00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Jmurr12 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

We Need Gun Control

78,455 Views | 1,234 Replies

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 19:09:35


At 6/21/07 10:29 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

:: "In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance."

Please stop posting this as some sort of mantra...it is too vague to base any solid conclusions off of.

For example, is that all crimes? If a guy is looking to steal a TV, chances are he's not there intending to do the property owner harms. It is a common attitude that burglars think they are stealing from the home owner's insurance company rather than from the home owner directly. In this case of crime the individual criminal has just as much incentive not to escalate the situation.

However, in the case of violent crime (assault, rape or murder) the criminal intent is to CONFRONT the victim. Therefore the victim has little choice but to confront the assailant. In these cases a person armed with a firearm is more likely not to get hurt or get hurt less.

However, we do agree that a victim of crime should not seek to escalate the situation. If there is a burglar in the house call the cops...but do not go and try and find him. If you are armed your advantage is severely curtailed and if the other guy gets the upper hand he now has your gun and your family is defensless. If you must shoot, shoot to kill and only as a last resort.

Good attempt my friend, but the argument falls flat.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 19:14:25


At 6/21/07 06:31 PM, AfroJustice wrote: the one thing that pisses me off more about the gun control peepz is that they 2 stupid to realize is that while takin guns away wont stop the crime but it will stop ppl from gettin killed as often.

plus think about it. if 2 ppl got in a fight and only had fists to fight with, the worst thing that could happen is a bloody nose or a several day hospital stay.

but give those two ppl guns and one is gonna get killed.

simple but the pro gun ppl r to fuykin stupid to kno thaty

Afro, if you are going to call someone stupid learn to spell and use proper English like any literate person should.

Secondly, there is data that shows that simply banning guns from the non-criminal citizenry does not lead to less murders. This is simplistic bumper sticker logic that has no factual basis. However, there are data sets/studies out there that show that initiatives such as concealed carry permits result in a reduced rate of violent crime.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 19:37:42


At 6/21/07 03:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

First of all D2K, I would like to address the problem of citing Wikipedia. It has its flaws and I would never use it in writing a paper either professionally or for school. Nor would I accept it as a source from one of my future students.

However, in the NP Politics forum I believe it has a place.
* Wiki articles do a decent enough job at providing background on a subject and saves time when you are trying to craft a post that requires some context.
* They are written so as to be easy to read, about on a High School reading level. Thus using it as a source helps the author craft a post that is more accessible to a wider audience.
* It is sourced and it is up to the author and reader on whether or not to accept what the Wiki article has is correct, or if the sources should be investigated further.

I think that to discredit someone who uses Wiki infrequently or in a responsible manner is just arrogance (and coming from me that means alot...just ask Demosthenez! lol) and a way for you to stick your head in the sand and ignore the person's argument.

:: Until people somehow find a way to run into the bullets it fires (i.e. a projectile), it cannot be qualified as inanimate.

Yes it can be qualified as inanimate:

Main Entry: in·an·i·mate
Pronunciation: (")i-'na-n&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin inanimatus, from Latin in- + animatus, past participle of animare to animate
1 : not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <a n inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <a n inanimate body>
2 : not animated or lively : DULL
- in·an·i·mate·ly adverb
- in·an·i·mate·ness noun

Just so you are aware of the meaning of the word animate:

Main Entry: 1an·i·mate
Pronunciation: 'a-n&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin animatus, past participle of animare to give life to, from anima breath, soul; akin to Old English Othian to breathe, Latin animus spirit, Greek anemos wind, Sanskrit aniti he breathes
1 : possessing or characterized by life : ALIVE
2 : full of life : ANIMATED
3 : of or relating to animal life as opposed to plant life
4 : referring to a living thing <a n animate noun>
- an·i·mate·ly adverb
- an·i·mate·ness noun


Also, they have moving parts. How else do you think the next bullet gets into the chamber - magic?!? It loads the bullets itself, and the bullets are what does the damage. It is not inanimate in the same way as a rock, because to use one as a weapon, you have to pick it up and throw it. A gun you just point and pull the trigger, it does the rest for you.

And once again you are wrong. A rock or a gun can NEVER be animate outside of science fiction. Animate (in the adjective form that is pertinet to the discussion we are having) means not only life but it applies only to animal life and not plant life. The gun or rock does not gain reason, thought or a soul because you pull its trigger or throw it. Therefore a gun, bullet and rock is an inanimate object.

