The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Risottia]

I dunno... I like the sign, but hate the fact that it's singling out one home.

If I were the pro-gun control neighbour, I'd sue this jerk for incitation to theft and for violation of my privacy.

[Nobel Hobos]

still if they ban guns they ain't taking mine who ever likes the ban on guns is just a retarded asshole that is all

Probably a good idea to read the site rules before posting further. Just a suggestion, because posts like this one will get you into trouble.

Where you thinking "promotion of crime", or "flame-baiting" ?

[Nobel Hobos]

For that matter, why ban marijuana? Marijuana doesn't make people kill people. Ask a cop the last time he's been assaulted by a guy high on pot AND NOTHING ELSE. Then ask him when's the last time he's been assaulted by a drunkard.

Well, yes. Alcohol is worse in that respect. Pot does diminish driving ability and should be treated like alcohol. A legal threshold for all, despite not everyone being equally impaired by the same blood-level of the active ingredient.

And you know? When it says on the packet of legal meds "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery" it's the same thing. Perhaps we should even look at tests for fatigue or lack of sleep, and ban driving while impaired by those factors too (I'm serious).

The "legalize drugs" hijack always comes up in threads about the methods of law enforcement. Shall we consider it mooted, and move on ?

[Nobel Hobos]

I dunno... I like the sign, but hate the fact that it's singling out one home.

If I were the pro-gun control neighbour, I'd sue this jerk for incitation to theft and for violation of my privacy.

I'd take it to the council. There must be some local ordinance against jpeg artifacts being within public view.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, everything is more complicated than that; it's just a summary.
...

Did you respond to this post, yet?

viewtopic.php?p=1832775#p1832775

[Grave_n_idle]

Hey, ignore the facts, stay in your little bubble. Unlike you, I have actually responded to your arguments; you've just ignored mine.

Jocabia actually posted the 'facts' you're claiming he ignores. A fair number of pages back into the thread - it stirred up quite some debate.

The statistics basically show that - if you own a gun, you're more likely to kill or hurt someone in your own household (accidentally, or deliberately) or have someone else in your household hurt themselves or another (accidentally or deliberately) - than fire it at someone in defence.

[Jocabia]

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=SdPc46RcL52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=5&age2=9&agetext=5-9&category=UNI&_debug=0

For ages 5-9, firearms were involved in 2.7% of accidental deaths. That’s 876.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 10-14, firearms were involved in 7.0% of accidental deaths. That’s 2,591.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 16-24, firearms were involved in 2.8% or 8,649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 25-34, firearms were involved in 1.8% or 4,892 deaths.

It falls off the top ten list right about the time age and disease enter the picture as major concerns, which is not likely to be a coincidence.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

However, from 5-65, firearms is still a top 10 cause of accidental death at 2.1% or 23,560. As you can see above, it’s a much higher risk to children and young people (7,250 from 5-18).

During that same time for 5-19, there were 30,543 Firearm deaths due to violence.

According to the FBI, 2/3 of the victims of gun violence are criminals. I think it’s fair to assume this most often applies to people who are slightly older but it should be considered.

There were 18,149 suicides using firearms for the same age group.

In case you’re doing the math, that means if you purchase a gun to defend your family, it’s far more likely that your children will either be accidentally killed with that weapon or that they will use it in a suicide than it is that you will even have the opportunity to use it in defense against another firearm.

http://www.domesticviolencetips.com/index.php/4

Note that only about 20% of murders that are not by family members occur within the home.

About 6 in 10 spousal murders use firearms. About 16% of homicides were spousal homicides (I’m including boyfriend/girlfriend here).
In other words, about 10% of all murders are against a significant other and most occur in the home. Most other murders occur outside the home. As such, a very strong argument can be made that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that a gun will be used within the home for anything but injuring another family member.

Keep in mind, these are deaths not injuries. It’s fair to assume that violent use of guns has a higher percentage of deaths than accidental use simply by addressing that one has purpose and is aimed and one is accidental. Anyone who would like to is welcome to prove me right or wrong on that by looking it up, but it wasn’t my purpose.

If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

As for where criminals get guns, it is mostly believed that those guns were acquired from legal sources. That means they either came from licensed dealers or were stolen from legal gun owners (according to this article about 10 to 15% of illegal gun use is done with stolen guns).

I don’t have a direct conclusion, but it’s pretty clear that people who advocate for gun usage aren’t actually addressing a lot of the issues. Most criminals acquire guns through legal dealers and owners. It’s very reasonable to suspect that limiting the legal dealers and owners would also decrease access to guns. Comparing US cities isn’t a valid test since there is nothing stopping the transport of weapons from one city to another. It’s not as if US cities have customs checking for imports from other cities.

