Guns Used.....cont

[Kristie]

Yes, you are correct about the link with gang membership. The age group and being male means most involved in violent actions. This includes violence as gang members and violence without being gang members. Fewer people in that age group means less violence overall.

So how about we prohibit persons under the age of 21 from possessing handguns....oh wait...we DO!

Yeah, that's real effective.

Precisely. Prohibition never works. That's my point.

That's why strict regulations are needed.

[Blind groper]

which makes all your moralizing that much more absurd.

Is it moralising when we are talking of the needless loss of 20,000 lives each year? I would consider that as pragmatic, rather than moralising.

On using the best method to reduce harm, I suggested that there should be a law making it compulsory for all privately owned guns to be kept in a police approved safe. I was immediately told by Seth that this was unacceptable, because he might not be able to get his gun out quickly enough to kill someone when he got the opportunity.

[mozg]

That's why strict regulations are needed.

Such as?

[Seabass]

which makes all your moralizing that much more absurd.

Is it moralising when we are talking of the needless loss of 20,000 lives each year? I would consider that as pragmatic, rather than moralising.

On using the best method to reduce harm, I suggested that there should be a law making it compulsory for all privately owned guns to be kept in a police approved safe. I was immediately told by Seth that this was unacceptable, because he might not be able to get his gun out quickly enough to kill someone when he got the opportunity.

No, silly. It's moralizing when you call the other side backward, sick, etc. It's moralizing when you act as though the other side does not value human life.

There is nothing wrong with discussing, as a matter of pragmatism, what the best degree of gun control is. If that's all you did, no one would have a problem with you.

[mozg]

No, silly. It's moralizing when you call the other side backward, sick, etc. It's moralizing when you act as though the other side does not value human life.

I think it's a mistake to claim that people who own firearms for self defense do not value human life. I have firearms. I am a strong advocate of armed self defense precisely because I do value human life, specifically my own, to the point that I want the absolute best possible tools available to defend that life in the event that I am attacked.

There are those who call that callous thinking, cold, violent, and in this thread even one who likes to wave about the word 'psychopathic'. I think there is nothing more sane and rational that having the drive to preserve my own life.

There is nothing wrong with discussing, as a matter of pragmatism, what the best degree of gun control is. If that's all you did, no one would have a problem with you.

And if the anti-gun contributors to this thread were interested in talking about practical measures to reduce crime with firearms that do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding, that would be one thing.

But instead what we get is a bunch of speculation about broken mental states and tiny genitals.

[Blind groper]

I think it's a mistake to claim that people who own firearms for self defense do not value human life.

I have not made that claim, despite what seabass says.

I used the term 'psychopath' in relation to one person only (and I admit that was probably the wrong thing for me to do), in response to a series of statements indicating a total lack of caring for other humans. I have not suggested anyone else is uncaring.

What I do, is present facts, supported by statistics. This upsets a lot of those who do not have equally valid facts to present back to oppose my arguments.

On practical measures, I suggested the police approved safe. However, that suggestion has been ignored by all but Seth, who hates the idea of not being able to get his guns quickly enough to shoot someone.

[mozg]

On practical measures, I suggested the police approved safe. However, that suggestion has been ignored by all but Seth, who hates the idea of not being able to get his guns quickly enough to shoot someone.

OK, here are some reasons why a law requiring a police approved safe is unworkable:

It is automatically discriminatory against poor people, abridging their right to keep and bear arms based upon their ability to afford a safe.
It is utterly unenforceable without eliminating the Fourth Amendment entirely.
It places a de facto limit on the number of firearms one can own, based upon the size of the safe and how many safes one might reasonably place in one's home.
It all but eliminates firearm ownership for those who live in dwellings where a safe is too large/heavy to be placed.
It's a burden placed upon lawful owners which will not affect criminals.
It is no more up to the law how I store firearms in my home than it is how I store matches, knives, rope, screw drivers and drain cleaner.
It can reduce the potential for me to use a self-defense firearm for self defense.

