It's the Guns.

[Revoltingest]

If it's a major schism in the populace, then it would be armed civilian vs. armed civilian as well. It'd be hard to tell who is on whose side. That would get kind of messy. You'd have to be able to either sing "Dixie" or "Battle Hymn of the Republic" on a moment's notice. And I don't really know either song that well.

I never said that it wouldn't be messy.
Let's just hope it never happens.

 

[Curious George]

Scientific American did link to several studies which showed a reduction in overall homicide rates following gun regulation - the idea that the rate would be exactly the same and people would just use different methods has no real basis in reality.

Exactly the same? No. Very similar, yes.

What's more, yes it actually is a good trade. I'm fairly certain that 50 people wouldn't have died in Las Vegas if the perpetrator had only had baseball bats to throw at them from his hotel room.

No in such a case where a person wanted to kill lots of people they would have just made a bomb and killed much more than the 50 people that did lose their lives. Guns are by no means the only way to have mass killings.

How many victims do you honestly think can result from a "mass baseball-bat attack" compared with a shooting before someone is able to subdue the attacker?

I thought qe were discussing the most general cases of homocide, not the exceptional case of multiple homicides. Plenty of ways for people to achieve those too.

Except the article links to over 30 studies which all draw the same conclusion.

That is pure intellectual dishonesty. Those studies do mot draw the same conclusion.

There is nothing sensationalist about accepting the scientific studies into this subject.

Though there is somethimg sensationalist about accepting sensationalist conclusions from the scientific studies.

Again, more than 30 studies concluded a correlation.

That is not true.

But if you're unconvinced by studies used in Scientific American, here are a couple more and a list of studies provided by Harvard:

https://www.statistics.com/papers/Homicides_and_guns.pdf
Firearm Availability and Homicide Rates across 26... : Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Lol did you just post the same study twice qith two different links in order to make it seem like you had more resources?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Which study would you like to discuss from this list? Is it the 2000 study that you have already cited twice? Please read the first couple lines in the discussion of that study and then consider the dramatic drop in homicide and gun homicide rates in the U.S. since 1993 (a year that they used in the study). This is true despite increased number and availability of guns in the U.S.

In short when such findings are compared to longitudinal studies, the findings do not hold. The only conclusion which we can draw is that the exclusive variable they chose does not account for their findings. As they acknowledged the momentary correlation could be, and indeed was, explained by other variables for which they did not account.

Are you seriously suggesting that no less violent crimes would result from the availability of weapons specifically designed to quickly and effectively kill people being reduced?

I am suggesting that if there was a difference it would be minimal.

The second amendment already contains the words "well-regulated".

More intellectual dishonesty. What do those words modify in the Ammendment?

How does that not serve as justification for some form of regulation? Are you suggesting that the regulation that already exists infringes on fundamental rights?

Yes. But by unfortunate choices the public has assented to such regulation.

Nobody is suggesting we DON'T focus on those issues, but a large number of people seem to kick and scream whenever even the faintest possibility of analysing America's dependence on guns might be ANTOHER thing we can investigate.

For good reason. Look at the intellectual dishonesty you have used in trying to defend your position. I am all for honest investigation of all variables. Nothing should be off limits regarding investigation. However, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is and should be a last resort. We can actually effect changes in other arenas.

Why NOT include gun regulation as part of the discussion of those issues?

For the simple reason that imfringing on the right to keep bear arms is not within the authority of the people to enact.

Why not accept that there will always be some homicide, suicide and violent crime which can never be adequately predicted and have no preventative measures beyond ensuring that the wrong people don't get their hands on devices that can make doing any of those three things significantly easier?

That is a poor argument.

Nobody has suggested disregarding "fundamental rights".

I disagree. Most gun regulation amounts to just that. I am not suggesting that all gun regulation does, but any depth to the discussion regarding gun regulation will show that most ideas do.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another with premeditation.

Defending ones self or other with violence if required is not murder.

End of lesson

Murder can't occur without violence... Violence itself is a murderer.

 

[Shad]

"As of July 27, 2018, there have been 2,372 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities."
United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan - Wikipedia



"During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 31,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been wounded. Over 111,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed in the conflict."
Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present ...

You have failed to link civilian casualties to US action. More so you ignored my point which was regarding non-conventional warfare. Try again.

