Umm, if that is the case, then tell me why people who advocate gun control want to tell everybody else how to live, and people who are pro-constitution just want to be left the hell alone? Trying to control everybody else sounds like what a “victim” does to me…
[quote=“redesigned, post:179, topic:31452”]
It has been a long time since small bands of civilians with firearms could effectively do anything against any modern military force. What a joke. That idea was amended onto the constitution, and its time has come for it to be unamended.[/quote]
So, Afghanistan and Iraq are completely pacified now. Nice to know. So, why are troops still over there?
You forget. Their goal is to keep well intentioned, educated, and caring people like you, with brains capable of seeing where and how actual positive change could be made, too occupied and frustrated to work where the work needs to be done. They congratulate themselves -and each other- for baiting you into doing things like ad hominem. Leave that on their side of the fence. That’s what will really piss them off.
Hmmm. Nice well reasoned “I’m rubber and you’re glue” type argument there.
We actually DO make lots of great arguments. It is just that people against freedom generally do not understand the data, or simply ignore them. Please read the rest of my post for plenty of examples.
You also cherry-pick your data, and always refuse to look at the bigger picture. The most common example is worrying about “firearms deaths” under the assumption that murders committed with knives and clubs are perfectly fine. There are PLENTY of examples of this below. If you want to talk overall crime rate or murder rate by ALL methods, that is fine and a valid subject. Hmm. If we banned all knives, we could stop all knife deaths. If we made ropes illegal, we could stop all strangling deaths. Hey, if we banned shoes, the incidents of people killing or being killed while wearing shoes would plummet!
OK. Let’s look at this article for a minute…
Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in
America, but it’s clear there’s no practical way to round them all up
(never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this).
Hmmm. Feinstein (US Senator) actually said: “If I could have banned them all - ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ - I would have!” So, proof that at least SOME people WANT to ban all guns. And there is a distinct possibility that there are other politicans that want to secretly ban guns, but are afraid of saying so. So, you have to do it a little at a time. Fun test: try going back in time 5 years ago and try buying a handgun in Chicago. Time travel is not possible, but you can research what the laws were before the Supreme Court “Heller” decision.
Second, if there is no way to practically get rid of them, you CAN put burdensome restrictions on honest citizens, leaving criminals the only ones with guns. Sounds like a safe world to me.
Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns.
Nope. Sorry. I actually cranked the math myself once, but I used the OVERALL MURDER RATE. I had in a spreadsheet gun ownership percentage, and the homicide rate for each state. I sorted them by ownership rate, and plotted the murder rate. Looked pretty random to me. There there could be some weak correlation, but the graph was about as far from linear as you could get. If this were true, explain why Chicago has very strict gun laws, and Wyoming has very lax laws. Yet Chicago is far more dangerous. Note that this is RATE and not absolute number. Yes, I know that Wyoming is not very populated. However, if guns=murder, then Wyoming would have a much higher murder rate. Now, fun exercise. Try correlating population density with violent crime, or median income with violent crime. Much more there to be seen.
Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for
every one percent increase in a state’s gun ownership rate, there is a
nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
So, they are worried about “firearm homicide rate.” Presumably stabbings and beating deaths are just OK to them. Riiiiight. Taking away all guns might eliminate firearm deaths, but people stabbed and beaten to death are just as dead. Total logic fail…
A simple analogy. You have a loved one killed by a red sports car. So, you campaign to outlaw all red cars. After a few years, red-car-related deaths are almost nothing. However, are you really any safer? Same thing.
Myth #4: More good g> uys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Fact check: total BS. If you actually READ the linked article, they exclude anybody who has ever had any police or military experience. Really? Were you once in the Army? Then you do not truly qualify as a “concealed carry” holder. I live in Colorado. At a church about 10 miles from my house an armed civilian stopped what was certain to become a mass murder. Yet they exclude her because she was a former police offer and a part of the church security team. Sorry, she WAS a civilian, not actually being a police officer at the time. There are other similar stories where they twist the definition of “civilian” to fit their agenda for taking guns away from anybody. Are they for removing guns from “civilians” using the same definition? Would they be for ANY former police or military person being able go carry guns?
“To prove my point, I will define civilian like this, but to decide who can legally carry a gun, I think that I shall define a civillian like that.” How absolutely honest.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
Once again, the whole “murdered by a gun” quote. Yup, no guns = women strangled or stabbed instead of shot. That is progress.
So, seriously, this many logistic and factual errors can only mean that they are trying to mislead you.
