Straight Dope Message Board

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

No problem; if they grab my gun away from me, then they'll have the gun, so I'll grab it away from them.

Honestly, "they'll just grab your gun away from you" is the most retarded anti-gun argument I've ever heard.

Thank you, Lumpy. 2651

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

No problem; if they grab my gun away from me, then they'll have the gun, so I'll grab it away from them.

Honestly, "they'll just grab your gun away from you" is the most retarded anti-gun argument I've ever heard.

Says the guy who isn't 5'1. And is ignorant of all the times exactly that happens.

And if that's the worst anti-gun argument you've ever heard, maybe it's time to reconsider your position, hoss. 2652

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Says the guy who isn't 5'1. And is ignorant of all the times exactly that happens.

Some people think a firearm is a magic wand that makes people do what you tell them. Of course, it most certainly is not. 2653

[Vinyl Turnip]

True. It's more of a Wand of Enlargement, which magically turns douchebags into bigger douchebags. 2654

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

True. It's more of a Wand of Enlargement, which magically turns douchebags into bigger douchebags.

2655

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Saying shit like that is what makes politicians vote against reasonable gun control laws that everyone supports. 2656

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Saying shit like that is what makes politicians vote against reasonable gun control laws that everyone supports.

Run that by again?
That was just a tacky remark on a message board, not serious debate. 2657

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

This Florida based CCW gun-owner has failed to learn anything from the Zimmerman case. If he would have just killed the vicious thugs attacking him, everything would have been fine.

This is an excellent example of why the Stand Your Ground law is both idiotic and badly applied--it DOES seem that you're more likely to go to jail in Florida for attempting to intimidate your way out of a fight than by actually opening fire with intent to harm, and that's completely fucked up. 2658

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

Run that by again?
That was just a tacky remark on a message board, not serious debate.

If our elected leaders are really that sensitive, I pray they never discover the Snackpit. Government as we know it would collapse. 2659

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Everyone should be mindful of the fact that Damuri Ajashi's evidence re: CCW safety was an write up of Texas data by some guy on the internet. That's it.

His other evidence consists of quotes from a lawyer in LA and from Bill Bennett. He considers this evidence.

Just so we're all clear on what's being asserted.

If you have a problem with the cites then explain your objection if your problem is that some of my cites are gun nuts then I suspect that there are a few of your cites from gun grabbers.

BTW, some of my cites include the violence policy center and the department of justice.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

And he still is yammering nonstop about the AWB, like an untreated OCD patient, still claiming that his side's efforts to stop Manchin-Toomey, which would have done what he claims he wants done but was not an AWB, was actually its proponents' fault!

His ability to fantasize even includes that. And it is not the mark of someone mentally healthy enough to be permitted even to look at a gun.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

I should have added that he isn't even bothering to support his claims even that far, when bloviating about how and why the AWB and Manchin-Toomey bills got defeated. No news reports, no commentary, not even some other guy on the Internet. Nothing, just his imagined butthurt.

But remember, this is a guy for whom tens of thousands of deaths are an excusable and rationalizable abstraction at best, while the jackboots of tyranny are a real threat. That syndrome would be laughable if it weren't so common and so rarely treated.

We had this debate in great debates and I was not the only one who thought you guys fucked yourselves raw with the AWB.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

It's more likely something that can be grabbed away and used against you. Have you thought this out, practiced some tactics etc., or is this another case of compensatory fantasizing?

Yes, no doubt there are legitimate cases of successful defensive gun use. But the numbers of deaths from gun use are far, far greater. Now, what then should a responsible society do?

350, 000 defensive gun uses per year versus 700 accidental gun deaths and at most 5000 gun murders every year.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

No problem; if they grab my gun away from me, then they'll have the gun, so I'll grab it away from them.

Honestly, "they'll just grab your gun away from you" is the most retarded anti-gun argument I've ever heard.

That's a pretty high hurdle. I'm pretty sure I've heard dumber anti gun arguments... this week.

Originally Posted by Zeriel

This is an excellent example of why the Stand Your Ground law is both idiotic and badly applied--it DOES seem that you're more likely to go to jail in Florida for attempting to intimidate your way out of a fight than by actually opening fire with intent to harm, and that's completely fucked up.

+ 1 2660

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

Are you referring to people killed by firearms?

