posted
Yes, sadly, there aren't too many sensible gun owners in the world when it comes to teaching their kids.
quote:A team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
all the more reason to make it the law to take a gun course before you can own a gun. they make you take a driving course before you can drive. because you need to know how to control the vehicle so you don't pose a threat to the public. same with guns.
now if only the governments of the world will listen to a 16 year old canadian kid. instead of having sex with interns, or picking fights with thier neighbors.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Because "the people" clearly speaks about those who are members of a militia.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I see no such qualification as the one you describe. we don't let children or criminals, or many other people (depending on mental stability) own firearms. We let them have many of their other rights (free speech, etc.), but even most Conservatives should recognize the need to limit certain groups from owning firearms.
All rights were presumed under common law to apply to mentally competent adults. Unfortunately, common law died before it could discover how to define that.
Well, yes it would seem common sense that if there is no guns in the house there's not a whole lotta chances of gettin shot.
I would point out that the statistic quoted doesn't say anything about what gun you get shot with. I'd love to see that study, in detail.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This thread is producing massive amounts of heartburn in me at this point.
Thanks Snayer.
*chews a Tums*
*makes that two Tums*
The Constitutional arguemnt about the 2nd Amendment has never really been about banning guns. Rather it is about the right of government to regulate them. As I've showed before in previous threads, the government does have the power to regulate weapons.
It's so simple that even Dubya could have it explained to him and understand it.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:True, the study doesn't say, but the study's findings make it logically impossible for a significant number of these guns to have been brought in from the outside. The study found that keeping a gun in the house raised the chances of gun homicide only, not any other kind of homicide. It also found that it raised the chances of being killed by a family member or intimate acquaintance, not a stranger or non-intimate acquaintance. We can therefore eliminate the possibility that owning a gun raises the risk of a stranger breaking in (and then only with a gun!). The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house"). That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible. It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well. The only plausible conclusion is that the vast majority of the guns used for homicide were the ones kept in the house.
And as I've told people many a time, while I think a world without guns would be great, since that's not going to happen, I'm very much a strong supporter of gun control (Omega and I had this conversation once in detail). I just found this information amazing and wanted to see what the 'pubies thought about it.
posted
Your right about that Jeff, but I just hate Constitutional misinformation.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's also common sense that if there are no airplanes in the air, then nobody can use one to plow into a large building.
It's the PEOPLE, not the machine.
And we won't go into how many of those "homicides" were actually self-defense.
See, if you date someone, and they turn into a stalker, and come to your house to kill you, and you kill them first, that would be counted in the statistics you posted, because they took place in the home where the "victim" was known to the shooter, and vice-versa.
My gf's brother was also abused as a child, and now he's a schizophrenic living on his own. He threatened Julie and other family members in the past If he came to carry out his threat, and I killed him, he'd be counted in your 'statistics' as well.
So you're counting positives as negatives.
Skewed data leading to a previously-determined conclusion. Poor science.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Sounds like a guarantee to me... Okay, the Bill of Rights isn't exactly a part of the Constitution per se... but the Const. wouldn't exist without it.
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Even better: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."
Even Rob can't deny that guns make it a lot easier to inflict harm. Guns provide enhanced ability. Are you aware the most successful suicides are those who use firearms? For anyone feeling murderous (kids at Columbine, that office worker, a guy we had running around in Baltimore about a year and a half ago, Palcynski something), guns make it very easy to attack physically bigger people, many people, at a distance, hidden, and so on.
C'mon, how many people would rob a bank with a knife? Give a person a gun ... you've got a different story.
quote:See, if you date someone, and they turn into a stalker, and come to your house to kill you, and you kill them first, that would be counted in the statistics you posted, because they took place in the home where the "victim" was known to the shooter, and vice-versa.
quote:But most damagingly, the FBI deems only 1 percent of all murders to be "justifiable homicides" using a firearm. Statistics from the nation's largest crime survey also show that a gun in 19 times more likely to be used in nonfatal crime than in nonfatal self-defense.
Rob, the study only showed that if you owned a gun in the home, you were *more* likely to die from gun violence then if you didn't. I posted the link about -- you should take a look at it.
As for Julie's brother, do you know the laws in PA governing how you may lawfully use your firearm? Are you aware that in '93, the FBI counted 24,526 murders? 251 were justifiable homicides by handguns. That's one percent. (Don't bring up 'Excuseable' Homicide ... if you have to draw your gun and shoot someone when they bump into you, or in the heat of passion or rage, you don't deserve one -- and it certainly doesn't count as 'justifiable').
And the study controlled for domestic violence.
quote:So you're counting positives as negatives.
