Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 5
 
 
2013-01-18 9:19 PM
in reply to: #4585449

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 6:21 PM

but then why start the thread comparing apples and oranges and then pull the 2nd amendment card when you comparison doesn't add up..  also why exactly are the second amendment card waivers the same ones so quick to want to trample on 1, 4, 5, and 6 .. little consistency would be good

Where in the world did you get that? I don't want to trample on any of them. Why is it that is is so OK to trample on the 2A... but nobody can tough the other ones... that's the consistency I'm talking about.

I was not comparing to anything. If the goal is to stop deaths, then there are huge categories we could look at. If our goal is to stop crime, we look else where. what are we trying to fix with AWBs and mag limits. It will have very little effect of stopping another Sandy Hook.

Actually we differ on this one.. you exercising your rights actually does impact me, and every other person. We live in a society and not individual worlds..  since I just drove home from work, someone elses driving impacts my driving .. I will explain below  

Name one thing my guns have ever done to you. Tell me how me exercising my rights has effected you in any what so ever. Tell me how any law abiding citizen exercising their rights has had any effect on you what so ever.

Legally I can''t (can't explain much further)

 Yes you can. Amend the Constitution. There is a process for that.


Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Please tell me what "idiot" carrying has ever done to you. Please show me the stats on accidental shootings by concealed carriers. Please show me the research that says people carrying increases your risk of being shot in any meaningful way. Please show me how many deaths and injuries were caused by law abiding citizens carrying in public.

All that is is ridiculous hyperbole and assumptions.



Edited by powerman 2013-01-18 9:22 PM


2013-01-18 9:34 PM
in reply to: #4585528

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
Z - 2013-01-18 7:56 PM

I'm 100% with Felton. Growing up in Ukraine (Soviet Union at first), there was a complete ban on anything but the hunting weapons. I grew up as a hunters daughter. The hunting weapon was plenty enough to deter anyone from braking into out inner city condo. In fact, we never had an attempt to rob us, or get broken into. May be it was because we did not own a huge house where if anyone is attacked and screams, no one is there to hear it, and come to help. Living close to one's neighbors was the biggest defense because the bad guy would never know what neighbor is home at any given time. I still refuse single family homes because living close to my neighbors in tight communities feels right to me. Plus, i'm too busy training on weekends to take care of any large backyards.

Then the Old Order in Ukraine broke down, and the guns became available everywhere. Guess what happened? People started getting shot left and right. The country went from zero gun violence, to a crazy Wild West outbreak. It was not fun, let me tell you. Actually it was one of the contributing factors in my decision to take my three years old son and immigrate to the USA ASAP.

If you get licensed to operate a vehicle and get re-licensed all the time, why object to get licence, invasive background check, and invasive mental history check to operate a killing object?

Lastly, no gun supporting friend of mine wants to answer this question for some reason... if you intend to protect yourself from a "tyrant" government, at what point you deem the government a "tyrant" and start shooting? 

Interesting... you thought it best to leave a lawless country... and come to a country with the highest per capita ownership of guns in the developed world.... and your reason was because of guns. By the very logic you illustrated above... blood should be flowing in the streets here.

I really do not know how many times a person has to say the same thing over and over... you do not need a license because it is not a PRIVILEGE, it is a RIGHT. Just look at the last election... the Right wanted voter IDs... and the Left had an absolute COW over it!!! A simple ID to show you are legal to vote... an absolute COW over it... it is in fact a requirement to vote... that you are actually a US citizen. For the life of me I can't comprehend what is so hard to understand. You do not need a license for what has already been granted to you the day you were born.

As far as the last question... we'll let you know if it ever happens. The chance is remote at best. At what point did the German people rise up against theirs... oh ya, they just got herded into cattle cars and slaughtered. They didn't have guns. Before Nazi Germany, nobody would have predicted that in a thousand years in a "developed civilized" country.



