[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39013174]Are you arguing that we should abolish a hobby that over a hundred million Americans actively take part in, in [b]hopes[/b] that it slows or stops [i]some[/i] murders? How about we focus on [i]actual[/i] solutions like better education and bringing people up above poverty levels.[/QUOTE]
Its not hopes, its fact as I have always posted sourced statements showing. Until you can prove this is not true, you have no basis to this claim.
Something you lot seem to forget is that the government can focus on more than one thing. You also need a better mental health support system.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013203]Its not hopes, its fact as I have always posted sourced statements showing. Until you can prove this is not true, you have no basis to this claim.
Something you lot seem to forget is that the government can focus on more than one thing. You also need a better mental health support system.[/QUOTE]
so magically disarming one of the most gun adorned cultures of their weapons will stop crime?
no fucking shit sherlock
it's where you get the right to take away a large group of peoples hobby that doesn't kill anyone because some people die in mildly related events, only tangentially related due to being gun crime.
i mean, let's just stop for a second and talk about the logistics of that idea and how utterly impossible this is.
no one has to prove anything to you when you're asserting the idea, it's YOUR job to prove that and evidence it, which you haven't because you CLEARLY haven't even read your own sources well enough.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013168]Stop trying to bring emotion into this, emotion has no place in legislation, nor does it have any place in a debate. Statistically that's slightly over 9000 people out of over 300 MILLION. Fuck more people go hungry than are killed by guns (source: [URL]http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx[/URL]). So tell me again how .0005% of the population should effect aprox 48% (gun owners) of the population? Again, all of this is based upon LEGAL gun ownership, where as most crime is comitted via illegal weaponry (fuck you i've already sourced this, go back and read if you're looking for it)[/QUOTE]
Again the government can focus on reducing the poverty line by introducing a real social safety net without ignoring the fact that increased gun ownership legally results in more homicides and that the reduction of gun related homicides does not increase the number of homicides through other weapons.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39013174]Ar[B]e you arguing that we should abolish a hobby that over a hundred million Americans actively take part[/B] n, in [B]hopes[/B] that it slows or stops [I]some[/I] murders? How about we focus on [I]actual[/I] solutions like better education and bringing people up above poverty levels.[/QUOTE]
yes because a weekend hobby clearly overshadows the social and cultural problems behind it
and no one here is really actively arguing for the absolute ban of firearms
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013236]yes because a weekend hobby clearly overshadows the social and cultural problems behind it[/QUOTE]
so that hobby is a direct cause of violence across the country or maybe it's something underlying behind even that? even though there's many law abiding safe gun owners with no desire to hurt another person
[editline]28th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=McGii;39013235]Again the government can focus on reducing the poverty line by introducing a real social safety net without ignoring the fact that increased gun ownership legally results in more homicides and that the reduction of gun related homicides does not increase the number of homicides through other weapons.[/QUOTE]
oh this sounds awesome let's just change the political atmosphere of one of the toughest political climates on the globe
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39013247]so that hobby is a direct cause of violence across the country or maybe it's something underlying behind even that? even though there's many law abiding safe gun owners with no desire to hurt another person[/QUOTE]
the problem is access with gaps in regulation
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013261]the problem is access with gaps in regulation[/QUOTE]
fair enough
i have no problem admitting gun ownership needs a few tweaks here and there.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013261]the problem is access with gaps in regulation[/QUOTE]
which gaps are you referring to exactly
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013228]I cite your own source
([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Other_violent_crime[/url])
[B]Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[57][60][/b][/QUOTE]
Again I post this.
[quote]A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[53] [B]Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[/B][53][54][55] [B]with similar patterns in cases of family violence[/B].[56] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, [B]criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[/B][57] [B]He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates[/B].[58][59] [B]A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill[/B].[55][60] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[57][60] [/quote]
As someone who keeps a gun only because he wants to kill an intruder you should read that carefully
[quote]
The effectiveness and safety of guns used for personal defense is debated. Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65 thousand times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.[67]
[B]Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[68] This equated to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%)[/B] that occurred in this period.[68] [B]For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[68] [/B]Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim.[68] In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.[68] [B]In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[/B][68] [B]During this same period, 1987 to 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[69] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[68][/B]
[B]McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.[70] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77]
McDowall cited methodological issues with the Kleck studies: (1) Kleck used a very small sample size and (2) did not confine the definition of self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[68][/B] Kleck and Gertz said they used an anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey, and did not know the identities of the [B]4,977 interviewed.[/B](Edit here: 5000 in a country of 300 000 000) They said the quality of sampling procedures was well above the level common in national surveys, using a large, nationally representative survey.[78] [B]A study of gun use in the 1990s by Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that criminal use of guns was far more common than self-defense use[/B].[79] According to the Kleck study most successful preventions of victimization were accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.[68][70][79][B] Hemenway considered that the Kleck figure was inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently showed that guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms.[/B][80] [B]Hemenway concluded that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is probably a gross overestimate, with the true figure one tenth that amount or less.[/B] Alternative explanations could be that many more burglaries occurred than were reported to police, and/or people overreported their use of their guns for self-defense in burglaries.