How would you go about crafting such a requirement (a law) without violating the Constitutional rights of and placing undue burden upon the lawful firearm owner in such a manner that it will actually have a benefit that will outweigh the impact it would have on responsible, lawful firearm owners?

[Blind groper]

To mozg

Here are your points refuted.

1. Discriminatory against poor people. By the Beard of Finagle, you have a cheek! The whole way of life in the USA is discriminatory against the poor. It should be part of the US constitution : Thou shalt discriminate against the poor and in favour of the rich! For example : What about your health system? That is far more important, and far more discriminatory. Subsidies helping the rich. Taxes with loopholes to support the rich. I could go on. To suggest that making guns safe is discriminating against the poor is pure hypocrisy.

2. The Fourth Amendment. Bullshit. The Fourth Amendment is against unwarranted searches. This has nothing to do with that. The obvious way to implement my suggestion is via legal gun licenses. To get a license, the police visit, when convenient to the home owner, and check the gun safe. That is not an unwarranted search.

3. Limiting number of firearms you can own. How many do you need, for Finagle's Sake! If you decide to buy more than can fit in one safe, then you are obviously too damn wealthy, and you can afford to buy two safes, or one very big safe.

4. Firearm ownership in small places? How big do you think a safe has to be? If you own guns, those guns have to be stored. A safe is not much bigger than the space the guns take up, anyway. If you cannot find that much space, then you cannot store guns safely. If you cannot store guns safely you should not have them.

5. Burden on law abiding, but not criminals? Man, what world do you live in? Every law is a burden on the law abiding and not criminals. That is what being a criminal is all about. Ignoring the law. The downside, of course, is that criminals get to spend a big part of their lives behind bars.

6. Not up to the law? I suppose it is also not up to the law to determine how you drive your car, or get drunk and sleep in the street, or manufacture methamphetamine either? The law is there to control human behaviour, and prevent irresponsible people doing things that harm others. This falls clearly into that category.

7. Self defense? You sound like Seth. Seth believes he should be able to shoot someone dead without taking the time to determine if that person is actually doing something wrong. But good self defense implies acting in a responsible manner. Not going off half cocked and shooting before thinking. Anything that slows down ignorant and unthinking aggressive behaviour is to the good.

[mozg]

To mozg

Here are your points refuted.

1. Discriminatory against poor people. By the Beard of Finagle, you have a cheek! The whole way of life in the USA is discriminatory against the poor. It should be part of the US constitution : Thou shalt discriminate against the poor and in favour of the rich! For example : What about your health system? That is far more important, and far more discriminatory. Subsidies helping the rich. Taxes with loopholes to support the rich. I could go on. To suggest that making guns safe is discriminating against the poor is pure hypocrisy.

2. The Fourth Amendment. Bullshit. The Fourth Amendment is against unwarranted searches. This has nothing to do with that. The obvious way to implement my suggestion is via legal gun licenses. To get a license, the police visit, when convenient to the home owner, and check the gun safe. That is not an unwarranted search.

3. Limiting number of firearms you can own. How many do you need, for Finagle's Sake! If you decide to buy more than can fit in one safe, then you are obviously too damn wealthy, and you can afford to buy two safes, or one very big safe.

4. Firearm ownership in small places? How big do you think a safe has to be? If you own guns, those guns have to be stored. A safe is not much bigger than the space the guns take up, anyway. If you cannot find that much space, then you cannot store guns safely. If you cannot store guns safely you should not have them.

5. Burden on law abiding, but not criminals? Man, what world do you live in? Every law is a burden on the law abiding and not criminals. That is what being a criminal is all about. Ignoring the law. The downside, of course, is that criminals get to spend a big part of their lives behind bars.

6. Not up to the law? I suppose it is also not up to the law to determine how you drive your car, or get drunk and sleep in the street, or manufacture methamphetamine either? The law is there to control human behaviour, and prevent irresponsible people doing things that harm others. This falls clearly into that category.

