Gun Ownership and Fear

[HorizontalHunter]

Okay, I suppose that's fair. Hunting is not- in and of itself- a bad sport. I neglected that and I am sorry.

Still, the balance of gun history is just not pretty.

The history of the human race isn’t pretty. A gun is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When a drunk driver kills someone is it the cars fault? Maybe it’s the bars fault? Maybe it’s the fault of Jack Daniels.

It’s the drunk drivers fault. Period. People need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. Period.

Oh, I know the answer. Put ignition breathalyzer lockouts in the cars of sober people. That will fix everything. No more drunk drivers. Phew , that was easy. /S

I’m tired of being punished for things I didn’t do.

Bob

 

[whacko]

Maybe this will help you: that last comforting thought, facetious as it may be? At least that person got to have it.

It isn't really guns that scare people, you know. You feel better with one. Okay. Well, everyone else now knows you can kill them. You can take away their life, time with their families...

And you seriously think it isn't your responsibility to allay those fears?

I could also take a life with my truck.....knife.....ball bat. Get it? Many of us here dont have an irrational fear of an inanimate object that requires a human to act on it to do harm.

 

[Carl Reese]

You're the one asserting that guns are engineered for killing people/animals

I've provided fact based evidence to contradict that as well as statistical evidence to contradict your assertions

No matter how much you and others try to poo poo Kleck's studies the fact remains that people use guns defensively without ever having to fire them every year.......this is in direct contradiction with your assertion that the purpose of a gun is to kill people/animals

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

Dont even get me started on the CDC burying studies that contradict the pro gun control agenda the gov wants to push

CDC Buried Data Supporting Defensive Use of Firearms

You have provided zero evidence guns were not designed to kill. You cite a study showing what they were used for in a small subset of cases which did not result in death.

But if you really want to say (3 times now, I think?) that they were used defensively without firing... I mean... why do you think that is? Because the assailant thought glitter was going to shoot out?

So then your argument goes on to state how guns therefore *save* lives, and therein comes the intellectual dishonesty. You have no idea how those 750k encounters might have turned out without guns. You cannot use that stat as proof that guns save lives. You simply can't. Any statistician would laugh you out of a room.

 

[whacko]

You have provided zero evidence guns were not designed to kill. You cite a study showing what they were used for in a small subset of cases which did not result in death.

But if you really want to say (3 times now, I think?) that they were used defensively without firing... I mean... why do you think that is? Because the assailant thought glitter was going to shoot out?

So then your argument goes on to state how guns therefore *save* lives, and therein comes the intellectual dishonesty. You have no idea how those 750k encounters might have turned out without guns. You cannot use that stat as proof that guns save lives. You simply can't. Any statistician would laugh you out of a room.

I'll concede guns were designed to kill.

I don't care.

That's just me.

 

[Carl Reese]

Your speaking in absolutes. Dont use absolutes like "nobody" or "everybody" in a debate. There is no way you can substantiate that statement and it shows you are not taking other opinions into consideration....only yours.

I care that fire arms are used upwards of 3/4 of a million times a year for defense. It tells me they are being used for their intended purpose in my opinion.

Fair enough regarding absolutes. And trust me, I really *am* pro-gun. I'm not a FUDD or anything. I just don't see the 2nd as any more or less flexible than all the other amendments we have tweaked.

And I see guns as dangerous tools. I don't see a point in pretending they are not. That they are fun and serve legitimate purposes outside of crime, oil speculation, and general mayhem is really secondary.

You want to go the, "They are effective as a deterrent" route? Jake by me. That's because no one wants to get shot.

You want to say it's human beings' fault and not the gun? Well yes, guns lack the ability to think. Unfortunately, people being people, I am just going to say, "this is why we can't have nice things."

When my kid and friends can't share a toy, we adults take the toy away because now they are just making noise and causing problems.

When gun people entrench in the idea that, "guns don't kill people," and, "guns are a deterrent," it strikes the same tone-deaf chord that "I had it first" strikes. I mean, that's all. You see it or not.

