Will eliminating all handguns cost lives?

[rrneck]

Poll question: Will eliminating all handguns cost lives?

Edit to rephrase question.

[Fumesucker]

1. In business news: Proctologists report tsunami of new patients..

Says one noted proctologist, "Business is really looking up".

[fascisthunter]

3. lol

[rrneck]

8. Yes, there is certainly a light at the end of the tunnel. nt

[tularetom]

2. Your premise is faulty

If all handguns were eliminated it would not cost lives.

However, it isn't possible to eliminate all handguns.

[Simo 1939_1940]

6. Perhaps one of the goals of the OP was to determine

how many folks believe that it's possible to eliminate all handguns. ;-)

Edited to insert omitted word

[rrneck]

14. That's one of the flaws. Thete are at least two more. nt

[rrneck]

7. Some people defend themselves with handguns who might otherwise die.

But the poll is certainly faulty.

[tularetom]

21. Arguably it would be a wash

If I used a handgun to kill a bad guy who otherwise would take my life the net increase in lives cost would be zero.

Now arguably I could say that it is a productive life for a non productive one but that is a subjective judgment.

But once again, anybody who thinks that handguns could be eliminated is delusional so the argument is moot.

[rrneck]

22. I agree. nt

[fascisthunter]

4. if only we had more weapons, the world be much more safer and gentler

sheesh

[rrneck]

9. Not really. nt

[PavePusher]

19. Implying that before firearms, or any weapons, the world was a utopia?

Sheesh, indeed...

[Simo 1939_1940]

5. I voted *other* due to the fact that there is no way to

eliminate any commodity for which there is strong demand.

Also - since we'll never be able to measure the number of defensive gun uses with perfect accuracy, we'll never know with absolute certainty if DGUs outnumber offensive gun uses, or vice versa. I'm comfortable with the belief that the presence of firearms creates a "null" effect - with DGUs essentially balancing out OGUs in terms of societal harm.

[rrneck]

10. Ansolutely.

A flawed poll like this does little to illuminate the actual harm or benefit to society and much to illuminate the feelings of partisans on both sides of the issue.

[RC]

13. Black and white think much?

If it is not one extreme or the other, is ain't happening?

[rrneck]

16. Why is the poll flawed? (It was intended to be so) nt

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. Ha ha - good job, rrneck!

Further explanation provided here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x473887#474073

[Simo 1939_1940]

18. Not sure what your point is, unless you are attributing

attitudes to me that I do not harbor.

[RC]

28. Your post is full of words like

"eliminate any commodity for which there is strong demand.

Also - since we'll never be able to measure the number of defensive gun uses with perfect accuracy, we'll never know with absolute certainty if DGUs outnumber offensive gun uses, or vice versa. I'm comfortable with the belief that the presence of firearms creates a "null" effect - with DGUs essentially balancing out OGUs in terms of societal harm."


What you are saying if it is not 100%, it doesn't count.

The real world is not only shades of grey, but full of color also. Not all that many absolutes.

[frebrd]

11. Unrecc for a totally impossible premise!

:shrug:

[rrneck]

12. Much deserved indeed. Thank you.

But even taken as a hypothetical, why is the poll flawed?

[RC]

15. Rephase the question to read: "Without handguns, will more people be killed by them?"

Of course the answer is no.
But the gun nuts have a problem comprehending straight forward logic.

[rrneck]

17. Not quite.

Some people defend themselves with handguns who might otherwise die. There are other flaws though.

[RC]

27. Flaws like no one having hand guns?

[rrneck]

29. Well, no. It could ne a hypothetical question I guess.

The question only assumes lives will be lost. Another poll assumes the opposite and is equally flawed.

There are more flaws in both.

[ileus]

23. eliminating all handguns would cost fun....

Sure shotguns and rifles are a blast to shoot and hunt with....but the handgun, there's nothing more fun than putting 250 rounds of pistol ammo downrange.

You can carry 4 or 5 pistols and a 4 hours worth of ammo in a really small package. I'm looking for a compact 40 now to add to my handgun shooting enjoyment.

[rrneck]

24. I've considered a compact. 40

but I'm too attached to my 1911.

And I'm a cheap bastard.

[RSillsbee]

26. I'm really happy w/ my CZ RAMI

More of a sub compact though

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Yes it would cost lives and livelihoods

[Starboard Tack]

30. 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.

How do you reconcile that little factoid?

[rrneck]

31. How 'bout this?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

1,246,248 violent crimes.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Thanks. I didn't want to include that number, because not all involved handguns.

But you're right, it's a significant number. I see you are finally coming around. Good for you.

[rrneck]

34. More sophistry and bullshit from you.

How many used, needed, or wished they had a gun when they were assaulted?

You may think you're talking to yourself but you're not. You are, however, making a fool of yourself.

[cleanhippie]

35. You NAILED the last point! Spot on!

[Starboard Tack]

36. No we're talking to the world. Thanks for joining me on the ride.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Its one of many things that need to be considered

The problem is that not all metrics are available. To pontificate based on known incomplete data is dishonest at best

[rrneck]

37. It's emotionally honest.

And a quick road in his rush to umbrage.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Satisfying perhaps, but not honest

emotionally or otherwise

[oneshooter]

39. Nobody ever claimed he was honest. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

40. Do you have complete data? We're having a conversation here.

I'm not pontificating any more than you and I don't accuse you of dishonesty.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. As we have discussed previously those metrics are somewhere

between highly disputed to unavailable, yet they are a key to making rational decisions.

IIRC you declined to pursue them.