Bowling for Virginia Tech

[pclayton]

The burgler doesn't know who does and doesn't have a gun. It's not like there is a sign on your front door. The inherent threat won't work unless at least most people have guns, and some/many/most will never get them.

 

Well, there's a cause and effect here. If homes aren't being burglarized, then people won't be buying guns (why should they?). However, if we have a localized upward trend of crime, and people start buying guns (and installing alarm systems, security lights, and getting large dogs), and burglaries are thwarted, then break-ins will become less common.

 

How many people are killed in the U.S. every year from guns, most of which I believe were concealed? I don't know the exact number but I know it's been in 5 digits for years. How many get killed by nukes from a madman? Looks like none to me.

 

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

 

This whole debate boggles my mind. The only thing that can be gained by allowing people to own guns is protection against other people with guns. Well, if only these other people didn't have guns then!

 

No problem here. If anyone can find a way to completely eradicate guns from society, and we can effectively defend ourselves with tasers, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, if someone feels the need to defend themselves against a known threat, then I don't think we should try to legislate ways to stop concealed weapons.

[jdonn]

Well, there's a cause and effect here. If homes aren't being burglarized, then people won't be buying guns (why should they?). However, if we have a localized upward trend of crime, and people start buying guns (and installing alarm systems, security lights, and getting large dogs), and burglaries are thwarted, then break-ins will become less common.

You say it's true, but it's not. Everyone who has ever heard of a single person deciding not to be a burgler for the reason that they are worried a homeowner will kill them, raise your hands.

 

Alarm systems, security lights, large dogs. Great so you admit there is no need to risk killing people to defend ourselves!

 

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

 

No problem here. If anyone can find a way to completely eradicate guns from society, and we can effectively defend ourselves with tasers, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, if someone feels the need to defend themselves against a known threat, then I don't think we should try to legislate ways to stop concealed weapons.

Great, so your solution to the fact we can't eradicate guns from society is to not try to eradicate guns from society.

[mike777]

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.

2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997

3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."

4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

 

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

[bid_em_up]

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

Phil was, I believe referring to the morning of 9/11, not a nuclear threat killing 3,000 people.

 

The total in 1 day for Hiroshima is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 140,000 people, and 74,000 for Nagasaki. And that was with only one bomb on each location. How many do you think could be killed by a lunatic with access to multiple nuclear weapons? 1 million? 10 million? The populations weren't as dense in 1945 in those cities, as they are now, in say, oh New York, LA, Tel Aviv, London or Paris.

 

His point, from my perspective, is that he is more concerned about a madman having access to nuclear weapons and isn't afraid to use them, than he is about being concerned with the average law-abiding joe owning a gun.

[mike777]

I do not have an internet quote but I do believe there have been far more mass murders by guns in Europe, Africa, Asia and South American than in North America during my lifetime.

 

As for nukes, as I have stated before I think everyone should be allowed to own their own personal nuke. Guns are debatable.

[jdonn]

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.

2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997

3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."

4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

 

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

 

I went to ask.com and typed in how many people are killed in the U.S. by guns every year? Then I just scanned the results, having no idea how reliable any are. The numbers in order are

 

40,000

40,000

30,000

11,000 (five years ago)

34,500

90 a day (= 32,850)

 

I heard something like your statistics about 10 years ago. It seems like a lot more now, which leads me to believe it's growing still.

[jdonn]

Do we really need to have a major nuclear event for people to understand the threat? I'm fully aware that it hasn't happened yet. I would think losing 3,000 people in one morning would wake people up to the modern threat of terrorism.

You are speaking of the threat of something that could happen. I am speaking of something that has been, is, and will continue to happen. I went to a search engine and found two different websites claiming 40,000 people in the U.S. are killed by guns every year. If a nuclear threat coming true would kill 3,000 people, that is less than 1% of the people killed in 10 years (in just this country) by guns! And it hasn't happened anyway! And you aren't even speaking about considering these threats equally, you said anyone equally as scared of guns as of nukes is off their rocker. Unbelievable!

Phil was, I believe referring to the morning of 9/11, not a nuclear threat killing 3,000 people.

 

The total in 1 day for Hiroshima is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 140,000 people, and 74,000 for Nagasaki. And that was with only one bomb on each location. How many do you think could be killed by a lunatic with access to multiple nuclear weapons? 1 million? 10 million? The populations weren't as dense in 1945 in those cities, as they are now, in say, oh New York, LA, Tel Aviv, London or Paris.

 

His point, from my perspective, is that he is more concerned about a madman having access to nuclear weapons and isn't afraid to use them, than he is about being concerned with the average law-abiding joe owning a gun.

