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.

 Smacks wrote:
We might agree if guns were used only for that purpose (outside sports etc mention above), and only as a last resort, but that isn't what happens. I think the benefits need to be weighed against the costs. This is where the data comes in. And I don't agree that the data supports guns. I even went to check about accidents on gunfacts to see what the pro-gun lobby had to say on it, here is the page: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/

Interestingly this is an entire page of "appeal to bigger problems" which is just diversion, I find that quite telling. Apparently gun accidents are a "non-issue". But other data says that you are 4 times more likely to have an accident with a gun (in the home) than to use one in self defence. Which (if true) would make accidents quite a significant issue by comparison.

It is not a diversion. It is showing gun deaths in the context of other causes of death. To whit;

So according to the CDC accidental deaths by firearm make up 0.6% of all accidental deaths in the US. So by no objective definition is that a significant issue.


And accidental firearm deaths have been trending downwards for three decades


And during the same time ownership of firearms has been on the rise

 Smacks wrote:
Guns can also cause situations to escalate. Most robbers and burglars aren't hell-bent on murder, producing a gun might needlessly escalate the situation to a shoot out, if the assailant is also armed then it seems as likely to get you killed as to save your life.

I'm sorry but if someone enters your home without invitation, by force, and carrying a weapon then a homeowner is not causing a situation to escalate. Escalation was caused by the intruder's trespass. If anything being confronted by an intruder who is armed and you are not seems a more likely way to get killed.
I'm sure these people are happy to have had an effective way to defend themselves
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/wounded-man-prevents-home-invaders-raping-granddaughter/
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article9246521.html
http://www.local10.com/news/police-pizza-delivery-driver-shoots-kills-robber/33745120
http://www.fox4news.com/story/29375109/robbery-suspect-killed-in-shootout-outside-benihana
http://www.wtvy.com/news/headlines/Two-Suspects-Shot-In-Reported-Armed-Burglary-Attempt-308243271.html
http://abc11.com/news/homeowner-shoots-alleged-robber-in-hope-mills/792164/
http://www.local10.com/news/victim-shoots-at-intruder-in-miami-beach-police-say/33632936


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
In all seriousness, and I'm not asking this to be rude or to insult you, but do you have some kind of disability?

No

 Smacks wrote:
Show me the amendment that contains statistics on firearm related accidents and deaths during 2015?

You want to see an amendment listed in the Bill of Rights, a document ratified in 1791, that covers statistics on firearm related deaths for a year that was 224 years in the future, that we are only six months into, and for a country that was not yet comprised of all 50 states?

The Bill of Rights matters to this discussion because, as mentioned previously, it codified the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with a right to saturated fat.

 Smacks wrote:


I think the benefits need to be weighed against the costs. This is where the data comes in.

As in using alcohol, which kills far more people and ruins far more lives per year than guns?

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Show me the amendment that contains statistics on firearm related accidents and deaths during 2015?

You want to see an amendment listed in the Bill of Rights, a document ratified in 1791, that covers statistics on firearm related deaths for a year that was 224 years in the future, that we are only six months into, and for a country that was not yet comprised of all 50 states?

Now do you see why it is not relevant? If we were talking about "what does the bill or rights say" then it would probably be very relevant, but since we are talking about "what impact have guns had on society lately?" it's a lot less relevant. A lot less, in fact it's not relevant at all.

The Bill of Rights matters to this discussion because, as mentioned previously, it codified the Second Amendment.

Well next time we have a dicussion about how the 2nd amendment got codified, you be sure and bring it up. But that isn't what this discussion is about. This conversation is about the impact guns have had on modern societies such as Australia, the US and the UK and what we can learn from that. I don't really think the bill of rights from 224 years ago has anything new to add to that discussion, so you don't need to keep bring it up do you?

Relapse wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


I think the benefits need to be weighed against the costs. This is where the data comes in.

As in using alcohol, which kills far more people and ruins far more lives per year than guns?

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Yes exactly like alcohol. Why wouldn't we want to do everything we can to curb alcohol abuse? You should make a topic about how we can make drinking safer, and provide people with more alternatives ways to socialize that don't involve getting wasted. You should make a topic about it. This topic is about police shooting people.

The bill of rights is the legal foundation for the legal system of the US and shapes modern cultural views. It's age is irrelevant, it's still in effect and still the basis upon which people defend the use of firearms.

One wouldn't discount the 1st amendment in a discussion about free speech, why simply hand-wave away the 2nd?

 Smacks wrote:
Now do you see why it is not relevant? If we were talking about "what does the bill or rights say" then it would probably be very relevant, but since we are talking about "what impact have guns had on society lately?" it's a lot less relevant. A lot less, in fact it's not relevant at all.

