Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[Dolorous Jason]

Its not that its that you keep restating everything in your own terms.  I say that I recognize funs serve a valid purpose for self-defense (I think I even went on to say we can debate the "need" -) You turn that into this: "You admitted we need guns, and we need them for self defense  , thereby conceding that you can't simply use regulation and new laws alone in order to make yourself safe from gun criminals"

LOL -- not only did I not say the first part, I have never said this:  "conceding that you can't simply use regulation and new laws alone in order to make yourself safe from gun criminals"  It's like you are arguing against phantoms instead of me.

Wow. It's like the Black Hole all over again....

It doesn't matter that you didn't say it , because it's what your argument logically implies. Maybe I'm giving you to much credit for assuming there's logic behind your arguments ? Why do you think we need guns for self defense if we could just pass enough laws and regulations so that no one has a gun ??  We DON'T need guns for self defense if this was the case.

If you want to claim that you were not implying what I said you were , then tell us what you were implying. Why do we need guns for self defense ?

[GameTime]

this should have been a good thread.  i did enjoy it for a while and i actually changed my viewpoint on a few things.  but so much runaround.

[olafberserker]

this should have been a good thread. 

Not likely when it starts off with this antagonistic b$ which of course was carried over from multiple other threads of the same antagonistic b$

This afternoon, over lunch, the Cove served witness to the real lunacy of gun lovers.  Within the span of two hours, there was a thread indicating that one gun nut wants to shoot me in the face for calling for reasonable restrictions on guns and two others proved (repeatedly) just how empty the argument is that there should be NO restriction on guns in this country. 

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1303025.0.html

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1295478.0.html

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1301767.0.html

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

Now, on to the Super Bowl and tougher challenges . . . . like breathing.

[GameTime]

it just stinks when people inject themselves into the conversation rather than reason...but its to be expected on a message board.

[spartan]

Again, not really an argument for why there are NOT too many guns....

Vin, in the past you have been highly critical of others presenting strawman arguments and I am sorry to say you are guility of exactly the same thing hre. Unless you can articulate what 'too many' is, it is a strawman argument. And I don't mean 310 million or something equally glib. I mean how many guns per person/household is "too many?" Unless you can answer that question, or at least put forward some kind of general guideline, it is a question without an answer.   I have presented to you that a person can legitimately  have multiple guns depending on their activities yet no response from you. Asking someone else the same question doesn't negate anything I said. In fact I am going to keep on stating it until you either respond or stop asking the question.

[VinBucFan]

It doesn't matter that you didn't say it , because it's what your argument logically implies. Maybe I'm giving you to much credit for assuming there's logic behind your arguments ? Why do you think we need guns for self defense if we could just pass enough laws and regulations so that no one has a gun ??  We DON'T need guns for self defense if this was the case.

If you want to claim that you were not implying what I said you were , then tell us what you were implying. Why do we need guns for self defense ?

wow, you may never see a set of sentences like that again.  Are you serious? Look at these broken down:

"It doesn't matter that you didn't say it"  -- okay, so you admit you are arguing against points I never made  -lol
"because it's what your argument logically implies"  --- wtf? my argument is what I type, if you want to infer something more than what I type fine, but don't try to hold me accountable for your lunacy
"Why do you think we need guns for self defense if we could just pass enough laws and regulations so that no one has a gun" -- I never said any of that -lol,  that's you talking with a phantom
"If you want to claim that you were not implying what I said you were , then tell us what you were implying" -- Jimminy Christmas that's funny. I wasn't implying anything the words meant what they mean.


LMAO, that is some funny stuff

[VinBucFan]

Again, not really an argument for why there are NOT too many guns....

Vin, in the past you have been highly critical of others presenting strawman arguments and I am sorry to say you are guility of exactly the same thing hre. Unless you can articulate what 'too many' is, it is a strawman argument. And I don't mean 310 million or something equally glib. I mean how many guns per person/household is "too many?" Unless you can answer that question, or at least put forward some kind of general guideline, it is a question without an answer.   I have presented to you that a person can legitimately  have multiple guns depending on their activities yet no response from you. Asking someone else the same question doesn't negate anything I said. In fact I am going to keep on stating it until you either respond or stop asking the question.

Huh? You are the one choosing to frame it as "how many guns per household"  and it is you that choose to frame it as how many guns an individual can own.  my point is simple and straight forward: there are TOO MANY guns in society when:

1. every day there is news of people dying from guns
2. there are approximately 30,000 deaths a year from guns
3. kids regularly bring guns to school
4. kids settle schoolyard tussles over lunch money with guns
5. domestic disputes end in dead women (heard a stat today that a women is 22% more likely to die at the hands of someone she knows in a home with a gun)
6. mass murder by guns seems to be on the rise
7. all of this is occurring while valid gun uses such as hunting are on long-term decline

Those  7 are arguments off the top of my head that there are simply too many guns in society,  What are the arguments that there are not?

EDIT:   There are too many guns in society when nearly anyone can by a gun no questions asked:

http://www.today.com/id/46316454/site/todayshow/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UR2KwaWceSo

[VinBucFan]

There are too many guns in society when gun deaths rival traffic deaths:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/

"In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Why are traffic deaths on the decline?  because reasonable steps have been taken to minimize the chances of death  -- seatbelts, airbags, speed limits etc.  There one once were many more traffic deaths.  Why wouldn't we take reasonable steps now to reduce gun deaths?

