malorn and desync on why America needs Assault Rifles

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Feb 22 2007, 08:03 PM)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 08:03 PM)</div>

This whopping non-sequitur beats Douglas Adams. In the first Hitchhiker book Ford and Arthur have just been transported into the menacing hold of the Vogon destructor spaceship, and Arthur asks "Where are we?" "We're safe," says Ford. "Ah," says Arthur, "You're obviously using a meaning for the word 'safe' I haven't previously been made aware of."

I do not know, desynch. The US has more guns than the rest of civilization combined. It also has the most firearm murders by a factor of nearly 20. That leaves two possibilities:

1. The two are correlated, and a reduction of firearms would result in a reduction in firearm murders.
2. The two are NOT correlated, and our high firearm count is all that's saving us from an even HIGHER homicide rate of, say, 40 to 1 compared to the rest of the world because our culture is 40 times more barbaric and savage than the rest of the world.

Now, the tone of your posts (and your avatar) does give credence to the second possibility - that US culture is unbelievably savage and barbaric, if one were to look upon you as a typical representative of the culture. But you're just one person among 300 million, and there's overwhelming evidence that US culture ISN'T savage and barbaric, that its level of civility vs incivility is right in line with the rest of the civilized world when you compare other factors such as scientific achievement, education, devotion to arts and philanthropy, and so on.

So that leaves the first possibility as the more likely: more guns = more mayhem, which is exactly what we've got, by a factor of almost 20.

On a side note, desynch, I don't think you are Mystery Squid - you don't sound anything like him, other posters' protests notwithstanding. You and our cherished (missing) Squid share identical worldviews (which some of us vehemently disagree with), but your prose style is superior to Squid's by I'd say about 4,000 to 1 - and while that's really not saying very much, it remains compelling evidence you are NOT our tentacled ink squirting correspondent.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Feb 22 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]395003[/snapback]</div>

The firearm owners were a lot safer than the victims.

These are alarming statistics.
On closer examination its not just the gun statistic which is alarming.Its the total US murder rate compared to the rest of the worlds rate.
Disregarding and subtracting the # of gun murders from the US total ,theres still over 6000 USA murders where different murder methods were used.
(BTW these figures dont match USDept Justice figures, which are closer to 1/2 of the murders didnt involve guns, around 9000.Also,if guns were not available many of those gun murders probably would have occurred anyway with alternative weapons.)
Just those 6000 non-firearm related USA murders are roughly 10+ times the murder rate of European countries.
Obviously we have a bigger problem in our society, which cannot solely be blamed on guns.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 11:03 PM) [snapback]395010[/snapback]</div>

Those are HOMOCIDES not all gun related deaths.

United States Firearm Related Deaths (2000):
Homocides: ----16,586
Suicides:--------10,801
Unintentional-------776
Law Enforcement--270
Total-------------28,433

So 776 accidental deaths and 270 police related deaths. So not Liberal children playing with guns or the police going on a rampage. You want to try another guess?

BTW, how many people do you think that police officers kill each year? Thousands?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 23 2007, 12:03 AM) [snapback]395039[/snapback]</div>

Thanks Zen.

This was my point, desynch/MS, when I said that I had to be convinced that all other variables were controlled for. I can easily make up a story that explains your statistics (assuming that they are the appropriate statistics to be considering), but doesn't imply causation.

Maybe the local gov't saw crime on the rise and decided to ban guns. Banning these guns had a significant effect on deterring violent crime, but since there was a general upward trend, crime still continued to rise (but not at the rate that it would have if guns had not been banned).

Is this what really happened? Maybe. Maybe not. However, simply trying to correlate the crime rate with a single event can create statistics that seem highly significant, but are not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Feb 23 2007, 04:20 AM) [snapback]395080[/snapback]</div>

I agree than the United States has deeper issues involving crime and violence. Banning certain types of gun or guns altogether will not solve these issues. However, I disagree with you that if people didn’t have guns homicides would stay the same but people would use different weapons.
A firearm allows one to kill from a distance with little chance of personal injury. Other weapons such as knifes and clubs don’t offer this advantage. To kill someone with a knife you must close and engage your advisary at close range. This proximity greatly increases your risk of personal injury.
A firearm is also a much more effective killing tool. A person has a greater chance of surviving a club or knife attach then if they are shot with a firearm.

