Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[Laufey]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

 

[chrisrobin]

An American tradition.

 

[TX-Beau]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

They like to bring up alcohol, and cars - then they conveniently forget that BOTH alcohol and cars are heavily and efficiently regulated AND TAXED, hell we even tax the fuck out of FUEL for those cars so lets tax the fuck out of ammunition. So if there is a comparison, it's that only certain types of vehicles are allowed to be operated - defined by the government - emissions are regulated, there must be licensing - registration, yearly inspections, you pay the taxes on the vehicle, you pay the taxes on the fuel - the Gov can revoke your licence if they see fit, and you are required to undergo things like vision tests to get your licence in the first place. Not so much a Libertarian dream now is it. You are LEGALLY REQUIRED to carry liability insurance - I'm all for that comparison, people who own firearms should be required to carry liability insurance for them.

HA watch them abandon the car comparison once we start talking about expecting the same level of responsibility for owning a gun, that we all are expected to display when owning a car.

 

[andysayshi]

^ The standard gun advocate response is "Car ownership is not a right".

Which, of course, is nonsense. We have a right to work, thus earning a living to feed ourselves and our families. In a world where non-walkable distances are the norm, because of the high prevalence of motor vehicles, inhibiting the right to a motor vehicle is almost certainly inhibiting one's right to sustain one's own life.

If gun ownership is justifiable as a means of self protection because of the prevalence of guns in society, then car ownership is equally a right because of the distances commonly traversed in ordinary life. And yet we heavily regulate motor vehicles, we force drivers to prove their competency, we force them to buy insurance, and we heavily tax their fuel, all to ensure the safety of the car user and the wider community.

 

[Stardreamer]

Yeah, because nothing scares kamikadze bombers as much as handguns...

There were no Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor, the Kamikaze Squadrons didn't appear to late in the war when Japan was starting to get desperate. The mini-sub crews were probably not expecting to make it back though. And yes if the fleet and Army Air Corp had enough warning to sortie or even just clear way the anti-aircraft defenses the results would have been quite different, can't say that it still wouldn't have been a defeat as the Japanese had planned for losing surprise but the casualty counts would have been far less one sided.

 

[Stardreamer]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

Nope just exchanging rather lose, faulty comparisons. Alcohol would be a better example too but more people abuse caffeine to the determent of their health, at least so my doctor keeps trying to tell me.

 

[Stardreamer]

This is absolutely not true. Caffeine most emphatically does not kill people, unless it is deliberately ingested in concentrated industrial form as a suicide attempt. You can't kill yourself with the caffeine in a cup of coffee.

The benefits and risks of caffeine have been studied by the medical establishment for decades. The conclusion is that caffeine is generally a positive benefit for people who use it routinely.

I mean you no disrespect, stardreamer, but to compare the risk of guns to caffeine is beyond absurd. You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution do not do yourselves credit by such illogic. You prove to the rest of us that your advocacy is driven by emotion, not reason.

Which is why doctors are currently pushing to remind people that caffeine is a drug and not just a food additive and people should cut back on it. Comparing gun use to drugs at all is a rather lose comparison to start with, so I'm not even going to real logical in its analysis but are being more general. Most doctors will tell you that caffeine is a drug and the consumption of it in the amounts used in the typical American diet is NOT good for you.

 

[andysayshi]

While I'm sure caffeine abuse does probably exist to a degree, the abuse of alcohol is in no way comparable to caffeine. Worldwide, alcohol is estimated to be responsible for 4% of all deaths - more than tobacco, AIDS or tuberculosis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html

 

[Stardreamer]

They like to bring up alcohol, and cars - then they conveniently forget that BOTH alcohol and cars are heavily and efficiently regulated AND TAXED, hell we even tax the fuck out of FUEL for those cars so lets tax the fuck out of ammunition. So if there is a comparison, it's that only certain types of vehicles are allowed to be operated - defined by the government - emissions are regulated, there must be licensing - registration, yearly inspections, you pay the taxes on the vehicle, you pay the taxes on the fuel - the Gov can revoke your licence if they see fit, and you are required to undergo things like vision tests to get your licence in the first place. Not so much a Libertarian dream now is it. You are LEGALLY REQUIRED to carry liability insurance - I'm all for that comparison, people who own firearms should be required to carry liability insurance for them.

HA watch them abandon the car comparison once we start talking about expecting the same level of responsibility for owning a gun, that we all are expected to display when owning a car.

I would point out I'm not the one who started making off the wall comparisons of guns to drugs. As far as I know guns are taxed and regulated and I at least have no problems with that as long as the regulation meets constitutional muster.

 

[TX-Beau]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

 

[Stardreamer]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

Yes, I have no problems with the reinstating of the 'assault weapons' ban, though I doubt it will be any more effective than it was the first time which was not very much. The vast majority of gun crimes, accidents and suicides in the US are not committed with those particular models of guns. But it would save a handful (in the overall comparison) of lives which is why I have no major objection to it.

I also think there is a 2nd amendment issue with the law IF you try to use the 'its all and only about militias' position because such weapons are clearly militia weapons. Part of the reason I like Kuli's arsenal idea, it gives you the best of both worlds.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, since there has been no national discussion at all about militias, and there will be no action at all about new regulation - all of this is quite pointless.