Guns allow people to kill people quickly and efficiently without even having to be close or face them. That is a f***ing god-like power that requires god-like responsibility. You must accept that.

"It's not my fault."
"Guns don't kill people."
"More people die from <insert cause>."

None of the above are a defense. Because a defense isn't required. It wasn't requested. It's an odd thing to say when people (sheep, lefties, libtards, whatever you wish to call them) are trying to wrap their head around 17 kids not going home for dinner.

And there you are, asserting it's not you... you just want guns in case they come to... take your guns.

Holy shit this culture needs an enema.

 

[Carl Reese]

The history of the human race isn’t pretty. A gun is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When a drunk driver kills someone is it the cars fault? Maybe it’s the bars fault? Maybe it’s the fault of Jack Daniels.

It’s the drunk drivers fault. Period. People need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. Period.

Oh, I know the answer. Put ignition breathalyzer lockouts in the cars of sober people. That will fix everything. No more drunk drivers. Phew , that was easy. /S

I’m tired of being punished for things I didn’t do.

Bob

Things none of us have the ability to do thanks to some other a**h***s:

Drive without seatbelts.
Drive as fast as we want.
Practice driving without a permit.
Install our own gas appliances.
Fly an unregistered drone.
Play lawn darts.

Tell me again how we don't get punished every day for what others do? Then please tell me why all of the above is okay, but not when it comes to guns?

 

[Carl Reese]

I could also take a life with my truck.....knife.....ball bat. Get it? Many of us here dont have an irrational fear of an inanimate object that requires a human to act on it to do harm.

I have an irrational fear of:

Deep water
Tornadoes
Cockroaches
Heights

A) I avoid all those things.
B) That is all I have to do.

But any a**h*** with a gun can shoot me any day. I have no control over it. *That* is what people fear. They don't fear the gun.

Never heard of anyone fleeing a museum display of guns. They do *not* fear the gun. Stop saying that. They are afraid of what the gun can do. Sure, it requires a set of hands. Seems like there exists a surplus of those.

 

[Carl Reese]

Its hilarious for people to ignore the simple proven fact that firearms are used defensively and almost every time without being fired.......many many times more frequently every year than they are used offensively

Consider what the rate of violent crime would be if guns were banned or heavily restricted......the entire nation would look like democrat controlled cities with high crime/murder rates.....

This again.

Okay, let me take this on already and snuff it out once and for all:

In 1987 a young girl was accidentally killed by a lawn dart. One girl. In the 8 years prior to that, 6,100 people were sent to the ER with injuries from lawn darts.

That is all it took to have lawn darts banned in the US. But I mean, we don't know... maybe if we had lawn darts no one else would have gotten injured. Or maybe they were injured because they were stupid, or because the thrower intended to hurt them. It isn't the dart's fault...

When you defend lawn darts as passionately as you defend guns, maybe I'll admit you have a point.

 

[Emacs]

So then your argument goes on to state how guns therefore *save* lives, and therein comes the intellectual dishonesty. You have no idea how those 750k encounters might have turned out without guns. You cannot use that stat as proof that guns save lives. You simply can't. Any statistician would laugh you out of a room.

I'm a statistician who makes causal conclusions in the absence of counterfactual data. We have the tools to do that, and you're clearly not up to speed on those methods.

Not that statistics should influence one's understanding of God-given rights that pre-exist government.

 

[TheoC]

The hell with what some academics postulate about fear and gun ownership. They know dick about this. We (the media, our lame politicians, and the public) should be discussing mental illness control, not gun control. We have massive national media campaigns against drunk/impaired/distracted driving, but nobody suggests banning cars, or the sale of cars. Wal-Mart doesn't stop selling car supplies in response to media pressure. It's absurd. We should be demanding our politicians discuss mental health control before gun control, because as other posters have noted, you don't need a gun to kill a lot of people. We need to get the mentally ill off the streets, like before Carter and Reagan set them all lose on the country. And the media needs to stop inflaming the public's rage over everything.

