Gun politics

[Hans Ludwig 0]

In one survey of more than 500 drivers, 90 percent reported that during the past year they either were a victim of road rage or had witnessed it. These statistics actually may be underestimates. For one thing, many respondents may not want to admit to road rage because it is socially undesirable. Also, more people report being the target rather than the initiator of road rage, supporting the idea that initiators may not be fessing up.

Still, research does point to some similarities among those who are susceptible to belligerent acts when behind the wheel. People with aggressive tendencies across a variety of situations, including home and work, have an increased likelihood of road rage.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=facts-and-fictions-road-warriors

Edited October 1, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[froggyluv 2136]

Wow. Point is, if neither had their guns, would have been fistfight at most. Actually my best friend pops growing up had about 20 guns -rifles and pistols. We used to pick the lock to his bedroom and play with them -pointing them at people from windows prentending to be snipers -hey, we were 9-10 years old! One time I had my baby sister over there 4yo, and some punkier street kids had found a pistol and were waving it around at everyone trying to be funny -they didnt think they were loded -they were. I realised what danger I'd put my sis in and became more wary of guns.

Back to road rage - second thing that made me wary of guns. Story in Texas maybe 10 years back of fender bender and one driver (Mexican) jumped out screamin and cursing at the other driver (caucasion) -the white guy shot him for "menacing him" and was acquitted.

None of these stories equate to self-defense where I come from. Shit when I was doing video screen firearms training for the Federal building, I got deducted huge points for shooting an armed man (who had shot at me) because he turned his back to flee.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=facts-and-fictions-road-warriors

Yes, but in the study, what identifies a victim? Someone flipping them the bird when they cut someone off? Having someone swear at them for going 30 in a 45?

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Wow. Point is, if neither had their guns, would have been fistfight at most. Actually my best friend pops growing up had about 20 guns -rifles and pistols. We used to pick the lock to his bedroom and play with them -pointing them at people from windows prentending to be snipers -hey, we were 9-10 years old! One time I had my baby sister over there 4yo, and some punkier street kids had found a pistol and were waving it around at everyone trying to be funny -they didnt think they were loded -they were. I realised what danger I'd put my sis in and became more wary of guns.

Lol, where the hell did you live? Geesh. And honestly, that could be considered a case of an irrisponsible firearm owner. Not because his gun safe wasn't uncrackable. But because he didn't teach the kids who'd be around the proper respect that a firearm requires. Both situations sound terrible, but in both situations, it's the people who are responsible for the behavior, not the guns.

Back to road rage - second thing that made me wary of guns. Story in Texas maybe 10 years back of fender bender and one driver (Mexican) jumped out screamin and cursing at the other driver (caucasion) -the white guy shot him for "menacing him" and was acquitted.

Then the guy got lucky. He'd probably still be in prison, if it had happened here.

None of these stories equate to self-defense where I come from. Shit when I was doing video screen firearms training for the Federal building, I got deducted huge points for shooting an armed man (who had shot at me) because he turned his back to flee.

When a man threatens you with a gun, you don't take chances. Legally and in most cases realistically, when a man threatens you with a gun, that's intent to kill. You don't sit and continue arguing with him waiting for him to pull it out. You don't run and wait for him to shoot you in the back. You stand and defend your life. Because in that moment, you are the one responsible for your own life.

And I can tell you right now, that's not at all what the instructors at the police academy teach. If there's a man who is illegally assaulting you with a weapon, you shoot him whether he's running towards you, running away, or standing around like an idiot. If a man is running back, he's likely moving to better cover so he can shoot back at you with more confidence.

[froggyluv 2136]

On your last point I agree hands down -I don't care what my instructor says, if I'm threatened with lethal force and I'm packin, it's on. I beat him in a quickdraw shootout (on balloons) 5/5 times btw :p

Your overall contention of "it's not the gun, it's the person" I do not however.

Common sense dictates that if these drivers aren't packin, nobody's shootin. The Thug-Bogeyman argument is as already stated, pretty much confined to their own culture. These drivers had legal firearms and they were the necessary ingredient for lethal force. Saying it's just a tool doesn't erase that fact. They are tools, tools of instant death.