Either way, the chances of being personally assaulted let alone killed are tiny even in the US. Take a look at the study below. In Seattle 1.20 people per 100,000 were assaulted. That is 0.000012% chance! We live in fear of the improbable.

(This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine)

Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide. A tale of two cities
JH Sloan, AL Kellermann, DT Reay, JA Ferris, T Koepsell, FP Rivara, C Rice, L Gray, and J LoGerfo

Abstract
To investigate the associations among handgun regulations, assault and other crimes, and homicide, we studied robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia, from 1980 through 1986. Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery. In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver (simple assault: relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.20; aggravated assault: relative risk, 1.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.19). However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, the relative risk of death from homicide, adjusted for age and sex, was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver (relative risk, 1.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.08). Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. Rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities. We conclude that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community.



I also disagree with you that firearm owners are at less risk of firearm related deaths than non-firearm owners. The facts just don’t support it: Please see the following study abstract published by The American Journal of Epidemiology. Notice that owning a firearm increases you risk of BOTH firearm related homicide and suicide.




Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Linda L. Dahlberg1 , Robin M. Ikeda2 and Marcie-jo Kresnow3
1 Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
2 Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
3 Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

LOL

So we now have statistics from sources other than the National Rifle Association, Hunters Against Hippies, and Southerners for the Hanging of the Liberal Elite.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 23 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]395134[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. What's that saying?

"Lies, damn lies, and. . . "

Dang! I always forget the third one. . .

 

I’ll mention something that made me think about having firearms for home protection recently. I saw a TV show call “To Catch a Thiefâ€. The premise of the show is they use a former professional thief to show have venerable most homes are to a break-in attempt by a professional thief. The homeowners have given permission to the show and the home is wired with video cameras.

In this show, the thief breaks into the house by pushing in a window-mounted air-conditioner in the basement. He then tosses the homeowner’s dog a treat and heads directly to the master bedroom. He goes directly to the bed stands and closet and checks for firearms. This homeowner (a NYC fireman) had loaded pistol in the bed stand. The thief sticks the gun in his pocket and now you have an armed intruder in your house. He then goes on to load up in garbage bags and then into a van while waving to the friendly policeman next door.

This made me think because I have a firearm in my house. It isn’t loaded but the box of shells is right above it. (BTW, my wife and I have no children and if children visit the gun gets locked up.) If I lock the gun and ammunition separately as recommended the firearm is pretty much useless for self-defense. But if I keep the firearm loaded and the ammunition with it I may arm an intruder. Just something me and other gun owners to think about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Feb 23 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]395157[/snapback]</div>

"Another beautiful theory ruined by ugly facts" ?

The problem is that propaganda is all to often disguised as facts by the use of statistics. I've had enough experience with statistics in my education and both my careers (engineering and real estate - I know, odd combo) to be very wary of how they are applied. I can basically "prove" any viewpoint I have with careful application, exclusion and manipulation of data (and a suspension of ethics). Just as anyone with enough time to research and dig deep enough would be able to debunk my "statistically proven" viewpoint.

There are some people on this forum who use this tool and back it up with these statistics almost in an effort to intimidate people with an "I've got all the facts right here" attitude. Fruit from the poisoned tree, methinks. When one source has the word "snubnose" in the link, you have to wonder about the objectivity of the source. That's not a shot at desynch, more at the URL he provided. It's not my intention to piss desynch off or prove him wrong (after all, he has guns :lol: ), or anyone else for that matter.

I know people who have firearms. Some I have no problem with, some seem so unstable to me that knowing they have access to firearms is extremely worrisome.

We all have our opinions. As far as I know, no one is keeping tabs on how many posts (and/or words per post) are for and against assault rifles (which is the OP topic, in case anyone's forgotten) to tally them up at the end to claim which side won the debate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]394822[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Feb 23 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]395181[/snapback]</div>

I love this show as it educates the public as to just how vulneralble they really are...

