Question for those in favor of gun control

[We_Have_A_Problem]

There are a few common reasons given in favor of gun control. Guns are bad for society. They cause crime. They are only designed to kill. We've heard or used them all.

What I would like to know is, what actual harm is committed by private ownership or carry (concealed or open) of a firearm? Actual harm mind you, not simply potential harm.

Potential harm is, to me anyway, unimportant simply because much in life carries substantial potential harm. A simple car, for example, has the potential in the fuel tank for a sizable explosion which could harm not just the occupants but a large number of people in proximity.

So again - what is the actual harm?

[dtexdem]

1. Actual harm is widespread in death and injury statistics.

Now tell me, what's the "actual harm" in drunk driving?

[SteveM]

3. Didn't answer the question; merely posed an unrelated one...

Once again:

what actual harm is committed by private ownership or carry (concealed or open) of a firearm?

[TheWraith]

62. Your analogy is false, and self-defeating.

The actual analogy is that because someone, somewhere, drives drunk, some people argue that alcohol is a moral evil and should be banned.

[krispos42]

66. Ooooo, fail

Next.

[gravity556]

159. An accurate comparison of drunk driving and guns

with regard to probable harm would be more accurately stated as drunk driving would be equivalent to shooting a gun down a road while blindfolded. Simply carrying a gun is akin to having an unopened bottle of booze sitting next to you while driving.

[Scuba]

2. I'm a gun owner, and November 1st when CCW goes into effect here...

... in Wisconsin, I'll apply for a permit.


Private ownership and carry are not the problem, per se. Idiot and criminal private ownership is, however. If you can't see that, keep trying.

[Fresh_Start]

4. ....

The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States. The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling. Most of the disaggregate findings of particular studies (e.g. handguns are more of a risk factor than long guns, guns stored unlocked pose a greater risk than guns stored locked) are suggestive but not yet well established.

Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.

Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide. Case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.

Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts. After controlling for divorce, education, unemployment, poverty and urbanization, the statistically significant relationship holds for 15 to 24 year olds and 45 to 84 year olds, but not for 25 to 44 year olds.

For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

Children who use a firearm to commit suicide have fewer identifiable risk factors for suicide, such as expressing suicidal thoughts. Gun suicides appear more impulsive and spontaneous than suicide by other means.

Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women. The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women have far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. Thanks for the stats

Care to answer the question?

What is the actual harm caused by someone owning or carrying a firearm?

You see, none of what you presented is actual harmed by someone simply owning and/or carrying a firearm. It is harm caused by misuse, but nobody has questioned that misuse can cause a problem.

[Fresh_Start]

18. there is no problem with nuclear weapons or poisons either

until someone uses them and causes damage.

If you don't understand that guns cause more deaths merely by their prevalence in society you are willfully blind.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. Then tell me what the actual harm is.

Poisons are legal to own by the way. I have quite a few of them under my sink and in my garage.

Nukes are a bullshit argument and we both know it.

If that is all you have, you've really got nothing.

[DanTex]

81. In other words, you have no answer to the statistics or the nukes arguments.

Let me explain. There are certain things -- plutonium, anthrax, surface-to-air missiles -- that are dangerous and need to be controlled for the sake of public safety. Now, maybe if you owned these things, there wouldn't be any problems. I'm sure you wouldn't use them for criminal purposes, or sell them to someone else who would. I'm sure you'd be safe to make sure that no accidents occurred, and I'm sure that you'd store them securely so they wouldn't get stolen and end up in the wrong hands.

But, unfortunately, not everyone is going to be as responsible as you. If plutonium, anthrax, SAMs, etc. are not controlled, they will end up in the wrong hands, with bad consequences. It just wouldn't work. Hopefully you're with me so far.

With guns, it's a similar situation, though of course not as extreme. The statistics and studies show pretty definitively that high gun availability results in more gun violence, more homicide. The argument that most individual gun owners do not go around shooting people misses the point, in the same way as the argument that most citizens could probably be trusted with plutonium or anthrax. The current lax gun laws we have in the US produce an unacceptably high level of gun violence, a level that, as a civilized society, we shouldn't tolerate. That doesn't mean we need total prohibition. If you look at other industrialized nations, you find that they have been able to deal rather effectively with gun violence in various different ways. But they're all doing a much better job of it than the US.

[cleanhippie]

134. They are red herrings and deserve no answer.

:shrug:

[DanTex]

135. That just the kind brilliant insight I've come to expect from pro-gunners! Bravo!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

136. Your sarcasm was unwarranted.

The stats and nuke arguments are not answers to the question. The question is clear. Nobody has answered it yet.

Honestly, all the misdirection from the anti-gun crowd is managing to accomplish is to confirm my belief that those in favor of gun control have formed their opinion from an entirely emotional position and facts have no place in their rhetoric.

If you cannot present an answer to the very simple question, then quite frankly, you really don't have a case.

[DanTex]

139. Umm, that's a joke...

You've been presented with a lot of statistics and several very cogent arguments. The question of what harm comes to society from gun ownership has been answered several times over. And you have come up with exactly nothing to say in response. There are plenty of studies out there if you are interested in facts. But apparently all you are interesting is claiming "victory" without ever having to make an actual argument.

So, any time you want to stop playing silly games and confront some of the statistics and arguments that have been presented to you, that would be great. But I'm going to guess that you simply can't: you don't know much about the science or the research, and you haven't thought through the policy issues much at all. So you'll just retreat back to your usual childish antics, avoiding any substantive debate.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. I never asked what harm comes to society.

I asked, what direct harm is caused by private ownership of weapons.

In other words, what direct harm is there to you if your neighbor has guns in his home? What direct harm is there to you if the guy standing next to you on the subway has a gun in his pocket?

Actual tangible harm - not fear, not the results of criminal acts, not mishaps from irresponsible use or storage.

The question has not been answered. Simple as that.




I'll be happy to have whatever substantive debate you wish, but this topic is not about perceived societal harm but rather direct individual harm.

[DanTex]

164. In other words, you are obfuscating by quibbling about terminology.

The 30K people that die every year from guns, including 10K homicides, that is very real harm. You apparently think that those statistics somehow don't count because it's not "direct individual harm" but rather "perceived societal harm". But to the families of the 30K people who die every year, as well as the much greater number of people who are either injured, intimidated, robbed, coerced or otherwise harmed non-lethally by guns, the harm is very direct and very real. None of those people would be remotely interested in you telling them how the death of their loved ones isn't actually "direct individual harm", it's really "perceived societal harm".

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there is a very clear link between gun availability and higher rates of gun violence. For example, in other nations with more restrictions on guns, there is not anywhere near the same numbers of gun deaths and injuries. And then there are all those other studies and statistics that were cited earlier in the thread which you have continuously chosen to ignore. In the end, your distinction between "direct individual harm" and "perceived societal harm" is plain silly. Reducing gun availability does in fact save lives and reduce gun violence, and whether you consider the lives saved to be "direct" versus "perceived" or "individual" versus "societal" matters not at all.

Finally, another thing you've never been able to answer is the plutonium/anthrax analogy. Because your exact same logic could be used to argue against controls on private ownership of plutonium, since, after all, private ownership of plutonium would not actually cause any "actual tangible harm". All the bad things that would happen would be "the results of criminal acts" or "mishaps from irresponsible use or storage." And this illustrates just how silly this entire argument of yours is. Unless you care to explain how the situation with plutonium or anthrax is different from guns. But up to now you haven't been able to do so, instead you've just resorted to the junior high-school quips along the lines of "Nukes are a bullshit argument and we both know it" and "you've got nothing". I wonder if we'll finally get an answer...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

168. No I am not in any way obfuscating or quibbling.

I have no desire to turn this into some kind of "My statistics are better than your statistics" argument. We both know that for every death caused by a human being who used a firearm, there is at least one time where the life of an innocent was saved by the use of a gun. What is the point?

Criminal misuse of a firearm is no different than criminal misuse of any other product. We dont ban alcohol or cars just because some people might drink and drive. We rely upon people to exercise good judgement before doing either of those things, and caution them not to do them together, and then punish only the ones who exercise poor judgement. Somehow though, you seem to think that because some 10K people a year are killed by criminals, everyone should be forbidden from using the tool a criminal chose to use. That is childish and stupid at best.

Further, there is still the issue that once we remove suicides and criminal actions from your 30K number, we're down to <1000 accidental deaths per year. In a nation of 310 million people, that isn't a societal cost at ALL. Statistically it barely registers. Hardly enough to justify getting rid of private ownership of a tool which has many beneficial uses.

Your clear link between gun availability and deaths is non-existent Dan. Without even having to dig too far we can both rapidly discover that gun ownership is at an all time high in the US while gun-related crime is at an all time low. Seems to me to be an inverse relationship if anything.

I really couldnt give a shit less about your plutonium/anthrax analogy. Seriously. Don't care. Nope. Not one bit. When either of those even become anything like an issue to worry about, let me know. Until then, they simply go in the "wildly fantastical bullshit" pile. You're trying to say that since on the extreme end of indiscriminate substances we control access, why not control access on the more pedestrian end. It is a garbage argument and you know it. One does not extend edge solutions to the middle. A more commonplace example of this would be suggesting we jail people for exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles an hour - after all, we would jail someone who drove 200mph on public roads....same thing right? Just a matter of degree? That degree is what makes the difference.

