Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

Why do you people insist on ignoring cold, hard FACTS AND LOGIC, eh?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/hsop-swh011107.php

States with higher levels of gun ownership have higher homicide rates
Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world's largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. "Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes," said Miller.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm

Homicides by Weapon Type

Year Handgun Other Knife Blunt Other
gun object weapon
1976 8651 3328 3343 912 2546
1977 8563 3391 3648 900 2618
1978 8879 3569 3685 937 2490
1979 9858 3732 4121 1039 2710
1980 10552 3834 4439 1153 3061
1981 10324 3740 4364 1166 2927
1982 9137 3501 4383 1032 2957
1983 8472 2794 4214 1098 2731
1984 8183 2835 3956 1090 2626
1985 8165 2973 3996 1051 2794
1986 9054 3126 4235 1176 3018
1987 8781 3094 4076 1169 2980
1988 9375 3162 3978 1296 2869
1989 10225 3197 3923 1279 2877
1990 11677 3395 4077 1254 3037
1991 13101 3277 3909 1252 3161
1992 13158 3043 3447 1088 3024
1993 13981 3094 3140 1082 3233
1994 13496 2840 2960 963 3071
1995 12050 2679 2731 981 3169
1996 10731 2533 2691 917 2777
1997 9705 2631 2363 833 2678
1998 8844 2168 2257 896 2805
1999 7943 2174 2042 902 2461
2000 7985 2218 2099 727 2556
2001 7900 2239 2090 776 3032
2002 8286 2538 2018 773 2588
2003 8830 2223 2085 745 2645
2004 8304 2357 2133 759 2595
2005 8478 2868 2147 671 2528

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005
See the methodology section in 'Additional Information About the Data' for weighting and imputation procedures used.
Bears, indeed!

 

[numinus]

Not at all, but it is far and away the best. That's why my wife carries one...and her friend...and my uncle.

It is NOT the best way since non-culpable self-defense REQUIRES YOU NOT TO KILL YOUR ASSAILANT.

We are not living in a movie western were the cowboy shoots everyone and asks questions later. Understand?

HEE-HAW!

 

[numinus]

Would you care to provide a link to someone here stating that all guns are designed solely for sport?

Why should I? I'm not a fan of gun sport, now, am I?

If self-defense is pointless for that particular gun, how is meant to be used for killing?

Eh?

Killing is its intended purpose, not self-defense.

Are we talking about the original purpose of the creation of the first gun, or the original purpose of the creation of every gun in existence?

Both.

A kitchen knife is made for food preparation. It can be used to stab someone to death.

A combat knife is made to stab people, either to injure or to kill. It can also be used in food preparation (although that's inadvisable).

So which is it? In your world, what is the purpose of knives? Can you assign one singular purpose underlying the creation of all knives, or are you willing to recognize that some knives are designed for some purposes and some for others? And if so, why are you so dead set against recognizing this fact in relation to guns?

What exactly do you not understand?

The primary purpose of a thing comes from what can be logically inferred from it's nature.

A kitchen knife is for food preparation. A combat knife is for stabbing someone. A letter opener is used to open letters. To some extent, all of them can be used for purposes other than their intended purpose.

We are discussing gun ownership because in the hands of the public, guns present a real danger to society.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It is NOT the best way since non-culpable self-defense REQUIRES YOU NOT TO KILL YOUR ASSAILANT.

We are not living in a movie western were the cowboy shoots everyone and asks questions later. Understand?

HEE-HAW!

What planet do you live on? I'm dead serious here...what planet are you on, bcause it sure as hell isn't this one. If someone is threating my life, I am perfectly within my rights to shoot him dead.

PS--My uncle is alive, the mugger who attacked him isn't. He took an entire magazine before he went down (he was on PCP), but he went down. (And my uncle replaced his Walther .380 with a .44 Magnum the next day.)

 

[dahermit]

Numnuts

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person.

"vyo476-Are we talking about the original purpose of the creation of the first gun, or the original purpose of the creation of every gun in existence?"
"nummy-Both."

This is the common, ridiculous platitude used by the anti-gun organizations for the last few years. It is not a fact. If it were a "fact" it could be proven.

Prove it.

