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.

 Hordini wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:


Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.

The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?

I'm just going to address this one point, because it is important: Violent crime in America, including gun crime, has been decreasing since the 90s and is now at the lowest point it's been in a long time. There are also many, many more people legally carrying concealed weapons. That doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other, but it is the case that violent crime and gun crime is and has been decreasing significantly.

Is there proper statistical Analysis available for this, could you post up a link. CHeers.

 mwnciboo wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:


Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.

The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?

I'm just going to address this one point, because it is important: Violent crime in America, including gun crime, has been decreasing since the 90s and is now at the lowest point it's been in a long time. There are also many, many more people legally carrying concealed weapons. That doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other, but it is the case that violent crime and gun crime is and has been decreasing significantly.

Is there proper statistical Analysis available for this, could you post up a link. CHeers.

There's been two recent studies by the Department of Justice and the Pew Research Center. Here are some articles:

CNN

Forbes

LA Times

You can read the actual studies here:

DOJ study

Pew study

Again, it is a certifiable fact that we as Americans are safer then we have been in a very long time (My old man pointed out that the numbers were triple or more what they are now when he was my age) and the fact remains that as a country we are more heavily armed then we have ever been, I suppose you could make an argument that we had a higher percentage of gun ownership during the 17 and 1800s when a solid musket was the difference between you and being dead (whether to some nefarious red coat, a bear or starvation hardly mattered, and that condition lasted for a long time in many parts of the country, cept for the red coat thing, got that cleared up in 1812 mostly, but that would require statistics that don't exist to prove, we are more heavily armed then ever post world war two shall we say, and far more legally able to protect ourselves since them, with the bulk of states passing some form of concealed carry law in that time frame.

Armed Self defense: the Canadian case
page 2
Armed self defense: the Canadian case
Abstract
There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which private citizens resort to the use of firearms
for self defense. No information has been previously available about how often firearms are used
defensively outside of the United States. This paper estimates the frequency with which firearms are
used for self protection by analyzing three telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a
fourth survey of the general public in the United States. Canadians report using firearms to protect
themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More
importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats.

from http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf


in the states, its far more then 19,000-37,500 people a year are being actively protected with guns, and in canada thats JUST protection against people. 60,000-80,000 people are protected each year from animals and people combined, you keep ignoring these kinds of benifits.

Or is 60,000-80,000 people being protected each year in canada by guns, not proof in your mind that people are protected by guns?

that's tens of thousands of people protected from people and animals in my country, and many more times that in the states. Those are real people protecting themselves, yet again, you ignore the benefit they have enjoyed, which is far more numerous then illegitimate usage

It is absolutely hypocritical to continue ignoring the benefits of guns, they are very real, often dont involve people dieing, are are more numerous then incidents of illegitimate use.

 mwnciboo wrote:



Seriously.....I'm kind of fed of reading your ill-informed clap trap..... <<---personal attack, Im kinda getting tired of you making remarks of this nature, while ignoring thousands of real people who actually used firearms for self defence.

Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.

The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it? <---again the #'s of people who use firarms for protection is well into the tens of thousands here, and much higher in the states, people using guns for self defense is actually pretty good proof that people use guns for self defense. Gun crime is down in the states, if you actually knew the facts you would know that.

Reality is banning legal ownership doesn't affect criminals, and its a fantasy land to blame legal gun owners for the illegal guns.

Really, are you saying then that the only Cause of Gun Deaths is by Criminals? I have never mentioned Criminals because they are Constant and you cannot affect or stop that, in the same way you will never stop crime or Terrorism. I am arguing that you will reduce the overall Death Rate from Firearms (which includes, the mentally ill, Suicides, people storing guns inappropriately, accidental discharges, misfires and all that in encompasses). <<<--- again, you ignore the thousands of lives saved by guns, to focus on things that happen less often. If it were really about saving lives, you would be all gung ho to ban cars too, professional only access to vehicles would save more lives. You can still use the bus/taxi to get places, any need you state for personal autos can be fulfilled without a private auto. If it were really about saving lives you would be acknowledging that people actually do protect themselves and others with guns. Its a proven fact they do.

Here is the real kicker however...If you outlaw guns, by definition anyone with a gun is a criminal and therefore it has a very direct impact and affect on those Criminals....So I'm not sure where you get this Banning Legal Ownership doesn't affect criminals....It does it makes all owners and possessors criminals. <----right making your neighbors paper criminals overnight for owning a legitimate firarms a great idea. I suppose this sounds like a great idea if the point is to make more criminals of otherwise lawful people





"Criminals will always get guns...so it's kind of stupid arguing from that standpoint either way on the issue. Although by allowing them in Civilian ownership I would say it's easier for Criminals to get hold of them. Also it's very easy for a Law Abiding Citizen to become a Criminal with a single trigger pull"<--- very easy for law abiding drivers to become a criminal just be hitting someone with their car, happens more often, kills more people. Every one is law abiding till they are not, your argument is in the "orwellian thought crime" realm. Anyone can just as easily commit stabbings and vehicular homicide, and both happen all the time. it is a proven fact that people use guns to save lives, and prevent people from being the victim of crimes. You are literally calling all the people who basically say "I have used guns to protect myself" liars, and pretending their lives are not real, with your fingers in your ears saying "guns dont save anyone, I cant hear you"

So answer this point...You agree Criminals will always get guns, so your argument is to make it even easier for them to get hold of them because everyone has access to them?[/b]<<---lawful people owning guns is not making it easier for criminals to get guns. that is not my argument at all, way to write your own argument and attribute it to me. My argument is that guns save more lives more often then negative incidents occur. Just like cars they have a use, and when used responsibly they are a boon to society. Just like cars they can be used irresponsibly, but the net benefits outweigh the net detriments.

