# Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

I'm putting this here rather than in the, admittedly relevant, Armed Citizen thread because I think that thread lost it's way a while back and it is just chasing it's own tail now with emotions determining responses rather than intelligent consideration.

That said, this *is* an emotional testimony but with rather good reason given the history of the man giving it.  The words that really resonated with me are quite simple:

"I've been through it.  I've been there.  You people don't know what freedom is because you never lost it".

[video=youtube_share;N1ABw6IMKn0]http://youtu.be/N1ABw6IMKn0[/video]


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

Another good, clear, speech on this topic that I think is from some time ago as I have heard the numbers used in various other places of late:

[video=youtube_share;v2jc1TzlqLo]http://youtu.be/v2jc1TzlqLo[/video]

Some good analogies in the first part but I think my favourite phrase was when this 'virtual' President tells the assembled 'politicians' that it is their sworn oath of office to protect the entirety of the Constitution, not just the parts they personally approve of.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 9, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Another good, clear, speech on this topic that I think is from some time ago as I have heard the numbers used in various other places of late:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;v2jc1TzlqLo]http://youtu.be/v2jc1TzlqLo[/video]
> 
> Some good analogies in the first part but I think my favourite phrase was when this 'virtual' President tells the assembled 'politicians' that it is their sworn oath of office to protect the entirety of the Constitution, not just the parts they personally approve of.



While I'm pessimistic that any discussion of the second amendment will remain 'reasonable' for long, I think these are two excellent opening salvos.  From a personal perspective; I began target shooting a couple of years ago simply because I was ignorant of firearms and wanted to learn. I have followed all of the arguments, both here and else where and have reached conclusions of my own.  My vote on the issues is less relevant than the discussion of the co-mingled arguments about violence in our societies, weapons and their justifiable use, self-defense and reasonable force, governmental power and it's misuse, and the second amendment.  The arguments are passionate because the outcomes to violence are so devastating.  Reasonable people can and will come to very differant conclusions for many reasons.  I would wish that this forum of fellowship of martial artists would refrain from inflicting further verbal and emotional violence on it's members as it discusses these issues.  There are many educated and informed people on this site who, I think, have something to offer to the debate and possibly can contribute concrete recommendations for the reduction in injury and death in relation to gun violence.  I think solutions are too often buried in a maelstrom of passionate argument that goes off course.  I would like to see respectful disagreement and an acknowledgement of each other's different perspectives. I don't see the point in repeated threads that devolve into repetitive arguments without some achievement of reasonable recommendations for change.  There is no public mandate in this forum to advise the society as a whole, but as a group it would be refreshing to see the dignity and respect expected in the dojo applied to the discourse over contentious issues.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 9, 2013)

Ya don't know what ya got... 'til it's gone.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

I was surprised to come across this dramatised information film made by the DHS of all organisations that deals with the horrible situations of what they call Active Shooter Events.  I've not watched it yet but it's only short and I am interested to see what they have to say about the contributions of armed citizens in such circumstances:

[video=youtube_share;1ESNae7OoyM]http://youtu.be/1ESNae7OoyM[/video]

EDIT:  Sadly, it doesn't mention gun armed citizens, only the use of improvised weapons.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 9, 2013)

Why do you need to exercise the 2nd Amendment when you can just stab a shooter in the eye with a pair of scissors? :fart:


----------



## billc (Apr 9, 2013)

Sukerkin, I see you have discovered Bill Whittle...one of my favorite video commentators...as usual this is a great piece...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

:grins:  I have ever said that sense is sense - I try not to get hung up on where the 'sense' comes from.  If I agree then I will say that I do, even if the person saying the things I agree with is supposed to be on the 'other side' than I am.  For me that is how all issues *have* to be and it's something I have ever championed is the strength of the British Liberal  ... until the party showed that, like all of the rest, principle burns quite nicely on the pyre of expediency ...

... not that I am upset with how the Liberals have behaved whilst being in bed with the Tories :lol:.


----------



## billc (Apr 9, 2013)

Did you see Bill Whittle on Han Solo shooting first...I have posted it before...it's really good...

Slowly, but surely, you are being led to the dark side Sukerkin...give in to your...common sense...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 9, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I was surprised to come across this dramatised information film made by the DHS of all organisations that deals with the horrible situations of what they call Active Shooter Events.  I've not watched it yet but it's only short and I am interested to see what they have to say about the contributions of armed citizens in such circumstances:



Required watching as part of training for some govt. agencies--all new employees have to view it (as part of online training).


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 12, 2013)

This, rather than being a strong advocacy piece for retaining the Second Amendment unmolested, instead kicks the chocks from underneath those citing the threat to the young as a reason to disarm and punish the otherwise law-abiding:

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...-among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> as a reason to disarm and punish the otherwise law-abiding



If what you're taking away from all this is that those favoring gun control want to "punish" gun owners then I don't know what to say. But in the U.S. we often mandate safety devices and procedures for relatively rare events--in cars, swimming pools, bathrooms (the type of electrical outlet allowed), toys (choking hazards), etc.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> If what you're taking away from all this is that those favoring gun control want to "punish" gun owners then I don't know what to say. But in the U.S. we often mandate safety devices and procedures for relatively rare events--in cars, swimming pools, bathrooms (the type of electrical outlet allowed), toys (choking hazards), etc.



Many of these measures for safety are essentially passive (with the exclusion of seat belts). The user is not required to do anything, only the manufacturer.  I think this places the argument somewhat out of the sphere of gun ownership though I will yield the point that mandating magazine size and banning semi-automatic may be constued as passive "restraints" like airbags. The analogy is thin when you realize that your V-10 sports car capable of 200mph has the same airbags as an econobox and both are legal to drive and own.  And the restrictions on how you drive (ie, speed limits, stop signs) don't change with the type of car you drive.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 12, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> This, rather than being a strong advocacy piece for retaining the Second Amendment unmolested, instead kicks the chocks from underneath those citing the threat to the young as a reason to disarm and punish the otherwise law-abiding:
> 
> http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...-among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/



It's about control and political favor.  Actual public safety has nothing to do with it.  Articles like that validate the numbers I've repeatedly posted, and that only Arni continues to ignore.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I think this places the argument somewhat out of the sphere of gun ownership though I will yield the point that mandating magazine size and banning semi-automatic may be constued as passive "restraints" like airbags.



Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.



And all probably realistic general gun safety issues, though I'll tread lightly here because I'm not a gunsmith and don't know the tecnical issues involved in some of them.  But, sadly, I don't see any of these items as particularly useful in preventing the intentional or grossly negligent misuse of firearms.  Keeping weapons away from the incompetant (homicidal, suicidal or just plain stupid) is on the face of it the rational solution and so far the only hammer for that nail that keeps being thrown into the debate is "take guns away from everyone, that'll fix it". I don't buy that solution any more than I buy the "sky is falling" alarmist rhetoric  that is being drummed by a contingent of gun owners. I fear that when an issue has become this polarized, we end up not finding a reasoned response and productive answers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.



Child-proof safeties - experts claim they are ineffective and can actually render guns more dangerous.
effective drop-proof firing mechanisms - in effect since 30+ years ago
better storage/security systems - like trusting the government and giving up your guns right?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...-among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/



In a 10 year period, that's 703+7766=8469 deaths or injuries among children 15 or 14, resp., and younger. The language indicates that they are not double-counting children who are injured twice or more (but if that is not perfectly clear than I think it's safe to assume that that happening in separate years is extremely infrequent). Hence about 776 children per year are injured. The govt.  gives all children 17 and younger as about 72.7-74.1 million per year over those years (http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.asp). That gives about 776/73.4M injured children per year--less if some children are being counted twice. That's about 1 in 95,000, and actually more since it's children under 14 injured as a fraction of children under 17. (I get odds of about 1 in 78,000 by multiplying the population figure by 14/17.) Put another way, if the odds are 1 in a million per year and 776 children per year are injured then either there are about 776 million children in the U.S. (which is over twice the population of the entire nation), or the average child injured by a gun in a given year is actually shot in about 10 separate instances that year.

If they did the calculation as 7776 over all children who were under 14 for some period of time in the 10 year period, then in round numbers you'd have something like 7776/100M or about 1 in 129,000. If the 1 in a million figure is right based on 7776 children, then there were over 7 billion children in the U.S. during that time.

What am I missing about how the 1 in a million figure is being calculated?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> And all probably realistic general gun safety issues, though I'll tread lightly here because I'm not a gunsmith and don't know the tecnical issues involved in some of them.  But, sadly, I don't see any of these items as particularly useful in preventing the intentional or grossly negligent misuse of firearms.  Keeping weapons away from the incompetant (homicidal, suicidal or just plain stupid) is on the face of it the rational solution and so far the only hammer for that nail that keeps being thrown into the debate is "take guns away from everyone, that'll fix it". I don't buy that solution any more than I buy the "sky is falling" alarmist rhetoric  that is being drummed by a contingent of gun owners. I fear that when an issue has become this polarized, we end up not finding a reasoned response and productive answers.



In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 12, 2013)

and yet never will there be an answer if 776 out of 73,400,000 is a significant number.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.


Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.



How many permits have you paid for for people who want to stage a peaceable assembly but can't afford it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2013)

> In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured.



Like at Newtown where while law enforcement is still not sure how he got the guns, the "Control" folks are certain it was the fault of his dead mom for failing to secure them....though they can never ever give details when pressed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How many permits have you paid for for people who want to stage a peaceable assembly but can't afford it?



Why do I need a permit to express a Constitutional Right?


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.



While I agree with the sentiment you express, I'm still stumped by the problem that the guns have to be locked in the biometric safe for it to be effective.  Does anyone have statistics as to how many perpetrators of gun violence, or victims of accidental shootings gained access to a locked safe vs. access to an unsecured safe or weapon? If we don't have that answer (and I promise to do my homework and not just leave the question open) how can we say that the proposed solution will be effective.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 13, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> and yet never will there be an answer if 776 out of 73,400,000 is a significant number.



Of course not. And it isn't a signifigant number, and never SHOULD be considered a signifigant number.
For example, there IS around a 1% complication rate in circumcision. About 1 in 500,000 infant circumcisions result in death. Why aren't we having legislation making it illegal? The numbers aren't significant. And the benifits are thought to outweigh the risks. Same with vaccinations.
A friend posted some activist thing about this topic on her Facebook page and it seemed like a good comparisson to illustrate the point.

Gun ownership benifits the safety of a family when the parents aren't negligent idiots. But these SMALL numbers of children injured by firearms ( which wouldn't happen without parental negligence ) are fueling an argument for more trampling on the rights of other citizens.
Seems kind of stupid to me. Start locking these negligent parents up. Maybe it'll force other negligent parents to grow up and raise their kids. And to use their heads, if nothing else than self preservation.
But you do NOT punish the rest of the populace for a few acts of stupidity and negligence.
That'd be like a whole class being put in detention for 2 of them getting into a fight.... Actually with these numbers it'd be like a whole school of kids in detention for 2 or 3 getting into a fight.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't know the statistics. The OR mall and NM family shooters took unsecured guns from a neighbor's house and their own, resp. The CT shooter's mother  had a safe that was found open and the reports showed no sign of forced entry into it. Getting a weapon in this way seems to be a recurring theme, but i don't know the numbers.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 13, 2013)

As promised.   http//abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4507452&page=1#.UWjsFEAo73hised.  http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-gu.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Why aren't we having legislation making it illegal?



It's been tried--e.g., San Francisco. If this is your issue, go for it.



> Gun ownership benifits the safety of a family



False. Gun ownership significantly increases the risk of injury or death rather than lowering it. This is incontrovertible. 



> But you do NOT punish the rest of the populace for a few acts of stupidity and negligence.



It's a law, not a punishment. The difference matters...in a civilized society.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 13, 2013)

and: http://www.saf.org/journal/14/lock,stockandbarrel.pdf


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm with Learned Hand.

Anyone double-check my arithmetic yet? What am I missing about that calculation?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It's been tried--e.g., San Francisco. If this is your issue, go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a stupid law taking the rights of a populace away because of the mistakes of a statistically insignificant number of idiots. Sorry that you don't understand why someone could take issue with that, but that is your shortcoming not mine.

I don't deny that these kids are injured. But I also think that the solution is a more strict penalty on the parents that are found to have acted negligently and thus contributed to the injury. Not to force more regulations.