Edited by powerman 2013-01-18 9:36 PM
2013-01-18 10:09 PM
in reply to: #4585555

User image

Master
1826
100050010010010025
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
powerman - 2013-01-18 10:19 PM
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 6:21 PM

but then why start the thread comparing apples and oranges and then pull the 2nd amendment card when you comparison doesn't add up..  also why exactly are the second amendment card waivers the same ones so quick to want to trample on 1, 4, 5, and 6 .. little consistency would be good

Where in the world did you get that? I don't want to trample on any of them. Why is it that is is so OK to trample on the 2A... but nobody can tough the other ones... that's the consistency I'm talking about.

Did I say you? I said second amendment card waivers.. don't take things so personal, I don't know a single thing about you.. and at no point have I tried to trample on the 2nd.. and I am a proponent of it.. you would  notice that if you read with less of a bias

 

I was not comparing to anything. If the goal is to stop deaths, then there are huge categories we could look at. If our goal is to stop crime, we look else where. what are we trying to fix with AWBs and mag limits. It will have very little effect of stopping another Sandy Hook.

[/qoute]

I don't know what they are trying to fix with assault weapons bans and magazine limits.. never said I supported them. My goal is to the best we can with the best information available, anything less is a failure on the country

Name one thing my guns have ever done to you. Tell me how me exercising my rights has effected you in any what so ever. Tell me how any law abiding citizen exercising their rights has had any effect on you what so ever.

[/quote]

You have increased my risk of death, statistically shown time and time again

 

Legally I can''t (can't explain much further)

 Yes you can. Amend the Constitution. There is a process for that.

And why would I write that I legally can't if I didn't know for a fact that I legally cannot? Yes there is in fact legal authorities in place that prevents me from attempting to change the constitution, trust me. (I am special)

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Please tell me what "idiot" carrying has ever done to you. Please show me the stats on accidental shootings by concealed carriers. Please show me the research that says people carrying increases your risk of being shot in any meaningful way. Please show me how many deaths and injuries were caused by law abiding citizens carrying in public.

All that is is ridiculous hyperbole and assumptions.

I trust Harvard School of Health as an independent source for study.. so lets see

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.



Edited by FeltonR.Nubbinsworth 2013-01-18 10:12 PM
2013-01-18 10:25 PM
in reply to: #4585586

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 9:09 PM

I trust Harvard School of Health as an independent source for study.. so lets see

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Then I'm lost... what is your opinion on the topic? What are we trying to solve, and how can we do that?

Those studies are not what I asked for. If there was not a single gun in America, and there was one gun on the other side of the world, there is a statistical chance of a gun death, and you being one of 6 billion plus have a statistical chance of being that one... that is not what I asked.

Show me the number of cases of carrying gun owners in public that accidentally shot somebody. Show me the number of cases where "some idiot" shot somebody in public by accident.

Your studies above, pointed to homicides... I didn't ask for criminal acts. I asked for instances where law abiding citizens shot somebody. Since a lawful shooting is justified, that pretty much leaves us with accidental shooting. I know 851 people died last year of accidental shootings. Show me how many of them were from owners carrying in public that posed a risk and shot some innocent bystander.

You can quote statistical possibilities all day... show me how my exercising my 2A right has harmed you in any way since: I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying



Edited by powerman 2013-01-18 10:27 PM
2013-01-18 10:45 PM
in reply to: #4585603

User image

Master
1826
100050010010010025
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?

Then I'm lost... what is your opinion on the topic? What are we trying to solve, and how can we do that?

Those studies are not what I asked for. If there was not a single gun in America, and there was one gun on the other side of the world, there is a statistical chance of a gun death, and you being one of 6 billion plus have a statistical chance of being that one... that is not what I asked.

Show me the number of cases of carrying gun owners in public that accidentally shot somebody. Show me the number of cases where "some idiot" shot somebody in public by accident.

Your studies above, pointed to homicides... I didn't ask for criminal acts. I asked for instances where law abiding citizens shot somebody. Since a lawful shooting is justified, that pretty much leaves us with accidental shooting. I know 851 people died last year of accidental shootings. Show me how many of them were from owners carrying in public that posed a risk and shot some innocent bystander.

