Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Chris]

Chris why are you including suicides given that in the overwhelming majority of the cases the person attempting to end his own life would simply find another means to that end. It is after all a fairly simple process to end you own life. All you need is a few minutes alone or behind the wheel to get the job done. Japan has almost no privately held fire arms and one of the highest suicide rates in the world and guns are almost never used.

The issue is gun deaths. Of course you would include suicides.

The point is that guns make it easy to kill yourself and others, and most of these gun deaths occur in a moment of passion or depression. That is why guns are a threat to the people that own them and their families.

The state statistics show that a little bit of regulation of guns can go a long way to preventing gun deaths. Pretty simple really.

But the gun lovers will never see it.

 

[Chris]

I was telling a friend at work about this discussion and she told me the following story...

Her mother and father in law were hard core gun people. They always argued with my friend about gun control. One Christmas they gave their daughter a handgun, but when they gave it to her, her husband insisted that he wanted it, so they gave it to him instead. One year later, he used the gun to kill their daughter and himself.

They never argue with my friend about gun control anymore.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I was telling a friend at work about this discussion and she told me the following story...

Her mother and father in law were hard core gun people. They always argued with my friend about gun control. One Christmas they gave their daughter a handgun, but when they gave it to her, her husband insisted that he wanted it, so they gave it to him instead. One year later, he used the gun to kill their daughter and himself.

They never argue with my friend about gun control anymore.

oh Christ .....he is right guns should be banned....I'm sorry Chris this story just put me over to your way of thinking.....i mean if they would have just said NO this gun is for our daughter,she would be alive today.....

 

[garyd]

Chris you don't count suicides since they would almost certainly still be dead regardless all you would have done is changed the method of their death to something perhaps a liitle bit messy or something that may have put others at risk.

I'm glad the cretins at Columbine had guns otherwise they might have stuck with their original plans and the death toll would have been closer to a thousand than under twenty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I was telling a friend at work about this discussion and she told me the following story...

Her mother and father in law were hard core gun people. They always argued with my friend about gun control. One Christmas they gave their daughter a handgun, but when they gave it to her, her husband insisted that he wanted it, so they gave it to him instead. One year later, he used the gun to kill their daughter and himself.

They never argue with my friend about gun control anymore.

what a stupid story to hide an argument behind. there are stories to counter everyone like this you have. try a reasoned argument for a change and ditch the tug on the emotional strings...


blech..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well let's see the first part is almost the slogan of New Hampshire (and I'm pretty sure a slogan of ye olde rebels), and the second part is the exact opposite of a Ben Franklin quote. ...

Anyway there's this quote by Jefferson which is really nice

"what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Anyway

"Because a gun makes it easy to kill yourself or others in a fit of passion or depression or drunkenness"

As do knives, shall we ban those next? Britain seems to be going down that slope with really ugly results. Alcohol is also required to kill someone in drunkenness, shall we ban that next (because that worked out oh so well in the 20s). After all alcohol is a threat to families because one of them can drink too much and then beat up or kill their family, or a child can get to the alcohol drink it and die of alcohol poisoning.

cute. I like the sentiment.

 

[Father Time]

I was telling a friend at work about this discussion and she told me the following story...

Her mother and father in law were hard core gun people. They always argued with my friend about gun control. One Christmas they gave their daughter a handgun, but when they gave it to her, her husband insisted that he wanted it, so they gave it to him instead. One year later, he used the gun to kill their daughter and himself.

They never argue with my friend about gun control anymore.

Sorry but just because some jerk used it to kill his family is no reason to take it away from everyone.

I'd LOVE to see you go up to a gun owner and say 'a person you've never heard of and probably never met killed himself and his family with a gun so now you can't have a gun. Yes it's true you had absolutely nothing to do with the incident and couldn't have prevented it, but we're still going to punish you anyway so that we may deal with our grief.'

I wonder what his response is going to be.

 

[Dr Grump]

I thought you folks lived in a civilised society. No need for guns....heh...

 

[Chris]

oh Christ .....he is right guns should be banned....I'm sorry Chris this story just put me over to your way of thinking.....i mean if they would have just said NO this gun is for our daughter,she would be alive today.....

Who knows?

The husband having a gun made it easy for him to kill his wife and himself. That is the point. Guns make it easy for people to kill themselves and their family members.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who knows?

The husband having a gun made it easy for him to kill his wife and himself. That is the point. Guns make it easy for people to kill themselves and their family members.

what a great post. thanks. I''ll add it to the list.