Also, having a gun? It increases risk that anyone coming into my home uninvited... wishing to harm my family or take my hard earned money or property will suffer injury or death. It does not increase risk to my wife or myself. The gun remains unloaded with a loaded magazine next to it in a secured case. Easily accessable should it be needed. Anyone coming in my home will be armed, or not, regardless of my possession of a gun. I fail to see your logic on how me having a gun, is more dangerous for me in the least.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Also, having a gun? It increases risk that anyone coming into my home uninvited... wishing to harm my family or take my hard earned money or property will suffer injury or death. It does not increase risk to my wife or myself. The gun remains unloaded with a loaded magazine next to it in a secured case. Easily accessable should it be needed. Anyone coming in my home will be armed, or not, regardless of my possession of a gun. I fail to see your logic on how me having a gun, is more dangerous for me in the least.



Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.



This statistic is also assuming that the owner is a moron that does not follow gun safety proceedure. Which is also stereotyping gun owners, since I have known many gun owners and all of them do follow safety precautions. None have been injured. 2 have used their gun in self defense.

Sorry but that statistic is overly generalized and comes from stupidity of people. Not from guns. The same kind of stupid people that shoot at each other, while wearing bullet proof vests, for fun. Or don't read safety instructions before operating machinery, or shoot themselves in the head with a nailgun to test the thickness of the skull and the penetrating power of the nailgun... They are the reason Darwin awards exist. And you can't fix stupid.

Everyone deals with their own concequences for their own actions. I believe awareness to be a good thing. Let's raise an awareness campaign, I'm all for that. I am NOT for a government making decisions FOR you, "for your own good"


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.


 
But Don, didn&#8217;t you know Arni feels that we should pay for everything for those who can&#8217;t pay themselves regardless of personal responsibility? Not Arni specifically of course, because it&#8217;s much more fair to take and spend your money instead. 



Bob Hubbard said:


> Why do I need a permit to express a Constitutional Right?


 
BOOYA! And there&#8217;s the million dollar question! 

You know, a lot of this grief could be avoided if people simply knew and understood the difference between a *RIGHT* and a *PRIVILEDGE*. 

You need permission (in the form of a permit&#8230; note it is the root word of permission) to exercise a PRIVILEDGE. A RIGHT requires no permission at all because of its nature. 

The government has no RIGHTS! It has PRIVILEDGES granted it by the people. 

Think they get it now, Bob? 

&#8230;sigh, probably not. 



arnisador said:


> Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.


 
Quote your source. 

The NFPA&#8217;s most recent statistics show that an estimated 44,900 fires were started by children &#8220;playing with matches&#8221; resulting in 90 deaths, 890 injuries, and $210 million in property damage in 2010. 

So, when can I expect you to start the crusade against the use of fire? Ban all matches, lighters, and flint! 

Why stop there? 

According to the CDC, drowning ranks 5[SUP]th[/SUP] among the leading causes of unintentional deaths in the US.  Every day, two children aged 14 or younger die from drowning. And, for every child who dies from drowning, another 5 receive emergency care for nonfatal submersion injuries. 

You ready to start a crusade against water; or just bathtubs, sinks, and toilets? 

What those like you fail to realize, is that it is the responsibility of the parent to supervise their children. It&#8217;s not yours. 

You want to cut down on injury and death in children altogether? Then hold their parents to be more responsible. Legislating to ban material items is ineffective. So, are you really looking for an effective measure in &#8220;saving the children&#8221; or do you have another agenda? 


Citizen following gun control laws-> :snipe2: <- Soldier following orders


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> False. Gun ownership significantly increases the risk of injury or death rather than lowering it. This is incontrovertible.



It is very much under debate as to whether that statement is a truism, Arni.  I know you think the data is on your side but, I am afraid, the data itself is not universally accepted as having been convincingly collated or interpreted.  After all, as you showed above, you can put mathematical spin on any data set.

If I was American, I would be solidly in the camp of those arguing that those that think as you do do *not*, at present, have the right to infringe their rights because of your fears.  You can campaign to change that state of affairs of course tho' I suspect that with the 'audience' here you would be barking up the wrong tree.

I would appreciate it very much if contributors could not bend this thread into the same mangled shape as the 'other' one.  My aim with opening this thread was to have it evidence based rather than flooded with politics/emotion/complete cobblers.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> This statistic is also assuming that the owner is a moron that does not follow gun safety proceedure. Which is also stereotyping gun owners



No...it's just the facts of what's happening. You might as well say we should ignore drunk driving because only idiots and jerks would do it, and it stereotypes drivers. The facts are the facts. It doesn't matter why it's true as long as it's true. And it isn't just stupidity--it also reflects people who misuse a gun in a moment of intense emotion, drunkenness, etc., for example, who wouldn't have had that opportunity sans firearm.



> Sorry but that statistic is overly generalized[...]And you can't fix stupid.



It's not overly generalized--it's a simple report of the numbers. That's not a judgment. And since you can't fix stupid--as with drunk drivers--you need to do something else to address the issue.



> Everyone deals with their own concequences for their own actions.



NO! Not with a gun. Overwhelmingly, _someone else _deals with consequences of someone's actions. Just like with drunk drivers. Would you make this statement to the relatives of someone killed in a mass shooting? That hey, the shooter is deal with their own concequences for their own actions? I doubt that'd be much comfort.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> It is very much under debate as to whether that statement is a truism, Arni.  I know you think the data is on your side but, I am afraid, the data itself is not universally accepted as having been convincingly collated or interpreted.



What's the flaw in this type of study (one of so very many that buttress support for this fact):
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.abstract



> Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine  whether having a firearm in the home increases the                      risk of a violent death in the home and whether  risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the  home.                      Those persons with guns in the home were at greater  risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in  the                      home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence  interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a  firearm                      homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the  person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying  from                      a suicide in the home was greater for males in  homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds  ratio                      = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).  Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from  suicide                      committed with a firearm than from one committed by  using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence  interval:                      19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of  storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having  a gun                      in the home was associated with an increased risk  of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.



Peer-reviewed science by scientists. That's my standard, which puts me at odds with the gun-enthusiasts here. Here's  a standard citation on this:
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.abstract



> For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the  health risk of a gun in the                      home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is  overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for  completed                      suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to  occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the                      home is a risk factor for intimidation and for  killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer  studies,                      and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent  effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or  severity                      of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus,  groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to  have                      guns in the home.



