Page: 1...67891011
Posted:eek eek eek eek eek eek

Tragic Loss of Life

This [censored] really saddens me. My thoughts go out to the victims, survivors and all their families.


Delete Topic

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Stone: I would say the willingness to put myself in danger for my friend does not mean that I put guns before friends
Jeff: You must not have been reading the thread then, because I believe most of us have brought instances where the gun is being used as protection, and not offensively, especially pounce and lurch. And as for not being properly trained we have put forth a need for a training for licensing. And that responsible owners practice because the last thing they want to be is a danger to anyone other than the one threatening.
LA: I would agree that autos should not be available to anyone outside the military, except maybe swat or something like that. We will not assume that someone has a gun to allow us to use ours. In order for a gun to be legally used, I think the defender has to be afraid for his life. This does not mean that if I simply brandish a knife that you can shoot me, but if I attack and you cannot get away, and you feel that you cannot defend yourself any other way, through say selfdefense training, a gun may be used. You cannot just say, "hmm that guy looks like he has a gun." But if he has been threatening you and says he has a gun and reaches for his waistband where there is a lumpy thing where there should be no lump...then maybe you can use a gun to defend yourself.
As for making it easier for criminals to get guns, in my experience, they were not going for a gun in a store. They were buying them off other criminals. These guys got them from others or from a robbery or rolling. If they just go buy a store gun, it's easier to trace.

(Over the last year, when I was a "criminal", we had all sorts of people in my car. One day someone was poking around and found a gun in my car. Someone else had left it. The fact that someone had it in the car with me not knowing scared me. Knowing that I had one after people started threatening my life and well-being and them knowing I had my knives and the gun made me feel safe. I never needed it and it stayed put away nearly the whole time we had it...eventually, I think we traded it for some food, illegals stuff, smokes, and some money. We didn't want to know what that gun was used for later or who ended up with it. Most criminals do not go to Walmart and buy a gun to be used for nefarious purposes)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



Jeff: You must not have been reading the thread then, because I believe most of us have brought instances where the gun is being used as protection, and not offensively, especially pounce and lurch.



I did read those, but the fact is they're not important. You need to take a statistical approach to decide what's best. You can come up with dozens of little stories in which someone does successfully use a gun for protection, but you ignore the countless others in which a kid blows his head off by accident or a bystander is killed when someone pulls a gun for their own protection. It's called "sampling bias".


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

LazyAngel
LazyAngel

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Cambridge UK
Member Since: 29th Jul 2004
Total posts: 2895
Posted:Faith: re: criminals finding it easier to get guns if they are available for purchase by the average citizen:You say the main source to them is through 'other criminals, robbery or rolling (I don't know the last one)'.



Thus I am assuming that the main source is robbery and (this is a guess at 'rolling') fradulently obtaining/intercepting shipments of weapons. But I would have thought that the most opportunities would be created by shipments on their way to gunshops where you good citizens buy your guns yourself. That's what I meant by making it easier to get guns for criminals.



P.S Faith: can you try to break your posts up a bit more to make them easier to read, please? Thanks smile

EDITED_BY: LazyAngel (1177603416)


Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant

Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.

'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


 Written by: LazyAngel


Personally, I don't think automatic weapons should be available outside of the military. To ANYBODY.


They're not, in the US- it's been pointed out several times that automatic weapons are not available to civilians.


My understanding is that Kalashnakov-47's are legal to buy in the US, and they include an automatic function. Is this correct?

Also, what is the state of the law on semi-automatics and the auto-reloading pistols (I don't know the proper term, I'm afraid)?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by: stone

Lurch, perhaps paranoia is too strong a word. People living in other western democratic countries dont seem to live with the same fear. I dont understand why you dont want to change this situation



You guys don't seem to be understanding me. I don't live in fear of my life. I'm not worried that someone is going to jump me in the middle of the night, or kick in my door. I do however know, and admit, that there is that possibility and I would like to be prepared if the situation should arise.

 Written by:

Apologies, faithinfire and pounce, I wasnt intending to re-write the bible. What I meant to say, and should have edited, was As it seems obvious that some of us value guns more than people



If it's between my life/gun, and a criminals life trying to hurt me. Yes I'll keep my gun, and they can die. Why on earth would I have it any other way?