Hypocritical.....Read my posts from the start you illiterate, firebrand.<-- more insults, not helping your arguement, nor keeping it polite and civil as per this sites rules
Your lack of clarity of thought is bringing your argument down. [/quote]<---- more of the same

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Again, it is a certifiable fact that we as Americans are safer then we have been in a very long time (My old man pointed out that the numbers were triple or more what they are now when he was my age) and the fact remains that as a country we are more heavily armed then we have ever been, I suppose you could make an argument that we had a higher percentage of gun ownership during the 17 and 1800s when a solid musket was the difference between you and being dead (whether to some nefarious red coat, a bear or starvation hardly mattered, and that condition lasted for a long time in many parts of the country, cept for the red coat thing, got that cleared up in 1812 mostly, but that would require statistics that don't exist to prove, we are more heavily armed then ever post world war two shall we say, and far more legally able to protect ourselves since them, with the bulk of states passing some form of concealed carry law in that time frame.

Actually, you had a higher rate of gun ownership in the 1960s than you do right now. Since then the number of homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining (the average number of guns per household increases only because those homes with a gun are increasingly likely to own lots of guns).

And so, in terms of some nefarious criminal planning some of his nefarious criminal activity, the odds of his victim being a proud, patriotic American with a gun is actually lower than it used to be. And yet violent crime including crime committed with firearms is declining.

So your claim that increasing guns is driving down rates of crime just doesn't work. And when you look at the rate of murder and rate of murder by firearm in other developed countries, it not only doesn't work, its a claim that looks just plain ridiculous.

And, like I've said plenty of times before, I like guns. I think they're a great hobby, and just plain cool. But that doesn't mean I get to pretend that they don't drive up the rate of murder. Reality fething matters, and the reality is told in a simple set of stats - the US murder rate is four or five times higher than in other developed countries.

Now, that doesn't mean that guns have to be banned. As has been pointed out in threads like this plenty of times, about 80,000 people die in alcohol related incidents each year, that's 8 times more than the murder rate, but it doesn't mean banning alcohol... because there's a basic social good to alcohol - having a few drinks is fun. Similarly, it is perfectly okay to say that you like guns, and sure there existance gets more people killed than would otherwise be the case, but we can't chase absolute safety for all people at the expense of never getting to do anything fun anymore.

That's fine. But just don't play pretend. Be honest about the real impact of guns in society. It's basically the only way of ending up with legislation that makes any kind of sense at all.

 sebster wrote:

Actually, you had a higher rate of gun ownership in the 1960s than you do right now. Since then the number of homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining (the average number of guns per household increases only because those homes with a gun are increasingly likely to own lots of guns).

And so, in terms of some nefarious criminal planning some of his nefarious criminal activity, the odds of his victim being a proud, patriotic American with a gun is actually lower than it used to be. And yet violent crime including crime committed with firearms is declining.

So your claim that increasing guns is driving down rates of crime just doesn't work. And when you look at the rate of murder and rate of murder by firearm in other developed countries, it not only doesn't work, its a claim that looks just plain ridiculous.

It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.

Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".

That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.

 Hordini wrote:
It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.

Only if you presume that concealed carry weapons have any kind of deterrent on crime, when no study has ever shown anything we could call a meaningful impact on rates of crime. The closest the gun lobby has ever gotten is claiming that the cities with the highest murder rates have handgun bans... which of course neglects the simple fact that those cities had the highest rates of murder before they banned guns (which is why they tried banning guns in the first place).

And, basically, there's a reason no study has ever shown that relationship - it's because it doesn't exist. There is no relationship. The threat that a civilian might draw a gun, even in a CC state, is so miniscule that it just doesn't impact criminal behaviour. I mean, in the height of the bankrobbing crime spree there were instances of local shop owners grabbing their guns to take on bank robbers as they left the bank. This impacted on the rate of bank robberies not one bit. It took the development of scientific policing techniques and effective police co-ordination to greatly increase the chance of arrest & conviction to finally drive down the bank robbing crime spree.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.

Only if you presume that concealed carry weapons have any kind of deterrent on crime, when no study has ever shown anything we could call a meaningful impact on rates of crime. The closest the gun lobby has ever gotten is claiming that the cities with the highest murder rates have handgun bans... which of course neglects the simple fact that those cities had the highest rates of murder before they banned guns (which is why they tried banning guns in the first place).

