Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

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.
Well, for our "culture of death", the population numbers sure don't seem to be heading downward. Oddly enough, it doesn't even seem like the "killing field" countries have a lack for more to take their place. When you factor in all the things that indicate the population of the earth is just too much for the ecosystem to bear, what's wrong with losing a few?

So, what your real beef? What is it you just can't bring yourself to say? If I own a gun and pop a cap into some miserable bastard that's come into my house in the middle of the night for whatever dark reason, what's it to you that you feel the need to lobby to have my right to keep and bear arms taken away?

Pidgey
 
Werbung:
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.

LMAO.

...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..

...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...

THE USE OF A GUN IS CONSIDERED AS DEADLY FORCE.

LMAO some more.

Against supreme stupidity, even god contends in vain.
 
Well, for our "culture of death", the population numbers sure don't seem to be heading downward. Oddly enough, it doesn't even seem like the "killing field" countries have a lack for more to take their place. When you factor in all the things that indicate the population of the earth is just too much for the ecosystem to bear, what's wrong with losing a few?

So, what your real beef? What is it you just can't bring yourself to say? If I own a gun and pop a cap into some miserable bastard that's come into my house in the middle of the night for whatever dark reason, what's it to you that you feel the need to lobby to have my right to keep and bear arms taken away?

Pidgey

If it isn't such a big deal, then why do you care if you end up being a statitistic this year?
 
LMAO.

...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..

...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...

THE USE OF A GUN IS CONSIDERED AS DEADLY FORCE.

LMAO some more.

Against supreme stupidity, even god contends in vain.

I feel like I'm trying to explain this to a four-year-old.

Yet again: If someone is threatening my life, I an 100% within my rights to shoot him dead. Nothing you have copy/pasted even slightly disagrees with that. Keep rereading it until it sinks in.

Did you actually read what you copied?
 
Numinus, we are all statistics, it is just a matter of what row and column we fit into.
I'd prefer the chance to survive becoming a statistic in whatever way I choose that is granted under the Constitution of the United States of America and The Bill of Rights. Life's a crapshoot and you can play "what if" until the cows come home, but there are folks "out there" who might come for you some day and they're not usually of a mind to give you a sporting chance. I'll never forget holding a female friend of the family as she sobbed uncontrollably when they told her that her father had been murdered by a low life he'd tried to help by giving a job. And that's only one story I've had personal dealings with.

Since you're so against "The Culture of Death", Numin, then why would you allow the military to have weapons? What makes it okay for a country to kill (and wholesale slaughter at that if they're successful) to protect its sovereignty or interests and yet not an individual in righteous protection of his home? A family and its home is a microcosm of a country, afterall.

Sorry, Bunz, Numin's just not answering the question, must be afraid to. One of those people who can dish it out but can't take it.

Pidgey
 
Re: Numnuts

I have already proven it. Or you do not think the department of justice statistics on homicide isn't enough?
This dodges the point. The assertion was: "All guns are made for the purpose of killing human beings." Is this how a "fifteen year consulting engineer" proves something?

Again I say: Prove all guns are made for the purpose of killing humans.


"Duh, YEE HAW, Hummm?"
 
Re: Numnuts

This dodges the point. The assertion was: "All guns are made for the purpose of killing human beings." Is this how a "fifteen year consulting engineer" proves something?

Again I say: Prove all guns are made for the purpose of killing humans.


"Duh, YEE HAW, Hummm?"

You are exceptionally slow today, aren't you?

As I said -- read the department of justice statistics on homicide in the us. Household guns account for a disproportionately large number of homicides than any other weapon.

Ignoring facts and logic won't do your argument any good.
 
I feel like I'm trying to explain this to a four-year-old.

Yet again: If someone is threatening my life, I an 100% within my rights to shoot him dead. Nothing you have copy/pasted even slightly disagrees with that. Keep rereading it until it sinks in.

Did you actually read what you copied?

Did you actually understand what you read?

I have already told you about NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- which is precisely what wiki was saying is the basis of a LEGAL SELF-DEFENSE.

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant dead if he is merely threatening you with his bare hands or a knife.

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant dead in the back (which suggests that your assailant was already deterred when you killed him)

Your are not allowed to pump your assailant full of bullet holes (self-defense is about deterrence, not killing)

You are not allowed to shoot your assailant when it is perfectly reasonable to simply retreat.

Merely admitting your intention to kill your assailant renders self-defense utterly defective.

Get back to me when you have something reasonable to say.
 
Numinus, we are all statistics, it is just a matter of what row and column we fit into.

