Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 267
for the gun control peoplePage 11 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

Your brand of logic goes nowhere. The history lesson proved my point that guns were invented to kill, and have been used to kill ever since. You keep injecting other terminology and non-related topics to ignore that simple fact. All the denial in the world will not change that fact.


All the denial in the world doesn't change the fact that killing isn't the same as murder. This is why you don't propose solutions that actually solve complex problems. You want to over simplify things to the point where it doesn't match reality. Like it, or not, there are socially acceptable uses for guns. The majority of guns are used in socially acceptable ways (even if the use is storing in a safe as part of a collection). That's just a fact.

Say up is down, left is right, etc., etc. as much as you want. It won't change anything.

Guns are not designed to murder (i.e. a socially non-acceptable use). How long do you want to bury your head in the sand in order to maintain your overly-simplistic view?


And once again....this discussion is about guns......READ the title of the thread....."for the gun control people"
If you want to discuss the other things, start your own thread about those.


The comparisons I have made are valid, and on topic, whether you like the results, or not.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 268
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:26:03 PM

So only the amount of time matters, not the total number of people? Let's say some psycho kills 26 people over 50 years, is that ok?

Not such a clever comeback after all, huh?


Are you for real? No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to murder anybody by whiping chocolate bars at their heads. You're not even close. Fat, alcoholic, smokers have every right to kill themselves.

There's a major malfunction I just don't get among the gun nut crowd...like if we ban guns we also have to ban 2 x 4's, string, carrots, screwdrivers, chips, candy, that goo they put on popcorn at the movies because it all kills people. What's up with this?
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 269
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:31:47 PM

Are you for real? No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to murder anybody by whiping chocolate bars at their heads. You're not even close. Fat, alcoholic, smokers have every right to kill themselves.


Suicides are always included in gun death statistics for the US. Therefore, self-harm is something that is considered when banning something. That's reality for you.

Again, someone who doesn't bother to do the research, but still thinks they can propose a solution. Typical.

Like I told the other poster, worry about your own country's laws and let us worry about ours. If you have a problem with gun-running from our country address it with your elected representatives and have them deal with ours. Otherwise, I can't really say I care much about your opinion on our country considering how you talk about us in general.
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 270
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:35:34 PM
All the denial in the world doesn't change the fact that killing isn't the same as murder.


Nobody here said it was. You're the only one that keeps making this up.


You want to over simplify things to the point where it doesn't match reality.


Stating a historical fact is not oversimplifying anything. It's stating a historical fact. Argue with the "How Stuff Works" and "Wikipedia" websites.


Say up is down, left is right, etc., etc. as much as you want. It won't change anything.


No one said anything like that , either. What part of guns were invented as a killing device and are still used as a killing device, especially by armed forces all over the world, are you unable to understand? If someone chooses not to use them to kill, but store in a collection, then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the historical fact, nor does it change the fact that Adam Lanza chose guns over anything else to take to the school.

And you still did not offer an alternative explanation as to why Adam Lanza chose guns over rocks to take to the school.


The comparisons I have made are valid, and on topic, whether you like the results, or not.


Only in your own head. The thread topic still reads "for the gun control people", despite your attempts to hijack it with other topics. And no one else is joining you in your arguments.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 271
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:51:16 PM

Stating a historical fact is not oversimplifying anything. It's stating a historical fact. Argue with the "How Stuff Works" and "Wikipedia" websites.


How long do you want to state, "nuh uh!" as a defense? How simple can we make this? Let's see:

1) You say guns were invented to kill.
2) "Kill" is obviously supposed to be a bad thing, though you don't make a distinction between socially acceptable deaths (including hunting), and murder.
3) You trivialize any non-lethal, or non-murder, uses of guns, despite the majority of the 200 million guns in the US being used in that manner.

Now, who is the one being stubborn? Has ignoring the complete context of how an item is used suddenly become the logical way to view things?


Only in your own head. The thread topic still reads "for the gun control people", despite your attempts to hijack it with other topics. And no one else is joining you in your arguments.


Since when has pointing out the similarity between two things (and supporting that comparison) changing the topic? What logic class did you take? Do you tell people this when you debate, "Hey, no comparisons to anything if you want to highlight a point." That'd be pretty funny.

