• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 1...7891011
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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:umm confused shrug
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1177902074)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:States, cities, and counties are all different. States are split up by county (a couple have different names but same thing). Cities are in the counties. There are city governments and laws, along with county, state, and federal. All of which change depending where you are.

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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, Id like to move on but we seem to be getting bogged down in statistics. Im not sure you have a point when you make statements like There were no homicides in my county last year, I guess there weren't any in the whole country. If its a criticism of Kellermanns research then it doesnt make sense.

Kellermann responded to the criticism of his 1986 paper, with another paper in 1993. The bottom line is there is 2.7 times increase in the risk of homicide if you keep firearms in the home, and this risk was attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance. As others corroborated his research, I would agree with his original 1986 conclusion that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned".

There was another mass shooting today in Kansas, which again questions the sanity of a country caught up in its own pro gun culture.


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

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:You guys aren't listening to what I'm trying to say at all. Kellermann's research is seriously flawed, even his follow up research.

I'm not sure why you guys are so adamant in siting his work, if you have some other source of stats I'd love to see it, but until you address the flaws in Kellermann's "research" it's not going to hold much weight with me. I have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of his work, so how about another source instead of referencing the same biased stuff over and over without countering any of my points?

His own data suggests that no more than 34% were murdered with a gun from their own home. That is on the high side as well since he assumes all family member or intimate homicides were commited by offenders living with the victim which is highly unlikely given that not all intimates (as defined in the Kellermann dataset: spouse, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, and lovers) were likely to have lived with an adult victim.

As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded.

Basically all that Kellermann's research shows is that guns in the hands of people with criminal records, drug use, and histories of violence are more likely to be involved in a domestic homicide.

Kelck, who I referred to earlier had this to say about Kellermann

"Kellermann did finally release his dataset, or at least some version of it, submitting it to the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), a data archive used by researchers whose universities belong to ICPSR. Two things are notable about the data. First, there is no way to tell if all of Kellermann's data are in this archived version of the dataset. Most conspicuously, there is not a scrap of evidence in this dataset indicating whether the guns used to kill homicide victims were guns kept in the victim's home, even though K's whole point was that keeping a gun in one's home raises one's risk of becoming a homicide victim. Second, I would have been able to determine whether all of the pieces of information gathered by K. and his team were included in the ICPSR version of the dataset if I could have examined the questionaires used to interview victims and matched controls, and the coding forms used to record information from official files. When I requested, in writing, that K. send me these materials, he did not reply. Speculation: K. did in fact have his staff code information as to whether the murder weapon was kept in the victim's home, and found virtually no evidence of homicides involving such guns. I can think of no legitimate reason why K. would not provide his interview and coding forms, and so suspect that his archived dataset does not completely reflect all of the information he gathered or tried to gather."

He still has not made his original dataset completely available, so none of his "research" can even be verified.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Lurch

I'm not sure why you guys are so adamant in siting his work, if you have some other source of stats I'd love to see it, but until you address the flaws in Kellermann's "research" it's not going to hold much weight with me. I have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of his work, so how about another source instead of referencing the same biased stuff over and over without countering any of my points?


What it basically comes down to is that you don't want to believe Kellermann's findings, which basically show that your personal choices have put yourself and your family at risk.
 Written by: Lurch

Basically all that Kellermann's research shows is that guns in the hands of people with criminal records, drug use, and histories of violence are more likely to be involved in a domestic homicide.


You're ignoring how Kellermann controled for all those factors, and showed that when all these factors were taken into consideration, gun ownership increased the risk of death in the house.
 Written by: Lurch


Kelck, who I referred to earlier had this to say about Kellermann


Perhaps you should consider some of the testimony of Kelck before you start making accusations for bias. Consider this line.
 Written by: Kelck

Most conspicuously, there is not a scrap of evidence in this dataset indicating whether the guns used to kill homicide victims were guns kept in the victim's home, even though K's whole point was that keeping a gun in one's home raises one's risk of becoming a homicide victim.


This is, in fact, sheer idiocy. Who gives a monkey which gun they were shot with? It's statistically irrelevent to the question of whether gun ownership makes one more likely to be a homocide victim, and Kelck ought to know that. For a statician to state something like this implies they are either an idiot or not interested in the truth


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

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by:

You guys aren't listening to what I'm trying to say at all. Kellermann's research is seriously flawed, even his follow up research.





Sorry Lurch, if you knew anything about research, and the rigors of getting a scientific paper published, in a reputable journal you wouldnt make such statements (ed).



Kellermann was a high level researcher. If you read the Wikipedia article on him, you will see links to his original articles. His research was published in peer reviewed journals like the New England Journal of Medicine. You dont get published if there is any doubt about the quality of research. He responded to early criticisms by doing further research. As he should.



 Written by:

Basically all that Kellermann's research shows is that guns in the hands of people with criminal records, drug use, and histories of violence are more likely to be involved in a domestic homicide.





