Sounds to me like you mean logical arguments go out the window and you let the permanent climate of fear and distrust decide for you.
What's the solution then? Ban all guns in the USA? There are so many here already that really won't work. If someone could come up with a workable solution I would like to hear it. I do wish there were better background checks when people go to buy a gun, it is too easy, that may help a little. And of course going back to the subject of this thread, it was crazy to let a child of that age use such a weapon. I cannot comprehend why her parents would think that was a good idea. Anyway, I am not going to argue on this forum about such things. It always gets too personal and people get upset. My fault for commenting in the first place really, I know better.
No, I mean you let the irrational fear overcome all the rational arguments that say even in that environment, your chances of survival are better if you don't possess a handgun.
No, I mean you let the irrational fear overcome all the rational arguments that say even in that environment, your chances of survival are better if you don't possess a handgun.
Not a true statement though, your chances of survival are higher if you own a gun, secure the gun safely and are trained to use it. The stats reflect the idiots who don't follow gun saftey rules...so don't be an idiot and you're fine.
And every burglar can get your own ("clean") weapon, selling it to mentally ill. And there are nice uses for legal weapons: killing wife, kids, some judges, executer etc.
Getting illegal weapons is not a difficult task at all here, go to any seedy bar and you'll find someone who can supply you with one.
The logic you are using suggests removing legal guns would decrease the availability to criminals, it wouldn't at this point...maybe 100yrs ago...but not now with 300 mil in circulation and more readily available via Mexico.
Oh and owning a gun doesn't suddenly force you to execute your family...insert eyeroll.
The stats reflect the idiots who don't follow gun saftey rules...so don't be an idiot and you're fine.
No, the stats reflect the people who thought they were doing everything right, were perfectly rational, not prone to jumping to conclusions and who were totally convinced that their kids above all others were perfectly well behaved and properly respectful. And then turned out to be idiots. There's a difference. Just like 99% of drivers on the roads consider themselves 'above average', whereas statistics, merely by definition, say otherwise.
No, the stats reflect the people who thought they were doing everything right, were perfectly rational, not prone to jumping to conclusions and who were totally convinced that their kids above all others were perfectly well behaved and properly respectful. And then turned out to be idiots. There's a difference. Just like 99% of drivers on the roads consider themselves 'above average', whereas statistics, merely by definition, say otherwise.
That's all assumption, the fact there are millions upon millions of gun owners who don't shoot their family or accidentally blow their brains out is a greater stat than the stats for the idiots that do...
Personally I'd feel safer following a 99.99% stat than a .01% stat...
But Kinder Eggs, they're so dangerous they have to be banned, right? People have been fined hundreds of dollars just for carrying one over the border from Canada.
I mean, it's against the law in the US to supply a nine-year-old-girl with a Kinder Egg because the non-edible content is considered too hazardous. But supplying the same child with a loaded Uzi set to fully-automatic is a matter for individual judgement, as that's clearly far less hazardous. I mean, it's not like you'd be breaking a law or anything.
Personally I keep my chocolate eggs in a temperature-controlled locked safe, and both of my nieces are fully instructed in proper chocolate safety in case they visit, so we're all going to be fine, right?
One homicide every 45 minutes, twice that in suicides, and 3 unintentional deaths every day. Completely unrelated to Kinder Eggs. You're right - got those priorities spot-on.
Better with Creme Eggs. Imagine if the last thing you tasted before having the top of your head blown off was that sappy thin chocolate of a Kinder Egg.
But I think you'd have to give the Uzi away free with a pack of three Creme Eggs or something. Otherwise some fatty kid might accidentally swallow the firing pin or a couple of rounds, or maybe the whole magazine. Then what would happen...? "Daddy, I'm very sorry, I was cracking one off and I shot the cat".
"you're more likely to die of a gun related injury if you own a gun"...that can pretty much be said for any object!
"you're more likely to die of a car related injury if you own a car"
"You're more likely to die of a knife related injury if you own a knife"
"You're more likely to die of a fall in the tub if you don't own a slip mat"
etc etc.../insert eyeroll
all these may be true, but isn't the gun one more relevant because it's the only one where people are claiming/implying the opposite to be true? no one is arguing that the others aren't true
I mean, it's against the law in the US to supply a nine-year-old-girl with a Kinder Egg because the non-edible content is considered too hazardous. But supplying the same child with a loaded Uzi set to fully-automatic is a matter for individual judgement, as that's clearly far less hazardous. I mean, it's not like you'd be breaking a law or anything.