 

[Chris]

what a great post. thanks. I''ll add it to the list.

Thanks.

How is your dog doing?

 

[LOki]

The issue is gun deaths.

What is so preferrable about [some other kind of] death, that you wish to elimate "gun death" to achieve it?

Considering that guns are involved in the prevention of more deaths--the SAVING of more lives--than they facilitate, why do you prefer elimination of guns to the saving of lives?

Why do you insist upon isolating "gun deaths" from the [other kinds of] deaths that defensive gun use so very often prevents? If lowering the incidence of "gun deaths" results in the increase in [some other kind of] death, why do you prefer these [other kinds of] death to "gun death?" Why do you insist we are all better off by this increase in these [other kinds of] death that were so clearly prevented by the defensive use of guns?

Why do you prefer [some other kind of] death to "gun death?"

 

[mightypeon]

If think what Chris kinda wants to bring is the following:

Evolutionary, our Anger managment is quite equivalent to an ape. This means that we start getting violent towards members of the same species at roughly the point were an ape would. Obviously, for both an Ape and an unarmed Human, killing another ape/unarmed human is relativly difficult. Since that is not that bad, humans had no evolutionary neccessity to implement a more drastic control of their violent emotions. Most predators on the other hand are by far less agressive towards their own species than humans or apes, Lions and other animals commiting infanticide are the expection.
The trouble is, a human with a gun is a good deal more deadly than a Tiger, but his evolutionary anger managment does not take account of this.

 

[Chris]

What is so preferrable about [some other kind of] death, that you wish to elimate "gun death" to achieve it?

Considering that guns are involved in the prevention of more deaths--the SAVING of more lives--than they facilitate, why do you prefer elimination of guns to the saving of lives?

Why do you insist upon isolating "gun deaths" from the [other kinds of] deaths that defensive gun use so very often prevents? If lowering the incidence of "gun deaths" results in the increase in [some other kind of] death, why do you prefer these [other kinds of] death to "gun death?" Why do you insist we are all better off by this increase in these [other kinds of] death that were so clearly prevented by the defensive use of guns?

Why do you prefer [some other kind of] death to "gun death?"

Guns don't prevent deaths, they cause them. The gun as a defense argument is bogus. Guns are rarely used for defense. If you own a gun, you are twice as likely to be killed by a gun, so guns are dangerous to their owners.

 

[del]

Guns don't prevent deaths, they cause them. The gun as a defense argument is bogus. Guns are rarely used for defense. If you own a gun, you are twice as likely to be killed by a gun, so guns are dangerous to their owners.

when you pull stuff like this out of your ass, would you at least have the decency to give it a quick wash before posting it? it smells.

 

[Chris]

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.[9]

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[10]

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[11]

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks.

How is your dog doing?

Great. Thanks for asking. Like my mom, he says hello.

*wink

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

when you pull stuff like this out of your ass, would you at least have the decency to give it a quick wash before posting it? it smells.

poor Chris, all those lonely nights with that inebriated red head and what does he got to show for it?

Thanks.

How is your dog doing?

- a faux set of balls. He gets to play tough guy from behind a console. ooooh baby, he's a winner.

 

[LOki]

Guns don't prevent deaths, they cause them.

Guns prevent deaths, over a million times a year.

The gun as a defense argument is bogus.

Says you.

Guns are rarely used for defense.

Over a million times a year beat "rarely" any day.

If you own a gun, you are twice as likely to be killed by a gun, so guns are dangerous to their owners.

Why do you insist upon isolating "gun deaths" from the [other kinds of] deaths that defensive gun use so very often prevents? Why do you prefer [some other kind of] death to "gun death?"

 

[LOki]

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.[9]

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[10]

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[11]

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

[9] Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." J, Trauma 1998; 45(2):263-67.​

Most non-lethal uses of guns for self defense were not counted because if they were, Kellerman could not support his bullshit assertion; and half of the injuries and deaths counted were deliberately self inflicted, without which, Kellerman's bullshit assertion has only half of it's hysteria power.

[10]Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 1084-1091​

Most non-lethal uses of guns for self defense were not counted because if they were, Kellerman could not support his bullshit assertion; and half of the injuries and deaths counted were deliberately self inflicted, without which, Kellerman's bullshit assertion has only half of it's hysteria power.

[11]Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-472​

Proving only that people who choose guns to facilitate their suicide are people who are not suicide chumps.

So, why do you prefer [some other kind of] death to "gun death?"