying reality ; you have embraced absurdity again
The point is not that Jesus would carry a gun, the point is that relinquishing the RIGHT to bear arms is consent to slavery.
It is not necessary to exercise the right to bear arms to still have that right.
If a Christian or anyone else for that matter is morally against owning firearms, they are welcome to NOT own them. No one is stopping them.
See, I have the right to have a gun. I don't have to own a gun to have the right to have a gun. If I don't have a gun, I can always get one if I wanted one. If I don't ever want a gun, I don't ever have to get one.
You see, if the people give up the right to bear arms, it isn't going to make firearms disappear. Even if all guns were destroyed, along with production... There would still be black market production. Even if it were possible to completely stamp that out, the government itself would still have firearms. Bureaucracies and institutions in general are very susceptible to corruption. It is unavoidable, no matter what measures are taken.
The American spirit is firmly rooted in the law of liberty, and it is acknowledged in the bill of rights that it is necessary for the security of a free state that the right of the people to bear arms is not infringed. A well regulated militia does not mean a well trained military, it means that the military is answerable to the people on a greater level than whatever institution claims to be the state. This spirit is enshrined in the constitution.
The people who are working to overthrow the law of the land intend to rob and enslave the population. They are thieves who come to kill, steal, and destroy. It is in their interests to strip power away from the people.
So no, you say what you say not because you have the interests of Americans or humanity in general in mind. At best, you don't understand the debate because you have bad information. At worst, you understand the debate and hope for the enslavement of America.
So what? The point is, there is another side to this debate that is far more reasonable than you give it credit for.
The point is would Jesus carry a gun you idiot as you claim to be a Christian yet have no problem hypocritically believing Jesus would approve , how do you even call yourself a Christian ?
The rest of your ridiculous rant is just another trigger happy yank who thinks 30,000 gun deaths and 70,000 injuries yearly are a fair price for him to keep packing as you put it
If anything, your claim that a few people must ruin it for everyone has scarier implications. If the government were to enforce disarmament on the population, there would be a whole lot more than 100,000 casualties.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvienenced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abidng citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvienence from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
Because of a proud founding group of Americans who defeated a tyrannical government and created a document by the people for the people guaranteeing certain inalienable rights. Our founders foresaw a time when their descendants may face a threat to our God given rights and set a solid foundation to protect us. Banning guns is not an option simply because of those first patriots anticipating that very thing coming to pass. A look back at history shows that change is inevitable and often accompanied by violence. Hunting for food and defense may be necessary. Violence is not a result of protecting the second amendment but a product of horrendous policies and laws enacted, essentially attacking our manufacturing, public works and agriculture industries. Unemployed disenfranchised skilled workers become angry at this imposed poverty. I for one will not be a victim to violence but will defend against it. Jesus preached love. People I care for are quite aware of my lifelong affinity for guns. I don't really preach love but I will do everything in my power to protect a friend from a threat. Fairly certain you are nota communist but a citizen of a country that took away your ability to easily defend yourself and loved ones.
Yes indeed so 30, 000 gun deaths and 70, 000 gun injuries a year are reason enough to continue with this bury your head in the sand attitude ?
Jesus preached love and no doubt American Christians are totally fine with carrying a gun because after Jesus would have approved ☺️
Thankfully I live in a country where I or anyone I know has yet had to defend themselves from a .... gun wielding thug or even an unarmed thug ; maybe that’s something you need to ask yourself as in why do you feel constantly under threat from your own extremely violent population?
The deaths of 30,000 souls to guns is equally horrendous as the countless victims of stabbings, dog attacks, reckless drivers or medical errors. Taking reasonable steps to limit human suffering and deaths is important. My ability to defend myself from unforeseen threats is important to me and my family or even a stranger such as yourself. The person burying his head is under the false belief that taking guns away from legal owners is even possible. One crazed criminal with a stockpile of illegal guns would find all those recently disarmed folks easy targets.
