Gun and gun control

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: HelioPrime So your saying because I could make a gun at home then outlawing possession is pointless? A gun that shoots an object or force at a target is a gun. If it is outlawed to posses lethal firearms then homemade ones apply.

I don't know wtf you went with that, but I'll explain again:

Why is it not enough to punish MURDER with firearms without punishing POSSESSION.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Winter wind And thats not subjective? They said arms. Which, as I've said many times, is a broad statement. Did they include RPGs in that statement? Grenade launchers? ICBMs? Modified AK-47s? Where do you draw the line? Where it is defensive? or Where it only kills one person at a time, and if thats the case, does that include submachine guns. The amendment is vague at best.

The line is drawn in every states guidelines for firearms which hopefully will remain limited to pistols, rifles, and non sawed off shotguns.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Winter And thats not subjective?

Do you even know what "subjective" means?

They said arms.

And "shall not be infringed upon." That means no regulation, no government interference.

Quote by: Helio So in other words until someone does a study seeing a decrease in gun related deaths after a gun ban is just two separate and totally random events?

All it takes is a google search if the evidence is actually there.

You're making the positive assertion. Support it and stop bitching at me for making you do it.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I don't know wtf you went with that, but I'll explain again: Why is it not enough to punish MURDER with firearms without punishing POSSESSION.

I don't understand then. Unless I used the wrong word in context in an earlier post and all you doing in hounding me on the word choice.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: HelioPrime I don't understand then. Unless I used the wrong word in context in an earlier post and all you doing in hounding me on the word choice.

You said that KILLING SOMEONE with firearms what you MAKE is punishable as murder, yet you failed to explain why we can't just outlaw MURDER without outlawing every instrument that could aid in it..

[Winter wind]

And "shall not be infringed upon." That means no regulation, no government interference.

so citizens can have nuclear arms

[HelioPrime]

To make it official then:

Less Guns Equals Less Gun Related Deaths

The SMH reports on a significant statistical shift in gun related deaths in Australia after the introduction of stricter gun laws in Australia, and the gun buy back held at the same time.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You said that KILLING SOMEONE with firearms what you MAKE is punishable as murder, yet you failed to explain why we can't just outlaw MURDER without outlawing every instrument that could aid in it..

See above then. Fine MURDER is a crime. GUN POSSESSION should also be a crime.

[Winter wind]

The founding fathers said that because of the need for a militia, the individual right to own firearms is not to be infringed upon. I have no idea what childish notion gave you the impression that any interpretation of the second amendment gives the government power to "regulate it as far as the[sic] want."

It is subjective, I was hoping you could see why on your own so i didn't look like I was flaming

The founding fathers said

nothing. They wrote the second amendment which does not make the distinction you make. That is subjective.

I have no idea what childish notion

subjective, unnecessary and borderline flaming.

impression that any interpretation of the second amendment gives the government power to "regulate it as far as the[sic] want."

they said a regulated militia, who do you think was supposed to regulate it. They did not specify how much regulation.

and since you give no stats or hard facts in your rather bizarre argument, i don't know how you can call your argument objective.

[Muser]

Not to distract from the dissection of the 2nd Amendment, but I wanted to throw this article into the mix to help provide further perspective on this issue. Compiled by doctors and medical professionals and hosted at Carnegie Mellon, its worth the read (in spite of its 1994-ish age):

Violence in America - Effective Solutions

On the "costs" of gun violence:

Amongst the most pervasive flaws in the medical literature on guns is the discussion of the "costs" of gun violence without any consideration of the innocent lives saved by guns. These and other benefits of guns are not so "intangible" as has been dogmatically claimed.[17] We would be mortified if our colleagues' cost-without-benefit analysis[18,19] became the standard for evaluating the medical profession. The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study quantified non-psychiatric inpatient deaths from physician negligence (excluding outpatient, extended care, and inpatient psychiatric deaths) in New York State.[20] "If these rates are typical of the United States, then 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days."[21] - almost five times the number of Americans killed with guns. One might fairly conclude from such a "costs only" analysis that doctors are a deadly public menace. Why do we not reach that conclusion? Because, in balance, doctors save many more lives than they take and so it is with guns. A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5 million protective uses of guns by adults annually.[22] As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun tragedy sensationalized, dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported. Whether or not "newsworthy," scientific method begs accounting of the benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is absent from the medical literature. The protective benefits of guns - and the politicized "science" that has been used to underestimate or totally deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been extensively reviewed.[4-12]