It is OK to admit that there is no harm caused by typical ownership and carry, but that your concern is focused on the overall potential for misuse. Really. Its perfectly OK to say that. You have to simply accept that others may not feel the same way. That's how things are in a free country. However, saying that because roughly 30K out of 300+ million firearms are misused is not demonstrating any real harm.

I submit to you that there is zero harm caused by a normal responsible adult owning or carrying firearms. I freely admit that irresponsible people will do irresponsible things, but that is true with everything in life. If you can tell me what harm is caused by John Q. Public having a .45ACP in his belt while he's out doing his weekend errands, I'll happily listen. So far, all I've seen though is fantastical claims that John may go apeshit and start shooting up a Wal-Mart or that someone may rob John's house and take his other guns and then use them in crimes.

[DanTex]

180. ...

I really couldnt give a shit less about your plutonium/anthrax analogy. Seriously. Don't care. Nope. Not one bit. When either of those even become anything like an issue to worry about, let me know. Until then, they simply go in the "wildly fantastical bullshit" pile. You're trying to say that since on the extreme end of indiscriminate substances we control access, why not control access on the more pedestrian end. It is a garbage argument and you know it. One does not extend edge solutions to the middle. A more commonplace example of this would be suggesting we jail people for exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles an hour - after all, we would jail someone who drove 200mph on public roads....same thing right? Just a matter of degree? That degree is what makes the difference.

Of course, what matters is not what you "couldn't give a shit less about", what matters is whether gun control laws save lives. The plutonium/anthrax analogy is still a valid argument and you still have no answer for it. I don't even think you really understand it completely. The reason neither one of those cause many problems is precisely because they are controlled. But if people could get hold of plutonium just as easily as guns, you can be pretty sure that there would be problems.

You also fail to understand that I'm not arguing that, since plutonium is controlled, then guns need to be controlled as well. Instead, I'm responding to your argument, that just because "normal responsible adults" can be trusted to own or carry something, that obviates the need for controls on ownership. Plutonium illustrates the fact that some things do need to be controlled anyway, despite the fact that many responsible law-abiding adults could surely be trusted to own plutonium without causing any harm.

But the plutonium analogy certainly doesn't automatically imply that guns need to be controlled as well -- whether and how guns should be controlled depends on just how much of a danger to public safety they present, just how severe the social costs of gun ownership are. And here is where those studies and statistics come into play. One could imagine an alternate universe where you could get away with lax gun laws like we have in the US, that people by and large would be responsible enough that there would be few if any real negative consequences to public safety. But when you look at the statistics and the academic literature, you find that we do not in fact live in this alternate universe, but that our lax gun laws carry with them a significant toll in terms of violence, injury, and death. And the toll is greater that what we as a civilized society should tolerate. In the end, there is no simple rhetorical trick that will make the 30K gun deaths every year just disappear or not matter.


BTW I find it amusing that you first claim that you don't want to get into "My statistics are better than your statistics" but then two paragraphs later you make a statistical argument yourself: "gun ownership is at an all time high in the US while gun-related crime is at an all time low". Granted it's not a very good argument, particularly since gun ownership has actually been steadily dropping for two decades (something that you would know if you paid a little more attention to the actual facts and statistics, rather than just ignoring it all). But at least you do seem to recognize, at least momentarily, the importance of determining whether there is a link between gun availability and deaths.

[cleanhippie]

140. And that is willful ignorance I have come to expect from anti-civil rights persons. Bravo!

[DanTex]

141. If you ever figure out how to put together multiple sentences to form an argument, let me know.

[cleanhippie]

151. Ahh, the personal attack and insult. You stay classy, ok?

:rofl:

When the insults come out, I know you can no longer defend your ignorance.

Thanks for being so predictiable.

[DanTex]

153. OK, so you're not good with logic or reason. Got it. But at least you're a champ with the smilies!

[cleanhippie]

155. Dan, you tell yourself whatever you need to so you can feel superior.

It seems to be what you are best at doing anyway.

:hi:

Have a nice day, Dan.

[gejohnston]

26. so explain

Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Serbia (where guns are almost as prevalent in their countries as ours) vs say, Russia. True, Russia has few if any gun deaths. Private gun ownership has never been a part of Russian culture TTBYN. Russia has a murder rate five times ours. Ours is five times Japan's.

[spin]

65. It is possible that the fact that both Russia and the United States had nuclear weapons ...

is one of the main reasons that we have not had WWIII. Nuclear weapons can be a deterrent. In the hands of responsible leadership, they are not as serious a problem as they are in the hands of terrorists or nations with unstable rulers. Unfortunately, we have been unable to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

When you say:

If you don't understand that guns cause more deaths merely by their prevalence in society you are willfully blind.

...you are totally ignoring the fact that firearms are also used for legitimate self defense and save lives.

Seriously, if you ever managed to pass laws which banned and confiscated all firearms owned by honest people (assuming you could actually do this), do you believe that criminals would turn their firearms in? It is quite possible that more people would die because of firearms than do today. Mexico has stiff gun laws and is hardly a violence free paradise. The bad guys and the military have the firepower in Mexico while the civilians find owning effective firearms for self defense difficult if not practically impossible.

Just as nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to a world wide conflict in the last 60 years, firearms have also worked to discourage criminal activity.

[Simo 1939_1940]

108. "If you don't understand that guns cause more deaths

merely by their prevalence in society you are willfully blind."

If this were actually the case, there wouldn't be an inverse relationship between the number of firearms and the violent crime rate related to firearms. (since 1993)

[gejohnston]

20. You got that from a study done

by a ER doctor named Kellerman. His study, which is so full of it the Bradys don't even use it anymore, was a shill study paid for by the Joyce Foundation. The Foundation is also the largest astro turf underwriter for Brady and VPC. Joyce also gave Media Matters money to publish poor written and inaccurate articles about the Mexican drug wars and the Al Qaida "you can buy machine guns at gun shows with no questions asked." The actual term was automatic weapons or fully automatic weapons if you want to put it in a search engine.

One thing not mentioned, for a reason, is the demographic of the vast majority of murderers and murder victims: Urban males aged 16-24 with criminal records. In other words, people who are barred from having a gun under one or two federal gun laws and often a local law as well. It is not the guns, it is organized crime and your pot money that pays for it.

[russ1943]

72. Have you any links to any sources?

Which statement of post # 4 are you saying is full of it?
Where do you get your “statistic” that the vast majority of murderers (and victims) are people who are barred from having a gun?

[gejohnston]

101. all of it

If you actually read the study and look at the methods involved. The best book that debunks it the most is Point Blank by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck. No, he was not funded by the NRA or anyone else. Nor is he "pro-gun" let alone an ideologue either way. His books also go into detail about demographics.

Very easy. First, look where most of the murders are. They are in places where gun laws tend to be strict. Coincidentally, those places are also drug trafficking hubs. US Virgin Islands has the highest in the US and among the highest in the world. In Europe, the illegal gun routes are also the the illegal drug routes. Most of Mexico's illegal gun problems follows the same, through their southern border (esp. full automatic weapons, rocket launchers etc. Grenades are from abroad.)

Most of the murderers and victims are gangsters killing other gangsters in the drug war.
As for that "statistic" I am guessing you know little or nothing about US federal gun control laws.
age 16-24. Federal crime to sell handgun (if FFL, 18 for private person) to anyone under 21. Federal crime for anyone under 18 to possess handgun. Federal crime, since 1938, for a felon to possess a firearm. That means if Tom Delay were to touch any firearm for any reason, he could go back to prison for no less than five years.
Those are before you get to local and state bans and licensing laws. Oh yeah, it is also a federal crime to sell anyone a gun that is not a resident of that state. In other words, if I drive to Arizona and buy a gun, that is ten years in federal prison for the seller. If I were to sell Sarah Palin a gun, I could go to prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm?csp=34
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

[russ1943]

181. Great job, DanTex

First I don’t know any of the statements in that #4 that are attributable to Kellerman. Second, As DanTex has already noted Kellerman’s most well known studies were supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Third downthread when DanTex # 106 points out your error re
“Kleck and Bordua conservatively estimate that 25% of homicide offenders have prior felony convictions.” You respond #112 with the 50.1% figure.
The 50.1% is in this statement;

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndBordua.htm
More recently the Careers in Crime data of the Uniform Crime Reports indicate that 77.9% of persons arrested for murder or nonnegligent manslaughter in 1970 had previous arrests, and 50.1% had prior convictions (FBI, 1971: 38). Among those homicide offenders arrested in the United States between 1970 and 1975, 67.6% had previous arrest records (FBI, 1976: 43).

That doesn’t say that 50.1% had prior convictions of offenses that would disqualify them from purchasing/owning a firearm. It says that about 40 years ago 50.1% had (some kind of) prior convictions.
Most murderers do have arrest records, many have prior convictions but to be disqualifying insofar as what is relevant to this discussion they would have to have been convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor.

DanTex is saying it all more eloquently than I can, and with more patience.

[DanTex]

90. Pretty much entirely false.

First, it doesn't look like any of those statistics to come from a Kellermann study, certainly not all of them. This is not surprising because Kellermann's studies make up only a tiny fraction of the body of research on gun violence.

