Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why a ban on guns would never work.

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?


I used the figures quoted in the post. It really is irrelevant to me if it's 1 or 1000 children dying needlessly, it's too many. The age of the person being killed is irrelevant to me, a life is shortened.

The strange thing to me is that gun nuts can only come up with paper thin reasons why gun control won't work, they can't actually justify a policy of easy access to guns on it's own merits.

Just to add: I've already pointed out the difference between fire -rm related deaths and the various other causes of death. You can't stop people dying but that's no basis for you to justify the recklessness of gun proliferation.

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I'm ashamed to say that even though I've done extensive research on the fatality side of that CDC site in the past, I never noticed that they had non-fatal injury statistics on that page. Now that one's a real eye-opener as to how miniscule a role the gunshot wounds actually play. For that same 0-18 group, there were 14,161 non-fatal gunshot wounds from all intents.

And you can have all kinds of fun with this. The total number of dog bite injuries in the 0-18 range? 133,021. Falls? Wait for it...2,647,139. Motor vehicle related? 987,278. And no doubt, many of these were quite serious in nature.

But if you really want to put the nail in the coffin of the gun control argument, compare that to 'cutting/piercing'. The total is over 500,000, and if you narrow it to just those from assaults, its actually HIGHER than the gunshot wound injuries, with cutting/piercing at 17,209 compared to gunshot wounds at 14,161. In fact, its higher than gunshot wounds and fatalities among the 0-18 range group COMBINED, a figure which stands at 16412. If the fact that more knife attacks are already occurring is not sufficient evidence that a gun ban wouldn't end violent crime, I don't know what is.

Source



[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
I used the figures quoted in the post. It really is irrelevant to me if it's 1 or 1000 children dying needlessly, it's too many. The age of the person being killed is irrelevant to me, a life is shortened.


Its only irrelevant to you now because you got called out on it. You were all too willing to point out the 'flaw' in his argument without checking the facts.

How many other 'facts' do you know that just aren't true?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
Its only irrelevant to you now because you got called out on it. You were all too willing to point out the 'flaw' in his argument without checking the facts.


I think you'll find that all I pointed out was that his figures contradicted themselves. I have consistently said throughout the thread that any death by gunshot is unnecessary.


If the fact that more knife attacks are already occurring is not sufficient evidence that a gun ban wouldn't end violent crime, I don't know what is.


Who's ever been stupid enough to say that a gun ban would end violence? Why the hell would you need CDC figures to show that violence doesn't require a gun? There was violence before guns. The point is, guns are way more lethal than any other weapon. They kill so effectively with little or no training needed by the user that we would all be better off if they were all melted down.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
OK gota throw some stuff on the wall...a gun thread....

Unless someone takes away knowledge from those, that have the smarts to read.
Then takes away all machinery, including lathes mills and such.

Anyone can mix a bit of salt peater, and coal dust, and XXXX "leave one out, on purpose" and then use a said hollow logg to fire boulders outa my cannon...who needs "store bought" to have a fire arm....not me, or any traditional shooter alive!!!!

Not to mention the barrels laying around by the 100's of thousands from past wars...can be retro fitted/re chambered to acccept a more primative breech loader....50 cal...LOL ...say hello to my lil friend... 40 mm black powder sniper gun.
Prohabition of any sorts has never worked, and will never work, whether its guns, drugs, religion, or whatever....



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
Prohabition of any sorts has never worked, and will never work, whether its guns, drugs, religion, or whatever....


So do you believe that anything that cannot be prohibited 100% should be freely allowed? Allowed with restriction? What?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


The numbers really didn't contradict themselves. The entire firearm related death rate of the US is somewhere around 5-6 per 100,000 in any given year. Knowing that, when he presented the 3 per 100,000, it should have been clear which one was a rate and which one was the total.Barring that, just run a little very quick math. You know there are 300 million people in the US and you know that in a western society, about 20-25% will be teenagers. Run your 2,251 per 100,000 against that. If you estimate 75 million in the age range, that equates to a little less than 1.7 million firearm related deaths per year, which simply doesn't any sense.

And as for the lethality issue, maybe a knife is less lethal, but in reality, its not so simple. As I think I said earlier, about two thirds of all homicide victims in the US die from gunshot wounds. But there's a catch. That percentage decreases with age. For those who are over age 50 or older, there were 2,645 homicides in 2007, but firearms only made up 1,202 of those. That's only 45%, which obviously means the majority of the homicides in that age range actually don't involve a firearm.

The implication here is clear. People will use whatever weapon they can find. Technically, a gun may be more effective, but that doesn't make other means ineffective, and the numbers bear that out. You can ban guns, but they're still going to kill each other and, in fact, you'll be lucky if it even makes a dent in the total.




[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I think I am able enough to install values of self worth and knowledge in teh youth around me...not just kids....