On guns vs knives:

Nonetheless, even those US Bureau of Justice Statistics samples show that defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4%) than resisting with less powerful means (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all (24.7%).[11] Guns are the safest and most effective means of self defense. This is particularly important to women, the elderly, the physically challenged, those who are most vulnerable to vicious and bigger male predators.

On "assault weapons":

Our colleagues briefly noted that "these weapons account for only a small percentage of firearm deaths."[18] More pointedly, ten times more Americans die annually from attacks using hands and feet than die from military-style rifles.[43] Let us emphasize that, in the worst areas of gang and drug crime, over two dozen studies show that military-style, semiautomatic guns account for generally 0% to 3% of crime guns.[10,38]

As if the fairly lengthy article isn't enough, there are a brazillian[1] footnotes[2] for those wishing to further their education on this topic.

[1] "Exactly how many is a brazillian"?
[2] Which I'm rather fond of[3]
[3] Footnotes, that is

[Winter wind]

Alright in response,
This is the number of justifiable homicides in 2001-2005. To be clear, the definition of justifiable is when a felony is happening to the person who fought back with a gun. This does not include minor assaults and verbal assaults nor does it include same-sex rapes.

2001, 183 justifiable gun deaths

2002, 189

2003, 203

2004, 166

2005, 192

The number of gun deaths in the United States during these years.

2001, 8,890 making a ratio of 1:48 defense gun deaths verses gun homicides.

2002, 9,528 with a ratio of 1:50

2003, 9,659 ratio of 1:48

2004, 9,385 ratio of 1:56

2005, 10,100 ratio of 1:53

All of this data comes from Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2005
To compare, this percent maybe wrong, but I'm sure it's close. Around 40% of house olds in America have a gun.

You guys have gotten me serious.

Also as an interesting side note, the second leading cause of death of those under the age of 19 is firearms. The first is car crashes.
source
WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind, you seem to think that a national objective to lower crime rates IS MORE VALUABLE than protecting the right to individual competent defense, or protecting citizens from tyrannical government.

This is simply not the case.

Our governments first priority is SUPPOSED to be protecting our rights IN LAW, not removing them in an attempt to attain better national statistics.

[Winter wind]

Winterwind, you seem to think that a national objective to lower crime rates IS MORE VALUABLE than protecting the right to individual competent defense, or protecting citizens from tyrannical government. This is simply not the case. Our governments first priority is SUPPOSED to be protecting our rights IN LAW, not removing them in an attempt to attain better national statistics.

But there are real lives at stake. The governments first priority should be first and foremost to serve the people. When the people are being killed by guns, it is the responsibility of the government to act to end this somehow. Protecting rights is only a means to serving the people. But you have to weight the costs of deaths with the cost of having to trust government, which doesn't come easily, especially not to a country that rose to existence in the fight against a overly powerful government.

I think you have a point with the tyrannical government argument, and yet the political culture of America is one of rights and freedoms, much more so then most modern democracies where the political culture is of equality. Neither is better then the other, but in a climate of such a fierce defense of freedoms, don't you trust the people to nip tyranny in the bud?