[VinBucFan]

For anyone in the pro-gun crowd:  what is your best argument to support the claim that there are NOT too many guns in the US?

A lot more people would die because of the inability to defend themselves than would be saved  by banning them.

Thank you Spartan. 

So, am I correct that you think the number of people currently successfully defending themselves with guns is either close to or possibly even more than the number dying from guns? I ask that because your comment suggests to me  that even if the deaths are higher now than successful defenses, reducing the number of guns would "tip the balance" so to speak.

Estimates range that firearms are used in a defensive posture (not necessarily fired) from 1-2.5 million times a year. Do the math, what do you think the laws of averages are on how many of those would have resulted in a violent confrontation?

Harvard:

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

[spartan]

Again, not really an argument for why there are NOT too many guns....

Vin, in the past you have been highly critical of others presenting strawman arguments and I am sorry to say you are guility of exactly the same thing here. Unless you can articulate what 'too many' is, it is a strawman argument. And I don't mean 310 million or something equally glib. I mean how many guns per person/household is "too many?" Unless you can answer that question, or at least put forward some kind of general guideline, it is a question without an answer.   I have presented to you that a person can legitimately  have multiple guns depending on their activities yet no response from you. Asking someone else the same question doesn't negate anything I said. In fact I am going to keep on stating it until you either respond or stop asking the question.

Huh? You are the one choosing to frame it as "how many guns per household"  and it is you that choose to frame it as how many guns an individual can own.  my point is simple and straight forward: there are TOO MANY guns in society when:

1. every day there is news of people dying from guns
2. there are approximately 30,000 deaths a year from guns
3. kids regularly bring guns to school
4. kids settle schoolyard tussles over lunch money with guns
5. domestic disputes end in dead women (heard a stat today that a women is 22% more likely to die at the hands of someone she knows in a home with a gun)
6. mass murder by guns seems to be on the rise
7. all of this is occurring while valid gun uses such as hunting are on long-term decline

Those  7 are arguments off the top of my head that there are simply too many guns in society,  What are the arguments that there are not?

EDIT:   There are too many guns in society when nearly anyone can by a gun no questions asked:

http://www.today.com/id/46316454/site/todayshow/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UR2KwaWceSo

So, to be blunt, again you are guilty of doing what you have accused others of doing. In this case dodge the question by changing the subject. Unless of course you mean by point 1 that any gun is too many guns. If that is the case there is no point in having a conversation is there? And, what's more your question of 'too many guns" is disengenious at best, if not downright dishonest. Dishonest because it is not a true question. Rhetorical would be the most generous answer if in your mind there is only one acceptable answer.  And, if that is the case, why pretend?

[spartan]

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

Did you not see the bit where I said a firearm can be used but not necessarily fired? Again your argument is disengenious at best. You are basing a lot of your viewpoint on personal experience, that is you were the victim of gun crime. I can base that on personal experience. I have been the victime of "knife crime" where someone puledl a knife on me, I pulled a gun.  Actually I didn't, I flashed I was carrying. He ran away. So to base your argument on the fact someone needs to be shot to prove defensive use of firearms is not valid IMO.

[VinBucFan]

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

Did you not see the bit where I said a firearm can be used but not necessarily fired? Again your argument is disengenious at best. You are basing a lot of your viewpoint on personal experience, that is you were the victim of gun crime. I can base that on personal experience. I have been the victime of "knife crime" where someone puledl a knife on me, I pulled a gun.  Actually I didn't, I flashed I was carrying. He ran away. So to base your argument on the fact someone needs to be shot to prove defensive use of firearms is not valid IMO.

dis·in·gen·u·ous (d s n-j n y - s). adj. 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating .   Huh?

Maybe you are forgetting that I also said that firearms are often used without firing, so I don't disagree with that at all. I posted the analysis from Harvard because it goes to ONE segment of self defense with a gun, which is whenn the gun is fired. I am pretty sure that there would be no statistics or basis to calculate the other segment, which is the number of time someone shows a gun but does not fire it to ward someone off. That's the unknowable part. However, I presume even you would agree that people also use guns without firing them on offense. In fact. I would think this happens way more than actually firing the weapon, right? I mean, I presume most armed robberies due not include discharging the gun. Discharging the gun is the exception not the rule.  In fact, that reminds me that there is a California study of teens that says surveyed teens in CA overwhelmingly described "intimidation" by gun happening with much greater frequency than what you describe, which is defense by gun.

Anyway, the Harvard studies I posted are, I am sure, not even a full study of discharged firearm defense because they are just surveys, but they do seem to belie the notion that guns are fired often in defense, or at least as often as some claim.

[VinBucFan]

Spartan, I am losing my mind I guess because the discussion above was in the same series of reports. Here it is:

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

 

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the au**CENSORED**es of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

 

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

 

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

 

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.  We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.  Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

[GameTime]

vin - im sure you can see what the problem in this thread is.  you stated a solution, yet you wont follow through on it.  i used to think runole was the master at diversion, but you are taking the cake.

if you dont have the answers, its okay to say you dont know.  its a message board, posters change their opinions all the time.  its no big deal.  but to ruin every thread is nonsense.

[VinBucFan]

vin - im sure you can see what the problem in this thread is.  you stated a solution, yet you wont follow through on it.  i used to think runole was the master at diversion, but you are taking the cake.

if you dont have the answers, its okay to say you dont know.  its a message board, posters change their opinions all the time.  its no big deal.  but to ruin every thread is nonsense.

what solution did I state but have not followed through on?