The word I think you are thinking of is:
Main Entry: in·ert
Pronunciation: i-'n&rt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inert-, iners unskilled, idle, from in- + art-, ars skill -- more at ARM
1 : lacking the power to move
2 : very slow to move or act : SLUGGISH
3 : deficient in active properties; especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action
synonym see INACTIVE
- inert noun
- in·ert·ly adverb
- in·ert·ness noun

SOURCE


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 19:49:45


At 6/21/07 03:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:
At 6/20/07 01:42 PM, Proteas wrote:
So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?
Until people somehow find a way to run into the bullets it fires (i.e. a projectile), it cannot be qualified as inanimate.

Also, they have moving parts. How else do you think the next bullet gets into the chamber - magic?!? It loads the bullets itself, and the bullets are what does the damage. It is not inanimate in the same way as a rock, because to use one as a weapon, you have to pick it up and throw it. A gun you just point and pull the trigger, it does the rest for you.

I feel I have to address this, because this is just silly. A gun may have parts in it that move, but none of these parts do so without some mechanical force acted upon some part of a gun. Only a gun that can fire itself autonomously, without any aid from any outside force, can be called animate.

Secondly, a bullet is not necessarily a part of a gun. It is a secondary device that can be used with a gun, but a gun can exist without the presence of any ammunition. At any rate, a bullet still requires some force to be applied in order for it to be propelled

Lastly, your example seems to be of an auto, or semi-auto gun. There are many types of guns that do not automatically load a bullet into the chamber (and even that motion is due to the mechanical action of pulling the trigger, which causes one part of the gun to act upon another, eventually leading to the propulsion of the bullet and reloading of the gun), guns that do not eject shell casings, and guns that do not require triggers at all.

Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 20:19:30


At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.

Even when something moves them (which is what D2K was saying made them animate), the gun and bullet are still inanimate. Neither object possesses any kind of inate reason, consciousness or life.

* A gun does not think about whether or not what it does is right or wrong.
* A gun does not analyze why it exists.
* A gun does not procreate, eat, or breathe...it is not alive.

Therefore, final answer is that a gun is NEVER (outside of Science Fiction) animate. It is either in motion or inert.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 20:21:26


At 6/21/07 02:33 PM, Proteas wrote: If these debates have taught me anything, it's that you can use statistics to pretty much say whatever you want.

"There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."
-Mark Twain


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 20:26:04


At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.
Even when something moves them (which is what D2K was saying made them animate), the gun and bullet are still inanimate. Neither object possesses any kind of inate reason, consciousness or life.

* A gun does not think about whether or not what it does is right or wrong.
* A gun does not analyze why it exists.
* A gun does not procreate, eat, or breathe...it is not alive.

Therefore, final answer is that a gun is NEVER (outside of Science Fiction) animate. It is either in motion or inert.

I was addressing what he believed animate to be and I believed that I had covered that point in saying that guns can't attack autonomously, but yeah, you're right.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 20:54:30


At 6/21/07 03:52 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:
I say : &quot;if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands.&quot;
And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly - a way to desensitise yourself from the fact you're killing somebody which you generally don't get when stabbing etc. It's the easy way to do what should be a hard job.

D2K,

For me the purpose of owning a weapon is to use it as an option of last resort when violence is the only recourse left to defend yourself and/or your family. In such a case a real man has a responsibility to quickly and effectively remove the threat to his family leaving little to no doubt of the outcome. This is how you keep your family from being raped/murdered in the first place. In the home defense scenario training, shrewdness and mental toughness will beat brawn in every case.

Secondly, a knife will probably not be effective in the hands of my 115lbs, 5'6" ex-wife against most men. So should be denied the ability to defend herself? Furthermore, should she be denied the security of her ex or current husband having the means to ensure the outcome of a confrontation with an assailant is in her favor? Should she be denied these things because of your testosterone and archaic notions of machismo & maniless?

Furthermore, killing another human being should be an easy thing to do. Fighting with deadly weapons should be a last resort and only in situations where there is good reason. An insult against a person's wife should not resort to gun or knife play. A good pummeling maybe. An assailant seeking to do bodily harm to you (without provocation) or your wife/children should be taken down as easily as a deer or any other wild animal.