 Written by:

The argument is being made a lot, but I'm not seeing much to back it up. It seems quite common for people to imagine a kind of Die Hard situation in which a civilian with guns saves the day, but in real life this almost never happens. The reality is that when a civilian (or a poorly trained non-civilian) produces a gun their immediate situation becomes even more dangerous for themselves and those around them.



Not true, where are your facts on that? If you'd read back you would have seen this by me

"Florida State Uni did whats usually considered one of the larges studies, and found over 2,400,000 defensive gun uses per year. Polls show that in ~98% of the cases displaying the weapon was enough to stop the attack. Also that 1 in 6 believed that their intervention prevented a loss of life, meaning an estimated 400,000+ lives saved."

Display of a handgun does not escelate the situation, if you draw your weapon, the situation is already at a life threatening level. You should be drawing your gun to shoot, not to threaten. If the threat stops when they see your firearm, then you don't shoot. If they continue with whatever you're doing after you warn them/present then you shoot them. It's as simple as that. There is no Die Hard, there is no Rambo, there is no running and diving and backflipping your way to safety.

If you still don't believe that, the FBI Uniform Crime Report, states that firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them. Furthermore 58% of firearm related deaths are suicide, which isn't going to be stopped by removing the gun.

 Written by:

But if two people start shooting at each other with guns, 'sphere of danger' is a lot wider than two people having a knife fight



I'd much rather be in a gun fight than a knife fight

 Written by:

The problem is that, the easier you make it for your average citizen to get hold of a gun, the easier you make it for criminals: surely knowing how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the states must influence your assumption of what criminals would be armed with?



No one has the right to say that the average, law abiding citizen can't own a gun. Our consitution says so, our laws say so. The problem is not the gun, it's the criminals. Would you give up your car because there are just so many cars around it would be easier for someone to steal it? Or would you perhaps, just make sure to lock your doors and keep your keys on you? As I've said before, individual state (and city) laws that regulate guns vary, Washington DC and NY city have some of the strictest and harshest gun laws in the nation, and lead it in gun crime.

 Written by:

Actually, there's a distance in which guns don't 'trump' knives, as shown by many police stats based on actual encounters where a gun equipped police man/woman has been fatally injured by a knife assailent- that critical distance is much larger than you'd suppose.

That's not to say that the knife person wins- there's a good chance that both will be seriously hurt/killed.



Definatly, it's about 20-22' statistically. However that is with a holstered weapon, if the gun is already out it's not nearly as much of an issue. Knife fights are bad, for everyone involved. As I said before I'd much rather be in a gun fight. A knife fight will leave you crippled and scarred, chances are you'll get away fine in a gun fight because most criminals don't practice their shooting much.

 Written by:

My understanding is that Kalashnakov-47's are legal to buy in the US, and they include an automatic function. Is this correct?



AK's are allowed in the US, however they have been decomissioned to semi auto unless you have a Class 3 weapons license, which are extremely difficult to get. And I'll state it again, *no* legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime in the US. What makes a semi-automatic AK different from any other rifle? Would you be alright with it if it was limited to 5 shots? Why does that matter anyways?

 Written by:

Also, what is the state of the law on semi-automatics and the auto-reloading pistols (I don't know the proper term, I'm afraid)?



What do you mean by auto-reloading? Some people refer to semi auto's as autoloaders because they put another round in the chamber when they shoot, they do not shoot again however without another pull of the trigger. Is that what you're refering to? Revolvers are a different breed all together, and you have single action and double action in that field (technically in the other too). But let me tell you from experience, a well trained revolver shooter can outshoot most semi-autos.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:jeff: I'm not ignoring anything...just because you do not see a reason as being valid, does not negate them for the whole discussion...it just means you have a difference of opinion



LA: rolling is sort of like mugging, like if you find a drunk passed out in the bushes...



When I was talking about robberies, maybe I meant burglaries, going into people's homes and taking stuff. I didn't mean shipments. I suppose some of them...



