Dumb arses and guns...

[finestkind]

Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Further support that even the good intentions may well end up causing harm.

However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.

A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.

To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).

To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational

And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.

To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.

There were many who called GW Bush a tyrant for the Patriot Act. And just today, our FBI director was asked if it was legal for the government to kill a US citizen on US soil and he actually said he would have to check into it. The context of this discussion was the FBI's explanation of the legal aspect of killing an American citizen on foreign soil if he was deemed an imminent threat. The very discussion is unimaginable to most Americans - where is the due process guaranteed to every citizen? And who gets to decide "imminent threat". The Justice Department's position that the FBI was explaining was the due process was effectively practiced based on how they selected their targets. Really? Really? My point is, the concern about tyranny is real.

Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down. The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231). If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????

[HrkDrvr]

Originally Posted by finestkind

However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.

Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny.

Originally Posted by finestkind

A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.

I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.

Originally Posted by finestkind

To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).

I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.

Originally Posted by finestkind

To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational

Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.

Originally Posted by finestkind

And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.

I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.

Originally Posted by finestkind

To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.

There are theories that are exactly opposite of this. Molyneaux posits that we're all captured in invisible cages of our own making and nobody is free. We are being cultivated by human farms on the plantation of greed. Or some such. Regardless, we've delved into philosophy at this point and for this specific posting, not quite germane.

Originally Posted by finestkind

Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down.

Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.

Originally Posted by finestkind

The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231).

I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment.

Originally Posted by finestkind

If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????

You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.


AR1 - suggest you lay off the drink for a bit, then post. While I find it difficult to follow some of your nonsensical rambling, I will attempt it nonetheless.

Originally Posted by AR1

If only (they said to me) Concealed permits were in that theater, the folks there would have dealt with him. Oh really? pitch dark, your engrossed in a movie and a shot rings out. Do you A: Hit the deck or B: stand up with the other 40 or so guns in the room and shoot who?

A valid question. However, you don't understand gun culture because you don't live it. You also concede you don't "get the gun thing". So let me explain. When used to stop a crime, it is not always necessary to use your weapon to kill or even shoot anyone. Typically, these types of drug-crazed miscreants cower or quit when faced with deadly force. This is why they choose gun free zones. The Colorado movie shooter had 13 cinemas to choose from - he chose the only one that was a gun-free zone. Chance? Perhaps. As soon as the cops showed up, he gave up - no further shots fired. The Oregon mall shooting a few days after Sandy Hook - the guy offed himself once a CCP holder identified himself and showed his gun - no shots fired. And the list goes on. So, no, 40 people wouldn't have been firing blindly in the dark. The training required to acquire a concealed carry permit varies by state, but all require use of force training.

Originally Posted by AR1

That tells you all you need to know. The land of the free is a country haunted by fear - fear of itself. We can talk statistics all we like but it doesn't change that, and until it does, everyday we await the next nutjob who wants his inevitable death on the front pages with his victims.

You need to teach PTT statistical analysis. Your lone conversation with a single woman tells you "all you need to know". Now you're using an ad hominem attack on 322 million people. Nicely done. But you're wrong.

I don't have a gun because I'm fearful. I have a gun because I know I live in a world that is not perfect and there are bad guys with guns. I am responsible because I wish to equip myself with the tools to protect my family and myself. It is out of duty, not fear, that I do this. It is for the love of my family that I protect them.

And even if the bad guy didn't have a gun, I'm not going to let him get close enough to my family to use a knife, a club, a brick or any other imaginary weapon in your Utopian land of make believe. I'm not going to count on my cunning or strength, I'm going to count on the great equalizer that is the most superior weapon I can legally obtain.

[PTT]

@ AA

Again, I'll say poppycock. Your treasured study claims, (after reassessments which confirms the author's ability to take a dataset and manipulate it), that I have a 2.7 times better chance of dying from a gun because my house has one or more. But what it does not take into account is the fact that, in an armed household the thing I'm most worried about, (the armed intruder), won't meet a happy end at the end of one of my weapons. So really your study, while it sounds wonderful, doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that if an armed intruder enters Kellerman's perfect house he's golden, if he enters an armed house his likelihood of assuming room temperature is increased infinitely.

Because that is not what the study is looking at. It's looking at the risk to [you with gun in your house] vs [you without gun in your house]. If you want something else then find a different study: you don't go to a football match and then start complaining that it's not rugby! What you are doing, though, is assuming your results.

Thus, the educated gun owner has no worry about Kellerman's mental meanderings.

And I have no issues with the suitably trained and educated gun owner, as I have said!
@ HrkDrvr

Your ad hominem attacks do not eliminate the fact that there are multiple ways to manipulate data. Kellerman chooses to ignore some data (self defense) and manipulate the rest in manners that support his sponsors. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to find things that support his sponsors when conducting a study.