If you think this is cowardice then maybe you and the rest of the psychopathic barbarians should go off to some island and slaughter each other with your swords. Help humanity by deepening the gene pool. I'll stay behind and be a coward.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 21:10:24


what the hell...if gun control is gonna be a big problem why doesnt That dumbass in the white house step in? heck hes probley got an M4A1 hidden in the oval office....do not blame the killers for this blame president bush for not enforcing gun control


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 21:16:55


you know you can get 50 cal rifles from cabela's? thats why we needs some level of gun control....but then i wouldnt get to blow deer in half with a 12.7mm 50 caliber steel core full copper jacket round...


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 21:59:56


At 6/21/07 08:26 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote:
At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 6/21/07 07:49 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: Either way, the point remains that guns and bullets, like rocks, are inanimate until something moves them.
I was addressing what he believed animate to be and I believed that I had covered that point in saying that guns can't attack autonomously, but yeah, you're right.

I understand and appreciate that, I just noticed that the last part of the first sentence listed above actually agreed with him...and I know that was not what you were trying to say. Just laying the ground work for the next time he logs onto this thread.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:12:12


At 6/21/07 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:
Secondly, there is data that shows that simply banning guns from the non-criminal citizenry does not lead to less murders.

Firstly, where is this magical data? And I'd like to know what banning guns causes if not less violence.

Come on, don't be silly:

According to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.p df, there were 1,228,000 rejections for gun permits or transfers from 1994 to 2004. What does that mean? That means that there were good reasons for denying these permits...

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:13:58


At 6/21/07 09:16 PM, HomicideJack wrote: you know you can get 50 cal rifles from cabela's? thats why we needs some level of gun control....but then i wouldnt get to blow deer in half with a 12.7mm 50 caliber steel core full copper jacket round...

Nevermind that the 50 caliber rifles available from cabela's are simple deer hunting rifles and not the high powered military model 50 caliber rifle made by Ronnie Barret that are loaded with a highly powerful round only available to military and law enforcement personel, your simple little brain interpreted that to mean you could buy something inherintly dangerous, didn't it?

You intellectually dishonest little shit.


BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:22:01


At 6/21/07 09:46 PM, Tal-con wrote: That's all you'll ever need, not including hunting rifles, of course.

Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle. We go from a small handheld weapon used spray a large amount of ammunition at short range, more for the purpose of INJURING people than KILLING them, to a weapon specifically designed to kill...

Brilliant.

And I would also like to point out, because I've lost track by now who said or in which topic it was said, but you can't buy gun's on ebay. You can buy parts, but that's it. If Cho was buying them piece by piece on ebay and assembling them in his dorm, it would have taken a helluva lot longer than 2 months to get everything he needed.


BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:26:05


At 6/21/07 09:46 PM, Tal-con wrote: http://www.joycefdn.org/News/NewsDetails.aspx ?NewsId=126

Police stings on corrupt gun dealers: Most gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own a firearm; sales to such people are by definition illegal. ATF data show that a tiny fraction – 1 percent – of gun dealers are the original source of 57 percent of the guns police later recover from criminals; guns from these stores make their way, directly or indirectly, into illegal gun markets.

I really need to thank cellardoor for that source. Not only did he prove my point, but he helped mine as well. Most gun crimes are committed by people who own the gun illegally, but guns on the black market tend to come from gun stores.

Umm...he didn't really do anything to support your point at all. This is you reading into the above quote.

1) That does not mean that gun dealers are knowingly supply the black market. How many of these guns were sold to law abiding citizens and then stolen?
2) How many of these guns were purchased as straw purchases (someone who has the legal ability to buy a gun and then turns around and gives/sells it to someone who legally cannot)?
3) How many of these were bought legally and then used in a crime of passion?

The problem with this issue is that statistics can be very subjective and it is hard to find an unbiased source. Once a study is released that supports one side or another, it is almost immediately co-opted by that side. (ie: look at this great study I found originally published in whatever scholarly journal on the NRA/Handgun Control Inc website!)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:28:49


At 6/21/07 10:22 PM, Proteas wrote:
Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle.

Assault weapons are better for killing people in urban environments or close quarters. Also, like other semi-auto weapons, they are faster firing. They can have features like folding stocks etc.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:48:44


mines high power my friend from the junkyard modified it its powerful enough to blow throush steel...


