Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[manifold]

Here are more accurate figures, although a little old...


The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people.

Ok for that year it was 1 gun death per 7,000 people.

Why is that an unacceptably high?

Are you saying that you'd be ok with 1 per 12,000?

What number would you be ok with?

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again a progressive confuses her skewed perception with reality. Always a risky tactic. In this case there is absolutely nothing in my stated position which could even potentially lead a reasonably intelligent person to conclude that my position represents an advocacy for greater government regulation interfering with the God given right of the individual to own and use firearms... yet this dipstick can't resist to pull just such a conclusion from her own intellectual flatulence.



Look dumbass... human nature tends towards violence... where the individual lacks the discipline to produce talents enabling them to offer goods and services representing sufficient value to others that the exchange of said goods and services produce a sufficient means to thrive or at least survive, they will inevitably develope an irrational envy of those that do, rationalize from the envy that they are due the same which they obvserve others having , by virtue of their mere existance and seek to deprive the producers of their property... the result of which will most likely rob the producer the producer of their health and potentially their lives in the pursuit of robbing them of their rights of their rights... the ONLY THING which deters this nature is the impression in the mind of the leftists, that the RISK of robbing the producer is GREATER than the potential gain... TAKE AWAY THE INSTRUMENT OF DETERENCE (a fire-arm)and you're CERTAIN TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY FOR VIOLENCE and the injuries and death common to such... We have had regulations prohibiting robbery and assault since time in memorial and they offer virtually no deterent effect. The fire-arm on the other hand offers a remarkable deterence...



It is the sacred duty of every free man to arm himself with the means to defend his life and that of his neighbor from those who would violate his God given rights. This is without regard to the given popularity of a position, meaning my position is wholly distinct from your position... my position rest upon the authority of Nature's God... your's rests on the authority of your own personal opinion.

I'm prepared to allow a secularist to ride on the validity of my position, but you'll never find my arguments resting upon the faux validity of implied popularity and secular arguments rest upon little else.

Um .. okay ... then why would I have to prove my argument if you agree with it 100%?

To recap what I have stated and my position:

It is our duty to remain as armed, including guns, as the government which we are suppose to be in control of. Thus gun regulations are anti-American and unpatriotic.

The evidence I have used is that while gun related violence is down in areas of over regulation, all other violence is increased. That the criminals who use violence are braver in these areas as well and therefore more likely to commit a violent act toward their victims. Do you not agree with this now ... or are you once again agreeing with me? I have not changed my position on the debate but since you keep denying my facts it would stand to reason that you have and that you are now for more gun regulations being enacted, if this is the case then I disagree with you, but if you are for allowing citizens the right (duty as I see it) to bear arms then you are agreeing with me and asking for proof of my position is rather moronic.

I haven't yet even addressed the 'accidents' which are often used by those who are against the ownership of guns, however, almost all accidents with guns can be prevented with very simple steps that most intelligent people should be able to do without thinking. It's only logical that if you have children about you store the weapon in a safe place away from their reach, to do otherwise is a lack of intelligence on the gun owners part.

Guns do NOT kill people, people kill people.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here are more accurate figures, although a little old...

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths

BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

ROFLMNAO... and as usual all Chris ever does is to restate her failed argument.

As I said she simply lacks the means to THINK. She's an imbecile, who should simply be forbidden from voting. At that point it doesn't matter WHAT this idiot thinks.

It's always the same with these people... "GUN DEATHS"... as if death by a firearm is somehow more tragic than a death by slipping in the shower...

They never change, they never consider the benefit provided by fire arms and they dismiss THE INALIENABLE RIGHT... the INSEPARABLE RIGHT... to own and use a firearm. They dismiss the concept of individual right coompletely and as such, they're not subject to reason, civil discourse and thus not fit to live in a free society.

So fuck'em... We'll work it out in the civil war THEY will start... now before your intellect shrinks into the black hole create at your sphincter at the thought of civil war... consider their position on firearms and just calculate how much trouble that notion will actually present.

At the risk of wearing further a well worn cliche... they're essentially going to be bringing an irrational argument to a gun fight... a gunfight where the gun owner is finally through with lending civil credence to irrational argument; which is going to result in a very short conversation, indeed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sure it could be. I know next to nothing about statistics....but apparently I'm not the only one (okay bad little joke). But I did have to wrestle with some stats at uni (mainly to do with assessment of learning) and in doing some research work and I must admit I was stunned to learn what statisticians can do - I reckon they could almost foretell the future. Regression or something - funny way to label a way of prediction - regression, but that's what I remember.

I'd stay way from John Lott though.

Apparently, statistics is a very in-depth and complicated field of study. I understand enough about them to be able to interpret the results, usually, but I wouldn't even begin to know where to start in compiling or making a study of them.