Second, Kellermann wasn't funded by Joyce, it was funded by the CDC. Of course, the NRA didn't like Kellermann's results so they got Republicans in congress to cut research funding for gun violence research, and that's one reason that some of the studies are privately funded. Actually, the right has quite a history of attacking government funding of research they don't like.

Third, the Kellermann study was not "full of it", nor has it been refuted or debunked. It hasn't been retracted by the journal, and it still gets cited to this day. And the same is true for all of the rest of the studies that the gun lobby loves to ignore. The reason that Kellermann specifically doesn't get cited as prominently as before is that it is decades old, and many other studies have come out since then.

And finally, it is not true that most murderers or victims cannot legally own guns. While it may be the case that many have arrest records, it is not true that most are convicted felons. Of course, even convicted felons can pretty easily get guns in many states simply by going to a gun show or flea market. And even in states with reasonable gun laws, their effectiveness is limited by the ease of trafficking from other states, the lack of a national registration system etc.

In short, yes, it is the gun laws.

[gejohnston]

104. wrong

And finally, it is not true that most murderers or victims cannot legally own guns. While it may be the case that many have arrest records, it is not true that most are convicted felons

70 percent have at least one felony conviction

Of course, even convicted felons can pretty easily get guns in many states simply by going to a gun show or flea market. And even in states with reasonable gun laws, their effectiveness is limited by the ease of trafficking from other states, the lack of a national registration system etc.

Of course, that does not apply to US Virgin Islands, which has the highest murder rate of any US jurisdiction. One of the highest in the world. Partly true. Flea markets, I'll give you. Gun shows, not so much. In my experience, most sellers at gun shows are FFLs. Ever try to guy a gun at a store while a gun show is in the area? NICS techs for that area are slammed, and you will be standing at the counter for awhile. Been there, done that. So why do so many crime guns trace to California? That leads to another question, if they were purchased in (where ever)does it go from straw buyer to black market or a more indirect route lasting years. More likely, they will buy one off the same people who ripped off an LA police armory and made off with over 20 MP-5s and several pistols.

Second, Kellermann wasn't funded by Joyce, it was funded by the CDC. Of course, the NRA didn't like Kellermann's results so they got Republicans in congress to cut research funding for gun violence research, and that's one reason that some of the studies are privately funded. Actually, the right has quite a history of attacking government funding of research they don't like.

That's different. Joyce always funded their crap, just like they fund astro turf Brady.

Third, the Kellermann study was not "full of it", nor has it been refuted or debunked. It hasn't been retracted by the journal, and it still gets cited to this day. And the same is true for all of the rest of the studies that the gun lobby loves to ignore. The reason that Kellermann specifically doesn't get cited as prominently as before is that it is decades old, and many other studies have come out since then.

Show me one criminologist that supports it. You will find none. Oh, that's right, if they disagree with you, the do not have the "proper credentials" or don't teach at the right schools. Unless of course, they parrot Brady drivel no matter how baseless.

Please define reasonable.

[DanTex]

106. "70 percent have at least one felony conviction"

Are you ever right about anything? Even your pro-gun buddy Kleck, quoted in the staunchly pro-gun website guncite, in an article that you just linked to in a post right above this, gives an estimate of 25%. You might want to try reading your own links next time, before you start making up statistics.

"The overwhelming majority of people who shoot to kill are not convicted felons; in fact, most would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger."
--- Webster, Daniel W., C. Patrick Chaulk, Stephen P. Teret, and Garen J. Wintemute. "Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991, p.73.
Although the first part of the claim of Webster et al. is probably correct (Kleck and Bordua conservatively estimate that 25% of homicide offenders have prior felony convictions. ), their conclusion that most homicide offenders "would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" is not.

The rest of your post is the usual gunner talking points about how the entire academic establishment is biased except for one criminologist named Gary Kleck. Just because you personally choose to ignore the bulk of the scientific research on gun violence, you can't expect that everyone else is going to as well. And honestly, I think it would do you good to read some of it, because if you were exposed to more of the science and statistics, you wouldn't get so many facts wrong.

[gejohnston]

112. speaking for anti talking points.

Kleck is not pro gun and you drag up the usual suspects like Wintemute. You are accusing Kleck and other criminologists who do not play the game as being shills. Hypocritical? Yes. Do you have any evidence? No, you just scream "pro gun".
The same 10-15 people are hardly "the entire academic establishment" You have yet to come up with a study by anyone outside of this group and/or is not funded by the Joyce Foundation or similar money bags. Why are they not published in sociology or criminology journals? Have you ever wondered? A true open minded skeptic would ask that. The stuff from "gun blogs" are reprints of such journals and even says so. I look them up in Google Scholar, and they are there in the original source. I doubt if you will because it will challenge your assumptions.
Seriously, if the issue were climate change, these guys would be what Robert Kennedy Jr. describes as "biostitues", which also includes a lot of economists instead actual climate scientists.

So tell me, you have yet to honestly answer, how is it that a criminologist that gets a conclusion that is opposite of his hypothesis and honestly wrote that is less "scientific" than what these guys? Why is it in Science and Technology instead of a criminology journal?
Have you critically read these studies you tout with an open mind? I think it would do you good if you did. It would also help if you stop selectively read and ignore the rest. Does not do well for your argument. Maybe then you would understand the computer adage of "garbage in-garbage out." If you read To be rather blunt, your accusation of anti(or pseudo)-intellectualism and closed mindedness looks to me to be a severe case of projection.

But look: Harvard. Law, not public health.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
http://cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

You forgot to notice the word "conservatively" and it was not their quote. Kleck actually said 50.1 percent as adults. That does not include gang members under legal age with Juvenile convictions.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndBordua.htm
Here is the part you forgot to read.

Spitzer states and cites irrelevant and misleading facts in an attempt to suppport the claim that most murderers are previously law-abiding citizens. As Eugene Volokh explains, "criminals have relatives, friends, and acquaintances, too (and of course 'acquaintance' can describe many sorts of acquaintances -- drug dealers are acquainted with their customers, gang members are acquainted with their rivals, and prostitutes are acquainted with their patrons). Yes, if you are acquainted with lots of criminals, you might fall victim to an acquaintance murder by one of those criminals. On the other hand, if most of your acquaintances are law-abiding people who don't have an arrest record, then you'd probably be a lot safer (source)."

You think my fact are wrong, true some may be off. I least I take the time to challenge my own assumptions and take the time to read the Joyce studies. I noticed that the conclusion and press release does not match the main body usually.

[russ1943]

185. Felony conviction is different from arrest.

Among the gun enthusiasts variety of oft repeated mantras is the exceptionally high percentage of murderers who they state have the kind of criminal backgrounds that would prohibit them from legally purchasing or owning firearms.
This board has had posts claiming that murderers have prior felony convictions at rates as high as 90%, but almost always stating a majority.

I’ve occasionally posted and have received responses to my queries that primarily are quoting Don Kates from a variety of sources.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

The guncite site still displays the following;

Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):
"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests.

Note the word ARRESTS.

Since 1988 the Bureau of Justice Statistics has sponsored a biennial collection (Bulletins) of data on felony cases processed in state courts in the nation’s 75 largest counties. SCPS collects data on the demographic characteristics, criminal history, pretrial processing, adjudication, and sentencing of felony defendants.
Criminal history is the point under discussion.
The percentage of defendants with one or more prior felony arrests rose to 64% in 2006, continuing an upward trend that began after 1992 when 55% had a felony arrest record.

Murder defendants specifically;
42% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2006 Bulletin
42% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2002 Bulletin
in the 2002 Bulletin there are additional specific statistics such as ; 44% of murder defendants had no prior convictions and 14% have prior non felony convictions.
34% of murder defendants had a prior felony conviction in the BOJ 2000 Bulletin
in the 2000 Bulletin there are additional specific statistics such as; 53% of murder defendants had no prior convictions and 13% had prior non felony convictions.

Criminal records, arrests even convictions are terms used and cleverly mixed in with felony convictions and used to imply that most murderers are ineligible to legally purchase or own firearms. The 2000 bulletin ia avail at;
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc02.pdf Table 11

[Simo 1939_1940]

109. Still standing behind that hack Kellermann?

So your comfortable putting your faith in a clown that measures the benefit of defensive gun use in terms of criminals killed rather than victims spared?

Again ----- here's a treatise that exposes the many layers of dishonesty employed by the pro-restriction cabal: (including Kellermann)

http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/11/kleck1999.pdf

Written by lifelong liberal criminologist Gary Kleck -- winner of the highest honor bestowed by the American Society of Criminology. (Michael Hindelang award)

[Simo 1939_1940]

110. You were invited to back up your position on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=334436

Whatsamatta? Cat got your tongue?

[DanTex]

113. You want me to respond to some pseudoscientific nonsense posted over a year ago?

Sorry, not in the mood. Maybe if you come up with some pseudoscientific nonsense of your own. I have discussed and debated various aspects of the research on this board before, including the so-called "debunking" of Kellermann, so, for example, if you are interested in my thoughts you can find some of them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#436236

Of course, after a few rounds of trying to reason with "debunksters", pretty soon you realize that most ardent pro-gunners inhabit a parallel universe where peer-reviewed science is ignored based on taking points from some gun blog. That OP you link to, for example, is by someone who evidently does not understand either how case-control studies work, or how multivariate regressions work. And this is a pretty big problem for someone who is claiming to "debunk" a case-control study which uses a multivariate regression.