And, basically, there's a reason no study has ever shown that relationship - it's because it doesn't exist. There is no relationship. The threat that a civilian might draw a gun, even in a CC state, is so miniscule that it just doesn't impact criminal behaviour. I mean, in the height of the bankrobbing crime spree there were instances of local shop owners grabbing their guns to take on bank robbers as they left the bank. This impacted on the rate of bank robberies not one bit. It took the development of scientific policing techniques and effective police co-ordination to greatly increase the chance of arrest & conviction to finally drive down the bank robbing crime spree.

We're not really talking about bank robberies...

We're really talking about self-defense.

Here's another angle seb... let's assume that your premise is rock solid accurate, in that CC laws do "miniscule" impact to violent crimes.

Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?

A chicking have a CCW has a better chance to prevent a rape than w/o one... cuz, you know... a gun is a great equalizer vs. the rapist.

 whembly wrote:
Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".

That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.

And efforts to document stated incidents of gun use have been unsuccessful, largely because such events are extremely scarce.

Whereas efforts to document the number of deaths to firearms is easy peasy, because the numbers are really big. You get about 10,000 murders with a gun each year, and another 20,000 suicides.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".

That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.

And efforts to document stated incidents of gun use have been unsuccessful, largely because such events are extremely scarce.

Whereas efforts to document the number of deaths to firearms is easy peasy, because the numbers are really big. You get about 10,000 murders with a gun each year, and another 20,000 suicides.

I disagree with "extremely scarce" part.

Sure, it's waaaay smaller than murders/suicides... but, I'm firmly in the belief that it's more significant than "miniscule". This is just one site that has 899 posted self defense story... just one site.

Why is anyone still engaged in this perpetual argument? Studies put up that contradict Brady Campaign or Violence Prevention Center nonsense are going to be routinely ignored, and one side of the 'debate' is still going to ramble on about hemidemiautomatoozle clip machines and how we need to stop people from being able to have Carl Gustavs delivered to their door from the interwebs.

Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation. The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.

 Seaward wrote:
Why is anyone still engaged in this perpetual argument? Studies put up that contradict Brady Campaign or Violence Prevention Center nonsense are going to be routinely ignored, and one side of the 'debate' is still going to ramble on about hemidemiautomatoozle clip machines and how we need to stop people from being able to have Carl Gustavs delivered to their door from the interwebs.

Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation. The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.

I doubt "one side won"... it'll always be up for debate as this is a contentious issue.

Having these debates is a good thing as it'll strengthen/weaken whatever we're discussing.

 whembly wrote:
We're not really talking about bank robberies...

That was an example, in which really overt level of civilian bravery didn't impact the on-going incidents of crime... so the idea that a civilian drawing on a mugger and scaring him off could meaningfully impact the mugging rate is a massive stretch.

We're really talking about self-defense.

Here's another angle seb... let's assume that your premise is rock solid accurate, in that CC laws do "miniscule" impact to violent crimes.

Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?

That's not the point of what I'm saying here. I'm not saying 'guns don't stop crime therefore ban guns'.

I am saying 'guns don't stop crime, therefore stop pretending they do'. Learn what is actually true in the real world, and base your arguments on the reality of the situation.

That doesn't mean 'ban guns', because ultimately, the simple fact that guns are desired by the population and a fun hobby is enough of a justification for them. But in accepting the actual real world and how guns really affect it, well then maybe you might actually start to develop legislation that does something other than annoy gun owners.

And that applies to both sides of course. The same level of self-deception exists among the anti-gun crowd, and has led them to incredible levels of ignorance. That ignorance, of course, produced the assault weapons ban. And now equivalent levels of self-deception among the pro-gun crowd has led them to declare that a decline in gun violence must be directly correlated to the increase in gun ownership... for no other reason than because that is what they'd like to believe is true.

A chicking have a CCW has a better chance to prevent a rape than w/o one... cuz, you know... a gun is a great equalizer vs. the rapist.

Whoever is ready and willing to commit the crime, and therefore has their gun drawn, has more of an advantage than size could ever give.

And more to the point, the incidents of rape in which a random stranger, with or without weapon, physically forces himself on a girl, is a miniscule proportion of rape. Implied pressure from a known person is far, far more common.

And that's kind of the whole problem with the whole 'CC stops crime' thing the pro-gun side attempts... crime doesn't work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation.

Yeah, mention the Bloomberg money... but don't mention the NRA money coming straight from gun manufacturers.

And just keep pretending 'gun violence is down, therefore there's no problem'. Doesn't matter gun murder is 45 times higher per capita than the UK, because it's down. Just keep following the NRA method of picking out whatever number looks good in isolation, and refusing to even recognise the existance of the aggregate numbers, because those don't look good for the cause.

The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.

Oh look, the end of history fallacy.

Pro-tip - demographics change, and culture changes with it. And gun owning households are a declining demographic. You might want to get some effective legislation in place now, while you wield enough influence to ensure the legislation doesn't negatively impact gun ownership in unnecessary ways.

I mean, actually look at the examples of the UK and Australia. Legal gun users are jerked around in ways that'll make an American gun owners head explode, and it's because by the time the gun bans were put in place there was no large, gun using base to effectively argue for their side.


