The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

originally posted by: InconspicuousWhistle
a reply to: budski

It also depends on culture and social conditions.

In Switzerland there is a gun in almost every house yet they had one of the lowest murder rates. At least that's how it was a few years ago.

At last we come to the crux of the issue.

This is the meat of the debate for me, and raises some very interesting questions not least of which is the theory that the US is an inherently violent country, or perhaps more pertinently, it appears to be a violent country

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: budski

That is where you are wrong. Guns were not just invented to kill men. ANy invention that has a good use can be mis used.

You want ALL weapons gone right? No utensils,nothing sharp,blunt or throwable too. I mean everything can be a weapon if used properly. So guess we should all just give up living or building since tools are weapons too.

The "scientist" apparently is a pacifist and as such wrote a biased paper. Its more feel good bullcrap.

Actually, yes they were.
They were used as a weapon, and the improvements from the first bamboo tube guns which fired a spear projectile were all to do with making them more accurate on the battlefield.
The reason for this is that they had no other possible application at the time.

a reply to: budski

When the Constitution was written, every gun owner was, in a very real sense, a member of a well regulated militia.

That this is interpreted in a manner you don't happen to like, matters not in the slightest. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this interpretation on numerous occasions.

Any attempt to infringe upon that right is unconstitutional. I will continue to be that "mythical" good guy with a gun.

...and what army did George III send? The fake one? An ersatz army, if you will? Really??

originally posted by: budski
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you can post the correlation using anything other than anecdotal evidence, your point MIGHT have some credence, otherwise it's bullplop.
You SAY that gun ownership went up, and you keep saying it correlates, but I've yet to see this.

No..YOU said gun ownership is up. Directly from your OP:

Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,

So now you are suggesting that gun ownership has gone down?

But OK...I will bite. Here is the FBI NICS background checks for weapons. While there is no stat to show that these weapons were actually purchased, I think the conclusion can be drawn that these background checks were not just done for fun...

Source



See that HUGE increase from 1998 to 2015?

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: InconspicuousWhistle
a reply to: budski

It also depends on culture and social conditions.

In Switzerland there is a gun in almost every house yet they had one of the lowest murder rates. At least that's how it was a few years ago.

At last we come to the crux of the issue.

This is the meat of the debate for me, and raises some very interesting questions not least of which is the theory that the US is an inherently violent country, or perhaps more pertinently, it appears to be a violent country

The population of Switzerland in 2013 was around 8 million.

The population of USA in 2013 was around 316 million.

I wonder why America would appear more violent.

originally posted by: budski
It's been fun watching you guys get all riled up about your penis replacements, but I have to go now.

Which was the whole agenda of your thread.


To rile people up with fallacious nonsense.

& as far as I know, none of the Women in this thread, who have proved your point to be erroneous, have a penis to replace.



It's been fun watching your mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty.


You give a bad name to the anti-Gun crowd who often do have some decent information.

Repeatedly saying "more guns = more deaths" has been proven to be, by exact definition, a specious argument.

a reply to: EternalSolace

But you know that we are talking about percentage right? Right?

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,

And?
People die from all sorts of things.

Should we ban guns?

Would it solve anything?

Heroin is illegal. You can buy it just about anywhere.

Yes, guns should be banned.
They are nothing more than a device that was invented to kill other humans.

To my knowledge, there is no other "product" on the market, and so freely available that was invented for the sole purpose of killing another human.

Are you missing the point?
No doctor in the US can prescribe heroin, it is totally illegal. Yet it is readily available on the black market. The raw material isn't grown here. Yet it is easily bought, no age restrictions, no tests, no getting a permit.
Guns can be made in a garage or basement.
If you ban them, who enforces the law?
Police.... with GUNS.
Hypocrite.

No, Police in this country are not usually armed.

I'm not missing any point, I'm seeing you back up my assertion that the only evidence gun advocates have is anecdotal, and when that fails they resort to ad hominem attack rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Look at the data in the article (have you even read it? ) then come back and discuss it like a rational human being.

Anecdotal?

www.usnews.com...


www.cnsnews.com...



www.cato.org...



www.pulpless.com...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: budski

When the Constitution was written, every gun owner was, in a very real sense, a member of a well regulated militia.

