Gun Control Debate Thread

[Sillywilly]

I said the population, not the future population.

Edit: I kind of skipped part of this thread...Silly, do you have a source for the 80% of firearm deaths being from illegally obtained firearms? I'm wondering what constitutes "illegally obtained".

http://www.gunfacts.info/

the ebook on here has FBI statistics. This source actually says that 93% 0.0 of all handguns used in a crime are acquired illegally.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml

this source says closer to the original 80%.

[Draconian]

.4% chance per year for 25 years = 10% chance to catch a bullet.

50% chance of heads on a coin flip. Flip it 10 times, 500% chance for heads on a coin flip?

10% chance I get a promotion this year, stay 10 years, guaranteed promotion?

If you have .4 percent chance every year, you still have a .4 percent chance over 25 years. You average the percentages, they don't build up somehow.

[VKhaun]

You've taken my quote away from the context of replying to Ziel's quote.

It's not one coin, everyone is flipping them.
Once yours comes up, you can't flip anymore (bang, ur dead)
.4% chance per person = 10% of us dead in 25 years.
10% of us, = 10% chance to catch a bullet.

That was his point, as I understood it. Granted there's room there for more people to enter and leave the age bracket, and I stopped at Algebra. I am certainly still open to us being wrong.

[Random Havoc]

I think the argument for the right to bear arms as stated in the Federalist Papers is still germane.



From Federalist #46

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."



I think this argument is still as vital today as when these words were penned.

[Zavon]

You've taken my quote away from the context of replying to Ziel's quote.

It's not one coin, everyone is flipping them.
Once yours comes up, you can't flip anymore (bang, ur dead)
.4% chance per person = 10% of us dead in 25 years.
10% of us, = 10% chance to catch a bullet.

That was his point, as I understood it. Granted there's room there for more people to enter and leave the age bracket, and I stopped at Algebra. I am certainly still open to us being wrong.

The problem Vkhaun, is that you are acting as if the population is static. I calculated the average chance of dying from a bullet by examining the total number of the US population, and then applying the number of people that died approxinately last year.

In order to find the percentage over a 10 year period, you'd need to look at the total pulsation over a 10 year period (and NOT the current one) and apply how many total gun related deaths over that time frame.

In other words: .004% of the US population died from a bullet wound last year. Therefore, our odds of falling into that category are a .004% (Ziel obviously is exempt because hes a Brit ). But, that only accounts for last years population. Next years population has a different % that would need to be averaged against previous years.

Edit: Thanks for that post Random, I defintely think that argument is eeriely still evident.

[Zavon]

Just for shits and giggles I averaged out the US population from 2003 to 2009 at 298,399,868. The average number of homicide by gun related deaths for that time period is 9,741. Over that period your average chance of getting killed by a firearm would have been .00326441%

[Ziel]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

the ebook on here has FBI statistics. This source actually says that 93% 0.0 of all handguns used in a crime are acquired illegally.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml

this source says closer to the original 80%.

That was a survey of federal inmates and those firearms include legally sold firearms that had been stolen etc. As for the gunfacts site, the guy has an agenda to push and a book to sell. There's probably a fair amount of valid points in there, but separating it from the bullshit would take weeks.

[Zavon]

Some awesome info about all this on wiki gun violence in the US.

Edit: Ziel, as a Brit, what do you think of the American obsession with guns? Are we characterized by it?

[Random Havoc]

The average number of homicide by gun related deaths for that time period is 9,741.

According to usatoday.com; "Last year, 33,963 people died in traffic crashes in the USA"

I SRSLY think we need to start thinking about banning car ownership...a much more serious problem!!!

[Zavon]

According to usatoday.com; "Last year, 33,963 people died in traffic crashes in the USA"

I SRSLY think we need to start thinking about banning car ownership...a much more serious problem!!!

You know, now that you bring that up, I think it realy drives home (pun intended) the point that gun violence and control is a media created issue

[Ziel]

To be honest, I've always thought cars were an incredibly stupid method of transport. Hopefully AI will take over (as in the Google car).

Some awesome info about all this on wiki gun violence in the US.

Edit: Ziel, as a Brit, what do you think of the American obsession with guns? Are we characterized by it?

Of course. If a nation has an obsession with something, then they're bound to be characterized by it. What I find interesting is that you call it an obsession...For those of us on the outside looking in, that obsession is so clearly not about security or necessity, is the US conscious of that too?

[Draconian]

Of course. If a nation has an obsession with something, then they're bound to be characterized by it. What I find interesting is that you call it an obsession...For those of us on the outside looking in, that obsession is so clearly not about security or necessity, is the US conscious of that too?

No. Just read the thread heh.

[Ziel]

Obviously they're used in the arguments for and against, but political issues can often involve playing along with the masquerade. I was just wondering if that was the case, but I guess not.

[Boxy Brown]

Aren't there more accidental gun deaths in the US than murders?

Seems to me the only issue with gun ownership is proper education. A gun permit/license/whatever should depend on individuals demonstrating proficiency with the weapon and passing a written safety test as well as a mental health test once every couple years. If someone can't pass those three tests then they shouldn't be allowed to own/carry a gun.

That's just my personal opinion, and honestly I don't think tests like those are out of the question.

[Marou]

Aren't there more accidental gun deaths in the US than murders?

Seems to me the only issue with gun ownership is proper education. A gun permit/license/whatever should depend on individuals demonstrating proficiency with the weapon and passing a written safety test as well as a mental health test once every couple years. If someone can't pass those three tests then they shouldn't be allowed to own/carry a gun.

That's just my personal opinion, and honestly I don't think tests like those are out of the question.

Not even close, there are < 1000 accidential gun deaths a year. Most of those among hunters. By contrast there are at least 65,000 and potentially up to 2.5M violent crimes stopped per year by armed civilians, in 28% of those cases by shooting the offender.

[Valec]

No, but everyone isn't going to die of something today either.
.4% chance per year for 25 years = 10% chance to catch a bullet.

Actually it's a %.4 every year.

[VKhaun]

Actually it's a %.4 every year.

Yes, thank you.
I shouldn't have followed up on Zeil's offhanded comment as hard as I did.


I don't like the 'obsessed with guns' jab that gets thrown around. Gun control isn't just legislation in an office somewhere. It sends people to your door, it stops you when you're trying to do things a gun enthusiast would do, and you can google up some open carry videos or try walking down a street with a legally owned gun openly displayed in a place that it's legal to do so and see what happens when an officer sees you. If you owned a gun in America you might look 'obsessed' too because you have to know so much crap today, and so much of it is downright offensive to a responsible person who owns and respects a weapon.

[Zavon]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2

[Marou]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2

Interesting quote from related article,

"Proponents of gun control are baffled that horrific massacres such as the one in Aurora, Colorado, do not lead to stricter gun control. They have their causation backward.

The more terrifyingly criminal the world looks, the more ineffective law enforcement seems, the more Americans demand the right to deadly weapons with which to defend themselves. "

[Marou]

Lulz: http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...a&VID=23761378

[VKhaun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/wo...fe-attack.html

[Sillywilly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/wo...fe-attack.html

lol well done ole' boy. well done.

[VKhaun]

lol well done ole' boy. well done.

Might have been triple that number if he had a gun.
Might have been half that number if they did.

[Valec]

Might have been triple that number if he had a gun.
Might have been half that number if they did.

Mighta been zero if they did.

[VKhaun]

Mighta been zero if they did.

We can't let that happen though, because then THEY might kill people.