[B]States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership.[81] Non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.[81][/B] [/quote]
This too
I literally just reposted 75% of my second post in this thread, can't wait till I get accused of not reading and skipping other peoples posts again
[QUOTE=McGii;39013130]You are still arguing to ignore 9146 deaths per year (remember that source I posted where reducing the guns did not result in a significant increase in deaths via other/no weapons, I do) is OK because you think the percentage is acceptably low. The death of a single human being, let alone over 9000, is a tragedy you can't simply dismiss as emotional bullshit, especially when studies show that you an severely decrease the number of deaths by reducing the number of firearms without deaths with other weapons significantly increasing.
About that California comment, the strictest of loose regulation is still loose regulation.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm[/URL]
According to the CDC, the top 10 leading causes of death in the USA are: (this info is current as of 2009. Best I could do)
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Gun related deaths are at 9146 according to your source. Hell, Parkinson's kills more people than that every year.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013236]yes because a weekend hobby clearly overshadows the social and cultural problems behind it
and no one here is really actively arguing for the absolute ban of firearms[/QUOTE]
fantastic because I'm not arguing against the absolute ban of firearms. what I am arguing against is all firearms legislation since the 1930s
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013271]Please source this, as i've shown statistically 99.97% of legal weapons, will not be used in a crime. Please show me the direct correlation.[/QUOTE]
I've done this like 5 times dude
[quote]States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership[/quote]
Looking at legal gun ownership the homicide rates are higher where there are more guns
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39013290][URL]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm[/URL]
According to the CDC, the top 10 leading causes of death in the USA are: (this info is current as of 2009. Best I could do)
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Gun related deaths are at 9146 according to your source. Hell, Parkinson's kills more people than that every year.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as[/url]
[B]Kleck and Gertz said they used an anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey, and did not know the identities of the 4,977 interviewed.(Edit here: 5000 in a country of 300 000 000)[/B]
YAY
People who CLEARLY don't understand polling science for shit.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013307]
Looking at legal gun ownership the homicide rates are higher where there are more guns[/QUOTE]
what about places like Chicago and NYC where legal gun ownership is low, why are they some of the worst places for gun violence?
[QUOTE=McGii;39013307]I've done this like 5 times dude
Looking at legal gun ownership the homicide rates are higher where there are more guns
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as[/url][/QUOTE]
THIS
IS
NOT
PROOF
OF
CAUSATION
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39013280]which gaps are you referring to exactly[/QUOTE]
The assumption that a private ale of a firearm would never ever occur between strangers and no one would sell a firearm to someone that could potentially use it for murder so no background checks need to be made
Corn, do you support a national registry for who owns what guns, since you also support the removal of legal private sales as they are.
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013326]Your own source is stating this:
[b]McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.[70] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[/b]
Please tell me how a little over 9000 people compare to 2.45 million?
Even with the flaws in the study, this stands out pretty far.