You are going under the incredibly stupid assumption that anybody who intends to murder somebody, if denied access to a gun, would rather go to a movie instead. Sorry, take a gun away from a murderer and he will use a knife or a club. I would think that this would be common sense, but apparently not. Guns ARE an effective tool at killing, but FAR from the only tool.
Please go away and return once you get a clue.
I, for one, have been incredibly happy to see that all these well researched and argued opinions have resulted in several people listening and changing their minds on the matter and keeping the original article’s main point in mind.
4 Likes
All I can do is present the data and point out all of the myriad logical flaws and cherry-picked data from the other side. If people still chose to believe that disarming honest citizens makes them safer, at least they have this nagging feeling in the back of their mind that there is no logical reason for it.
Sure. but do you think it’s a good idea to make people feel threatened and harassed when trying to make your point?
2 Likes
Show me where I have threatened or harassed ANYBODY. I dare you!
I call people out on their logical inconsistencies. I will even call a person a “liar” if it is justified. That is it.
On the other hand, we have this fine example of humanity…
Now, that is certainly not harassing or threatening at all, just sticking to the facts. When you get a person who is rabidly anti-gun, if you dig deeper, there is all emotion and vehemence, with little to no logic behind the fury.
The point of this entire article was the scorn and malevolence directed against a person because of their political beliefs about Firearms. Mr. Teapot is doing exactly the same thing, just from the other side of the fence. Sadly, his infantile and malicious behavior does not surprise me at all.
As a data point of 1 regarding your point, all I can think about when reading that people who want to kill and can’t get a hold of a gun will commit the same amount of murder using a knife or club instead is that I have survived hundreds (yes, sadly, family violence is hard to get away from when you’re a minor) of knife and other non-gun-yet-still-potentially-lethal-weapon attacks. If he had had access to a gun, I wouldn’t be here to type this comment.
So yeah, it’s great fun being reminded of that time in my past. It also makes me think of all the less fortunate victims now that guns are so prevalent.
5 Likes
I am truly sorry for what you went through. I have three adopted children myself, and it breaks my heart to think about the things that they went through before they came to my home.
While I do fully understand your point and I am glad that you ARE here to type this comment. It is my sincere belief that a much better solution would be to have your father put in jail rather than take guns away from the rest of the honest citizens who did nothing wrong.
Guns make it easier to harm somebody. It also makes it easier to stop somebody who desires to harm you. In any policy (with guns and without guns) there WILL be “winners” and “loosers.” If you make guns easier to get, a man may be able to commit a murder that he would not otherwise be able to commit. If you make them harder to get, a woman may not be able to defend herself against a man who is bigger and stronger.
Simply stated, there is no perfect solution. No matter what you do, somebody will suffer for that decision. My brother-in-law once helped save a baby that was trapped with a seat belt wrapped around his neck. That could have turned out VERY badly, yet that is not a reason to ban seat belts, and they do more good than harm.
To put things in perspective, doing some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, approximately 0.1% of the gun owners cause a problem (based on number of murders, US population, estimates of households with guns, and assumptions about the average size of a "household). Yet the solution is not to make the law more difficult and burdensome for the 99.9%.
The original article, the point of this thread, is about women who are threatened and harassed. This thread has devolved into the common "debate of “guns bad/guns good.”
I’m asking if you, or anyone else posting, think it’s a good idea to make people feel threatened and harassed when trying to make your point.
It’s a question, not an accusation.
3 Likes
I have said before that that type of behavior is never acceptable. I have also stated that I can certainly understand the frustration that a lot of people must feel. No constitutional right is so demonized as the 2nd Amendment. It does not excuse the bad behavior, but it does help to explain it.
EDIT
I also wade into threads like this hoping that a person in support of strict gun control is actually able to present a REAL argument or fact – something that make me go “Hmmm, they might have a point about that” or “let me look into that and research the subject.” Sadly, that almost never happens. All I get are the same old statistics that assume that being stabbed to death is perfectly OK, or cherry-picked data that never includes the whole picture… I am so used to this that I should not be disappointed by now. I really just want to believe that some anti-gun people have an actual reasoned argument instead of a knee-jerk reaction. As an engineer, I go into almost everything with an analytical mind, and I guess that, at some deeper level, I expect others to do the same thing. I guess that human nature is not like that for most people, so they think with their emotions rather than with logic. Unfortunate, but it is reality.
Live long and prosper 
** 2nd Edit **
On reflection, I guess I should not be so surprised that no logic is involved. Let me list where MOST people learn about guns:
- Video Games – used to kill people.
- Television – used to kill people.
- News – only gets covered when used to kill people. The headine “Rancher shoots coyote to defend sheep” would not be very popular. “Woman shows handgun, attacker frightened off” would also not grab headlines. How about “gun sits in safe, nothing happens” – would that be good reading?