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:49:44


At 6/21/07 10:28 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
At 6/21/07 10:22 PM, Proteas wrote:
Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle.
Assault weapons are better for killing people in urban environments or close quarters. Also, like other semi-auto weapons, they are faster firing. They can have features like folding stocks etc.

AWs (the term itself is misleading) account for 4-8% of the crime committed in the US. They are simply not a problem because even with folding stocks they are not especially well-suited for crime sprees.

As for "spraying bullets", arson is much preferred in murdering more than 4 people at a time...

Guns with folding stocks are sometimes singled out for harsh treatment. For example, the New Jersey legislature's "assault weapon" ban outlaws the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, but only the model with a folding stock.[63] A folding stock makes a gun shorter and easier to carry, thus making it useful to hunters. A folding stock also makes a gun more maneuverable in a confined setting such as a home, and hence harder (p.399)for an attacker to take away.[64] The reduced size makes the gun easier to conceal, for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Unless all handguns are also deemed illegitimate, because they are far more concealable than rifles in any configuration, there is no rational claim that a rifle's folding stock makes it less legitimate than other firearms.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:50:02


i can put a 4 inch gap in a steel door


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:51:40


At 6/21/07 10:48 PM, HomicideJack wrote: mines high power my friend from the junkyard modified it its powerful enough to blow throush steel...

Umm...I kindof gotta raise the bullshit flag on this one. How did he modify it? Did he change the calibur of the rifle or did he tinker with reloading?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:53:16


At 6/21/07 10:50 PM, HomicideJack wrote: i can put a 4 inch gap in a steel door

Did he install a .50 cal flux-capacitor?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:53:33


we need to get ahold of DAO-12 Striker shotguns Pancor JackHammer auto shotguns and 20mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft long-range high power sniper rifles...


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 22:54:49


i dunno he just modified it while i was blowing up junk in his 10 acre junkyard...


"May god have mercy upon my enemies because I won't"-Me-"Life is a Burrito. . .Chew Well"

"Everyone dies,. . .but since nobody's paid me to kill you. . .Sleep Well"-Boba Fett

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-21 23:04:10


At 6/21/07 10:12 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
At 6/21/07 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote:
Secondly, there is data that shows that simply banning guns from the non-criminal citizenry does not lead to less murders.
Firstly, where is this magical data? And I'd like to know what banning guns causes if not less violence.

The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his or her firearm more than once.

SOURCE

Looks like guns save more lives than they take (which is more? 2.5M or 36G?)

Another link


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...

" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 00:53:48


Ah, yes, the well known academic source Beast Enterprises.

On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." No effect. Ok, I can buy that. Positive effect? Highly improbable, they say.

And a study that I've repeatedly cited that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property." And "A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that, and I quote: " Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 01:28:01


okay so my opinion on gun control is prolly similar to alot of people,

1: totally outlawing guns= retarded
2: Background Checks FTW
3: I think there should be a limit to how many guns you can buy within a certain amount of time.
like maybe 1 gun a month...
4: You can't ban certain guns, cuz in the name of self defence you should at least be able to own a gun of equal quality that a criminal is going to get ilegally.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 05:44:48


I've got an idea for gun control.

Outlaw guns.

In every state.

There are two arguments "Guns kill people" so we should ban them. True.
Then theres the alternative argument. "Gun control doesn't work because statistically, people in states where the purchase is banned or difficult to obtain a license still have a high incidence of murder."

Well I'll go with the earlier argument considering the last post was a puff piece on statistics.
This isn't a fucking math lesson. Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem. A major argument is "if people in virginia tech had rights to a gun less people would have died". Here's a better one. If a mentally deranged psychopath couldn't acquire a gun in the first place NO people would have died. At best ONE person gets stabbed and everybody runs away.

And if someone wants to get statistical then we can look at the murder per capita rate by country.

United States 5.28
Switzerland 1.42
Canada 0.47
Sweden 0.42
Australia 0.07
UK 0.06

expressed per 100 000 people.

