Guns,guns, and more Guns

[D_W]

And the irony is, the gun loons stormed, (or in their apologists view 'walked quietly and peacefully to'), the seat of government the moment the government actually upheld democracy

Except none used guns and now the supposed death of a capitol officer has been quietly changed to natural causes as officer sicknick had either a stroke or blood clots.

So, all of the non natural cause deaths have been protesters, including an unarmed woman who was shot for no reason.

It's interesting how as time has gone on, all of the news stories about the "riot" have matched what the only person who was there said on an internet forum the next day. I recall hearing the officer sicknicks parents said something like him having health problems and not jumping to the conclusion that he was killed by a fight and then details got really fuzzy.

The whole occupation idea was stupid, but the false reporting about what actually went on and what the intent of the occupiers was was doubly stupid and could be gotten more people killed with follow-up violence, and the whole officer sicknick thing was a lie.

Just like the initial stories were about the woman who was shot for no reason, claiming that she was armed, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

 

[D_W]

I've had it out with the election theft people, by the way, too. You can't complain about an election being stolen from you if you actually lost, and you can't claim it was stolen if you can't actually prove it in court. But the intentions of the group matched the first hand account from the person I know to be an honest person, and the nonsense that followed about violent armed protests around the country predictably never amounted to anything, and never was going to in the first place. The truth is too boring for people sometimes, but stirring the pot can cause people to get killed later due to misguided anger or fear. The assertions of a government about to be taken over on this board were pure fantasy, and everyone who could gain here from that fantasy went into "never let a crisis go to waste".

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm not that interested in demanding in the US that they are taken from everyone else, no matter how much of a fascination people in other countries have.

Nobody is demanding anything.

I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths

So you are either content thousands of people are killed by guns every year and you want the status quo to continue.
Or you would like the killing to stop and accept the only way is stopping gun ownership.


I personally think it's sad that every year thousands of Americans die unnecessarily from guns.

 

[RobinBHM]

They are protection against criminals

Guns are not protection against criminals.

 

[Amateur]

I once had an intruder in my home.
She got in bed with me and never left.

 

[D_W]

Nobody is demanding anything.

I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths

So you are either content thousands of people are killed by guns every year and you want the status quo to continue.
Or you would like the killing to stop and accept the only way is stopping gun ownership.


I personally think it's sad that every year thousands of Americans die unnecessarily from guns.

I think it's sad that they die unnecessarily from alcohol consumption, too. We've been down this road. I appreciate the rights we have here, even though I'm not making use of all of them.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7#115
I looked a little bit to see what the counts are of defensive (as in defense against crimes). Depending on how you count defensive use (determining whether the gun is the definitive stopper of the crime, or it's just present), it appears that the estimates vary widely between 100k per year in the US and 2.5MM.

It's a false dilemma to say "you lose X lives to prevent X crimes" because the person using a gun defensively is unlikely to be a murderer.

If you, as an individual, want to talk about avoiding gun crime in the US, we've been down that road - if you want to really do it, it's not hard. Avoiding an area that has any guns at all, that'll be a lot tougher. I would have to guess that in the 800k or so of populated areas in my county with zero murders this year, there are probably at least 1 million guns.

If you were actually going to do something in the US to reduce gun crime, you'd have to start where it's concentrated. Guess where people aren't very receptive to police.

If you're angling toward getting an agreement that this is a single issue type thing and I'll eventually see something that you think you do and I don't? Not happening. I had but one complaint - that the bump stock wasn't considered class III (an automatic weapon), but Trump threw a fit about it to the ATF and they moved it. I have no idea why Obama wasn't able to make a dent in that. I don't even think the bump stock should be illegal, but I think people who want one ought to be class III holders. Why? Because class III holders are under regular audit and a lot of personal scrutiny (that is the license that allows you to be a gun dealer, ship pistols by mail or receive guns by mail).

 

[Amateur]

We aren't gunless in the UK by any means.
Although I don't own a shotgun I can understand people taking to clay pigeon shooting after an introductory session down at Bisley.
Wild foul shooting was a big thing in my area back in the 50s, with people turning up at our local butchers home with a variety of birds requiring plucking and dressing....but back then that's what fed the family.
After a quick internet search it's showing more than a million shotgun owners in the Uk....but equally hand guns must be out there owned by people who go to gun clubs, drug dealers etc
Maybe some one can put a number to these owners.
The problem we face is that the more guns are used in crime, the more acceptable to the young they become.
Knife crime and stabbings in the UK seems to be widely common. Given time it will become the norm if to some groups it isn't already.
But then the way society is going in the UK cities, hand gun crime could become as bad as the US.
Maybe the adage that the UK follows what happens in the US is true? Let's just hope it's not.

 

[Amateur]

It's also an impossible task to do away with guns in the US.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.

The constitution specifically notes that, eventually, every government ceases to act on behalf of its population, and needs to be taken in hand. This is the sole reason for having an armed population. A logical idea at the time - a revolutionary government that feared becoming what it had just fought to free itself from. If you could guarantee that no government will ever become tyrannical ever again, I could agree with your suggestion that guns are simply unnecessary.