Of course, not as funny as the "joining" comment. Seriously? Is this a popularity contest now? C'mon, human...
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 272
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 8:52:23 PM

All the denial in the world doesn't change the fact that killing isn't the same as murder

Have you been drinking? Murdering someone is identical to killing them; it's simply classified differently. Hunting animals is identical to killing animals, but another classification. Killing oneself is classified as suicide. Killing enemy combatants is classified as "war".

By the way, if foreigners were to arrive in America and start killing people, would that be war or murder? From the other country's perspective, it's justifiable killing . From American's perspective, it would not be.

Killing is killing, whether you call it murder, hunting, suicide, war, self-defense. Weapons were created for killing.

as for ...
trying to imply weapons only have socially unacceptable uses is false.

Nobody implied that; what has been suggested is that "socially acceptable uses" do not include the need for weapons that shoot off hundreds of rounds a minute.
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 273
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 9:01:41 PM

1) You say guns were invented to kill.


They were. Historical facts prove that.


2) "Kill" is obviously supposed to be a bad thing,


Well, all reasonable societies in history have had some prohibitions against killing.


Since when has pointing out the similarity between two things


Since there is no comparison. Guns were invented specifically to kill, the other items weren't. So they are a topic for another thread. This thread addresses guns.

And you STILL have not provided an alternative reason for Adam Lanza taking a cache of guns to the school intead of anything else.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 274
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 9:11:50 PM

Murdering someone is identical to killing them; it's simply classified differently.


Are you kidding me? Good lord...

Acceptable deaths (i.e. killing): hunting, cops shooting criminals, legitimate cases of self defense, war.

Grey area deaths: suicide

Unacceptable deaths: murder

Sure, the end result for all of them death, but is it really that hard to see that there is a difference in social acceptability? Seriously, argue with some credibility. If your "cause" has merit, you don't have to slap on blinders to support it.

By you saying, "guns are designed for killing" you know darn well that you're trying to imply that it's socially unacceptable deaths only. Yeah, I realize that I can't make you admit it, especially on the internet where no-one is wrong, but we both know what the truth is.


Nobody implied that; what has been suggested is that "socially acceptable uses" do not include the need for weapons that shoot off hundreds of rounds a minute.


Ah, yes you have. That's the whole point of the shock statement, "guns were designed to kill." Don't try to pretend otherwise. If you wanted to talk about what an acceptable fire rate for a weapon is, you would have stated it from the beginning.

So what is it? Give us a round per minute number.

Msg 414:
Well, all reasonable societies in history have had some prohibitions against killing.


No, they have prohibitions against murder. I know you want to pretend there isn't a difference between killing and murder, but the laws of more countries than I could dream of counting make the distinction. Deny that as you like.


Since there is no comparison. Guns were invented specifically to kill, the other items weren't. So they are a topic for another thread. This thread addresses guns.


Again, you don't get to rule out valid comparisons just because they're inconvenient to your poorly supported position. Sorry.
 TraveliciousGuy
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 275
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 9:21:17 PM

No, they have prohibitions against murder.


Which is still killing. Semantic word games don't change killing. Some countries consider the death penalty murder and some don't. Doesn't change the fact that it is still killing.


Again, you don't get to rule out valid comparisons just because they're inconvenient to your poorly supported position.


Actually, I do. Historical fact supports my position well. Guns were invented to kill, whether anyone calls it murder, war, or justifiable killing, or whatever.

And apparently you are not going to offer an alternative reason for Adam Lanza's choice of guns over any other weapon because you know there is only one reason.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 276
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 9:45:10 PM

Which is still killing. Semantic word games don't change killing. Some countries consider the death penalty murder and some don't. Doesn't change the fact that it is still killing.


Justifiable Homicide vs. Manslaughter vs. Murder is just semantics? Really, human? Try telling that to a judge, "but, but, but, they're all deaths... I should be sentenced the same no matter what the cause."

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and why your "guns were designed to kill" statement is meaningless in the full context of human society.


Actually, I do. Historical fact supports my position well.


Historical fact doesn't state anywhere that valid comparisons, supported by equally valid points, should never be used in an argument. Yet another fail...