Granted, 2.45 million crimes does not state what kind of crime it is, but still, the point stands.[/QUOTE]
[B]McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.[70] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77]
McDowall cited methodological issues with the Kleck studies: (1) Kleck used a very small sample size and (2) did not confine the definition of self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[68][/B] Kleck and Gertz said they used an anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey, and did not know the identities of the [B]4,977 interviewed.[/B](Edit here: 5000 in a country of 300 000 000) They said the quality of sampling procedures was well above the level common in national surveys, using a large, nationally representative survey.[78] [B]A study of gun use in the 1990s by Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that criminal use of guns was far more common than self-defense use[/B].[79] According to the Kleck study most successful preventions of victimization were accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.[68][70][79][B] Hemenway considered that the Kleck figure was inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently showed that guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms.[/B][80] [B]Hemenway concluded that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is probably a gross overestimate, with the true figure one tenth that amount or less.[/B] Alternative explanations could be that many more burglaries occurred than were reported to police, and/or people overreported their use of their guns for self-defense in burglaries.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39013280]which gaps are you referring to exactly[/QUOTE]
there's the issue of straw purchases, for one
in maine, you can buy a surplus rifle for virtually no effort sans maybe a background check; i do not appreciate the laissez-faire firearm regulation laws where i live
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39013322]what about places like Chicago and NYC where legal gun ownership is low, why are they some of the worst places for gun violence?[/QUOTE]
It's an average. The rest of America isn't those 2 cities.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013346]there's the issue of straw purchases, for one
in maine, you can buy a surplus rifle for virtually no effort sans maybe a background check; i do not appreciate the laissez-faire firearm regulation laws where i live[/QUOTE]
oh ok yeah I agree with you there that needs to be fixed
thought you meant regulations like the AWB and such
[QUOTE=McGii;39013143]Last time I was criticised for not being able to respond to everyone quickly enough, because of that I made a typo, that post should read gun crime.[/QUOTE]
Oh look it's this circular argument again.
You've been told repeatedly that that point is retarded, and you continue to use it.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013346]there's the issue of straw purchases, for one
in maine, you can buy a surplus rifle for virtually no effort sans maybe a background check; i do not appreciate the laissez-faire firearm regulation laws where i live[/QUOTE]
what else do you expect other than a background check? it's not like they can extract your brain and look to see whether or not you're planning on shooting up a bunch of kids
[QUOTE=McGii;39013307][URL]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as[/URL][/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding me? You were just arguing the moral high ground of "omg guns kill OVER 9000!!!!! people each year get the banhammer" and then you post a link to a fallacy? Your argument was emotional, so I posted a response proving there are things you should care about more. Now you're playing the logic card? Please, your own source defeats your argument.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013378]I do actually support a national registry, but not in the idea that "i've got to apply for a license" but in a way that "oh you purchased serial number x49545, let's add your name, last 4 of SSN, and serial number to the list.
I dont believe in private sale of firearms simply because the law right now as it is, does not force me to to a background check on the person selling, merely stating that the person should be "of good standing"[/QUOTE]
Apart from the license thing, we actually agree on something. Wow.
The idea behind a license is that you have past tests to show you are capable of owning a firearm safely. I can understand being against it if there is a fee but honestly that would not work in America as is. Why are you against a license stating you are capable of owning a firearm safely similar to how a car license says you can drive safely.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39013346]there's the issue of straw purchases, for one
in maine, you can buy a surplus rifle for virtually no effort sans maybe a background check; i do not appreciate the laissez-faire firearm regulation laws where i live[/QUOTE]
What more does a person need than to pass a backround check?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013398]Even with your study, the point still stands that 99.97% of legal guns will not be used in a crime. What part of that dont you get?
EDIT:
Hi Sobotnik![/QUOTE]
I understand that, but the fact remains that a higher level of gun ownership corresponds to more murders and more crime resulting in a death.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013431]I understand that, but the fact remains that a higher level of gun ownership corresponds to more murders and more crime resulting in a death.[/QUOTE]
you clearly don't get it
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39013419]Are you fucking kidding me? You were just arguing the moral high ground of "omg guns kill OVER 9000!!!!! people each year get the banhammer" and then you post a link to a fallacy? Your argument was emotional, so I posted a response proving there are things you should care about more. Now you're playing the logic card? Please, your own source defeats your argument.[/QUOTE]
You are saying "these diseases we already treat cause more deaths so we shouldn't stop things that cause less [I]murders[/I]"
[QUOTE=McGii;39013431]I understand that, but the fact remains that a higher level of gun ownership corresponds to more murders and more crime resulting in a death.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't get it. Look up the definitions of "correlation" and "causation". Higher firearm amounts does not cause higher homicide rates. If anything, it has to do with population density.
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;39013416]what else do you expect other than a background check? it's not like they can extract your brain and look to see whether or not you're planning on shooting up a bunch of kids[/QUOTE]
Actually a properly trained psychiatrist can identify those who are at a much higher risk of snapping, which is why I support increased mental health awareness and treatment.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013437]You are saying "these diseases we already treat cause more deaths so we shouldn't stop things that cause less [I]murders[/I]"[/QUOTE]
no his point is that the effort needed to get rid of all the guns in america and improve safety in the wa you think is right is infeasible and stupid in comparison to the scale of other problems there are.
that's what he's saying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