You can quote statistical possibilities all day... show me how my exercising my 2A right has harmed you in any way since: I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying

the study you ask for is a needle in a haystack, so you win..   I am not sure what, but I can mail a prize .. (FYI I am kidding here) .. to try to characterize my position:  I don't look for gun control, I don't want to ban guns.. I look at is a public health.. like how someone smoking in a restaurant increases my risk of cancer from second hand smoke, how someone drunk driving increases your chance of being killed driving home. my statement that potentially inflamed you means nothing more than this.. getting shot by a random shooter 1:10,000,000 (made this up), getting shot by a random gun owner in a society where everyone is armed 1:9,999,999 (also made this up) .. the first option is more attractive ..  if we are walking down a path and there is a split to two identical paths with respect to distance grade and destination, but I tell you the one on the right has a 1:10,000 chance of death, the one on the left is 1:9,999 .. do you go left or right?  If I push for more airbags in cars because it is shown to save more lives does that make me anti-car? to me it is about making society safer. Are we doing everything today to produce the safest weapon that reducing its potential for misuse, policies etc to provide for the best society possible, or can we do more?

 

edit: actually part of the problem finding a study like you want is that accidental shooting will most like get characterized as a homicide so it will be harder to find.. most likely you shoot someone accidentally you will be getting some type of charge against you

 

one last edit to add to your original question which I am not actually opposed to with respect to assult weapons ban/clip size etc.. it is referenced from the wiki page on a good read titled Private Guns Public Health.. but back to the graphic.. it the policies today where about public health they should tackle hand guns based on the linked homicide chart (note how much lower "other guns" falls) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg



Edited by FeltonR.Nubbinsworth 2013-01-18 10:56 PM
2013-01-18 11:46 PM
in reply to: #4585449

User image

Pro
15467
5000500050001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 7:21 PM
powerman - 2013-01-18 6:17 PM
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 3:24 PM

...

They all have such regulation... because they are not inalienable rights garanteed in the Constitution. What is not to get about that?

but then why start the thread comparing apples and oranges and then pull the 2nd amendment card when you comparison doesn't add up..  also why exactly are the second amendment card waivers the same ones so quick to want to trample on 1, 4, 5, and 6 .. little consistency would be good

All of that is completely irrelavent in light of the 2A. Feel free to exercise it how you see fit, and I will do the same. My exercising of that right does not effect you in any way shape or form.

Actually we differ on this one.. you exercising your rights actually does impact me, and every other person. We live in a society and not individual worlds..  since I just drove home from work, someone elses driving impacts my driving .. I will explain below  

As a side note do people actually think the second amendment does anything today to protect you from the government? (i think the original intent of the fore farthers was to provide for the people to be armed in the face of a potential tyrannical government and not purely just about owning a gun).. I personally think it is the second amendment is outdated with respect to the protecting the people from a tyrannical government.. it was written at a time when tomahawks, fighter jets, aircraft carries, drones, stealth bombers, ICBMs etc didn't exist.. today we the people have no chance in he** against any type of tyranny.. if the amendment was to be updated today i think we would need a lot more fire power rights granted to the citizens..

By all means, start a movement to repeal it.

Legally I can''t (can't explain much further)

 

I really do not get the logic of gun control advocates... that sice a gun is not a garantee of 100% self defense in 100% of all circumstances... then we should not have them at all. I have never met one single pro gun person that felt a gun was 100% assurance they they would never be harmed ever and all situations would work out in their favor. Not one, ever. All it is is a tool... it's an option. If running away would assure me 100% positive outcome...guess what, I'll run away. If hiding will, then I will. If a punch to the throat will get it, then that is what I will do... if screaming like a little girl would get them to run away... I would scream like a little girl. A gun isn't a garantee, it's an option. I like have as many as I can get to give me the most favorable out come.

And so when the tyranical government gives the order to the U.S. Army to take action against U.S. citizens... both sides will have tanks, planes, and missles. Guess what else, there will be a few million people with guns. You can't possibly think 300 million guns in this country does not matter. With all of our incredible technology and military might... we have yet to figure out how to hold ground without a guy with a gun.

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Well, than you need a new career....because gun ownership in the U.S. is at an all-time high, yet murders are at a 20 year low.  