Having a discussion about firearms is incomplete without actually looking at the right that codified the right in US law.

So what impact have guns had on society lately? You mentioned accidental deaths, but the site you linked to showed that firearms account for 0.6% of accidental deaths so from that perspective their impact on society is irrelevant .

 Smacks wrote:
Well next time we have a dicussion about how the 2nd amendment got codified, you be sure and bring it up. But that isn't what this discussion is about. This conversation is about the impact guns have had on modern societies such as Australia, the US and the UK and what we can learn from that. I don't really think the bill of rights from 224 years ago has anything new to add to that discussion, so you don't need to keep bring it up do you?

I thought you wanted to discuss how guns have affected US society? Comparisons with the UK and Australia are not particularly useful as culturally, legally, socially, economically, geographically, historically, and demographically they are all very different and record their crimes in different ways so any direct comparison is difficult

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Show me the amendment that contains statistics on firearm related accidents and deaths during 2015?

You want to see an amendment listed in the Bill of Rights, a document ratified in 1791, that covers statistics on firearm related deaths for a year that was 224 years in the future, that we are only six months into, and for a country that was not yet comprised of all 50 states?

Now do you see why it is not relevant? If we were talking about "what does the bill or rights say" then it would probably be very relevant, but since we are talking about "what impact have guns had on society lately?" it's a lot less relevant. A lot less, in fact it's not relevant at all.

The Bill of Rights matters to this discussion because, as mentioned previously, it codified the Second Amendment.

Well next time we have a dicussion about how the 2nd amendment got codified, you be sure and bring it up. But that isn't what this discussion is about. This conversation is about the impact guns have had on modern societies such as Australia, the US and the UK and what we can learn from that. I don't really think the bill of rights from 224 years ago has anything new to add to that discussion, so you don't need to keep bring it up do you?

Relapse wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


I think the benefits need to be weighed against the costs. This is where the data comes in.

As in using alcohol, which kills far more people and ruins far more lives per year than guns?

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Yes exactly like alcohol. Why wouldn't we want to do everything we can to curb alcohol abuse? You should make a topic about how we can make drinking safer, and provide people with more alternatives ways to socialize that don't involve getting wasted. You should make a topic about it. This topic is about police shooting people.

Since you were talking gun control and how many people get killed by guns, and how the Bill of Rights is toilet paper in a thread about police shooting people,
I thought I'd chime in about alcohol.

An interesting article I read earlier was whether the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage can be used as a springboard to help defend the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically;
"An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

and

"Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

Relapse wrote:
Since you were talking gun control and how many people get killed by guns, and how the Bill of Rights is toilet paper in a thread about police shooting people,
I thought I'd chime in about alcohol.

I was talking about people getting killed by guns needlessly in a topic about someone getting killed by a gun needlessly. Is it really fair to say that I said the bill of right is toilet paper? When I have said numerous times that I'm not attacking the bill of rights, and the bill of rights is not even relevant to what I'm talking about? What I am talking about is exactly this kind of emotionally charged BS that you're trying to pull. "he called the bill of rights toilet paper!!!" Like I'm some kind of anti-American terrorist who wants to wipe his ass on the stars and stripes. When really I'm just interested in reducing unnecessary gun deaths. We can talk about reducing unnecessary alcohol deaths too, or unnecessary traffic deaths, I'm very much in favour of trying to reduce those too. Why wouldn't I be?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The bill of rights is the legal foundation for the legal system of the US and shapes modern cultural views. It's age is irrelevant, it's still in effect and still the basis upon which people defend the use of firearms.

One wouldn't discount the 1st amendment in a discussion about free speech, why simply hand-wave away the 2nd?

I'm not discounting or "hand waving" it at all. I have said already that I acknowledge it, what else can I possibly say about it beyond that? We all agree it exists. I still think people should be able to discuss the pros and cons of hypothetical future gun control, without being constantly browbeaten with it. People who just keep repeating "guns are a right!" aren't really offering any pros or cons, so they aren't really contributing anything to that discussion, they are just trying to avoid it. Which is why I think it is irrelevant.

Since the topic drifted from police killing people to how people needlessly die, it seems appropriate to insert another, far more destructive force that kills people needlessly.

Nothing actually relevant to the original topic has come out, that I'm aware of, in the last few pages. And if it has, it has been buried in the back and forth between two entrenched factions, neither of which is willing to give an inch in this argument. As such, I'm going to lock up the thread. If news breaks about the witnesses/the issue at hand in the OP feel free to PM me and I'll unlock it and we can discuss the actual topic, but this has run on long enough as a gun control debate.