It is questionable, however, how much that would limit gun violence much like drug control hasn’t limited cocaine usage. In fact, I would argue that expense of drugs is responsible for the rise in crime. We made criminal drug activity very, very profitable. Gun control done similarly improperly would just as thoroughly make illegal gun activity more profitable.

In other words, those who advocate gun control also don’t address a lot of the issues. The most important of these is whether or not the steps most propose actually accomplish anything.

Since my statistics and analysis are "flawed", I expect you'll be able to walk through this post and tell me precisely what is wrong with it. I'll wait.

Also, how ya coming on that economic model where theives don't pay for housing?

[Big Jim P]

The best argument against gun control is that it disarms the law abiding while doing little to prevent criminals from possessing firearms and nothing to deter the criminals use of said firearm.

[Jocabia]

The best argument against gun control is that it disarms the law abiding while doing little to prevent criminals from possessing firearms and nothing to deter the criminals use of said firearm.

Which would be an awesome argument if not for where most criminals get their guns. Hint: It's not from smugglers.

It would also be a great argument if guns in the hands of civilians demonstrably saved lives. It doesn't do that either, as I show above.

EDIT: It is an argument for proper gun control. Clearly current methods aren't effective since about 85% of guns are legal guns that ended up in criminal hands. That should be the focus of gun control and anyone who actually cares out gun rights should promote reasonable gun control that actually will be more effective at keeping their guns out of the hands of criminals. That is the best way to actually protect your rights. That and agreeing to laws that actually help prevent accidental discharges. Absent the large amount of gun crimes and gun accidents, there is very little argument against allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and carry guns. Frequently, however, there are citizens like JJ expresses himself to be, who think that any effort to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals is tyranny and it's absurd that you'd be required to safely store you gun to prevent theft and/or accidental death. At some point, gun owners are going to have to choose. They can align themselves with anyone that will vote their way or they can fight for what they know is reasonable regulation aimed at keeping gun ownership safe. Aligning yourself with the extremists is a bit like parents aligning themselves with pedophiles because both groups want a closer eye kept on children.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

>snip<

You want world peace?
Build a bigger gun for your police-state.

What could be more horrible than world peace enforced by a 1971 Super-Computer ? One which (0:30s to 0:45s) thinks that Africa is a country ?

What, I ask you, could be more scary than that ?

"Socialist Purges"

[Gun Manufacturers]

there may be logical arguments against banning possession of fire arms.
(and i'm not convinced i've heard one yet)
but there are none against banning totally their mass production.

You've got your daddy's old gun, haven't you, you bad hippy !

You don't like those young punks with their cheap plastic guns, but you want a grandfather clause for your old banger ?

This is only a guess.

On the subject of plastic guns, all 3 of mine have plastic in them. None of them were cheap though (my Ruger Mk II 22/45 was the least expensive, though).

[Hurtful Thoughts]

On the subject of grand-daddy clauses, those are usually circumvented via gun "buy-back" programs, or any instance where FEMA and martial-law can be used in the same sentance.

This even includes hunting-guns and antique firearms.

Guns, at best, are damage-control. By ending a conflict abruptly via mortally wounding the offending meatbag. Proper recognition and respect of this tool resaults in a sort of deterant.

In short, it is ridiculuosly easy for someone to invent a reason to confiscate all your weapons and detain you w/o evidence for up to 24 hours, during which time it is possable for an anxious officer to 'dec-activate' all your firearms by splitting the chambler, welding the firing-pin, and smashing the trigger-group (which takes all of 45 seconds and may be done in your presence).
_______________

As for "the Colossus thinks Africa iz country", it merely says "new-targets", and I don't think SSBN-27 or Copenhagen (Denmark's Capitol) are countries either.

[Krazniastan]

The statistics basically show that - if you own a gun, you're more likely to kill or hurt someone in your own household (accidentally, or deliberately) or have someone else in your household hurt themselves or another (accidentally or deliberately) - than fire it at someone in defence.

I've owned guns my entire life. Many firearms, of pretty much every type, style, legal classification, age, caliber, and method of operation.

I've still alive. So are all the people who have lived in the same home. The only time I've ever been hurt by one is from something stupid, such as Garand Thumb.

All those who want to ban guns because they kill miss one important thing.

I can take any one of my firearms. Load it. Chamber a round. Disengage all safteys. Lay it down on a table. And KNOW that it will NOT fire. I can place a knife on the table next to it, and lastly place a baseball bat on the table.