For those that say the 2A only applies to weapons of the time (muskets, swords, sabers), the the same standard should apply to the 1A, so shut off your TVs, shut down your broadcast studios, routers, cell phones and f**k your social media accounts. A good 2A interpretation:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DYeYkJkqgs

 

[oldguy47]

Whacko is right.

 

[Carl Reese]

I'm a statistician who makes causal conclusions in the absence of counterfactual data. We have the tools to do that, and you're clearly not up to speed on those methods.

That's called correlation, *not* causation.

Not that statistics should influence one's understanding of God-given rights that pre-exist government.

God did not give you the right to own a gun. If you believe in God, that deity gave you a soul and you have the right to defend your life and existence by any means.

But we invented guns. God did not give you the right to any man-made object.

 

[Emacs]

That's called correlation, *not* causation

No, causal inference using observational data without a realized counterfactual (Robins, Pearl, Hernan, etc). You're about 30 years behind new advances in the field, yet you come on here and lecture people about stats because you think no one will call you out on your sheltered-perspective bullshit.

 

[Jason Flare]

Let me guess.

This is where I’m told I’m on the wrong side of history.

 

[whacko]

Fair enough regarding absolutes. And trust me, I really *am* pro-gun. I'm not a FUDD or anything. I just don't see the 2nd as any more or less flexible than all the other amendments we have tweaked.

And I see guns as dangerous tools. I don't see a point in pretending they are not. That they are fun and serve legitimate purposes outside of crime, oil speculation, and general mayhem is really secondary.

You want to go the, "They are effective as a deterrent" route? Jake by me. That's because no one wants to get shot.

You want to say it's human beings' fault and not the gun? Well yes, guns lack the ability to think. Unfortunately, people being people, I am just going to say, "this is why we can't have nice things."

When my kid and friends can't share a toy, we adults take the toy away because now they are just making noise and causing problems.

When gun people entrench in the idea that, "guns don't kill people," and, "guns are a deterrent," it strikes the same tone-deaf chord that "I had it first" strikes. I mean, that's all. You see it or not.

Guns allow people to kill people quickly and efficiently without even having to be close or face them. That is a f***ing god-like power that requires god-like responsibility. You must accept that.

"It's not my fault."
"Guns don't kill people."
"More people die from <insert cause>."

None of the above are a defense. Because a defense isn't required. It wasn't requested. It's an odd thing to say when people (sheep, lefties, libtards, whatever you wish to call them) are trying to wrap their head around 17 kids not going home for dinner.

And there you are, asserting it's not you... you just want guns in case they come to... take your guns.

Holy shit this culture needs an enema.

1. I don't assert it's not me....I know it's not me

2. I don't want guns in case someone comes for my guns. I own guns to defend myself the way I see fit.

I judge a man's moral compass in how he references free men to defend themselves. - Tedd Nugent

Although I'm not always a fan of the nuge......this quote I agree with 100%

 

[whacko]

This again.

Okay, let me take this on already and snuff it out once and for all:

In 1987 a young girl was accidentally killed by a lawn dart. One girl. In the 8 years prior to that, 6,100 people were sent to the ER with injuries from lawn darts.

That is all it took to have lawn darts banned in the US. But I mean, we don't know... maybe if we had lawn darts no one else would have gotten injured. Or maybe they were injured because they were stupid, or because the thrower intended to hurt them. It isn't the dart's fault...

When you defend lawn darts as passionately as you defend guns, maybe I'll admit you have a point.

Ah here you go with the assumptions again. I absolutely 100% believe that the lawn dart incident was that of the parents. Who the f*** would let a kid stand down range while someone launched a one pound dart near them. I believe in true freedom.......others.....not so much.

 

[whacko]

That's called correlation, *not* causation.



God did not give you the right to own a gun. If you believe in God, that deity gave you a soul and you have the right to defend your life and existence by any means.

But we invented guns. God did not give you the right to any man-made object.

You truly have issues if you cant see the total illogic in that statement.

Right to defending myself by any means necessary.....yes

I chose a fire arm.

Therefore I do have a right to own a fire arm.....and the founding fathers recognized this.