But we are talking about gun deaths , you’re admitting that 30,000 gun deaths a year and 70,000 gun injuries a year are a very “ reasonable “ price to pay just so you can defend yourself from daily threats of violence in your obviously incredibly dangerous country
you’re admitting that 30,000 gun deaths a year and 70,000 gun injuries a year are a very “ reasonable “ price to pay just so you can defend yourself from daily threats of violence in your obviously incredibly dangerous country
And the sheer irony is that the reason his country is so dangerous is, wait for it... because every Tom, Dick and Harry is walking around armed! The very second amendment law these imbeciles drivel about so senselessly, creates the reason they need the second amendment law in the first place!
a proficiently trained armed citizen will stop violence.
Hello Jim:
Nahh... Violence doesn't know good from bad.. Violence is, well VIOLENCE.. Consequently, a proficiently trained armed citizen WILL BE violent in ways you LIKE..
The deaths of 30,000 souls to guns is equally horrendous as the countless victims of stabbings, dog attacks, reckless drivers or medical errors.
Intentional shootings should not be compared to unintentional car or medical accidents because intentional shootings can be avoided very easily (by banning guns), whereas accidents can't be avoided very easily. That is precisely why they call them accidents! Nobody foresees them. Even in the case of knives and dog attacks, you are discussing things which have to be abused in order to be used as weapons. Knives are not there to stab people with. Guns however, are designed for the solitary purpose of being used as weapons.
Taking reasonable steps to limit human suffering and deaths is important
So why are you arguing with me?
My ability to defend myself from unforeseen threats is important to me and my family or even a stranger such as yourself.
This is another mindlessly generic pro-gun argument built on completely false (i.e. upside down) logic. You do not "defend" by attacking someone else. Weapons are there to attack other people with. They don't prevent you from taking damage or make you invincible and therefore they are not for protection or defence. They are for the sole purpose of seriously injuring others. You have literally redefined the meaning of the word "weapon" so that it means the complete opposite of what a weapon actually is.
So far, all you have done is offer up the standard false equivalences and draped your argument in the American flag.
Your government banned guns? Great, how is that working? I assume all the criminals drop the guns at the border because of the profound respect for the rule of law. I've never held a crossbow or a samurai sword or strapped a bomb on my back. If a person is wielding one of those I promise I will neutralize the threat. Incidentally, firearms are weapons for killing and providing mercy. I've never killed a rabid coyote or put down a suffering deer, but it happens. Guns do not have a soul purpose to injure. In my home state I am legally entitled to shoot to kill an intruder on my property. Unarmed, begging for his life or running away. As a deterrent or warning or to incapacitate are all viable options before lethal force is used. I certainly hope that you live a long life free of any danger from criminals or wild animals or foreign soldiers. Hypothetically, if a situation occured that being armed would give you a chance can you honestly not defend yourself?
Your government banned guns? Great, how is that working?
It's working great, thanks. We have about 50-60 gun homicides a year, compared to your 10,000 or so.
I assume all the criminals drop the guns at the border because of the profound respect for the rule of law
No, they most certainly do not. However, we don't try to use this fact to voluntarily sell them the same guns we are worried they might have, because that is completely fucking stupid.
"Completely fucking stupid" may have been the last thought of a few of those 50 people who had the only chance at surviving confiscated. Shoot, may have even killed a few wastes of life and prevent more crime. I have never aimed a gun at anyone. I do not hunt but may in the future. As a deterrent and the peace of mind I have in knowing that I am more than likely a much better shot than someone out to do harm to me is very important to me. Many of my fellow countryman fought and died to defend my freedoms. All of them. I have a sneaking suspicion that the root of your anti-gun rhetoric is because your choice has been taken from you leaving you helpless. A burglar scoping your neighborhood is not worried about you. My neighborhood does not have property crime. Every other home has a gun, guaranteed. Every once in a while you here about a dead kid trying to rob a Texan. It's like a office memo to the dumb shits they put out quarterly.
Because of a proud founding group of Americans who defeated a tyrannical government and created a document by the people for the people guaranteeing certain inalienable rights.
But this is just a textbook appeal to emotion. The wording you are using is purposefully preposterous because it disguises the fact that what you are actually arguing is for us to let ancient history with no relevance to modernity govern that same modernity. Words like "proud", "American", "tyrannical" and "rights" are all just examples of language which is loaded to make us think a certain way. When you are fighting a war against an occupying power then guns are unequivocally useful, but nobody is fighting a war against an occupying power. The American people are fighting a war among themselves and 30,000 people are dying every year as a result. 30,000 unnecessary, completely preventable deaths per year trumps your loaded, patriotic appeal to a war which ended hundreds of years ago.