LOL...now that is just funny. If everyone is carrying a weapon for self defense, then who is the enemy? Everyone else? What a sad and sick situation....

Laugh when you learn to respond to the post I made not fiction in your head. Hilarious delusion you have.

The enemy is the one attacking people. That is what makes it self-defense.

Yep......mostly semi-automatic weapons...

Hand-guns are semi-automatic.... Your point is one of ignorance.

"Unamerican"? What is that? Is it the same as being "unaustralian"? I think not. I am very happy to be "un" whatever the world thinks is a good thing, but violates the laws of my God. I'd rather obey my God than obey man and offend him.

Read what I posted and not the fiction in your head. I said JW were called unamerican due to stance regarding the pledge of allegiances....

When have "better people" ever made anything "better" with violence? When has war ever ended war? When has violence ever ended violence.....I think you kid yourself. I know who will be boxed in by their own stupidity. Waco comes to mind....all in that compound were armed. Who won? We do not rely on weapons to make us feel secure....we have something so much more powerful....our faith.

Pacifism is a dumb philosophy which requires better and smarter people along with their sacrifices to do the hard work for the pacifist.

Heard of the American Revolution or Civil War?

When a government comes after its own citizens who are peaceful, law-abiding and unarmed, that says a lot about the people in government. But when the government goes after those who are armed and ready for a fight......guess who isn't going to be any threat to them?

Afghanistan..... Try again. Maybe look up what guns are as you are clueless.

 

[Thief]

Your door gives way? !!!! You're joking!

What exactly caused your door to give way? Pathetic doors, you've all got, yet you don't do anything about them, and then hug your guns to sleep.

And who exactly wanted to get in to your place? And for what?

When it comes down to simple security, many gun folks seem to be thinking very strangely.

so.....you live in heaven and
you have nothing anyone else would want

good for you

 

[Thief]

The majority of street killings here are connected to drugs as well.

where I live....
some guy smoking a cigarette in his front yard was killed
someone driving by shot him
no apparent reason

my son lost a friend....to a shotgun attack
bad part of town

neighbor lost a stereo to a break in
he wasn't home
lucky guy

etc....etc....etc....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Exactly the same? No. Very similar, yes.

So you admit that less guns would lead to less homicides?

No in such a case where a person wanted to kill lots of people they would have just made a bomb and killed much more than the 50 people that did lose their lives. Guns are by no means the only way to have mass killings.

And yet the only place that seems to have mass killings on a fairly regular basis is America, with most of those mass killings being carried out using guns. Again, this argument is simply based on denying the reality of the situation. A decrease in gun availability does not somehow lead to an increase in bomb availability.

I thought qe were discussing the most general cases of homocide, not the exceptional case of multiple homicides. Plenty of ways for people to achieve those too.

You made the argument that "trading firearm deaths for baseball bat deaths is hardly a good trade", and I pointed out that this actually is a good trade because baseball bats are statistically far less deadly and almost impossible to use for mass killing. You'd be essentially trading a lot of deaths for severe injuries and almost eliminate mass killings.

That is pure intellectual dishonesty. Those studies do mot draw the same conclusion.

Though there is somethimg sensationalist about accepting sensationalist conclusions from the scientific studies.

That is not true.

Would you care to show where my interpretation of the studies is wrong?

Lol did you just post the same study twice qith two different links in order to make it seem like you had more resources?

Nope, I just accidentally pulled up two links I didn't realize were to the same study. But go ahead and assume deception if that makes you feel superior.

Which study would you like to discuss from this list? Is it the 2000 study that you have already cited twice? Please read the first couple lines in the discussion of that study and then consider the dramatic drop in homicide and gun homicide rates in the U.S. since 1993 (a year that they used in the study). This is true despite increased number and availability of guns in the U.S.

Doesn't change the fact that availability of guns correlates with homicide rates.

I am suggesting that if there was a difference it would be minimal.

And what do you base this suggestion on?

More intellectual dishonesty. What do those words modify in the Ammendment?

That the use and ownership of guns should be well-regulated.

Yes. But by unfortunate choices the public has assented to such regulation.

So guns shouldn't be regulated at all? Are you serious?

For good reason. Look at the intellectual dishonesty you have used in trying to defend your position. I am all for honest investigation of all variables. Nothing should be off limits regarding investigation. However, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is and should be a last resort. We can actually effect changes in other arenas.