It's a subjective, but it asks a question more then gives an answer.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Winter wind But there are real lives at stake. The governments first priority should be first and foremost to serve the people. When the people are being killed by guns, it is the responsibility of the government to act to end this somehow. Protecting rights is only a means to serving the people. But you have to weight the costs of deaths with the cost of having to trust government, which doesn't come easily, especially not to a country that rose to existence in the fight against a overly powerful government. I think you have a point with the tyrannical government argument, and yet the political culture of America is one of rights and freedoms, much more so then most modern democracies where the political culture is of equality. Neither is better then the other, but in a climate of such a fierce defense of freedoms, don't you trust the people to nip tyranny in the bud? It's a subjective, but it asks a question more then gives an answer.

Its useless to point this out. The answer they give is simply that the US wasn't founded on the concept of everyones best interest.

They don't really care how many people die or suffer as long as the personal liberties of every individual is protected by a very limited state government. Because the founding fathers said so, so it must be.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: But there are real lives at stake.

This has never changed. That is why we CREATED the firearm, to protect "real lives" if you can imagine that......

Winterwind said: The governments first priority should be first and foremost to serve the people.

Not in a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED, system, such as ours. Our government can only serve the people to the extent their AUSPICE OF AUTHORITY ALLOWS, and owning arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Winterwind said: When the people are being killed by guns, it is the responsibility of the government to act to end this somehow.

You are far over-simplifying the situation.

Winterwind said: Protecting rights is only a means to serving the people. But you have to weight the costs of deaths with the cost of having to trust government, which doesn't come easily, especially not to a country that rose to existence in the fight against a overly powerful government.

Our right to own arms is the ultimate protector of this nation, from both foreign invasion as well as national tyranny, and it is the staple right that enforces every other right from the freedom of speech to the freedom to gather. Do you remember the folks in your nation being run over by the tank in Tianamen square? This wouldn't happen in the US without SEVERE repercussions, due to an armed populace.

Winterwind said: I think you have a point with the tyrannical government argument, and yet the political culture of America is one of rights and freedoms, much more so then most modern democracies where the political culture is of equality. Neither is better then the other, but in a climate of such a fierce defense of freedoms, don't you trust the people to nip tyranny in the bud?

They can only do that if they have equal access to force, which takes the form of weapons, which leads right to the most efficient and effective means of self-defense, both nationally and individually, the firearms.

Besides, look around you..... does ANY government look worthy of being called "respectable"? No, I don't think people, especially uninformed people can nip tyranny in the bud.

Winter wind said: It's a subjective, but it asks a question more then gives an answer

I respect subjective points if they take into account objective reality.

This is Washingtons speech addressing the reality of government, which he calls FIRE, as it WILL CONSUME IF NOT KEPT IN CHECK, whether in 1779 or 2079.
The Avalon Project : Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Here are some quotes by the forefathers and creators of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, on the purpose of arming every person, or allowing every person in the nation the right to own arms.
Founders' Quotes

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi



The reason history repeats itself, is people are foolish enough to think they have advanced beyond such threats, and instead replace wariness with apathy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Its useless to point this out. The answer they give is simply that the US wasn't founded on the concept of everyones best interest. They don't really care how many people die or suffer as long as the personal liberties of every individual is protected by a very limited state government. Because the founding fathers said so, so it must be.

Nonsense.

[ZNFYRH]

Nonsense?

You do it all the time, Osborn.

You quote the opening of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as though the Founding Fathers stumbled upon some universal truth.

What about before those two documents? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and seen what items were left out of those documents?

Just because it is in America's documents doesn't make it true.

[Muser]

Quote by: Winter wind Alright in response, This is the number of justifiable homicides in 2001-2005. To be clear, the definition of justifiable is when a felony is happening to the person who fought back with a gun. This does not include minor assaults and verbal assaults nor does it include same-sex rapes. 2001, 183 justifiable gun deaths 2002, 189 2003, 203 2004, 166 2005, 192 The number of gun deaths in the United States during these years. 2001, 8,890 making a ratio of 1:48 defense gun deaths verses gun homicides. 2002, 9,528 with a ratio of 1:50 2003, 9,659 ratio of 1:48 2004, 9,385 ratio of 1:56 2005, 10,100 ratio of 1:53 All of this data comes from Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2005 To compare, this percent maybe wrong, but I'm sure it's close. Around 40% of house olds in America have a gun. You guys have gotten me serious.

