 |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
A trigger lock ensures that your gun won't be immediately accessible when you need it, basically.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 30-08-2002 at 08:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sinapus
|
 |
Houston, Texas
Jun 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Houston, Texas
Jun 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sinapus
|
|
Houston, Texas
Jun 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
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. 
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
Gun control is necessary -- get over it. |
Necessary for what?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-08-2002 07:40
|