Try again.



2013-01-18 11:56 PM
in reply to: #4585603

User image

Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
powerman - 2013-01-18 8:25 PM
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 9:09 PM

I trust Harvard School of Health as an independent source for study.. so lets see

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Then I'm lost... what is your opinion on the topic? What are we trying to solve, and how can we do that?

Those studies are not what I asked for. If there was not a single gun in America, and there was one gun on the other side of the world, there is a statistical chance of a gun death, and you being one of 6 billion plus have a statistical chance of being that one... that is not what I asked.

Show me the number of cases of carrying gun owners in public that accidentally shot somebody. Show me the number of cases where "some idiot" shot somebody in public by accident.

Your studies above, pointed to homicides... I didn't ask for criminal acts. I asked for instances where law abiding citizens shot somebody. Since a lawful shooting is justified, that pretty much leaves us with accidental shooting. I know 851 people died last year of accidental shootings. Show me how many of them were from owners carrying in public that posed a risk and shot some innocent bystander.

You can quote statistical possibilities all day... show me how my exercising my 2A right has harmed you in any way since: I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying

It's a statistical improbability they he can provide even anecdotal evidence that is true. His reference to honest law abiding citizens exercising their 2 A rights as idiots does speak volumes as to his thought process though.

2 to 4% of the US population have CCW's that's six to twelve millions law abiding citizens who can or do carry a firearm daily and yet there are few to no incidents reported and we know if they were out there MSNBC and the rest of the liberal media would make them front page news. The most dangerous places in America are where they have the strictest gun control laws.

This dude spends a lot of words to say very little. If he is an risk reduction specialists, I truly feel sorry for his customers, based on the info he's posted on here.

2013-01-19 12:01 AM
in reply to: #4572934

User image

Champion
5522
5000500
Frisco, TX
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
All I have ever seen the so-called "public health" reasoning used for was to abridge the rights and freedoms of citizens - usually based on bad science.  Sorry, but that doesn't create a compelling argument. 
2013-01-19 8:52 AM
in reply to: #4585623

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 9:45 PM

the study you ask for is a needle in a haystack, so you win..   I am not sure what, but I can mail a prize .. (FYI I am kidding here) .. to try to characterize my position:  I don't look for gun control, I don't want to ban guns.. I look at is a public health.. like how someone smoking in a restaurant increases my risk of cancer from second hand smoke, how someone drunk driving increases your chance of being killed driving home. my statement that potentially inflamed you means nothing more than this.. getting shot by a random shooter 1:10,000,000 (made this up), getting shot by a random gun owner in a society where everyone is armed 1:9,999,999 (also made this up) .. the first option is more attractive ..  if we are walking down a path and there is a split to two identical paths with respect to distance grade and destination, but I tell you the one on the right has a 1:10,000 chance of death, the one on the left is 1:9,999 .. do you go left or right?  If I push for more airbags in cars because it is shown to save more lives does that make me anti-car? to me it is about making society safer. Are we doing everything today to produce the safest weapon that reducing its potential for misuse, policies etc to provide for the best society possible, or can we do more?

 

edit: actually part of the problem finding a study like you want is that accidental shooting will most like get characterized as a homicide so it will be harder to find.. most likely you shoot someone accidentally you will be getting some type of charge against you

 Homicide is defined as a willfull diliberate act of killing someone...that isn't a accident, and it isn't manslaughter. You made a wimsical comment, but it is one that is repeated time and time again... that somehow millions of law abiding citizens being armed is somehow going to result is mass carnage... and usually the word "idiot" is worked in somewhere. There is simply no such data supporting such a claim. A homicde is a homicide. A defensive shooting, is a defensive shooting. An accident is an accident. That is exactly how they are reported.

one last edit to add to your original question which I am not actually opposed to with respect to assult weapons ban/clip size etc.. it is referenced from the wiki page on a good read titled Private Guns Public Health.. but back to the graphic.. it the policies today where about public health they should tackle hand guns based on the linked homicide chart (note how much lower "other guns" fallshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

And hand guns have been singled out in places with very strict gun controls... Heller was brought before the SCOTUS from a hand gun ban. Rifles account for 3% of deaths... but those are what is targeted in the AWB. Semi-auto rifles are asubset of that catagory, yet we need to ban 100% of them, to tackle <3% of the problem 

I understand statistical probabilities. In a nation with 280-400 million guns depending who you listen to... we are going to have deaths by guns. You originally said my logic was flawed, and I disagree. Big suprise I know.