That doesn't bother me as long as when the guys Mrs. Plant was to testify against come through the door, at 5' tall I have something to shoot them with.

God made men colonel Colt made them equal. 2661

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

We had this debate in great debates and I was not the only one who thought you guys fucked yourselves raw with the AWB.

Maybe someday you'll actually favor us with some actual reporting or serious commentary to support your remarkable claim about that. Hell, even some crackpot blog would be more than you've offered other than your OCD-like "Look what you made us do!" crap.

350, 000 defensive gun uses per year

Extremely, extremely questionable, and that's being generous. But you've already shown yourself eager to swallow any gun glurge that comes your way and repeat it as "fact", haven't you?

Time to grow the fuck up, kid. 2662

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

If you have a problem with the cites then explain your objection if your problem is that some of my cites are gun nuts then I suspect that there are a few of your cites from gun grabbers.

BTW, some of my cites include the violence policy center and the department of justice.

I already did this in post 2611. I went through in painstaking detail, noting my objections to your cites. Since you often just link generically to something without actually citing and quoting the relevant bit, this took some time. I went so far as to reviewing data tables, attempting to retrospectively determine what base data the Texas guy was using (since he didn’t provide it) by reverse calculation from his population averaged data. Another cite, buried in the middle of a long ass article – which you again failed to bother to specifically cite – was from a lawyer. In order to ensure that he had no demonstrable expertise on the topic of CCW safety, I searched for and reviewed his CV. I even linked to that for you.

The fact that you could now, at this stage, ask me to specifically document my objections to your cites demonstrates why any meaningful response to you is just a waste of time. You are uninterested or incapable of comprehending the issues. I suspect the latter, since you continue to do things like cite the fact that some lawyer or Bill Bennett said so, or you say things like “some of my cites include the violence policy center and the department of justice.” Cognitively, you are still at a very primary stage – appeals to authority are all you can muster, rather than thinking through for yourself the merits of an argument or a bit of evidence.

For instance, one problem with an appeal to authority on your part like “I cited the Violence Policy Center” is that you then have to cope with inconvenient facts. For instance, the VPC’s position on DGU is reflected in this press release from April, 2013, which says in part:

Firearm Justifiable Homicides by Private Citizens Occur Rarely

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. […]

Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Violent Crimes

For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. […]

Firearms are Rarely Used in Self-Defense by Victims of Attempted or Completed Property Crimes

For victims of both attempted and completed property crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.1 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property crimes. [/b]During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm.[/b] Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And that number as well may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, new data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010.

Total Number of Actual Self-Defense Firearm Uses are Only a Small Fraction of Pro-Gun Claims

According to the NCVS, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year).

(Bolding in the original.)

Since you lack the capacity to think through the merits of your arguments and your cites, you are now in the position of having to mindlessly reject this evidence from the VPC while continuing to endorse some other supposed evidence from the VPC.

So which is it? Do you endorse the VPCs position that the number of DGU’s on an annual basis from 2007 to 2011 was 84,675 per year? 2663

[ElvisL1ves]

But ... but ... there was some glurge in his Facebook feed that said something he wants to be true! So there! 2664

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I need to correct my last line above. I treated the window of time from that data (2007-2011) as a four year period rather than a five year period. So the average DGU per year would be 67,740 instead of the number I gave above. 2665

[ElvisL1ves]

That doesn't even break down the number of "uses" where the gun actually made any difference to the outcome, or was necessary or even appropriate, or even escalated the situation. 2666

[ElvisL1ves]

Jesus wants you to sell your clothes and buy a gun. Problem is, you can't get ammo for it because DHS is hoarding it as part of Obama's scheme to enslave you. 2667

[Zeriel]

I really wish there were more crazy left-wing gun nuts so someone would shoot Klingon Shit already.

Regarding the defensive gun use discussion, can anyone even think of a way to get a study that might be in the same universe as truthful in the current political climate? 2668

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I really wish there were more crazy left-wing gun nuts so someone would shoot Klingon Shit already.

Regarding the defensive gun use discussion, can anyone even think of a way to get a study that might be in the same universe as truthful in the current political climate?