As for waving at the nice Policeman, The cop is thinking wow that nice man just waved at me with all his fingers..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Feb 23 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]395201[/snapback]</div>

LOL priusguy04.. We've probably been spit at enough to appreciate a friendly wave.. ya think?



--All I know is that I own firearms for fun, sport, and protection. Fun and sport, those are priveledges, but protection.. that is my God given Constitutional right. Statistics can help prove a point, but the problem with statistics is you can twist them to prove just about any point.

My point is that if you let the government disarm you, then you are now relying on them to protect you. No thanks.

I guess I hold the Constitution higher than some people here.. I've noticed some people seem to think that because they don't agree with it, we just just get rid of it.. Or that it doesn't apply because it was written "a long time ago" .. (really, it wasn't, in terms of actual country years, we're a very young nation).

 

Does anyone know if that homicide rate includes deaths of people breaking into homes of gun owners and getting shot by a man protecting his family?

Or, are we talking outright murder on all those?

Maybe if everyone had a gun those homicide numbers would go up, and that would be a good thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 23 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]395234[/snapback]</div>

Ah, perspective - I was just wondering if there was a way to know how many people had been killed with their own gun (that was meant to protect them), and also how many others were killed with guns stolen from houses.

Increased homicides is never a good thing IMO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 23 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]395227[/snapback]</div>

I strongly disagree, my friend.

"Our rights are God-given rights. They are not "constitutional" rights.

Take some time and read the U.S. Constitution. You will see that it does not grant any rights to anyone. Instead, while setting up the federal government, the document (the first ten amendments) also prohibits the government from interfering with various aspects of human freedom. The first ten amendments limit what the government can do. They shouldn't be called the Bill of Rights; they should be called the Bill of Limitations.

Every time we crow about "our constitutional rights," we are playing right into their hands. Our rights are God-given. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our God-given rights and to limit government authority. Thus the correct question is not "What rights does the Constitution give to the American people?" but rather "What powers does the Constitution grant to the government?"

Take the current case of Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt the Navy chaplain on trial for praying in Jesus' name. Does his right to pray come from the government? Is the First Amendment the only reason he should be allowed to pray? Did the Constitution grant him that right? What about George Washington and the patriots who battled for our independence? From where did they receive their right to pray? In fact, weren't they fighting to tell King George to stop trampling on their God-given rights? Isn't it ironic that today, merely 230 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, we once again think our right to express our faith comes from the king? Well, it does come from the King, but not the king most Americans bow before.

Come on now. Who gives you the right to pray? Who gives you the right to speak your mind? Who gives you the right to carry a gun? Who gives you the right to live? These individual God-given rights were in existence before our government was established."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 23 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]395245[/snapback]</div>

There are figures availible that show the numbers broken down in to group %..
ie Rape, Homicide ect..

In Fla. we now have the Castle Law

More info check out: www.gunlaws.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]394611[/snapback]</div>

http://www.pbase.com/jpochard/image/63110930
A Grizzly doesn't know what year it is, and just because YOU don't have any critters near you, that can EAT you for dinner, doesn't mean the world ends at the end of your property line. That's a pic of one of our many 'neighbors' up here in the Flathead valley. I'll buy you dinner if you can bring it down with a shotgun. Best to save the last round for our self, when a grizzly just keeps commin' :lol: Yes, folks living in the ghetto don't need uzi's . . . but congress hasn't been able to articulate legislation that adequately addresses a balance between race discrimination and reasonable gun use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 23 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]395250[/snapback]</div>

According to this logic, God also gives you the right to maim, murder, smoke a doobie and sexually assault a sheep (not necessarily in that order). As a matter of fact, ANYTHING you CAN do while alive is therefore a right. So, owning an assault rifle is a "God-given right"?

If one doesn't believe in God (well, your God, anyway), does that mean one has no rights?

If there's someone in a coma (who believes in God) who cannot speak or otherwise indicate to us in any measureable way what is on his mind, has he been robbed of his "God-given rights"?

These ARE constitutional rights, they were written (as Evan points out) by men. Religious men, to be sure, but I doubt if any of them would claim to be the voice of God, or speaking in his stead.

There's another thread where this tangent would probably more at home...