Violence is not a result of protecting the second amendment
You are entirely misrepresenting the point. Nobody believes guns cause violence. People believe, quite rightly, that guns facilitate violence. That is the reason they were invented in the first place. You can't change someone's intent, but you can put an upper limit on the damage that intent can do.
Dismissing the heroic victory over a tyrannical world power intent on destroying a new found freedom movement because it happened a long time ago is a stretch. Timeframe is irrelevant to the millions of Americans still celebrating the sacrifice made ensuring freedom and liberty and every god darn right we have protected by laws made hundreds of years ago to specifically stay relevant for the descendants. Can I look into that crystal ball you obviously have? No? Fine. Then I will continue to have a level headed, prepared, cautious approach to a future that I can not predict. You are coming along here...guns don't cause violence. Correct. Now repeat after me...a proficiently trained armed citizen will stop violence.
Small correction. That crazy bunch of white haired hippy colonists who won a war against the most powerful military in the world made gun ownership a right not a privalage. By exercising my rights I can directly affect that statistic. If I leave my gun in the dresser one day and something horrible happens, then that number only goes up. On the other hand if I am armed that number could go up or down.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
So a female has no right to a firearm to protect herself from a rapist.
The exact same law which arms the female also arms the rapist you backwards hillbilly twit. How is it so difficult to understand that for every female you arm, you also arm five rapists? Guns are incredibly useful for rapists, but they are of very little use to most females.
All I ever hear from Americans is how it is their "right" to possess dangerous weapons, without the slightest consideration for the danger it puts other people in
1)You are more likely to be killed by a toddler or killed by lightning than by a Muslim...I mean a firearm.
2)So the cops are systematically oppressing black people according to libs, but said black people have no right to a firearm while the "racist police" are armed like it's Armageddon? Makes sense......
It is a United States Constitutional right to common dense to keep and bear-arm. As this process is a common defense mentioned in writing by the United States Constitution. Due to the fact a fire-arm is personal property when simply legislated away without full payment in advance to seizer becomes crime. Never are the words how much will it cost to buy this property ever said. This means in the end the Government force trying to remove a bare-arm set by principle to common defense will be buying this one arm, brought to bear to insure liberty. This means a declared self-value unlike any advances taken by Freedom.
An intellectual skilled thief is still just a common criminal in judicial imparity. The 2nd Amendment though ratified by all states has never been proven by any of said states actual holding required means of addition separation of this Union to Right.
Yes we are selfish it comes with the liberty as a person is allowed to hold self-value. Unlike Freedom. Any cost change made when a person is given more, and then more cost, to obtain an object, this cost can be added to the price of purchasing the object from them. Even when made by legislators who are just asked to be agents on behalf of public, domestic, or foreign seeking to illegally remove one basic Common defense in a long line of such common dense.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvienenced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abidng citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvienence from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
From an emotional point of view, your argument makes sense. But we don’t make laws based on emotion. We make them based on the Constitution. If you can round up 2/3 of the states, then we can make an impact.
From an emotional point of view, your argument makes sense.
You have it backwards. The only point of view my argument makes sense from is one of cold logic. Why waste 30,000 lives each year that you don't need to waste?
Logic, schmogic.... Waste, shmaste.. Those are NICE words. But, you cannot HAVE a discussion about guns WITHOUT mentioning the Constitution.. It's like talking about flying WITHOUT mentioning wings.
In you're not gonna discuss what can be DONE about it, I ain't interested in your pity party..
But, you cannot HAVE a discussion about guns WITHOUT mentioning the Constitution
You know that guns are an amendment to the constitution, right? They aren't part of the original document. Even if they were, then why should I respect you for holding belief in that piece of paper above everything else more than I do a Christian for holding it in the Bible? Let's face it: if you are going to use ancient wisdom as an argument, then their wisdom is considerably more ancient than yours. Plus, it was given to them by God and God outranks Benjamin Franklin as an arbiter of justice.
