(October 5, 2015 at 8:25 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Look; YES, guns kill people and YES school shootings would probably stop happening without them and YES crime would likely be reduced as a result of them being banned.
But for fuck sake, look at the big picture; Target practice is really fun.

So throw rocks at your targets. I rather imagine that a lunatic at a school is going to inflict a helluva lot less damage armed with a bag of rocks than with a gun.

Boru

(October 5, 2015 at 9:16 am)Losty Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 4:41 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Then it's a bad argument. 'Banning guns' doesn't mean the same thing as 'keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only'.

Boru

Again, the argument is that only law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. Why would a criminal turn in a gun just because it's banned?

You have armed police officers in the US, I gather? You don't wait for people you turn in illegal items. You go out and get them.

Boru

(October 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 4:41 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Then it's a bad argument. 'Banning guns' doesn't mean the same thing as 'keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only'.

The problem is that there are 300 million guns in America, many of them owned by criminals. You can write a law banning guns, but a man intent on robbing someone to get his fix isn't going to care about the fact that his gun is illegal. He's worried about his next fix. Gangstas warring over drug-sale turf aren't going to disarm in the face of a rival gang simply because there's a law requiring it.

Criminals break laws.

(October 5, 2015 at 4:41 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I haven't seen any statistics, but I'm willing to wager that the number of instances where privately held firearms offer 'protection' is insignificantly small.

Boru

From a study commissioned by the CDC (amongst others):

Quote:Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

Source: http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15, p.15

Even the VPC, which supports strong gun restrictions, acknowledges roughly 47,000 defensive gun uses annually.

Don't bet too much.

Okey doke. 300 000 000 guns. Let's use Kleck's figure of 3 million defensive use (I want to be as generous as possible). This means that 99% of the guns in the US are NEVER used defensively. Worst case scenario: If all guns were banned (and banned effectively) violent crime would tick up - at most - by 1% The actual increase would be far lower, as fewer criminal would have guns.

Bet's on.

Boru

Quote: A fair objection, probably due to the fact that a "defensive gun use" need not involve any triggers being pulled.

I'd love to see how that "sampling" was made.  Letters to the Editor of Guns 'n Ammo don't seem very "scientific."

(October 5, 2015 at 5:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The problem is that there are 300 million guns in America, many of them owned by criminals. You can write a law banning guns, but a man intent on robbing someone to get his fix isn't going to care about the fact that his gun is illegal. He's worried about his next fix. Gangstas warring over drug-sale turf aren't going to disarm in the face of a rival gang simply because there's a law requiring it.

Criminals break laws.


From a study commissioned by the CDC (amongst others):


Source: http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15, p.15

Even the VPC, which supports strong gun restrictions, acknowledges roughly 47,000 defensive gun uses annually.

Don't bet too much.

Okey doke. 300 000 000 guns. Let's use Kleck's figure of 3 million defensive use (I want to be as generous as possible). This means that 99% of the guns in the US are NEVER used defensively. Worst case scenario: If all guns were banned (and banned effectively) violent crime would tick up - at most - by 1% The actual increase would be far lower, as fewer criminal would have guns.

Bet's on.

Boru

I dunno, going by that most generous estimate, as you prefer, that means that for every crime committed, one was thwarted with a gun.

I wouldn't call 3 million "insignificantly small".

(October 5, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: A fair objection, probably due to the fact that a "defensive gun use" need not involve any triggers being pulled.

I'd love to see how that "sampling" was made.  Letters to the Editor of Guns 'n Ammo don't seem very "scientific."

Is that who you think the CDC polled to the exclusion of any other source?

(October 5, 2015 at 5:22 pm)KUSA Wrote: I would argue that they are mentally ill and it is evidenced by the fact that they are violent.

All of us have some form of violent tendencies when placed in certain situations.  However, it is abnormal to want to kill masses of people especially if you don't even know them. Think about it.

I'm glad that the links I posted and the point I made flew entirely over your head.

Ask any forensic psychologist and they will tell you that killing people, even multiple people, in no way indicates that the person is mentally ill. You're equating murder with a malfunctioning brain when the fact of the matter is that humans are just violent in general.

(October 5, 2015 at 11:04 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Ask any forensic psychologist and they will tell you that killing people, even multiple people, in no way indicates that the person is mentally ill.  You're equating murder with a malfunctioning brain when the fact of the matter is that humans are just violent in general.

You stated it much more eloquently than me.

The CDC is in the business of diseases, and guns are a disease business.

(October 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 8:25 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Look; YES, guns kill people and YES school shootings would probably stop happening without them and YES crime would likely be reduced as a result of them being banned.
But for fuck sake, look at the big picture; Target practice is really fun.

So throw rocks at your targets.  I rather imagine that a lunatic at a school is going to inflict a helluva lot less damage armed with a bag of rocks than with a gun.

Boru

Rocks don't go bang or make your rock hard when you hold them. You ever tried hunting a deer without a gun and an erection. Seriously not fun.

(October 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 8:25 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Look; YES, guns kill people and YES school shootings would probably stop happening without them and YES crime would likely be reduced as a result of them being banned.
But for fuck sake, look at the big picture; Target practice is really fun.

Yes, and target practice is especially interesting when the little targets run and hide and try to escape from the school.

That was so deliciously dark I just climaxed alittle.
I usually only do that when I'm polishing my M60.