Or you can declare permanent victory now, and then just assume that nothing will ever change again. How did that work out for Rove's permanent majority in 2000?

Seb, you really do make good points in that both sides do fall into that "self-deception" trap. But I believe the truth is somewhere between the two.

I just feel like you're disregarding that self-defense can occur successfully.

I know of 2 chicks who has CCW where one stopped a mugging already in progress... and a different one stopped an assault on her, whereas she got away long enough (read, she fought the assailent) to pulled out her gun, which her assailant fled the scene. Cops never found that fether . She swears to me that she'd be raped if she didn't have that weapon.

Yeah, yeah anecdotal evidence... sue me.

Another example to think about. My ex's uncle was an absolute gun nuts, NRA-love'n, 'Murrican red-neck. That guy has an Armory that'll make Jihadin and Frazzeled really jealous. He was also a really depressed man who killed himself by hanging himself (and not using his multitude of weapons). Weird huh?

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, mention the Bloomberg money... but don't mention the NRA money coming straight from gun manufacturers.

Don't forget members. I picked up a lifetime membership this year, and then threw its cost at the ILA.

And just keep pretending 'gun violence is down, therefore there's no problem'. Doesn't matter gun murder is 45 times higher per capita than the UK, because it's down. Just keep following the NRA method of picking out whatever number looks good in isolation, and refusing to even recognise the existance of the aggregate numbers, because those don't look good for the cause.

No, it's not just down. It's massively down, and continuing down. And despite the fact you've made a lot of terrible arguments in the past, I don't think you're anywhere near foolish enough to believe we'll ever get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, even with a complete ban on all private firearms.

Oh look, the end of history fallacy.

Pro-tip - demographics change, and culture changes with it. And gun owning households are a declining demographic. You might want to get some effective legislation in place now, while you wield enough influence to ensure the legislation doesn't negatively impact gun ownership in unnecessary ways.

I mean, actually look at the examples of the UK and Australia. Legal gun users are jerked around in ways that'll make an American gun owners head explode, and it's because by the time the gun bans were put in place there was no large, gun using base to effectively argue for their side.

I know you're not that familiar with the Constitution, but it's a pretty important difference in the way we do things here versus the UK or Australia. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in that document, and the Supreme Court has been quite aggressive in guaranteeing that right throughout its history. See: Heller, the Illinois concealed carry ban, etc.

Demographics can change all they like. If you think repeal of the Second Amendment is remotely likely, consider this: in the wake of Newtown, support for the Second Amendment shot to the highest percentage Pew has ever polled. That's assuming that demographic change is a negative for the right, which is, of course, false. Minorities and women - especially women - are the fastest-growing new owner demographic out there.

Just a "pro-tip."

 whembly wrote:
Seb, you really do make good points in that both sides do fall into that "self-deception" trap. But I believe the truth is somewhere between the two.

I think that might be a slight re-casting of the golden mean fallacy. That fallacy normally describes that both sides have some truth about them, and the reality includes the true bits from both sides. In this case though, I think that, basically, both the pro and anti gun lobbies are basically just a bunch of donkey-caves with nothing useful to say about anything.

The truth isn't so much in between the two positions, but has nothing to do with the nonsense argued by each side. The way to the truth isn't to sift through the claims of each to find the bits of truth, but to ignore them and their nonsense entirely.

I just feel like you're disregarding that self-defense can occur successfully.

If incidents of self-defence occurred in any serious number, then we'd have some kind of measure of them. Instead we've just got anecdotes.

Now, I'm not saying they don't happen, I'm saying they're not very common, and very, very rare compared to the incidents of homicides and firearms. And as such, they don't work very well as an argument for protecting guns.

 Seaward wrote:
Don't forget members. I picked up a lifetime membership this year, and then threw its cost at the ILA.

Follow the conversation, please. You made a dig at Bloomberg throwing millions behind the anti-gun lobby. I thought that was funny, given the millions given to the NRA by gun manufacturers every year. Your response is to point out that gun ownership also has personal membership... which is only a valid response if no individual persons contribute to gun control lobbies, or if the existance of personal membership in the NRA somehow meant that there could be no corporate sponsorship.

As both of those things are pants on the head crazy, it becomes clear your response is basically irrelevant.

Please, try again.

No, it's not just down. It's massively down, and continuing down. And despite the fact you've made a lot of terrible arguments in the past, I don't think you're anywhere near foolish enough to believe we'll ever get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, even with a complete ban on all private firearms.

Uh huh. So when deaths by firearms decline, it must be because there's more guns out there. But when the overall rate remains 45 times higher than the UK, that must be because of the inherently murderous nature of Americans.

This is ridiculous. You post without thinking, and you have based your argument on nothing but what you'd like to believe is true.

I know you're not that familiar with the Constitution, but it's a pretty important difference in the way we do things here versus the UK or Australia.

And I know you like to think a document can be a forever protection that will hold strong, no matter how public opinion might change, but if you ever spend any time reading about the realities of politics and society, you'll learn that's incredibly naive.

