# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 285
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5681 "2015-08-17T02:00:26Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What do you mean? Are you suggesting that I was struck by a car and didn’t realize it?And yet people routinely drive right next to pedestrians. What do you make of that? And people routinely shoot next to me at the gun range without putting a bullet through me. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5682 "2015-08-17T02:04:34Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So, you appear to be saying that the raw number of fatalities indicates that guns are safer than cars. Again, you stand by a target and I’ll stand by a busy roadway. Come on! I’ll do it right now! Standing by the target is like you standing in the middle of the road on the lane marker not on the side of the road. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5683 "2015-08-17T02:07:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > No, I’m asking you to state what you conclude about guns and cars based on these numbers. Conclude means to make an integrative summary or generalizing statement after considering a set of data or some kind of information. > > Be forewarned, I suspect I know what your conclusion is, and I am going to make fun of you with little sympathy after you make it. > > By the way, I just walked along by a whole bunch of cars. Not one single one hit me. I even traversed a parking lot with cars coming and going in all directions and not one hit me. I just spent the entire day around guns and noone shot me and I was a pretty easy target. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5684 "2015-08-17T02:16:45Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Want to stop playing stupid gotcha word games? Its all he has left. That and his religious belief that guns are evil and must be banned. He has lost the debate at all levels. Politically we are passing laws that proposed by the pro-gun side and serving up embarrassing legislative defeat to the anti-gun side. Legally we are interpreting the second amendment in a way that is anathema to his position. Public sentiment is moving against total bans on firearms (even ones with scary looking black plastic accessories attached to them). I don’t think there are very many people on this board who became more anti-gun as a result of these debates but there are more than a handful that now think that banning guns is ineffective, stupid or both. So all he has left is name-calling and stupid word games. He is just spluttering. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5685 "2015-08-17T02:28:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’re the one who assumes all “justified homicides” are “benefits” and I’m an idiot? 😃 YES!!! By definition!!! A clean kill is one where the shooter was clearly justified in in shooting. Even cops are allowed to shoot people that are trying to kill them. The benefit is that the shooter lived. > [@](#): > > (And, BTW, I’ve no idea what you’ve posted in another thread or why you cannot answer a simple question in this one. Are your views so important that I should search for them specially … or skim threads until I see your name?) Then you were just making assumptions about my views on an entirely different topic? Don’t assume that the pro-gun folks worship cops. Bone (another pro-gun poster here) is decidedly not a cop worshipper. Aside from cases like Treyvon Martin (which are vanishingly rare), the standards are pretty high before the law lets you get away with killing someone. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5686 "2015-08-17T02:29:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I provide links to cites, this twat pulls numbers from his asshole, suggests his made up numbers of course includes juveniles, and then calls me a liar. This is the standard of contributions from the gunintelligent contingent here. Insults. Its really the only thing that soothes all that butthurt. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5687 "2015-08-17T02:59:16Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > [Redirect Notice](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JAMA_criminal_records_2005.pdf&sa=U&ved=0CAsQFjAAahUKEwjqosKygKzHAhUGNj4KHW54Cpw&sig2=5p5i0hVbYTz0SkikN0lcyQ&usg=AFQjCNHTFZL43Wvekg3svOKSX6EZCM_SyQ) > > About 42% of all homicide offenders have a history of prior conviction for a felony. About 70% percent have a history of any arrests, but as you know, being arrested is not the same as breaking any laws or being convicted. > > On the other hand, if you want to assert that any history of arrest is grounds for loss of gun rights, you won’t get obiection from me. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Is that broken down by means of murder? I wonder if guns skew from other causes. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I provide links to cites, this twat pulls numbers from his asshole, suggests his made up numbers of course includes juveniles, and then calls me a liar. This is the standard of contributions from the gunintelligent contingent here. He asked, reasonably imho, how many of the “no previous record” homicides were committed by persons with sealed juvenile records. I would suppose there would have to be _some_. And since your cite covers homicides by all means, I asked if a breakdown by firearms was available. People who don’t own guns commit murders too, and I would intuitively guess (and I admit it is a guess) that a lot of people with no previous felony record who commit homicide are more likely to do it by improvised means- fists, blunt instruments, knives, strangling, etc. rather than guns. I may well be wrong, but I’d like to see more informative statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5688 "2015-08-17T02:59:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Insults. Its really the only thing that soothes all that butthurt. Well, insults and actual cites and real numbers and logic and a working cortex that isn’t overwhelmed by fear. But you can keep pretending it’s just the first one. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5689 "2015-08-17T06:24:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > YES!!! By definition!!! A clean kill is one where the shooter was clearly justified in in shooting. Even cops are allowed to shoot people that are trying to kill them. The benefit is that the shooter lived. For all I know, you may be an intelligent person with sensible views. But in this particular train of thought you’ve had a huge disconnect. Don’t click reply; instead stop and think about what you’re saying. The killing of Tamir Rice is considered “justifiable.” Was it “beneficial”? Well, it’s true that the shooters lived, but they would have lived anyway – Tamir Rice was armed only with a toy. Many MANY MANY MANY “justifiable homicides” are similar; they’re “justified” in the sense that shooter was afraid, but were not “beneficial” – the shootee was innocent. Until now, **Damuri Ajashi** was just a vague name to me - I’d seen your name in the threads and not noticed views overly extreme one way or the other. But now you’ll need to retract your collosally inane conclusion; otherwise whenever I see your name in future I’ll think “There goes one frightfully confused moron.” ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5690 "2015-08-17T07:14:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Of course it is. It won’t change YOUR mind but the argument your side is making seems to be applicabe to cars as well as guns at least in this case. No, it is not. You are building a straw-car, trying to distract with meaningless bullshit because you are struggling with direct argument. Though, I admit, it _is_ helping you, inasmuch as you have people taking the bait. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5691 "2015-08-17T16:36:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You realize that we live in a democracy, right? You might as well say that who you vote for doesn’t matter. You realize that politicians can be bought by special interest groups, right? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because those gun control measures you are talking about restrict rights without providing any benefits. It thought that was clear from the post you were replying to. This is the the statement of yours, with relevant parts bolded, that I’m referring to: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I can appreciate your position. **You would like to eliminate all guns but seeing as how that is impossible you are willing to settle for something that is possible in the real world. Unfortunately, too many of the people that run the debate on your side feel they can take half now and come back for the other half later.** Personally, I think we should have licensing and registration but **I understand why gun rights folks don’t trust the gun control folks to leave well enough alone.** You and I agree that it’s impossible to take everyone’s guns away, despite what some anti-gun people want. Yet the impossible threat of having your guns taken away is used as an excuse to block any gun control measures. “Don’t allow universal background checks because they really want to take all our guns”, _even though that’s impossible_. And you apparently “understand” that illogical reasoning. I’m asking you to explain how that’s a legitimate argument. Presumably, that would also be an excuse to block the licensing and registration that you support. What’s the point in advocating it if it’s just going to be summarily dismissed as a trojan horse for taking all your guns. _Which is impossible to do._ ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5692 "2015-08-17T20:53:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If they tried to pass laws outlawing cars, I would probably whine quite a bit. If you cared about it enough, you’d know that some cars _are_ banned from the road in the U.S., and not just race cars. Where’s the outrage, man? The gummint’s taking away your freedom! [http://gearheads.org/12-vehicles-you-cant-own-in-the-u-s-land-of-the-free/](http://gearheads.org/12-vehicles-you-cant-own-in-the-u-s-land-of-the-free/) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5693 "2015-08-17T21:28:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you really asking for sources AGAIN? The Department of Justice and criminologists up and down the spectrum all agree that there are between 100,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses. What do you think the number is?. 1. Saying “They all agree” is not the same as actually citing a source. 2. When a given number is anywhere in the spectrum between X and 20.5X, the _last_ thing that can be said is that “they all agree”. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5694 "2015-08-17T21:37:58Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, insults and actual cites and real numbers and logic and a working cortex that isn’t overwhelmed by fear. But you can keep pretending it’s just the first one. No mostly just insults. If it was just a battle of the expert opinions, you wouldn’t feel the need to resort to insults in almost every fucking post. Your side of the debate is losing horribly and you have to make yourself feel better about that so you use insults. IOW, insults are the only salve that will ease the pain of all that butthurt. I can go through this thread and probably pull up dozens of cites but none of them have ever proven to be persuasive to you. You always find some reason why you don’t want to believe a particular cite, not even the ones from the department of justice, that bastion of gun nuts and psychopaths. nope the only cites that can be believed, the only ones worth a damn, are the ones that support your position. You’re the guy that wants to ban guns based on cosmetic features and you think you have logic on your side? Pffft. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5695 "2015-08-17T21:42:47Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > For all I know, you may be an intelligent person with sensible views. But in this particular train of thought you’ve had a huge disconnect. Don’t click reply; instead stop and think about what you’re saying. > > The killing of Tamir Rice is considered “justifiable.” Was it “beneficial”? Well, it’s true that the shooters lived, but they would have lived anyway – Tamir Rice was armed only with a toy. Many MANY MANY MANY “justifiable homicides” are similar; they’re “justified” in the sense that shooter was afraid, but were not “beneficial” – the shootee was innocent. I talk about civilian justifiable homicides and you bring up police shootings. I reiterate that I am NOT talking about police shootings because we are talking about the private ownership of guns, not the use of guns by the government and I even give you an example of one case where justice might not have been served (trayvon martin), and you still insist on bringing up police shootings. f you want to talk about police shootings and disarming the police, then I can have that discussion with you but in the context of private ownership of guns, police shootings are a bit off topic. > [@](#): > > Until now, **Damuri Ajashi** was just a vague name to me - I’d seen your name in the threads and not noticed views overly extreme one way or the other. But now you’ll need to retract your collosally inane conclusion; otherwise whenever I see your name in future I’ll think “There goes one frightfully confused moron.” Retract what inane conclusion? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5696 "2015-08-17T21:44:49Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No, it is not. You are building a straw-car, trying to distract with meaningless bullshit because you are struggling with direct argument. Though, I admit, it _is_ helping you, inasmuch as you have people taking the bait. Of course it is. You are just refusing to see things from any perspective that might result in a conclusion that cuts against your position. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5697 "2015-08-17T22:03:15Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > You realize that politicians can be bought by special interest groups, right? So where do you think the NRA ranks in terms of political donations? And if you really think that politicians are so easily bought and sold then why bother voting? Hasn’t democracy failed? > [@](#): > > This is the the statement of yours, with relevant parts bolded, that I’m referring to: > > You and I agree that it’s impossible to take everyone’s guns away, despite what some anti-gun people want. Yet the impossible threat of having your guns taken away is used as an excuse to block any gun control measures. “Don’t allow universal background checks because they really want to take all our guns”, _even though that’s impossible_. And you apparently “understand” that illogical reasoning. I’m asking you to explain how that’s a legitimate argument. > > Presumably, that would also be an excuse to block the licensing and registration that you support. What’s the point in advocating it if it’s just going to be summarily dismissed as a trojan horse for taking all your guns. _Which is impossible to do._ Like I said, I think universal background checks as part of a licensing and registration requirement makes a lot of sense because I think confiscation at the federal level is IMPOSSIBLE. I frequently have arguments with other pro-gun folks on this board about this. That doesn’t mean that the pro-gun rights people I argue with agree that confiscation is impossible. So they react to gun registration type proposals with that prospect looming overhead. If it was just a few wingnut gun control fanatics that had a desire for banning guns, that would be one thing but there are a LOT of people that feel that way. So I can see why some people are not as confident as i am that gun confiscation will never occur at the federal level. I also think that we are never going to use our guns in defense of tyranny but others vociferously disagree and I have to admit that I thought we might be slipping into tyranny around 2003/2004. And for the time being the gun control side of the debate has so thoroughly damaged its credibility and political capital that they cannot even pass fig leaf legislation and the gun rights side of the debate doesn’t see any reason to give them that fig leaf. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5698 "2015-08-17T22:09:50Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > If you cared about it enough, you’d know that some cars _are_ banned from the road in the U.S., and not just race cars. Where’s the outrage, man? The gummint’s taking away your freedom! > > [http://gearheads.org/12-vehicles-you-cant-own-in-the-u-s-land-of-the-free/](http://gearheads.org/12-vehicles-you-cant-own-in-the-u-s-land-of-the-free/) And some guns are banned too. Would you like a list? That list of banned cars seem mostly like imports, would you like to discuss how hard it is to buy certain imported guns? Guns are subject to more regulation than many people realize. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5699 "2015-08-17T22:28:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Saying “They all agree” is not the same as actually citing a source. > 2. When a given number is anywhere in the spectrum between X and 20.5X, the _last_ thing that can be said is that “they all agree”. I’m tired of looking up all the cites so there is the wiki entry: > **[Defensive gun use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use)** > > Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defense, defense of others or, in some cases, protecting property. The frequency of incidents involving DGU and their effectiveness in providing safety and reducing crime are controversial issues in gun politics and criminology, chiefly in the United States.: 64  Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use which leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. Per Es... They all agree the number is large and significant. A contention that is denied by some people on the gun control side of the debate. If you can agree with that then we are only left to discuss how large the number is and how that number affects the cost benefit analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5700 "2015-08-17T23:01:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m tired of looking up all the cites so there is the wiki entry: > > [Defensive gun use - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use) > > They all agree the number is large and significant. A contention that is denied by some people on the gun control side of the debate. > > If you can agree with that then we are only left to discuss how large the number is and how that number affects the cost benefit analysis. Actually, that cite that your provide doesn’t give a range of 100,000 to 2.5 million, but a range of _55,000_ to 2.5 million-a far greater gap. Whether the _actual_ number is large enough to be significant remains to be seen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=284) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=286)