But people are stupid at home. Guns should be locked away IMO. But people have them next to their nightstand or in a shoebox in the closet. They don't think that they are going to get robbed or if they do they will be at home...



edit: has anyone gotten any more information on the shooting, how are the kids doing? how many came back?

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1177609590)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire


jeff: I'm not ignoring anything...just because you do not see a reason as being valid, does not negate them for the whole discussion...it just means you have a difference of opinion


Anecdotal stories are always an extremely poor method of making an argument. It's not that I have a difference of opinion, it's because they really are pretty much worthless in a serious debate.
 Written by: Lurch

Not true, where are your facts on that? If you'd read back you would have seen this by me

"Florida State Uni did whats usually considered one of the larges studies, and found over 2,400,000 defensive gun uses per year. Polls show that in ~98% of the cases displaying the weapon was enough to stop the attack. Also that 1 in 6 believed that their intervention prevented a loss of life, meaning an estimated 400,000+ lives saved."

If you still don't believe that, the FBI Uniform Crime Report, states that firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them. Furthermore 58% of firearm related deaths are suicide, which isn't going to be stopped by removing the gun.


See, there's a whole barrel of fish there about how such self reported statistics are pretty crap. Long story short, trying to seriously claim 400 000+ lives saved by guns on the basis of this study is pretty laughable.

Now, the number of homicides is as follows (2004)
 Written by:

* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 649 unintentional shootings,
* 311 from legal intervention and
* 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).



Given that "A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.", according to a [-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)], that means that gun ownership really does have a role to play in a number of suicides. Suicides therefore cannot be removed from our considerations.

Since guns in the home increase the risk of homicide, this casts serious doubt on your claims that guns are generally protective.

 Written by: Lurch


Display of a handgun does not escelate the situation, if you draw your weapon, the situation is already at a life threatening level. You should be drawing your gun to shoot, not to threaten. If the threat stops when they see your firearm, then you don't shoot. If they continue with whatever you're doing after you warn them/present then you shoot them. It's as simple as that. There is no Die Hard, there is no Rambo, there is no running and diving and backflipping your way to safety.


See, you see yourself logically and calmly saving the day. The problem is that reality what we have is panicky, drunken, angry etc. people making mistakes in stressful situations or killing neighbours or spouses in petty squabbles. You see an idealized situation in all encounters, but that simply isn't what happens.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:Stone: I guess it was a confusion in communication. There were several times in this thread you have made mention to America banning guns or "hanging up your guns" (which I interpreted as banning guns in entirety). There have also been several other people who have said similar statements, which is what I was replying to. hug

jeff: Good point on "sampling bias" but I think you're falling prone to it as well. Lurch provided plenty statistics to refute your point, so I won't repeat them. And when it comes down to it, statistics are just numbers until you attach meaning to them. Regarding your post about "Die Hard situations" and whatnot, I agree with Lurch's post, and please read below as to my comment to LazyAngel.

LazyAngel: You're right that the chance of an innocent bystander getting hurt is raised through a gun fight. But as Lurch mentioned, I would gladly get into a gun fight over a knife fight anyday. Coming from personal experience, I took a Self-Defense Against an Armed Assailant class in which we learned how to defend ourselves (unarmed) against someone using a gun, a knife, or a blunt object (bat, pipe, club, etc.). At the beginning of the class nearly everyone said a gun was their most feared weapon to come up against (an interesting point related to Lurch's statements about defensive protection using a gun was that the person only needed to brandish their weapon to stop the threat ~98% of the time). However, I quickly learned that defending myself against a gun was far easier and less fatal than against a knife. Knife fights are messy, for both sides, and you have a greater chance of being fatally wounded with a knife fight than being shot (both using or defending against a knife). As Lurch also mentioned, most criminals don't practice their shooting, and I learned it's actually pretty difficult to make an accurate shot with a firearm. Unless I go to the range and practice on a regular basis, I hit my intended target (in the exact spot I'm aiming for or within a close proximal degree of the spot) less than 5% of the time. And that's with a stable target that is not moving and in a calm controlled environment. Imagine an actual fight in which you're moving, the other person is moving, your adrenaline is pumping, you've got tunnel vision...it doesn't make for a good situation for accuracy. Yes, those are the situations in which I'm more worried about innocent bystanders getting hurt. But at the same time, most attacks are done in isolated areas with few to no other people around. A person who would attack in public is more often than not going to have a specific goal in mind (i.e. robberies) with little to no concern about who they hurt along the way, and unless they are directly threatening my life or the life of someone else, I'm not going to be pulling my gun or attempting to get in their way. Things can be replaced, people cannot.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:Post deleted by pounce (sorry, my computer screwed up and double posted)
EDITED_BY: pounce (1177628038)