It is difficult, but I'm not sure the climate has much to do with it. The problem is that official records are likely to misscases that are unreported. However, surveying gun owners is problematic because they are by their very nature, likely to over report incidents, as well as reporting incidents that they themselves escalated as "defensive". 2669

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I really wish there were more crazy left-wing gun nuts

Does the fact that most of the nuts are on the pro-murder-rights side mean anything to you? 2670

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Does the fact that most of the nuts are on the pro-murder-rights side mean anything to you?

What does it mean, "Pro-murder-rights"? 2671

[ElvisL1ves]

Calling things what they are is good, isn't it? 2672

[BrainGlutton]

Now the NRA wants the SCOTUS to strike down laws banning handgun sales to under-21-year-olds.

Y'know, whatever the reasons why the Columbine High School massacre happened, it would not have happened if it had been just a little more difficult for two emotionally disturbed teenagers to amass a small arsenal of firearms and ammunition without some responsible adult finding out about it. 2673

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Does the fact that most of the nuts are on the pro-murder-rights side mean anything to you?

I want you to let that ("Your side is literally advocating murder!") slide the next time a pro-lifer says it to you.

(I'm vehemently pro-choice with no limitations, fyi.) 2674

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Now the NRA wants the SCOTUS to strike down laws banning handgun sales to under-21-year-olds.

Y'know, whatever the reasons why the Columbine High School massacre happened, it would not have happened if it had been just a little more difficult for two emotionally disturbed teenagers to amass a small arsenal of firearms and ammunition without some responsible adult finding out about it.

That sounds a bit wrong even for a gun owner.
Did the Columbine killers buy the guns, or did they use family member's? 2675

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Now the NRA wants the SCOTUS to strike down laws banning handgun sales to under-21-year-olds.

Not any under-21s, just younger than 18; the age at which you can vote, drink in many states, and join the Army against your parents' wishes.

Y'know, whatever the reasons why the Columbine High School massacre happened, it would not have happened if it had been just a little more difficult for two emotionally disturbed teenagers to amass a small arsenal of firearms and ammunition without some responsible adult finding out about it.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were under 18 when they illegally acquired their guns through straw buyers and a gun dealer who broke federal law by not recording the identity of a purchaser.

So how do you propose to have enforced the broken laws? 2676

[Zeriel]

Man, the fuckin' NRA.

Regarding Harris and Klebold, I expand my previous stance--The law SHOULD be such that the dealer who sold them the weapons should be prosecuted for murder--he made an inexcusable (to my knowledge, there's nothing like a fake ID involved) error regarding transferring possession of a firearm that directly resulted in a murder.

Mostly the reason I find gun threads so depressing anymore is that I can't think of a political position taken by the NRA in the last five years that I wasn't offended by. So the pro-gun types tend to think of me as a gun-grabbing quisling--especially because I'm, gasp, in favor of registration and licensing.

Meanwhile, because I wholeheartedly support (for what I would consider to be solid moral reasons) the individual right to effective self-defense, I'm seen as a crazy gun-owning asshole by the other side. 2677

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were under 18 when they illegally acquired their guns through straw buyers and a gun dealer who broke federal law by not recording the identity of a purchaser.

So how do you propose to have enforced the broken laws?

Cracking down on illegal gun dealers would be a good start, but I daresay the NRA would have something to say against that. Not 30 years ago, but they've completely cut loose from reality, now. 2678

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Not any under-21s, just younger than 18; the age at which you can vote, drink in many states, and join the Army against your parents' wishes.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were under 18 when they illegally acquired their guns through straw buyers and a gun dealer who broke federal law by not recording the identity of a purchaser.

So how do you propose to have enforced the broken laws?

According to this article, neither the straw buyer nor the gun dealer were ever charged.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0801.htm

Turns out it was perfectly legal for the underaged guys to buy their guns (except the handgun) and they didn't even need their 18-yo friend to buy for them.

I seem to recall improper record keeping by licensed gun dealers, or even lack thereof, is a maximum misdemeanor, thanks to the NRA again.

It would be nice if the ATF had the funding and manpower to, you know, enforce the laws we already have. That would be one way to enforce the laws. You know, have enough people whose job it is to, you know, enforce the laws. 2679

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Not any under-21s, just younger than 18; the age at which you can vote, drink in many states, and join the Army against your parents' wishes.