Our gun regulations are ineffective because the NRA has paid a whole lot of money to purchase that outcome.

Frankly the problem is not crazy people, militias, regulations, assault rifles, bans or banana clips.

The problem is a gun culture in which people are taught to fetishize weapons and project all kinds of silly emotional baggage onto them. Some of the worshipers will be responsible - but a whole of them will not - because they bought the weapon because of the fantasy, and have no fucking clue what they are doing.

 

[andysayshi]

This thread topic is based on 3 or 4 anecdotal references, so it might make sense to view some real statistics and studies about the topic:

Guns were used in two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicides between 1990-2005.

The likelihood of death in a domestic violence incident is significantly higher in homes where a gun is kept.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.

There is no doubt that women in the US are at far more risk of death during domestic violence incidents if they live in a house with a gun, or if their partner owns a gun.

 

[Stardreamer]

This thread topic is based on 3 or 4 anecdotal references, so it might make sense to view some real statistics and studies about the topic:

Guns were used in two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicides between 1990-2005.

The likelihood of death in a domestic violence incident is significantly higher in homes where a gun is kept.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.

There is no doubt that women in the US are at far more risk of death during domestic violence incidents if they live in a house with a gun, or if their partner owns a gun.

A point I think I already conceded in my research into the 'killed by their own gun' issue. Most such deaths are either suicides or a family member.

 

[andysayshi]

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

Re: FBI
I have asked you in previous discussions to cite FBI statistics, but you haven't. And I now know the reason why: the FBI have never, and do not, gather or publish any statistics about gun use that prevents crime. They only publish material relating to reported crimes, and rely on stats from the Dept Of Justice for non-reported crime. If you can show me otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Re: NIH.

The NIH actually find the opposite of your claim. Their 2009 study into gun possession during crime found that people carrying guns were 4.46 times more likely to be shot during a crime, and this rises to 5.45 times more likely if the victim had at least some time to resist their attacker.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Re: NSI

I cannot find any info relating to an NSI. Can you provide some?


Overall, the few Government studies in the US about gun crime and gun deaths have consistently shown that guns increase the likelihood of death in most crime situations.

The reason I've bolded the word "few" is to highlight the absurd lack of real studies that exist in relation to US gun crime. We are usually left addressing studies that are decades old. The NRA have made it their business for almost three decades to prevent US agencies from investigating gun crime and gun deaths. In 1996, after the CDC had conducted numerous studies that found gun prevalence increases the likelihood of gun deaths and injuries, the NRA and numerous Republicans (all of whom received NRA financial contributions) successfully orchestrated funding ammendments that prevented the CDC from spending money on gun studies. The following clause:

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

remains today, and is now placed on every funding Bill for the CDC.

Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a prominent researcher whose 1993 CDC-funded study became a flashpoint in the debate over government funding of gun research, told Salon that the effects of the campaign against gun research have real consequences. “In a nation dedicated to personal freedom and responsibility, it is ironic that policymakers and the public have been denied access to timely and objective research on this issue for 15 years and counting,” he said in an email.

Indeed, gun violence is the second leading cause of death for young people after car accidents, but the federal agency responsible for researching ways to stop it has had its hands tied. No other research topic has been singled out in this way. “We’ve got a huge social problem that causes a very substantial amount of premature mortality and by and large, we have invested scant resources studying it. And the reason is politics,” Teret said.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/



The same process is being repeated more recently against the NIH.

If guns really do make people safer, why is the US's greatest gun advocacy group, the NRA, working so hard to repress any research or study into the science of gun deaths within the US?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

I'm still waiting to see the stats showing that several hundred thousand people each year are killed with their own firearms.

 

[Kulindahr]

I will only point out that the court has never overturned any same-sex marriage bans either. Or - so far - DOMA. Courts' rules come from people, the "Court" is not some divine infallible institution. And people rule as the times dictate. America is STILL riddled with nut-jobs who revere guns. I imagine it was only more pronounced in the past.

The only real difference between now and the past is that there are a lot of people now who would rather pretend someone else will protect them, and since they don't want to protect themselves, they want to deprive everyone else of basic human rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution ....

Lies are not a good argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ The standard gun advocate response is "Car ownership is not a right".

Which, of course, is nonsense. We have a right to work, thus earning a living to feed ourselves and our families. In a world where non-walkable distances are the norm, because of the high prevalence of motor vehicles, inhibiting the right to a motor vehicle is almost certainly inhibiting one's right to sustain one's own life.

If gun ownership is justifiable as a means of self protection because of the prevalence of guns in society, then car ownership is equally a right because of the distances commonly traversed in ordinary life. And yet we heavily regulate motor vehicles, we force drivers to prove their competency, we force them to buy insurance, and we heavily tax their fuel, all to ensure the safety of the car user and the wider community.

You don't own the surfaces you drive on. The owners may set the rules.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

Feel-good moves are irrational at base. "Assault weapon" means nothing other than "a long gun that looks scary". I have a problem with any irrational law.