Kellermann addressed this in his 1993 paper, as previously stated. Thats where the 2.7 times increase in the risk of homicide if you keep firearms in the home came from.



Has Kelck undertaken any research? What papers has he published? And are they published in reputable journals?



Edit: So he's a statician! Not a researcher. Makes sense.





 Written by:

He still has not made his original dataset completely available, so none of his "research" can even be verified.





Other researchers have corroborated Kellermanns findings, and this is the acid test of any research. This criticism is also addressed in the Wiki article.



The man is a hero, his research is excellent. The problem is you wont believe Kellermann because his research disagrees with you opinions.



Lets move on



A few edits ubbangel

EDITED_BY: Stone (1177929426)


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

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

What it basically comes down to is that you don't want to believe Kellermann's findings, which basically show that your personal choices have put yourself and your family at risk.



No, not at all. You guys have presented what is bad research data IMO. If I feel in danger of my life, me having a gun suddenly makes me more likely to be killed?

 Written by:

You're ignoring how Kellermann controled for all those factors, and showed that when all these factors were taken into consideration, gun ownership increased the risk of death in the house.



How exactly were these taken into consideration? Because as far as I know, he hasn't told anyone his process. He began with 444 homicides in the home, many cases were dropped from the study for various reasons leaving only 316. Kellermann never stated why he removed that ~29%.

 Written by:

This is, in fact, sheer idiocy. Who gives a monkey which gun they were shot with? It's statistically irrelevent to the question of whether gun ownership makes one more likely to be a homocide victim, and Kelck ought to know that. For a statician to state something like this implies they are either an idiot or not interested in the truth



That is most certainly not irrelevant. They very article you're relying on is saying that keeping a gun in your house makes you 2.7 times more likely to be killed. But he doesn't define if the "gun" that was "in the house" was the home owners, or brought there by the murderer.

 Written by:

Sorry Lurch, if you knew anything about research, and the rigors of getting a scientific paper published, in a reputable journal you wouldnt make such statements (ed).

Kellermann was a high level researcher. If you read the Wikipedia article on him, you will see links to his original articles. His research was published in peer reviewed journals like the New England Journal of Medicine. You dont get published if there is any doubt about the quality of research. He responded to early criticisms by doing further research. As he should.



You may want to check that again. There have been many researchers who stood up and disagreed, including Edgar Suter, who's the Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Public Research, and was published in 1994 in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia calling Kellermann's publication a failure of peer review.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html

He also writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000.

 Written by:

Kellermann addressed this in his 1993 paper, as previously stated. Thats where the 2.7 times increase in the risk of homicide if you keep firearms in the home came from.



He used the exact same methodology even though it was criticized and questioned. He is not a hero, and I don't have a problem with him because of differing opinions. He has severely flawed research, that has been brought up by many well known people, but is constantly ignored by people such as yourself.

You guys have still done nothing to defend Kellermann's research other than saying 'look it says it right there! must be right!' Don't blindly believe everything you see written, even in "scientific" journals.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Well, since everyone has dug their heels in the gun control debate, and it is quickly going nowwhere new but continuing in a repetitive cycle imo...here is an update on VTech
://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech;_ylt=As58pEX7EL.0HqLbg1mj.dSs0NUE

This new law, or adjustment, is a good thing. It does have the potential to be abused by spiteful people, ex-wives or husbands, crooked cops, but I think it is good. It can always be amended later. Right now, the loophole needed to be closed. What would be nice is to have federal mandates, rather than have state laws that change from border to border. People wondered what would really change and I guess this is something and hopefully just the beginning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428/ap_o...XQC9YKSySZH2ocA

I'm glad they did a story on the wounded. The survivors are going to have a long road ahead of them.


http://www.roanoke.com/vtshootingaccounts/wb/114878


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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:hug thanks Faith.

 Written by: AP

Then he chained the doors of Norris Hall, stormed several classrooms and unloaded more than 170 rounds over nine long minutes. Students some wounded, some not cowered, played dead and listened in horror as 30 of their classmates and teachers died.



Hundredandseventy rounds kill thirty people, but "one goes easily over fivehundred rounds in a single training session" eek - make the math frown

 Written by: Faithinfire

(...)the gun control debate (...) is quickly going nowhere new but continuing in a repetitive cycle imo...



... and how I side that. Everytime, no "everytime", errm "everytime"... a shooting occurs (may it be from cops, criminals or cowards) we open up a new thread and everytime [sic] it slips to the gun control debate... fortunately with new arguments from either side but the same pattern from the pro-guns (no offense meant to anyone)...