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:jeff: anecdotal evidence does not count. statistical evidence does not count...apparently nothing counts. Fine, these wouldn't stand up in a "serious" debate, but we are having a discussion. And sorry, I've competed at various levels of debate. Anecdotal evidence is fine. Lurch's statistics are more than fine. Once again because you don't agree does not negate valid points.

They release an edited version of Cho's roommate and a girl he may have been stalking

Koch: do u want to know who spankyjelly is
Koch: he is seung ho something
Female student: yeah i knwo who he is
Koch: he is a creep i would block him just doing u a favor
Female student: ahahha yeah
Koch: well i would block him he got in trouble forr stalking recently so i just wanted to warn you
Female student: yeah..hes called me...written on my door...all of that
Female student: kinda freaky
Koch: written on your door? like your room
Female student: yeah
Female student: the funny thing bout that...
Female student: is im unlisted...like everywhere
Female student: SO he had to do some investigations or something...into my roommate and what not
Koch: the ra's are trying to do something about him
Female student: yikes
Female student: at first i thought he was one of my friends joking around...and i only accepted him cuz i saw a few of my friends were friends with him
Female student : then he turned out all psycho
Koch: i think he is is schophrenic or however you spell it


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:You're right, there is a whole lot of things wrong with statistics being thrown out by everyone. Funny that you bring up the Kellerman survey. I too mentioned that earlier I guess you missed it.



That survey was about firearm related deaths, in homes, in one county (there are 3077 counties in the US). Does that sound like a fair sampling for an entire nation? Sure doesn't to me. Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay even warned that the survey failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in the criminals being killed.



Kleck, the University of Florida professor in charge of the research that I cited earlier stating 2.5 million defensive handgun uses annually [Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995] found that fatal shootings of criminals occur in less than 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide. So I would say that it is a pretty damn significant flaw in the Kellermann survey. Also, incidents where armed citizens accidently kill family members mistaking them for criminals is less than 2% of fatal firearm accidents, or one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.



Kellermann also did a study trying to state that homes with guns are more likely to experience a homicide. That was also severly flawed, in that it only looked at homes where homicides had occured, ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm was done. And used a control group that did not represent the average American household.



"By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."

[Daniel D. Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.]


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

pineapple pete
pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne
Member Since: 20th Sep 2004
Total posts: 5125
Posted: Written by: Lurch

Guns *are* a protective device.



sometimes the best defence is a good offence?

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Excellent point Jeff:  Written by:

See, you see yourself (Lurch) logically and calmly saving the day. The problem is that reality what we have is panicky, drunken, angry etc. people making mistakes in stressful situations or killing neighbours or spouses in petty squabbles. You see an idealized situation in all encounters, but that simply isn't what happens.



Lurch, Im not sure Id read too much into that Florida State Uni poll. As polls are basically a collection of opinions, not facts.

Lurch said:  Written by:

Furthermore 58% of firearm related deaths are suicide, which isn't going to be stopped by removing the gun.



What, are you serious? Thats the best argument so far in this thread for removing guns. The experience in Australia was that when guns were locked away, youth suicide dropped significantly. No guns, no suicide. Ditto for domestic crime.

Lurch, NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CANT OWN A GUN. Your constitution doesnt say you have to own a gun. You have a choice. Now I could be wrong, but Im guessing you probably wouldnt get deported from America for not owning a gun, but I could be wrong wink

Once again apologies pounce and faithinfire. For sure, some of my comments have been confusing.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



jeff: anecdotal evidence does not count. statistical evidence does not count...apparently nothing counts. Fine, these wouldn't stand up in a "serious" debate, but we are having a discussion. And sorry, I've competed at various levels of debate. Anecdotal evidence is fine. Lurch's statistics are more than fine. Once again because you don't agree does not negate valid points.