Anyway, my advice to you would be to read some of the actual scientific research on gun violence, beyond just Gary Kleck. The pro-gunners love to hate Kellermann, but as I've pointed out, there's far more research out there than just Kellermann, and it comes from various fields: criminology, public health, economics. In fact, that was the point of my last post, which apparently you didn't understand: the statistics cited above do not in fact come from Kellermann studies, they come from a lot of different sources. And it would do you a lot of good to read some of these other studies. Or, you could just do what most gunners do, which is convince yourself that Kellermann has been "debunked" based on a few childish talking points, and then simply ignore the rest of the literature.

[Simo 1939_1940]

117. "Talking point" = point that you just can't deal with.

Re. Kellermann: It takes someone either excruciating stupid, or excruciatingly dishonest to construct the cost/benefit analysis that he did with his "43 times more likely" "study". Only a person completely blinded by ideology isn't bothered by his ugly construct. I notice you won't respond to this point. Show me one instance where Kleck, Wright, or Rossi (for example) have made such a monumental blunder. I'll wait.

Anyway, my advice to you would be to read some of the actual scientific research on gun violence, beyond just Gary Kleck.

You do yourself no service by publicly assuming that Kleck is the only person that I've studied. Health advocates are notoriously ignorant w/regard to all issues relating to firearms. Most wouldn't be able to define what an "assault weapon" is, wouldn't know that "cop killer bullets" and "plastic guns" were & are non-existent threats, etc. You'll excuse me if I don't give a damn about what they have to say on the issue of guns and gun violence. Here's a good example of what happens when a "health advocate" is forced to deal with a physician who knows what he's talking about:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/33620/message/1243682800/An+email+exchange+between+a+DSGL+doctor+and+an+anti-gun+physician.

As previously mentioned, few writings expose the dishonest tactics of the pro-restrictionist movement better than Degrading scientific standards to get the defensive gun Use estimate down:

http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/11/kleck1999.pdf

You'll note that on page 125 Kleck recounts how David Hemenway libeled the NSDS interviewers as corrupt sans evidence. These are your heroes, DanTex?

Edited to correct link and add a second link

[DanTex]

132. So far, it seems your understanding of the gun violence research is...

...the same as most pro-gunners in that it is basically limited to "Kleck good! Kellemann bad!", and the rest of the tired talking points.

The point you keep missing is that Kellermann is just one researcher among many who have studied gun violence. Remember how we got here. Someone cited a whole bunch of statistics and studies about gun violence, none of which came from Kellermann. But that didn't stop the pro-gunners from repeating the "Kellermann was wrong" mantra, even though Kellermann had nothing to do with any of it. I point this out, but since guncite only gives you talking points about Kellermann, then Kellermann is all that gunners know how to "refute". So, here we are, talking about Kellermann, yet again!

And, yes, no kidding Kleck has written a bunch of stuff trying to defend his hopeless DGU study, even going so far as to attack Harvard professor David Hemenway personally. This is because Hemenway is one of the (many) people who have pointed out the glaring flaws in his research. You see, inside the NRA bubble, Kleck is treated like a religious prophet, but for non-true-believers, the DGU study is laughable (more on that below). And, unlike Kellermann's studies, Kleck's DGU results have actually been refuted by subsequent studies in peer-reviewed journals (three times at least: Cook-Ludwig, McDowall-Loftin, and Hemenway). Of course, I imagine you've never heard of Cook, Ludwig, McDowall, or Loftin (all four of whom are highly regarded criminologists), and you've only heard of Hemenway via Kleck's attacks. And why would you have? You've got the word of Kleck, and that's all you need to know, right?

Regarding the 43 thing. You only find this dishonest because you are a pro-gunner blinded by ideology, and you are reading more into the study just in order to be able to the "refute" it. You may not find the 43X to be a useful statistic, but one thing we should both agree on is that Kellermann (obviously) never claims that the only costs and benefits to guns are killing. There are (obviously) both costs and benefits that do not involve killing. Guns can (obviously) be used both defensively and criminally in ways that don't involve killing. You see, the 43X study was (obviously) just one of many studies exploring the relative frequency of different types of "good" and "bad" incidents involving guns.

If you look at the overall impact of guns on society, the negatives far outweigh the positives, but this is not based on Kellermann's studies, which constitute just a drop in an ocean of evidence from decades of research by dozens of scholars, some of which was cited by that other poster in this thread. So, to get a real picture, you have to look at all of the evidence. But this takes effort, some intellectual sophistication, and an open mind, none of which are very common features among NRA types. So gunners mostly prefer to just read a few articles by Gary Kleck, and consider themselves "educated", and then dismiss everything else based on silly talking points they picked up on gun blogs (for example, your "health advocate" thing). Really, the role Kleck plays is pretty similar to the role of Ayn Rand and/or Milton Friedman for libertarian free-marketeers. I mean, why bother developing a sophisticated and broad understanding of how the economy works when you can just read Atlas Shrugged and then act like you know everything! And so it is with guns and Point Blank.

If you are looking for real dishonesty or incompetence in gun research, the very best place to look is Kleck's laughable DGU study. You see, DGU is not a clearly defined thing, so you get different numbers depending on how you measure it. But one thing that you do find consistently, is that if you measure DGUs versus gun crimes using the same methodology, you find that there are a lot more gun crimes. If you look at NCVS, far more gun crimes are reported than DGUs. If you look at self-defense shootings versus criminal shootings, same thing. And if you do a phone survey asking people about DGU and gun crime victimization, you also find a lot more gun crimes.

But Kleck didn't like all this, so he came with his phone survey that was all but guaranteed to overestimate the number of DGUs. And then, in order to argue that there were more DGUs than gun crimes, he compared the phone survey DGU numbers to the NCVS numbers for gun crimes. As everyone knows, direct phone surveys produce a lot more "yes" answers than the much more rigorous NCVS, because NCVS does a much better job of filtering out false positives. At the very least, if Kleck wants to argue that NCVS is flawed, then he should use direct phone surveys to measure both DGUs and gun crimes. Unfortunately, that comparison doesn't yield the conclusion he was looking for, so he went ahead compared his phone survey DGU estimates to NCVS gun crime estimates, which is the only way to get the DGU numbers bigger than the gun crime numbers. It is pretty clear to anyone impartial what is going on here. If Kleck were really interested in a fair comparison, he would obviously use the same methodology to measure both. Wouldn't you agree?


Anyway, that is just the beginning of problems with Kleck's work. I've also posted a lot about this topic, if you are interested:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=428987&mesg_id=436540
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=461816
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=462480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=464176


I do enjoy discussing the research, but it's unfortunate that the pro-gunners can't seem to get past the superficial stuff like "health advocates are notoriously ignorant" and "Hemeneway libelled the NSDS interviewers". BTW, what Hemenway actually did is point out the potential for error that occurs when the people performing a survey know the staked-out position of the investigators. And that was a very small part of Hemenway's overall critique of the study. The use of the term "libel" for this is absurd: this is a methodological criticism, similar to pointing out when a clinical trial is not double-blind. It's not that you think the doctors and nurses will be intentionally dishonest and throw off the results if they know which treatment is real versus placebo. It's just that this knowledge may be enough to cause someone to act differently towards a patient and thereby influence the outcome of a treatment.

[Simo 1939_1940]

145. "BTW, what Hemenway actually did is point out the

potential for error that occurs when the people performing a survey know the staked-out position of the investigators."

If Hemenway had provided proof rather than a cowardly insinuation that the interviewers "knew the staked out positions" of the interviewers, you would have a point. Regardless of the fact that this is a "small part of his overall critique" - when an individual displays such a brazen lack of character, that person loses my respect. Just as Kellermann loses my respect by failing to recognize that the purpose of defensive gun use is not to kill intruders, but rather to protect (potential) victims.

In the first link you provided, I noticed that you had a number of posts deleted in your exchange with gejohnston. Why is that? Possibly the same sort of desperation that Hemenway employs when he smears the NSDS interviewers?

[DanTex]

150. So, you chose to ignore every point I made and continue your character attack on Hemenway...

Figures. Such a shame. There I was hoping you might have something interesting to add to the discussion.

If you read all of Hemenway's critique, you'd find that there are a lot of methodological flaws in the study, and the potential distortion based on the fact that the interviewers were in a position to know the staked out positions of the lead investigator is just one of them. And by the way, I notice you didn't bother to even attempt to answer my point that this is a procedural criticism, very similar to whether a clinical trial is double blind. Not to mention all the rest of the points I made, for example the lack of uniform methodologies Kleck used to derive the DGU versus gun crimes comparison, etc.

Sigh. I suppose it is easier for someone like yourself to go exclusively for the character attacks, because those don't require that you actually understand the subtler scientific or methodological issues involved. And, honestly, since your side of the scientific debate is pretty much indefensible, the character attacks are probably your best hope. So good effort, I guess...

And the same goes for your accusing me of "desperation" because I've had some posts deleted. Welcome to the gungeon. Posts get deleted here all the time. So now that you've attacked me personally, let's see if you can mount any kind of cogent, substantive reply to the actual arguments I've made.