 Written by: Stone

There was another mass shooting today in Kansas, which again questions the sanity of a country caught up in its own pro gun culture



Let's restart... Gun sales surge after shooting... eek all just a promotional "gag" from gun manufacturers? [/sarcasm for those who believe in conspiracy theories]

And to finally draw a strange conclusion from both articles you posted, Faith: the lives of those who stay up late and sleep in will be spared and those who forget the "good manners" they have got taught by their parents will save others... ?umm?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:I'm honestly at a loss for what to respond to because I've just been incredibly frustrated with how this thread has slowly turned once again. I thought we were getting back to "fish bowl" discussions and trying to generate healthy ideas where both sides could "win." And yet now we're back to attacking.

jeff....Quite honestly, I don't even read most of your posts anymore because to me, they come across and arrogant and offensive. I agree with faith 100% that you seem to come in here to "win" and believe your opinions are actually fact, when in fact, they aren't. You bring up some good points, and I think I would be much more willing to listen to them if you were such a prick about how you present them. You argue about Lurch not addressing your points but just "arguing from personal incredulity" but then you tell him "What it basically comes down to is that you don't want to believe Kellermann's findings, which basically show that your personal choices have put yourself and your family at risk." I believe they call that an ad hominem attack. I've read through the different articles and statistics, and I think Lurch has made a very valid point.

Stone....you said scientific journals have a rigorous review and acceptance policy to publish articles, and therefore Kellermen's research wouldn't have been published otherwise. Sorry, but that's bullshit. I've spent years of my career doing research and trying to get it published, and I know from experience that not all articles published equal good research. That's why there's plenty of rebuttal articles to numerous research studies. That's why there's progress in research, people finding flaws in studies and trying new approaches.


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

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Lurch


 Written by: Jeff

This is, in fact, sheer idiocy. Who gives a monkey which gun they were shot with? It's statistically irrelevent to the question of whether gun ownership makes one more likely to be a homocide victim, and Kelck ought to know that. For a statician to state something like this implies they are either an idiot or not interested in the truth


That is most certainly not irrelevant. They very article you're relying on is saying that keeping a gun in your house makes you 2.7 times more likely to be killed. But he doesn't define if the "gun" that was "in the house" was the home owners, or brought there by the murderer.



Dead wrong

There was no suggestion that Kellermann was counting guns that had been brought into the house as being "in the house", as you insinuate. If he had, it would have been moronic. But he didn't, and Kleck didn't accuse him of it.

Kleck's criticism was that there was no way of telling if the gun used in the homocide was the gun that was kept in the house. And that is irrelevent.

If you're misinterprating even supportitive research to this degree, you need to seriously ask yourself if you are considering this issue objectively.


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

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: pounce



jeff....Quite honestly, I don't even read most of your posts anymore because to me, they come across and arrogant and offensive. I agree with faith 100% that you seem to come in here to "win" and believe your opinions are actually fact, when in fact, they aren't. You bring up some good points, and I think I would be much more willing to listen to them if you were such a prick about how you present them. You argue about Lurch not addressing your points but just "arguing from personal incredulity" but then you tell him "What it basically comes down to is that you don't want to believe Kellermann's findings, which basically show that your personal choices have put yourself and your family at risk." I believe they call that an ad hominem attack. I've read through the different articles and statistics, and I think Lurch has made a very valid point.





If you're admitting that you're not willing to listen to good points because the person presenting them appears "arrogant", then that's a personal issue.



Yes, I do think I'm right, that's why I'm making the case. I'm not willing to patronize people and pretend that they are making good points when they are not. Lurch has made a number of extremely dubious criticisms of statistical papers (see post above), and I genuinely do think he has a personal and emotional involvment in the issue which is clouding his view on it.


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Pounce, excuse but in this I have to say that we have to descern

- some people use guns for hunting (rifles, not handguns)
- some use them in their job (such as security guards, ppl with high risk exposure in their job, i.e. highly potential targets for criminals and loonatics)
- there might be another thrid group of ppl who live very remote and law enforcement would take a long time to respond to emergency calls (whereas this I can't accept as a main argument, because we do have such remote areas in Europe too)

As a child I was given bow and arrow to play with. As more than one arrow ended up in the neighboring kindergarden, both was taken away from me - and for a good reason.

We have one side of the argument, who says EVERY "law abiding" citizen should be able to legally own a gun (for self defense) and the other side that says otherwise. Both sides cite arguments pro and con and both get offended (me included, as I regard the former to be sheer idiocy). We have this situation in (mainland) Europe - you can obtain a gun. Why on earth are ppl rarely getting them? Why are so few incidents of abuse?

Too many things can go wrong when you own a gun. Humans are humans and as such they are not perfect.

I can't see any (Lurch, Pele and yourself - who seem to argue pro-gun) really getting off their argument and taking the counter-guns serious in their effort. The concessions so far came from the other (rather pacifist) side.

Lurch himself quotes disputable "facts" and statistics. He sometimes even doesn't bother whether the other side can verify them. He just puts them out there!