No, statistical evidence does count, but only when it's properly done. Bad statistics are as worthless as anecdotes.



As for "competing" in debates - such competitions are just talking games, and more often than not they don't realise that those games are logically invalid.



 Written by: Lurch

That survey was about firearm related deaths, in homes, in one county (there are 3077 counties in the US). Does that sound like a fair sampling for an entire nation? Sure doesn't to me. Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay even warned that the survey failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in the criminals being killed.



We'll consider your first question. You said it rhetorically, failing to take into considereration the obvious comment. Was it not representative? Is the rate of gun violence in this county much different from the rest of the US? If it isn't, then your entire criticism pretty much falls flat on it's face.



Also, let's consider your claim of 400 000+ lives saved by guns. The number of homocides in the US was about 16 000 a year last time I checked. Are you seriously suggesting that a tidal wave of murder that would kill a considerable chunk of America's population each year is being held back by gun ownership? 400 000+ . I mean, really, do you not see any problem with these numbers?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Groovy_Dream
Groovy_Dream

addict

Member Since: 26th May 2005
Total posts: 449
Posted:If guns were banned and even if he couldn't work out how to make bombs etc, its likely he would have eventually turned into a serial killer, which is imho far worse than a school shooting. What would you rather have, someone kidnap you and torture you, or just be shot and have it all over in an instant?



 Written by: sparkey



I think that my problem with situations like this is that I have too good a sense of perspective. Thirty some people were shot and killed. That sucks. How many thousands of people died in car accidents and from terminal illnesses that same day? Were their deaths any less terrible? "The death of one is a tragedy, but the death of millions is merely a statistic"





Yep its bugger all, especially when you compare it to the stats on suicide and depression. Over 32000 people killed themselves in the US in 2004. More than 16 percent of the adult population in the US, or as many as 35 million people, suffer from depression severe enough to warrant treatment at some point in their lives.



Note that both the school shooting and the suicide/depression is caused by the same problem: psychological issues. Guns have nothing to do with it. So you have two options:



1. Ban guns, and save a couple of people here and there

2. Work out why so many Americans have mental problems, and fix it, saving tens of thousands of lives per year and positively affecting millions of people.



Also how many depressed people want to commit mass murder but never get round to it? The fact that there might be a lot of people who want to do something like that but don't/can't because of gun laws, is almost as disturbing as actually having them do it. People who probably go round all their lives being a censored and spreading misery in every other way possible (and possibly becoming a serial killer).



Anyway here's a practical suggestion: why don't people in the US just use long-range tasers? They're just like guns in that they'll put people out of action, but won't actally harm them.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: PsyRush

So you have two options:

1. Ban guns, and save a couple of people here and there
2. Work out why so many Americans have mental problems, and fix it, saving tens of thousands of lives per year and positively affecting millions of people.



Surely you can do both. umm

And by a "couple of people here and there", I'm sure you meant several thousand. An oversight, I'm sure.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Groovy_Dream
Groovy_Dream

addict

Member Since: 26th May 2005
Total posts: 449
Posted: Written by: Stone


The experience in Australia was that when guns were locked away, youth suicide dropped significantly. No guns, no suicide. Ditto for domestic crime.




Can u reference this plz? Also do you think that locking guns away cured their depression? I doubt it


Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:LURCH (and others): would you be so kind to back up your statistics! and quotes! mad2 umm



It's not that hard guys... Use the URL button, please - its there for a good reason and makes things really easy. Otherwise I can only recommend to ignore the claims shrug



And I would like to adress the "gun-owner section", asking whether any of YOU have been forced to defend your lifes with a gun at any point. First hand stories and experiences, please.



I read Faiths stories and as far as I got them, she had knives and guns pointed at her + no gun in her own possession = still alive! hug well done... Howd she do it? umm So far I NEVER met someone in my life who successfully defended himself with a gun. I got mugged myself, had a knife pointed at me in this moment and at another occasion - I survived and went away - no gun in my possession.



IMO a gun is rarely de-escalating a situation shrug and that's the basis of my argument...