Duh, HEE HAW!, Hmmm?

 

[icono1]

A gun is not a toy. It is a 'serious' piece of engineering.
I just know from personal experience that the last person that stuck a cocked 357 mag in my face and told me to give up my money or else didn't live long enough to tell his side of the story. I didn't use a gun to defend myself I used my hand's and body to defend myself. It would of taken too long for me to find and use my gun.

 

[Pidgey]

I just know from personal experience that the last person that stuck a cocked 357 mag in my face and told me to give up my money or else didn't live long enough to tell his side of the story. I didn't use a gun to defend myself I used my hand's and body to defend myself. It would of taken too long for me to find and use my gun.

I hate it when that happens!

Many years ago I had a friend that was a convicted felon (he did his time and that was the past) and wasn't allowed to own a gun. He was a big diesel mechanic. I worked for a fellow that had a body shop next door and we sometimes went over there to shoot the bull. My boss was one of those pacifist sorts and rather rabid about it, for that matter.

Anyhow, the discussion was about guns and Don (the ex-con) said that he didn't even want a gun anymore. My boss started his usual crap, "well, Don, I'm so glad to hear that you've grown up... " Before he could finish, Don said, "yep, ever since I found out that I could kill a man with my bare hands, I just haven't felt the need to own one!"

My boss walked off in a huff, discussion over, end of story.

Numinus seems to strongly feel that it's better to die at another's hand for their own pleasure, perhaps even miserably, than to prepare yourself to finish just such a bastard off and perform civic improvement in the process. Frankly, I'm oh-so-sick-and-tired of all the incredible amount of money that we have to pay to put some of them in jail and actually keep them there.

When it comes right down to it, you just gotta' wonder if Numinus is really the kind of person that either just doesn't want the rest of us ready for such an assault from a criminal or doesn't want us able to repel something like a Bolshevik revolution.

Pidgey

 

[vyo476]

Why should I? I'm not a fan of gun sport, now, am I?

You suggested that someone made the argument that all guns are for sport. Since I don't remember seeing that, and since you're the one who is contending that it is there, I'm asking you to show me.

Eh?

Killing is its intended purpose, not self-defense.

The question is, how is it intended to kill? If it is useless for self-defense, what type of killing is it designed for? Execution? Urban combat? Sniping, perhaps?

Both.

This was your way out. You're trying to argue an entirely irrational point (and I think you know it) and if you'd just said, "Oh, I meant that original intent of guns as a whole rather than the intent of every gun" then you may have been able to save a little face.

A kitchen knife is for food preparation. A combat knife is for stabbing someone. A letter opener is used to open letters. To some extent, all of them can be used for purposes other than their intended purpose.

We are discussing gun ownership because in the hands of the public, guns present a real danger to society.

If you acknowledge that a kitchen knife is for food preparation and a combat knife is for combat, yet both can be used for killing, how are you unable to acknowledge that a combat rifle is for combat and a sports rifle is for sports? We've demonstrated that there are plenty of guns out there that don't make much sense as anti-personnel weaponry. Attributing functionality to knives and denying it to guns can only stem out of the greater efficiency at killing offered from guns; however, an increase in efficiency does not change the nature of the thing.

A combat knife may be less effective at killing than a sporting rifle, but that does not mean that the purpose of the sporting rifle is to kill - any more than it would mean the combat knife is better suited to food preparation.

 

[numinus]

What planet do you live on? I'm dead serious here...what planet are you on, bcause it sure as hell isn't this one. If someone is threating my life, I am perfectly within my rights to shoot him dead.

Funny because I was about to ask you the same question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Legal status of self defense

In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”).　However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.

In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Re: Numnuts

"vyo476-Are we talking about the original purpose of the creation of the first gun, or the original purpose of the creation of every gun in existence?"
"nummy-Both."

This is the common, ridiculous platitude used by the anti-gun organizations for the last few years. It is not a fact. If it were a "fact" it could be proven.

Prove it.

Duh, HEE HAW!, Hmmm?

I have already proven it. Or you do not think the department of justice statistics on homicide isn't enough?

 

[numinus]

You suggested that someone made the argument that all guns are for sport. Since I don't remember seeing that, and since you're the one who is contending that it is there, I'm asking you to show me.