Note that when he says no credible evidence that does not mean the statement is false--just unproven. Data shows that when you have a gun and use it in defense the likelihood of you also being injured is greater, so for every scared-of would-be robber there is apparently also one who just fights back harder, or decides he needs to use rather than merely brandish his weapon.



> After all, as you showed above, you can put mathematical spin on any data set.



Speaking of which, can you explain to me the 1 in a million figure you cited? I honestly am not seeing it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2013)

I really, really, can't see the flaw due to the bright turquoise text .

As to the other bit - I would not presume to do your maths for you.  You already looked at the numbers - going over them again won't help me change your mind.  

Assertions don't 'win' arguments and most of what we have had in the other thread are assertions and some fairly blatant refusal to use common sense.  It seems to me that this is an exercise in the political classes use of 'feel good' over actually 'does good' to pursue a goal very different than the stated one.  

I don't want the same here in this thread.  I want people to use their intelligence to assess the figures for themselves rather than take their cues from politicians or sound-bite-ideology.  I most surely do not wish contributors to get dislike of an argument mingled in with dislike for a persons political leanings.

For in the end, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how things go on this debate in American political circles - I don't live there and wouldn't if you paid me (lovely geology, awful politics).  What does matter to me is pragmatism and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than the most expedient or popular.


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

Hmmm...those with insulin in their homes were more likely to die of causes of diabetes...hmmm...


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

A look at arnisadors study...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5428461#post5428461

an important point...



> Well, they're STARTING with homes where a homicide or suicide occurred and then checking to see how many of those homes contain a firearm. This automatically excludes the tens of millions of homes that contain firearms that DON'T have suicides or homicides.
> 
> I'm speculating here but I would guess that attempted suicides and homicides are more likely to be "successful" if the weapon of choice is a firearm so looking only at "successful" events would automatically bias toward firearms being present.
> 
> ...





> The study and the ones it cites are profoundly flawed for three major reasons and two smaller but significant reasons:
> 
> 1) They *includes felons*, gang members, drug addicts, and active criminals who "own" guns as their "gun ownership' set.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I really, really, can't see the flaw due to the bright turquoise text



I changed it for you. But also, I provided a link. Just because two sides disagree doesn't mean that both are equally right. This looks like a well-done study to me--but if you are going to dismiss it because of the highlighting color, well, that is about the level of analysis I've come to expect from those defending the guns-everywhere position.



> As to the other bit - I would not presume to do your maths for you.  You already looked at the numbers - going over them again won't help me change your mind.



It might. I'm just asking that you show me how to get 1 in a million out of your source. There may be a way to view it that generates that number, but I can't see it. I'm not being facetious. I'm asking you to defend your source. Isn't that the right way to proceed? Is that not what you're asking for? Facts?



> What does matter to me is pragmatism and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than the most expedient or popular.



Changing gun laws is popular, according to polls, but not expedient due to the NRA's lobbying influence. Money talks in politics here in a big, big way.


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

> 5)*No differentiation in the survey between lawful gun owners and criminals in possession, illegally, of guns. This was the big card they palmed that clearly shows their intent as it isn't addressed at all. They pay lip service later to some of the other factors they didn't control for, Location, Socio-Economic status etc. but they very carefully do not mention this.
> 
> *
> *
> ...


*...*


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmm...those with insulin in their homes were more likely to die of causes of diabetes...hmmm...



You'll note that the second link explicitly addresses risks vs. benefits. Insulin is used after a diagnosis--but the argument is that obtaining a gun is prophylactic. It turns out that that's a mixed bag.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

News flash! People with bathtubs in their homes are 243536% more likely to die by falling in the bathtub!!

Story at 11!!


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

> 4) The study admit's for itself "To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were over-sampled in this survey. Considering what percentage of African-
> Americans (approximately 84% in the 1990 census) live in cities, you have now over-sampled urban areas. There are many more _legal_ guns per capita in Rural areas. Which leads us to the next point.


...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

billc said:


> A look at arnisadors study...



A webforum post? That's a new low in sourcing even for you. Will you next use one of your own posts here on MT as a source?

The "gangbanger" point is not a valid criticism of the study, which only tried to show what is associated with a gun in the home, not why it's in the home. This criticizes something the study was _not _about. It was a nonjudgmental look at the risks of their being a gun in the home. It also wasn't looking at brandishment because this study only looked at risks, not benefits. Science doesn't proceed by covering the whole question all at once: It proceeds by steps. This was one specific study. For risks vs. rewards, try the other study I cited in that post.

This is a statistical literacy problem: A study sets out to consider some very specific question. It does so. That doesn't completely address the policy issues, so someone trashes it on something it never tried to address.  As one of the other posters at your 'source' said: "And they draw no conclusions about the desirability or otherwise of  firearms ownership: they point out that their study couldn't assess  whether the benefits of having a firearm in the home outweigh the risks." Not every study can address everything--indeed, that wouldn't be desirable. The argument is not based on a single study--it's based on reviews of many such studies. This is Hemenway's key contribution, which relies on many more specific studies like this that address more narrow questions.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> News flash! People with bathtubs in their homes are 243536% more likely to die by falling in the bathtub!!



Wouldn't that lead someone to ask about the risks vs. rewards? As much as gun lovers love guns, evidence that you gain more than you lose, on average, by having a gun in the house is simply not there.


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

These are thoughts on the study from people who ask simple questions and make points that easily point to flaws in your data...deal with it...



> You take already unreliable 20 year old data, from when the murder rate from gang violence was at it's peak, over-sample ethnic minorities under 35 involved in the gangs, then don't differentiate between lawful gun owners and criminals and tally it up.
> Amazing! guns in the home are the cause of violence!


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Other studies using different methodology--surveying gun owners, for example--reach the same general conclusion. Guns are a clear risk, any way you look at it.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Other studies using different methodology--surveying gun owners, for example--reach the same general conclusion. Guns are a clear risk, any way you look at it.



They are, if your head is far enough up your ***


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

Scientists discover that homes with kitchen knives in them are 34456% more likely to result in stabbings and injury with kitchen knives!!!

News at 11!!!


----------



## billc (Apr 13, 2013)

Who are these people...