Personally I'm not open for discussion about this anymore, because I feel myself put in a corner and all counter gun arguments get disregarded/ ignored/ or claimed to be wrong!

As a matter of fact, I can't see that any of you ever left that "fish bowl" you're talking about... spank [sic]


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:faithinfire, thanks for getting us back to the real issues, and seeing the begining of change.
 Written by:

Richmond, Va. - The governor on Monday closed the loophole in state law that allowed the Virginia Tech gunman to buy weapons despite a court ruling that he was a threat and needed psychiatric counseling.



pounce, I try not to find anyones posts arrogant or offensive. It can muddy the waters. I dont always succeed, but I think its more about what people are saying, rather than emotions.

I agree pounce, a published paper is not a guarantee of good research. What got me about Kellermann was this quotation from the wiki article:  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.



As far as rebuttal articles go. All Ive read, so far, are criticisms of Kellermanns research. Where is the research to prove that guns protect people ?

Lurch, I checked again wink

As recommended, I read Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review by Edgar A. Suter MD. And I skinned Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

The best I can say is the reported research is nothing more than a literature review; at worst nothing less than data mining Kellermanns research for profit.

Well put FireTom:

 Written by:

Too many things can go wrong when you own a gun.

rolleyes


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

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Tom: the point of those articles is just that we need to focus also on the people who were harmed by the shooting than just Cho. I had no "point," I was sharing information, you know trying to push the discussion past the merry go round it's on.
I guess there isn't research that guns protect people because the political atmosphere is not one that would fund it so much. Besides, the progun as we have been dubbed know that they do protect, we don't really need research. And this thread is evident of the relative futility of trying to convince antigun? people of this fact. By the logic that a gun is dangerous, no one should have a pool or car. No one should have a bow and arrow
I think there can be abuse of this loophole being closed by people who want to cause problems, but overall I think it is a good thing. I hope that this helps the survivors sleep a little better


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

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted: Written by: FireTom



We have one side of the argument, who says EVERY "law abiding" citizen should be able to legally own a gun (for self defense) and the other side that says otherwise...I can't see any (Lurch, Pele and yourself - who seem to argue pro-gun) really getting off their argument and taking the counter-guns serious in their effort. The concessions so far came from the other (rather pacifist) side...



...Personally I'm not open for discussion about this anymore, because I feel myself put in a corner and all counter gun arguments get disregarded/ ignored/ or claimed to be wrong!



As a matter of fact, I can't see that any of you ever left that "fish bowl" you're talking about... spank [sic]





Are you serious?! Have you just selectively forgotten the ~250 posts before you? First off, NONE of us argued that EVERY citizen should own a gun. We said our Constitution allows for it and we believe in that, but we also said that we agreed there needs to be regulation and that not EVERY person should own one. Anyone with a significant criminal record cannot (and we have all agreed they should not) own a firearm. We also put it out there that there should be mental health screenings before someone is allowed to own a firearm, AND we said those screenings should be consistently reevaluated. With proprer evaluation, those deemed "unstable" should not be allowed a firearm.



Secondly, let me refer you back to the ~250 posts before here (I really won't go through them all individually because you should be able to read them yourself) where SEVERAL of us stated we would GLADLY give up our guns and agreed that it would be a wonderful Utopia if no one had them and we didn't need them. But the point we made is that in numerous instances people in America find themselves aided by owning a firearm, and that the banning of such would not stop criminals from obtaining firearms because the reality is the world is not a Utopia. We ALSO acknowledged your side's point about the introduction of numerous firearms in a situation could make it more deadly, but we pointed out that law-abiding citizens, the ones who go through rigorous checks to obtain CCW's and would like be those involved in--what did you guys call it? oh ya--Rambo or Die Hard situations *gag* would not just involve themselves in trying to "take down the bad guy." We would defend ourselves and our loved ones (IMO something anyone should be willing to do with whatever means necessary) but we would not go vigilante. We ALSO pointed out that the media and Hollywood love to glamorize and sensationalize gun violence, and the reality is that using a firearm is not what it looks like on movies. That type of stuff doesn't happen the way they make it out to be in Die Hard and Rambo. As Public Enemy so eloquently put it, "Don't believe the hype!" [/irony]



You're right jeff, it is a personal issue. But it's also an OPINION, just like your statements are OPINIONS. You know what they say about that, don't you? At least I acknowledge when I'm acting like an idiot or a censored.



hug to those I enjoyed discussing with....sorry but this thread is going nowhere. If anyone wants to ACTUALLY (and RESPECTFULLY) discuss this topic any further with me (I will be happy to listen to your points and as several of my previous posts have show, I'll actually probably concede with you on a few) you can catch me elsewhere. You know, those places where I apparently don't get out of my "fishbowl." rolleyes Since I'm now resorting to snideness myself, that is my clue to (not so) gracefully bow out. I'm out....



