Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote: In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes

(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

Firearm homicides
• Number of deaths: 11,493
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, tables 9, 10, 11

(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Why not use the data from the original post that uses the same year (2009)?

Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

That's around 9000 murders with firearms (about 4500 with other weapons or hand/feet, etc.).

Private_Joker wrote:So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

Of course you can, just be aware where you lack knowledge. All of us should to that (except for me of course).

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Two wrongs there, making a right.


We did it! Hurrah!

Frazzled wrote:
Because ITS A BIG ING DEAL FOR OVER HALF THE POPULATION.

...Because essentially well-meaning folks like yourself make it so, sorry to say, by letting yourself be conned by cheap rhetoric. Rape is an awesome rhetorical tool, because the vast majority of people find it abhorrent. Presented as a simple binary choice between being raped and owning a gun, the gun wins every time. Look at our very own Melissia - she's bought into it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

To heck you say! A vote Frazzled is a vote for Utopia...Frazzled's utopia!

Ok so who wants to put a Frazzled super pac thingy?

Mmm....negative advertising. Love it!

Frazzled wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

Of course you can, just be aware where you lack knowledge. All of us should to that (except for me of course).

Lecturing others on ignorance is not something you should probably be doing Fraz

If you want to continue the "lack of empathy" argument, I would argue that it is the lack of empathy that causes people to have such vitriol towards anyone who ever dares to propose that anyone anywhere should ever have a gun.

All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:The jury made that decision.

Was the man allowed to present the affirmative defense of self defense? If not, then he wasn't allowed to make any decision. Reading the Wikipedia article, it looks like the jurry had a choice between Murder and Manslaughter. Not a good position for a defendant.

It's phrased a little clumsily, but the UK *does* have jury trials, the judges don't just tell the jury which crime they're sent down for

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:If you want to defend yourself against a violent criminal, why don't you try working out? I have the confidence that I know I could pummel the gak out of any burgler that dared come into my house, because I'm a hard bastard. Why don't you do the same? Why do you insist on putting yourself and your loved ones at risk by having a gun?

I'll bet there's at least 1 criminal out there that could take you out. And if there were 2-3 of them, you wouldn't stand much of a chance. Hell, a 95 pound weakling could take you out if you were sleeping when he broke into your house. I don't care how "hard' you are, try dealing with a burglar when you're half awake and bleeding from several knife wounds.

Why would a burgler stab me? You and I both know that if any burgler gets discovered by the person he's burgling, all he's going to do is run out as fast as he can. The liklihood of a physical struggle with a burgler is virtually nil.

biccat wrote:
Authority, whether moral, physical, or spiritual, is ultimately rights granted to you by someone who has power over you. Governments have authority because they're the ones with the guns and military. Force is the ultimate source of authority because it allows you to command others at the risk of bodily harm or death.The only downside to the use of force is the threat that someone else (usually a civil authority) with more force will come down on you.

Uh...no. Governments have authority because they're elected fairly by the people. We do not live in dictatorships.
Allowing citizens to freely own firearms means allowing them to exact tyranny on their fellow man. America gets this, its raison d'etre is giving citizens the power to oppress one another in the name of freedom, but Europe is less keen.

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Melissia wrote:If you want to continue the "lack of empathy" argument, I would argue that it is the lack of empathy that causes people to have such vitriol towards anyone who ever dares to propose that anyone anywhere should ever have a gun.

I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

Private_Joker wrote:All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

The problem with your proposition was that it was too vague. What would take one person down would not necessarily take another. If I didn't have a gun myself, just pointing an airsoft or bb gun would probably scare me in to not doing a criminal act (Though I'm not predisposed to criminal acts to begin with)-- I'm fairly small and (though I have no empirical evidence) I would say that I'm probably fairly frail as well compared to a brutish thug of a criminal who spent five years in prison doing nothing but weight training, brawling, and exercise.

Said thug, however... would take more than a bb-gun to threaten.