Yes I see now what Phil meant. And I fail to see how he can claim I'm off my rocker to be more scared of something that in the last 57 years has killed millions of people than something that has killed no one in that time.

 

If nukes were legal to citizens in the U.S. then I would argue against that as well.

[cherdano]

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

There is an easy solution to that...

[bid_em_up]

1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year.

2) Americans annually drive off 500,000 home invasions per year according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention study 1997

3) Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux studies show "mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled."

4) Dunblane Scotland 1996 mass murder of 17 occured despite far more restrictive gun laws than America.

 

As I said the mythology of America is much different from Europe when it comes to guns. But Europe is different from Africa and Asia.

It's hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are kidding...

 

I went to ask.com and typed in how many people are killed in the U.S. by guns every year? Then I just scanned the results, having no idea how reliable any are. The numbers in order are

 

40,000

40,000

30,000

11,000 (five years ago)

34,500

90 a day (= 32,850)

 

I heard something like your statistics about 10 years ago. It seems like a lot more now, which leads me to believe it's growing still.

One number is the number of homicides committed by a firearm each year. The total provided by the CDC is 68350 for the years 1999-2004, which is about 11,500 per year.

 

The other number appears to be all deaths by firearm (accidental, suicide, homicide, other) which the CDC says is 177,000 for those 6 years. That averages to about 29,500/year.

[mike777]

http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org.../gun_injury.pdf

 

Sigh I have no idea where you guys get your facts...more suicides than homicides, are you counting suicides in your numbers?

 

Arend maybe if you just state facts rather than sarcasm I can learn something. :(

 

Here are some facts from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.

[cherdano]

I suppose the unified crime reports by the FBI are the best source for statistics about homicides, in particular the expanded homicide data.

 

There are some 11,000 gun homicides accounted for (I can't find data including man-slaughter). Josh's figures probably take gun suicides (~ 17,000), unintentional shooting (~650), justifiable homicides (around 600) into account (some of the numbers from http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm).

[jdonn]

Yes I'm astonished there can be that many suicides by shooting every year. Live and learn.

 

"1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year."

 

That's what Mike said. I suppose he was just careless in his wording if all he meant was homicides.

[Winstonm]

The only thing that can be gained by allowing people to own guns is protection against other people with guns. Well, if only these other people didn't have guns then!

 

This argument is invalid. Again I point out the the entire purpose of a weapon, any weapon, is an attempt to level the playing field or to gain an advantage. A person with a gun never has to use it in order to utilize its benefit - and that benefit is to make the physically weaker the equal of his opponent.

 

Here is an example: a 60-year old man with a touch of arthritis, who weighs 150 pounds (68 kilos) and is an accountant who never played any sports in his life is accosted in his home by a 25-year-old weightlifter, who weighs 225 lbs (102 kilos)and wrestled for his high school team and ran track.

 

Can the old man run away? No, the younger is faster.

Can the old man overpower the younger? No, the younger is stronger and better trained in combat.

What is the old man's option? To allow the young man to do anything he wishes - either steal, injure, or kill at his whim.

 

This is the law of the jungle - the strong survive and the weak are their victims.

 

Now suppose in this scenario the old man has a loaded shotgun. What has the gun done to the scenario? It has elevated the old man's strength to be equal to or greater than that of his opposition. He does not have to use the gun; the simple ownership and ability to use it has changed the scenario from the law of the jungle to the law of civilization where the weak have an equal right with the strong to survive.

 

If the young man himself is armed there is stalemate - an equlity of strength. There is no guarantee bloodshed will not occur, but if it does it will occur on a level situation of strength.

 

It is only when the weaker cannot own a weapon that there is disparity - and the law of the jungle is reprised.

[cherdano]

The fact that 85% of gun owners are men is enough to show that the argument "Weapons level the playing field" has almost no intersection with reality.

Winston, what would you guess: how often are handguns used as a self-defense, compared to how often they are used to attack someone (murder, armed robbery, etc.)?

[Al_U_Card]

99.5% confidence .....limit?

[jikl]

Americans and their &*%*^%^&% guns. I am so glad I came back to Australia.

 

Sean

[jdonn]

Law of the jungle??? You have to be kidding. Every example I have heard from supporters of gun ownership is some hypothetical situation that never really occurs, or some what-if scenario. Meanwhile in REALITY the one and only thing we know with absolute certainty is millions of people keep being killed by guns.

 

Let me expand upon your example, since apparently fictional situations are the only valid arguments.

 

Young man goes to rob old man who has no gun. He punches old man a number of times who has to spend a month in the hospital, takes his things, and leaves. 0 people end up dead.

 

or

 

Young man goes to rob old man who has gun. Sees the old man pulling his gun, so quickly takes out his own gun to shoot him, since as you said he is faster and better trained in combat. Kills old man, takes his things, and leaves. 1 person ends up dead.