> Linda L. Dahlberg, Ph.D., is the associate director for science in the Division of Violence Prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In her current position, Dr. Dahlberg serves as one of the senior advisers on matters of science and policy to the director of the Division of Violence Prevention. She also coordinates international research and programmatic activities for the division and serves as a subject matter expert and consultant on a number of international scientific planning committees and advisory boards.
> 
> In other words if this crap isn't true there is no reason for any of her jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

A _financial _stake? Govt. employees? That's ridiculous. That web forum is as unreliable as this one for political analysis.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> but if you are going to dismiss it because of the highlighting color, well, that is about the level of analysis I've come to expect from those defending the guns-everywhere position.



I was trying to keep it light and funny in terms of argument whilst keeping the actual discourse serious and grounded.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/#


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I was trying to keep it light and funny in terms of argument whilst keeping the actual discourse serious and grounded.



I might suggest that following the link would've gone further w.r.t. keeping the actual discourse serious.

Speaking of which, I'm serious about the CNN article you posted. Are you just dropping posts here, or will you respond? I can't imagine what else "keeping the actual discourse serious" could mean than some back-and-forth about claims that is based on facts. I don't see how the article you posted arrived at its conclusions. I'm looking for you to expand on your source or grant that it is questionable.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/#



Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about--I can't get odds of one in a million out of that. I get odds closer to one in a hundred thousand--an order of magnitude more likely. How is the figure of one in a million reached?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I might suggest that following the link would've gone further w.r.t. keeping the actual discourse serious.
> 
> Speaking of which, I'm serious about the CNN article you posted. Are you just dropping posts here, or will you respond? I can't imagine what else "keeping the actual discourse serious" could mean than some back-and-forth about claims that is based on facts. I don't see how the article you posted arrived at its conclusions. I'm looking for you to expand on your source or grant that it is questionable.



Mate, enough already.  My wife is not two months dead so cut me some slack, ey?  You are this close to going on Ignore right now.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> You are this close to going on Ignore right now.



Have it your way. But dropping false statistics in a thread is now a running theme with you. If you want to play peacemaker, you might find it works better if you stay neutral. If not, then in the words of America's greatest living philosopher, Arnold Schwarzenegger: "If you choose to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called."

You made a point. I made a counterpoint. The ball is in your court.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 13, 2013)

Bye.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm really starting to think your mission here Arni is to kill this site, or piss as many people off as you can.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about--I can't get odds of one in a million out of that. *I get odds closer to one in a hundred thousand*--an order of magnitude more likely. How is the figure of one in a million reached?



So is 1/100,000 a significant number?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So is 1/100,000 a significant number?



http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm 

1/10,000 chance of being struck by lightening in your lifetime....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 13, 2013)

Guns in the home are risky. This isn't news. What needs to be considered, IMO, is the idea that people be allowed to manage these risks without the State interfering. Imagine a world where the government's bar for risk, aka the time they step in and make a law, is 1 in 100,000. 

Guns would be out of homes. So would pools. Bathtubs would have water depth limits. There would be no children allowed in kitchens. Children would not be allowed outside on farms. Kids couldn't ride bikes without suits of armor or on the street. Adults wouldn't begin driving until 25. Hell, most of the **** I did as a kid is now illegal. It's a very strange world that emerges if we universalize an aversion to this level of risk.

I think this simple comparison points out your bias, Arni. Why do you feel this way about guns and not these other things that have similar levels of risk? Especially when the cost benefits of certain risks are literally zero on the benefits side. It doesn't make any rational sense especially when you consider the fact that so many other mundane things we simply accept have far higher risks than simply having a gun in the home.

Lastly, consider the fact that we are even talking about making a law at all regarding this behavior. In a very real sense, you are saying that you'd like some guys with costumes to point guns at me (and others) in order to force us to accept your view of risk tolerance. I realize this is a commonly accepted way of running a democratic society, but if you look at this objectively, this is a very, shall we say, impolite way of organizing society.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

Does anybody really NEED a swimming pool? They are a luxury item...I think there should be a law stating that people with children shouldn't be allowed to own them. If you own one it better be secured from childrens access. I should be able to inspect your pool and charge you with a felony for any violation.

Its for the children after all.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
> 
> 1/10,000 chance of being struck by lightening in your lifetime....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I've been struck by lightening twice!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I've been struck by lightening twice!



Lightening should be banned.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Lightening should be banned.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I hear California and NY are considering taxing lightning, and banning Assault Lightning (that's more than 5 tendrils, or more than 100 dB on the crack) 


Ok, seriously though, the reason for the 2nd is defense, defense of self, family, home, town, state and nation, from threats internal and external.
Hunting, target shooting, etc is all secondary.
The reason for keeping it is a simple one: We aren't safe. Not from the criminals who prey on our homes and families, not from the illegals invading, not from crazy terrorists and hostile nations, and not from our own government encroaching more and more.
This doesn't mean it's time to go vigilante, man the barricades, or storm the white house.
It just means that this isn't Star Trek, and there are still threats out there.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
> 
> 1/10,000 chance of being struck by lightening in your lifetime....



So...do we do anything because of that? Like, make an effort to educate the public on risks and what to do when there is a chance of a lightning strike? Move people out of the water or off of a playing field in a storm? Put lightning rods on buildings? Insure cars are properly insulated by their tires? Mind you, there's a lot less that can be done about the weather than about man-made objects.

And we granting yet that this was another BS gun statistic that ended up being  trumpeted by an uncritical pro-guns website that credulous gun-lovers were only too happy to adopt?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Lightening should be banned.



Well, at least you're taking this seriously.

How many mass attacks committed by swimming pools recently?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, at least you're taking this seriously.
> 
> How many mass attacks committed by swimming pools recently?



How many with guns? What you can't seem to grasp, is that mass attacks are the exception, not the norm.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Does anybody really NEED a swimming pool? They are a luxury item...I think there should be a law stating that people with children shouldn't be allowed to own them. If you own one it better be secured from childrens access. I should be able to inspect your pool and charge you with a felony for any violation.
> 
> Its for the children after all.....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



This is current in Australia, all pools require fences, and are inspected with fines if they are not there, or are not the correct size etc and approved.

Think this is happening in the states soon.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, at least you're taking this seriously.
> 
> How many mass attacks committed by swimming pools recently?



How many mass attacks were committed by guns?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> How many with guns?