*trips out of thread and giggles her way home*


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
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Tom: are you serious? eek
You feel as if all you say is disregarded because you are antigun-let's not call it countergun, if we are progun.

First, we do not think that all of us should have guns, I don't now. Only had one for a week or so.

Second, the extent of the antigun discussion is guns can kill, therefore should be illegal. We have disagreed on the grounds that we do not live in a Utopia. We have disagreed using anecdotes, which were (sometimes rudely) dismissed. We used some statistics and the same thing happened. We try analogies. We offered solutions to the current problem.

But anything less than the removal of all guns would not suffice. Here we argued that the criminals who didn't follow other laws would not decide to follow the one that disarmed them. Making drugs illegal didn't stop them. It just criminalized the behavior

A bit more on VT
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-04-26-rkelly-vatech_N.htm?csp=34
That songs seems like his song that says Gotta get up, Cant get up now. Still, its nice to see people give back. Not only did he write a song, but the proceeds go to the memorial fund. Good for him.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-04-30-vt-tech-prospects_N.htm
This is an interesting response to the shooting. Well, not a response, but a byproduct. I guess it shows the tenacity and community spirit of even the young people in our country.


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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:"Catch 22", no?

If I continue I am in the gun debate, if not you will (erroneously) have the impression you said the right thing.... umm

Where did I state "ALL citizens? *scrolls up* Nope, I was stating "all LAW ABIDING citizens"... And why not ALL of them? Humm, yeah: what about all those who simply never got caught (yet)? What about all those who are mentally unstable - or may become instable in the future due to circumstances?

Pounce, you are ignoring what I wrote and I can't see any of you coming even half-way towards the anti-guns umm

Where did you offer REAL solutions? Some are simply taking the arguments and turn them around. I said "you can't get rid of illegal drugs, yet the government makes the effort" I say: If I really would want a gun (even in USA states with tough gun control) I could legally get one. Most easily by change of address to the neighboring state... You dismiss all (scientific) evidence and rational..

Really no offense meant, but I was asking FIRSTHAND experiences and the only one coming up with one here is Faith, who (can't find that post right now) was able to get out of most trouble without a gun. A gun gives you (more) self esteem, doesn't it? It makes you FEEL safe and it is to scare off others who don't have a gun, or are not determined (enough) to fight. The stories, even Faith came up with, make me even MORE determined in saying: BAN (HAND)GUNS!

 Written by: Pounce

we would GLADLY give up our guns and agreed that it would be a wonderful Utopia if no one had them and we didn't need them



"Every thousand mile road starts with the first step"

No - we don't live in Utopia, but we certainly will NEVER get there with the kind of attitude I see displayed by 'proguns' here.

I say: YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN to defend your own or the life of your beloved ones. As Lurch himself put it so nicely in another thread:

"A knife is much more dangerous than a gun." Personally I do carry a knife most of the time and guess what? I find it very useful for other things, barely (have to) worry about it, it doesn't give me the creeps and the like. shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:pounce said  Written by:

where SEVERAL of us stated we would GLADLY give up our guns and agreed that it would be a wonderful Utopia if no one had them and we didn't need them.





Like FireTom says, all that anyone is asking you to do is take that first step. People living in the UK and Australia, to name a few, have all given up their guns with out the criminals taking over. Why cant you?



Perhaps it's because of a story, a myth, that needs to be put in the the past, before we can all move on to Utopia.



 Written by:

Self-Defense. The Great Myth of Americas Gun Industry

.

Guns have long been seen as tools of self-defense in the United States. But, contrary to gun industry hype, unintended consequences often happen when people buy guns for self-defense. Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family memberas opposed to a criminalwill be inured or killed with a gun. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.

.

Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. The Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.These and other studies have documented repeatedly the enhanced risk that comes from bringing a gun into the home.

.

But how often do people use guns successfully to protect themselves from criminal acts? Does it justify the deaths and damage that comes with guns? Apparently not. Most studies have found that guns play a relatively minor role in preventing crime but a major role in facilitating it.

.

For example, the US Department of Justice study found that, on the average, between 1987 and 1992 only one percent of actual or attempted victims of violent crime, or about 2,000 people, attempted to defend themselves with a firearm. On the other hand, criminals armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes in 1992. Data from the FBIs Crime in the United States reveals that for every time in 1998 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides lone.





From the bit about Kleck, at Wiki.







frown

EDITED_BY: Stone (1178086575)


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

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

Really no offense meant, but I was asking FIRSTHAND experiences and the only one coming up with one here is Faith, who (can't find that post right now) was able to get out of most trouble without a gun. A gun gives you (more) self esteem, doesn't it? It makes you FEEL safe and it is to scare off others who don't have a gun, or are not determined (enough) to fight. The stories, even Faith came up with, make me even MORE determined in saying: BAN (HAND)GUNS!