I am sure we could find lots of ridiculous ironic European laws as well.
Yep, we ban all sorts of pointless stuff, like artificial growth hormones in meat intended for human consumption, or grinding animal scraps up and feeding them back to the very same livestock.
But don't worry, under the latest trade deal our governments are cooking up, those US firms will be able to sue the UK for implementing such silly laws that harm their profits.
One homicide every 45 minutes, twice that in suicides, and 3 unintentional deaths every day.
By humans...not guns...you understand that point right? (and it's less that 2 unintentional ones a day according to mile's 600 a year figure).
You can go back and look at the % that 600 actually works out to when you take into consideration there are 300 million guns in the US...it was .000001 or something like that ;). Not much risk at all really.
all these may be true, but isn't the gun one more relevant because it's the only one where people are claiming/implying the opposite to be true? no one is arguing that the others aren't true
It's irrelevant to the point that I was making...that being the stat that states, "you are more likely to die from a gun incident if you own one" is a pointless and obvious stat.
..my examples were to point out that silliness as pretty much ANY object, including Kinder eggs...increases your risk of dying by it's misuse, or other peoples misuse of it than if you didn't have the object in your home..rending the stat...moot and pointless.
So there are more murders by knife and hands/feet than there are with rifles and shotguns...
So in that case, stop justifying the possession of handguns through the arguments used for ownership of hunting and game-control rifles (which no-one here is debating). They're clearly completely separate.
So in that case, stop justifying the possession of handguns through the arguments used for ownership of hunting and game-control rifles (which no-one here is debating). They're clearly completely separate.
I don't believe I did...anywhere...
btw, a legal item doesn't need to be justified...it's already been justified hence it's legality... ;)
It's the person/group who want to change the current laws who have to justify their case...and 10k or so deaths in the grand scheme of things...really isn't a valid justification. I know it sounds like a high number, but again with 300million guns knocking around...it isn't.
Especially where there are greater number of deaths through other objects misuse.
Yep, we ban all sorts of pointless stuff, like artificial growth hormones in meat intended for human consumption, or grinding animal scraps up and feeding them back to the very same livestock.
But don't worry, under the latest trade deal our governments are cooking up, those US firms will be able to sue the UK for implementing such silly laws that harm their profits.
Of course everything is perfect and lovely in Europe and there are no stupid, pointless or harmful laws at all :roll:.
USA evil! :evil: EU perfect! :cool:
USA laws are by no means perfect, but then neither are the EU's or any country for that matter.
10k or so deaths in the grand scheme of things...really isn't a valid justification. I know it sounds like a high number, but again with 300million guns knocking around...it isn't.
Shouldn't one perhaps be comparing the number of deaths to the number of people, rather than the number of guns? After all, it's the people who are dying, not the guns. And as you pointed out, it's also people overwhelmingly responsible for firing them. And when you do that, the US is significantly far out in front, with over 40 times what the UK suffers per million people.
Shouldn't one perhaps be comparing the number of deaths to the number of people, rather than the number of guns?
Not if we are observing the stat that having a gun increases your chance of it being used on you or your family...logically..observing that stat...if you have 100 guns in you home your increase the risk by a factor of 100 (more availability/chance of accidents when maintaining them etc).
After all, it's the people who are dying, not the guns. And as you pointed out, it's also people overwhelmingly responsible for firing them. And when you do that, the US is significantly far out in front, with over 40 times what the UK suffers per million people.
The number of guns is more important than the number of gun owners.
If 100 guns get stolen from your home that's 100 guns in the hands of criminals...instead of just 1 if you owned and had 1 stolen ;)
all these may be true, but isn't the gun one more relevant because it's the only one where people are claiming/implying the opposite to be true? no one is arguing that the others aren't true
It's irrelevant to the point that I was making...that being the stat that states, "you are more likely to die from a gun incident if you own one" is a pointless and obvious stat.