Other than that, this thread has clearly degenerated into a debate exclusively about US gun laws and nothing to do with the initial topic, except for one post from Faith rolleyes hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: FireTom



LURCH (and others): would you be so kind to back up your statistics! and quotes! mad2 umm



It's not that hard guys... Use the URL button, please - its there for a good reason and makes things really easy. Otherwise I can only recommend to ignore the claims shrug



You only needed to ask. A concise explaination of some of Authur Kellermann's work can be found on his wikipedia article. Helpfully it also contains some criticisms of his work as well.



But far the most important piece of data there is:

"# after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups

# this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house"

Which cast serious doubt on the already highly dubious claim that guns are "protective".

 Written by: PsyRush

Also do you think that locking guns away cured their depression? I doubt it



But at least they would have a chance to cure it. Gun are a catalyst. They don't "cause" things, but they make them much, much easier resulting in greater rates.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1177667423)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:psyrush: You make some good points

tom: In some of the cases, I did have a gun, an illegal gun, you know the one I found in my car. At that point I didn't have anything actually pointed at me because they knew we had it in the house. When I did have a knife at me, on a few occassions, I was beaten and raped and sexually assaulted. Other times, when I had weapons pointed at me. I managed to talk my way out of it. This is because I studied conflict management and mediation. Not everyone is so fortunate. Sides not everyone is pretty and charming like me, with a foul mouth and a street edge. :P

Jeff: *sigh* you do not seem to join discussion to discuss, you join to win. And it is fustrating because if you don't like something you say that it cannot be used. You said that I could not use anecdotal evidence in a debate, and then I said I could and have, but suddenly a debate is a pointless exercise.

I argue that guns are not catalyst but merely a deadly channel for the catalyst itself. Cho was unstable but everyone is too worried about infringing on people's rights that 33 people died when no one needed too. This is why I keep putting forth that we have mental evaluations for potential gun owners with relicensing evaluations. Licensing should have reference checks. Not just a background check but personal ones

Trust me, if they want to commit suicide they will find a way


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

sagetree
sagetree

organic creation
Location: earth
Member Since: 7th May 2006
Total posts: 246
Posted:"Jeff: *sigh* you do not seem to join discussion to discuss, you join to win. "

i find jeff's points in this discussion valid and well expressed with less personal opinion or bias. i dont think its about anyone winning.



"Gun are a catalyst. They don't "cause" things, but they make them much, much easier resulting in greater rates."

i think this really sums up what most people against guns are trying to say.


Delete

LazyAngel
LazyAngel

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Cambridge UK
Member Since: 29th Jul 2004
Total posts: 2895
Posted:If anyone remembers the Dunblane Massacre in the UK, it triggered a response by the UK government to further tighten the controls on access to firearms, completely banning the ownership of handguns: By law, even the Olympic hangun shooting team have to practise outside the country.

what surprises me, is that given the number of high profile homicide and suicides in American schools and universities, the American government appears (at least to the best of my knowledge: feel free to correct me) to have done little to tighten gun regulation.

In order to get a gun simply in the uk, you need to have a reference from a resident (i think it has to be a civil servant) in the uk, a legitmate reason to own one (either sport or work related: for sport you need a reference from the club you wish to join, which means attending and completing provisional membership for about 1 month: which provides them with time to check you out)

Your application is handled by the police, who will check that any background information you provided is correct before issuing your license.

I'm not really very knowledgeable in the US but I believe its a damn sight easier?

Some interesting articles to have a look at:

Psychiatric illness and gun licensing
gun politics and a history of gun control in the UK


Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant

Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.

'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

We'll consider your first question. You said it rhetorically, failing to take into considereration the obvious comment. Was it not representative? Is the rate of gun violence in this county much different from the rest of the US? If it isn't, then your entire criticism pretty much falls flat on it's face.



Wait WHAT?!? I sorry but most of my faith in your logic just flew out the window. You want to argue for accurate statistics, how could you POSSIBLY imagine that a sample of ONE from 3077 could be accurate in any sense of the word? There were no homicides in my county last year, I guess there weren't any in the whole country! Hooray us.
If you want to be a stickler for details you should do it all the way around, not just on other peoples arguments.