And apparently you are not going to offer an alternative reason for Adam Lanza's choice of guns over any other weapon because you know there is only one reason.


Why should I address anything you want, when you refuse to honestly admit the obvious? You get what you give.

Oh, and stop making that guy famous by repeating his name. It's what he wanted in the first place.
 Midwest_Southwest
Joined: 9/9/2012
Msg: 277
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 10:11:22 PM

for above- google :
Harvard study- gun control is counter productive


First of all, the piece you refer to is about banning, not controlling. Second, the Kates and Mauser “Review” is not a study, nor is it peer reviewed. Kates and Mauser are gun advocates, not Harvard professors who conducted a “study.” I skimmed the actual article, not the MANY articles in pro-gun publications about the article, which incorrectly call it a “study.” If you care about real comparisons look at rates in OECD nations.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 278
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 10:19:37 PM
Ah the gun crowd is out in full force! Even the meatloaf man!

Socially acceptable guns...lol...a misnomer if ever I heard one.

@400...while amusing your "list" of reasons to own one, is highly entertaining, but does not contain one valid reason. "want to" wasn't a valid reason the last I checked. Some folks want to smoke pot, use meth or heroin, use prostitutes, and a slew of other things...that doesn't mean it's OK...some folks want to drive drunk, that doesn't make it right either...come back and try again...lol

"The first amendment doesn't give us the freedom of religion as long as it's yours"

HUH? That makes no sense at all. But hey, what else can one expect. Freedon of religion, as I've said many times, is also freedom FROM religion. That you folks believe your religion of guns, is a reason for us to accept them, is not a valid reason at all.

"The majority of Americans HAVE decided this issue"

You are correct, they rejected romney, and the gun crowd. Even a good number of member of the NRA, are willing to accept restriction on types of guns and magazines...

"if you brush up on history a lil...minor role"

So you want to argue this issue on history? GREAT!!! Then all of you should turn in any gun that isn't a musket! That's what was available when they wrote the law, that's what you should have now...since then we have invented automobiles, planes and a slew of other things...most require some type of license, and were not mentioned in the constitution.

"epic fail"

Only in your head, the majority thinks otherwise....or maybe you haven't seen the news of late....

Onto my pal, meatloaf man....

"Only if your talking moral right"

Gee, I always thought republicants were all about the morals...guess not huh? So you're against abortion, but it's ok to gun down 20, 6 or 7 year olds...who knew we could qualify morals....

"on the grounds in Israeli schools"

Gee, you mean we live in Israel? I thought you didn't give a shit about what happens in other countries? Funny how your story and views change, depending on what you want to defend...we don't have arabs here trying to kill our kids, just you guys with semi-automatic weapons who luv guns...

"I agree with what Mr. LaPierre said"

So why am I not surprised? Another funny moment...last I heard you guys were all about cutting spending. Now you want to spend another $5-7 billion on school guys with guns...money which the states don't have and the federal government would be forced to cover...

Further like I said before, the man is out of touch with reality...video games??? Really? They have those in othr countries and nobody is shooting up their schools. Besides,he hardly speaks for america, he has 4 million members NOT 100 million...not like he has any significant %.

You guys want to hide behind the constitution. That doesn't make it morally or ethically right. As rhett said, frankly, I don't give a damn....

Have you ever noticed how these gun guys are like roaches, when something bad happens they run away, like roaches when the lights go on...shine a light on the problem and they run. They never want to discuss the problem, just hide or shield their guns...
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 279
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 10:46:53 PM

So you want to argue this issue on history? GREAT!!! Then all of you should turn in any gun that isn't a musket! That's what was available when they wrote the law, that's what you should have now...since then we have invented automobiles, planes and a slew of other things...most require some type of license, and were not mentioned in the constitution.


So any free speech on the radio, TV, internet, etc. should also be restricted because that wasn't invented back then either.

Great! Now we can stop making these wannabe anti-heroes famous. I'd like to start by banning the name, personal habits, interests, beliefs, manifestos, etc. of all these clowns on any form of media newer than 1776. I think saying, "some loser that no one cared about (and his mamma never hugged enough) committed another atrocity. We'll install a toilet above his grave tomorrow." is sufficient detail for all the rubber neckers.