Like i said earlier, bombs and nuclear bombs are tools. Nuclear bombs are oft-desired by all soverign nations as leverage and negotiating tool. Those without lack leverage and seek more clandestine (thug/terrorist) means to their ends.

Does your principled argument also stand for soverign nations being allowed to posses nuclear armaments? Who are we to regulate? The more nations that have them the less strong-arming by those who do, correct? An armed world is a safer world....?

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

On your last point I agree hands down -I don't care what my instructor says, if I'm threatened with lethal force and I'm packin, it's on. I beat him in a quickdraw shootout (on balloons) 5/5 times btw :p

Your overall contention of "it's not the gun, it's the person" I do not however.

Common sense dictates that if these drivers aren't packin, nobody's shootin. The Thug-Bogeyman argument is as already stated, pretty much confined to their own culture. These drivers had legal firearms and they were the necessary ingredient for lethal force. Saying it's just a tool doesn't erase that fact. They are tools, tools of instant death.

Like i said earlier, bombs and nuclear bombs are tools. Nuclear bombs are oft-desired by all soverign nations as leverage and negotiating tool. Those without lack leverage and seek more clandestine (thug/terrorist) means to their ends.

Does your principled argument also stand for soverign nations being allowed to posses nuclear armaments? Who are we to regulate? The more nations that have them the less strong-arming by those who do, correct? An armed world is a safer world....?

Interesting point. I'll think about it tonight and reply later on it when I get home.

[froggyluv 2136]

Sounds good. Either way, I must say I appreciate your more reasoned and pragmatic responses - much different then my usual conversation with gun-enthusiasts:

"try to take my gun away and I'll pop a cap in your a$$" :p

To me thats gang like mindeset and their gang color is Red/White and Blue.

[GRS 10]

Lets be honest though, the anti-gunners' arguments and comments are usually no better.

[froggyluv 2136]

Perhaps not -thats why I dont join groups. Once you've aligned yourself with Group, people are much less likely to use nuanced intelligent thought and just want to defend their groups position -much like gangs and sometimes cops.

Do the right thing irrespective of affiliation -whatever happened to that?

Edited October 1, 2011 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

Common sense dictates that if these drivers aren't packin, nobody's shootin. The Thug-Bogeyman argument is as already stated, pretty much confined to their own culture. These drivers had legal firearms and they were the necessary ingredient for lethal force. Saying it's just a tool doesn't erase that fact. They are tools, tools of instant death.

In that particular instance, perhaps. It's impossible to know exactly what would happen had the man not owned a legal firearm, but regardless, the point isn't that gun laws will never save any lives. The point is that legal gun availability saves far more lives through crime deterrence than it causes deaths that otherwise wouldn't have occurred; it's always a net positive for safety. This is backed up my countless studies from all over the world, some of which I've linked earlier in this thread.

[froggyluv 2136]

I can say with 100% certainty that no one have been shot -that inherently lowers the risk of fatality dramatically.

The vast majority of the murders that take place in the United States (> 90%) are between rival members of criminal gangs using illegally-obtained firearms

The point is that legal gun availability saves far more lives through crime deterrence than it causes deaths that otherwise wouldn't have occurred;

So how does gun ownership save lives when all of the lives lost are in the hood? Jed's farmland rifle serves that powerfully a detterent?

I say let people keep them in their home if their so worried about home invasion, people on the street and driving is a different matter save law enforcement and careers transfering valuables etc....

There's a strange dichotomy going on here: On one hand, guns are proported to lower crime by deterrence factor -but not in the hood (as they are victimless anyways) while on the other hand the vast majority of those on both ends of the barrel are gangbangers -which one would think gives little reason for the deterrence. Perhaps the deterrence is imagined, as in, the rural area which already suffers little crime, like their guns to let the gangbangers know "Don't spill into our area!" Since the crime in rural is already low, they get the sense that they are keeping it low by staying armed.

Just a thought.

Edited October 2, 2011 by froggyluv

[GRS 10]

Perhaps not -thats why I dont join groups. Once you've aligned yourself with Group, people are much less likely to use nuanced intelligent thought and just want to defend their groups position -much like gangs and sometimes cops.

Do the right thing irrespective of affiliation -whatever happened to that?

And I wholeheartedly respect what you've just said. True words right there.

[Minutemen 10]

To me thats gang like mindeset and their gang color is Red/White and Blue.

