6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

Originally posted by DetroitDave


And for pete's sake, sell em with a damn trigger lock.

I would remove the trigger lock before I enter my car after buying one.

[Dis]

What's a trigger lock? I have a trigger safety but not a trigger lock.

[David Floyd]

A trigger lock ensures that your gun won't be immediately accessible when you need it, basically.

[Dis]

essentually making it useless for its most positive purpose. defeating intruders. It would still be available for its negative purposes- shooting your spouse.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sinapus

The lowest estimate (not by Kleck, btw) is 80,000 via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is the number of reported defensive gun uses.
Or were you using another way of counting saved lives?
A few years ago coworker of mine was murdered by her husband, who then committed suicide. AFAIK, he had no criminal record. I blame him for the crime.

That's 80,000 so called "defensive gun uses", not 80,000 lives saved. It would be more accurate to say that a maximum of 80,000 crimes may have been prevented, some of which potentially would have resulted in a homicide. It includes any respondant to the survey who thought someone on the street was a threat and pulled a gun, or who saw someone messing with his car and pulled a gun, or who saw someone on his property and pulled a gun, or who got into an argument with someone and pulled a gun, so many of these situations probably would not have even resulted in a crime if the gun hadn't been there, and in some of them the act of brandishing of the weapon was essentially an assault itself.

IIRC the survey you mentioned specified a five year time period.

In the case of your friend it sounds like he was mentally ill. After all, he committed suicide didn't he? If he didn't have a gun available the wife's chance of survival would have been much higher.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


Yes it does. Your owning a gun, in conjunction with the criminal stealing it, puts me in danger.

So in other words, owning a gun doesn't put you in danger. Criminal acts do. But you prefer blaming the victim of the theft and persecuting people because of what someone else might do.

To prevent the danger, we can do two things:

1) Ban the criminals.

(We're trying, but I think you'll agree, there are still criminals out there. Howver, once crime and criminals has been eliminated, 100%, I will fully support the right to own guns. 100%.)

and/or

2) Ban the guns.

(Also difficult - but a lot easier than eliminating criminals)

If we do either 1) or 2), my chance of being killed by a criminal with a gun drop to zero.

3) Learn that life is dangerous and try not to be a complete control freak.

Again, I'm appalled that there are people who value their right to own a gun more than the lives of other people. Life is full of disappointments.

I'm disgusted that you would resort to such an argument. But then you just can't let people think your opponents are human, right?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


The police wouldn't need guns if the populace wasn't armed.

Fine. Name a place where the police don't have guns due to the populace not being armed. England is *not* an example of that since they do have armed police, and are increasing that number in response to increasing crime rates.

Try to do better next time.

People defend their lives every day using a firearm. If you wish, I can dig up some, but something tells me you won't believe it.

From memory I recall an incident a couple of years ago in which a fast food restaurant here in Houston was being robbed and one of the employees stopped the robbery with a gun. A similar incident in New York resulted in everyone there being led into the backroom and murdered while the crooks made off with the cash.

Your owning a gun puts me in danger because there is a possibility of that gun being used to kill. It's that simple. Simple can be a similie for ignorant, but not in this context.

Paranoid is more fitting for you. No one has to submit to your inability to live in the real world.

Your willingness to persecute people based on what might happen, for the actions of others is sickening.

Nobody attempted to answer my question about why they need a gun, I see

No one "needs" to answer the question. "Need" isn't a valid question, except to control freaks like yourself.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


This reasoning is completely dumb, because it assumes that you will never use your gun in a criminal manner.

Presumption of innocence is such a burden to you, isn't it?

If we would know in advance who will be a criminal and who won't be, we would not need to ban anything - we would just put people in prison preventively.

That would also be called an Orwellian Nightmare. Go watch "Minority Report" over and over again and fantasize. Leave the rest of humanity alone.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


That's 80,000 so called "defensive gun uses", not 80,000 lives saved. It would be more accurate to say that a maximum of 80,000 crimes may have been prevented, some of which potentially would have resulted in a homicide.

Ah, I see. So we don't know if they were going to be killed since the criminal didn't succeed. How nice.

In the case of your friend it sounds like he was mentally ill. After all, he committed suicide didn't he? If he didn't have a gun available the wife's chance of survival would have been much higher.

I never met her husband. If he didn't have a gun he still could have killed her. Either way, your attempt to restrict people based on what might happen is anaethma to a free society.

If my aunt hadn't smoked she might still be alive so does that mean I should desire to ban tobacco? A few of my uncles might still be alive if they had stayed healther so does that mean I should desire to ban fatty foods? Am I somehow "uncaring" or "unmoved" if I don't want to ban either, or is that slur only for people who don't march along to your drumbeat?

[Akka]

Presumption of innocence is such a burden to you, isn't it?

That would also be called an Orwellian Nightmare. Go watch "Minority Report" over and over again and fantasize. Leave the rest of humanity alone.

My post was supposed to be read by people who are both able to understand basic english and to grasp basic concepts. You would be welcome to come back when you fit both.

Presumption of innocence means you won't be hold guilty of a crime until you're proven to be. It has nothing to do with putting out of the hands of the public things that are too dangerous to be on the loose.