1. there are thousands of people killed every year in America because of guns
2. if civilians were not allowed to have guns, or the controls were very very strict, those deaths would reduce to almost zero

May I suggest that thousands are killed by guns, but not because of guns. The reasons for the thousands of murders are mostly because of drugs, and the prohibition which is failing so spectacularly.

To my mind, the guns are a sympom, and their removal not the solution. The solution is to find ways to stop the inner city drug gang culture and urban deprivation derived lawlessness. The enormous disparity between poor and everyone else, and the lack of ways out of poverty, means that the most viable way for the average "young urban male" to get ahead is guns and drugs. The UK has the same urban deprivation, and the same problem with gang killings (not on the same colossal scale admitedly), but guns are hard to come by, so they use knives instead. Dead is dead - which tool used to get there is less important.

https://extranosalley.com/percentage-of-gang-related-homicides-in-the-united-states/

For various reasons the total number of gang related homicides appears to be about 11,500; while the total for the rest of us is about 3,000. Essentially, then; the percentage of gang related homicides in the United States is about 74 percent – and rising as the number of murders among the general population declines.

For those of an analytical turn of mind, that means the homicide rate among law abiding Americans is about 1.0 to 1.1 per 100,000 population.

 

[Lons]

so they use knives instead. Dead is dead - which tool used to get there is less important.

Agreed TN but there is a slight difference, with a gun you can kill from distance and multiple times, with a knife you have to get up close and personal and are far less likely to kill in numbers.. A person can run away from a knife and probably dodge it even if thrown, run from a gunman and it's more than likely you'll get shot in the back

 

[RobinBHM]

If you're angling toward getting an agreement that this is a single issue type thing and I'll eventually see something that you think you do and I don't? Not happening. I had but one complaint

I am not suggesting deaths from gun violence is a simple issue.

What I am saying is there is a simple relationship between lax gun ownership and the number of deaths due to gun violence.

“When researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the U.S. is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers."




Do you agree that Americas high levels of gun ownership is a direct cause of Americas high level of gun violence?

 

[RobinBHM]

We've been down this road. I appreciate the rights we have here

I guess it is reasonable to say you believe the right to bear arms is worth more than 15,000 deaths a year due to gun violence.

 

[D_W]

I guess it is reasonable to say you believe the right to bear arms is worth more than 15,000 deaths a year due to gun violence.

I believe that if it's a priority to reduce those deaths, you can do so without eliminating the right to bear arms. Cooperating with law enforcement as a community in bad areas would be a giant first step.

I also believe that you tend to see things black or white, and that's it. Like your statement that guns are never used as a crime deterrent. It's disprovable. I think you have difficulty instead making the statement that "they are used as a criminal deterrent, but I don't think it outweighs the overall cost to society". That would be a far more reasonable statement. To even come up with the idea that some natural law prevents a hundred million owners from ever using one in defense is very odd. Or even using thousands of them. It's sort of like the statement that they're not used to stop a mass shooting. There are ten documented instances where they are. I think that's not many out of a little over 300, but "not" and "rarely" are vastly different. If you're interested in accuracy, which is generally tied to truth, it's important to be as precise as you can be, or people will see you not as "the guy who has information that we may find interesting or illuminating" and more as "the guy who has a conclusion and exaggerates and won't stop until everyone tells him they agree with him". People who nod or weakly say they agree with you just to get you to stop usually don't actually agree with you. They just value you finding a different rail spur to ride down.

I do. If you don't like my conclusion, that's OK. This isn't a clique.

 

[D_W]

I am not suggesting deaths from gun violence is a simple issue.

What I am saying is there is a simple relationship between lax gun ownership and the number of deaths due to gun violence.

“When researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the U.S. is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers."




Do you agree that Americas high levels of gun ownership is a direct cause of Americas high level of gun violence?

See my map again about crime. I believe in areas where people like to solve things by shooting each other, levels of gun ownership contribute. I also believe they have little or no effect in other areas. Where they don't, I'm uninterested in "solving a problem" by addressing something that's not the problem itself.

Do you think many of the guns used in the donut around Pittsburgh ever originated as stolen guns from people outside the donut? I doubt it. Do you think there's a problem with straw purchasers in the donut, or guns stolen from other donut residents - I think so. What do you need to do to address it? You either need to remove guns from the donut (which would be hard to do given that folks in the donut tend to not trust law enforcement, at least not the ones most likely to be nearby when crimes occur), or you need to get people in the donut to value lack of gun violence more than they do avoiding reporting things to police.

 

[RobinBHM]

Like your statement that guns are never used as a crime deterrent. It's disprovable

I am not sure I have ever said that.

I did say that guns ownership is no protection against mass shootings

And I refuted your claim that guns are a protection against criminals.

and it is easy to prove: America has far more guns and not lower crime.