Albatross wrote:...Because essentially well-meaning folks like yourself make it so, sorry to say, by letting yourself be conned by cheap rhetoric. Rape is an awesome rhetorical tool, because the vast majority of people find it abhorrent. Presented as a simple binary choice between being raped and owning a gun, the gun wins every time. Look at our very own Melissia - she's bought into it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

Current studies are showing that as many as one in four women are raped in their lifetime. It would be a big damn deal to you too if you had a 25% chance of being raped.
To make light of that is...misplaced thinking.

ShumaGorath wrote:I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

You don't empathize with your own arguments?

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

Yep.
Phallus envy.

Private_Joker wrote:All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

In the US that is further limited by the Second Amendment. With a properly functioning court system, that protection is not impacted by politicians/

Well, it didn't take long for the insults to start flying, did it?

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

You don't empathize with your own arguments?

Not when they contain such fallacies. Fortunately I expect better of myself, so I don't do it particularly often. But hey, we're not talking about me here!

Joey wrote:It's phrased a little clumsily, but the UK *does* have jury trials, the judges don't just tell the jury which crime they're sent down for

I assume UK law is like US law and juries are used as fact-finders. It appears that the jury was asked to determine whether the farmer "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm." If they found he did intend to kill, he would be sentenced for murder. If not, then manslaughter.

Joey wrote:Why would a burgler stab me? You and I both know that if any burgler gets discovered by the person he's burgling, all he's going to do is run out as fast as he can.

I do? All of those violent home invasions are just a figment of my imagination then.

Note that burglary does not require theft.

Joey wrote:Uh...no. Governments have authority because they're elected fairly by the people. We do not live in dictatorships.

No, they have authority because they can enforce their authority. We are not self-governing, that is anarchy.

Next time you get pulled over for speeding, inform the officer that you don't support the law so it shouldn't be enforced against you.

Joey wrote:Allowing citizens to freely own firearms means allowing them to exact tyranny on their fellow man. America gets this, its raison d'etre is giving citizens the power to oppress one another in the name of freedom, but Europe is less keen.

Nice rhetoric, but irrelevant and wrong. But mostly irrelevant.

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

Yep.
Phallus envy.

Please respond to my last post directed at you before agreeing with me repeatedly. I'm not in your camp.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not when they contain such fallacies. Fortunately I expect better of myself, so I don't do it particularly often. But hey, we're not talking about me here!

I was.

There's nothing logically fallacious about the argument that a lack of empathy drives people to feel vitriolic hate towards those who want a handgun to defend themselves with.

That statement does not say no one who has empathy can disagree, by the way.

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Actually, most of it's served chillled - at least if it's lager. God knows it's the only way to make it palateable.

Joey wrote:You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

You have the "right" to health care, I wasn't sure if you had socialized the risk of home destruction along with your health care system.

After all, why should poor people who can't afford home insurance lose everything if their house burns down?

ShumaGorath wrote:Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

And owning a firearm is much less expensive than home owner's insurance.

It's a risk-reward balance.

Next time you get pulled over for speeding, inform the officer that you don't support the law so it shouldn't be enforced against you.

Pro-tip: don't do this in Louisiana or Chicago...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Actually, most of it's served chillled - at least if it's lager. God knows it's the only way to make it palateable.

Really? Excellent.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Of course not, but let's not pretend that a basic structural similarity between two situations makes them identical, or that the two situations have anything in common other than that basic structural similarity. Being raped by a masked intruder is not really similar to a fire in one's kitchen.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Yes, we have home insurance here, smart-arse!

It's hard to accidentally shoot one's self in the face with home insurance, incidentally.

Even a brutish thug doesn't deserve death by firing squad. There are simply too many things running through ones mind to comprehend whether to shoot or not in such a confined sense of space unless of course you are trained for it. Identifying whether its a real threat or not cannot be made by the average Joe, hence why I'm saying stricter gun ownership or none. Non-lethal is still a better option. If it turns out the guy wasn't charging you but was trying to get past you how are you going to come to grips with killing him. Was it a moral choice? Civilians can't make these decisions.

really not worth the effort.