WOW THATS A FUCKING SURPRISE THE TWO COUNTRIES WITH THE MOST GUNS ARE SWITZERLAND AND US WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE MOST MURDERS

Gun control doesnt work because its only applied state-to-state. Apply it nation-wide and statistics will show it does work as stated above, don't stress your brains too much on proper research trigger happy psychopaths.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 11:47:19


At 6/22/07 04:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 4) Guess what? Between 13 studies (not even including the Kleck study you don't trust), on average, 800,000 - 2.5 Million Defensive gun uses occur annually in the US.

I read those, and while I really, really dislike "guncite.com," I can't help but to acknowledge that they exist.

Personally, I like this guy Dr. David Hemenway, Harvard '66 and Harvard PhD '74.

Here's one article about him: http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433 .html

And here's a paper of his: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm It's on the website of the Second Amendment Foundation, a pro-gun site, and yet the paper says:

"The fact that the survey is trying to estimate a low probability event also means that a small percentage bias, when extrapolated, can lead to extreme overestimates. "

"The K-G survey design contains a huge overestimation bias. The authors do little to reduce the bias or to validate their findings by external measures. All checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated."

"NCVS results indicate that, nationally, victims use guns against offenders approximately 65,000 times per year. [6] Kleck believes people under- report to the government NCVS interviewers, especially since the surveys are not anonymous. He also finds fault with the NCVS survey for asking about self- defense gun use only for individuals who have been victimized. [7] Interestingly, it is this latter feature of the NCVS which dramatically reduces the overestimation bias found in the private surveys."

And, remember, the NCVS says: "an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns."

Worse, says the NCVS, "BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually
involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds
of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost
one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts
or burglaries from stores or other businesses." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsd aft.pr)

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 13:15:46


At 6/22/07 08:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Gun laws aren't the only determining factor. That is why, in the UK, which has a lower murder rate (due to a lot of variables) when they banned hanguns, handgun crime WENT UP by an exponential margin. How do you explain that then if getting rid of LEGAL gun ownership gets "rid of gun violence" huh? YOU'RE WRONG!

If you actually read the statistics I provided, you would have realized it. But you're so bent on repeating the typical, misguided, entirely UNFOUNDED nonsense that people like you do, that you can't even see reality.

You're conflating "gun crime" with "gun violence"

You've done this many, many times.

Also, you're using the phrase "exponential increase" to describe their gun problem in an attempt to make it sound super-dire, but you're aware of what an exponential increase is, right? A steady increase of 0.0000001% per year is an example of exponential growth.

The way to be accurate and alarming is to say that crimes in which a handgun was reported doubled over a period of six years.

Unfortunately you also neglect to mention that a lot of the "handguns" used in crimes are replicas that aren't capable of firing rounds.


Dead.

Response to We Need Gun Control 2007-06-22 16:24:41


I've got an idea for gun control.

Outlaw guns.
It's funny how in the "If you don't like America, get out" thread you were ripping Bush for what you deemed to be unconstitutional acts, yet right now you just proposed ACTUALLY doing something entirely contrary to the 2nd amendment, therefore ACTUALLY going against the constitution.

I'm aware that preventing gun ownership is unconstitutional. Its my personal opinion that guns should be outlawed. The difference is Bush impeachs upon constitutional rights without justifiable reason. You think throwing people into Guantanemo Bay without a right to a hearing, Torturing people, spying and impeding upon individual freedom, writing out habeas corpus is comparable to gun ownership? Youre sadly mistaken.


Well I'll go with the earlier argument considering the last post was a puff piece on statistics.
This isn't a fucking math lesson.
And that is why people like you are uneducated enough in the subject to actually say the stupid shit you've been saying.

Funny because I justified that statement below, i wanted to make it simple and concise. If the detractors wanted to argue Gun-Prohibitions weren't stemming violence all they had to do was look at the international statistics to be proven wrong. As opposed to looking at it state by state which is a flawed analysis as i discussed.
i.e if it was an argument about statistics, theyd be mistaken.

Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem.
1) It's a constitutional right to own guns. Getting rid of legal ownership would void the constitution and negate a founding principle our country.

2) Cars kill people, motorcycles kill people. They kill ALOT more people than guns do in the US so should we get rid of guns too?

I just said yes we should get rid of guns. And no cars and motorcycles kill people but theyre rarely used with the INTENT to kill. key difference. fucking ridicolous analogy buddy.

3) By "getting rid" of guns you're implying banning guns... which wouldn't get rid of guns, it would only get rid of legal ownership, which AS I PROVED prevents more crime than it causes.