The other examples given have had measures taken to mitigate risk and misuse. Child proof caps. Yet, there are still very large numbers of deaths and injury caused by medications, chemicals, and motor vehicles. If you take an honest look at what is being proposed for gun control, then the argument comes up hollow because the same steps are not being proposed to stop higher deaths in other areas. And in this instance we are talking about accidental shooting deaths, not homicides. Same as poisonings, and car crashes. Product/comsumer safety issues.

You mentioned DUI... DUI has dropped a lot since the 70's and MADD. But last year 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers... and yes, there are going to be children in that group. 10,000 people dead, yet 9000 people dead from gun crimes requires a national effort, and a admittedly a horrific shooting of 20 kids recieves direct POTUS intervention and action. And as stated in gun control arguments... the US is compared to other nations... yet other nations have much stricter DUI laws and much much lower DUI deaths. I see it as the same thing. And in your argument... using real numbers, I'm sure your statistical cance of being killed by a drunk driver is higher than being murdered by a gun... simply because of drive time and your proximity to high crime areas or not. Are we doing everything we can to stop DUI deaths? Do the lives of those 10,000 count less that the lives of 9000? And yes, I veiw driving drunk in this day and age attempted murder... and yes I have drove drunk.

So that is all my argument is. Are we treating other causes of death equal to guns? Are we taking the same steps and acton on activities or things that cause higher death rates? We both agree we should do what we can to get the numbers as low as possible and help prevent what we can. I do not know how much room for improvement we have with guns. More guns than ever, crimes dropping for 20 years now.

But things get really sticky with guns. They are not consumer products. They are not privleges. They are not subject to some arbitrary public safety argument. They are rights. Driving is not a right, nor is prescription medication or buying all the bleach you desire. We can regulate all of those out of existence if we so choose. But not guns.

And if we are going to attempt to regulate guns out of existence ( I accept that is not your position), then try regulating abortion, or voting, or due process out of existence and see how "unreasonable" and "uncompromising" people become. Yet gun owners are uncompromising, irresponsible, paranoid, idiots (not your words... well except idiots) that need to be controled.

Indeed, consistency would be nice.



Edited by powerman 2013-01-19 8:56 AM
2013-01-19 11:39 AM
in reply to: #4585828

User image

Master
1826
100050010010010025
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
powerman - 2013-01-19 9:52 AM
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-18 9:45 PM

the study you ask for is a needle in a haystack, so you win..   I am not sure what, but I can mail a prize .. (FYI I am kidding here) .. to try to characterize my position:  I don't look for gun control, I don't want to ban guns.. I look at is a public health.. like how someone smoking in a restaurant increases my risk of cancer from second hand smoke, how someone drunk driving increases your chance of being killed driving home. my statement that potentially inflamed you means nothing more than this.. getting shot by a random shooter 1:10,000,000 (made this up), getting shot by a random gun owner in a society where everyone is armed 1:9,999,999 (also made this up) .. the first option is more attractive ..  if we are walking down a path and there is a split to two identical paths with respect to distance grade and destination, but I tell you the one on the right has a 1:10,000 chance of death, the one on the left is 1:9,999 .. do you go left or right?  If I push for more airbags in cars because it is shown to save more lives does that make me anti-car? to me it is about making society safer. Are we doing everything today to produce the safest weapon that reducing its potential for misuse, policies etc to provide for the best society possible, or can we do more?