[gejohnston]

182. utter

hypocritical nonsense. Hemenway speculated and made up. I read all of Hemenway's critique, and saw no supporting evidence of his claims. There is no evidence of staked out positions by Gertz or Kleck. That is his and your claim. Other antis in the past made the same baseless claim that Kleck and Gertz made it known to the workers of the results they wanted. Hemenway's staked out position (and funding) is well known is admitted. The very same thing could be said of his people. How did he adjust for that? I missed the explanation.

I suppose it is easier for someone like yourself to go exclusively for the character attacks, because those don't require that you actually understand the subtler scientific or methodological issues involved. And, honestly, since your side of the scientific debate is pretty much indefensible, the character attacks are probably your best hope. So good effort, I guess...

clinical trial? They are pollsters, not pharma testing medication.
You have done the exactly the same thing. Other than parroting Hemenway's speculations, you have not provided any of the "subtler scientific or methodological issues involved" as examples in any other context, I doubt you can. Rather than quoting Hemenway, point to the flaw in Kleck's study. As in read Kleck's study.

I am guessing he did not bother answering your point, because it is not your point. It is Hemenway's point. He can't read what has been deleted before.
If you want to be taken seriously, go to Kleck's study and point out these flaws and what page it item is on.

[Simo 1939_1940]

190. Bingo.

I am guessing he did not bother answering your point, because it is not your point.

Also, anyone who defends indefensible behavior isn't worth my extremely limited time.

[DanTex]

191. You're funny!!

Don't worry. You're hardly the first pro-gunner to wither, shrink, and run for cover when confronted with a logical argument you can't refute. In the words of my dear friend Simo 1939_1940:

Whatsamatta? Cat got your tongue?

:rofl:

[gravity556]

169. Ah, the call for registration.

"the lack of a national registration system etc."

You do, of course, realize the the USSC ruled that requiring criminals and prohibited possessors to register their guns violates their 5th amendment right against self incrimination, right? More to the point, name one single crime that was prevented via registration. Not tracked back to the original owner after the fact, but actually prevented.

And I know it's not politically correct to point out, but there's a rather large majority of firearms crimes that are committed by gang members on other gang members. Yes, gang bangers are typically prohibited possessors, due to the fact that it is unlawful for an illegal drug user to own a firearm. And since it's already illegal to buy or sell drugs (with the limited exceptions of medical marijuana cards-and even those individuals are barred by federal law from owning firearms, since pot is still illegal at the federal level), and a drug conviction on your record makes you a prohibited possessor, even someone who gets a 100 dollar misdemeanor ticket for a half ounce in CA is now permanently barred from owning firearms.

Of course, since the goal of the anti-civil rights movement (that's you, anti-gunners and pro-criminal safety yutzes)is the disarming of law abiding citizens, none of the antis feel that the gang problem is more of the driving force behind the US murder and violent crime rate than availability of guns. Granted, some gangs prefer to use a lower tech weapon (I hear that MS13 prefers machetes), but for the most part, that murder rate is scumbags killing other scumbags.

Crime rates tend to drop in areas that enact more liberal carry laws, simply because gangbangers prefer unarmed victims, since it lessens the chances that they'll end up with an embarassing hole in one of their tattoos. AZ has difficulties due to our being a hub for not only drugs coming north and money going south, but also because the cartels have realized that it's rather lucrative to engage in human trafficking as well. So every once in a while, one cartel's coyotes try to steal another cartel's load of illegals (so that they can hold them for ransom from their families back in Mexico or those already illegally here in the states. When that happens, you end up with a running gun battle on the freeway. Not the kind of activity that law abiding gun owners engage in.

Throw in the fact that while private sales of firearms in AZ are perfectly legal, most gun owners are disinclined to sell a firearm to someone that can't produce a US identification card or decline to sign a bill of sale. Not speaking english is another deal breaker. I have refused to sell a firearm on a couple of occasions just because the individual seemed hinky. Racist? Nope, I'm simply a pragmatic realist.

Of course, when the BATFuckers "encourage" (read that as coerce) a legit federal firearms licenscee to provide hundreds of guns to an obvious straw buyer, then one of those guns is used to murder a US LEO in Mexico, they try to place the blame on those crazy gun nuts in an effort to deflect attention away from the fact that the problem stems directly from the motherfucking idiot short bus riding fucktards in the BATF itself.
This has generated an understandable amount of hostility toward ANY attempt from ANY group advocating further restrictions on the law abiding. Particularly since criminals (and apparently some government agencies) completely fucking IGNORE THE FUCKING LAW ANYWAY.

For fuck's sake, they can't keep fucking drugs out of motherfucking PRISONS. How, exactly, do the anti-rights crowd propose to keep guns away from people who, by definition, IGNORE THE LAWS? What rights are YOU willing to give up? Because the only way to even POSSIBLY enact a total firearms ban in the US would be to suspend posse comitatus, as well as the second, fourth and fifth amendments, impose martial law and send LE and armed troops into an area to conduct house to house searches. While you anti-rights folks might be OK with that, those of us who value our freedoms are most certainly not.

And if you're gonna cancel the second amendment, you'd damn well better apply it to EVERYONE. Bloomberg loses his armed guards, as does every other animal that is more equal than others.

You want to see a lower murder rate? Make gang affiliation a capital offense. Make armed robbery a capital offense. Make rape a capital offense. Treat the bloods and crips and MS13 and every other organized bunch of criminal assholes as enemy combatants and offer a bounty for scalps. May as well, since to disarm the entire nation you'd pretty much have to wipe your ass with the constitution and bill of rights and then flush them down the fucking toilet. Of course, then you end up with a dictatorship and an unarmed and defenseless populace, some of whom will vehemently disagree with whatever fucking regime happens to be in power's ideals, so why not build some gulags out in Death Valley to "reeducate" those recalcitrant fools who insist on having personal liberty.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. The psychological damage done to society when it embraces the

use of violence.

An armed populace is not a polite populace - it is a SCARED populace. The long term stress of living in fear will turn a country into...US.

[rrneck]

7. Yep.

Of course a populace that's unable to defend itself is scared too.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Ok again....

...that is not actual harm.

Not everyone is afraid of firearms.

Violence is not necessarily a bad thing. I would argue it is morally neutral. It is the reason for the violence that is a problem. Hence, you cannot claim the mere existence of violence is harm.

Fear is completely subjective. If you're afraid of an object that is your problem, not the owner of the object.

So again, what is the actual harm? Everything you said is nothing but garbage, to be kind.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. You clearly do not understand what fear has done to you.

What it has done to the entire nation.

Some people focus their fears on the object of the weapon - the weapon is not, however, the source of fear. It is a symptom of the fear.

What is the source of fear?

"Violence is not necessarily a bad thing."

THAT is the scariest crap I think I've ever read on this board. Violence IS necessarily a bad thing. Even when necessary and unavoidable. That's why soldiers and cops - people who have inflicted violence on other people, done with official approval and most often to prevent further violence - suffer PTSD and undergo years of therapy and counseling (if they're lucky). Inflicting harm on another human is inimical to good mental health.

Any man who kills another and does not lose sleep over it is a sociopath, no matter how justified the killing. And sociopathy is not just a matter of bad chemistry - it is primarily a learned behavior. That's why most sociopaths have been found to be victims of violent abuse themselves.

On an individual one-by-one basis, any given person carrying a gun may be no problem. The problem is, society is not, by definition, an individual one-by-one situation. When the cultural zeitgeist makes it acceptable that everyone should be armed against the eventuality of sudden violence, you guarantee that the result will be sudden violence as the norm.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

160. I've never been afraid of guns

They're simply a tool. I respect them but I do not fear them.

As far as violence being a bad thing, I stand by my original statement. It is not inherently bad. The reasons behind it are the issue.

It is violent to defend oneself, however, virtually nobody would say there is something wrong with it. Your examples of PTSD are not valid proof as it does not happen to everyone - just a small subset.

Sometimes violence is necessary and unavoidable. Simple as that.

I am sorry your understanding of this comes from a poor understanding of psychology, but this is your problem, not mine.

[RaleighNCDUer]

172. Violence is pretty much the definition of 'bad'.

And I'm sorry for you that you are unable to see it.

I guess that comes from acculturation to accept violence as a viable response in interpersonal dealings.

I don't know about you, but I have no interest in advancing a new dark age.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

173. I disagree - simple as that.

Has nothing to do with an acculturation - it has to do with recognizing the limitations and function of human beings. Violence, or force if you will, is still very much a necessary tool in dealing with other humans. We may aspire to be more than that, but we are not yet there as a species.

I do not see violence as inherently bad. I'm sorry for you that you've been indoctrinated to believe that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

177. Blessed are the peacemakers...

aw, fuck it. Kill em all and Dad will sort it out.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. Being a peacemaker in that context is one thing...

Being a person who refuses to defend himself is another.

You wont find justification for such a mentality in Christianity. Neither God nor his son have any problem with self defense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

184. True. You wouldn't find anyone in the bible saying

Turn the other cheek, or Put up your sword.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

187. Neither is in reference to self defense

Don't pull the bible thing on me. Seriously. Makes you look like a fundie.

We can start trading old testament quotes all day long if you like...