"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. "

George Orwell, in the Tribune, 1945.

 sebster wrote:

If incidents of self-defence occurred in any serious number, then we'd have some kind of measure of them. Instead we've just got anecdotes.

Now, I'm not saying they don't happen, I'm saying they're not very common, and very, very rare compared to the incidents of homicides and firearms. And as such, they don't work very well as an argument for protecting guns.

There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.

 Hordini wrote:
There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.

There have been lots of studies. The ones that attempt to base their results on instances formally recorded in police databases produce very low numbers and are dismissed immediately by the pro-gun crowd. And the ones that simply ask the public produce insanely high numbers (almost certainly do to the problems of false positives when dealing with low incident events), and are embraced by the pro-gun crowd.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.

There have been lots of studies. The ones that attempt to base their results on instances formally recorded in police databases produce very low numbers and are dismissed immediately by the pro-gun crowd. And the ones that simply ask the public produce insanely high numbers (almost certainly do to the problems of false positives when dealing with low incident events), and are embraced by the pro-gun crowd.

Don't you think it's possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle? Not insanely high but not so low as to be insignificant either?

 sebster wrote:
Follow the conversation, please. You made a dig at Bloomberg throwing millions behind the anti-gun lobby. I thought that was funny, given the millions given to the NRA by gun manufacturers every year. Your response is to point out that gun ownership also has personal membership... which is only a valid response if no individual persons contribute to gun control lobbies, or if the existance of personal membership in the NRA somehow meant that there could be no corporate sponsorship.

As both of those things are pants on the head crazy, it becomes clear your response is basically irrelevant.

Please, try again.

Not until you bother to learn even the basics of what you're talking about, I'm afraid. The NRA gets plenty of donations from gun manufacturers, but member dues and donations still make up the bulk of its funding. Which is irrelevant, because the NRA does no lobbying. That money goes to law enforcement training programs, classes, public service projects, etc. The NRA-ILA does the lobbying, and tracing its funding will hopefully disabuse you of some of your misconceptions. Hopefully.

Furthermore, the NRA-ILA actually doesn't attack issues the way you think it does. Bloomberg's money is funny because he's throwing it at media campaigns in targeted markets. And he's throwing a lot of money at those campaigns. The ILA, by comparison? It's simply e-mailing members. That's what makes it so effective, of course. As a single-issue advocacy group with a committed base, it can marshal way more phone calls, letters, and e-mails than Bloomberg's crowd, precisely because only 4% of this country views gun control as an "important" issue, and they view it as "important" the same way people view anti-sweat shop activity as "important;" they'll respond to a poll about it, but it's not like they're going to stop shopping for discount goods at Walmart. The anti-gun movement needs to be driven by big money media campaigns because they simply don't have a public network willing to pick up the phone and call a Congressman.

Uh huh. So when deaths by firearms decline, it must be because there's more guns out there. But when the overall rate remains 45 times higher than the UK, that must be because of the inherently murderous nature of Americans.

This is ridiculous. You post without thinking, and you have based your argument on nothing but what you'd like to believe is true.

Try reading what I actually wrote next time, please. This is the same old problem with you: you pick the argument you'd like to defend against rather than the one that was actually made.

The facts are pretty simple. Gun laws have become less restrictive, and gun crime is way, way down. Do the two have anything to do with each other? Who knows? Or even cares? What we can surmise, though, is that loosening gun laws does not equal a spike in gun crime, so the anti-gun argument has zero factual basis to it.

Our murder rate is higher - and is going to remain higher - because we have drugs and gangs. I know you like to think you have hardcore career criminals, too, but let's be realistic for a while here. The 2009 FBI Gang Assessment put gangs as holding responsibility for as much as 80% of all crime in many communities across the country, and made the case that the drug trade is tangentially linked to a hell of a lot of violent crime. As long as we want drugs, we're going to have much higher violent crime rates than the rest of the industrialized world.

And I know you like to think a document can be a forever protection that will hold strong, no matter how public opinion might change, but if you ever spend any time reading about the realities of politics and society, you'll learn that's incredibly naive.

"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. "

George Orwell, in the Tribune, 1945.

So I provide a few historical examples - and there are many, many, many more - of the Second Amendment being protected by the courts, and you provide an Orwell quote. Intentionally or not, that's a brilliant way of putting this in a nutshell.

The problem you're facing is that public opinion isn't changing. People are in favor of universal background checks. Whoopty-fething-do, that's been the case for a long time. But that's it. That's the massive sea change you're arguing is the herald of the coming demographic doom for the Second Amendment. And I understand why, really; there's nothing else out there supporting your assertion.

 Seaward wrote:
Not until you bother to learn even the basics of what you're talking about, I'm afraid. The NRA gets plenty of donations from gun manufacturers, but member dues and donations still make up the bulk of its funding.

And so, to repeat myself again... in a conversation that went;
'Some rich guy gave the anti-gun movement lots of money'
'So, large donors give money to the pro-gun side'

Your subsequent response 'but most NRA money comes from members' doesn't change one fething thing about the fact that there are also lots of large donors, like Bloomberg is to the anti-gun lobby, which makes your effort at calling out Bloomberg alone a piece of nonsense.