Once again, the amendment states that the purpose of bearing arms is "a well-regulated militia". You advocate using guns in an entirely unregulated fashion. This may technically be a correct interpretation of the right, but it shows complete disregard for he amendment's stated aim and intention.

For the simple reason that imfringing on the right to keep bear arms is not within the authority of the people to enact.

You realize amendments are a thing, right? The second actually being one? In any case, an amendment isn't even needed, since it already specifies "well-regulated" in the amendment already.

That is a poor argument.

No, it's an acceptance of reality. The idea that we can disregard gun control as even an option and simply work to prevent random killings some other way is a pipe dream.

I disagree. Most gun regulation amounts to just that.

False. Regulation is not disregarding.

I am not suggesting that all gun regulation does, but any depth to the discussion regarding gun regulation will show that most ideas do.

Then perhaps you need to adjust your perspective.

 

[oldbadger]

where I live....
some guy smoking a cigarette in his front yard was killed
someone driving by shot him
no apparent reason

my son lost a friend....to a shotgun attack
bad part of town

..

Pity you haven't got better gun controls, really.

 

[oldbadger]

where I live....


neighbor lost a stereo to a break in
he wasn't home
lucky guy

etc....etc....etc....

Pity he didn't secure his home, really.

 

[Curious George]

So you admit that less guns would lead to less homicides?

No. But I do admit that less guns would lead to less gun deaths.

And yet the only place that seems to have mass killings on a fairly regular basis is America, with most of those mass killings being carried out using guns.

That is not quite true either. Mass killings occur throughout the world.

Again, this argument is simply based on denying the reality of the situation. A decrease in gun availability does not somehow lead to an increase in bomb availability.

No. Tools to make bombs are regularly available. Guns simply provide an efficient, more precise means of killing. This does not mean in their absence people wanting to kill will not do so with the means they can muster.

You made the argument that "trading firearm deaths for baseball bat deaths is hardly a good trade," and I pointed out that this actually is a good trade because baseball bats are statistically far less deadly and almost impossible to use for mass killing.

And I pointed out that your argument is a poor one. You are purposefully misunderstanding my point. I need not list every form of murder. "Baseball bats" was merely a place holder.

You'd be essentially trading a lot of deaths for severe injuries and almost eliminate mass killings.

No if you traded each homicide for another you would be left with the same number of homicides. Why do you think that your point is worth pursuing? Need I stress the various means beyond bats and now bombs?

Would you care to show where my interpretation of the studies is wrong?

Yes, but I think it would be a waste of effort. Look at the statement you made and see if all of those studies reach that conclusion. Do you really believe that all of the studies reached the same conclusion or was that just posturing?

Nope, I just accidentally pulled up two links I didn't realize were to the same study. But go ahead and assume deception if that makes you feel superior.

I wouldn't say superior. But given that and your use of "well-regulated" what am I supposed to think?

Let us evaluate though:

You have suggested all of the studies reach the same conclusion. Some studies are related to gun deaths in general and some are related to an increased chance of being a victim of homicide. Already we have different conclusions but you are claiming the same conclusions. These conclusions are further diversified when we count amomg those studies reviewed studies concerning self defense rates. A mere misstatement on your part?

Then we have using the words "well regulated" to imply that the right to keep and bear arms should be well regulated. A mere misunderstanding?

Then we have quoting the same study in different formats to provide me with sources. A simple oversight?

The study that you were quoting, from 2000, uses statistics from 1993 (a peak in U.S. violence) and is refuted by common sense comparison to statistics today. Just not thoroughly researched?

We have your attempt at a 'gotcha' point by belaboring the difference between bats and firearms. Perhaps you just misunderstood my point?

You used a pop science source. Mainly quoted reviews. And you have ignored the lack of causation in those studies and instead emphasize that access of guns directly correlates with homicide, suicide and general crime. This is misleading. I can offer Japan as a counter example for suicide and Brazil as a counter example for homicide. The truth is that one can certainly pick and choose various countries in order to make assertions like you have, yet the correlation does not hold without manipulation.

Doesn't change the fact that availability of guns correlates with homicide rates.

Does it? If we take the data in U.S. 1993 from your study and compare that to data today in the U.S., we would see a negative correlation with guns. So, it seems to me that we have negated your correlation.

And what do you base this suggestion on?

Homicide rates before and after gun regulation in the U.S. and abroad.

