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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

The chances of needing (and being able to use) a gun in self defence are also infinitesimal, but that doesn't stop you claiming that it's important.

With respect, dogmatically clinging to a 200 year old "right", to something that you shouldn't (and probably won't) ever need, in the face of quite widespread misuse, and people dying, is about the same amount of laughable. If you care to put the shoe on the other foot that is.

Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

You used the word "Tyranny"
Prepare to defend our rights to own fire arms against this possibility

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works.

I'm sorry but that is just not a good argument at all as it can be used to support pretty much anything.

For example, "The fact that the government hasn't stolen my plans for world domination from inside my head is proof that my tinfoil hat blocks their mind-reading waves."

The lack of one thing occurring does not immediately mean that something intended to stop that thing has worked. It is possible that the thing just wasn't going to happen, anyway.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works.

I'm sorry but that is just not a good argument at all as it can be used to support pretty much anything.

For example, "The fact that the government hasn't stolen my plans for world domination from inside my head is proof that my tinfoil hat blocks their mind-reading waves."

The lack of one thing occurring does not immediately mean that something intended to stop that thing has worked. It is possible that the thing just wasn't going to happen, anyway.

Not having to use your backup plan is a good thing.

The fact the US has never had to use its nuclear missiles doesn't mean they aren't doing anything or that they are not necessary.

I have always been glad that the citizens of the south were able to use their right to own firearms to prevent and overthrow the tyrany of the government in the nor... wait a second...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others.

Frankly, that's a huge steaming pile of BS, no other developed country considers weapon ownership a human right, and we all have very similar rights and freedoms.

It is a safeguard against tyranny.

That's also laughable. The idea that a bunch of amateur hour militias could even agree on what they all stand for, or reflect the national interest, let alone overthrow the American government is beyond infinitesimal, more like infantile. Where were the guns when the government was seizing all your gold bullion? Where was the millitia when president Bush (who we're not even sure was democratically elected the first time) lead you into an illegal war? gak I bet half the gun-rights people were pro-war, and pro-Bush.

and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

As a bonus, it makes it more likely that you or a member of your family: will be killed accidentally, murdered by your spouse, or commit suicide, and it might in a few rare scenarios (which have pretty much all be publicized by the NRA) protect you from criminals.

The important thing here is that Cincy used the word infinitesimal, which is funny because the chance of needing to fight tyranny, the chance of needing to shoot a criminal, and the chance of gun rights people being right about any of their wild claims, is also infinitesimal. If guns really did make society safer, then America should unquestionably be the safest country in the world, but that's a complete joke.

I've used fire arms A LOT. I can attest I provided security to the free world so they can keep on rocking

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others.

Frankly, that's a huge steaming pile of BS, no other developed country considers weapon ownership a human right, and we all have very similar rights and freedoms.

Yup, its odd. Especially when you'd think the right to self-defense would be quite an obvious one to go along with the others.

It is a safeguard against tyranny.

That's also laughable. The idea that a bunch of amateur hour militias could even agree on what they all stand for, or reflect the national interest, let alone overthrow the American government is beyond infinitesimal, more like infantile. Where were the guns when the government was seizing all your gold bullion? Where was the millitia when president Bush (who we're not even sure was democratically elected the first time) lead you into an illegal war? gak I bet half the gun-rights people were pro-war, and pro-Bush.

and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

As a bonus, it makes it more likely that you or a member of your family, will be killed accidentally, murdered by your spouse, or commit suicide, and it might in a few rare scenarios (which have pretty much all be publicized by the NRA) protect you from criminals.

Guns do not make it more likely that you will die an accidental death or commit suicide. They do however quite often get used to stop criminals.

The important thing here is that Cincy used the word infinitesimal, which is funny because the chance of needing to fight tyranny, the chance of needing to shoot a criminal, and the chance of gun rights people being right about any of their wild claims, are also infinitesimal. If guns really did make society safer, then America should unquestionably be the safest country in the world, but that's a complete joke.

You should be able to see that needing to defend yourself against a criminal would be an important thing. Even if its rare.

At the very least, the evidence is clear that civilian ownership of guns doesn't cause more harm. And fairly often they are used to stop crimes when the police can't get there fast enough.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Guns do not make it more likely that you will die an accidental death or commit suicide. They do however quite often get used to stop criminals.

Actually, they do. Many suicides are acts of impulse and can be prevented simply by making the act harder to accomplish (eg fences on bridges, purchase limits on drugs etc.) and so allow for more reflection by the person considering it. A gun is about as easy as it can be to commit suicide if you have one.

As for accidental deaths, a gun is more lethal if it accidentally discharges than many other possible causes of accidental death, so I think it is likely that you do see a higher proportion of accidental deaths involving guns compared to many others. Though I don't have figures to back that up, so I could be wrong.

Whatever happen to just owning fire arms?
I own mine just own fire arms.

Gun accidents are still so freakishly rare that they aren't any good reason to do anything about. Also, a gun cannot accidentally discharge. Firing pins don't just go off. You can drop any loaded firearm on the ground repeatedly, slam it against a wall, etc... You'll break the gun before it fires because of impact.

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Accidental-Deaths-chart-1.jpg

According to the CDC, guns account for a mere .6% of accidental deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html

Firearms are also only causing only 3.5 deaths per 100,000 pop

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

Firearms also only account for barely half of all suicide or self-inflicted injury causes.