[RaleighNCDUer]

188. Those are both NEW Testament quotes, and they both specifically

address self-defense in context.

And, I'm an atheist, which means I know more about the bible than most any fundie.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

189. I know they were new testament

The old testament has some real harsh fire-and-brimstone type shit in it regarding self defense and treatment of criminals.

And no - in context they do not. The whole turn the other cheek thing is in regards to minor slights, not self defense. It is essentially saying sweat the small stuff. Christ told Peter to put away his sword after he had cut off the ear of a slave when Jesus was being arrested - basically saying enough is enough. Later, he told those among them who did not have a sword to sell their cloak and get one.

None of the world's major religions has a problem with self defense in any way. The small offshoot sects do, but that's a different story.

[rl6214]

11. Bullshit...an armed populace IS a polite populace.

The 'scared' meme is one the anti-gun advocates like to throw around like there is actually something to it when in reality it really is a false one.

Is there a "psychological damage done to society when it embraces the use of violence"? Possibly but the ownership of carrying of guns is not, in itself "embracing the use of violence". It is the MISUSE of firearms as can be said of the misuse of anything.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Guns have only one purpose. It is for that purpose that they are used.

Guns are not used for building, cooking, cleaning the house, doing projects, or advancing medicine.

They are used only for killing, primarily other humans.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Not true, but even if it were....

you have not presented any actual harm in their ownership.

Remember also, killing is not inherently bad. Sometimes one must kill another.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Ownership - potential for murder and killing of human beings. Since guns have no other purpose....

what on earth else can they be used for? Nothing.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. I don't need a gun....

...to have the potential to murder another human being. I can murder someone with my bare hands as easily as I can a gun.

Besides, "potential" harm does not equate to actual harm.

As far as other purposes, there is hunting of course, and vermin control. As I stated earlier though, killing another human being is sometimes a necessary and morally positive act.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Yeah, but does it get any easier to kill, than the ability to kill from far away?

And the fact that there are classes teaching people to do that, with targets showing human beings. Disgusting.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. I don't think it is disgusting at all.

If I am put in a position where I must kill another person, I want the most effective and efficient tool for the job at my disposal.

The point of silhouette targets is to practice against something similarly shaped to what you may face in a self-defense situation. Criminals do not have concentric rings painted on their chests.

I see nothing wrong with practicing with those kind of targets with a self-defense oriented firearm. Sorry you do.

That does not cause any harm to anyone though, so again, you have failed to answer the question.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. So we don't disagree that guns have only one purpose: to kill humans

(And animals, for those who have no supermarket nearby).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. No, we completely disagree.

I believe they have a variety of purposes. Hunting, target shooting, self-defense (not necessarily killing), vermin and pest control, etc.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Ahem. If that's your pest control, whatever you do, don't invite me to your house.

Scary place.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. If you live in some parts of the country....

you must deal with prairie dogs and the like. Varmint hunting is not only fun, but a necessary task.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. And there's no way to catch them other than with a gun? And Billy the Exterminator?

He doesn't use a gun, and he's doing a booming business.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. Billy the Exterminator

Doesn't typically manage multi-hundred acre areas. Yeah, a firearm is really the most effective tool.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. Yeah, whatever. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. Sorry you dont like the facts

But there they are. If you live in some areas of this country, that's how you deal with some of the pests in your yard. Never mind the larger "pests" which are best described as predators. Pests such as coyote, mountain lion, wolf, etc.

[PavePusher]

85. Assuming you could live-trap several hundred to thousand prarie dogs...

What the hell would you do with them? Pretty sure the neighbors won't want 'em.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Same thing Billy the Exterminator does - takes them to zoos, or lets them loose in the wild, etc. nt

[PavePusher]

99. And again I refer you to #89. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

121. Take them to zoos?

Its a damned prairie dog - not a tiger. It is a rodent. Basically a big tan-colored rat. The only thing a zoo MIGHT want with it is as food for the snakes.

They're already "loose in the wild". Where the hell would you put them?

Do you think before you post?

[one-eyed fat man]

142. Is that you?

"lets them loose in the wild"

The city scum who come out here and dump their unwanted pets at the end of the lane?

Are you why I find dogs half-choked by their outgrown puppy collars?

Are those your house cats raiding the hen house that end up with a 330 Conibear for a necklace?

[RaleighNCDUer]

165. You don't know the difference between a dog and a prairie dog?

:rofl:

[one-eyed fat man]

174. You are a simpleton too?

I was taken by her townie attitude about dumping unwanted animals of any kind, "out in nature."

1080 was the poison used to control prairie dogs. It poisoned everything in the food chain. That might account for her the "Billy the Exterminator" crack. Shooting prairie dogs won't eliminate them but it will manage their numbers with a lot less environmental damage than poisoning them. Scavengers will still eat the carcass, but it won't kill them.

Since you both seem to think poison or dumping is the way to go, have at it.

It's people like her who buy glue traps because a conventional mousetrap is too cruel?

Or who ignore that the mouse she poisons with D-con secondarily poisons her neighbor's house cat.

[Glassunion]

175. My favorite is the fuckheads that put glue traps around the exterior

perimeter of their home...

[one-eyed fat man]

176. Billy the Exterminator?

Are you really that environmentally clueless?

Just suppose we go back to those bad old days when government trappers used a poison known as 1080. It was great and deadly stuff. Not only did it poison the "target" animal it poisoned most animals that ate it by accident.

As an aside, I am sure you have heard the term, "Fuck like a rabbit." If rabbits really are as prolific as the saying says, why aren't we all ass deep in rabbits? It's because just about everything with teeth, beaks or claws eats rabbits.

Back to all those prairie dogs you think Billy the Exterminator should poison, what will happen to the carcasses? The county road department doesn't scoop them up. Crows, vultures, possums, and dozens of other scavengers eat them. Even your very own dog will eat them. Since the little dead critters are all chock full of poison, guess what? All the creatures dining on them get poisoned too.

Are you short-sighted or just willfully ignoring things you don't like?

[PavePusher]

86. What kind of targets would you use for teaching self-defense shooting?

Inquiring minds seek your enlightenment.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Well, there's about 200+ million broken guns in this country then.

[oneshooter]

84. What you said is this.....

"Ownership - potential for murder and killing of human beings"

Being a female- Potential to be a harlot and a whore.

The question is what prevents all females from doing so?

Gun owner- potential to be a murderer.

The same question, what prevents all gun owners from being a murderer?

Same answer.

[GreenStormCloud]

186. My wife has used guns to protect herself.

A few years ago she was about to be mugged. When the mugger found out that she was armed he ran away. A few weeks later it happened again, different guy, but at the same place.

When she was much younger (We are both senior citizens.) she used her mother's shotgun to scare away a would be rapist.

In each case her gun killed no one.

I suppose you would be happier if she had been raped as a young girl and twice mugged as a senior lady.

[rl6214]

19. Here you are completely wrong

They don't have only one purpose. I put food on my table using a gun. My entire family target shoots so they are great family building tools. They are great for helping with eye/hand coordination, confidence and self control.

"They are used only for killing, primarily other humans."

Tell that to the millions of people here in the US that target shoot and hunt. There are really more humans killed than those killed by hunters?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. What's the purpose of hunting? Go out barehanded and 'catch' animals for food, if you insist

I don't have a problem with that. Face up to a deer. If you can outrun him and catch him for food, go right on ahead.

[rl6214]

30. Where do you get your food?

If you eat any sort of meat, someone must kill it for you. You don't outrun whatever you eat and kill it.

I suppose if you eat seafood you dive down and catch it barehanded too, right?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. From the market. I tend toward vegetarianism, and when I don't...

I try to eat from the least inhumane source of living flesh. Even so, it bothers the hell out of me. But shooting innocent animals from behind screens, and camouflaged, that's just sick, sorry.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. Hey - that's your choice.

The human animal is primarily a carnivore though, and most of us prefer meat in our diets.

Just because you personally do not like the practice does not mean it is wrong.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Fine, but at least be humane about it. As humane as can be. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. If i were a hunter....

...which I'm not, I would be as humane as possible and use an appropriate firearm which would ensure a relatively quick and painless death for the animal. Less effective tools would cause more pain.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Nice. NOT. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. What is not nice about it?

Any hunter I have ever known does his absolute best to ensure a one-shot kill, specifically so as NOT to cause the animal undue suffering. There is no need to cause pain just to get the meat. A good clean shot through the heart and lungs will drop the animal pretty fast and there is minimal pain - just as there would be were you to shoot a human through the heart and lungs. He's dead before he hits the ground.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Yeah, uhuh. Every hunter is just one hell of a fabulous shot. Right. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

122. It isn't a hell of a fabulous shot

Its a pretty common and not too difficult shot to make.

Yes - most hunters do shoot well enough to be that precise. It isn't that difficult with practice. You may not realize this but your typical hunting rifle is accurate to within an inch or so of aim at 1000 yards. They're extremely powerful even at that range too.

[rl6214]

47. "I try to eat from the least inhumane source of living flesh"

Did you go out and kill those sources of "living flesh"? I doubt it, you let someone else do your dirty work. Man has been hunting for food for millions of years using various tools to do it. So you are using your version of morality in shooting "innocent animals" for food to label anyone that does do it as "just sick". Many people to not have your opportunity to get their food from the market, many have to live off the land and your opinion of this is "just sick".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Hell no. I'm already traumatized by the fact that I sometimes (SELDOM) eat meat

Why would I want to be killing animals myself?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. Gotcha...