Your have a problem. You really do.

 

[whacko]

Things none of us have the ability to do thanks to some other a**h***s:

Drive without seatbelts.
Drive as fast as we want.
Practice driving without a permit.
Install our own gas appliances.
Fly an unregistered drone.
Play lawn darts.

Tell me again how we don't get punished every day for what others do? Then please tell me why all of the above is okay, but not when it comes to guns?

I'm gonna shock you at this point

I'm not in favor of most of the restrictions on your list. It's called being a libertarian.....individual freedom. Seat belt laws suck......helmet laws suck.....hell even drunk driving laws suck.

Practically any victimless act should never be restricted. Want to see real improvement in society......stop prosecuting victimless crime.....but increase the penalty for crimes involving a victim 1000 fold.

Drunk driving......we prosecute people with a bac over a certain level to the point of absurdity. Bring em to court......slap on the wrist for a first offense......then they do it again.....back to court......take the license and they just drive anyway.....rinse and repeat. Who got hurt? That's right.....nobody. now.....change the system......ditch the victimless crime and start prosecuting drivers that actually hurt someone or kill someone.....but now when proven guilty you lock em up for 40 or 50 years. In the course of 10 years I feel you'd actually see drunk driving accidents go WAY down.....and the individual maintains their freedom. Apply this concept to violent criminals and imo you'd get results. Mug someone (there is a victim)? 25 years. Use a gun in a robbery (there is a victim)? 40 years. Then prisons will be full of actual criminals and the pot smokers and the like will be free (they hurt nobody). That's justice. That's freedom

 

[Buck F]

Holy shit this culture needs an enema.

This thread certainly could use one...

 

[SFC13557]

"There is nothing to learn. Anyone who honestly believes we are going to have open civil war in the US is deranged. You will *never* fire a gun in the street as some New Minutemen. Can we dispense with the odd notion that we are in some way preparing for Red Dawn or the zombie apocalypse?"
******
Really? Have you been paying attention to the leftists assault on us? They verbally and physically feel they have the right to destroy us because THEY are the righteous citizens and WE are all ignorant white supremacists who are EVIL. When Trump wins again in November/ 2020 they will have no choice but to attempt a violent assault on us. Did you see the Striaght Pride parade and what the DA and one of out "elected" officials said about the violent Antifa clowns arrested? THEY don't need to follow the law because THEY are right and we are wrong.

 

[Carl Reese]

Not actually

Even the CDC data supported the fact that firearms are used defensively and without being fired far more frequently than they are used offensively/for crimes

I never stated one way or another that guns were used for offense over defense, or even that the owner wanted to shoot, so this study has no bearing. In all cases, the gun was (theoretically) deployed with the will to use them. Correct? Including these? That they didn't fire is less relevant than they *could*.

It is also established that guns by design are just about the most efficient means of defense *or* offense. This, it stands to reason they would be an effective deterrent from pretty much any activity. This does absolutely nothing to indicate how a scenario may have played out otherwise.

It is also established that when bad things happen, people focus on them. If there was a sudden rash of sword killings, we'd be having another conversation.

 

[Carl Reese]

No, causal inference using observational data without a realized counterfactual (Robins, Pearl, Hernan, etc). You're about 30 years behind new advances in the field, yet you come on here and lecture people about stats because you think no one will call you out on your sheltered-perspective bullshit.

I'm sorry, are you talking about the same 'newfangled' predictive modeling statistics that so awesomely planned the Big Dig, Hillary winning the election, and is currently being used to develop pre-crime analytical software to potentially incriminate innocent people? Not like those were *massive* failures.

Hahahaha. That's your hill? I rely on evidence. Guessing is a fool's game.

Maybe you would like a nice lion-repelling rock?

If you would like to 'call someone out on their bullshit', have at it. But for god's sakes... have a position to start from.

 

[Carl Reese]

You truly have issues if you cant see the total illogic in that statement.

Right to defending myself by any means necessary.....yes

I chose a fire arm.

Therefore I do have a right to own a fire arm.....and the founding fathers recognized this.

