Signature thread about gun control and gun violence

[syldssuf]

You also totally sidestepped my question - you say that banning personal ownership of anything on moral grounds is wrong, yet I will assume that you were primarily thinking about gun ownership and that even you would draw the line somewhere. If morality is not a valid reason for banning ownership how do you hope to draw the line?

Ignoring our points and countering with a shedload of quotes garnered from a pro-gun propaganda* site isn't exactly building a strong argument for yourself

My problem is the morals have no ground. Child pornography causes definite harm to the child involve.

Owning a gun, and ONLY OWNING A GUN, does not. Shooting someone in self defense is more debatable. Many police officers go to therapy for years after shooting someone in justifiable self defense. Then there's Jelly Bryce (FBI), who went home and slept like a baby after killing two men who tried to kill him. He never killed anyone he didn't have to to save his own life, or someone else. It's a continuum. Some people have different morals.

That kind of morals, I can't argue against. But they CANNOT be used to argue against ownership. Let people own their crap, and let THEM decide what they'll do with them. If someone wants to run people over with their car, they'll go to jail. If someone wants to shoot people for no good reason, likewise. Cars are significantly more deadly than guns, really. But people can't accept that, because they like their precious cars.

Hit-and-run car accidents and vehicular homicide are not good reasons to ban car OWNERSHIP, only to regulate car USE. Like driving licenses and stuff. I'd have no problem with reasonable bars to gun ownership, but not ridiculous hoop-jumping like in many other countries.

[Jazzy]

Just how do you find out whether or not a victim complied with a criminal? Assuming the victim is not dead (and part of your statistics rely on dead people), if you ask the victim and they say "yes, I did comply", why shouldn't the criminal say "actually, they didn't do everything I asked them to"? In the case of the dead people, are you seriously going to take a criminal's word on something? What if lying one way or the other would change their sentence?

As for school massacres, we have not had a single one in Britain since that law.

And don't try and compare car accidents with deliberately cocking a gun and aiming. There are very few cases where people are deliberately mown down with cars. I would guess that 95% of the cases in Britain each year happen in Eastenders.

[syldssuf]

Double-checked, and it was injuries only, deaths not counted.

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:249
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

249 British Home Office

You really should read the book. You've been exposed to anti-gun propaganda your entire life, so it'll be a balancing factor or something.

And I was comparing car accidents to accidental shootings.

[Illuen]

Double-checked, and it was injuries only, deaths not counted.

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:249
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

249 British Home Office

You really should read the book. You've been exposed to anti-gun propaganda your entire life, so it'll be a balancing factor or something..

Do you have to statistics on how many of the criminals in that case died? Cause I would like to see that.

[Monkeyguy]

Ugh you aren't arguing with liberals here. Even though I haven't posted anything I agree with the majority here and I would label myself a moderate conservative, definitely not liberal.

[Jazzy]

"Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun."
Proof, please? The statistics you cite after that appear to be talking about something else entirely.

[syldssuf]

Beats me. I do have statistics on number of shots fired versus numbers of successful self defense cases with a firearm.

Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.87 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.

87 Dr. Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.” New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991

[VanillaCoke]

I'm certain the percentage of gun crime where innocent people die is far larger then when someone actually gets saved. Gun crime creates more problems then it solves.
You may think its your moral right to own a gun but it's not your moral right to kill someone.

I'm certain there are other ways of stopping someone rapping someone other then killing them. Kicking them in the balls?
A gun is made to kill and kill it will. If you're just owning it, not to kill, then why have one? For someone to steal it and kill someone with it?

You're comparing guns to other things again, child pornography is wrong too but it doesn't make guns less wrong because child pornography may or may not be more bad.

Edit:

comparing car accidents to accidental shootings

Accidental shootings are still bad no matter how many car accidents you compare them to. Totaly different issues.

[syldssuf]

No, those are the stats.

6% of people who resisted with a gun were injured.
25% of people who did not resist at all were injured.
Etc.

[Jazzy]

"Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator."
Fact: Guns as self-defense are only useful in 0.1% of cases.
Fact: Gun control websites never cite how many innocent people die due to the "defensive uses of guns".
Fact: That just went against your argument. Good call.

Fewer than 6% of Britons own a gun, I'm certain. Fact: people who got injured and happened to be holding a gun at the time are a disproportionately high number. Fact: perhaps waving a gun around provokes a robber?

[syldssuf]

I'm certain the percentage of gun crime where innocent people die is far larger then when someone actually gets saved. Gun crime creates more problems then it solves.

Incorrect. The vast majority of "gun crime" in the USA has a career criminal (usually gangster) as both the perpetrator and the victim. It's gangs killing gangs more than gangs killing innocents.

You may think its your moral right to own a gun but it's not your moral right to kill someone.

According to who? God? You? Politicians?

According to my moral system, it is my right to kill someone, but only if they pose an immediate threat to my life, or the life of a loved one, if lethal force is the only alternative. And if they're using lethal force, then responding in kind is the safest way of making them stop. I will not sacrifice myself, my family, or my boyfriend so that a criminal may go to jail for killing them.

[syldssuf]

"Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator."
Fact: Guns as self-defense are only useful in 0.1% of cases.
Fact: Gun control websites never cite how many innocent people die due to the "defensive uses of guns".
Fact: That just went against your argument. Good call.

Fewer than 6% of Britons own a gun, I'm certain. Fact: people who got injured and happened to be holding a gun at the time are a disproportionately high number. Fact: perhaps waving a gun around provokes a robber?

Now you're being obtuse. 0.1% of times, the criminal is killed. 99.9% of the time, the criminal either runs like crazy and is not shot, or is shot and survives. Only about 10% of gunshot wounds are ultimately fatal. Which adds up to 99% of cases where the gun is not fired, merely presented, and 1% of cases where a criminal is shot, including 0.1% of cases where they die after.

[Jazzy]

I'm sure if they were actually using lethal force with regards to your life you'd be in no position to stop them. Because you would be, you know, dead.

You said you'd let people shoot criminals if they were a "good shot". If it only works 1/1000 times, clearly they are not a "good shot".

edit: and don't double post.

[syldssuf]

There is a difference between actual murder and attempted murder. That difference is usually incompetence on the part of the criminal. But with responsible ownership, the difference can be a gun instead.

Then quit posting so fast!

[Monkeyguy]

And if a group of men or women feel it is there moral right to ambush you in your home and murder you with guns they own legally they should be allowed to?