Telling you that you are misusing or misunderstanding statistics is not an ad hominem. And your accusations are unfounded: you've simply stated them, not supported them.

Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory?

I linked two earlier. It would really help if you start reading the links I post for you.

Straw man argument. Nobody said that. I said that guns are not a health issue. Death due to guns is a crime or social issue. Not health.

Measurement of death by any means is a health issue, and therefore measurement of death by guns is a health issue. Solving issues caused by guns is a social matter, but measuring the effect is not. And, tbh, if main your issue with this is where the data is published then I suggest that you really don't have an issue.

Read again. There were two stats provided for each area, violent crime total (which includes all murder) and gun-related murder and non-negligent homicide (which I'm pretty sure is specific to guns). It is one of the key ways the FBI delineates the data in the Uniform Crime Report, so my source did as well. It's available on the web if you'd like to peruse it.

This is part of what you said here:

King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders.

Nowhere does that mention guns. I would LOVE to peruse your data, but you've not linked it and I'm not going to go hunting it with the vaguest of detail.

Actually, no. You don't seem to know much about our university system. The overwhelming majority are sponsored by the state and even the private institutions receive many millions in grants from the government. They all tend to be quite liberal/left/socialistic for the most part. So, no, I wouldn't expect any university to really combat another university on this particular issue. In fact, most social issues tend to be generally agreed upon by the universities. Was the Kellerman study done by a university? I didn't look...I thought it was an ER doctor.

This does sound rather paranoid, I have to say. And I also disagree. If issues are agreed upon by people who have actually studied them then it doesn't make it a conspiracy

Another straw man argument. The nature of crime does indeed change as does the study of it. The incidences change and the criminals change too. My university degree is in criminology, so I'm well versed in the ever changing nature of crime. Crime is a reflection of society and society has radically changed since 1992. It's no different than quoting a study done in the '60s or 1800s. Why don't we go pull up some old phrenology studies and apply them to today, I mean, since the nature of crime hasn't changed, so surely the studies are still valid. No. Kellerman is both flawed and outdated.

With a degree in criminology I'd hope you'd know a little about statistics, then. How has the null hypothesis changed?
I'd also like to know why you think that was a straw man: I wasn't stating an argument for you at all there.
You keep saying Kellerman is flawed, but haven't shown how: every "reason" you've given I've provided a counter to and you've not responded.

And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless.

So you agree there is a link between the number of pirates and global warming? Or do you think that, perhaps, there is another factor which is not being looked at?

What variables would you control for to determine how increased gun ownership, increased numbers of guns, and increased access to guns due to more liberal laws in all but one state do not affect crime rates?

That's a big question, and not one I could even start to answer without effectively beginning a proper study. There are a multitude of social, political and economic factors which have an effect on crime, so all of those would have to be controlled for.

I am not missing 20 years of data, I can quickly go get it for you from the FBI UCR, but honestly, I'm tired of doing simple leg work for you as you refuse to use reason and insist on using a single study from a biased source.

I didn't say you were missing 20 years of data, I said you only had 20 data points, one for every year. Perhaps if you were to provide links then I could look at the data myself?

Uh, yes we are. Your little list includes all countries - most of which do not have access to guns like the US has. AND it includes suicides, not just homicides - not the subject of this debate.

Incorrect. Column 3 lists homicides only, and the US is 15th on the list when ordered by homicide rate. The US does have the highest gun ownership rate in the world at 88.1 per 100 residents. Looking at OECD (so, relatively wealthy) nations only:
http://mark.reid.name/images/figures...de-vs-guns.png - picture removed because it was HUGE.
Source
Also, this: The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing, I would Just Like to Point Out…

No, it's not tinfoil hat stuff; more ad hominem. I apologize for my sloppy word choice. 'They', of course, means the gun control lobby in the US - I'm sorry I assumed that was understood. They, the gun control lobby, want to remove all weapons. It is their stated goal.

Again, it's not ad hominem when you come across like that. Misunderstanding in terminology noted

You need to teach PTT statistical analysis.

Now who's going with the ad hominem's - glass houses
And I think you perhaps need to check up on the meaning of some of the logical fallacies you're throwing around here: they don't quite tally up with what is being said

[AR1]

Bollocks. And at this point I have been drinking. In California... The woman I used as an example represents the single viewpoint I've come across in my time over here, family and friends cling on to their arms through fear. Fear that in their lifetime somehow if it's not their homes they"ll be called into action to stop looting at the supermarket come armageddon. Two nights ago I sat in this bar watching nobody react to a man collapse (I did) Yet you'll quite happily justify a society that reacts with a gun. Twisted.