That the use and ownership of guns should be well-regulated.

No. The correct answer was Militia.

So guns shouldn't be regulated at all? Are you serious?

Not federally. We can have a go aboit incorporation and original intent to sort out state regulation.

Once again, the amendment states that the purpose of bearing arms is "a well-regulated militia".

No it emphasizes the importance of a well regulated militia.

You advocate using guns in an entirely unregulated fashion. This may technically be a correct interpretation of the right, but it shows complete disregard for he amendment's stated aim and intention.

I think it embodies the aim and intent.

You realize amendments are a thing, right? The second actually being one? In any case, an amendment isn't even needed, since it already specifies "well-regulated" in the amendment already.

Yes it does emphasize that well regulated militias are important. Regarding the right to keep and bear arms it mentions that the right shall not be infringed.

No, it's an acceptance of reality. The idea that we can disregard gun control as even an option and simply work to prevent random killings some other way is a pipe dream.

No, it is not.

False. Regulation is not disregarding.

No but most involves disregarding.

Then perhaps you need to adjust your perspective.

Or perhaps you need to adjust yours.

 

[Thief]

Pity you haven't got better gun controls, really.

it's not the guns

 

[Thief]

Pity he didn't secure his home, really.

he now has a carry license.....
I think he will be just fine

 

[esmith]

Pity you haven't got better gun controls, really.

Well I know you are not addressing the statement to me, but thought I would respond.
I have excellent "gun control".
Oh, I see you mean the US doesn't have better gun controls.
But that is false we have very good gun control in accordance to our Constitution. What we do not have is better criminal prosecution of those using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

When it comes down to simple security, many gun folks seem to be thinking very strangely.

Strange thinking can be seen on both sides of the gun argument.
I think about building security more than most people. I've been
responsible for hundreds of rental units, & thousands of tenants.
No matter that one meets reasonable & legal standards of security,
it can be defeated. It has been, & will continue to be.
So give thought to your Plan B.

 

[oldbadger]

he now has a carry license.....
I think he will be just fine

Huh?
How can that helpb if he goes out without securing his home, and gets his sound system nicked?

That's funny!

 

[oldbadger]

Strange thinking can be seen on both sides of the gun argument.
I think about building security more than most people. I've been
responsible for hundreds of rental units, & thousands of tenants.
No matter that one meets reasonable & legal standards of security,
it can be defeated. It has been, & will continue to be.
So give thought to your Plan B.

Just a sec....
I have been reading about intruders just appearing in front of householders, and walk in burglaries.

No need for a plan B, just some simple common sense intruder deterrents.

And because you have been using simple security and deterrents you probably have not had too many failures. Or have you? If so, please could you describe and incident including how the intruder gained an access.

 

[oldbadger]

Well I know you are not addressing the statement to me, but thought I would respond.
I have excellent "gun control".
Oh, I see you mean the US doesn't have better gun controls.
But that is false we have very good gun control in accordance to our Constitution. What we do not have is better criminal prosecution of those using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Huh?
You lock up just about any offence. You have more prisoners per capita than most other countries.

Just secure your homes!

Just now home security looks pathetic over there...

 

[Revoltingest]

Just a sec....
I have been reading about intruders just appearing in front of householders, and walk in burglaries.

No need for a plan B, just some simple common sense intruder deterrents.

And because you have been using simple security and deterrents you probably have not had too many failures. Or have you? If so, please could you describe and incident including how the intruder gained an access.

I haven't had to use Plan B.
But this doesn't make Plan B a bad idea.
As an engineer, I designed systems to cope with improbable events.
Tis a mindset one cannot avoid.

I've never needed my seatbelt in Mr Van.
But it's still a good idea.

 

[oldbadger]

.

I've never needed my seatbelt in Mr Van.
But it's still a good idea.

I have! I mean a real seat belt.
July 1987. M25.
I was car 13 in a 25 vehicle pile up.
Afterwards my Ford Cortina was about half it's original length.
Every person walked from the mass wreckage free from injury.
Amazing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have! I mean a real seat belt.
July 1987. M25.
I was car 13 in a 25 vehicle pile up.
Afterwards my Ford Cortina was about half it's original length.
Every person walked from the mass wreckage free from injury.
Amazing.

I now use airbags too.
It's quite unlikely I'll ever need them, but you know....