Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I certainly remember reading stories like that, Tshile. I still contend that no one (or very, very few) need a gun NOW! You're probably right that there are exceptions that make this rule, however, if the woman who intends to leave the husband has the freedom to get away, go to a gun shop, purchase a gun, and return... then she also had the ability to leave, grab the kids, get on a bus, and get somewhere he wasn't and didn't know how to get to her.

 

Part of this points to a different problem though, that is, the problems of spousal abuse and the degree to which it is not taken seriously enough. The person being abused does need to have resources available to them and mechanisms to protect or support them. Too often that isn't the case. That does speak to the need for a gun, but it also points to many stories where the abusive partner gets the gun or takes the gun away from his spouse and then kills her with it. Just like you said to me... it's not a simple story. Getting a gun doesn't eliminate the danger and make the world a safe place. Sometimes, it does just the opposite.

 

That said, this is one of the good reasons for a person to own a gun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

This abusive husband constructive example is funny. In a world with no guns, how does the husband have one?

Yes, someone who doesn't care about the laws will get their hands on a gun -- see murder of UK MP. Or do harm with a knife or other radically violent method.

Stats I am looking at say in England, Scotland, and Wales gun homicides were in the 40s-50s in some years, with one year having 39 gun homicides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

if we traded populations with  England, Scotland, and Wales ...would the rates remain the same?

Never happen.

They won't take the Texans.

Germany perhaps is a country to model laws after (short of a complete ban) - gun owners under 25 go through a thorough psychological exam.

Wonder why only under 25? (No real opinion. Just assume that there's some information there that might be interesting.)

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Wow. 39 gun homicides a year. Sure would hate to be them.

We have 6 times the population in America - so American equivalent would be 300 gun deaths a year.

The numbers are staggering... US gun homicide rate is 10x that of Germany.

But hey - Constitutional rights trump natural rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

We have 6 times the population in America - so American equivalent would be 300 gun deaths a year.

The numbers are staggering... US gun homicide rate is 10x that of Germany.

But hey - Constitutional rights trump natural rights.

It's really inarguable except they keep arguing it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted (edited)

why not compare Wyoming rates to Texas?

 

we have more folk that need killing...or killing themselves to escape the heat and company :P

 

why is Wyoming lower than England/Wales?

 

 http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/86/number_of_gun_homicides/331,336,280

 

it sure isn't guns per person or a ban

 

add

 

which state has the most guns per capita?

http://reverbpress.com/politics/firearms-per-capita-by-state/

 

the one with the lowest gun homicide rate ....maybe guns aren't the problem

Edited by twa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

We have 6 times the population in America - so American equivalent would be 300 gun deaths a year.

The numbers are staggering... US gun homicide rate is 10x that of Germany.

But hey - Constitutional rights trump natural rights.

 

Germany's rate is staggering....60 times that of Wyoming 

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/86/number_of_gun_homicides/294,280,297,307,315,319,320,331,286,336,69

 

germany also shows more guns per capita for some reason....we need to disarm them again. :)

Nah, your comparison ignores population density, urban sprawl, and other factors which makes it a dumb one. 

 

so it is those factors and not guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

why not compare cherry picked data?

OK, so I paraphrased twa's post, a little.

If you actually look at his data, it claims that Wyoming had not one single gun homicide, for 2013.

Until you check the data, where they explain that

1) Their source for data is the CDC.

2) The CDC says that data for fewer than 20 gun deaths is unreliable, and should not be used.

3) And, since 2009, any state with fewer than 10 gun deaths has it's data suppressed. (Because it's unreliable.)

And, what do you know, twa is comparing areas that have hugely differing populations, and is presenting, not the gun homicide rate, but the number of himicides.

(But I'm sure that's not why he didn't explain how he generated that chart, or anything.)

I took the same four places that twa chose to compare. But I took their homicide rate (gun homicides per 100,000 people). And, to smooth out any outlier years, I took all the data they had, excluded years where the data was suppressed, and averaged those years together.

Results:

Texas:      3.97

Wyoming: 1.47

Ireland:     0.31

England:   0.04

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Wrong again.

Gun homicides per 100,000 people, averaged over every year they have data for.

Wyoming: 1.47

Germany: 0.15

It's 10-1, the opposite way from what you claimed.

And just to get away from the notion that cherry-picked, data suppressed, Wyoming, somehow represents something:

US: 4.03

Edit: How to get to the actual data.

Go to twa's link. Hover your mouse over the bar for the country/state, and click on it. That will take you to the actual data for the country/state. I'm using their data for "Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People"

 

The particular years for which they have data, varies depending on the country/state.  I have not attempted to compensate for years where they might have data for one place, but not for another.  Rather, I've simply taken however many years they have data for, and averaged them. 

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DallasCowboyFan156

DallasCowboyFan156

Posted
Posted

I liken it to a police officer taking away your keys after pulling you over. You didn't get due process to lose the right to drive home. Suspicion is sufficient. If your behaviors are erratic and dangerous enough... a temporary suspension pending trial seems not out of order.

.

The major difference between guns and your example is that driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right which the constitution says can only be taken away by due process. I myself am a liberal who is in favor of stricter background checks, closing the gun show loop hole, etc, but if the suspect is a citizen it poses unavoidable constitutional issues to say they can't buy a gun without at least being charged with something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

so you are saying you massaged the numbers  :D

I said exactly what I said. Which is not remotely close to the lie you just threw at me.

 

stats don't lie  :lol:

You, on the other hand, do. Repeatedly. As I've just pointed out.

The major difference between guns and your example is that driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right which the constitution says can only be taken away by due process.

Funny, my copy of the constitution doesn't say that.

Could you quote me the part of your copy, that does?

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

And, what do you know, twa is comparing areas that have hugely differing populations, and is presenting, not the gun homicide rate, but the number of himicides.

 

 

 

I demand a retraction....you can't even spell it much less read

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0crates

s0crates

Posted
Posted

Funny, my copy of the constitution doesn't say that.

Could you quote me the part of your copy, that does?

Well it does say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I imagine he's thinking that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is part of "liberty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Well it does say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I imagine he's thinking that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is part of "liberty."

And the part that says car keys aren't property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted

Never happen.

They won't take the Texans.

Wonder why only under 25? (No real opinion. Just assume that there's some information there that might be interesting.)

They'd definitely take the Texans - people abroad are fascinated by us.

As to the 25 mark, some studies have shown that people's brains (believe it was males in particular) have a portion of the brain that doesn't develop until around that age. If I recall, that portion is what tempers risk. It's a big reason for a push to change incarceration laws for offenders under 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...