Well, I want every 18-year-old to vote, and I don't much care if an 18-year-old is drunk, but I do care if he's drunk and driving, and drunk and armed is worse. For that matter, sober and armed is more dangerous than drunk driving at that age, unless he's actually in the Army (which is more dangerous still, but that's another discussion). 2680

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I want you to let that ("Your side is literally advocating murder!") slide the next time a pro-lifer says it to you.

Why? A fetus is not a human, and the central purpose of abortion is not to kill it. Perhaps you thought you had a point of some kind there; sorry to disabuse you.

Now, how is the gun rights absolutist (or even the gun rights default case) position not accurately described as pro murder rights? 2681

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Why? A fetus is not a human, and the central purpose of abortion is not to kill it. Perhaps you thought you had a point of some kind there; sorry to disabuse you.

Really? Suppose it becomes medically possible to transplant unwanted fetuses to volunteer surrogates; and as a consequence a Prenatal Adoption Act is passed making it a crime to kill a fetus by abortion. I think we'd then see that it isn't about "a woman's body", it's about vetoing a baby's existence.

Now, how is the gun rights absolutist (or even the gun rights default case) position not accurately described as pro murder rights?

Simple: Shooting someone in legitimate self-defense isn't murder. Yes, it might cause a human death. Causing a death != murder. 2682

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Regarding Harris and Klebold, I expand my previous stance--The law SHOULD be such that the dealer who sold them the weapons should be prosecuted for murder--he made an inexcusable (to my knowledge, there's nothing like a fake ID involved) error regarding transferring possession of a firearm that directly resulted in a murder.

I'll back you up on this. In fact, given how broad "accessory" laws on felonies are, I'm surprised straw buyers aren't already charged as accomplices when the guns they pass on are used in murders.

However, in the particular case of the Columbine murders, the main straw buyer was given immunity in exchange for cooperation, and it couldn't be proven that the gun dealer sold the firearm in question directly to the killers. Two other intermediates were convicted however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ha...Acquiring_arms 2683

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Man, the fuckin' NRA.

Regarding Harris and Klebold, I expand my previous stance--The law SHOULD be such that the dealer who sold them the weapons should be prosecuted for murder--he made an inexcusable (to my knowledge, there's nothing like a fake ID involved) error regarding transferring possession of a firearm that directly resulted in a murder.

Mostly the reason I find gun threads so depressing anymore is that I can't think of a political position taken by the NRA in the last five years that I wasn't offended by. So the pro-gun types tend to think of me as a gun-grabbing quisling--especially because I'm, gasp, in favor of registration and licensing.

Meanwhile, because I wholeheartedly support (for what I would consider to be solid moral reasons) the individual right to effective self-defense, I'm seen as a crazy gun-owning asshole by the other side.

Apropos of nothing, I suppose, I just wanted to note that I very much appreciate your position and perspective. 2684

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, I want every 18-year-old to vote, and I don't much care if an 18-year-old is drunk, but I do care if he's drunk and driving, and drunk and armed is worse. For that matter, sober and armed is more dangerous than drunk driving at that age, unless he's actually in the Army (which is more dangerous still, but that's another discussion).

... really? Sober and armed 18-year-olds are more dangerous than drunk driving ones? 2685

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Really? Suppose it becomes medically possible to transplant unwanted fetuses to volunteer surrogates; and as a consequence a Prenatal Adoption Act is passed making it a crime to kill a fetus by abortion.

The ridiculous extremes to which you have to go to invent a situation in which you might have a point should be informative. Sadly, most of us are doomed to live in the real world - we don't have the luxury of imagining a hypothetical one where our views can be justified.

Simple: Shooting someone in legitimate self-defense isn't murder.

Real-world examples (something you've just demonstrated a distaste, but that's your problem) are hardly ever "simple", are they? 2686

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

... really? Sober and armed 18-year-olds are more dangerous than drunk driving ones?

Even when sober, they're drunk on hormones. 2687

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Apropos of nothing, I suppose, I just wanted to note that I very much appreciate your position and perspective.

I actually do appreciate hearing that. It's too easy to get heated about it, for a lot of good reasons (people being dead, and a perception of fundamental moral rights on both sides). 2688

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Real-world examples (something you've just demonstrated a distaste, but that's your problem) are hardly ever "simple", are they?

That's true of everything.

I'll tell you what, I'll even give you a freebie--the circumstances under which I'd accept a gun ban from a moral standpoint.