Skewed data leading to a previously-determined conclusion. Poor science.
quote:What this objection is asking us to imagine is this: a gun prevents a murder from happening in, say, nine cases. But on the tenth it fails (by necessity, to produce the murder victim in question). If guns really provided this kind of protection, we could easily imagine that one of the previous nine murder attempts would have been successful, had the victim not possessed a gun. In that case, non-gun owners would have seen a higher murder rate. This is something the study would have found (see point 1), but it did not; it found a higher murder rate among gun owners. Pro-gunners might then argue that an individual facing a likely threat sought protection by buying a gun, hence the higher correlation. But this is the same argument rebutted in point 3. Ultimately, the pro-gunners starting assumption is incorrect. Guns do not prevent a series of threats, one of which ultimately succeeds; rather, guns enhance the possibility of murder.
posted
Now, what I personally would like (and I think this is very reasonable) ...
* Federal Background checks. It doesn't matter if you're buying from a dealer or a gun show. Get the damn check done.
* State Registration.
* Education classes, including:
1) Awareness of gun laws in state, including what is or is not justifiable homicide, carry laws, etc. Also, a basic overview of nearby states' laws so you can't claim ignorance.
2) Shooting. Look, if you can't shoot your gun, what's the point? A person should have basic compentancy with a weapon if they want to own one.
3) Cleaning, firearm safety, basic maintenance, etc. Have to leave this to the person on their own depending on the gun they get.
* Gun ownership should certainly be restricted depending on whether or not a person is arrested for dangerous behavior, including drug and alcohol related arrests, etc. ("Gee, you like to drink and drive? Second time arrested? You lose your car, and your guns!")
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:It's also common sense that if there are no airplanes in the air, then nobody can use one to plow into a large building.
Except planes don't crash into buildings ten thousand times a year, whereas the number of victims of gun-related violence has risen to such dramatic hights.
And spare us the "it's the people, not the machines" speech, will ya? Fact: firearms are highly proliferated. Virtually anyone can obtain one (mentally stable or not), thanks to your excellent gun-control policies. Don't make it too difficult for the fruitcakes, ok?
(And since every patriotic right-winged American believes in the almighty Constitutional right to defend against Government Injustice(tm), this problem is *very* likely to remain. Talk about beating a dead horse.)
quote:Carnivore, for starters.
Like owning a weapon renders you invisible to the eyes of Carnivore and Echelon - or even changes the status quo in the slightest. Logical thinking there.
[Edit]Snayer already formulated his thoughts better than I could have...[/Edit]
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And since every patriotic right-winged American believes in the almighty Constitutional right to defend against Government Injustice(tm), this problem is *very* likely to remain. Talk about beating a dead horse.)
Which is stupid reasoning in and of itself.
Even if Rob owned, say, an AR-15, a single soldier armed with body armor, grenades, claymores, and an M-16 would be more then a match for him. Make that a squad, or platoon, or division of soldiers, backed up by attack helicopters, bombers, tanks, and other weapons of war, and you realize how stupid the arguement is.
quote: C'mon, how many people would rob a bank with a knife? Give a person a gun ... you've got a different story.
How many people would hijack a plane with a knife?
Oh, wait, we already know the answer to that...
In any case, your statistics fail to take many other factors into account.
One of the more obvious is that murders are not evenly distributed throughout the population.
Another is that it also does not take into account bad-guy-on-bad-guy murders, and lumps them in with innocent people. It counts if one drug dealer shoots a rival drug dealer he knows in his house. Both may be gun owners, but that is irrelevant.
If your writers were actually using valid means of determining their statistics, they would find that the murder rate among otherwise law-abiding gun owners is very close to that among non-gun owners, perhaps lower in some areas.
In fact, it is not extraordinary for these 'statisticians' to 'reclassify non homicides, such as accidents and suicides, as homicides to fit their statistical models. I read an expose a few years ago that showed a certain 'researcher' from a college had done that.
The "Impulse Murder" is a myth. People who kill in rages generally will use whatever is at hand... and that's not usually a gun. Blunt instruments come to mind. Many more children under 10 die at the bare hands of their parents each year than are killed by guns. (Actually, the leading cause of death for children under that age is mother's live-in boyfriend.)
quote:The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house").
"ONLY alternative?" Omega on Evolution?
quote:That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible.
When you say it like that, yes. "ALL" is implausible. However, "Some," "Many," or "Enough to change the statistical outcome" are NOT implausible at all. Skewed wording.
quote:It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well.
No doubt we do.. however, since those were not relevant to the "study," they were no doubt left uncounted.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Snay I agree COMPLETELY with the necessity for your proposed education courses. SO does the NRA, for that matter.
I also agree with prohibiting people from owning guns if they've been convicted if irresponsible behavior... although it's slippery grounds when you're talking about restraining and PFA orders... because vengeful ex-es will and have filed false reports.
As for the whole "you can't win a battle against superior forces" argument... history points to several examples when that HAS occurred. Especially when the 'inferior' force knows the terrain and all the hiding places (and I do). The point should also be made that it's not necessarily as necessary to WIN as it is to resist at all. Just because victory isn't inevitable doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY.
(and who says I couldn't manufacture basement equivalents of some of those other "arms" if I needed to? Daddy was a chemist, remember.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