Eh?

Whatever happened to your bear argument? Is there any statistics you wish to provide to support that?

Bears, indeed!
 
I'd prefer the chance to survive becoming a statistic in whatever way I choose that is granted under the Constitution of the United States of America and The Bill of Rights. Life's a crapshoot and you can play "what if" until the cows come home, but there are folks "out there" who might come for you some day and they're not usually of a mind to give you a sporting chance. I'll never forget holding a female friend of the family as she sobbed uncontrollably when they told her that her father had been murdered by a low life he'd tried to help by giving a job. And that's only one story I've had personal dealings with.

Nonsense.

You simply cannot claim your right to bear arms in the face of cold hard FACTS AND LOGIC.

Since you're so against "The Culture of Death", Numin, then why would you allow the military to have weapons? What makes it okay for a country to kill (and wholesale slaughter at that if they're successful) to protect its sovereignty or interests and yet not an individual in righteous protection of his home? A family and its home is a microcosm of a country, afterall.

Because the us military isn't the one killing american civilians, now, is it?

Sorry, Bunz, Numin's just not answering the question, must be afraid to. One of those people who can dish it out but can't take it.

Pidgey

What question have I not answered, eh?

That there is a specific personal experience that makes me averse to gun ownership? My 'beef' as you put it?

Nothing comes to mind.

I have been threatened with a gun back when I was a young field engineer. In hindsight, I think the experience was funny, although I didn't think so then.
 
Hellooo... Numin.

I'm not going to argue that a gun was designed to kill. I'm not going to argue that they're used that way occasionally by folks who don't have the control of their emotions required to find a better way. I think it's an impractical assumption that if you even could retrieve all guns from all of the citizens of the U.S. that you'd end or even make a dent in the homicide rate. For another look at homicide and gun control statistics:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

So, you're only concerned about U.S. citizens and human beings in other countries don't count? Does that mean your argument doesn't have a "Sanctity of Life" basis?

I have to admit that I haven't read this entire thread but of what I have read, I haven't been able to determine from what motive you're arguing from. If you were proceeding from "Thou shalt not kill" as an absolute, that'd be respectable and I wouldn't bother. Frankly, from what I've seen I'd get more of the impression that you're bored and like pushing people's buttons for the sheer hell of it and no other reason. I get the distinct impression that you like flaunting an air of superiority and a faceless forum's a great place for that.

Pidgey
 
Pidgey said:
Hellooo... Numin.

I'm not going to argue that a gun was designed to kill. I'm not going to argue that they're used that way occasionally by folks who don't have the control of their emotions required to find a better way. I think it's an impractical assumption that if you even could retrieve all guns from all of the citizens of the U.S. that you'd end or even make a dent in the homicide rate. For another look at homicide and gun control statistics:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

What are you talking about?

There is an established statistical corelation between gun-ownership and homicide. That is clear enough from the dept of justice website I provided.

Of course you can make a considerable dent to the homicide rate by banning household guns. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a statistical corelation, now, would there?

Pidgey said:
So, you're only concerned about U.S. citizens and human beings in other countries don't count? Does that mean your argument doesn't have a "Sanctity of Life" basis?

I have to admit that I haven't read this entire thread but of what I have read, I haven't been able to determine from what motive you're arguing from. If you were proceeding from "Thou shalt not kill" as an absolute, that'd be respectable and I wouldn't bother. Frankly, from what I've seen I'd get more of the impression that you're bored and like pushing people's buttons for the sheer hell of it and no other reason. I get the distinct impression that you like flaunting an air of superiority and a faceless forum's a great place for that.

Pidgey

My position is CONSISTENT AND CLEAR. 'Thou shall not kill' is a FUNDAMENTAL MORAL IMPERATIVE to which there is very little exception, if any.
 
From the Right-To-Carry Laws section of the link that I gave you:

* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated: "Lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

.....................................Florida................United States

homicide rate....................-36%....................-0.4%

firearm homicide rate..........-37%.....................+15%

handgun homicide rate........-41%.....................+24%....(3)


* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

Actual statistical references may be found on that page.

Pidgey
 
Werbung:
You don't like the dept of justice statistics, how about a peer-reviewed study?

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1988

In the United States, regions and states with higher rates of firearm ownership have significantly higher homicide victimization rates. This result is driven primarily by gun-related homicide victimization rates, although non–gun-related victimization rates were also higher in states with higher rates of firearm ownership. The close correspondence between our proxy (FS/S) and survey-based (GSS) measures of household firearm ownership is readily apparent in Table 1, in which results obtained with survey and proxy measures are nearly identical.