All 3 of these items, sitting on the table, are all equally non-lethal. They are nothing more than tools.

They only become lethal, as does any tool or utensil, when they are used improperly. Many things, if misused, are equally capable of killing. Yet I don't hear people clamoring to ban cars, or bats, or knives. (Outside of Britian of course. . . )

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

Guns are tools. Humans are the weapons. Humans decide to use or misuse tools. Banning a tool will do nothing to correct the underlying problem, which is that HUMANS will continue to decide to cause harm or death to their fellow man. We've been killing each other since the dawn of time, in countless ways. Attempting to ban one method is not going to change that, no matter how civilized you pretend we are.

[Krazniastan]

In short, it is ridiculuosly easy for someone to invent a reason to confiscate all your weapons and detain you w/o evidence for up to 24 hours, during which time it is possable for an anxious officer to 'dec-activate' all your firearms by splitting the chambler, welding the firing-pin, and smashing the trigger-group (which takes all of 45 seconds and may be done in your presence).

In my neck of the woods, were that to happen to me, I'd return the favor the next time they brought their weapons in to be repaired, troubleshot, or upgraded.

[Jocabia]

I've owned guns my entire life. Many firearms, of pretty much every type, style, legal classification, age, caliber, and method of operation.

I've still alive. So are all the people who have lived in the same home. The only time I've ever been hurt by one is from something stupid, such as Garand Thumb.

My dad has been smoking since he was 13. He has no smoking related illnesses. That totally negates the statistics on smoking and how it affects the body.

Or maybe I understand how statistics work.

[Krazniastan]

I've owned guns my entire life. Many firearms, of pretty much every type, style, legal classification, age, caliber, and method of operation.

I've still alive. So are all the people who have lived in the same home. The only time I've ever been hurt by one is from something stupid, such as Garand Thumb.

My dad has been smoking since he was 13. He has no smoking related illnesses. That totally negates the statistics on smoking and how it affects the body.

Or maybe I understand how statistics work.

No, you don't.

You have posted that owning firearms, or having them in the home increases the RISK of death, injury, or whatever. Risk isn't really statistics, its more probability.

Meaning every time you do something, there is a chance of a problem. But as I have stated, I've never had a problem when according to the numbers, I should be dead, maimed, or in jail. But I'm not. Now, I could be an outlying data point, but almost everyone I shoot with haven't had a problem either. Now, either we're all outliers in a dataset of several orders of magnitude larger than the entire human population, (Assuming normal distribution.) or you're dealing with a biased dataset.

I'm going to go with a biased dataset for $1000, Alex. . . .

[Jocabia]

I've owned guns my entire life. Many firearms, of pretty much every type, style, legal classification, age, caliber, and method of operation.

I've still alive. So are all the people who have lived in the same home. The only time I've ever been hurt by one is from something stupid, such as Garand Thumb.

My dad has been smoking since he was 13. He has no smoking related illnesses. That totally negates the statistics on smoking and how it affects the body.

Or maybe I understand how statistics work.

No, you don't.

You have posted that owning firearms, or having them in the home increases the RISK of death, injury, or whatever. Risk isn't really statistics, its more probability.

Meaning every time you do something, there is a chance of a problem. But as I have stated, I've never had a problem when according to the numbers, I should be dead, maimed, or in jail. But I'm not. Now, I could be an outlying data point, but almost everyone I shoot with haven't had a problem either. Now, either we're all outliers in a dataset of several orders of magnitude larger than the entire human population, (Assuming normal distribution.) or you're dealing with a biased dataset.

I'm going to go with a biased dataset for $1000, Alex. . . .

That would only be relevant if it meant that the risk to an individual was so significant that it would eventually hit everyone. That's why smoking is a good comparison.

Even if I could cite twenty people I know that have never had a smoking related illness and are nearly 100 years old, it wouldn't negate the statistical probability of a problem.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Can you guess the reason? Biased dataset, that's right. You're trying to use your tiny and not even remotely random dataset to negate the statistics for the entire US.

There is also a probability you'll be murdered every time you're at home. You're at home every day. How many of your family members have been murdered? By similar numbers you should be murdered by now? Must not be a murder problem, eh? Or, once again, you don't understand statistics.

And in case you need a little clarification. Even with a 1 in 2 chance like flipping a coin, there is no guarantee you'll ever get a heads. It's probable you get a heads, but no matter how many times you get tails in a row, that doesn't change the statistical probability that the next time you flip it will be heads on average 1 in 2 times.