Self control and knowledge of all items you/I mentioned is nuthing more than, corperate...blackmarkets racketeering...way to get the prices up, "make it illegal"

I'm way off topic here, but if your not smart enough to own a gun or have prescription medds and not keep from putting the gun in your mouth or overdosing...and need a gov't to hold your hand....thats up to you...

No I don't mean any of that personally...in any way shape or form was this meant as an attack towards...the poster...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
No I don't mean any of that personally...in any way shape or form was this meant as an attack towards...the poster...


I didn't read it that way.


I'm way off topic here, but if your not smart enough to own a gun or have prescription medds and not keep from putting the gun in your mouth or overdosing...and need a gov't to hold your hand....thats up to you...


That's a perfectly fine argument except for the fact that a person who is to dumb/insane/evil to own a gun usually kills people other than themselves. If it was just suicide victims we were discussing, I'ld agree but that's just not the case.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
The implication here is clear. People will use whatever weapon they can find. Technically, a gun may be more effective, but that doesn't make other means ineffective, and the numbers bear that out.


You're wonderful at arguing with things you wish I'd said.

The implications can easily be spun the other way, if those 2/3 (whatever age) of people using guns for murder had to try to kill someone using other means they would be less effective, the figures suggest that less people would die if there were fewer guns available.

Statistics don't trump logic because they're too easily manipulated and they ignore big chunks of the story, that's why I don't bother with them. Do we really need to do this dance?

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


But would they be less effective? Theoretically, yes. In reality? That's the question. Most of the time, the perp is going to ensure that its NOT a fair fight.

I can understand why you'd ignore the statistics, though. Logic? Your argument is based almost entirely in emotion and a self-righteous sense of moral superiority.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

But would they be less effective? Theoretically, yes. In reality? That's the question. Most of the time, the perp is going to ensure that its NOT a fair fight.


And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun. You said it yourself, there is no (personal) weapon that is more effective than a gun. A murder attempt with any other weapon is going to be less effective. There really is no question.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


as far as the arguement of a dumb person or insane person having a gun....that falls under the issue of self control, and personal decisions of how that person that is now your responsabilty should be handled.

Yes I would feel very very bad to kill a short bus kidd playing cowboys and indians with a real pistol ...that did not understand it was real...

But by odds alone thats a very uhhh not so likely to happen issue there, take away guns to prtect us from the window lickin short bus kids gone wild....now thats good comedy...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun. You said it yourself, there is no (personal) weapon that is more effective than a gun. A murder attempt with any other weapon is going to be less effective. There really is no question.


So you've turned around?

Unless you can come up with some way to removed every gun from the planet and wipe all books and minds of the physics and chemistry involved in manufacturing them then you have just concluded that we are all safer if armed.

These gun threads always result in too many of the most pointless pages. Two brick walls babbling on about nothing.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
And whatever way you cut it, no matter what weapon the "perp" has, the fight is fairer if he doesn't have a gun.


I think you're missing the point. There's not actually going to be a fight. In many of these cases, the victim never sees it coming, regardless of the weapon used. That's why I said that a gun is more effective 'in theory'. As a practical matter, the gap isn't that large.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 


I really have very little idea what you're saying.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


If we can eradicate smallpox we can eradicate guns. It really isn't very hard, it just takes a little bit of will. I have no issue with detailing a plan to do it effectively but it's not complex, you could probably work it out for yourself with a tiny bit of effort.

reply to post by vor78
 


I really don't think I have missed your point, you say that people will try to kill with or without a gun and my response is that they would be less effective without a gun. I can't see anything confusing in the exchange.

Even if we follow your logic and there's no gap because the victim won't see a murder coming then you'd have to concede that a gun cannot be used defensively.

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Well, smallpox still exists.

Manageable levels =/= eradication.

There is no way to get rid of them. Not possible.

Maybe perpetual searches of home and person for every human alive and immediate hanging of anyone found with one and anyone who may have seen it as to prevent the cascading of knowledge of construction would do it but anything short of that will not.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Well, smallpox still exists.


The last cases were in 1978!! In what sense does it exist? I've been led to believe it was eradicated but, if I'm wrong, I'd be interested to hear about it.

You don't need to go so far as hanging people found with a gun, you could just give them a lengthy jail sentence. It might not get rid of every gun but it would eliminate the threat they present.

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
It might not get rid of every gun but it would eliminate the threat they present.

[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]


What sense does that make?

You just said you cant get rid of every gun (threat) but you can eliminate (get rid of) the threat (gun).

Whaaaaaaaaaa?????????



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You just said you cant get rid of every gun (threat) but you can eliminate (get rid of) the threat (gun).


You just said you cant get rid of every gun (might not, but I'd hope it would) but you can eliminate (get rid of) the threat (being shot by a gun).

You present confusion where none exists, a gun encased in concrete presents no threat, the threat is being shot by a gun.





[edit on 23/6/10 by pieman]





new topics




 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join