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

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns do not make it more likely that you will die an accidental death

Of course they do, to say otherwise defies reason, and flies in the face of evidence. Saying that guns don't make it more likely that you will die accidentally, is the same as saying that all the people who have ever been killed accidentally by guns would have died in accidents regardless. That's clearly absurd.

You should be able to see that needing to defend yourself against a criminal would be an important thing. Even if its rare.

Well that might be a fair argument, but than you must also acknowledge that protecting people from spree killers is also important, even though that is also rare. You can't claim one rare occurrence is rare so it doesn't matter, while simultaneously claiming another is rare but it's important (just in case).

At the very least, the evidence is clear that civilian ownership of guns doesn't cause more harm. And fairly often they are used to stop crimes when the police can't get there fast enough.

Guns being used to stop crimes is quite rare in the grand scheme of things. Crimes and accidents with legally owned guns are probably just as common, if not more common.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup, its odd. Especially when you'd think the right to self-defense would be quite an obvious one to go along with the others.

The right to a gun is not the same as the right to self defence. Self defence is a legal provision in the UK, the same as it is in many US states. You can even defend yourself with a gun if you have one and the level of force is justified.

Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Its also worth noting that violent crime in general has been plunging lately. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Those statistics are misleading. Crimes recorded as burglary-homicide are very rare, one source estimated ~100 per year nationwide which is comparable with deaths from spree killings. Rapes are also quite rare during burglaries, and offenders are known to their victims in about 65% of violent burglaries.

If you compare those figures to the number of woman who were killed or raped by a violent or jilted partner, it blows them out of the water.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Its also worth noting that violent crime in general has been plunging lately. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

How could 2.5 million "home invasions" have happened in 2013 when only 1,163,146 violent crimes (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) occurred that same year as per the FBI statistics you linked?

My guess would be that most breakins are not violent crimes, occuring when no one is at the property (for example).

Indeed.

Not all Home invasions count as violent crime, especially when there was nobody home to be violent towards. But they are more likely to become violent if someone is home.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Those statistics are misleading. Crimes recorded as burglary-homicide are very rare, one source estimated ~100 per year nationwide which is comparable with deaths from spree killings. Rapes are also quite rare during burglaries, and offenders are known to their victims in about 65% of violent burglaries.

If you compare those figures to the number of woman who were killed or raped by a violent or jilted partner, it blows them out of the water.

I think the number of women who are killed or raped by a violent partner is an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns, not an argument against it.

 Hordini wrote:
I think the number of women who are killed or raped by a violent partner is an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns, not an argument against it.

It might be if only women had access to guns, but men are far more likely to decided that they want a gun than women are, and about 100 times more likely to get angry and use it.

Summed up here:

Myth: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think the number of women who are killed or raped by a violent partner is an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns, not an argument against it.

It might be if only women had access to guns, but men are far more likely to decided that they want a gun than women are, and about 100 times more likely to get angry and use it.

Summed up here:

Myth: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

It's not about only women having access to guns, it's about empowering more women to learn about how to handle guns safely and learn how to use one to defend themselves. Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Women choosing to not exercise their right doesn't mean them carrying a gun doesn't make them safer.

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Not when their partners having access to guns, makes their death 5 times more likely.

The reason I was talking about spousal murder in the first place is because it becomes more likely when a gun is kept in the home. That is true for men and women. If we're talking about infinitesimal probabilities, and how likely it is that a gun will be used responsibly to fend off a burglar, which is quite rare. Then we can't ignore how often guns are used irresponsibly to intimidate or murder a spouse, which is more common.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Not when their partners having access to guns, makes their death 5 times more likely.

The reason I was talking about spousal murder in the first place is because it becomes more likely when a gun is kept in the home. That is true for men and women. If we're talking about how likely it is that guns responsibly to fend of a burglar, which is quite rare, then we can't ignore how often guns are used irresponsibly to intimidate or murder a spouse.

Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Not when their partners having access to guns, makes their death 5 times more likely.

The reason I was talking about spousal murder in the first place is because it becomes more likely when a gun is kept in the home. That is true for men and women. If we're talking about infinitesimal probabilities, and how likely it is that a gun will be used responsibly to fend off a burglar, which is quite rare. Then we can't ignore how often guns are used irresponsibly to intimidate or murder a spouse, which is more common.

A woman can have a gun and that does not mean that her partner has access to it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

Haha, I believe I could put it beyond reasonable doubt, to a reasonable person. What exactly would you accept as proof?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Weapon ownership is not a basic human right, It's not a right in any developed country apart from yours. I can't think of any internationally recognised bill of human rights that includes the right to own guns. Pretty much the only place it appears is in the American constitution.

Then by all means try and do that. You will fail of course.

And I think it odd that you don't think that self-preservation to be a basic human right. Weapons are merely tools to serve that end. So ergo, having weapons to defend yourself makes perfect sense as a basic human right. Just because nobody else has that enshrined on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that somehow being the majority makes it the correct viewpoint.

Weapons are pretty prevalent in some ME and SW Asian countries.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Can you prove that having a rocket launcher in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Can you prove that having a rocket launcher in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Your post makes no sense, unlike mine.

That's funny because it's the exact same ridiculous argument.

Not really. The onus is on him to try and prove it.