..my examples were to point out that silliness as pretty much ANY object, including Kinder eggs...increases your risk of dying by it's misuse, or other peoples misuse of it than if you didn't have the object in your home..rending the stat...moot and pointless.
sorry I don't agree, it's not irrelevant and it's not the same as saying the same thing about any object. because:
no one is going round claiming that you're less likely to die in a car accident if you do own a car. no one is going round saying you're less likely to die in a bizarre lawnmower accident if you do own a lawnmower. etc, etc
but people are saying you're safer and less likely to die from guns if you do own a gun to protect yourself. and if that is in fact not the case, then it's a stat worth singling out and drawing attention to.
it's not the end of the argument but it does help tip it in favour of the anti-gun squad.
sorry I don't agree, it's not irrelevant and it's not the same as saying the same thing about any object. because:
no one is going round claiming that you're less likely to die in a car accident if you do own a car. no one is going round saying you're less likely to die in a bizarre lawnmower accident if you do own a lawnmower. etc, etc
Well simply because "they" don't say it doesn't mean it's not irrelevant...discussion (or lack thereof) about it doesn't change the risks. The focus on guns is out of proportion when you look at death stats from other objects.
It's a bit like people being afraid of flying but getting in a car without a second thought...it's an irrational fear.
but people are saying you're safer and less likely to die from guns if you do own a gun to protect yourself. and if that is in fact not the case, then it's a stat worth singling out and drawing attention to.
It is the case if you are a responsible gun owner...again the stat doesn't take into consideration the fact that it's irresponsible people killing each other....not the responsible gun owners, at least not in numbers of any importance.
it's not the end of the argument but it does help tip it in favour of the anti-gun squad.
Nope, because they are blindly taking a stat on face value without actually breaking it down.
Buying a gun doesn't suddenly change you into a raving lunatic (too much salt could though).
Comments
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
What's the solution then? Ban all guns in the USA? There are so many here already that really won't work. If someone could come up with a workable solution I would like to hear it. I do wish there were better background checks when people go to buy a gun, it is too easy, that may help a little. And of course going back to the subject of this thread, it was crazy to let a child of that age use such a weapon. I cannot comprehend why her parents would think that was a good idea. Anyway, I am not going to argue on this forum about such things. It always gets too personal and people get upset. My fault for commenting in the first place really, I know better.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Not a true statement though, your chances of survival are higher if you own a gun, secure the gun safely and are trained to use it. The stats reflect the idiots who don't follow gun saftey rules...so don't be an idiot and you're fine.
Getting illegal weapons is not a difficult task at all here, go to any seedy bar and you'll find someone who can supply you with one.
The logic you are using suggests removing legal guns would decrease the availability to criminals, it wouldn't at this point...maybe 100yrs ago...but not now with 300 mil in circulation and more readily available via Mexico.
Oh and owning a gun doesn't suddenly force you to execute your family...insert eyeroll.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
That's all assumption, the fact there are millions upon millions of gun owners who don't shoot their family or accidentally blow their brains out is a greater stat than the stats for the idiots that do...
Personally I'd feel safer following a 99.99% stat than a .01% stat...
"you're more likely to die of a gun related injury if you own a gun"...that can pretty much be said for any object!
"you're more likely to die of a car related injury if you own a car"
"You're more likely to die of a knife related injury if you own a knife"
"You're more likely to die of a fall in the tub if you don't own a slip mat"
etc etc.../insert eyeroll
I mean, it's against the law in the US to supply a nine-year-old-girl with a Kinder Egg because the non-edible content is considered too hazardous. But supplying the same child with a loaded Uzi set to fully-automatic is a matter for individual judgement, as that's clearly far less hazardous. I mean, it's not like you'd be breaking a law or anything.
Personally I keep my chocolate eggs in a temperature-controlled locked safe, and both of my nieces are fully instructed in proper chocolate safety in case they visit, so we're all going to be fine, right?
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Guns are as dangerous as Kinder Eggs..until a human misuses them...until then they are inanimate objects and quite safe.
Oh and...
"A Birmingham mother whose three-year-old daughter choked to death on a toy inside a Kinder chocolate egg is backing a campaign to ban the sweets.
Jennifer Ashton, of Kitwell, Bartley Green, died in 1989 after swallowing a tiny part of a Pink Panther model inside a Kinder Surprise egg. "
;)
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
And yes, they really would be a surprise that way.