What've you got against John Lott? He's a highly respected, thorough, and scholarly economist, by all accounts. The fact that some people believe that anyone with findings that disagree with their own worldview should automatically be disqualified as biased and unreliable simply BECAUSE his findings disagree with their worldview carries very little weight with me.

 

[Chris]

Ok for that year it was 1 gun death per 7,000 people.

Why is that an unacceptably high?

Are you saying that you'd be ok with 1 per 12,000?

What number would you be ok with?

Why is that unacceptably high?

Because we can do better!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Um .. okay ... then why would I have to prove my argument if you agree with it 100%?

While we may agree on this particular topic Publius, you have shown to be just as pig headed on other topics as Chris ...

That was your position sis... It was baseless and factually incorrect; you were challenged to support it; it was predicted that you'd fail and that is precisely what ya did...

I surely have said nothing which could have lead anyone of reason to conclude that I am in agreement with it. What's more, that I agree or disagree with your argument, does not relieve you of the responsibility to prove it's intellectual veracity.

We agree on the broad strokes of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own and use a fire-arm... That is not my bone of contention with you. With that said, your argument is poorly reasoned... the right to own a firearm rests in the natural right endowed by God... a right which rests in the life endowed by God and the sacred duty to defend that life, that sacred gift...

Our quarrel is a result of you're having poked the bear; such is inadvisable in the best of circumstances...

Now go in peace mullet-head.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is that unacceptably high?

Because we can do better!

Again... Chris has absolutely NO CONCERN for the deaths caused by those who were not deterred by the potential presence of a firearm... deaths causesd by violent assault... injuries caused by violent assault... the violations of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS...

She is simply spouting groundless statistics which are instruments in a lie... inaccurately illustrating the problems associated with cultures that have lent credence to left-think such as that this imbecile is spouting.

Washington DC has effectively banned the possession and ownship of firearms and one is substantially more likely to die as a result of violent crime in DC than in ANY PLACE in the US where it is legal to own and use a firearm in defense of life and property.

 

[Chris]

Again... Chris has absolutely NO CONCERN for the deaths caused by those who were not deterred by the potential presence of a firearm... deaths causesd by violent assault... injuries caused by violent assault... the violations of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS...

She is simply spouting groundless statistics which are instruments in a lie... inaccurately illustrating the problems associated with cultures that have lent credence to left-think such as that this imbecile is spouting.

Washington DC has effectively banned the possession and ownship of firearms and one is substantially more likely to die as a result of violent crime in DC than in ANY PLACE in the US where it is legal to own and use a firearm in defense of life and property.

D.C. banned handguns because of gang violence, and their murder rate dropped to half what is was in the 1990's.

Nice try though.

Of course you can't talk about Japan because they have a low crime rate and no guns, so that doesn't fit your worldview either.

Likewise you can't talk about the state statistics because they disprove your worldview also.

 

[manifold]

Why is that unacceptably high?

Because we can do better!

At what cost?

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns?

 

[del]

At what cost?

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns?

he is its embodiment.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

D.C. banned handguns because of gang violence, and their murder rate dropped to half what is was in the 1990's.

Nice try though.

Of course you can't talk about Japan because they have a low crime rate and no guns, so that doesn't fit your worldview either.

Likewise you can't talk about the state statistics because they disprove your worldview also.

Again... "Murder rate dropped..." No concern for the violent crime rates which are off the chart in DC... The simple fact is that where the right to own a firearm is restricted, violent crime goes up and that is without exception as it MUST go up; and this simply because the deterrent is removed.

It's a game of semantics with these imbeciles...

Beyond that, Gangs are a function of leftist policy wherein the concept of the nuclear family is directly undermined by said policy which rests in layers upon layers of cultural decadence, directly attributable to leftist policy; decadence which the ideological left defends and in so doing implements additional policy which further encourages more of the same, where we then find them running to resolve their last fiasco with ever more ludicrous depravity...

'Guns were banned because of Gangs and the murder rate went down.' PUHLEASE! So the thesis rests upon the premise that Gang-bangers were murdering people with handguns, so we banned handguns; this resulted in fewer Gang-bangers carrying handguns. thus fewer murders by gun-toting Gang-bangers... ROFLMNAO... GREAT! Only one problem... Gang bangers don't give a shit about your ban asswipe... They're outlaws... Thus DCs ban on handguns did not prevent a single gang banger from carrying a hand-gun... thus the statistical decrease in the murder rate MUST BE attributable to something other than the ban... Odds are and reason suggests, that such is a function of skewing the data to reflect the result one desires... a simple function of how the crime is classified.