7. Self defense? You sound like Seth. Seth believes he should be able to shoot someone dead without taking the time to determine if that person is actually doing something wrong. But good self defense implies acting in a responsible manner. Not going off half cocked and shooting before thinking. Anything that slows down ignorant and unthinking aggressive behaviour is to the good.

I think you misunderstand what 'refuted' means. It does not mean that you indicate reasons why each of my points is valid and applicable while providing absolutely no factual benefit to justify such infringement.

I've owned guns for over twenty years. I have never had a negligent discharge nor has any one else with any of my firearms. None of my firearms have ever been used to harm a human being or non-game animal outside of a legal, licensed hunting activity. Clearly I damn well know how to store them safely.

[Blind groper]

I've owned guns for over twenty years. I have never had a negligent discharge nor has any one else with any of my firearms. None of my firearms have ever been used to harm a human being or non-game animal outside of a legal, licensed hunting activity. Clearly I damn well know how to store them safely.

That logic falls into the same category as saying : I believe in homeopathy. My proof is that I had a cold and took a homeopathic remedy and I was better a week later.

Anecdotes, even about yourself, are not evidence.

I notice you have not offered any rebuttal to my refutation of your silly points.

[Warren Dew]

Who says there is no evidence for my assertion that, without hand guns, drugs would be the favourite. The evidence is in reality. Drugs are no. 1 preferred method now. If guns were not available, then the would-be suicide would most probably go to the current favourite. Drugs.

You assume that gun suicides would, in the absence of guns, pick another method in the same ratio as current attempted suicides. That's an assumption, not evidence.

Perhaps you think "assumption" is synonymous with "fact"? That would certainly explain why you keep nattering about posting "facts" when you haven't.

[mozg]

I notice you have not offered any rebuttal to my refutation of your silly points.

Your 'points' that are basically 'fuck the Constitutional rights of US citizens' are not worthy of refutation because they are meaningless drivel.

[Blind groper]

Your 'points' that are basically 'fuck the Constitutional rights of US citizens' are not worthy of refutation because they are meaningless drivel.

Mozg

If that is the quality of your debate, then why bother. If you wish to debate with me, then would you please give me something solid to reply to, instead of stuff that vacuous.

[FBM]

Re hanging for suicide.

Certainly hanging has been a favourite. It is the second favourite method in the USA today in terms of actual deaths. But the favourite method of attempting suicide is drugs, at 75% of all attempts. If hand guns were removed, then hanging would probably become the no. 1 method in terms of deaths. But drugs would still be no. 1 in terms of attempts. FBM, try not to get confused between attempts and actual deaths. They are two different things. Different by a factor of 100.

Hanging is the prevalent means of suicide in pre-industrial societies, and is more common in rural areas than in urban areas.[25] It is also a common means of suicide in situations where other materials are not readily available, such as in prisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

A 2008 review of 56 countries based on World Health Organization mortality data found that hanging was the most common method in most of the countries,[6] accounting for 53 percent of the male suicides and 39 percent of the female suicides.[7] In England and Wales, hanging is the most commonly used method, and is particularly prevalent in the group of males aged 15–44, comprising almost half of the suicides in the group. It is the second most common method among women, behind poisoning.

Here, they're specifically talking about successful suicides, not numbers of attempts. (It's from the same passage I posted earlier.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_hanging

Take away guns and suiciders will just use rope. That's my point. You won't accomplish anything in the end because hanging is very, very nearly as effective as shooting oneself, and whether it's and impulse or planned out well in advance, there are a lot more rope and rope-like materials to choose from. That's what happens in countries that don't have handguns; that's what'll happen in the US if you take away handguns. If you refuse to acknowledge this simple fact, you're choosing to live in an illusion.

[mozg]

Your 'points' that are basically 'fuck the Constitutional rights of US citizens' are not worthy of refutation because they are meaningless drivel.

Mozg

If that is the quality of your debate, then why bother. If you wish to debate with me, then would you please give me something solid to reply to, instead of stuff that vacuous.

Because I don't necessarily want you to reply with more of your long winded absurd drivel.