Which is irrelevant, because the NRA does no lobbying. That money goes to law enforcement training programs, classes, public service projects, etc. The NRA-ILA does the lobbying,

Distinction without difference, and all miles beyond the point - for your criticism of Bloomberg to make sense, there would have to be no large donors on the pro-gun side, but there is and as such, your point is nonsense. Moving on...

Try reading what I actually wrote next time, please. This is the same old problem with you: you pick the argument you'd like to defend against rather than the one that was actually made.

It's sad when I can read your underlying assumptions and comment on them, and all you can do is look dumbfounded that anyone could form such conclusions. You need to just think a bit about your own beliefs, start to become aware of your own assumptions.

Anyhow, you said that you'll never get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, which begged the conclusion that there is something in America other than the easy access to tools that are really good at murder that makes people more murderous. I commented on that. You looked stunned, as if such a thing could never be conceived of, let alone an implied point within your answer.

The facts are pretty simple. Gun laws have become less restrictive, and gun crime is way, way down.

Those facts are pretty simple. In fact, to present them as the only facts is not just simple but simplistic. Hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic. Which explains why your conclusion is also hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic.

Anyhow, here's some other facts. The murder rates in the developing world are in decline everywhere. Having more material wealth, more education, more effective policing and a bunch of other things just does that. Welcome to the happy history of improving human societies. To see them in decline across the globe and think the cause for that is something unique to the US is incredibly stupid.

And yes, while they are in decline in the US, they remain much, much higher than in the rest of the developed world. You have equal or more material wealth, equivalent public education, and police that are on a par with the rest of us. And yet, all that murder. And yet you refuse to consider that having tools which make it easier to commit murder might result in more of it. Its incredible. Truly incredible.

Our murder rate is higher - and is going to remain higher - because we have drugs and gangs. I know you like to think you have hardcore career criminals, too, but let's be realistic for a while here. The 2009 FBI Gang Assessment put gangs as holding responsibility for as much as 80% of all crime in many communities across the country, and made the case that the drug trade is tangentially linked to a hell of a lot of violent crime.

Only works if you assume a direct correlation between crime and murder, which is nonsense. Given I've previously shown you the FBI numbers on murders related to gang violence, it's not only nonsense, it's wilful ignorance on your part.

As long as we want drugs, we're going to have much higher violent crime rates than the rest of the industrialized world.

Yeah... because the rest of the world has no interest in drugs. I mean, fething hell, this is absurd. You really just are not thinking about this at all, are you?

So I provide a few historical examples - and there are many, many, many more - of the Second Amendment being protected by the courts, and you provide an Orwell quote. Intentionally or not, that's a brilliant way of putting this in a nutshell.

Did you read the quote? I'm not convinced you read the quote. If you did, I'm afraid you didn't understand the quote. Because to just repeat your claim that the courts have found in favour of gun ownership, as if that was somehow a seperate existance to public opinion means you completely misses Orwell's point.

The courts, despite your naivety, are simply a reflection of public opinion. Not a crude, automatic reflection of whatever 50%+1 of the population might think at any given time, but ultimately, where public opinion goes over the course of history, so too will the courts. Maybe the courts will follow, maybe even follow by a generation, and maybe they'll lead. But the idea of objective, considered judges presiding without regard to the social values of the time is something you really should have stopped believing by the time you put your adult pants on.

The problem you're facing is that public opinion isn't changing. People are in favor of universal background checks. Whoopty-fething-do, that's been the case for a long time. But that's it. That's the massive sea change you're arguing is the herald of the coming demographic doom for the Second Amendment. And I understand why, really; there's nothing else out there supporting your assertion.

Anyhow, your claim that the numbers aren't changing is inane - "it hasn't changed and therefore it never will" is the reasoning of five year olds... and also the GOP circa 2004.

 sebster wrote:
And so, to repeat myself again... in a conversation that went;
'Some rich guy gave the anti-gun movement lots of money'
'So, large donors give money to the pro-gun side'

Your subsequent response 'but most NRA money comes from members' doesn't change one fething thing about the fact that there are also lots of large donors, like Bloomberg is to the anti-gun lobby, which makes your effort at calling out Bloomberg alone a piece of nonsense.

Until you understand the NRA/NRA-ILA split, and what the cash is used for and how it's raised in both cases, you're absolutely right.

The problem is, once you actually know what the feth you're talking about, you're left with a pretty big difference.

It's sad when I can read your underlying assumptions and comment on them, and all you can do is look dumbfounded that anyone could form such conclusions. You need to just think a bit about your own beliefs, start to become aware of your own assumptions.

The trouble is, sebster, you argued against a phantom. You argued against a point I wasn't making. I don't know how much simpler I can say it. I'm not even sure it's worth trying, at the moment, because your rage is going to be stronger than any amount of logic.

Anyhow, you said that you'll never get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, which begged the conclusion that there is something in America other than the easy access to tools that are really good at murder that makes people more murderous. I commented on that. You looked stunned, as if such a thing could never be conceived of, let alone an implied point within your answer.