Hey, if it saves just one life, right?


Have you ever noticed how these gun guys are like roaches, when something bad happens they run away, like roaches when the lights go on...shine a light on the problem and they run. They never want to discuss the problem, just hide their guns...


Have you ever noticed the "we need another ban quick, never mind thinking about whether it actually would have had an effect on the issue at hand crowd" usually speaks with almost a religious fervor?

I sure have.

You're not one up. Not even close. You wanna solve a problem? Then define it. What's an acceptable fire rate, caliber, size, etc. for a weapon primarily used for sporting purposes, or self defense? If you want to propose a total ban, please explain how you will enforce it differently than the failed bans on alcohol, drugs, illegal immigration, etc. Now that's problem solving. Posturing about the evil NRA, and anyone that doesn't support an unrealistic total ban in this country is merely an attempt to prop a fragile self-esteem up by attacking a dehumanized "other". I mean, heck, I support all kinds of current "gun control" measures, and even some further ones (GASP!), but I still must be the enemy. Well, should I treat you better than you treat me?

Eh, probably not.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 280
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/21/2012 11:19:49 PM
Well now, some of what you said, I agree with!

Giving these sick human beings their 15 minutes(actually a lot more than that) of fame, is just wrong. Report the incident, give an overview and turn the page. It only encourages copy cats. But that ones on the media, adn to some degree us, as a population...we want more(or so the media thinks) so they dig and dig, trying to one up the other media guys....

"we need anothe ban quick"

No we need a ban period...some things, the gneral population does not need to buy at Walmart.

"You wanna solve a problem?"

Yes, I do. This country has to stop demonizing "mental healthcare" or viewing it in the narrow scope of a "social program" give away. We have created a society that has exacerbated some issues either in our youth, or in the general older population...that needs to be examined, not made light of, or fun of.

In addition, not everybody is a winner, or gets fame or notereity...some, no most of us, will live our lives in normal pursuits. Idealizing fame at the cost of everything else, preys on the minds of the weak. Some of them end up thinking it's better to be INfamous, if they can't be famous.

"Posturing about the evil NRA"

I posture about ALL special interest groups who lobby congress. They are not like the AARP, NAACP, or most non-profits that are trying to advance an agenda that serves all. The NRA is a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers, no different than the oil, pharma and other lobbists, who try and control legislation to benefit their sponsors...

"If you want to propose a total ban"

No I don't want to do that. Citizens have the right to bear arms, as said in the constitution. They, IMO, just don't need to have 30 round magzines, or semi-automatic weapons(rifles in particular). We need a system of back ground checks that is effective. We need to have better rules on gun sales at these shows, where someone can obtain a weapon with little to no background check at all. We need to figure out how criminals or the mentally troubled get their hands on weapons., and stop that.

We need to start having these conversations NOW...not after another 20 small children are killed. BUT, what we don't need are those who just woul rather throw up their hands and say there's no way to do anything. Or "I don't want to" because it suits their beliefs...and stomp off like petulant children...who act as though someone is trying to take their lollipop.
 JKURB
Joined: 8/28/2012
Msg: 281
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:00:50 AM

Well now, some of what you said, I agree with!


..and you'd probably agree with quite a bit of my other views too, yet these type of discussions devolve to "believer/infidel" dichotomies.

I said way back in Msg 384: "I'd go along with having a background check even between private party sales, if we also put some controls on the uncontrolled media sensationalism that only has the goal of selling advertising space." A little quid pro quo, if you will. Not to mention I also stated in Msg 388, "I think if people actually came up with an IRON-CLAD guarantee that standard bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns wouldn't be targeted for later bans if they were misused, it might go a lot further to smoothing resistance to banning semi-auto's with detachable clips for the general public."

I don't have an assault rifle, and never wanted one, yet to some I'm still a gun nut because I hunt (I live in the midwest). How should I respond to that? Honestly, I'm going to serve it right back. I'm not a nicey nice guy, and don't pretend to be.