If you give me a world where the police have a positive duty to protect each citizen, personally and individually, at all times. And there are enough of them and effective enough that this is plausible. And each of us or our surviving kin can sue the local blue suits for dereliction of duty if we ARE physically harmed by a criminal.

Then I will consider the fundamental moral right I have (to effective self-defense) to be adequately discharged by the state such that I don't need to have the most effective tools to exercise that right personally.

Right now I live in a world (as you say) where cops are generally middling, and are expressly NOT responsible for stopping or responding to any individual call. Being a particularly strong and large male, I suppose if you could offer me some sort of guarantee no criminal I encountered would be carrying, say, a bat or martial arts training... 2689

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The ridiculous extremes to which you have to go to invent a situation in which you might have a point should be informative. Sadly, most of us are doomed to live in the real world - we don't have the luxury of imagining a hypothetical one where our views can be justified.

Real-world examples (something you've just demonstrated a distaste, but that's your problem) are hardly ever "simple", are they?

You stated that the purpose of abortion is not expressly to kill the fetus. I proposed a thought experiment that would put that premise to the test.

Do you have any counter-arguments besides "Ha-ha, I pwn you."? 2690

[ElvisL1ves]

So, the answer to "Do you have anything based on the real world to argue?" would be "No." Got it.

Zeriel, show some credible data that guns save more lives than they cost, and you might have an argument. 2691

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So, the answer to "Do you have anything based on the real world to argue?" would be "No." Got it.

Zeriel, show some credible data that guns save more lives than they cost, and you might have an argument.

And good luck getting past the percentage of gun deaths that are suicides. 2692

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Maybe someday you'll actually favor us with some actual reporting or serious commentary to support your remarkable claim about that. Hell, even some crackpot blog would be more than you've offered other than your OCD-like "Look what you made us do!" crap.

Yeah, why don't you try that sort of bullshit on the great debates thread. Hentor tried with decidedly mixed results.

[quote]Extremely, extremely questionable, and that's being generous. But you've already shown yourself eager to swallow any gun glurge that comes your way and repeat it as "fact", haven't you?

The "extremely extremely questionable" data is provided by the Department of Justice and cited by the violence policy center. Its the best information we have. Your complaint seems to be that you think the best estimates we have are still too high for your tastes.

Time to grow the fuck up, kid.

Time to face reality chuckles. You're losing and the people on your side of the argument are embarassed by you. You're like the PETA of gun control. You might make sense if you dialed it back a LOT but as it is you are proposing something that is politically impossible as long as we have a bicameral legislation.

You and the gun nuts do have one thing in common, you both think that the government can confiscate our guns. You only seem to disagree on the effect of such a confiscation. Short of a constitutional amendment, you can't do it legally and short of a restructuring of our bicameral legislature, you can't get it done politically (and its the senate not the house that stands in the way, you're just never going to get senators from 30 states to go along with confiscation).

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I already did this in post 2611. I went through in painstaking detail, noting my objections to your cites.

Yeah, most of those boiled down to:

"NUH-UH! I have a countercite so your cite becomes useless" or
"your cite is from a pro gun site so your cite is useless" or
"your author isn't an academic so anything they write is useless" or
"your cite isn't a peer reviewed study so its useless" or some shit like that.

Cognitively, you are still at a very primary stage – appeals to authority are all you can muster, rather than thinking through for yourself the merits of an argument or a bit of evidence.

You have yet to provide any evidence to consider. Provide some and I'll consider it.

For instance, one problem with an appeal to authority on your part like “I cited the Violence Policy Center” is that you then have to cope with inconvenient facts. For instance, the VPC’s position on DGU is reflected in this press release from April, 2013, which says in part:

(Bolding in the original.)

Since you lack the capacity to think through the merits of your arguments and your cites, you are now in the position of having to mindlessly reject this evidence from the VPC while continuing to endorse some other supposed evidence from the VPC.

It is the VPC's decided slant towards gun grabbiness that makes any pro-gun evidence provided by them more credible. Thats not just appeals to authority, that is a statement against interest.

They ascribe credibility to the Department of Justice numbers.

So which is it? Do you endorse the VPCs position that the number of DGU’s on an annual basis from 2007 to 2011 was 84,675 per year?