 Written by:

Also, let's consider your claim of 400 000+ lives saved by guns. The number of homocides in the US was about 16 000 a year last time I checked. Are you seriously suggesting that a tidal wave of murder that would kill a considerable chunk of America's population each year is being held back by gun ownership? 400 000+ . I mean, really, do you not see any problem with these numbers?



Indeed lets consider the estimated 400,000 lives saved. No I wasn't suggesting that there would be a tidal wave of 400,000 murders. 2005 there were 3,959,900 Assaults, 926,060 aggravated, and 619,580 with a weapon. So lets look at that for a second. Aggravated Assault is really what you should be looking at if you want to find murder stats anyways, because the *intent* to kill is there. The only thing that saved them is an intervention of some sort, by someone else, or medical technology. The deadliness of attacks have gone down as medical technology goes up, saving more lives. The statistic was also 1:6 BELIEVED they saved a life, since there is no way to be able to tell if the victim would have died or not, other than standing by and doing nothing, what would you suggest? 926,060 people were seriously assaulted, if guns stopped 400,000 of those assaults of progressing any further, I'm all for it. But you're right, that's just a number, it shouldn't be being thrown out there.

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/////pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0526.pdf

 Written by:

But far the most important piece of data there is:
"# after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
# this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house"
Which cast serious doubt on the already highly dubious claim that guns are "protective".



Thats nice, you fight for accurate statistics and facts and your source wikipedia? ubbloco You're also completely ignoring the information that I brought up to you about flaws in Kellermanns research. He *is* conveniently leaving out important information by refusing to factor in the hundreds of cases that did not result in a death. Looking at deaths only is extremely shortsighted IMO, and appears that a bit of political bias is mixing in with the science, which is never a good combination for those arguing for good statistics.

 Written by:

LURCH (and others): would you be so kind to back up your statistics! and quotes!



Wait, I sited two published articles, what more do you want? I'd trust something published over something "published" on the internet, just because I don't have live web sources doesn't mean it's not a credible source.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: faithinfire







.....Trust me, if they want to commit suicide they will find a way





I've refrained from posting the following point because it's a bit overly personal, but, as this 'guns don't make suicides more likley cos suicidal people will find other ways' POV is cropping up a lot on this thread, I'd like to present a critisism of it.



In the bad days when my mind was not as robust as it is now, I suffered from deep and consistent depression, with suicide often not far from my thoughts.



Being serious about it, I did a lot of research and I can honestly say that ending your life, if you are concerned about things like it going wrong (surviving the attempt) or how your family are going to feel about it; then many of the obvious options cease to be options.



For example, pharmacuticals are a no-no cos there's a very real chance you'll wake up, as many would be suicides do, alive, with irreperably damaged organs.



Many times I fantasisied about putting a gun in my mouth- the certainty and immediacy of a bullet through the brain makes it a very appealing method.



I've got no doubts whatsoever that, had I ready access to a gun, I would no longer be here- I would definitly have had it in my mouth on multiple occasions and it's almost certain that, on one of them, I would have pulled the trigger.



Thankfully those times are over and I'm spiritually and mentally well again.



But reading comments like the one above, I remember how it was and how, if I had possessed a gun, I would now be dead- I'm pretty sure that I'm far from the only person who would feel like that.



So, IMO, I would expect potentially suicidal people with ready access to guns, to be somewhat more likely to end their lives.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

KaelGotRice
KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 1584
Posted:There's way too many points to go through now, but I'd just like to agree with Dave.

We have argued over and over that guns aren't the cause of homicides and suicides, but they sure damn do make them easier.


To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Jeff, thanks for the link to Kellermann and his excellent research.

 Written by:

Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true.



PsyRush asked  Written by:

Can u reference this plz? Also do you think that locking guns away cured their depression? I doubt it



I read this article recently, Gun laws credited as lifesavers, John Garnaut, April 23, 2007

THE tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, economists say. Debunking a widely reported study to the contrary, their analysis suggests that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates.

Andrew Leigh, at the Australian National University, and Christine Neill of Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University found a sharp, statistically significant reduction in murder and suicide.

"The risk of dying by gunshot halved over the past 10 years," said Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney's School of Public Health.