I even stated that I think the NRA dropped the ball on their statement. Now, don't get me wrong, I also think that they were criticized for waiting a week to say something by the media ("The NRA is suspiciously silent"), when if they had released an immediate statement they would have been labeled as insensitive. The thing about lobbying groups like the NRA is that if you don't like them you have the option of donating money to the Brady Campaign, or VPC. That's equal opportunity, and I support that.

I think we need a holistic view, which, if you think about it, both the president and the NRA pretty much stated. Just focusing on evil guns and banning them is going to be as effective as our other prohibitions have proved to be. Sooooo, where does that put us?

First, stop labeling every gun owner as a gun nut. I'm not doing anything for you if you're ****ing in my Cheerios. Think about it, if you were doing something I didn't like, and I jumped in your face saying you were a worthless piece of ****, how would you react? It doesn't matter how much it might bother me, if I don't treat you as a person, you're probably going to tell me where to go, right?

Let's actually define the acceptable rate of fire, magazine size, weapon size, etc. that characterizes weapons used for socially acceptable purposes (e.g. hunting/home defense/whatever), and then DON'T SLIDE THE BAR later. Yes, people will misuse those guns eventually, but people misuse privacy laws too. Seriously, as compromised as they are post-911, we still have some privacy rights, that if we removed them would allow more crimes to be solved, or possible terror attacks to be prevented. What kind of society would we have though? Like it, or not, freedom involves risk. The willingness to define the sporting/defense rifles/shotguns that WOULD NEVER BE BANNED, addresses the worries of the people on the other side of the issue.

...or you can try to have it all, to crush your "enemies" who dare to oppose you in righteous fury. We all know how well that works, yeah?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 282
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 8:36:40 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but what I have read indicates an insufficient discussion on the Second Amendment, and its implications regarding its original intent, reasons for keeping it, unlawful (treasonous?) government evisceration of a constitution it is sworn to uphold, and the agenda behind the unlawful reintroduction of unconstitutional legislation that has already proved itself ineffective as a possible solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 283
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:19:15 AM
Let's just take a little look at the numbers...

ownership rates

United States 88.8
Switzerland 45.7
Finland 32.0
Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Canada 30.8
Austria 30.4
Germany 30.3
Iceland 30.3
New Zealand 22.6
Belgium 17.2
Luxembourg 15.3
Australia 15.0
Denmark 12.0
Italy 11.9
Spain 10.4
Ireland 8.6
Portugal 8.5
UK 6.72
Netherlands 3.9

firearm death rates

United States 9.41
Switzerland 3.5
Finland 3.64
Sweden 1.47
Norway 1.78
France 3.0
Canada 2.6
Austria 2.94
Germany 1.1
Iceland 1.25
New Zealand 1.3
Belgium 2.43
Luxembourg 1.81
Australia 1.05
Denmark 1.45
Italy 1.28
Spain 0.63
Ireland 1.03
Portugal 1.77
UK 0.25
Netherlands 0.46

Total homocide rates (all means, not just guns)

United States 4.8
Switzerland 0.7
Finland 2.2
Sweden 1.0
Norway 0.6
France 1.1
Canada 1.6
Austria 0.6
Germany 0.8
Iceland 0.3
New Zealand 0.9
Belgium 1.7
Luxembourg 2.5
Australia 1.0
Denmark 0.9
Italy 0.9
Spain 0.8
Ireland 1.2
Portugal 1.2
UK 1.2
Netherlands 1.1

Now... let's take a quick look at the statistical relationship between those numbers

ownership v. homicide
t=5.869 (significant to 99.9% confidence level)

ownership v. firearm deaths
t=5.631 (significant to 99.9% confidence level)

homicide v. firearm deaths
t=1.877 (significant to 96.3% confidence level)

The numbers clearly show a significant positive relationship between gun ownership and homicide/firearm deaths... The numbers also show a significant positive relationship between overall homicides and firearms deaths...