So you're someone who cannot handle what is necessary to survive as a human being without some kind of support structure to cater to your weaknesses.

[rl6214]

67. So you're a hypocrite

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Because then it is within your power to see to it, the animal doesn't suffer.

And game animals live full, free lives, rather than the penned, sad, miserable existence of most factory farms, to say nothing of the often inhumane, ineffective, slow butchering process we put those factory farm animals through.

Properly done, a hunter can put down a deer clean, and quick. The pig that became your breakfast bacon might have been hauled up on a track by one hoof, smacked in the head, and then throat slashed, while still being alive and awake.

Factory farms suck. Have the courage and decency to face your food. See to it, that it dies well.

[HALO141]

75. Seek help

If you can't eat without traumatizing yourself then you should probably talk to a professional about that.

[PavePusher]

88. So, you place yourself as morally superior to the person who provided your food?

Wow, ivory tower or what?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

94. Depends. Are you talking about the poverty-stricken person working in a meat processing plant?

Or are you talking about the greedy a-hs that don't give a damn except to raise cattle in confined areas, and kill them however, so they could fill their pockets with mucho cash?

[PavePusher]

98. See #89.

Then you might try again....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

100. I don't feel like finding it. What does it say? nt

[oneshooter]

125. So you are both a hypocrite and lazy? n/t

[PavePusher]

87. No, it's called "efficiency" and killing the animal as quickly/painlessly as possible.

Unlike your fucktarded "run it down and kill it bare-handed" moon-battery.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. Well that's pretty stupid.

The human animal is a tool user. We have never had the natural weapons or ability of our primary food sources.

You have still not answered the question.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. So use tools. Get yourself a stick, run out there and catch your deer. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. Why?

It is ineffective and inefficient. Not only that, but it would cause the deer a lot of pain and suffering.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Because then the animals would have a chance. Or else get thee to a health market nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. So I should cause the animal MORE pain?

I'm not following you....did you seriously suggest I should cause the animal more pain so it has a chance? That's pure cruelty.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. No. I'm suggesting that even the idea that you should like this, is savage. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

96. Make it a contest. See who wins. You use your legs to run, and use a stick. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

76. You want me to beat a deer to death with a stick?

Deer are exceptional at detecting and avoiding humans. I got nada this year. Nothing at all. A nice couple days outdoors, and that's it.

They have a sporting chance, trust me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

95. They would if you used a stick and your own feet to run after them. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

130. I'm a tool using mammal.

Why would you expect me to run after them like a big cat?

[ileus]

103. put some razor blades on the end of one end and feathers on the other....take another stick

and a piece of string and you have a great device for harvesting animals.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. you gotta be fucking kidding me.

double face/palm

[gejohnston]

32. unless you are a vegan

you must do the same. No more eating a cow or chicken that someone else killed for you, often in very inhumane and barbaric factory farm/feedlots.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. I agree. It's best to be vegetarian. I don't do vegan. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

52. Arguably....

...from a physiological standpoint, the human body functions best on a diet including meat. Purely vegan diets are not good for you, and even vegetarian can cause harm.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

55. I eat eggs and dairy mostly. Good sources of protein, and I try to make these from humane farms

Not from run of the mill, savage places where animals are kept tortured in tiny cages and stalls.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. That is your choice and I support your right to make it.

I, on the other hand, prefer a good steak.

[rl6214]

68. You do know that egg laying chickens are not kept in velvet lined

cages on pillows to lay their eggs at their leisure don't you? Unless you raise them yourself. Same goes for dairy farms. Ever been on or worked a dairy farm?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

93. Nope. But free range chickens and hens live a better life than those confined in tiny cages. nt

[ileus]

105. Until the coyotes eat them...then it's the same.

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Or they're made into chicken soup or pet food, which is their usual end.

Just like the ones who are "confined in tiny cages"...

Your interlocutor apparently thinks they die of old age, and thus is not responsible for the deaths of animals.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

120. Oh I get it. Along the same thinking, since we all die anyway, might as well kill one another nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. He's pointing out that hunters, unlike you (and me), don't kill by proxy.

Anybody that eats, uses, or wears animal products is complicit in the deaths of animals. That includes you, me, and anyone
else who isn't strictly vegan.

Don't kid yourself- those free-range chickens and organically-fed cows that provide the things that you eat don't
die of old age- they get slaughtered.

So get off your high horse. You're not morally superior to hunters because the people that kill living things at your behest
do so in a humane manner.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

183. you do know that a deer has lived a full life in the wild, right?

kinda like that free range chicken but, uh, free-er yanno.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. You hope.

Even vegans eat meat. You don't think grain threshers avoid the field mice, do you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. Yes, but not intentionally. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

162. How convenient

Some countries and cultures eat horseflesh. The same urban nincompoops who were outraged that the French eat horses and demanded the slaughter of horses for human consumption be ended are outraged there is no one to buy their horse now that little Suzy lost interest in her pony and doesn't ride or take care of it any more. So the parents, tired of paying roughly $1800-$2400 a year for feed, load it up onto the trailer and dump it "out in the country."

We just had a case of 70 horses that were abandoned in the Daniel Boone National Forest. Unfortunately about half of them are now pregnant mares. Emaciated horses eating bark off trees. Abandoned horses tied to telephone poles. Horses subsisting on feces, walking among carcasses.

That's 'townies' and their 'pets' and the consequences of their short sighted good intentions based on emotion. Their unassailable and unswerving ignorance is firmly rooted in their absolute certainty they are intellectually and morally superior to those ignorant bumpkins who live out past where the pavement ends.

[one-eyed fat man]

144. Do you even know a real farmer?

I grew up on a farm. I KNOW where my food came from. I know how our animals were cared for. Glad you can dismiss us as poverty stricken troglodytes who insulate you from your killing in superior urban ivory tower!

Hypocrite!

[DissedByBush]

71. Expensive paper punch

That's how mine get used over 99% of the time.

[ileus]

102. Firearms are used for saving lives...of course there's also hunting and competition.

[abelenkpe]

10. Number one reason boys under 17 die

is from a gun found in their home or a relative or friends home. Unfortunately not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. And if you're going to keep your gun locked up and out of the way it's not really for self defense is it? But I'm sure you'll find this answer lacking. Guns are for losers.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

22. Please cite where you got this from:

"Number one reason boys under 17 die is from a gun found in their home or a relative or friends home."

Obviously you can or you wouldn't have posted it, right?


"And if you're going to keep your gun locked up and out of the way it's not really for self defense is it? But I'm sure you'll find this answer lacking"

You really don't know anything about modern safes for storing handguns, do you?

[Hoyt]

12. Look up Loughner to start. Then, look up baby shot by dad's gun.

Or if you prefer studies, try this one: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/11/2034


Summary of Results-- ". . . . . . .Individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

"Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

16. So to answer the question...

...you choose to use criminal behavior.

Try again hoyt. The question is clear. What is the actual harm caused by private ownership and/or carry of firearms? Not perceived harm. Not potential harm. Not harm caused by criminal misuse. Actual, tangible harm caused by ownership and/or carry.

[Hoyt]

28. Loughner was "actual" harm. Baby shot by dad's gun -- is too. More guns in society -- yep.

The fact you don't like the truth -- or even want to hear it -- is typical of those who believe strapping on a gun or two before going to a public park is just dandy.

[rl6214]

34. You do understand what MISUSE of a firearm is don't you?

You are giving examples of misuse of a firearm, not actual firearm ownership. Try again.

[Hoyt]

82. If you exclude bad outcomes as misuse, criminal, etc. -- then, bombs and anthrax are OK too.

Your buddy asked for "harm" and I gave you some examples. You classified it as "misuse" here and "criminal" in another post. Guns are bad for society -- whether because some yahoo "misuses" them, a criminal uses one, or one of you public carriers fucks up by shooting another person, influencing some kid to join the "gun culture", etc.

[rl6214]

111. Only in a warped mind can anyone follow what you are trying to say.

Try to follow along, what harm is done by a firearm if it is not used?

"influencing some kid to join the "gun culture" is not harm. As R Lee Ermy would say, what sort of namby pamby land is this you live in?

[Hoyt]

115. Are you saying guns are never used? And why quote a bigot?

[rl6214]

118. Let's look again at the original post and question:

"What I would like to know is, what actual harm is committed by private ownership or carry (concealed or open) of a firearm? Actual harm mind you, not simply potential harm."

Key words: private ownership or carry...of a firearms. Actual harm...not simply potential harm.

This isn't saying use or misuse of a firearm, it says private ownership or carry. Got it? Go.

[Hoyt]

124. Loughner (who bought gun legally) killed a bunch of people. If that is not "actual harm" -- WTF is?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. Do you not understand the question?

What actual harm is caused by a private individual owning and/or carrying firearms?

The question is not "What criminal acts have some committed"?

I am not denying in any way that some people commit criminal acts. Of course they do. They are an extremely small subset of the population though.

I am not denying that like virtually anything else on the planet a gun can be misused and cause harm.