And about the Orwellian Nightmare... Well, I could not imagine that the concept of using an absurd supposition to show a flaw in reasoning would past far above your head. Nevermind.

[David Floyd]

Presumption of innocence means you won't be hold guilty of a crime until you're proven to be. It has nothing to do with putting out of the hands of the public things that are too dangerous to be on the loose.

But guns aren't dangerous at all. As someone already pointed out to me, they're just lumps of metal. A lump of metal is not on its own dangerous - it takes a criminal to hit someone on the head with it, or shoot someone with it. The lump of metal - the gun - doesn't do any of those acts, hence it is not dangerous. The person commits the crimes, and the person is dangerous.

[Hagbart]

Guns kill people! Ban them!

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by David Floyd But guns aren't dangerous at all. As someone already pointed out to me, they're just lumps of metal. A lump of metal is not on its own dangerous - it takes a criminal to hit someone on the head with it, or shoot someone with it. The lump of metal - the gun - doesn't do any of those acts, hence it is not dangerous. The person commits the crimes, and the person is dangerous.

But without the gun it would not be possible (or at least harder) for the person to commit the crime! So ban the ***** guns!

You must agree on this...

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil



My post was supposed to be read by people who are both able to understand basic english and to grasp basic concepts. You would be welcome to come back when you fit both.

Ah, so you are the same Akka from CivFanatics. Same pompous dismissal of people who disagree with him.

Presumption of innocence means you won't be hold guilty of a crime until you're proven to be. It has nothing to do with putting out of the hands of the public things that are too dangerous to be on the loose.

When you state that you are removing someone's properties based on what he or she might do with it you are certainly destroying presumption of innocence. Worse, you aren't even bothering with a trial or the usual due process of law. When you cite crimes as the reason why you are also smearing them with the acts of others. (That and your "they might" excuse is nothing more than that: an excuse. You don't apply the same logic to things you don't have a problem with. Just icky awful guns and those horrible people who insist on owning them.)

It's a simple culture war. You don't understand anything about gun owners, so you seek to villify them, blame them for crimes they don't commit and eventually disarm them out of pure paranoia. Then you get all shocked when gun owners and icky sympathizers like me take you to task for your little crusade, so you do your best to further denigrate me (and others) by saying we simply are too dumb to comprehend your oh-so-lordly only-people-with-brains-can-see-your-noble-vestments views. Well so sorry for studying the issue, comparing and contrasting and coming with a very different conclusion. Not. Guess what? I used to support the Drug War too.

Or in short: Yes I understand English, Yes I understand your concept, I just don't agree with you. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.

And about the Orwellian Nightmare... Well, I could not imagine that the concept of using an absurd supposition to show a flaw in reasoning would past far above your head. Nevermind.

You were the one speaking of the idea of putting people in prison 'preventively'. Not quite thoughtcrime, but I'll give it credit for effort.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Hagbart


But without the gun it would not be possible (or at least harder) for the person to commit the crime! So ban the ***** guns!

You won't be able to get rid of the guns.

Oh, and criminals seem to do quite well with other weapons.

You must agree on this...

Or what?

[David Floyd]

But without the gun it would not be possible (or at least harder) for the person to commit the crime! So ban the ***** guns!

But me owning a gun has nothing to do with murder. Why should I be punished for the past or future criminal actions of someone else?

[Akka]

Ah, so you are the same Akka from CivFanatics. Same pompous dismissal of people who disagree with him.

I'm not dismissive with people who disagree with me, I'm dismissive with people who don't understant a simple reasoning. They are free to disagree as long as they get what I mean.

When you state that you are removing someone's properties based on what he or she might do with it you are certainly destroying presumption of innocence. Worse, you aren't even bothering with a trial or the usual due process of law. When you cite crimes as the reason why you are also smearing them with the acts of others. (That and your "they might" excuse is nothing more than that: an excuse. You don't apply the same logic to things you don't have a problem with. Just icky awful guns and those horrible people who insist on owning them.)

Ok. So I will again use the big ol' argument : what about making atomic bombs available to anyone ? You can call it a red herring, it still is a perfect example of something which is not accessible for the average Joe for security reasons. Which is, according to you, destroying presumption of innocence.

It's a simple culture war. You don't understand anything about gun owners, so you seek to villify them, blame them for crimes they don't commit and eventually disarm them out of pure paranoia. Then you get all shocked when gun owners and icky sympathizers like me take you to task for your little crusade, so you do your best to further denigrate me (and others) by saying we simply are too dumb to comprehend your oh-so-lordly only-people-with-brains-can-see-your-noble-vestments views. Well so sorry for studying the issue, comparing and contrasting and coming with a very different conclusion. Not. Guess what? I used to support the Drug War too.

I do agree it's a culture war. I do agree that I don't understand what happens in the head of a gun owner. I disagree that I'm the kind of sick sissy paranoid you decribe, though. I just don't consider that the right of one people to own a gun outweight the right of others to be endangered by proliferation of weapons.
YOU obviously don't understand what happens in the head of an anti-gun either, BTW.

Or in short: Yes I understand English, Yes I understand your concept, I just don't agree with you. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.