[poina]

I'll give you that to a point. I can buy several semi-auto hunting rifles built by the likes of browning, winchester, remington. All in larger caliber than the ar-15 and knockoffs. In Montana, and most terrain in the mountainous western USA, longer shots are the norm. If you are lucky you may get 3-4 shots at 300 yds before the elk are in the trees. Which is why 7mm, 300 win. magnums are preferred calibers as the .223 don't cut the mustard.

I am NOT for gun control, but the argument of 30 round clips for hunting makes no sense to me when better platforms are available.

Same for auto-loading pistols, my 45 acp only has an 8 round mag, which seems plenty for me.

High capacity weapons have been a trademark of these nuts, if they are taken off the market it will have no effect on my ability to hunt or protect myself.

[Jumping_Jack]

Bored with this now....I just wish Thames Valley Police would hurry up with my FAC variation.....

[finestkind]

HrkDrv Apologise for not being succinct

Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny

.

Borderline ad hominem? Based on what fact.

I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.

Sorry. Obviously we that are not Americans cannot follow the mindset that justifies the bearing of arms even when children die from accidents but would like to understand this mindset. Much the same as the rational logic behind suicide bombers escapes me but if I had been raised somewhere in the Middle East then I might. However the one thing I am fanatic about is fanatic's. There is no logic or reasoning to be applied with fanatics and from what I have seen it would be very difficult to say that some gun bearing Americans are not fanatics. Please do not take this to infer this is anyone that I have read on this thread. Certainly do not believe I have stated “if it saves one life” mantra.

I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.

Couldn’t agree more but see above. I am trying to understand and do not see any holier than thou attitude.

Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.

Carry a gun and that wariness goes away?

I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.

Possible misinterpretation. My point being that guns do not trump tanks, artillery, aircraft missiles etc. So the tongue in cheek question was whether the people advocating guns will prevent tyranny, have something else besides guns to do so.

Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.

No you give me too much credit. I am not trying to draw comparisons between state power and law enforcement. Wariness of human nature starts to see shadows everywhere and..... on occasions you will be right.

I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment

.

Just the example given by you I feel is pertinent. The use of an “illegal” fire arm to protect oneself with the result the victim becomes the criminal is an abuse/misuse of the justice system.

You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.

Very happy to leave it to the Americans to do as they will. But being what we are, somewhat educated reasonable thinking people, trying to see the other side by having a discourse. Some logical reason as to why it is so. There are posters who have stated it is my right, so what. To do something just because you can do it is not a reason.

Who’s right is right is as relevant as your acknowledgment of one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. There is no prejudgement just a desire to understand why when so much appears to be with the no vote. An increasing population with a lower socio economic background in an overpopulated urban area statistically shows a higher crime rate (or so I have read). If you are armed you are more likely to a) turn away an attempted mugging/robbery/assault b) defend yourself and others from a shooting. Acknowledged but one of the many questions would be if there were far harsher penalties would this reduce the crime rate and thereby negate the need to arm oneself. But I guess if that is only a minor reason to carry a gun and it is more relevant to do so because of the fear of tryanny, well I'm really doubtfull.

[keesje]

If in the US people would only be allowed to have their gun at clubs or if they are police/militairy, gun related accidents would instantly decimate, even robberies would become much safer.

We have a situation where their are a growing number of guns though 300.000.000, getting ever more powerful and the NRA people successfully make everyone afraid.

Generations are raised with it and make sure their kids have no doubts.

Little Kid at a Shooting Range - YouTube

[Kitbag]

Oh FFS, somebody please be kind and apply a gun to the back of this threads head to put it out of its' misery

[500N]

"even robberies would become much safer."


Keesje

And just how will robberies become safer ?

[barnstormer1968]

This thread may have got a bit too serious and a bit too silly.
Why do folks talk of nutters and checks etc.
As far as I was aware shooting in the USA are most often carried out by one single group in society. They aren't nutters, they don't intend to hurt and they are known to thr gun owner. Americans here should easily identify this group!

I got a bit bored of the thread when banning cars etc was brought up.
Statistically the highest percentage of death per activity is sleeping. Do these same folks propose banning sleep?
I suppose aircrew carry weapons, drive cars and also sleep, so at least the thread could be relevant.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by finestkind

Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

"All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

CP Snow, Corridors of Power and I am losing the will to live. Obviously all this shooting is making them deaf and blind to how b o r I n g this thread has become.

[keesje]

The robber knows nobody has a gun, takes the money and leaves.

He would bring bigger guns and be nervous/ violent if the are probably guns around.

(And no, carrying a gun doesn't make the country safer Robberies statistics - countries compared worldwide - NationMaster)