I am asking point blank, what actual harm is caused to someone by a person owning or carrying a firearm.

[Hoyt]

133. Once again you want to exclude all bad outcomes, that is crazy. But, having people walking around

with guns is just not something most people want to see. Society has not reached the point where we have to be armed against each other. People don't walk around with sword, spear guns, fake hand grenades, boxes full of shit, etc. They should not be walking around with a deadly weapon either. Further, more guns will just make the situation more difficult to correct when the vast majority of citizens -- who think it is irrational to carry a gun in public -- get fed up with those who abuse carrying privileges.

Here's a direct answer -- your packing a figgin gun is a danger to those around you and society in general. Some people are upset by the presence of a gun. Others know gunners are not nearly as qualified as they like to think to use that gun in a crowd. Others just don't like some yahoo taking advantage of laws by walking around in a public, peaceful place with a deadly weapon like they are supporting a new pair of shoes or something. Guns aren't needed in public -- automobiles and all the other BS gunners use to rationalize their bad habit are useful to get you to public parks, churches, bars, etc.

If you lit a fire in a theater, it would be a threat -- carrying a deadly weapon is the same in my opinion (and the hundreds of millions of people who don't even think of carrying a gun in public feel the same way).

From here on out, you guys are just going to have to figure it out for yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. Like an unlit cigar in someones' pocket exposes me to second-hand smoke?

That's an awful lot of verbiage to avoid the OP's question. No wonder you're not getting writing gigs- you can't edit yourself...

[Hoyt]

147. You don't really want an answer to the question, so go play with your guns and send in your NRA dues

to keep the propaganda flowing that "lethal weapons are good."

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. Actually, I do- so why don't you answer it? BTW, unlike you, I don't own any guns.

Perhaps you could explain why we should trust you with your guns, given all your claims about the danger posed by gun owners.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. You're completely wrong.

I do not want to exclude the bad outcomes. I have explicitly stated that I am aware criminals do criminal things.

Your "direct answer" isnt. You have not presented any real harm, merely the subjective beliefs of what others like or do not like. That is not harm. I don't much give a damn what you like if I am not hurting you. In fact, if you replace "gun" with "black" you've basically got the wrong-headed arguments of the pro-segregation side of things back in the 60s.

Looking at your lighting a fire in a theater idea, you're comparing the act of lighting a fire to carrying a gun. The two are not the same. In addition, lighting the fire would not so much be a threat as a dangerous act. What would be more analogous would be carrying a lighter into a theater - an act which is perfectly reasonable and nobody has a problem with - even though it could be used far more easily to kill far more people than a simple firearm could in that scenario.

You still have not actually answered the question. What actual harm is caused to someone by private ownership or carry of firearms?

[Hoyt]

148. So a baby getting shot by one of dad's guns is a "good" outcome? I think you are confused.

I know you are asking a ridiculous question and aren't going to accept any answer that sullies your precious guns. So why even start this thread?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

156. I never said it was a good outcome

Or even implied it for that matter.

What I asked was, what direct harm is caused by private ownership or carry of a firearm. It is a simple question.

To rephrase it, what actual harm is caused by your neighbor having firearms in his home? What actual harm is caused by the guy standing next to you in Starbucks having a concealed pistol?

Actual, tangible, real harm. Not your fears. Not the potential.

[one-eyed fat man]

143. How did he do that?

Did he not perjure himself on question "11 e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

His mental problems were likely enough for him to be a prohibited person, except that his family failed to have him committed or even apparently treated. His mother worked for the sheriff's office. Apparently his criminal record was suppressed as well.

Just because they system didn't catch you after you committed a crime does not meant you are not a criminal.

Everyone in ten counties and two thirds of the Internet could be positive you are an absolute raving loon who should be locked up in asylum, but until a judge says so, AND causes your name to be in the FBI database you could pass a NICS check as long as you lie about smoking dope.

[Hoyt]

146. Once again, exclude all the bad outcomes to try to make "guns" appear pure. That's BS.

[one-eyed fat man]

166. Guns are like computers

They are neither intrinsically good or evil. What you do with them certainly can be.

Halloween is supposed to be a fun time for little kids. Fifty years ago no one gave a second thought to a pack of kids old enough to cross the street by themselves going out until midnight, unaccompanied by adults, to trick or treat.

No one put dangerous things like pins or razor blades in the treats. Nothing was adulterated or poisoned. The biggest danger was a stomach ache from too much licorice or breaking a tooth on Aunt Mabel's peanut brittle.

So is Halloween intrinsically evil? Or have evil, pyschotic criminal, and deviant bastards used it to their advantage?

Or should we insist in a law against poisoning little kids or abusing them for Halloween?

[RaleighNCDUer]

167. There you'd have no objection to handing out handgrenades in grade schools,

because, of course, they are not dangerous unless they are misused.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

170. Of course I would

For the same reason I would not want a child to have unsupervised access to ANYTHING which requires a bit of responsibility to use safely.

You want to offer them for sale at the university book store? Go right ahead.


It is one thing to expect adults to act responsibly. It is another to expect a child to do so. It is also insulting to imply that adults are no different than children...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. That was criminal misuse.

It was not simple private ownership or carry. Same with a child being shot by his father's improperly stored firearm. That is the fault of the adult who didn't put away his tools. Could just as easily have happened with a chainsaw.

I'm LOOKING for the truth Hoyt. So far, you haven't presented any. You've pointedly ignored the direct question and attempted to equate criminal acts with lawful private ownership.

[Hoyt]

83. "Misuse" is "harm." You can't exclude all the bad outcomes to declare something "harmless."

[Hoyt]

116. Is you crazy? If you exclude all the bad outcomes, I guess anything is harmless.

Pollution, disease, child abuse, etc., are all OK I guess if we are going to exclude/ignore the bad outcomes and shattered lives. Truthfully, I believe most carriers don't care about any of that -- they are addicted to guns.

[rl6214]

119. You seriously can't believe anything you write, can you?

Do you believe in all conspiracy theories?

[Hoyt]

123. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, including the BS around F&F.

But, you can't assess the harm something does to society by excluding all the bad outcomes as not pertinent.

The OP asked for examples of harm to society by people carrying guns -- I gave some. You guys tried to dodge that by excluding all bad outcomes as "misuse." That is clearly BS, but typical.

[oneshooter]

126. Grabbing a CHL holder and demanding his/her "papers and permits"is included, right? n/t

[rl6214]

161. He has NO intellectual honesty, you won't get an honest answer

[oneshooter]

179. Actually I don't believe that he has much in the way of any honesty.

If he does he surly hasn't shown it here. He refuses to answer even the simplest question, except to try to insult the asker. and apparently can not explain his own beliefs.

"Hoyt, you and others have spoke often of the "impact on society "
that concealed carry has. I would at this time ask you to explain to me exactly what this "impact on society" is."

Such a simple question scares him.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[gejohnston]

69. How about

something done by criminologists, or at least someone who is not connected to public health or funded by the Joyce Foundation. Oh yeah, where we can actually read the study.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Less than 14,000 murders, versus the DOJ's recorded 100k DGU's per year.

Yeah, boy, that study was awesome you cited there.

[Hoyt]

149. Would love to hear warped comments on study that gun owners are more likely to get shot in assault.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/9...


Summary of Results-- ". . . . . . .Individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."


I'm sure it won't shake your diehard belief that a gun or two strapped to your body makes you -- and those unfortunate enough to be around you -- safe.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Actually, we've discussed this study, and it's flaws in the past.

Quelle surprise you don't remember it.

[Hoyt]

163. What flaws, other than it shows how pointless public toting is?

I guess it should have gone further to say: "Although gun toters end up getting shot in assaults much more often than those rational people who don't tote, most gun toters are unable to leave their beloved guns at home . . . . . ."

[AtheistCrusader]

171. It should be obvious to you, getting shot isn't the only form of harm that one can experience.

The study showed that people who didn't resist at all fared worst. People who resisted with hands and feet had better outcomes, and people who resisted with firearms had slightly better outcomes than the people who resisted with hands and feet.

The study also acknowledged that people who resisted with a firearm tended to face the worst conditions from the outset.

They did not draw a conclusion, but suggest some possibilities, such as possible that people with arms tend to still go places that are 'dangerous', where others do not. Or, the flipside was possible, that these people lived in 'dangerous' places, and therefore chose to be armed, making it more likely that they would be the sort of person to encounter the potential danger.

[Hoyt]

14. Question for you. What makes you think yahoos walking around in public with deadly weapons

won't cause some harm? And, more and more guns in society won't increase the risk?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. I'll be happy to answer your question

As soon as you answer the one posed in the OP.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Current, easily available statistics.

[Hoyt]

80. You sound like those who denied the connection between smoking and lung disease.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. Except of course, the causal link was obvious in that case.

Not so for CPL's.

[oneshooter]

127. And you walking around with a machete or two is not dangerous? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

24. I'm noticing a trend from the anti-2A group posting here.

I'm sure you notice it too.

[rl6214]

36. Yeah, they got nothin.

[PavePusher]

89. Avoidance? Misdirection? Purposeful disingenuousness?

Evasion? Changing the subject? Short-attention-span-theater?

[oneshooter]

107. Ignorance? n/t

[ileus]

97. Guns cause harm by being rude and impolite to society and killing people.