 

or

 

Young man goes to rob old man who has gun. Old man pulls out gun and kills young man. 1 person ends up dead.

 

Good thing he had a gun for protection!

[mike777]

Yes I'm astonished there can be that many suicides by shooting every year. Live and learn.

 

"1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year."

 

That's what Mike said. I suppose he was just careless in his wording if all he meant was homicides.

Fair enough but I did have 3 other points of discussion.

 

Also while I have no research quotes I do believe there have been more mass killings with guns in Europe, Africa and South America compared to North America in my lifetime.

 

If so this all contributes to the Mythology in America of guns to protect us from something or other.

 

Also a belief in evil, true evil that I think many scoff at in nonchurch going Europe today and by the far left in America.

 

 

 

All of the above points add up to more of an obsession with guns in the USA compared to most of the rest of the world. As I said we have 200 million private guns in the USA.

 

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country. Call it genocide, wrong or whatever but expanding the country from ocean to ocean was seen as a divine right by arriving Europeans and their children.

[cherdano]

Yes I'm astonished there can be that many suicides by shooting every year. Live and learn.

 

"1) Gun deaths in the USA are about 10-13,000 per year."

 

That's what Mike said. I suppose he was just careless in his wording if all he meant was homicides.

Fair enough but I did have 3 other points of discussion.

 

Also while I have no research quotes I do believe there have been more mass killings with guns in Europe, Africa and South America compared to North America in my lifetime.

 

If so this all contributes to the Mythology in America of guns to protect us from something or other.

Mike, the gun homicide rate in the US is at least 3-4 times as high than in other industrialized nations. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

If you are proud that the US has less gun mass killings than Brazil or Ruanda - don't you think as an industrialized democracy this country could aim for a little more?

[mike777]

"Mike, the gun homicide rate in the US is at least 3-4 times as high than in other industrialized nations. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

If you are proud that the US has less gun mass killings than Brazil or Ruanda - don't you think as an industrialized democracy this country could aim for a little more? "

 

 

Excellent question, so far the answer for decades seems to be no.

 

Perhaps technology will reduce/improve this issue the next 50 years.

 

We have reduced lynchings and scalpings which we had much more of than the other industrialized countries. I do have faith we can reduce homicides by guns perhaps with the help of immigrants such as yourself.

[the hog]

"As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker."

 

Well Phil, then I guess I am off my rocker as well. Concealed weapons can pose an immediate threat and there is nothing you can do about it. There is always the chance of putting pressure on the madman.

[jdonn]

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country.

That is so false! Is there a 'gun culture' in Germany? England? Tons of countries have eras of historical bloodshed on their hands and yet don't have nearly the gun shootings the US has.

 

You should watch Bowling for Columbine and pay very careful attention.

[pbleighton]

"We have reduced lynchings and scalpings which we had much more of than the other industrialized countries. I do have faith we can reduce homicides by guns perhaps with the help of immigrants such as yourself."

 

And laws too, Mike :P

 

Our homicide rate is astronomical compared to other industrialized countries. Guns are a significant part of it, but less than half IMO.

 

I agree with you that both guns and homicide rates are driven by culture. They also reinforce each other. We're in Iraq for the same reason.

 

I love Dirty Harry movies, but they're a bad model for life, and for foreign policy.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

Our homicide rate is astronomical compared to other industrialized countries. Guns are a significant part of it, but less than half IMO.

The FBI counted some 14,000 homicides in 2005, around 11,000 of them by guns.

Astronomical is a bit of an overstatement I would think.

[mike777]

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country.

That is so false! Is there a 'gun culture' in Germany? England? Tons of countries have eras of historical bloodshed on their hands and yet don't have nearly the gun shootings the US has.

 

You should watch Bowling for Columbine and pay very careful attention.

Because in Victorian England every household or almost every household did not have a gun as in the USA frontierland(think west of the Applachian mountains) as well as many east of them.

 

Why else do you think we have 200 million private guns and UK/Germany have a bit less? We very much have a private gun culture in this country. To protect us from all threats real and imagined. More than half of Europe and Asia lived behind barbed wire for most of my lifetime. AFrica is the seen of mass murder after mass murder. In the USA we have chased away more than 500,000 house attacks annually.

 

Sure private guns may or may not matter in these issues but they do in figure in our Myths of America.

 

Homicide rates have dropped a bit but I think that is more a function of fewer teenage boys than gun control. Democrats are running away from the issue of gun control in the Pres. race as fast as they can. I doubt we will see this Congress do anything.

 

I do have faith in improving technology and very smart/hard working immigrants coming to our country and making better lives for all of us.