The data also appear to show a "floor" for homicides... meaning that they can only be suppressed so far, proving the truism that "people will always find a way to kill if they are determined enough"... The numbers also appear to make truisms of the statements that "where there are guns they will be used to kill people" and "reducing availability of guns will reduce both gun deaths and overall homicide"...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 284
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:49:23 AM

Onto my pal, meatloaf man....didn't give a shit . . . Ah the gun crowd is out in full force! Even the meatloaf man! . . . Have you ever noticed how these gun guys are like roaches


I see you want to test the forum rules again. I'm sure by now everyone here has noticed the angry, insulting tone you consistently take with any poster who dares question you. From the safety of your keyboard, you like to sling around clownish gibes that you seem to imagine are clever. When you're feeling especially sulky, you think your tantrum even entitles you to call other posters obscene names. And I'm sure they see why you do all this, like I do--it's because you realize just how weak your arguments are. If you knew more and could reason better, you wouldn't feel the need to drag every discussion into the gutter, where you evidently feel right at home.


Gee, I always thought republicants were all about the morals...guess not huh? So you're against abortion, but it's ok to gun down 20, 6 or 7 year olds...who knew we could qualify morals....


You can't answer my point, so to try hide that fact, you squawk hysterically about irrelevant things to confuse the issue. You had claimed that a majority of Americans had the right to restrict guns as much as they damn well pleased, or words to that effect. I pointed out that that's true only if by "right" you mean a moral right, because they obviously have no legal right to do what you claimed. The Second Amendment is the law, whether that pleases you or not.

Much like your statist president, you've made your disregard for this country and the constitution it's based on very clear. You don't care if a thing is constitutional or not, as long as you happen to feel it's wonderful, and you show that again here: "You guys want to hide behind the constitution. That doesn't make it morally or ethically right. As rhett said, frankly, I don't give a damn...." Luckily, courts don't give a damn which parts of the Constitution suit your fancy--if any--and which don't. They don't decide cases based on what you like, or on your personal sense of ethics--whatever that may be.

I'm not sure what a "republicant" is, but I see a whole lot of "dimocrats"--with the emphasis on "dim." I have no idea what you mean by "you're against abortion," and I doubt you do either. I have never said anywhere on these forums that I was "against abortion." In any case, this thread is not about abortion. As to gunning down little kids, no one here but you has said it's OK to do that.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 285
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:55:32 AM
Harvard Journal of law and Public Policy is peer reviewed according to Harvard Law School's website.
Vol 30 #2 pp 649-694
Kate & Mouser are criminologists, professors. Kate is a constitutional lawyer. Mouser is Canadian.
Interesting how two people can look at the same thing, yet come away with completely different ideas of fact.

The study discusses per capita murder overall, not just gun deaths.
As originally posted, this was for some believable information on the statistics, because of the huge lists of conflicting information I found. It raises an interesting point: if more guns equal more deaths and less guns equal less death, why don't the statistics on a comprehensive multi-nation study support that?

Kurb- the above post is right on.

Ov- each one of those reasons to own an assault rifle is valid. The law does reflect the majorities desire, and our rights as Americans.
You turn this to a political rant against whomever you like. Well done.
Trying to understand your point of view is just not worth any more of my time. You come up with reasons to back your points- maybe, but just coming out of left field with random political views isn't a debate. It's ridiculous.
Fact - guns are legal and you can cry around all you want. It is a free country.


The problem with banning these types of weapons- where does it stop? Take away 30 round clips and there will be none in our country. If we were forced to defend against foreign invasion, we wouldn't be able to compete. This is "progress", just like the auto and cellphone and pc. We have to keep current with the times, or risk losing.

The gun had no input into whether or not it was fired at kids or paper targets. The mental health of the db who chose to do it had all the control. Why is mental health not a bigger issue here? That is the obvious reason for these events.
Some unbalanced young man lashed out. The gun didn't do it.

That is the issue and the original post. It shows that in a country where guns are not accessible, a mentally unstable man will just get a knife, or a truck or a stick.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 286
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:04:47 AM


Let's just take a little look at the numbers...

ownership rates

United States 88.8
Switzerland 45.7
Finland 32.0
Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Canada 30.8
Austria 30.4
Germany 30.3
Iceland 30.3
New Zealand 22.6
Belgium 17.2
Luxembourg 15.3
Australia 15.0
Denmark 12.0
Italy 11.9
Spain 10.4
Ireland 8.6
Portugal 8.5
UK 6.72
Netherlands 3.9

firearm death rates

United States 9.41
Switzerland 3.5
Finland 3.64
Sweden 1.47
Norway 1.78
France 3.0
Canada 2.6
Austria 2.94
Germany 1.1
Iceland 1.25
New Zealand 1.3
Belgium 2.43
Luxembourg 1.81
Australia 1.05
Denmark 1.45
Italy 1.28
Spain 0.63
Ireland 1.03
Portugal 1.77
UK 0.25
Netherlands 0.46