You beat me to my riposte.  LOL!


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Can't say I've ever been threatened with a pool, or seen once used to hold up a gas station.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1568972#post1568972

I've started a new thread about the whole idea that we can manage risk at all with law.  I think a lot of posters here are giving Arni a lot of grief, but don't realize that they hold many views about other forms of risk that are far less dangerous than firearms.  If you would like to compare your views on seatbelts, helmets, drugs, guns, terrorism, pools, lightening, etc, click the above link and be prepared to be outed as a hypocrite...or not...hopefully.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> Can't say I've ever been threatened with a pool, or seen once used to hold up a gas station.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



That's not the point.  There is no benefit of having a pool at your house.  People live without them all of the time.  Yet, they are far more dangerous than firearms and there is no law banning them.  

Pools are more dangerous than all forms of crime combined.  

http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdrowningrisks/

Cheeseburgers can kill you orders of magnitude more than guns.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Yet, pot is illegal, go figure...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> How many with guns? What you can't seem to grasp, is that mass attacks are the exception, not the norm.



Does that mean we can't try to address the issue? Jarts (lawn darts) were killing a lot fewer people than mass attacks, and they were banned (here and in Canada):
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...awn-Darts-Are-Banned-and-Should-Be-Destroyed/



> Effective on December 19, 1988, CPSC banned the sale of all lawn darts  in the United States. Pointed lawn darts, intended for use in an outdoor  game, have been responsible for the deaths of three children.



Now, we had Jarts and I liked them and I'm not crazy about this decision, but--as with choking hazards in toys, where a single death will prompt a recall--yeah, we've taken big action for accidental risks much smaller than 70 deaths of kids per year and 700 injuries of kids, let alone 30k deaths overall per year from guns. Mass attacks kill enough people a year to be worth addressing if possible. I'd rather look at gun violence on a bigger scale than just mass attacks, but the NRA owns too many senators to get enough sensible legislation through. Still, the expanded background checks idea is something--and it addresses all guns without banning any.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> This is current in Australia, all pools require fences, and are inspected with fines if they are not there, or are not the correct size etc and approved.
> 
> Think this is happening in the states soon.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



It depends on the region, but pools can have some regulations, but again that's not the point.  Here in Hawaii, tourists drown in the ocean.  Way more people die attempting to swim than are shot by guns.  Yet, the State does not regulate who can and cannot go into the ocean.  The lifeguards aren't carrying guns and pointing them at people in order to convince them to not swim in rip currents.  Somehow, the risk is managed and the deaths that occur are accepted by the people.  Why are guns so different?


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That's not the point.  There is no benefit of having a pool at your house.  People live without them all of the time.  Yet, they are far more dangerous than firearms and there is no law banning them.
> 
> Pools are more dangerous than all forms of crime combined.
> 
> ...



For children yes. Wonder what the 4 above it are for people over 14.

Some places do take it seriously though and have tough penalties.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Does that mean we can't try to address the issue? Jarts (lawn darts) were killing a lot fewer people than mass attacks, and they were banned (here and in Canada):
> http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...awn-Darts-Are-Banned-and-Should-Be-Destroyed/
> 
> 
> ...



Why are guns such a focus for you when so many things that are commonly accepted are far more dangerous?  Why don't we regulate pools more?  How about lakes and oceans?  Why not have mandatory swimming tests and armed lifeguards checking cards that indicate registration into a national accepted swimming proficiency institution?  Why is surfing allowed at all?  How about water skiing?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> Wonder what the 4 above it are for people over 14.



The answer is cheeseburgers.  You're going to die from a cheeseburger with more regularity than from a gun.  

Ban cheeseburgers.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> For children yes. Wonder what the 4 above it are for people over 14.
> 
> Some places do take it seriously though and have tough penalties.



There are usually fence laws--and if not, insurance will likely compel it anyway. 

If you drown in your own pool, that's sad. If your kids do, all the more so. But you're making a decision affecting only those who willingly choose to enter the pool. Hence there might be a comparison to gun accidental shootings, and with a stretch to gun suicides, but not to gun murders. Those affect other people who did not choose to take that risk. When someone uses a swimming pool to murder 20+ elementary schoolkids in their classrooms, let's have a discussion about this.

You have a lot of freedom in this country regarding what you can do in/at your own house, and what risks you can choose to take for yourself. If you're not in the military, you probably don't _need _to parachute. If parachuters were regularly landing on people on unaware the ground and killing them, we'd probably have a discussion about this.

The comparison only starts to make sense if I can "opt-out" of gun violence like I can opt-out of swimming in your swimming pool. But since a gun can be used against me without my permission, the comparison is meaningless.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The comparison only starts to make sense if I can "*opt-out*" of gun violence like I can opt-out of swimming in your swimming pool. But since a gun can be used against me without my permission, the comparison is meaningless.



Do you support the TSA's searching of every person who flies on an airplane because of terrorism?  You mentioned opting out.  

Speaking of opting out, do you opt out of cheeseburgers?  How about alcohol?  Do you opt out of driving?  You can opt out of a lot of things in this life that can kill you quicker than firearms, but it would make your life a lot more inconvenient.  I'd like you to write down your diet for the last week let us know how many things you are opting out on that are far more dangerous than firearms.


----------



## billc (Apr 14, 2013)

Any laws you make about guns will only affect the law abiding ordinary citizen.  By implementing bans on all or certain types of guns, you disarm the law abiding and arm the criminal.  You are making the choice to increase the number of victims, not decrease them because all of the people who use guns to defend themselves will now have to accept being raped, robbed, tortured or murdered by those who choose to break the law and use guns to enforce their will on others.  Even if the attacker himself does not use a gun, you are telling the victim, you may only use your empty hands to prevent the attacker from beating you with a baseball bat or slash or stab you with a knife.  If you are alone, and their are 2 or more attackers, you must simply do your best to defend yourself, at a disadvantage, especially if they are armed, or simply, quietly submit to them...and hope that they only hurt you a little, or let you live...by their choice, not yours.   If you look at the crime stats from the F.B.I. on crimes with knives, and attacks by hands and feet, you are telling other victims, who in the past saved themselves with guns, that they are no longer allowed to stop those attacks with the most effective means of stopping them, and that they must now submit to those attacks, and rely on the police and medical professionals to come to their aid...most likely after their lives have been changed forever.