The association between higher household gun ownership rates and higher overall homicide rates is robust. Regressions were driven neither by either the most populous states nor by the states with the most extreme rates of gun ownership. Overall, the results obtained when we analyzed all 50 states and the 40 least and 40 most populous states were equivalent to those obtained when analyses excluded the 10 states most extreme in FS/S (i.e., the 5 states with the highest FS/S and the 5 states with the lowest FS/S). The firearm–homicide association remained significant even when state-level analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, per capita alcohol consumption, and violent crimes other than homicide (i.e., aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery). In fact, the cross-sectional association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide victimization was so stable over time that regressions across states in any given year produced point estimates that were within 8% of the point estimate obtained when all 10 years of data were analyzed.

The association between household firearm ownership rates and homicide rates held for virtually all age groups and was particularly strong for adults aged 25 years and older. An example is the category of homicide victims aged 35 to 44 years. Table 2 indicates that in a comparison of states that differed by 1 standard deviation in our firearm proxy (FS/S), the homicide rate was on average 35% higher in the states with the higher FS/S (i.e., multivariate IRR = 1.35). Given that FS/S was 4-fold higher in states with the lowest relative to those with the highest gun ownership rates, our multivariate model suggested that the homicide rate in the high-gun states would be 3.3 times that in the low-gun states (35% compounded 4-fold), and our bivariate model suggested a 3-fold difference (32% compounded 4-fold). Table 3 presents the corresponding bivariate comparison of the actual number of homicide victims in the states with the 4 lowest and the 6 highest gun ownership rates: for victims aged 35 to 44 years, homicide rates were 3.4 times higher in the high-gun states.

One reason that FS/S may be such a good proxy for household firearm ownership is that guns used for suicide appear typically to be household guns. However, guns used in homicide, especially homicides committed by adolescents and young adults, may often be obtained on the street. If, as has been reported,32–34 it is relatively easy for adolescents and young adults to acquire illegal guns on the street, the association between household gun ownership incidence and rates of homicide committed by this age group might be diluted by this alternative source of firearms. Because individuals murdered by 15- to 24-year-olds tend to be other 15- to 24-year-olds,35 this may explain, in part, our finding that the association between household firearm ownership and the rate of homicide was stronger among adults 25 years and older than it was among younger adults and adolescents. Consistent with this possibility, others have found that in areas with few guns and strict gun control laws, criminal adolescents and young adults appear to obtain their firearms via gun runners who purchase the weapons in states with more permissive gun laws.32

Neither survey estimates of household firearm ownership nor our proxy is an ideal measure of firearm availability. Surveys typically underrepresent poor people, and women living in 2-adult households with guns do not always have accurate information about whether a gun is present in their home.36,37 In addition, household firearm ownership rates indicate nothing about the number of guns per household, storage practices, or the ease with which high-risk individuals can obtain firearms in secondary market transfers. Given that household firearm ownership rates are likely to be only a crude measure of firearm availability, the robust association we report between measures of firearm prevalence and rates of homicide is striking.

Our study included only a limited number of potential confounders—poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and violent crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery)—and then only in state-level analyses. We found, consistent with previous work, that homicide rates were higher in areas with higher rates of urbanization, poverty, and nonlethal violent crime (not shown),25–28 but many other factors may affect homicide rates. It is not clear, however, whether accounting for these or other areawide characteristics would increase or reduce the magnitude or significance of the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.

Our study did not provide information about causation. One approach to evaluating causal direction is to use a lagged measure of the key independent variable. Our finding that a lagged measure of firearm ownership yielded results similar to results obtained with contemporaneous ownership and homicide measures is consistent with higher gun ownership rates leading to higher homicide rates. However, this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue, in part because cross-sectional patterns of gun ownership rates across the United States are so stable over time.19

The current study adds to previous work by using recent data, looking across both regions and all 50 states, disaggregating victims by age, and adjusting for several potential confounders not previously accounted for in nationally representative studies. We found that across US regions and states, and for virtually every age group, higher rates of household firearm ownership were associated with higher rates of homicide. Our findings held regardless of the following: whether firearm ownership rates were survey-based or derived from a validated proxy, whether states most extreme in ownership rates were excluded from analyses, whether the most and the least populous states were excluded, and whether regressions controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and violent crimes other than homicide. In areas with more firearms, people of all ages were more likely to be murdered, especially with handguns.
 
Back
Top