Your have a problem. You really do.

What if all firearms ceased to function tomorrow. All melted to slag. No one can ever have a gun again.

Do you go try to find the next best weapon? If so... maybe you have the problem.

It's okay to love the machine and hate 90% of the people who use one. It really is.

 

[Carl Reese]

I'm gonna shock you at this point

I'm not in favor of most of the restrictions on your list. It's called being a libertarian.....individual freedom. Seat belt laws suck......helmet laws suck.....hell even drunk driving laws suck.

Practically any victimless act should never be restricted. Want to see real improvement in society......stop prosecuting victimless crime.....but increase the penalty for crimes involving a victim 1000 fold.

Drunk driving......we prosecute people with a bac over a certain level to the point of absurdity. Bring em to court......slap on the wrist for a first offense......then they do it again.....back to court......take the license and they just drive anyway.....rinse and repeat. Who got hurt? That's right.....nobody. now.....change the system......ditch the victimless crime and start prosecuting drivers that actually hurt someone or kill someone.....but now when proven guilty you lock em up for 40 or 50 years. In the course of 10 years I feel you'd actually see drunk driving accidents go WAY down.....and the individual maintains their freedom. Apply this concept to violent criminals and imo you'd get results. Mug someone (there is a victim)? 25 years. Use a gun in a robbery (there is a victim)? 40 years. Then prisons will be full of actual criminals and the pot smokers and the like will be free (they hurt nobody). That's justice. That's freedom

Right or wrong, though, the laws exist.

Did you defend your right to drive without a seatbelt when they mandated seatbelts, though?

 

[Carl Reese]

Your entire argument so far has revolved around feelings and motivations

So I provided you with statistics that address why people own firearms and how they use them.

You asserted that guns are all about killing people/animals and the statistics on how they are in point of fact used directly and unequivocably refutes your claims

The facts remain that guns are overwhelmingly used defensively without even shooting them......and even the suppressed CDC study confirms this......john connor doesnt even have to send you back in time to figure that out......

You didn't disprove anything except 750k people didn't pull the trigger.

My point is that if the guy on the other end thought for a second they wouldn't, there wouldn't be 750k cases of people not pulling the trigger. Additionally, if no gun was involved, there is a set from that 750k that still would have been just fine.

Don't try to goad me with one number. You exist in 3 dimensions, try to think on more than one.

 

[whacko]

Right or wrong, though, the laws exist.

Did you defend your right to drive without a seatbelt when they mandated seatbelts, though?

I wear my seatbelt....I'm smart. However there should be no law making me wear it.

As far as defending my right not to wear it......I speak my mind. Big government sucks.....always.

 

[whacko]

What if all firearms ceased to function tomorrow. All melted to slag. No one can ever have a gun again.

Do you go try to find the next best weapon? If so... maybe you have the problem.

It's okay to love the machine and hate 90% of the people who use one. It really is.

You hate 90% of the people who use a gun? I use one every day practically. You don't have to fire a gun to be using it.

 

[Carl Reese]

Guns are a toxic fandom. This is worse than the Rick and Morty people.

This is why I kinda *don't* want to join any shooting clubs. 90% of any fandom is vitriol and nonsense.

I don't care what you believe about guns. Holy shit, I don't. I also don't care what you might believe about me. I especially don't care about that.

But, uh, seriously? Read the Rick and Morty forums... you guys sound like them. And all the shit there is written by libtards.

Guns aren't on the right or wrong side of history. Neither are you. You are not fighting the good fight. You are fighting. You just don't want to give up your guns, plain and simple. Some have good reasons, some don't.

I'll just vote.

 

[whacko]

Time for both of us to move on here.....you cant use logic with a person that doesnt understand what logic is.......its like trying to have a rational conversation with a progressive

Agreed.

 

[Carl Reese]

You hate 90% of the people who use a gun? I use one every day practically. You don't have to fire a gun to be using it.

I find 90% of people who have guns are a displeasure to speak about guns to. Hate is a strong word. I meant more, "hate on." Apologies.