That this is interpreted in a manner you don't happen to like, matters not in the slightest. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this interpretation on numerous occasions.

Any attempt to infringe upon that right is unconstitutional. I will continue to be that "mythical" good guy with a gun.

...and what army did George III send? The fake one? An ersatz army, if you will? Really??

Yes, I know that, and I know that it has since been re-affirmed, I also know that this is a political issue as much as a societal one and that people somehow feel "safer" with guns despite the evidence showing that the murder rate is far in excess of other developed nations with and without gun laws.
I think the focus should be on why there are so many gun deaths compared to other countries where there are an equal number of guns per capita.

The army George III (or rather his parliament) sent was the dregs of the British forces, trawled mostly from the Caribbean which was regarded in those days as a punishment posting due to the high risk of death from disease etc.
The real army was off elsewhere stealing wealth from indigenous peoples, which pretty much shows where the government of the days priorities lay.
There were few standing armies in the world that could stand against the more elite units, and if those had been sent, it would have been a whole different ballgame.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Here, here. It makes me shake my head when people scold others for ad hominems / lack of quantifiable evidence, yet display their ignorance of the very topic they are arguing about.

There is a reason we still have smooth-bore / black poweder deer season in many states (and people hunt other game with smooth-bore as well).

Firearms are exactly what you state, a tool. There is a reason the Japanese didn't invade the US Mainland in WWII ("behind every blade of grass"), and there is a reason why ISIS sympathizers are going after cafes in Australia, France, and Canada. See what happens if some masked, vocal supporters of ISIS went on a shooting spree here in Texas... People wouldn't be pointing cell phones video taping them, they would be returning fire against the threat.

Did you know that private citizens assisted the police in engaging the sniper from the bell tower at UT Austin, because they had longer ranged rifles compared to most of the polices' sidearms?

I pray I never have to use my firearms for anything other than hunting and competition at the range, but my mentality is that I would rather not subjugate myself or my family to victimhood, if I can help it.

I don't claim to have the answers regarding gun control. Both sides of the debate use statistics, anecdotes and
their own rationale for making their case.
I do know this:
If two violent thugs break into your home in the middle of the night, a gun can easily make the difference between life and death. That is a fact. It simply cannot be refuted. Case closed.

It seems every couple of months some know it all sitting on their high horse want to start a pointless thread blaming an object just for attention.

So sad.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't claim to have the answers regarding gun control. Both sides of the debate use statistics, anecdotes and
their own rationale for making their case.
I do know this:
If two violent thugs break into your home in the middle of the night, a gun can easily make the difference between life and death. That is a fact. It simply cannot be refuted. Case closed.

Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.

originally posted by: budski

Yes, I know that, and I know that it has since been re-affirmed, I also know that this is a political issue as much as a societal one and that people somehow feel "safer" with guns despite the evidence showing that the murder rate is far in excess of other developed nations with and without gun laws.
I think the focus should be on why there are so many gun deaths compared to other countries where there are an equal number of guns per capita.

The real answer here (and to why gun deaths numbers are skewed in the U.S. is because of the illicit drug trade and gangs that partake in this trade. Drug crime deaths and suicides are almost always included in many statistics that anti-gun folks use. The gangs are usually using firearms that were acquired illegaly, possessing them illegaly, and using them illegaly (murder) - often times in places (Chicago, NY, Washington DC) that have some of the strictest gun laws on the books. When you look at it that way, it pretty much proves the point that when you disarm a populace, only the criminals have guns.

a reply to: budski

If a violent criminal is breaking into your house, would you not want to have a gun to protect yourself?
Yes or no?
That's the way I look at the arguement. It may be overly simple, but that's my rationale.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't claim to have the answers regarding gun control. Both sides of the debate use statistics, anecdotes and
their own rationale for making their case.
I do know this:
If two violent thugs break into your home in the middle of the night, a gun can easily make the difference between life and death. That is a fact. It simply cannot be refuted. Case closed.

Is the minute chance of a home invasion worth over 30,000 lives per year?

And it really is a very, very small chance.

Well it can't be that minute when you've already stated that people with Guns are "nuts"...

I'd have thought if people with Guns are "nuts" home invasions would be a very consistent theme...




Alas, they are not, according to you, thus proving yourself wrong.

Impressive.