After gun laws were tightened in UK after Dunblane or after Port Arthur in Australia gun deaths went down and crime did not go up.

 

[RobinBHM]

Or even using thousands of them. It's sort of like the statement that they're not used to stop a mass shooting. There are ten documented instances where they are. I think that's not many out of a little over 300, but "not" and "rarely" are vastly different

So you are effectively agreeing with me: guns are no protection against mass shootings.

Using semantics because I should have said added the statement "in rare instances", isnt a strong counter argument.

 

[D_W]

Guns are not protection against criminals.

this statement isn't proved by saying that america has more guns and not lower crime. That's a different statement than a flat statement that guns aren't protection against criminals, which would be perceived as "if you have a gun, you won't use it to protect yourself against crime".

The latter is wrong, even if it's more likely that you'll find your own end with it than end things for someone else. The false part about your extrapolation of the statement is that implied is the idea that you can just paint a new picture where nobody has guns. You can't paint that picture. My comment is more realistic - move to a place where gun crime isn't a problem. It doesn't tend to migrate very quickly here, so you're unlikely to have to move again, but if you do once in your lifetime and don't consider that reasonable, I don't know what to do for you. DUI was a bigger problem when I was a kid. We stayed off of the roads on friday and saturday nights in rural areas if possible because it wasn't so much that death rates were that high, but rather that it was very common for people to drive drunk and get home and not cause any issues. It was better to stay out of their way. A cousin's best friend wasn't as lucky - she got killed. When? late friday night.

Own your statements or be more precise about them. It seems intentional. I will own mine - there would be a long lag before there would be a reduction in gun crime if you seized all legal guns. If you want to address crime, the first thing you would need to do in the US is get people in the communities where it's rampant to help in addressing it rather than viewing it as unsolvable in combination with the police being a threat.

Last year, suicides were about 10 times as high as non-criminal shooting. that seems more imminent to me because it seems to be more preventable, but other than some increased awareness lately, it doesn't seem to be that big of a priority. If it could be figured out, I'd have one more relative, and his two sons would still have a father. They are permanently affected as both were college material and rapidly went to amounting to nothing (I hate to say that about them, but the event ruined them permanently and in their mid 40s, they still live with their mother and struggle to hold a job).

 

[clogs]

as for the UK n guns etc.....
those individuals that make the headlines are usually not working other than selling drugs and other low life JOB oppertunities.......
anyone carrying a knife or gun should automaticaly get membership of the armed forces......
10 years for a knife and double for a gun......no options.....
plus the bonus of being first in line when Putins mob appear over the cliffs of Dover or wherever.....
then they can show us how brave they really are......
all that is needed is vid / photo graphic evidence of carrying...no court time is needed....
all property owned by said individuals should be confiscated and sold......give it to the NHS etc....

Personally I think that anyone inside my house univited and trying to rob me....I should have the right to shoot /stab or otherwise maim....
these people will only learn to stay on the right side of the law with a heavy deterrant....
those that don't learn will gradually disapear anyway thru drug misuse or turf wars etc.....
we have to stop pussy cat footing around in catering for their human rights.....
carry weapons means u loose that right.....u become cannon fodder.....
Further
I am from lowley educated but honest family......getting an education and making a carreer was not easy but doable.....
You can't get everything given to u just because ur from a broken home....
It should be if you dont work you dont eat..........thats how I was brought up.....
nuff said......hahaha.....

 

[RobinBHM]

I also believe that you tend to see things black or white, and that's it.

No that is untrue.

what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:

If America had no guns, there wouldn't be 15,000 gun deaths a year

Unless that fact can be accepted as the starting position, there can be no honest debate.

 

[D_W]

So you are effectively agreeing with me: guns are no protection against mass shootings.

Using semantics because I should have said added the statement "in rare instances", isnt a strong counter argument.

Something like 90 mass shootings have been halted by guns (most by police, ten by bystanders). Not sure how many of the 310 ended because the perp was done. The accurate statement would be "if guns weren't accessible, there would be fewer mass shootings and that would likely result in a bigger death reduction than those saved by the 10 bystanders shooting a mass shooter".

That's reality. Your conclusion is "then we should eliminate them all right now". That's not my conclusion, but if a legal process was undertaken in the US where the constitutional right was overturned, then I'd be fine with it. We're a society, we have laws. I don't cater to people who think their wants are more important than the overall will of society.

This is sort of like the election theft folks or the now popular group of opposing folks who think a Trump Army is going to rise up and take over the government and that they're just in the planning phase. We make changes here via legislation - follow the procedures and exclude me from constant desire to make change outside of the legal means already available. Not interested.

(I had to flee a Trump Army theorist at Easter several times, and there's a person in my neighborhood who I have to avoid also because they have an unreasonable fear that they'll be shot and they constantly badger people about how it should be more important to anyone. You saw the same map that I posted - there is no reasonable fear that anyone in the neighborhood will be shot, but it doesn't stop people. I encouraged them to start a legal process and please leave me out of it because it's divisive).