The case against guns

[Seth]

I'm pretty sure there are 30 000 000 out there who would not get anything but a pea shooter permit in my dictatorship. Is it enough if they just point the things?

That's still only 10 percent of the population.

[Tyrannical]

No one ever mentions if the 2nd Amendment was really designed so that States may secede. Probably because the South lost the War of Northern Aggression.

[Blind groper]

Gun owners clearly see the stalking horse nature of their arguments and refuse to believe their lies, preferring instead to tell the truth.

I am anti-hand guns, and I do not tell lies.
The stats are simple. Half of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns, and the USA has four times the murder rate of such nations as the UK, which do not permit hand gun ownership.

If someone, who has a proper gun licence, wishes to own a hunting rifle, for example, then that is permitted in all western nations. That does not add much to the murder rate. In most western nations with strong gun laws, rifles are implicated in less than 10% of murders.

The conclusion is clear cut. The biggest problem is hand guns and they should be removed from society.

[Tero]

Gun owners clearly see the stalking horse nature of their arguments and refuse to believe their lies, preferring instead to tell the truth.

I am anti-hand guns, and I do not tell lies.
The stats are simple. Half of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns, and the USA has four times the murder rate of such nations as the UK, which do not permit hand gun ownership.

If someone, who has a proper gun licence, wishes to own a hunting rifle, for example, then that is permitted in all western nations. That does not add much to the murder rate. In most western nations with strong gun laws, rifles are implicated in less than 10% of murders.

The conclusion is clear cut. The biggest problem is hand guns and they should be removed from society.

And the gun nuts could still own rifles, civil war cannons, whatever. Good plan.

[Blind groper]

Tero

It is a matter of being pragmatic and rational in your thinking.
Civil war cannons and machine guns and so on kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in hand gun homicides.
The rational thing to do is remove hand guns.

[jaydot]

oh, i dunno. i think it's amusing that you can have open season on each other.

[Seth]

Tero

It is a matter of being pragmatic and rational in your thinking.
Civil war cannons and machine guns and so on kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in hand gun homicides.
The rational thing to do is remove hand guns.

No it's not, because firearms, including handguns, prevent as many as 2.5 million criminal victimizations, including potential murders, each year. Therefore, if you ban handguns (as if you could) you make helpless victims of 2.5 million more people every year, with who knows how many additional murders that could have been prevented if the victim had been lawfully armed.

This is the simple fact that you are simply unable, or unwilling to comprehend. Yes, handguns save lives, lots of them every year.

[Blind groper]

This is the simple fact that you are simply unable, or unwilling to comprehend. Yes, handguns save lives, lots of them every year.

No, Seth.

Your analysis makes no sense at all.

Only one third of Americans own hand guns. If hand guns saved that many lives, then the other two thirds of Americans would be losing them at a great rate. The murder rate, which is abominable, is still only 16,000 per year, from all causes (8,000 from hand guns). If 2.5 million people with hand guns prevent murders, and that is one third of cases, then there should be 5 million murders per year, from all those without hand guns.

Or, if it is not preventing murders, but only preventing crime, then why is there 'only' 600,000 gun crimes per year?

In addition, if hand guns are needed to save lives, why, in the other richest 23 nations, is the murder rate one fifth to one third that of the USA? If all those hand guns were needed to prevent crime and to prevent murders, then where there were no hand guns, the murder and crime rate would be much higher. That statistics show the opposite.

Sorry, Seth. The data indicates the opposite of your claim.

[Seth]

This is the simple fact that you are simply unable, or unwilling to comprehend. Yes, handguns save lives, lots of them every year.

No, Seth.

Your analysis makes no sense at all.

Only one third of Americans own hand guns. If hand guns saved that many lives, then the other two thirds of Americans would be losing them at a great rate. The murder rate, which is abominable, is still only 16,000 per year, from all causes (8,000 from hand guns). If 2.5 million people with hand guns prevent murders, and that is one third of cases, then there should be 5 million murders per year, from all those without hand guns.

Or, if it is not preventing murders, but only preventing crime, then why is there 'only' 600,000 gun crimes per year?

In addition, if hand guns are needed to save lives, why, in the other richest 23 nations, is the murder rate one fifth to one third that of the USA? If all those hand guns were needed to prevent crime and to prevent murders, then where there were no hand guns, the murder and crime rate would be much higher. That statistics show the opposite.

Sorry, Seth. The data indicates the opposite of your claim.

We've been over this about four times now. Your math skills are severely deficient, and you're wrong.

[SteveB]

They weren't very effective for this guy: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/texas-d-a-f ... -1.1218010

[Blind groper]

We've been over this about four times now. Your math skills are severely deficient, and you're wrong.

Seth, I hate having to say this, but that is such a standard reply from you.
When you have rational answer to my posts, you fall back on saying I am lying, or stupid, or cannot do maths.
How about one of these days you actually give an intelligent reply, or better still, acknowledge that I have made a valid point.

[JimC]

We've been over this about four times now. Your math skills are severely deficient, and you're wrong.

Seth, I hate having to say this, but that is such a standard reply from you.
When you have rational answer to my posts, you fall back on saying I am lying, or stupid, or cannot do maths.
How about one of these days you actually give an intelligent reply, or better still, acknowledge that I have made a valid point.

That would require a rather arctic day in hell...

[Seth]

They weren't very effective for this guy: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/texas-d-a-f ... -1.1218010

Bad tactical planning and execution. Being armed is not a guarantee of survival, it just increases the chances you'll survive. You still have to maintain situational awareness and use proper tactics. These guys, along with the prison warden in Colorado who was shot by an ex-inmate posing as a pizza delivery man, failed to properly execute their tactical plans. People get lazy when nothing happens for a long time, but as these incidents amply demonstrate, just because nothing happened yesterday is no guarantee that something bad won't happen in the next 30 seconds. Thus the need to always be armed and exercising proper situational awareness, because you never know when some pizza delivery guy you didn't call will shoot you. I don't know about you, but I don't ever open the door for someone I don't know and cannot identify using my video surveillance system unless I am armed and ready to react. That's why I have a Level IIIA ballistic-rated front door which I can stand behind as cover.

It just goes to show you that sometimes you die.

That's hardly a rational argument for disarming law abiding citizens however.

[Seth]

We've been over this about four times now. Your math skills are severely deficient, and you're wrong.

Seth, I hate having to say this, but that is such a standard reply from you.

It's a standard reply to your standard-issue hoplophobe drivel, which I've already addressed in detail many times. It's all your bogus arguments are worth by way of my time.

When you have rational answer to my posts, you fall back on saying I am lying, or stupid, or cannot do maths.
How about one of these days you actually give an intelligent reply, or better still, acknowledge that I have made a valid point.

Been there, done that. That's exactly why I don't bother any longer. You sing the same tired old hoplophobe song that I've been debunking for two decades now. I will admit that you are one of the more impenetrable anti-gun hoplophobes I've encountered, but I'm still not going to waste my time rebutting long-ago demolished pseudo-arguments.

Your logic is non-existent, your reasoning is faulty and your math skills are abysmal.

[MrJonno]

I don't know about you, but I don't ever open the door for someone I don't know and cannot identify using my video surveillance system unless I am armed and ready to react.

Surely admitting thinking that way is sufficient to lock someone up in a padded cell with a straight jacket, its certainly a mental illness