No, I made it pretty clear that there was something other than guns that makes Americans more murderous.

Those facts are pretty simple. In fact, to present them as the only facts is not just simple but is in fact simplistic. Hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic. Which explains why your conclusion is also hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic.

Anytime you've got contradictory statistics, bucko, you're welcome to post them. In the meantime, watching you flounder is amusing.

And yes, while they are in decline in the US, they remain much, much higher than in the rest of the developed world. You have equal or more material wealth, equivalent public education, and police that are on a par with the rest of us. And yet, all that murder.

And I've explained why, many times. As have numerous law enforcement agencies.

Only works if you assume a direct correlation between crime and murder, which is nonsense. Given I've previously shown you the FBI numbers on murders related to gang violence, it's not only nonsense, it's wilful ignorance on your part.

No, you showed that you're incapable of reading statistics, and very, very capable of jumping to wild conclusions, such as "if someone killed an acquaintance, that removes them automatically from the 'involved in crime' category." It was pretty funny, but not particularly helpful. Or factual.

Yeah... because the rest of the world has no interest in drugs. I mean, fething hell, this is absurd. You really just are not thinking about this at all, are you?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you're genuinely this uneducated about how drugs are trafficked in the US. I don't know which it is, so you tell me. Do you need a primer on American drug trafficking and how much violence attends it compared to the rest of the world? Do you really need me to go through this with you? Are you genuinely not capable of making any distinctions between how things work in countries like, for example, Australia, with a population smaller than some of our states, and how they work over here? Different laws, different culture? No? None of this has ever been considered by you before?

Sad.

Did you read the quote? I'm not convinced you read the quote. If you did, I'm afraid you didn't understand the quote. Because to just repeat your claim that the courts have found in favour of gun ownership, as if that was somehow a seperate existance to public opinion means you completely misses Orwell's point.

The courts, despite your naivety, are simply a reflection of public opinion. Not a crude, automatic reflection of whatever 50%+1 of the population might think at any given time, but ultimately, where public opinion goes over the course of history, so too will the courts. Maybe the courts will follow, maybe even follow by a generation, and maybe they'll lead. But the idea of objective, considered judges presiding without regard to the social values of the time is something you really should have stopped believing by the time you put your adult pants on.

So for over two hundred years, the courts have been constant on the Second Amendment, but that's all going to change because George Orwell said so. No, that's not a loopy argument at all.

Anyhow, your claim that the numbers aren't changing is inane - "it hasn't changed and therefore it never will" is the reasoning of five year olds... and also the GOP circa 2004.

They aren't changing. You're welcome to look up any major poll you like.

 Seaward wrote:
Until you understand the NRA/NRA-ILA split, and what the cash is used for and how it's raised in both cases, you're absolutely right.

The money could be given to your left butt cheek for all it matters, the simple fact is that there are large donors on both sides, and as such your effort to sound out Bloomberg alone was inane.

No, I made it pretty clear that there was something other than guns that makes Americans more murderous.

And that thing, as we've established in previous threads, is a terrible explanation.

Anytime you've got contradictory statistics, bucko, you're welcome to post them. In the meantime, watching you flounder is amusing.

See, there's no content there. Just more patented Seaward inane bickering. You need to actually put some substance into your posts.

Anyhow, to try and drag some kind of substance out of your pissy little efforts at debate, let's look at what stats you might deem contradictory.

Do you dispute either of the following statements;
1) Murder rates across the developed world are in decline
2) Murder rates in the US are much higher than than elsewhere in the developed world.

If you don't dispute either of these, then your conclusion of 'guns have no effect or a reducing effect on the murder rate' is complete bunk. And if you do dispute them, well then sure, I can produce those 'contradictory statistics', bucko.

And I've explained why, many times.

Yes, but your explanation is stupid. Very stupid. As such, those of use that don't want to accept very stupid explanations are forced to go looking for other explanations.

No, you showed that you're incapable of reading statistics, and very, very capable of jumping to wild conclusions, such as "if someone killed an acquaintance, that removes them automatically from the 'involved in crime' category." It was pretty funny, but not particularly helpful. Or factual.

Oh dear. Seriously? That's your effort to keep pretending that murder is all about drugs and crime? fething that?

Yes, it is true that some portion of murder of friends and family will be crime related. But, of course, an assertion that a large portion of it would be, all in order to continue pretending that murder is all about crime is, frankly, flying rodent gak crazy loco.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you're genuinely this uneducated about how drugs are trafficked in the US. I don't know which it is, so you tell me. Do you need a primer on American drug trafficking and how much violence attends it compared to the rest of the world?

And are you really so fething stupid as to think that violence exists in isolation of the culture around it? The gun culture. That somehow, through the magic of Seaward's loose grip on reality, that the rest of developed world has created a kinder, gentler breed of drug gangs, that don't use more violence just because instead they'd rather talk about things?

Or do you think that just possibly, when lots of places in the world have drug trades full of seasoned, professional criminals, and one has a lot more gun violence than the other... and that happens to be the place that's got lots and lots of guns... that maybe the guns have something to do with it?