So what? Seriosly, i had so much debates with Gun-grabbers i don't care anymore. I don't care if someone brings put-downs on my positions, because the guy with the gun wins. As simple as that.

Guns are goods and property like anything else. And its everybodys right to buy or build and own one.

[st_dux 26]

So how does gun ownership save lives when all of the lives lost are in the hood? Jed's farmland rifle serves that powerfully a detterent?

That 90% is a percentage of murders that occur with gun laws being as they are, which in most part of the United States is fairly liberal (as in free). The point of the statistic is that legal gun owners commit very little of the crime. It does not account for the potential murders that would have occurred were legal gun ownership and concealed carry not allowed, which as I mentioned in an earlier post, has been estimated to be as high as 1,100 per day. Of course, it's difficult to get an accurate figure on exactly how many murders gun availability prevents (because if it was prevented it probably wasn't recorded anywhere), but even if that figure is too high, two things are clear:

1. Legal gun owners commit very little of the gun crime that takes place in a given year.

2. Legal gun owners prevent a great deal of crime in a given year.

The conclusion, then, is that gun control will do very little to prevent gun crime while taking away an important tool in the fight against all violent crime.

[Baff1 0]

What is important to realise, is that all those guns used in crime, were legally purchased somewhere along the line.

If you go to a country where the sales of guns are more heavily restricted, not so many criminals have them. Almost none.

You would have to be an international smuggler, or make one yourself (and just smuggle the ammo).

As opposed to just going to the cupboard and stealing your dad's gun. Your flatmates gun. Your flatmates dad's gun. etc etc etc.

Wiki says that 55% of U.S. gun deaths are suicides and that America has 20-30 x the rate of gun homicides to other socio-economic comparable countries!!!

The suicides part I was expecting. Most gun deaths are domestic in nature. Not hardened criminals trying to rape your children etc.

I was expecting that kind of greater murder rate when compared to my country or Japan for example, but that figure seems to include many other armed socities. Making America an anomally and not such a good example to offer.

Here is one i thought worth bringing up.

Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners as they are to be murdered by strangers using any type of weapon.

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php

some other insights.

Approximately 700 American women are shot and killed by intimate partners each year.

A recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners

And finally, coming off the wife beater tip...

here's one more

For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.

I put it to you the in reality, outside of boys own fantasies, that guns aren't actually making you and your loved ones safer.

I put it to you that guns are making you feel safer. But in actuality placing us all at increased risk.

My gun makes me feel safer. I sleep better for having one.

That is reason enough for owning one in my opinion. I really rate the sense of security I get from it.

All the rest is just a means to an ends. A justification for that.

It's saving me from dangerous crime... it's giving me political freedom... it's protecting the lives of my family...

No. It's not. Stop talking arse.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Baff1

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Here is one i thought worth bringing up.

Quote:

Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners as they are to be murdered by strangers using any type of weapon.

http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php

My buddy walks by and says "yeah, and 90 percent of those are Mexicans." He is Mexican and has gone all fatal for a girl. So he is talking from experience.

Anyhow, you aren't from Texas or you would understand.

[GRS 10]

Pulling statistics from an anti-gun sight is such a good way to make your argument appear less biased. Let me just visit the NRA website and I'll get back to you.

[HyperU2 11]

My buddy walks by and says "yeah, and 90 percent of those are Mexicans." He is Mexican and has gone all fatal for a girl. So he is talking from experience.

Anyhow, you aren't from Texas or you would understand.

Yeah thankfully this one didn't have a gun, he could have hurt somebody. oh well RIP.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044171/Abraham-Lopez-stabs-ex-girlfriend-Cindi-Santana-dead-South-Gate-high-school.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[[aps]gnat 28]

...... What is important to realise, is that all those guns used in crime, were legally purchased somewhere along the line.

....

....

I put it to you the in reality, outside of boys own fantasies, that guns aren't actually making you and your loved ones safer.

I put it to you that guns are making you feel safer. But in actuality placing us all at increased risk.

.......

Yep, that rings true for me.

And again goes someway to explaining the halving of gun related homicide in this country.

..... its not always the "unknown stranger" who pulls the trigger.

And I've seen it many many years ago with my own relatives.