I recall reading an article in the 90s wherein it was discovered that the Philidelphia 'murder-rate' had dramatically dropped; but this was found not to be because fewer lives were being taken without valid legal/moral justifications, but rather a result of the way the crimes were being classified. In one instance a woman was mercilessly raped, inevitably dying as a result of her injuries sustained in that assult, following a robbery... the rape was not logged, thus the death resulting from the rape was not attributed... only the robbery; thus the violent act/crime of 'rape' and the ensuing deathabsent a valid legal/moral justification, IE: murder, was not reflected in the statistical data. When a death occured as a result of a robbery... the robbery is statistically noted, the rape and murder was not.




NEXT!

 

[Diuretic]

Apparently, statistics is a very in-depth and complicated field of study. I understand enough about them to be able to interpret the results, usually, but I wouldn't even begin to know where to start in compiling or making a study of them.

What've you got against John Lott? He's a highly respected, thorough, and scholarly economist, by all accounts. The fact that some people believe that anyone with findings that disagree with their own worldview should automatically be disqualified as biased and unreliable simply BECAUSE his findings disagree with their worldview carries very little weight with me.

It wasn't that people disagreed with his findings, it was his methodology that was attacked, as the article at the link points out.

Econometric Modeling as Junk Science

 

[manifold]

Well Chris...

How low would gun deaths per capita have to go before you'd be satisfied that no more regulations are necessary?

1 in 12,000?
1 in 15,000?
1 in 20,000?
1 in 50,000?

Put a number on it.

 

[Chris]

Well Chris...

How low would gun deaths per capita have to go before you'd be satisfied that no more regulations are necessary?

1 in 12,000?
1 in 15,000?
1 in 20,000?
1 in 50,000?

Put a number on it.

No need to put a specific number on it, but it would be great if we could get it down to the level of Mass. or Conn. instead of Alaska or Nevada.

 

[manifold]

No need to put a specific number on it, but it would be great if we could get it down to the level of Mass. or Conn. instead of Alaska or Nevada.

Actually, there is a need to put a number on it. How else will you define and measure success?

 

[Chris]

Again... "Murder rate dropped..." No concern for the violent crime rates which are off the chart in DC... The simple fact is that where the right to own a firearm is restricted, violent crime goes up and that is without exception as it MUST go up; and this simply because the deterrent is removed.

It's a game of semantics with these imbeciles...

Beyond that, Gangs are a function of leftist policy wherein the concept of the nuclear family is directly undermined by said policy which rests in layers upon layers of cultural decadence, directly attributable to leftist policy; decadence which the ideological left defends and in so doing implements additional policy which further encourages more of the same, where we then find them running to resolve their last fiasco with ever more ludicrous depravity...

'Guns were banned because of Gangs and the murder rate went down.' PUHLEASE! So the thesis rests upon the premise that Gang-bangers were murdering people with handguns, so we banned handguns; this resulted in fewer Gang-bangers carrying handguns. thus fewer murders by gun-toting Gang-bangers... ROFLMNAO... GREAT! Only one problem... Gang bangers don't give a shit about your ban asswipe... They're outlaws... Thus DCs ban on handguns did not prevent a single gang banger from carrying a hand-gun... thus the statistical decrease in the murder rate MUST BE attributable to something other than the ban... Odds are and reason suggests, that such is a function of skewing the data to reflect the result one desires... a simple function of how the crime is classified.

I recall reading an article in the 90s wherein it was discovered that the Philidelphia 'murder-rate' had dramatically dropped; but this was found not to be because fewer lives were being taken without valid legal/moral justifications, but rather a result of the way the crimes were being classified. In one instance a woman was mercilessly raped, inevitably dying as a result of her injuries sustained in that assult, following a robbery... the rape was not logged, thus the death resulting from the rape was not attributed... only the robbery; thus the violent act/crime of 'rape' and the ensuing deathabsent a valid legal/moral justification, IE: murder, was not reflected in the statistical data. When a death occured as a result of a robbery... the robbery is statistically noted, the rape and murder was not.




NEXT!

While I agreed with you about gangs and the family, I believe tough gun laws and tough sentencing laws both deter crime.

There is no theft in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Chris]

Actually, there is a need to put a number on it. How else will you define and measure success?

Ok, how about the Mass. rate of 3.4 per 100,000?

 

[KittenKoder]

While I agreed with you about gangs and the family, I believe tough gun laws and tough sentencing laws both deter crime.

There is no theft in Saudi Arabia.

Don't they still chop off your hand if you steal?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ok, how about the Mass. rate of 3.4 per 100,000?

What is their total murder rate?

 

[manifold]

Ok, how about the Mass. rate of 3.4 per 100,000?

Ok, now where getting somewhere. You're ok with a little over 10,000 gun deaths per year nationwide.