I think you're grossly misunderstanding the mindset of a gun carrier. They are a confidence and safety booster, but they are not a self esteem booster. If anything the weight on your hip is a constant reminder of the responsibility you carry around with you.

 Written by:

You dismiss all (scientific) evidence and rational..



Not true, we just dismiss irresponsible "scientific" data. That wheel swings both ways, I think we can all agree we're never going to get anywhere arguing statistics because we'll always disagree on their legitemacy.

 Written by:

- some people use guns for hunting (rifles, not handguns)



Actually there is quite a large (and growing) handgun hunting community.

 Written by:

"Every thousand mile road starts with the first step"

No - we don't live in Utopia, but we certainly will NEVER get there with the kind of attitude I see displayed by 'proguns' here.



What attitude is that? That we don't want to make ourselves defenseless against criminals? Thats a bit of backward logic there. The first step is to remove the weapons from criminals, not from the good people.

 Written by:

I say: YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN to defend your own or the life of your beloved ones. As Lurch himself put it so nicely in another thread:

"A knife is much more dangerous than a gun." Personally I do carry a knife most of the time and guess what? I find it very useful for other things, barely (have to) worry about it, it doesn't give me the creeps and the like.



Normally you don't, on the off chance you do, a knife isn't going to cut it. There are drawbacks to both weapons, You have to be in reach of the criminal in order to attack with a knife for one thing. Distance is your friend. I carry a knife as well, but I would (almost) always prefer a gun for self defense.

I'll just leave you guys with a podcast that I found worthy of posting here.

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/itunes/robertalevy_gunsprotectagainstguns_20070501.mp3


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I guess we're completely talking against the wall here, however: Pounce IF you can point out where the proguns ever jumped out of their bowl or were even approaching the exit, then let me know. I can't find it anywhere (you don't have to quote, just pinpoint)...

IMO you don't have an argument and you're not open to talk - much of what you accused the antiguns of... and that's not tru.

Someone said this somewhere - and pls forgive me referring to it hug dearly no offense meant: "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."

And you bet it would scare the living crap out of me and I would re-consider what bunch I am hanging with. But I do KNOW what energy a gun holds - btdt and only compassion from my side. However:

"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."

And that's the point: It only makes you FEEL safe. It gives the feeling of power (over life and death). But this feeling alone will make you raise your head and different appearance. Hence this feeling is only an illusion, because once the gun is gone..

"I never needed it and it stayed put away nearly the whole time we had it..."

That's another point ppl usually don't think about: you draw a gun on someone (and even shoot) you may take their life... what an aftermath.

"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."

A gun holds "energy" (as I like to call it) and gives power - but as "speed ain't nothing without control", "power ain't nothing without ..."


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch I love reading your posts. I believe the commitment, but sometimes you really crack me up smile

So, I really believe you when you say:

 Written by:

If anything the weight on your hip is a constant reminder of the responsibility you carry around with you.



Im not going to argue with that.

But Lurch, why would anyone want to hunt with a handgun? Really?

I think Fire Tom makes a excellent point when he suggests there is no place for guns in Utopia. Its very simple - the sooner we evolve, the sooner we find Utopia.

As far as weapons, err protection goes, give me a staff anyday

wink


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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch




What attitude is that? That we don't want to make ourselves defenseless against criminals? Thats a bit of backward logic there. The first step is to remove the weapons from criminals, not from the good people.




Not necessarily, especially given that removal of weapons from all criminals is pretty much likely to remain impossible for the forseeable future.

To insist on removing guns from criminals first simply means that addressing the issues of problematic non-criminals easy access to guns doesn't ever happen.





 Written by: Lurch


 Written by:


"A knife is much more dangerous than a gun." Personally I do carry a knife most of the time and guess what? I find it very useful for other things, barely (have to) worry about it, it doesn't give me the creeps and the like.



Normally you don't, on the off chance you do, a knife isn't going to cut it. There are drawbacks to both weapons, You have to be in reach of the criminal in order to attack with a knife for one thing. Distance is your friend. I carry a knife as well, but I would (almost) always prefer a gun for self defense.






It's worth mentioning that, when it comes to guns vs. knives, perhaps the main reason guns are much more appealing is that defending yourself with a knife is a lot more scary.

With a gun you, ideally, stay distant- it's perhaps the most impersonal way of killing.

Of course, at the end of the day, guns wounds are as horrific as knife wounds.


"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

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Good thread guys. clap..Not that I'm an expert by any means, but so far most of the important issues surrounding gun control have been touched on except for the idea that having a weapon not only makes everyone "equal' when it comes to self defense/assault but also makes one more self reliant when it comes to their own protection.

Do you have faith in your government's ability to protect you in the face of an assault ? No, of course not. Unless a police officer ( or good samaritan ) just happens by while you're being victimised, or you just happen to be more powerful than your attacker, then, really, you're screwed.