Try perusing bunz' posts. He justified gun ownership from detering bear attacks to hunting for his family's daily sustenance.

The question is, how is it intended to kill? If it is useless for self-defense, what type of killing is it designed for? Execution? Urban combat? Sniping, perhaps?

It is intended to kill by shooting a metal projectile at a muzzle velocity of over 300 m/s. A 100 gram bullet at this average speed would carry an energy of 9 kilojoules.

Can you think of a use for 9 kilojoules of energy delivered by a small metal projectile?

This was your way out. You're trying to argue an entirely irrational point (and I think you know it) and if you'd just said, "Oh, I meant that original intent of guns as a whole rather than the intent of every gun" then you may have been able to save a little face.

I do not need a way out since I am making my point clearly and logically.

If you acknowledge that a kitchen knife is for food preparation and a combat knife is for combat, yet both can be used for killing, how are you unable to acknowledge that a combat rifle is for combat and a sports rifle is for sports? We've demonstrated that there are plenty of guns out there that don't make much sense as anti-personnel weaponry. Attributing functionality to knives and denying it to guns can only stem out of the greater efficiency at killing offered from guns; however, an increase in efficiency does not change the nature of the thing.

A combat knife may be less effective at killing than a sporting rifle, but that does not mean that the purpose of the sporting rifle is to kill - any more than it would mean the combat knife is better suited to food preparation.

Look at the department of justice statistics. How can you still deny the intended and actual use of household firearms????

FACT: HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS ARE BEING USED TO KILL MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOT BEARS.

FACT: THERE IS A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GUN PREVALENCE AND HOMICIDE.

If only your gun is designed to discriminate betwen human beings, bears, and paper targets, then by all means, make that sports rifle argument.

If only your gun is designed to restrain, NOT KILL your assailant, then by all means, make the self-defense argument.

If only economic activity in human societies has not yet reached an acceptable level of effeciency such that basic requirements of human survival are not readily met, then by all means, make the hunting argument.

Until then, a gun is primarily intended to kill.

 

[numinus]

I hate it when that happens!

Many years ago I had a friend that was a convicted felon (he did his time and that was the past) and wasn't allowed to own a gun. He was a big diesel mechanic. I worked for a fellow that had a body shop next door and we sometimes went over there to shoot the bull. My boss was one of those pacifist sorts and rather rabid about it, for that matter.

Anyhow, the discussion was about guns and Don (the ex-con) said that he didn't even want a gun anymore. My boss started his usual crap, "well, Don, I'm so glad to hear that you've grown up... " Before he could finish, Don said, "yep, ever since I found out that I could kill a man with my bare hands, I just haven't felt the need to own one!"

My boss walked off in a huff, discussion over, end of story.

Numinus seems to strongly feel that it's better to die at another's hand for their own pleasure, perhaps even miserably, than to prepare yourself to finish just such a bastard off and perform civic improvement in the process. Frankly, I'm oh-so-sick-and-tired of all the incredible amount of money that we have to pay to put some of them in jail and actually keep them there.

When it comes right down to it, you just gotta' wonder if Numinus is really the kind of person that either just doesn't want the rest of us ready for such an assault from a criminal or doesn't want us able to repel something like a Bolshevik revolution.

Pidgey

I am the type of person who knows that a culture of death can only cause more death.

 

[Pidgey]

I am the type of person who knows that a culture of death can only cause more death.

Not a good enough answer. Usually, folks don't make that impassioned of an argument without there being something a lot deeper. What's your real beef? What's really eating you?

Pidgey

 

[numinus]

Not a good enough answer. Usually, folks don't make that impassioned of an argument without there being something a lot deeper. What's your real beef? What's really eating you?

Pidgey

Look at the dept of justice statistics and tell me if that isn't a good enough answer?

And you might want to consult your lawyer before killing someone and crying self-defense.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Funny because I was about to ask you the same question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Legal status of self defense

In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”).　However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.

In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

Duh?

Do you regularly post data that supports the position diametrically opposed to the one you are supporting?

Yet again: if someone is threatening my life, I am completely within my rights to shoot him dead.