But I think you'd have to give the Uzi away free with a pack of three Creme Eggs or something. Otherwise some fatty kid might accidentally swallow the firing pin or a couple of rounds, or maybe the whole magazine. Then what would happen...? "Daddy, I'm very sorry, I was cracking one off and I shot the cat".
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
crazy. shame americans don't do irony*
*joke
:lol: That is funny. I am sure we could find lots of ridiculous ironic European laws as well.
But don't worry, under the latest trade deal our governments are cooking up, those US firms will be able to sue the UK for implementing such silly laws that harm their profits.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
By humans...not guns...you understand that point right? (and it's less that 2 unintentional ones a day according to mile's 600 a year figure).
You can go back and look at the % that 600 actually works out to when you take into consideration there are 300 million guns in the US...it was .000001 or something like that ;). Not much risk at all really.
It's irrelevant to the point that I was making...that being the stat that states, "you are more likely to die from a gun incident if you own one" is a pointless and obvious stat.
..my examples were to point out that silliness as pretty much ANY object, including Kinder eggs...increases your risk of dying by it's misuse, or other peoples misuse of it than if you didn't have the object in your home..rending the stat...moot and pointless.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html
Murders by weapon type. (check the link for the full list)
Handguns 6,009
Rifles 358
Shotguns 373
Other guns 96
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 745
Knives or cutting instruments 1,704
So there are more murders by knife and hands/feet than there are with rifles and shotguns...
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I don't believe I did...anywhere...
btw, a legal item doesn't need to be justified...it's already been justified hence it's legality... ;)
It's the person/group who want to change the current laws who have to justify their case...and 10k or so deaths in the grand scheme of things...really isn't a valid justification. I know it sounds like a high number, but again with 300million guns knocking around...it isn't.
Especially where there are greater number of deaths through other objects misuse.
Of course everything is perfect and lovely in Europe and there are no stupid, pointless or harmful laws at all :roll:.
USA evil! :evil: EU perfect! :cool:
USA laws are by no means perfect, but then neither are the EU's or any country for that matter.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Not if we are observing the stat that having a gun increases your chance of it being used on you or your family...logically..observing that stat...if you have 100 guns in you home your increase the risk by a factor of 100 (more availability/chance of accidents when maintaining them etc).
After all, it's the people who are dying, not the guns. And as you pointed out, it's also people overwhelmingly responsible for firing them. And when you do that, the US is significantly far out in front, with over 40 times what the UK suffers per million people.
The number of guns is more important than the number of gun owners.
If 100 guns get stolen from your home that's 100 guns in the hands of criminals...instead of just 1 if you owned and had 1 stolen ;)
no one is going round claiming that you're less likely to die in a car accident if you do own a car. no one is going round saying you're less likely to die in a bizarre lawnmower accident if you do own a lawnmower. etc, etc
but people are saying you're safer and less likely to die from guns if you do own a gun to protect yourself. and if that is in fact not the case, then it's a stat worth singling out and drawing attention to.
it's not the end of the argument but it does help tip it in favour of the anti-gun squad.
no one is going round claiming that you're less likely to die in a car accident if you do own a car. no one is going round saying you're less likely to die in a bizarre lawnmower accident if you do own a lawnmower. etc, etc
Well simply because "they" don't say it doesn't mean it's not irrelevant...discussion (or lack thereof) about it doesn't change the risks. The focus on guns is out of proportion when you look at death stats from other objects.
It's a bit like people being afraid of flying but getting in a car without a second thought...it's an irrational fear.
but people are saying you're safer and less likely to die from guns if you do own a gun to protect yourself. and if that is in fact not the case, then it's a stat worth singling out and drawing attention to.
It is the case if you are a responsible gun owner...again the stat doesn't take into consideration the fact that it's irresponsible people killing each other....not the responsible gun owners, at least not in numbers of any importance.
it's not the end of the argument but it does help tip it in favour of the anti-gun squad.
Nope, because they are blindly taking a stat on face value without actually breaking it down.
Buying a gun doesn't suddenly change you into a raving lunatic (too much salt could though).
I rather thought that was the whole point of them.
Shouldn't the stats show deaths through correct use of a gun?