I'm fortunate to live in one of these "utopias" where guns aren't necessary, and I much prefer it that way. But, as has been discussed in this thread, it's not the law abiding citizen who's the problem, it's the armed criminals that fuel the need for joe average American to arm himself. So..how to remove the guns from criminals ? Maybe a federal statute that automatically adds 10 years to a bad guys sentence if he/she uses a firearm in the commission of that crime.

So are Kellerman's findings valid or not ? It only stands to reason that if the "tools" are available then people are going to make use of them and in many different ways. More guns around, more people are going to get shot...it only makes sense.

To steal a quote from a link Tom posted.... A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun with a dead rapist at her feet " leads to the question....How many people who do get shot in the U.S......deserve to get shot ?

OWD..as touching as your story was, I have a hard time digesting the idea that suicides can be blamed on the availability of guns. On the surface, eating a gun barrel may seem like the easiest way of ending one's life, however there are other methods of suicide that take the same fraction of a second, impulse, ( if you will ) decision to do the deed. Couldn't someone find themselves in the same situation sitting on a high building as sitting alone in a room with a gun where it only takes an instant to "act" ?

Jeff you raised a very good point about law abiding citizens acting either out of anger or drunkenness ( and I might add stupidity and passion ) leading to gun "accidents" which is a very good argument in favour of gun control. As we all know, not all rational people act rationally all the time.

Tom..not that I'm counting or anything, but haven't you left this discussion three times now ?


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:It was my car that the gun was found in, and it did scared me, but the next week, it made me feel safe. We didn't even have ammunition. That week someone was threatening us.

I never looked at it as power. I looked at it as a way to stay alive. I couldn't have taken someone's life unless I hit them over the head with the gun, nor would I want to. I would like say over my life and to protect it. And I have no idea where your quote was going so please finish it. We could have held on to it, or gotten another one but the danger had passed and we had no need for it in the house. We have knives and a dog.

But the point of that story had been that sometimes people are in situations where a gun is helpful. Mine was illegal. Pounce and Lurch have legal reasons. (or more valid, however you want to phrase it)

And you know what, maybe carrying a gun does make you walk different, and gives you an air of confidence. That alone makes you less likely to be a victim of a crime. Robbers go for the weak looking or the unaware. Here a gun prevents a crime without ever being shown.

And Tom, I've already said that me getting out of the situations that I didn't have a gun for that it was skill and training. I've been trained to descalate situations. Not everyone has. It is also something I have a natural talent for, usually. Not everyone can do this. I would recommend to most people either hand your stuff over or run.

Because my skills failed me, and because I had no weapon in reach, I have been raped, robbed, and assaulted. I understand some people's wish to have a gun in their possesion. Me, I don't want the responsiblity.

Please don't quote me without using the correct context.

Yay stout for a current summary, well done.

And I see the point of stupid drunk people with guns are bad. Perhaps a safety on the gun would help...being drunk and not being able to fiddle with the thing

Other countries require a weapon in every house, or is that myth, like Switzerland maybe, and it seems to work for them. Maybe we should look into how they do things. Personally, I would like to see federal laws involving what we have discussed and not a bunch of disjointed state laws.

Also please check out the links I posted as this thread started about the college and the students.


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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stout




OWD..as touching as your story was, I have a hard time digesting the idea that suicides can be blamed on the availability of guns. On the surface, eating a gun barrel may seem like the easiest way of ending one's life, however there are other methods of suicide that take the same fraction of a second, impulse, ( if you will ) decision to do the deed. Couldn't someone find themselves in the same situation sitting on a high building as sitting alone in a room with a gun where it only takes an instant to "act" ?




To be precise, suicides cannot be blamed on the availability of guns- what i was saying is that, IMO, for some people, the presence of a gun makes suicide more likely- for the reasons given in my post, plus the fact that I know for sure that there's at least one person around today who definitly wouldn't be if he'd had a gun at the time (the implication being that many others could be in the same situation).

You're right, there are other ways to kill oneself, IMO though, few have the ease and immediacy of a gun (assuming of course, a gun is available).

The example you give, of jumping from a high building- unless the person lives in a suitably high building (many of which these days are 'suicide-proofed' with nets or non-opening windows)- they're going to have to locate one and get access to it; hence, it can't be particularly immediate.

Certainly not to the extent of a gun in the scenario I was talking about i.e. a long period of depression during which the sufferer would 'play'/fantasise about ending it by, on multiple occasions, putting the gun in his/her mouth when things felt particularly hopeless/painful.

Another factor is that, for the vast majority of suicidal people, they are mentally ill.

This takes many forms, but can obviously involve highly delusional thinking, including the belief that the purpose of the world is quite literally to play with you by conspiring to make your life totally miserable, yet not quite so miserable that you would actually end it- the premise being that this is what the force behind reality finds entertaining.

At that level of delusion, there's a very real doubt that reality is actually as solid as it is- creating a very real fear that if one jumped off a building, that one would actually survive, crippled and physically unable, from that point on, to be able to end it.