Therefore, there are a large number of people who really do not know much about firearms in general, and have wildly inaccurate concepts about them.
The facts are that murder, gun murder and gun ownership rates in the US are wildly disparate with most other western nations (i.e. Western Europe, Australasia). Until the first two come closer into line with everyone else it’s not unreasonable that people will ask about the third, whether you believe there is a connection or not.
What’s the alternative? Accept that all ‘bad guys’ have guns, so all the ‘good guys’ should too, and recreate the Wild West? I appreciate that getting the guns from the bad guys is the hard part, so maybe more effort on getting rid of the bad guys is needed - via things like ending the war on drugs, a serious effort to address inequality and poverty, improved mental health care…?
1 Like
As far as “gun murder” once again, I will say it slowly, stabbed to death or beaten to death is just as dead as shot to death. If you want to talk murder in general, that is fair game. Gun death dropped a LOT in Australia, yet stabbings increased to cover most of the difference.
“Wildly disparate???” Murder rate in 2007 (per million): US - 56.1. Australia - 13.3. Four times higher. It is not like we are 100 times more, or even ten times more. However, keep in mind that between 1995 and 2007, US murder rate dropped by 31% vs. 25% for Australia. Yes, we have more murders, but we are moving in the right direction faster than Australia is.
On the other hand, the total violent crime in 2007 was 10,126 per million for Australia, vs. 4,669 per million for the US. So, in general, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime in Australia. So, is the lesson that Australia needs more guns? Of course, you cannot compare these directly because of different legal systems that may have different definitions of violent crime, but the point is still that the US may even be considered safer!
In fact, I can tell you how to be almost completely safe from murder in the US: be very careful who you date, and be careful what neighborhoods you go into. If you do these, you can be almost guaranteed to not be the victim of murder. Chicago has a very high crime rate. Yet the murder is confined mostly to a couple of neighborhoods. Stay away from those parts of town and you are very safe. Google “Chicago crime gap” for more details
Keep in mind that other countries have completely different governments, history, economics, culture, and even language. Nothing exists in isolation, making direct comparisons between countries difficult if not impossible.
Ahhh. Now we are getting somewhere. Economics and social policy would do a LOT more to reduce murder than banning guns ever would.
First, you should not worry how many guns an honest person has. I live in a rural area. I just expect that my neighbors have guns, and it does not bother me. Sometimes I hear gunfire down the street. It is just target practice. I trust that they are being safe, and do not worry about it. And when a criminal has a gun, the problem is not the gun, but the criminal.
Take the most crime-ridden areas in the US, provide a large number of decent-paying jobs, and see what happens to the crime rate. I would argue that high violent crime and high murder is more a result of a failure of economics and the war on drugs. Maybe what the US needs is reduced regulation and taxes on small businesses to enable them to grow faster and hire more people?
Yeah, I’d say that’s unacceptable.
For a while I lived in Savannah. In 2011 there were 31 homicides in Chatham County, in 2012 there were 26, in 2013 there were 32. The population of that county is about 275000 (and the vast majority live in Savannah).
Bluntly, that is fucked up. And this is a fairly major tourist destination (at least if you believe the people that run Savannah)?
I also used to live in Derby in the UK - a pretty depressed post-industrial city, certainly not an idyllic land of milk and honey. Population of the urban area, about 250000. Finding breakdowns of murder statistics in the UK seems trickier, but best I can tell, in Derby there were 4 murders in 2011, 3 in 2012, none in 2013.
Data point of one, but a city with 10 times the murder rate of a (pretty grim) roughly equivalent British city? There should be huge efforts being made to address this. It should be unacceptable. There should be national campaigns to address appalling statistics like that. And Savannah isn’t really much of an outlier as far as I can tell.
I don’t really give a shit about guns per se. I think it’s fucking weird that some people want to carry them around with them to make them feel safer, rather than making the areas they live in safer. I don’t live in fear, I don’t want a gun and if I was in an area where I felt that I needed to carry a gun to protect myself, or sleep with one under my bed, I’d move - granted, not an option for everyone - but improving the area so you don’t need to defend yourself has got to be more sensible than needing to carry weapons around for protection.
5 Likes
In general, I agree with you.
The US murder rate in 2007 was 4.2 times that of Australia. However, in 1995, the difference was 4.6, so we are indeed heading in the right direction. But don’t forget that violent crime, in general, seems to be higher in Australia. So, is America really that screwed up when you are less likely to be assaulted here?