No, I'm talking about outlawing guns and removing them. Also, I insinuated that guns werent the only problem. its a culture. USA has the highest per capita rate of murders in the developed world. its a reality buddy. Case in point Australia and the UK had legalised gun control + after banning it, over time gun ownership was reduced, its virtually non-existent and now murder-rates by firearms have reduced - dramatically.

4) We can't force other countries to stop producing guns, we can't prevent all guns from being smuggled into our country. We can't find and destroy all the guns that are in our country right now that are unaccounted for. Therefore "getting rid of guns" will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the people who ACTUALLY CAUSE THE GUN VIOLENCE would obey no such law. Gun violence would actually go up because criminals would have defenseless citizens as prey.

Your opinion is gun violence would go up. YOUR OPINION. your opinion is that criminals would go trigger happy. don't present it as irrefutable fact when it is blatantly opinion. For a guy that loves flaming me youre really sucking at it. AGAIN. You cannot prevent guns from being smuggled in completely, but you can try to breed your country out of a trigger-happy culture. You can also reduce the amount of guns easily accesible on the street. As all the said countries have done.

5) For someone who accuses Bush of being Nazi-esque, it's odd for you to support an ENTIRELY intrusive government act, against the constitution, thus preventing the US from maintaining its goal of being a country that cannot be taken over by a tyrant or foreign occupier. You know that every single genocide, every single massive government-sponsored murder, every single totalitarian state in the world enforced gun control before they took power?

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, UK, Australia. You really think a tyrant is going to rise through the ranks and overtake these countries? NEVER has it happened. This is total horseshit. You know what else tyrants done to rise into power? Impose upon civil rights, breed a culture of zealous patriotism, condemn another country as being pure evil, claim they were divinely right and suggesting anything stated against them was unpatriotic and an inhibor to the cause. Have a guess which country has committed this. USA. Read: fascism

A major argument is "if people in virginia tech had rights to a gun less people would have died". Here's a better one. If a mentally deranged psychopath couldn't acquire a gun in the first place NO people would have died.
Banning guns doesn't mean that the mentally deranged psychopath wouldn't have gotten guns anyway. In fact, STATISTICALLY he was a fluke and STATISTICALLY, if he was denied the purchase he could have and would have gotten a gun through illegal means.

Statistically a fluke? are you stupid? He had EASY access to guns. EASY license. Most people could walk into a gun shop, smile politely, say they were concerned about self-protection, walk out with a gun and some bullets on the very spot or 7 days later. also has it ever occured to you that people get angry? if you have a gun in your hand and you get into a fit of rage you for one second may go out of control and shoot the instigator of said anger. its very probable.
If statistics are significant and you believe its a fluke I'd strongly suggest you make a comparison once again of USA versus non-gun wielding countries. You'll be hard pressed to find any other country with a trigger happy attitude that breeds deranged mass-murderers.

And if someone wants to get statistical then we can look at the murder per capita rate by country.
You provided no link and no context for those statistics...

Nor did you for any of your arguments. Read: Irony. Here I'll provide it now. At the end of the post. I hope you do the same for your ill-formed opinions.

Are you retarded?. Murder rates aren't only indicative of gun ownership. Murder and gun violence can be determined by race, geography, demographics, population density etc... the US has a large amount of minorities (1/3rd of the population) that statistically commit more crime and murder than whites. The US borders Mexico, which is a gigantic smuggler of drugs and guns. The US has a much higher proportion of urban-dwelling people, and MANY other factors that contribute to higher murder rates.

As i said before. Guns are PART of the problem i thought id bolden that text for people like you so you wouldnt miss it. The greater scheme of things is to address these issues as well, but Guns are part of the problem what do you think that bullet comes out of? Demographics?

Gun laws aren't the only determining factor. That is why, in the UK, which has a lower murder rate (due to a lot of variables) when they banned hanguns, handgun crime WENT UP by an exponential margin. How do you explain that then if getting rid of LEGAL gun ownership gets "rid of gun violence" huh? YOU'RE WRONG!

It temporarily spiked. The UK now has a low handgun murder rate. and posts low figures per year. Sadly youre wrong again.

If you actually read the statistics I provided, you would have realized it. But you're so bent on repeating the typical, UNFOUNDED nonsense that people like you do, that you can't even see reality.