That may seem totally irrational, which is pretty much my point smile

Guns however, seem a lot more definite- no-one survives a bullet through the brain, you're quite literally destroying the hardware that the mind runs on- it's also seen as quick- no long drawn out fall etc.

(In fairness, there is some dispute about how quick a bullet through the head is, i've heard tales of minutes of agonised writhing before death, i don't know how true they are).

Again, some may be able to quibble with the rationality behind that, but, given the potential suicidee is delusional, it doesn't really make much difference.


"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

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


Guns however, seem a lot more definite- no-one survives a bullet through the brain, you're quite literally destroying the hardware that the mind runs on- it's also seen as quick- no long drawn out fall etc.




Actually, they can. Phineas gage got a large rod through the head and survived. http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/phineas.html

I believe also that there was a vice president that got shot in the head and survived. In was in the same book as the gage story, but I don't remember the name.

It's not likely, you'll survive obviously. More likely you'll miss your brain when you pull the trigger.


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

animatEd
BRONZE Member since Aug 2004

animatEd

1 + 1 = 3
Location: Bristol UK

Total posts: 3540
Posted:Faith, the situation in Switzerland with Guns is thus:



Because Switzerland is such a small country, EVERY male of sound mind and able body is required to do military training. the gun in their house is provided for the duration of their military service (I believe up to the age of 35) along with a swiss army knife, and some ammunition.



The ammunition is kept seperate to the gun, it is NEVER loaded. the ammunition is sealed. if that seal is broken, and you weren't using it in military service (ie you weren't asked by the government to break the seal) you go to Prison. even if you are defending your own home against burglary.



Additional ammo is available at a shooting range, and must stay on the shooting range, and be used there. Sales of ammo are recorded with buyers details, and ammo has a serial number.



To own any other gun, you need a permit. this involves mental health and criminal background checks, and then i believe this permit limits the amount of guns you may own. automatic and selective fire weapons are off limits.



Yes, every home with a male resident has a gun, but use of said gun outside of restricted circumstances (during military training/service, and a shooting range is illegal, and severely punished. it really is a case of 'you break that seal, you go to prison'.



of course, there are still gun deaths in Switzerland. the laws behind keeping the militia guns in houses are under question.

EDITED_BY: Limits_To_Contest (1178128081)


Empty your mind. Be formless, Shapeless, like Water.
Put Water into a cup, it becomes the cup, put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Water can flow, or it can Crash.
Be Water My Friend.

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Hey if I can make ya laugh stone go for it wink

 Written by:

But Lurch, why would anyone want to hunt with a handgun? Really?



Personally I don't hunt. But you can think of handgun hunting more akin to bow hunting. Usually using large calibur revolvers. Why wouldn't you want to hunt with a handgun?

 Written by:

To insist on removing guns from criminals first simply means that addressing the issues of problematic non-criminals easy access to guns doesn't ever happen.



You wouldn't stop drunk driving by targetting the cars. Target the drunks. Target the criminals.

 Written by:


It's worth mentioning that, when it comes to guns vs. knives, perhaps the main reason guns are much more appealing is that defending yourself with a knife is a lot more scary.

With a gun you, ideally, stay distant- it's perhaps the most impersonal way of killing.

Of course, at the end of the day, guns wounds are as horrific as knife wounds.



I wasn't talking about gun vs knife. I just know that 9/10 time I would prefer to defend myself with a gun. Distance is your friend like I said before, not because it's more impersonal. The closer I am to a badguy the more likely I am to get hurt.

Say I see someone being raped, beaten and have a knife to their throat. I have every reason they are going to be killed by their attacker. I've got three options. I could walk away and seek help (she'll probably end up dead). I could try and rush him and attack/stab/cut him with a knife or fists. In which case there is a very real possibility we'll both end up injured and or dead. Or I could draw, tell him to stop, and shoot him if needed, without ever getting in his reach. If he gets up and runs, thats fine with me as long as he's not running towards me.

 Written by:

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun with a dead rapist at her feet



Who actually believes that? Where does a bystander doing nothing stand morally?

 Written by:

Jeff you raised a very good point about law abiding citizens acting either out of anger or drunkenness ( and I might add stupidity and passion ) leading to gun "accidents" which is a very good argument in favour of gun control. As we all know, not all rational people act rationally all the time.



The reality is however, the people who carry legally, know the laws, and abide by the laws. CCW's being revoked is pretty rare, but extremely swift in those cases.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch







 Written by:

To insist on removing guns from criminals first simply means that addressing the issues of problematic non-criminals easy access to guns doesn't ever happen.







You wouldn't stop drunk driving by targetting the cars. Target the drunks. Target the criminals.









You tackle drunk driving by legislating against driving while drunk- the legislation applies to everyone, criminal or otherwise.


"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

Page: 1...7891011