How “typical” is Savannah? I can’t say. I do know that I live pretty much in the middle of nowhere. I know that crime is very rare here, murder almost non-existent, and taking away my right to own a firearm makes nobody any safer.
Even in Chicago, which is actually very dangerous, varies a lot. In some zip codes, violent crime is almost non-existent, while other zip codes you do not want to enter at night. The exact same laws apply in both places. What is the difference? Socioeconomics. That is all. Poverty and lack of opportunity form the difference, and in that lies the solution.
You are right about either moving or doing something to improve the neighborhood. Unfortunately, moving is not an option for much of the poor. They are stuck where they are. Banning guns in those neighborhood would do little or nothing to stop the root cause. Banning semi-automatic rifles in Wyoming is guaranteed to help absolutely nobody in Savannah. Arming yourself might help some (“don’t mess with crazy old Joe’s house, he has a gun”), but would not make an overall difference in the neighborhood. As I have stated before, there needs to be a way to drive jobs to the areas that really need it. Probably something involving reducing regulation and tax breaks for businesses that move where the neighborhood really needs it.
Wow. All you had to say was, “I don’t like them carrying firearms because they scare people and they’re acting like thugs.” It wasn’t possible to determine if your analogy was apt without further elaboration on your part.
But since you went above and beyond I’ll reply in kind. Let’s start with my mother.
I’m sure your mother is a very nice lady, and I’m sorry to bring her into that example. My apologies.
Yeah, you went there. You could have chosen another example to get your point across. Railing against being offensive and then being offensive yourself is really pathetic and makes you a first class jerk.
As far as your analogy, my take on your reply is that it’s apt only to the degree that you feel open carry in and of itself is offensive, which you apparently do. But I don’t, so I consider it to be inapt.
They are displaying their guns in a way that is scaring the fuck out of people, either in a blatant attempt to do so, or in absolute negligent denial that the objects they are waving around are designed to be lethal weapons.
Let me say this first. I detest intimidation, harassment, or waving a gun around (brandishing) by anyone. Period. Full stop. However, if someone is simply going about his activities while carrying then that’s a different matter and I’m OK with it. You obviously take a very limited view of the “bear arms” part of the Second Amendment and feel differently than I do. But my reply to you is the same as it would be to someone who is offended by a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public: Too bad. Deal with it. If you don’t like it, leave.
As I’ve related elsewhere, I once walked into a Subway sandwich shop and saw a guy with a holstered pistol on his belt. What he wasn’t wearing was a badge. Even though this was an area where open carry was extremely uncommon, no one in the place seemed to be bothered or paying any special attention to him. He was just a guy getting lunch. Someone who gets the vapors at the mere sight of a firearm worries me more than someone legally and peacefully carrying a firearm and I’m way more worried by the guy illegally carrying concealed with criminal intent that I can’t know is there. A number of people carrying openly might actually be a deterrent to that guy. Finally, no one is responsible for another person’s emotions and there’s no right not to be afraid.
1 Like
Hey, idiot, there are actually plenty of Australians posting on BB. Why don’t you try asking them how safe we are rather than pulling crap out of your arse to support your own position?
3 Likes
Do you really think that bands of armed civilians there aren’t squashed like bugs by either side? They are much more likely to be killed by either side then unarmed civilians. The only resistance that is presenting a challenge has a heck of a lot more then personal firearms. Once you’ve served a few tours get back to me on your naive theory…
That is some serious BS, wanting a sane level of regulation around purchases isn’t telling people how to live, or controlling anyone’s lives, or even taking away guns. It is minimizing the risk of those people who want to misuse them by taking the lives of others from obtaining them. Cars have more regulations for public safety then guns, that is pretty f*cked up. When you want to own and use something deadly, expecting a sane level of background checks or regulations is not over the top, it is responsible. People aren’t even suggesting that you cannot own guns, they are merely saying that we want to keep them in the hands of responsible owners and reduce the number that get into the hands of criminals. If you are a responsible owner you should agree and be behind this. Gun wankers way overact to this very reasonable suggestion as if we were going to disarm them, take away all their toys, and spank every good ol’merican with a copy of the constitution. Give me a break and get some perspective.
3 Likes
Well, with all due respect, then stay the fuck out of our business.
I do care. Unlike you, I live here. I have ancestors who were among our first settlers, who fought in our revolution and our civil war, and even who served as president. I love my country, it’s history, and honestly, genuinely, love the principles upon which it was founded.
So I really don’t have that much tolerance for the whole “I don’t really care about your laws or your culture, but if you’d just do things our way, we can go ahead and civilize you people” attitude.
1 Like