Yeah, that's odd because your cite seems to be using the 350,000 DGU number as the total number of DGU over a 5 year period and I had read the DoJ's report of 350,000 as an annual number over those 5 years. Still, doesn't 84,000 DGU/year provide SOME support for the notion that law abiding citizens are effectively using guns in self defense more frequently than they are flipping out and shooting every motha fucka they see?

Remember we aren't debating the merits of guns in society. We are discussing the merits of private possession of firearms. If we compare the gun murders by who are allowed to possess a firearm versus the benefits of defensive gun use its not nearly as one sided an argument as you seem to believe. And that is ultimately the reason your side always loses. You fail to even consider the other side of the argument.

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I really wish there were more crazy left-wing gun nuts so someone would shoot Klingon Shit already.

Regarding the defensive gun use discussion, can anyone even think of a way to get a study that might be in the same universe as truthful in the current political climate?

You mean something more neutral than the DoJ study? I think the problem is that neither side really wants the truth. They can't even agree on the ground rules. The gun grabbers want to treat all gun murders as if they are fungible while the NRA wants to segregate gun murders by people who were permitted to possess a firearm versus people who were not. The NRA wants to treat every defensive gun use as if it protected a newborn baby from rape, while the gun grabbers want to break down the defensive gun use to granular levels so they can point out that a lot of the DGUs where the potential victim scared off a burglar might just as easily have scared off the burglar just by being at home when the thought they were out of town. If we can't agree on a common set of principles against which to judge whatever data we may uncover then what use is the data. Having these ground rules would probably also go a long way towards gathering more useful pertinent data.

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

It is difficult, but I'm not sure the climate has much to do with it. The problem is that official records are likely to misscases that are unreported. However, surveying gun owners is problematic because they are by their very nature, likely to over report incidents, as well as reporting incidents that they themselves escalated as "defensive".

So its not just the lack of neutral data, its that we simply cannot collect data because the gun nuts will always lie about how often they use their guns in self defense.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Now the NRA wants the SCOTUS to strike down laws banning handgun sales to under-21-year-olds.

Y'know, whatever the reasons why the Columbine High School massacre happened, it would not have happened if it had been just a little more difficult for two emotionally disturbed teenagers to amass a small arsenal of firearms and ammunition without some responsible adult finding out about it.

From reading the article, it sounds like a reasonably valid point that restricting sales but not other transfers of handguns to people between 18 and 21 seems a bit silly.

Originally Posted by Zeriel

Man, the fuckin' NRA.

Regarding Harris and Klebold, I expand my previous stance--The law SHOULD be such that the dealer who sold them the weapons should be prosecuted for murder--he made an inexcusable (to my knowledge, there's nothing like a fake ID involved) error regarding transferring possession of a firearm that directly resulted in a murder.

Would you do the same for alcohol vendors and car dealers? What if the car dealer sells a corvette to a 16 year old kid who just got his license?

Mostly the reason I find gun threads so depressing anymore is that I can't think of a political position taken by the NRA in the last five years that I wasn't offended by. So the pro-gun types tend to think of me as a gun-grabbing quisling--especially because I'm, gasp, in favor of registration and licensing.

I've been offended by the NRA over the past decade or so mostly because they started getting politically partisan in areas beyond gun rights. After the Wayne LaPierre speech (in response to Newtown), the NRA seemed doomed to irrelevance until push for an AWB gave them new life. The gun grabbers had succeeded in outstupidding Wayne LaPierre.

As a proponent of licensing and registration, I don't think I have been treated poorly by my fellow gun nuts because of my position on licensing and registration.

I think the thing some of us gun nuts are troubled by is your notion of strict criminal liability for any gun you ever owned (including guns that are stolen from you). That is a standard of culpability that we do not apply to ANYTHING else. I could lose a truck full of dynamite to a bunch of terrorists and I would not be criminally liable for whatever those terrorists did with the dynamite.

Meanwhile, because I wholeheartedly support (for what I would consider to be solid moral reasons) the individual right to effective self-defense, I'm seen as a crazy gun-owning asshole by the other side.

There are plenty of gun control advocates that aren't as stupid and crazy as Elvis. During the gun control debate we recently had, there came a point when the realized that folks like Feinstein were counterproductive to the cause and put her in the back of the bus, and THIS is what is pissing off folks like Hentor. Gun grabbing is not a winning issue for Democrats in swing states and swing districts. After a tragedy like Newtown, we might have been able to get behind some sensible restrictions that would make a difference but it was the push for an AWB that made the gun grabbers look stupid.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, I want every 18-year-old to vote, and I don't much care if an 18-year-old is drunk, but I do care if he's drunk and driving, and drunk and armed is worse. For that matter, sober and armed is more dangerous than drunk driving at that age, unless he's actually in the Army (which is more dangerous still, but that's another discussion).

Why is being in the army more dangerous than driving drunk and with a loaded firearm?

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Why? A fetus is not a human, and the central purpose of abortion is not to kill it. Perhaps you thought you had a point of some kind there; sorry to disabuse you.

It makes you sound like an idiot when you go around saying that gun rights folks are pro-murder. It makes it very clear that you are not interested in debate, nothing can make you change your mind. You are the PETA of gun control.

Now, how is the gun rights absolutist (or even the gun rights default case) position not accurately described as pro murder rights?

Because self defense is not murder. Because hunting an animal is not murder unless you are PETA. Because shooting at paper targets ar a gun range is not murder. The fact that you think that someone who supports the right to bear arms is in favor of murder makes you sound like an idiot.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Zeriel, show some credible data that guns save more lives than they cost, and you might have an argument.

Would it make a difference to you if he did? And when you qualify that data as credible, aren't you basically saying that you already know the answer so any data to the contrary is not going to be credible?

I have shown credible evidence that the number of gun murders committed by guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is relatively low (lets say 2000 for the sake of argument plus another 1000 in accidental gun deaths per year that could also be avoided if noone could legally own a gun). Hentor's link above puts defensive gun use at somewhere between 50k and 85K per year. Its impossible to know how many of these defensive gun uses saved a life but its seems at least possible that the lives saved might be greater than the lives taken, doesn't it? 2693

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

That's true of everything.

I'll tell you what, I'll even give you a freebie--the circumstances under which I'd accept a gun ban from a moral standpoint.

If you give me a world where the police have a positive duty to protect each citizen, personally and individually, at all times. And there are enough of them and effective enough that this is plausible. And each of us or our surviving kin can sue the local blue suits for dereliction of duty if we ARE physically harmed by a criminal.

Then I will consider the fundamental moral right I have (to effective self-defense) to be adequately discharged by the state such that I don't need to have the most effective tools to exercise that right personally.

Right now I live in a world (as you say) where cops are generally middling, and are expressly NOT responsible for stopping or responding to any individual call. Being a particularly strong and large male, I suppose if you could offer me some sort of guarantee no criminal I encountered would be carrying, say, a bat or martial arts training...

The police don't have guns to protect you, they have guns to protect themselves while they enforce the law.

I've seen society break down a few times and the cops can't (and won't) put themselves between every rioter and normal citizens. They are more likely to form a human wall around beverly hills than slow down as they drive through streets of looters ruining the livelihood of an entire community. 2694

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Yeah, why don't you try that sort of bullshit on the great debates thread. Hentor tried with decidedly mixed results.

Yes, he provided cites that are convincing to those susceptible to factual reasoning, "mixed" with hysterical yammering from the binkie-toting ideologues like yourself.

Remember we aren't debating the merits of guns in society. We are discussing the merits of private possession of firearms.

One of the signs of your psychopathy is your separation of the individual from society, as if only one is real and the rest is a mere abstraction. It must be pretty damn lonely inside your skull.

the NRA seemed doomed to irrelevance until push for an AWB gave them new life. The gun grabbers had succeeded in outstupidding Wayne LaPierre.

Are you ever even going to try to provide some sort of evidence, by way of new reporting or even sober commentary, to show us that your story is anything other than a hysterical fantasy? Ever? Or do you just like being laughed at?

During the gun control debate we recently had, there came a point when the realized that folks like Feinstein were counterproductive to the cause and put her in the back of the bus, and THIS is what is pissing off folks like Hentor.

Guess not.

After a tragedy like Newtown, we might have been able to get behind some sensible restrictions that would make a difference but it was the push for an AWB that made the gun grabbers look stupid.

Have you ever taken responsibility for any of your actions, ever in your life? Ever? Have you ever even heard of the concept? Gawdamm, boy.

Why is being in the army more dangerous than driving drunk and with a loaded firearm?

They're not mutually exclusive, fool.