(From the paper Weak Tests and Strong Conclusions: A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback)

faithinfire said,  Written by:

Trust me, if they want to commit suicide they will find a way.



Dave said,  Written by:

So, IMO, I would expect potentially suicidal people with ready access to guns, to be somewhat more likely to end their lives.



While I agree with Dave, and I think access to guns increases the likelihood of suicide. There has been some substitution from guns to hanging in Australia, since the Australian Firearms Buyback scheme.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire

Jeff: *sigh* you do not seem to join discussion to discuss, you join to win. And it is fustrating because if you don't like something you say that it cannot be used. You said that I could not use anecdotal evidence in a debate, and then I said I could and have, but suddenly a debate is a pointless exercise.



You misunderstand. I'm telling you your statistics and stories have no weight not because I disagree with their content, but because they truely are weightless. If you find your lack of valid points frustrating, it may be because you are defending the indefensible. I find it best to remove one's ego as far as possible when in debate. There should only be the question, the evidence, and the answer. I've attended a few "debate clubs" and I found their style of picking a position and then trying to "win" reprehensible. We should only be interested in the objective answer to whether guns make people more or less safe.

 Written by: Lurch

Wait WHAT?!? I sorry but most of my faith in your logic just flew out the window. You want to argue for accurate statistics, how could you POSSIBLY imagine that a sample of ONE from 3077 could be accurate in any sense of the word? There were no homicides in my county last year, I guess there weren't any in the whole country! Hooray us.

If you want to be a stickler for details you should do it all the way around, not just on other peoples arguments.



I notice you've actualy not answered by question, only fallen into the trap of argument from personal incredulity. From your example it's clear that your county would be a bad comparison to the rest of the US. But this doesn't address the question of whether the one used in the study was a valid comparison.

 Written by: Lurch



Thats nice, you fight for accurate statistics and facts and your source wikipedia?



Lurch, I'm using wikipedia because it summarised his published studies. It wasn't reporting original information, it was reporting peer reviewed material.

 Written by: Lurch

You're also completely ignoring the information that I brought up to you about flaws in Kellermanns research. He *is* conveniently leaving out important information by refusing to factor in the hundreds of cases that did not result in a death. Looking at deaths only is extremely shortsighted IMO, and appears that a bit of political bias is mixing in with the science, which is never a good combination for those arguing for good statistics.



The question at state is whether gun ownership makes one safer. Now, as you say, it's impossible to tell from the study whether it reduces one's risk of grievous injury or burglary. But it is clear it greatly increases one risk of death. Most people would not be happy to increase their risk of death in exchange for a decreased risk of injury or theft, so even if you are right it would not convince many people.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1177852084)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Okay, then I'll put it bluntly. King County Washington is not a fair comparison to the rest of the country. Regardless of whether it is or not, a 1:3077 sample is not enough. Regardless of whether it was statistically average or not, a 1:3077 sample is not accurate enough to determine anything, other than the 1 county it is researching. It is not an argument from ignorance, I would however say your willingness to accept this research so quickly, even knowing its shortfalls is pretty shortsighted.

It doesn't clearly indicate anything. It instead ignores the millions of households with weapons where nothing happened, and the hundreds of thousands with weapons where something did happen, but was stopped because of the weapon, or there was no death involved. Are people who are shot more likely to die than people who aren't shot? Yes, obviously. You've not defended any of the points I have brought up, it is not up to me to establish that his 1:3077 sample is adequate enough, the burden of proof lies on you.

Stone: Suicide rates in Australia were going down for a decade before the Port Arthur massacre, they didn't "sharply decline" they followed the downward trend that had already been going on.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by: Lurch

There were no homicides in my county last year, I guess there weren't any in the whole country! Hooray us.
If you want to be a stickler for details you should do it all the way around, not just on other peoples arguments.




Stick to your own advice

I'm trying to dig out the figures for 2006 - BEFORE I start hooraying anyone - but it's somehow difficult... umm If you can provide proof - I certainly will join the song... hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I don't live in Portland I live in Polk County if you really must know. But thank you for proving my point, one county cannot possibly represent a country of over 3000.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Page: 1...67891011