The arsehole with his guns at home feels he can beat up and extort his own family with apparent immunity. The family deeply feared what he might do. Thankfully the prick died of a heart attack.

[Herbal Influence 10]

(...) How much of the Anti-gun movement is based on borderline phobias and wild misconceptions? (...)

As much as yours might be based on

a) million dollars advertisement and lobbying from the guns & weapons industry since decades,

b) pseudo-freedom "amendment 2" - historical - grandfather views,

(nice hint above: wheres your Abrams in the garage?)

c) archaic machoism?

Yeah, you are really cool. You are strong. With your gun, you are a real man. But without .... ?

[dm 9]

As much as yours might be based on

a) million dollars advertisement and lobbying from the guns & weapons industry since decades,

b) pseudo-freedom "amendment 2" - historical - grandfather views,

(nice hint above: wheres your Abrams in the garage?)

c) archaic machoism?

Yeah, you are really cool. You are strong. With your gun, you are a real man. But without .... ?

What about

d) I think firearms are a fascinating look at the (sometimes rather elegant) engineering solutions and evolution of both materials and technology throughout the last ~300 years

?

(AKA "I like guns because I think they're interesting" and not "because they make me feel all macho and whatnot")

[Herbal Influence 10]

I already said exactly that a few posts above.

The technics are fascinating ... but some things are to deadly to play with them.

[dm 9]

So because it is [apparently] dangerous, we should ban it outright?

You know more people are killed every year in car accidents than with firearms, right? (At least in the "West")

Maybe we should ban driving too because it is "dangerous to play with" ?

[froggyluv 2136]

So because it is [apparently] dangerous, we should ban it outright?

You know more people are killed every year in car accidents than with firearms, right? (At least in the "West")

Maybe we should ban driving too because it is "dangerous to play with" ?

No but much tougher regulations to get behind the wheel has been long needed.

[[aps]gnat 28]

So because it is [apparently] dangerous, we should ban it outright?

You know more people are killed every year in car accidents than with firearms, right? (At least in the "West")

Maybe we should ban driving too because it is "dangerous to play with" ?

Yes, as froggyluv said.

F1's, Stockcars and Dragcars for example would be extremely dangerous on roads/public use, but are allowed in limited arenas and in a regulated manner.

The technics are also fascinating.

.... same analogy.

[st_dux 26]

If you go to a country where the sales of guns are more heavily restricted, not so many criminals have them. Almost none.

This is plainly false. Look at your own country. Gun crime has gone up dramatically since handguns were basically banned in 1997. I posted an article earlier in this thread that expounded on this.

America has 20-30 x the rate of gun homicides to other socio-economic comparable countries!!!

... including Switzerland, where everyone owns an assault rifle. There is no simple correlation between gun availability and violent crime rate on a global scale. There are too many external factors.

A recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners

How was this "recent study" conducted? Were they comparing areas where home ownership of firearms is allowed compared to places where it is not? Or was it based on houses with firearms in them versus houses without, as I suspect? If it's the latter, then the results are obvious and meaningless. Of course you're going to find that houses in which people were murdered tend to be houses that contained weapons. Very few people commit murder with their bare fists. This in no way implies that the presence of a weapon caused murder. Murderers cause murder. It's the violent mindset, not access to a tool, that causes domestic violence. Take away the legal gun and they'll just find an illegal one or use a knife.

The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.

Being a suicidal loser is a risk factor for completed suicide, and saying that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns is like saying that car accidents are most likely to occur on the road. The fact of the matter is that gun accidents make up an extremely small portion of all accidental deaths in the United States. Each one is tragic, yes, but it's not a very significant issue, and it's certainly not significant enough to justify disallowing people to protect themselves.

I put it to you the in reality, outside of boys own fantasies, that guns aren't actually making you and your loved ones safer.

Please look at the data I posted earlier about the number of violent crimes that private gun ownership is estimated to prevent. Also, take another look at your own country, whose violent crime rate has rose as gun restrictions have risen. Everything else being equal, a society that may legally arm itself is safer overall than one that cannot. Yes, accidental gun deaths and suicides will go up, but this is a small problem (in the case of suicides, I don't see it as a problem at all), and the amount of accidental deaths is far less than the amount of lives that will be saved through violent crime deterrence.

Edited October 3, 2011 by ST_Dux