You were the one speaking of the idea of putting people in prison 'preventively'. Not quite thoughtcrime, but I'll give it credit for effort.

Well, too bad that the second paragraph contradict the first.
The goal of the example was to tell that we DON'T know in advance who will commit a crime. Because it's impossible. It was used to show how absurd is the sentence "You don't have anything to fear from my gun, because I'm not a criminal".

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus

Paranoid is more fitting for you. No one has to submit to your inability to live in the real world.

I would say it's common sense to want to reduce one's chance of getting killed by someone with a stolen gun.

On the other hand, I would characterize your insistence on owning guns despite the risk that poses to others, as incredibly selfish to the point of being uncaring. That seems 'fitting' for you, since we're trying on labels.

Your willingness to persecute people based on what might happen, for the actions of others is sickening.

Not being able to own a gun is persecution?
Tell that to someone who's really been persecuted, and see how it flies.

No one "needs" to answer the question. "Need" isn't a valid question, except to control freaks like yourself.

A rational society needs limits on what its members can and can't do. If there's a compelling reason to own a gun despite the obvious risks to the others in society, then guns should be permitted. The fact that nobody has tried to answer my question suggests that guns serve no real purpose that would justify the attendant risks.

And by the by, namecalling doesn't make your arguments any better. Frankly, someone with a temper like yours shouldn't own a gun

[Sava]

It's pointless to argue with righty's on this subject. They don't care about safety. They don't care about murder rates. They only care about their own selfish "rights". What's sad is that it would probably take upwards of one million deaths per year to get these sickos to change their minds.

They are even against scenarios of gun control that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns with minimal interference for law abiding citizens. It's so difficult to argue a moral topic with blatantly immoral people.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Ah, I see. So we don't know if they were going to be killed since the criminal didn't succeed. How nice.

I never met her husband. If he didn't have a gun he still could have killed her. Either way, your attempt to restrict people based on what might happen is anaethma to a free society.

If my aunt hadn't smoked she might still be alive so does that mean I should desire to ban tobacco?

Here's a link to an article that covers these points:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/dgu .

In the disscussion of the number of lives saved by DGU it is pointed out that certainly not each use saves a life. Most of the incidents involving DGU reported fit into the category of robberies, for which there is a 0.35% expected victim death rate. Many other incidents would be classified as burglaries, trespass, or etc. The author calculates that a mere 200 lives are saved by DGU each year. In contrast about half of the 13,000 homicides are committed by people without prior criminal record, about whom the garbage slogan "when guns are banned only criminals will have guns" obviously doesn't apply. One could argue then that unrestriced access to guns saves 200 lives/year while costing 6500 lives/year.

I suffer from asthma. Some people's so called right to smoke causes me to be ill whenever I go to places where people smoke, i.e., amusement parks, outdoor festivals, etc. Tobacco should be banned!

[Sava]

Whoa, wait a minute Doc... tobacco should be completely illegal, or just banned from public places?

IMO, guns shouldn't be banned, stricter screening processes should be implemented and enforced.

[KrazyHorse]

I think people should have to demonstrate a valid reason to keep guns in their place of residence. "Protection" won't cut it, either, except in specific areas (I'm thinking of isolated places, far from tthe nearest police station).

[KrazyHorse]

Occasional hunters should have to check their rifles in and out, etc.

What it comes down to is that people on farms should be allowed to keep their guns. City folks shouldn't.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
Whoa, wait a minute Doc... tobacco should be completely illegal, or just banned from public places?

IMO, guns shouldn't be banned, stricter screening processes should be implemented and enforced.

Ban tobacco now.

Regarding guns lets start by actually licensing gun users. Make them take courses on the responsibility of gun use, educate them on the tragic effects of improper gun use (yes, gorey movies ala driver's ed), give them training on the proper care and handling of a weapon, and even make them demonstrate a minimum proficiency.

The guns themselves should be registered, part of the process of which chould include test firing and the retention of a ballistic sample by the police. The guns and their safety devices should be periodically inspected too.

[David Floyd]

What's sad is that it would probably take upwards of one million deaths per year to get these sickos to change their minds.

Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and one little point Dr Strangelove. The National Guard and the militia are totally separate. The Guard was created by an act of Congress, while militias, according to US law still on the books, consist of every able bodied and willing male. So even if you argue that the right to bear arms only extends to the militia, it won't get you very far.

Militia? EVERY able bodied and willing male? What if you aren't willing? Would they still make you go?

Isn't that slavery?

[David Floyd]

Militia? EVERY able bodied and willing male? What if you aren't willing? Would they still make you go?

Isn't that slavery?

I believe that the original law states able-bodied AND willing. Even if it didn't, though, a law like that can't extend to violating the Constitution, so of course they could not force me to serve.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property.

So is a free market in radioisotopes still cool with you, David?

[Asher]

Gun control is necessary -- get over it.

[David Floyd]

So is a free market in radioisotopes still cool with you, David?

I already said I'm not going off into a minefield that you guys will use to bait-and-switch away from the main point of gun control. I'm not stupid, come on.

Gun control is necessary -- get over it.

Necessary for what?