[Demented Tigers]

just think u take away guns ur taking away something the Hunters Use and also this is a free country any law that will support gun control is unconstitutional

Not really, just people have to have access to weapons. And proper weapons, not swords.

So... a sword is not a proper weapon? nice to know that since, I believe, a ban on knives was being looked at in the UK a couple of years ago...

there are certain regulations on knives in the UK

[Jocabia]

For another example, let's say the odds that you'll murder your wife or a shooting accident will occur is a ridiculously high 10% a year.

That would mean each year you'd have 90% probablity of no bad outcome. That means that your probability of an accident after 20 years is high, but there is still a 12% chance nothing will happen. Even after 40 years, you'd still have lots of people who nothing happened to (about 15 in 1000). That's with grossly exaggerated statistics.

Your premise is silly to anyone with even a passing understanding of statistics.

[Caninope]

No, no, they don't. In fact, I proved rather clearly through statistics that are far, far more likely to do the opposite, even if you are only counting people you care about.

Can you prove that guns are used in more than 2.5 million accidents?

Guns kill people.

I'm calling BS. A gun doesn't kill you, it's the person pulling the trigger.

Border patrols are effective enough that 85% of illegal gun activity are with guns originally acquired legally in the US.

And where might we find that information?

[Jocabia]

Also, for those who keep saying that crime has gone up since the UK made laws against guns, it was temporary.

The UK has less violent crime than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r ... per-capita

The crazy bit is that England even has more overall crime by a little bit. Interesting how the lack of guns doesn't actually get everyone killed. Even if we propose that the crime is higher because they don't have guns, given the choice between a few more robberies in exchange for less violence or the other way around, that's not a tough choice.

[Caninope]

Also, for those who keep saying that crime has gone up since the UK made laws against guns, it was temporary.

The UK has less violent crime than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r ... per-capita

The crazy bit is that England even has more overall crime by a little bit. Interesting how the lack of guns doesn't actually get everyone killed. Even if we propose that the crime is higher because they don't have guns, given the choice between a few more robberies in exchange for less violence or the other way around, that's not a tough choice.

I'm not saying that it has more violent crime per capita. I'm just saying it went up 89% of the course of a decade. That's not temporary.

[Jocabia]

Also, for those who keep saying that crime has gone up since the UK made laws against guns, it was temporary.

The UK has less violent crime than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r ... per-capita

The crazy bit is that England even has more overall crime by a little bit. Interesting how the lack of guns doesn't actually get everyone killed. Even if we propose that the crime is higher because they don't have guns, given the choice between a few more robberies in exchange for less violence or the other way around, that's not a tough choice.

I'm not saying that it has more violent crime per capita. I'm just saying it went up 89% of the course of a decade. That's not temporary.

And yet, still hasn't caught up to the US. I'd kill to have the murder statistics of the UK.

[Demented Tigers]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

So... ban people? Maybe banning a means by which people can all to easily kill people would be more feasible.

[Krazniastan]

That would only be relevant if it meant that the risk to an individual was so significant that it would eventually hit everyone. That's why smoking is a good comparison.

Even if I could cite twenty people I know that have never had a smoking related illness and are nearly 100 years old, it wouldn't negate the statistical probability of a problem

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

There is also a probability you'll be murdered every time you're at home. You're at home every day. How many of your family members have been murdered? By similar numbers you should be murdered by now? Must not be a murder problem, eh? Or, once again, you don't understand statistics.

The smoking comparison is an interesting one.

Flawed, but interesting.

Smoking kills, or significantly alters the health of all those who participate in it if done so properly and correctly. Handling a firearm properly and RESPONSIBLY is safe. If you are safe and responsible, there is a 0% chance of you being killed, maimed or injured by a firearm. When you start cutting corners, get lax with safety, or intentionally misuse a firearm, thats when problems occur, which has been my point all along. And you are blaming the object, rather than the real problem. . . .

The problem is when you misuse them. (And getting back to your smoking analogy, as far as I know, there is no safe way to smoke and guarantee that your health wont be impacted. Ine ffect, the proper way to use tobacco is to misuse it.) The CHOICE to misuse a gun is like the choice to misuse anything. Its not caused by, nor influenced by the type of weapon. Its the HUMAN who misuses it. It is the HUMAN who is deciding to go against the moral and legal codes and do harm to someone else. If someone shoots you, do they arrest the gun? If someone slashes your throat, do they imprison the knife? If someone hangs you with a piece of rope, do they execute the rope via lethal injection?

No. They deal with the person who misused those items to the fullest extent of the law.