Total homocide rates (all means, not just guns)

United States 4.8
Switzerland 0.7
Finland 2.2
Sweden 1.0
Norway 0.6
France 1.1
Canada 1.6
Austria 0.6
Germany 0.8
Iceland 0.3
New Zealand 0.9
Belgium 1.7
Luxembourg 2.5
Australia 1.0
Denmark 0.9
Italy 0.9
Spain 0.8
Ireland 1.2
Portugal 1.2
UK 1.2
Netherlands 1.1

Now... let's take a quick look at the statistical relationship between those numbers

ownership v. homicide
t=5.869 (significant to 99.9% confidence level)

ownership v. firearm deaths
t=5.631 (significant to 99.9% confidence level)

homicide v. firearm deaths
t=1.877 (significant to 96.3% confidence level)

The numbers clearly show a significant positive relationship between gun ownership and homicide/firearm deaths... The numbers also show a significant positive relationship between overall homicides and firearms deaths...

The data also appear to show a "floor" for homicides... meaning that they can only be suppressed so far, proving the truism that "people will always find a way to kill if they are determined enough"... The numbers also appear to make truisms of the statements that "where there are guns they will be used to kill people" and "reducing availability of guns will reduce both gun deaths and overall homicide"...


There is an anomaly in the data you provide that should be investigated, as to why it seems to defy the apparent correlation between gun ownership and homicide/firearm deaths and between overall homicides and firearms deaths, that indicates other, much more significant and unmentioned variables must play a crucial role before making any conclusions from the presented data.

Try looking into why Switzerland is such a statistical anomaly. The possible reasons for the anomaly may suggest more sane legislation and the possible reasoning of the founding fathers in making the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 287
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:29:44 AM
The study discusses per capita murder overall, not just gun deaths.

And the numbers I posted include BOTH homicide (all means) AND gun deaths... There is a statistically significant relationship for both...

These comparisons are controlled for economic status (average wage, median income), judicial/police corruption (by corruption index measures) and social/political/cultural stability...

Harvard Journal of law and Public Policy is peer reviewed according to Harvard Law School's website.
Vol 30 #2 pp 649-694
Kate & Mouser are criminologists, professors. Kate is a constitutional lawyer. Mouser is Canadian.
Interesting how two people can look at the same thing, yet come away with completely different ideas of fact.

That does not mean their paper isn't flawed...

Problems with the study:
1. Bias... They use 'loaded' language throughout the article, e.g...

INTRODUCTION
International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.
....
CONCLUSION

Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra


2. Improperly/poorly controlled... They compare the US and Western Europe with nations experience significant, nation/politics/culture-altering disruption/upheaval (such as radical alterations to governance models and social structures, revolution, etc.)... These are conditions which are KNOWN to create increases in crime/homicide regardless of firearm availability, in short, they are 'stacking the deck'...They also fail to control for economic status (also KNOWN to cause increases in crime/homicide... Their conclusions/analysis disappears in a puff of smoke when these factors are controlled for...

3. Absolutely NO statistical analysis... They make no proper or rigorous statistical analysis of the data provided... There are no correlations or statistical relationships calculated in their paper...

4. Their model assumes that a 1:1 relationship between gun ownership and homicide is the only relevant measure and that lack of a 1:1 relationship invalidates opposing arguments...

In short, it is nothing more than a deeply flawed op/ed piece... It is nothing like a rigorous comparison with proper controls included...

There is an anomaly in the data you provide that should be investigated, as to why it seems to defy the apparent correlation between gun ownership and homicide/firearm deaths and between overall homicides and firearms deaths, that indicates other, much more significant and unmentioned variables must play a crucial role before making any conclusions from the presented data.