That makes a case for the negative cost analysis of guns but completely ignores the positive cost analysis:

"If these rates are typical of the United States, then 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days."[21] - almost five times the number of Americans killed with guns. One might fairly conclude from such a "costs only" analysis that doctors are a deadly public menace. Why do we not reach that conclusion? Because, in balance, doctors save many more lives than they take and so it is with guns.

So what is the positive cost analysis? From gunsite.com concerning how often guns are used in self-defense:

The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."

I also think the truth lies somewhere in between - but even if we take the lowest number of 108,000, that still makes the case for a greater positive cost than negative.

And for more perspective from the Department of Justice as of 2005:

Total crimes of violence: 4,718,330
No weapon used: 67.4%
Weapon used: 24.3%
- Total firearms: 8.9%
- Knives: 5.4%
- Other weapon: 4.2%

Also as an interesting side note, the second leading cause of death of those under the age of 19 is firearms. The first is car crashes. source WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports

Sad tragedies, both. Teens are twice as likely to die in a car crash. Should we focus safety efforts on the leading cause or the 2nd leading cause - which would save more lives? It seems a valid argument that raising the legal driving age to 18 would save a multitude of lives, though I can't offer any comparative stats. I did find this, however:

Gang violence has been associated with many teen murders; in 2002 nearly three-quarters of homicides of teens were attributed to gang violence.

Gang members aren't law-abiding citizens and don't adhere to gun control laws; making all guns illegal wouldn't deter thugs from accessing guns via black market, which they're currently using. It's wiser to focus on eliminating the appeal of gangs and reduce membership - which opens up a completely separate pandora's box of societal issues.

Quote by: Winter wind But there are real lives at stake. The governments first priority should be first and foremost to serve the people. When the people are being killed by guns, it is the responsibility of the government to act to end this somehow.

You seem to be concerned about "saving lives"; if so, why are you focused on the 15th cause of death for adults, versus any of the Top 10?

Heart disease: 652,486
Gun homicides: 10,100 (using your figure above)

Logically, in terms of saving lives, it'd make more sense for you to advocate a government ban on smoking, cheeseburgers and potato chips. Would you support this "responsibility of government to act to end this somehow"?

[Winter wind]

You are far over-simplifying the situation.

I simplified it because i didn't want to use my stats again seeing as I've already posted them.

Our right to own arms is the ultimate protector of this nation, from both foreign invasion as well as national tyranny, and it is the staple right that enforces every other right from the freedom of speech to the freedom to gather. Do you remember the folks in your nation being run over by the tank in Tianamen square? This wouldn't happen in the US without SEVERE repercussions, due to an armed populace.

Had a single one of those students fired a gun, the government would have used it as an excuse to do more damage then they did. The government would have mowed down any resistance with a tank brigade and armed forces and they could also they could justify it to the public. A deadly militia bent on undermining the government would have made it seem like a fair fight.
But now the government was shooting up students that couldn't defend themselves, the Chinese government was suddenly the bad guy. A single incident cost China so much in foreign out look and relations and caused an internal coup in the party system.
The gun doesn't protect you against an armored devision. Your going to need to look for a better weapon against the government.

[Winter wind]

Logically, in terms of saving lives, it'd make more sense for you to advocate a government ban on smoking, cheeseburgers and potato chips. Would you support this "responsibility of government to act to end this somehow"?

Eating bad food is your own fault and effects no one else (i argue against smoking, but thats for later).
Plus your stat is misleading as everybody has heart problems when they get old enough. Your body deteriorates as it gets older, and I'm not aiming to cure old age today. its a natural course of action that can be stopped with proper eating. Something the government shouldn't enforce on the people for gene pool reasons. (my bad sense of humor)
But a better response is because I'm in the group of people where the second leading cause of death is guns. The age group under 19 before they can develop heart problems, is being eaten alive by guns and drunk driving.