That is what you do with each gun law you pass...

The theater shootings and the Sandy Hook shootings are rare events...the murder of individuals by criminals with guns and knives and other weapons happen around the country, every day, in vast numbers, far more than the individual mass shootings.  You are saying, deny guns to the innocent in order to really do nothing to stop the theater shootings or Sandy Hook and by doing that, you condemn thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent people every year to humiliation, injury and death...and you still won't save the children in the next "Gun Free" zone that we call schools.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

billc said:


> If you look at the crime stats from the F.B.I. on crimes with knives, and attacks by hands and feet, you are telling other victims, who in the past saved themselves with guns



What are the FBI stats. on self-defense with guns?


----------



## billc (Apr 14, 2013)

They only count bodies on the ground, and I am not even sure they denote good dead bodies from bad dead bodies...and they don't record events like my freind who warned off two attackers by merely clearing his holstered weapon...but the gun grabbers don't care because seeing those incidents takes hard mental work...they only believe what they can see...even when that isn't even close to revealing the truth of the situation...and yet they are happy to let innocent people become victims...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What are the FBI stats. on self-defense with guns?



It doesn't matter.  You're mind is made up and you think you have the right to force everyone else to accept your level of risk.


----------



## billc (Apr 14, 2013)

here are some stats on victims murdered by criminals...using guns...

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml



> US Bureau of Justice Statistics
> Added August, 2003
> *Firearms and Crime Statistics*
> 
> ...



The gun grabbers support keeping those 533,470 victims...victims, by keeping them from owning the most effective means of self-defense against one or more attackers who will more than likely be armed with a gun...and if not a gun, a knife, club or simply their hands...as happened today in Chicago...again...because the people here cannot carry weapons to protect themselves...but the criminals use weapons to rape, brutalize, and murder them...

Soooo...how many people have to be victims each and every day to "not," do anything to stop the shootings in Colorado or Connecticut or stop the suicides of people who have chosen to give up their own life...it looks like at least 533,470 people...

Sooo...let's subtract 30,000 lives for those actually killed by criminals each year, although some of those are criminals killed instead of victims...that leaves 503,470 victims of criminals using guns...that is a lot of people who have to just quietly accept what happens to them because a bunch of gun grabbers want to feel good...

Keep in mind, only 15,517 people were murdered in the statistics above with guns...how many other victims left defensless does that make?  You do the math...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

One thing for all sides to realize is that once the appeal to law is made, no amount of reasoning matters anymore.  One side has convinced itself to a point where they feel that they can force everyone else to do what they want with the guns of government.  At that point, no amount of reason matters because the amount of commitment on the issue is so great.  One side is literally saying that they would throw the other side into cages for disagreeing with them.  That is the real state of discourse in our society.  People that engage in that kind of discourse have a serious handicap regarding their rationality because they feel that they can pull the ejection lever on their reason at the ballot box.  

You can throw down all of the stats you want, but if another man has decided that they can simply vote your position away, no amount of rational debate matters.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> One thing for all sides to realize is that once the appeal to law is made, no amount of reasoning matters anymore.  One side has convinced itself to a point where they feel that they can force everyone else to do what they want with the guns of government.  At that point, no amount of reason matters because the amount of commitment on the issue is so great.  One side is literally saying that they would throw the other side into cages for disagreeing with them.  That is the real state of discourse in our society.  People that engage in that kind of discourse have a serious handicap regarding their rationality because they feel that they can pull the ejection lever on their reason at the ballot box.
> 
> You can throw down all of the stats you want, but if another man has decided that they can simply vote your position away, no amount of rational debate matters.



Which our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment specifically for in the first place. The whole "only the gvt should..." argument would have the FF's kicking your ***.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> Can't say I've ever been threatened with a pool, or seen once used to hold up a gas station.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



So its your fear you want to let run your decision making process vs actual risk?

I suppose its similar to peoples fear of flying even though driving a car is a risk orders of magnitude higher...because plane crashes are so scarry as seen on TV and the movies....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

billc said:


> They only count bodies on the ground, and I am not even sure they denote good dead bodies from bad dead bodies...and they don't record events like my freind who warned off two attackers by merely clearing his holstered weapon...but the gun grabbers don't care because seeing those incidents takes hard mental work...they only believe what they can see...



Is that so bad--believeing what you see, or what there is statistical evidence for, rather than what may or may not have happened? Public policy should be based on facts as much as possible, no?

The thing with your friend is we have no way of knowing what would have happened had he not had a gun. Yes, he might've been hurt--or, he may have been mistaken about their intentions and nothing would have happened. (Maybe it was clear in his case, but in general this is certainly true.) Was a police report filed in his case? Did they ever catch his attackers?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

billc said:


> The gun grabbers support keeping those 533,470 victims...victims, by keeping them from owning the most effective means of self-defense against one or more attackers who will more than likely be armed with a gun...



Concealed carry is here to stay. I support it, in particular. Of course, in many robberies the robber has the drop on you and you won't have time to access it, and in any event if they only want your money that's your best self-defense option anyway. Where are the verified statistics on gun-wielders stopping robbers? By your account it seems like we should be flooded with such data. But it seems like these anecdotes so rarely result in a gunshot (or even pistol-whipping!) injury to the criminal that results in a hospital report, or a dead or captured criminal for a police report, or even a filed police report on fleeing thugs, to allow for any sort of analysis. It may be that what you see movies doesn't happen so often in real life.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Which our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment specifically for in the first place. The whole "only the gvt should..." argument would have the FF's kicking your ***.



I really don't think Thomas Jefferson et al would look at Aurora, Newtown, etc. and say "Well that sucks, but what can you do?" I just don't believe it. That's not the country they envisioned. And they believed problems like that could be solved--Ben Franklin sure would've tried.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> So its your fear you want to let run your decision making process vs actual risk?



I can manage my risk of death by swimming pool by avoiding them--by not owning one. But it's much more difficult to manage my risk of death by a gun. Going into a pool is my choice. Getting shot isn't. Same thing with drunk drivers. If they only killed themselves there'd be less outcry--of course people would want to address it, but it wouldn't be the same.