So for over two hundred years, the courts have been constant on the Second Amendment, but that's all going to change because George Orwell said so. No, that's not a loopy argument at all.

Are you honestly sitting there and saying that constitutional interpretation has never changed? I mean fething hell, read a book.

They aren't changing. You're welcome to look up any major poll you like.

Holy gak. I point out that fallacy that just because a thing hasn't changed, doesn't mean it won't change later, and you reply with 'it hasn't changed'. That's remarkable.

This is ridiculous. You have the intelligence to type in to a computer, but you type stuff like that?

Actually, no. You know what's more ridiculous? Me responding to you. You aren't trying to make an argument, you're just saying 'nuh uh' with the first piece of stupid crap that pops in to your head. It doesn't matter that is makes no sense, it doesn't matter that you don't even need to argue half of it, you're just going to, because you don't understand how thinking works.

feth it, whatever, you don't want to think, and I can't make you.

Quite apart from whatever might be the case in Americaland, in the UK we are quite happy and safe without guns.

Would i like to shoot targets and things more easily? Yes, i would love to. Do i think we should have the same access to firearms as the US? Hell no. Would i relax our firearm laws at all? No.

This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.

Im happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.

 sebster wrote:
The money could be given to your left butt cheek for all it matters, the simple fact is that there are large donors on both sides, and as such your effort to sound out Bloomberg alone was inane.

And I'm afraid we're back to "you don't know what you're talking about" land. There's only one guy single-handedly bankrolling campaigns around the gun issue in a variety of states at the moment. It ain't anybody associated with the NRA or the multitude of other Second Amendment organizations. Nor is it the much-touted gun manufacturers.

And that thing, as we've established in previous threads, is a terrible explanation.

That it conflates with your fiction does not make it a terrible explanation, I'm afraid. Simply terrible for your argument.

Do you dispute either of the following statements;
1) Murder rates across the developed world are in decline
2) Murder rates in the US are much higher than than elsewhere in the developed world.

If you don't dispute either of these, then your conclusion of 'guns have no effect or a reducing effect on the murder rate' is complete bunk. And if you do dispute them, well then sure, I can produce those 'contradictory statistics', bucko.

I swear I'm only typing this one more time, Sebster. I'm begging you to actually read it this time.

Whether or not guns have a reducing effect on the murder rate is irrelevant. What we know is that the anti-gunner argument of, "Liberalizing gun laws makes gun crime go up!" is false.

I don't know how to say it any more simply than that.

Yes, but your explanation is stupid. Very stupid. As such, those of use that don't want to accept very stupid explanations are forced to go looking for other explanations.

See above re: terrible explanations and your own private fiction.

Oh dear. Seriously? That's your effort to keep pretending that murder is all about drugs and crime? fething that?

All murder? No. Most murder? Yep.

Yes, it is true that some portion of murder of friends and family will be crime related. But, of course, an assertion that a large portion of it would be, all in order to continue pretending that murder is all about crime is, frankly, flying rodent gak crazy loco.

Ah, but we're not talking about family and friends, which you would be aware of if you actually read what was written. As I recognize that's a lost cause, I'll simply say it again: your assertion that murders of an "acquaintance" stemming from "a dispute or argument" could not possibly involve people engaged in criminal enterprise on a regular basis is laughable.

And are you really so fething stupid as to think that violence exists in isolation of the culture around it? The gun culture. That somehow, through the magic of Seaward's loose grip on reality, that the rest of developed world has created a kinder, gentler breed of drug gangs, that don't use more violence just because instead they'd rather talk about things?

Or do you think that just possibly, when lots of places in the world have drug trades full of seasoned, professional criminals, and one has a lot more gun violence than the other... and that happens to be the place that's got lots and lots of guns... that maybe the guns have something to do with it?

This is where your argument falls apart, unfortunately. Our violent crime rates in general are higher than yours. Not simply gun crime, but all violent crime. I suppose we could blame that on guns, too? Or maybe, just maybe, we simply have a more violent criminal culture due to a whole host of factors.

Are you honestly sitting there and saying that constitutional interpretation has never changed? I mean fething hell, read a book.

I'm saying it hasn't changed in any significant fashion on the Second Amendment, and your claims of being able to predict the future notwithstanding, there's no indication it will.

Holy gak. I point out that fallacy that just because a thing hasn't changed, doesn't mean it won't change later, and you reply with 'it hasn't changed'. That's remarkable.

I consider pointing to the historical evidence that belies your claim - once again, I presume, derived from some sort of crystal ball apparatus - about what will happen in the future, evidence that directly contradicts it, to be pretty relevant.

Honestly, saying, "Despite no supporting evidence right now, I can tell you what will happen in the future!" isn't exactly the high-minded debate you claim it is.

 whembly wrote:
[Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?

Well, with that sttitude, would you mind stepping into my office? I have a few insurance policies to sell you.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:
[Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?

Well, with that sttitude, would you mind stepping into my office? I have a few insurance policies to sell you.

Got several already!

Mine are better because they get me paid!

I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?