 

edit: actually part of the problem finding a study like you want is that accidental shooting will most like get characterized as a homicide so it will be harder to find.. most likely you shoot someone accidentally you will be getting some type of charge against you

 Homicide is defined as a willfull diliberate act of killing someone...that isn't a accident, and it isn't manslaughter. You made a wimsical comment, but it is one that is repeated time and time again... that somehow millions of law abiding citizens being armed is somehow going to result is mass carnage... and usually the word "idiot" is worked in somewhere. There is simply no such data supporting such a claim. A homicde is a homicide. A defensive shooting, is a defensive shooting. An accident is an accident. That is exactly how they are reported.

one last edit to add to your original question which I am not actually opposed to with respect to assult weapons ban/clip size etc.. it is referenced from the wiki page on a good read titled Private Guns Public Health.. but back to the graphic.. it the policies today where about public health they should tackle hand guns based on the linked homicide chart (note how much lower "other guns" fallshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

And hand guns have been singled out in places with very strict gun controls... Heller was brought before the SCOTUS from a hand gun ban. Rifles account for 3% of deaths... but those are what is targeted in the AWB. Semi-auto rifles are asubset of that catagory, yet we need to ban 100% of them, to tackle 

I understand statistical probabilities. In a nation with 280-400 million guns depending who you listen to... we are going to have deaths by guns. You originally said my logic was flawed, and I disagree. Big suprise I know.

The other examples given have had measures taken to mitigate risk and misuse. Child proof caps. Yet, there are still very large numbers of deaths and injury caused by medications, chemicals, and motor vehicles. If you take an honest look at what is being proposed for gun control, then the argument comes up hollow because the same steps are not being proposed to stop higher deaths in other areas. And in this instance we are talking about accidental shooting deaths, not homicides. Same as poisonings, and car crashes. Product/comsumer safety issues.

You mentioned DUI... DUI has dropped a lot since the 70's and MADD. But last year 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers... and yes, there are going to be children in that group. 10,000 people dead, yet 9000 people dead from gun crimes requires a national effort, and a admittedly a horrific shooting of 20 kids recieves direct POTUS intervention and action. And as stated in gun control arguments... the US is compared to other nations... yet other nations have much stricter DUI laws and much much lower DUI deaths. I see it as the same thing. And in your argument... using real numbers, I'm sure your statistical cance of being killed by a drunk driver is higher than being murdered by a gun... simply because of drive time and your proximity to high crime areas or not. Are we doing everything we can to stop DUI deaths? Do the lives of those 10,000 count less that the lives of 9000? And yes, I veiw driving drunk in this day and age attempted murder... and yes I have drove drunk.

So that is all my argument is. Are we treating other causes of death equal to guns? Are we taking the same steps and acton on activities or things that cause higher death rates? We both agree we should do what we can to get the numbers as low as possible and help prevent what we can. I do not know how much room for improvement we have with guns. More guns than ever, crimes dropping for 20 years now.

But things get really sticky with guns. They are not consumer products. They are not privleges. They are not subject to some arbitrary public safety argument. They are rights. Driving is not a right, nor is prescription medication or buying all the bleach you desire. We can regulate all of those out of existence if we so choose. But not guns.

And if we are going to attempt to regulate guns out of existence ( I accept that is not your position), then try regulating abortion, or voting, or due process out of existence and see how "unreasonable" and "uncompromising" people become. Yet gun owners are uncompromising, irresponsible, paranoid, idiots (not your words... well except idiots) that need to be controled.

Indeed, consistency would be nice.

And I agree above with you above here. And to clarify when I use the word idiot above, it is more a commentary on the process that someone adequately not trained to handle a weapon is around me the same way there is an idiot driver who can't operate a vehicle in a safe manner but is still driving past you on the interstate .. like for example the guy who passed me yesterday doing 110-125 in a 55

2013-01-19 1:03 PM
in reply to: #4585992

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve?
FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - 2013-01-19 10:39 AM

And I agree above with you above here. And to clarify when I use the word idiot above, it is more a commentary on the process that someone adequately not trained to handle a weapon is around me the same way there is an idiot driver who can't operate a vehicle in a safe manner but is still driving past you on the interstate .. like for example the guy who passed me yesterday doing 110-125 in a 55

Got it. Ya, idiot, endangering those around him.



New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 5