I choose my risk with pools. Others create risk for me with guns. Big difference.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I really don't think Thomas Jefferson et al would look at Aurora, Newtown, etc. and say "Well that sucks, but what can you do?" I just don't believe it. That's not the country they envisioned. And they believed problems like that could be solved--Ben Franklin sure would've tried.



I agree. However disarming the populace would not be an option for them. The guns are as much to protect us from criminals and foreign invaders as they are to protect us and this countries ideals from a possibility of a corrupt government.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I really don't think Thomas Jefferson et al would look at Aurora, Newtown, etc. and say "Well that sucks, but what can you do?" I just don't believe it. That's not the country they envisioned. And they believed problems like that could be solved--Ben Franklin sure would've tried.



They damn sure would have asked why no one else was armed. If you believe different, you haven't read their writings on firearms.


----------



## billc (Apr 14, 2013)

Here are my stat on people who didn't have the option...but the criminals had the guns...



> *Victimization*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, imagine if there were no guns at all...would these crimes have not happened...of course not...they would still happen.  The criminals would simply change tools or attack in larger numbers and pick weaker, more defensless targets...BUT THE ATTACKS WOULD STILL HAPPEN there would just be more dead or injured victims.   Now imagine if those 533,470 victims had the ability to use firearms to protect themselves...of course, many of them may have, the stats here don't record the outcome...

What the gun grabbers are saying is that those 533,470 people, which we know of through these stats...should not defend themselves with the most effective tool, but should submit to their attackers and endure whatever those attackers decide to inflict on them...be it robbery, rape, torture, or murder.  That is what the gun grabbers support with their stand on guns.

This is a set of stats for one year...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I agree. However disarming the populace would not be an option for them. The guns are as much to protect us from criminals and foreign invaders as they are to protect us and this countries ideals from a possibility of a corrupt government.



I'm not looking for disarmament. I doubt they would take that approach either but I'm sure they'd try to do something about the problem.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> They damn sure would have asked why no one else was armed. If you believe different, you haven't read their writings on firearms.



I don't think it's that simple--if the saw what was happening _today_, with the capabilities now available to kill many people quickly.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

billc said:


> Now, imagine if there were no guns at all...would these crimes have not happened...of course not...they would still happen.  The criminals would simply change tools or attack in larger numbers and pick weaker, more defensless targets...BUT THE ATTACKS WOULD STILL HAPPEN



Not in the same numbers. Don't you think guns make crime easier?




> What the gun grabbers are saying is that those 533,470 people, which we know of through these stats...should not defend themselves with the most effective tool, but should submit to their attackers and endure whatever those attackers decide to inflict on them...



WAIT! Guns are legal now, and those people _were _victimized. They could've been openly carrying an AR-15 in each hand in most places. Your system is _already _not working, by your own analysis.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't think it's that simple--if the saw what was happening _today_, with the capabilities now available to kill many people quickly.



You're right, they would likely be outraged that any weapon/weapon system was denied the public


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

> _capabilities now available to kill many people quickly._



A capability that's not happening to any statistical relevance....


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm not looking for disarmament. I doubt they would take that approach either but I'm sure they'd try to do something about the problem.



I truely believ that YOU are not looking for disarmament. But you ignore the fact that many of these people are. And if, for example, a government registration of all firearms was in place, a corrupt and tyrannical government would start by rounding up all firearms to put down any threat of resistance.
You say it can't happen here, but it can. I'm not saying it will. I'm saying it increases the danger that it COULD happen. If we're talking about stopping history from repeating itself, why increase the risk of a very real and catastrophic occurrence on an entire population for a response to a couple horrible, but statistically insignifigant, occurances?
There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about. But the problem is that you, and many like you, are thinking quick fix and short term. While opposing those trying to point out long term issues and risks that are being ignored.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> You're right, they would likely be outraged that any weapon/weapon system was denied the public



Oh yeah, Thomas "Nukes for All" Jefferson would want that. Good guess. Ben Franklin could go into business making nerve gas for home defense use.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> A capability that's not happening to any statistical relevance....



...and yet you don't want it taken away? Is it relevant, or not?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about.



I'm listening.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm listening.



Several ideas have been thrown out there already in other threads. Ideas that you ignored or didn't pay attention to in order to pick apart one statement.

I agree that things can and should be done. But we can't rush into it. We have to think short term goals AND long term. If not there are severe risks and consequences.
Take prohibition for example. Alcohol is illegal. Should cut down on drunken fights, drunken domestic violence, drunk driving, immoral behavior... Only it didn't do very well in practice. Criminals still had booze, and citizens became criminals who went to other criminals to get it.
It also started a thriving organized crime wave.

It was a short term solution to perceived problems, that had unforseen and long lasting concequences. The gun control legislation is being pushed through with no review, few if any reading it, and no thought to long term issues.
THAT my friend is bad. Logically you can hopefully see that?

I'm not going to sit here and look up all the things that others, and myself, have Listed as alternatives in other threads. But there are many options. Lots of constitutionally acceptable ones. But I would have issues with ANY laws being passed without careful consideration. Even ones that we have suggested.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Alcohol is probably at the root of more death and destruction in this nation than ANY other item. Want to try prohibition again?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Several ideas have been thrown out there already in other threads. Ideas that you ignored or didn't pay attention to[...]I'm not going to sit here and look up all the things that others, and myself, have Listed as alternatives in other threads.



No no, this is what you said:



Drasken said:


> There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about.



What are the things that have not yet been talked about?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> No no, this is what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the things that have not yet been talked about?



It is true. What other options have been explored or discussed on a governmental level?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Alcohol is probably at the root of more death and destruction in this nation than ANY other item. Want to try prohibition again?



My grandfather always said that as a police officer he would rather see people smoking weed than drinking. Inevitably when you have a domestic disturbance it likely involves alcohol. Fights at a bar involve drunk idiots. And it is dangerous to deal with drunks because once they become violent they are usually fairly indiscriminate when it comes to who that violence is directed at.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What are the FBI stats. on self-defense with guns?


 
Some accumulated stats and facts for your reading pleasure: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

A few highlights:


Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.  1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 2
The overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense.
Criminals avoid armed citizens: Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%
 
Now, based on that last fact, would you like it if we were crusading to force you to own a gun? Im not. I dont presume to know whats best for you. Id appreciate the same respect in kind. You know, the whole do unto others thing? Thats a major aspect of what separates liberal gun-grabbers from the rest of us.


----------