Try looking into why Switzerland is such a statistical anomaly. The possible reasons for the anomaly may suggest more sane legislation and the possible reasoning of the founding fathers in making the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

First off... there is no "anomaly" in the sense you are implying... what you are calling an "anomaly" is a data outlier on one measure (actually, there are different statistical outliers in all the numbers)... Data outliers are NORMAL and EXPECTED (you should be suspicious if there are no outliers in the data)... And to be perfectly honest, it isn't really an "anomaly", Switzerland's ten year average falls fully within one standard deviation of average homicide rates in Europe, meaning it isn't a significant outlier...

Even more to the point... Removing the statistic you call an "anomaly" does nothing to eliminate the overall significance of the measures, the significance of the results remains... if you don't believe me then test the numbers yourself but simply saying it doesn't make it true, you have to prove it...

But please, do tell us why you think Switzerland is an anomaly...

Why is it that people who don't really understand statistics think that objecting to one number invalidates the entire connection (or, if it fits, why do people who do understand statistics think they can pull this obfuscation and get away with it)...?
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 288
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 11:01:36 AM
Time to tax assault rifles.
It is legal.
and constitutional.

I recommend 1,000,000 per rifle.
:-)
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 289
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 11:14:33 AM
"each one of those reasons to own an assualt rifle is valid"

Hahahaha! Not really, those are desires, what you want to do with them, not reasons!

"The law does reflect the majorities desire, and our rights as Americans"

No, the law was written 236 years ago. It has not been updated or modified since then, to reflect the change in firing rate, or the state of our growing population.

"where does it stop?"

Stop acting like this only affects you, and think. Most people don't want to impede those who want their right to own a gun. They want to feel safe, be safe where most people should be safe, schools, malls, and any place where people gather. You can own all the guns you want, you just don't need to able to fire 100 bullets a minute.

"Take away 30 roud clips and there will be none in our country"

Obviously wrong. They will be in the hands of law enforcement and the military, where they belong. Not in the hands of civilians, or criminals, or the mentally ill.

"If we were forced to defend against foreign invasion"

Oh I see, you're going to hold off the communist chinese horde!! lol We are spending hundreds of billions on the military. "They" are supposed to "defend against foreign invasion"! Beyond which, we have radar, missiles, subs, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for that... As I said earlier, if you took these weapons off the street, you'd still have 299 million guns to defend against "the invasion"...

"This is "progress", just like the auto and cellphone and pc"

Yes, but even with progress, we change and modify the laws that govern those things. You have had changing speed limits, stop signs, registrations, insurance for cars. Even given that, autos,cellphones, pc's don't kill people, guns were designed to kill people!

"Why is mental health not a bigger issue here?"

Agreed, why isn't it? Why did you guys support romney, who wants to trim spending on all social spending. Many mental health programs would have been cut had he been elected. Funny 2 months ago, you conservatives, were all about cutting spending on social programs, the dept of education...NOW you want to spend an additional $5-6 BILLION on arming people in schools.

You guys talk about 'responsible gun ownership', well the mother of the shooter was supposedly a 'responsible gun owner'...she took her mentally ill son, and boosted his confidence by taking him and teaching him about shooting these weapons...in hindsight, not so responsible.

Not all people who own guns are bad. At the same time, not all are good.

"The gun didn't do it"

The "gun", gave him the ability to inflict maximum harm. The problem is always the same one. You guys want to make a specious argument, like the rope didn't lynch the guy, the people did. But unlike the rope, the knife, the wrench or even the car...they wern't designed to kill people, they can used for that, but not their intended purpose. Even with a car going 60 miles an hour, you have a chance to jump out of the way. Not so with a bullet!

As for another posters contention about violent video games. They have them in other countries, and they don't have the number of mass killings we have. So another deflective argument, that the brainstormers at the NRA, is debunked...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 290
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 11:14:59 AM
The study discusses per capita murder overall, not just gun deaths.

One additional note on how they "stacked the deck"... The homicide numbers they used ALL came from the mid-'90's, the period during which their Eastern Europe comparators were experienceing their greatest levels of social/cultural/political disruption, the peak of their most chaotic state...
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 291
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:35:13 PM
um, lily, we are a democratic republic... ok, the romans were a democracy, meaning mob rule, kind of like bowing to a queen. the feds may trump the states, but the states still make their own laws regardless...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED