Deserves to have a gun pointed in my face?
Case in point # 1 Lumpy.
You’re really not to swift, are you Acewiz?
I thought the idea was to convince all of us doubters that it’s a great idea for yahoo’s like you to have handguns as you wouldn’t act like little kids with a toy and go pointing them at people whenever the idea strikes your fancy, but instead behave like an adult invested with a grave responsibility.
But thanks for being honest and confirming what I sort of already knew.
No we’re not. For the sake of argument, we have by and large assumed away the constitutional problems associated with banning guns. We have also assumed away the political impossibility of passing a gun ban. Now you want us to assume that a gun ban would do more than prevent a small sliver of the gun murders in America?
We don’t need to know how many gun murders there are in total to determine how many gun deaths will be prevented by banning guns. Its like saying we need to know how many incidents of cancer there are in total to determine how many incidents of cancer could be prevented by eliminating X-rays.
No you haven’t, hentor and I have had some discussions about it but you obviously didn’t understand the conversation because at no point did hentor establish that more lives are lost than saved by having guns in private hands. In fact most of his argument has been that I have failed to meet the burden of proving that more lives are saved than lost, I don’t think he has ever even attempted to prove the opposite.
My volume of invective??? Pffft! Are you fucking kidding me. you’re so fucking stupid everyone on your side of the arugment wishes you would just stop trying to help because youa re so fucking stupid. How old are you anyways?
So what? Legal gun owners commit crimes. Previously law abiding people commit crimes but they do so at a far lower rate than criminals. What’s your fucking point?
So when did licensing and registration come up? When did I oppose it? You’re either lying or stupid… probably both (I’m gonna guess you were born into a liberal environment because if you were born in a more neutral environment, it is clear you would be a Republican today, you seem to adopt their mentality naturally).
When did I oppose Manchin Toomey? You have a cite for that?
I laughed at its proponents because they deserved to be laughed at. They overreached with an AWB and that overreach caused their failure with the gun show loophole.
No, you still haven’t provided anything other than your muddlede opinions. You havea cite for any of what you are saying? You didn’t have much credibility to begin with but you are deep into negative territory now and theer is almost no hope for a recovery. yopu might as well just delete your account and start over with a new user name.
My definition of good guy is anyone that’s not a bad guy.
The overwhelming majority of people fall into the category of good guys. The murder rate is 4.7/100,000/year (about half what it was 20 years ago). The aggravated assault rate is 2.4/1000/year (a little more than double what it was 20 years ago). The vast majority of people are good law abiding people. There is a small minority of people that account for the large majority of all murders and violent crimes.
The incidence of violent behaviour is not randomly distributed. We have a really good idea of who is likely to commit violence in the future. They tend to have a history of violence and they tend to be younger. A woman over 30 with no history of violence is not nearly as likely to commit a violent crime as a 22 year old male with a history of violence and incarceration. Assuming competence and proper safety habits, I would feel safe around that 30 year old female even if she had a gun. I wouldn’t feel safe around that male even if he only had a spork.
Of course this doesn’t mean that law abiding citizens will always remain so but when we compare the incidence of gun murders committed by law abiding citizens to the number of defensive gun uses, it seems likely that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent more harm than they cause.
IIRC, you’re the one who started using those terms in this debate. :smack:
:dubious:
No but you would elimnate much of the defensive gun use in this country and turn those incidents of defensive gun use into things like murder, assault, robbery, rape, etc.
Yes, I agree, they would no longer be law abiding citizens but why would that make them violent criminals? We will have more than a few waco and ruby ridge type incidents. but I suspect that a lot of the folks who don’t comply with an order to turn in their guns will keep them buried in the back yard.
The right to effective self defense is a primordial right. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, like the right to an abortion or freedom of the press.
To express his opinion.
I don’t think its a good way to express your opinion because it doesn’t look good but I don’t for a moment think he was trying to threaten his legislators with assassination. Do you?
Cite. Where have you provided any evidence to support your position? Do you really think there aren’t at least 12,000 defensive gun uses every year?
Not a slam on cops but according to a study (its over 20 years old) by Don Kates (civil rights lawyer and criminaologist focused on police misconduct), 11% of police shootings are erroneous while only 2% of civilian shootings are not justified.
Its not just cowering, its delusion wrapped in a veil of calling everyone else a baby killer.
Hmmm. Sounds like an awkwardly quoted or badly defined “study”.
Murderers are civilians. Pretty scary to contemplate a scenario where there are enough shootings that only 2% weren’t justified (murders)…
Tried looking up the study, and pulled up tons of pro gun sites trumpeting it with that exact phrasing, but couldn’t find it in the only article I found actually attributed to Mr. Kates.
Can you still find the original article DA ?
Near as I can tell, sylmar, the stat was widely publicized in Jeffrey Snyder’s Fall 1993 essay in The National Interest, titled, “A Nation of Cowards.” In that, he cites the stat to an article from Carol Silver and Don Kates in the 1979 anthology, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out , titled, Self Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the Independence of Women In A Violent Sexist Society. The problem, as you note, is that the stat isn’t anywhere in that article. Clayton Cramer and David Kopel also cited Kates’s study in their 1995 article in the Tennessee Law Review, “Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws,” to the same Silver & Kates article. Cramer and Kopel note that Kates helped out with a lot of the data they used in their article. You’d think he’d have caught it if it were mistaken. Both Cramer and Kopel are frequent contributor/commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy, and both have responded to comments I’ve made on articles of either of theirs in the past. They might have some more data about where it came from, or preferably, something more recent that the late 1970s.
My guess is that the 1969-70 study of Chicago P.D. justifiable homicides mentioned in the Silver & Kates article was conflated with other data to come up with the stat. That, or it was in a previous version of the article that showed up in the printed book, yet didn’t make it to the online version.
You could shoot Dr. Kates an e-mail, and see what he says. I’m kind of curious how the stat came to be too. In any event, the data is really old, and I’m not sure if it reflects current justifiable use of force findings for either LEOs or non-LEOs. But **Damuri Ajashi **wasn’t inventing the stat out of thin air.
I salute your superior sleuthing skills Gray Ghost. Didn’t mean for anyone to think I was implying Ajashi wasn’t on the level.
Just couldn’t believe a credible study would use incredibly broad, decisively vague language like that. When I couldn’t find a reasonable facsimile of the quote in original material, yeah, I started thinking stats/articles were being mashed up for an easy to remember talking point and was wondering how far from the original it had fallen.
Sorry for side tracking the discussion from “stupid things” to “things I’m curious about”.
Let’s be clear here. “the rubber-glue stuff”, in adult language, represents an accusation of hypocrisy. Which is a valid assertion, given that on the same page in this thread you have both asserted that your opponents don’t even try to understand your position AND accused your opponents of having secret, insulting real reasons for their position.
I brought several. However, as you so gleefully attempted to admonish me about, you’ve made no attempt whatsoever to understand or address them.
Get serious. I realize it’s Elvis, but that’s no excuse to be inaccurate.
There’s no evidence that he HAS a mind.
In the general case, there’s no reason to ascribe “cowardice” as an attribute of people merely because they differently assess a set of relatively insignificant risks with precious little empirical data to accurately quantify them.
I got the quote from the same places you did. I think your suspsicions might be correct, i.e. someone paraphrased the study in a way that discounts the differences between the sort of situations cops find themselves in and the sort of situations law abiding citizens find themselves in. It think there might also bea difference between the standards that cops are subjected to versus the standards civilians are subjected to.
I’ve had a gun pointed at me about half a dozen times. Once by an idiot who thought that all guns had thumb safeties when he pointed a gun at my head (it was a glock), twice by criminals during a robbery (I was 11 years old the first time) and 3 times by cops (I was in Los Angeles during all 3 of these incidences).
I’ve never had some asshole try to use a gun to win an argument or something like that. It sounds like you live around an unusual concentration of assholes. Around here, just brandishing a gun at someone (as in opening your jacket and showing them your gun in a threatening manner) is enough to send you to jail and forefeit your right to possess firearms. I remember a story about a guy who was standing in the middle of a costco aisle talking on the phone when someone walked by him and gave him a dirty look for standing in the middle of the aisle so the first guy opened his jacket and pointed to his gun. He was arrested and he can no longer possess a firearm.
No but people are not all snowflakes either. We can predict the likelihood of committing gun murder by looking at demographic factors and prior criminal history.
You seem new to this thread so let me ask you what I have asked others. Of the approximately 12,000 gun murders committed each year, how many do you think are committed by people who are legally permitted to possess a gun? Would you be surprised if I told you that over half of gun murders are committed by people who have been convicted of a felony (one of the categories of people who cannot possess a firearm), in some cities the percentage is above 90%. Would you be surprised if I told you that one in 6 gun homocides are committed by people age 10-19 (many of whom are too young to legally possess a firearm)?
The percentage of gun murders committed by people who are legally allowed to possess a firearm is slim.
According to the Department of Justice (the best information we have), people use guns in the defense of self or others about 250,000 times/year and people use guns to protect property about 100,000 times/year (there is some question whether these numbers are over a 4 year period, mostly because a guy wrote an article that implies that the numbers are cumulative rather than an average of 4 years).
Don’t you think its at least worth considering whether or not legally owned guns do more good than harm?
That feeling might be mostly in your mind and unjustified by the facts.
You really want to make physical size and strength the criteria for justified use of force and self defense?
So the woman walking through a bad neighborhood at night is shit out of luck if a big strong rapist attackes her.
A gun lets a 100 pound woman defend herself against a 200 pound rapist.
A gun lets a person defend their family against armed robbers.
A gun lets storeowners protect their livelihood against looters during a riot.
Guns are no more cowardly than a crossbow or a katan but you just seem deathly afraid of guns. You should see someonebody about your irrational fears, its one of the first signs of becoming a Republican.
One person can make the deicision to launch and unless you have never heard of North korea, you should know that some nukes are in the hands of crazy people.
WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to call me a racist? Don’t be coy, you’ve already called me a baby killer why the reluctance to call me a racist outright instead of being a pussy about it?
Its hard to have a conversation with irrational fear isn’t it? Well, at least he’s predictable, sort of.
That is not his purpose. He’s just butthurt that his side blew a perfectly good opportunity to get real gun control legislation passed and blew it to push a totally ineffective assault weapons ban.
Okay, wall of text posts are not cool…
Nor is rattling off a bunch of random stats without context. Rural? Urban? Years? Affiliation of the group presenting the data?
Nor is using facts and opinions interchangeably.
When just prior to this, you’d said
I don’t think numbers approaching half of all murders being committed by non-felons rates being trivialized as “slim”.
Sure. But that’s not my dog here. My argument is we should be willing to rationally look at ways to make gun ownership safer for* everyone* without the knee jerk ,“They’re coming to make my gunz” wailing.
I’m quite cognizant that my feelings are unrelated to “facts” at the present time. They’re related to my personal experience. I’ve never seen any stats on number of incidents of gun pointing in face or percent of gun owners who are irresponsible/idiots.
There’s more we can do Ajashi, it’s not a zero sum argument.
And sorry, I realize this is supposed to be stupid gun news and not a debate. Is there a more relevant ongoing thread for that?
You have no idea what the word “hypocrisy” means at all, do you? Both things you say I do are indeed what I do. You both refuse to understand any position but your own, AND you have motivations other than the ones you admit to. It is not inconsistent for both things to be true, and to rub them both in your smirking, childish little face.
So what approach is effective on you? Apparently none. You should expect to be treated with the level of respectability you have earned here, as your following post illustrates.
Here’s one. A coupla more fucking menaces lucky to be alive.
I invite you to take your psychic roadshow off to win Mr. Randi’s eponymous prize, then, chucklefuck. The fact that you think you’re winning or making any sort of point may be the stupid gun news of the decade.
I just want you to answer one little question, for the record:
If all gun owners are sniveling cowards who need their big mighty boomstick to feel powerful and safe, why are all the firearms I own more than an hour drive away from my current residence and expected to stay there for at least a year? Y’know, since I’m a paranoid psychopath who must have my murder device near at all times.
Guns are fun!
I agree with this.
Its one of my many faults.
I thought they were pretty relevant stats. The stats are nationwide except where I expressly say otherwise. The stats are compiled by the Department of Justice/FBI. Its raw data.
Where do I do this in a way that is murky or are you saying that (or are you referring to some other post of mine?
Convicted felons are not the only people prohibited from possessing firearms. But just that ONE of several categories of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms (convicted felons) accounts for over half of all gun murders. Add minors, domestic abusers and other people who are not permitted to possess firearms.
I’ve proposed licensing and registration of all firearms. Zeriel has proposed imposing strict criminal liability for any crime committed with any firearm you ever owned or sold. What knee jerk wailing are you talking about?
Yeah, I agree. We can start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books. We can undo some of the stupider laws we have on the books. And I think licensing and registration would be a good idea as well. I don’t know if you’ve caught on yet but there is one side of this argument that is absolutist and another side that is willing to compromise but keep getting called baby killer.
Nah, the ones in great debates wither away when the gun control side can’t sustain their arguments iwhtout the namecalling that is only allowed here. So this is where we have these debates. IOW, the debate is more or less over.
I don’t think he really differentiates between you, me and Ted Nugent. As far as he is concerned, we are all disciples of Wayne LaPierre and hold monolithic views. If we don’t support all gun control, we do not support any of it.
Wayne LaPierre is an ass. Unarmed civilian incapatitate unarmed civilian frequently and visibly enough that he ought to know better. The guy that shot gabby Giffords was taken down by an unarmed civilian.
But this lady is something else. Talking down a crazy person that had already started shooting at cops and was reloading magazines!?!?! She ought to run for office.
I’m glad it worked out well for all concerned, but talking down a would-be gunman is risky to say the least. I hope most people realize this isn’t always- or even often- an option.