Because self defense is not murder. Because hunting an animal is not murder unless you are PETA. Because shooting at paper targets ar a gun range is not murder. The fact that you think that someone who supports the right to bear arms is in favor of murder makes you sound like an idiot.

Note that I said "absolutist". The absolutist position you hold by your actions, your worthless words notwithstanding, is indeed support of the right to murder. It is the only right arguably derivable from the Constitution or in any code of social conduct you can offer that you hold to be absolute. Therefore calling it what it is is simply fighting ignorance. Not your own, of course, yours is impregnable behind your psychopathy, but there are others who read these things.

Would it make a difference to you if he did? And when you qualify that data as credible, aren't you basically saying that you already know the answer so any data to the contrary is not going to be credible?

IOW, no, there is nothing you or he can offer. Might as well say so, that your position is not derived from fact but from paranoid fantasy.

I have shown credible evidence

Credible to you, because it's what you want to believe. You've been shown otherwise in risible detail, however.

its seems at least possible that the lives saved might be greater than the lives taken, doesn't it?

Your psychopathy is your only excuse for not knowing better.

Now have some milk and a cookie and go back to bed. Dianne Feinstein isn't really hiding under it waiting to grab your little binkie from under the blanket when you go to sleep. 2695

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So, the answer to "Do you have anything based on the real world to argue?" would be "No." Got it.

Zeriel, show some credible data that guns save more lives than they cost, and you might have an argument.

This is basically laughable on every level. "You don't have any real world data! And you have to provide some to counter MY lack of real-world data!"

Even then, sorry, it's a moral issue for me through and through. All rights depend on the ability to be alive to enjoy them, which means I have a moral right to effectively defend myself. Until you either offer me a better tool for that than a gun, or demonstrate a plan to remove guns from the equation other than magic hand-waves, none of the statistics have any particular moral force for me.

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

And good luck getting past the percentage of gun deaths that are suicides.

I don't find this relevant at all, having been in treatment for major depression after a suicide attempt. 2696

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Would you do the same for alcohol vendors and car dealers?

Yeah, I would to a point. Let a guy get seriously blasted on your alcohol and get into his car with no plan, you should be partially on the hook for whatever he does. There's a difference here because I'm specifically putting gun owners on the hook for ILLEGAL or NEGLIGENT transfers of firearms--and we already have laws (that aren't really firm enough, if you ask me) preventing the (negligent) sale of alcohol to people who are "visibly intoxicated" in my neck of the woods.

Let a guy get drunk who is known to you to not be allowed or a good idea to be drunk, as is the case here (we're discussing illegal or negligent transfers, mind you), yes, you share his crime.

I would in fact want to prosecute for murder a parent whose 16-yr-old raided their unlocked liquor cabinet and then ran someone down while driving drunk.

What if the car dealer sells a corvette to a 16 year old kid who just got his license?

No, because the fact the kid has a license (legal proof of ability) is a proper test of due diligence on the suitability of the person to operate a motor vehicle. 2697

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So, the answer to "Do you have anything based on the real world to argue?" would be "No." Got it.

Zeriel, show some credible data that guns save more lives than they cost, and you might have an argument.

I'm going to expand my previous statement a bit.

Without knowing the denominator (number of beneficial events due to firearms ownership), the numerator (number of maleficent events due to firearms ownership) alone cannot possibly tell you anything about the cost/benefit ratio, by definition!

I had this same stupid argument in the pit bull thread--number of fatalities alone tells you nothing about the risk involved. 2698

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

The police don't have guns to protect you, they have guns to protect themselves while they enforce the law.

I've seen society break down a few times and the cops can't (and won't) put themselves between every rioter and normal citizens. They are more likely to form a human wall around beverly hills than slow down as they drive through streets of looters ruining the livelihood of an entire community.

That would be my point in its entirety. 2699

[steronz]

LANCASTER, Ohio — A gun-safety class in Fairfield County for people seeking permits to carry concealed weapons went wrong on Saturday when the instructor accidentally shot a student.

Terry J. Dunlap Sr., who runs a shooting range and training center at 6995 Coonpath Rd. near Lancaster, was demonstrating a hand gun in the classroom when he fired a .38-caliber bullet that ricocheted off a desk and into student Michael Piemonte’s right arm.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-shooting.html 2700