Tuscon incident and gun control discussion

[Broomstick]

So we have 30.000 accidental gun deaths over 20 years. Wow. And that is just deaths, not counting injuries etc.

While that is not an acceptable number (I'm all for improved gun safety, and no question responsible gun ownership includes keeping them out of the hands of kids) remember that we have something like that number of fatal auto crashes a year, meaning over that same 20 year span we had 600,000 fatal car accidents (again, deaths, not just injuries). The US is a big country, a lot of people die every year from a lot of causes. While 30,000 over 20 years is a significant number and scary by itself it's by no means the leading cause of death in any demographic group. It's important, yes, but arguably not THE most important item on an agenda to reduce deaths.

[His Divine Shadow]

Do keep in mind that relative to other causes, guns do come in almost last, after poisoning by solids or gases, not sure which.... Then again I do suspect that number was shown that way for the express purpose of ignoring context. Also fatal gun accidents according to the National Safety Council has dropped almost 65% since 1975, so things have gotten a lot better.

*Snipped, I am repeating myself too often, made this point well enough by now*

[Todeswind]

According to Dr Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, about 550 rapes are prevented every day by firearms.

In the US? So you have 550 preventable rapes every day, out of how many rape attempts daily? A thousand? Two thousand?

Rape statistics are very hard to pin down as the definitions of what exactly ought to be considered "Rape" is often hotly contested. The UN claims that some 250,000 rapes are reported yearly which, they admit, is probably a pittance of how many actually occur worldwide (though they have previously claimed their estimate is roughly a quarter).

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and- ... stems.html

Assuming their right that puts the worldwide yearly rape statistics somewhere around a two hundred and fifty thousand to a million rapes a year. In order for Dr.Gary Klecks assumption to be right that would mean that guns thwart around two hundred thousand rapes yearly in the USA alone which seems generous at best.

[Shroom Man 777]

How the hell can anyone argue that it's not easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife? If a kid went around with a knife trying to do a school shooting, but with a knife instead of a gun, someone could just grab a chair to defend himself with against a knife-wielding nut because the knife-wielding nut has to come closer to inflict injury than a guy with a gun.

If someone comes at me with a gun, I can't defend myself with a chair because he can just stand a few meters away and shoot me. Whereas someone with a knife or a bat has to come near, allowing me time to react and pick some shit up and defend myself.

I mean, if someone came after me in the cafeteria with a gun, I'd be dead. But if he had a knife, he has to come close, and I can defend myself by throwing a vat of boiling cooking oil at him. Then as the guards haul me away, I can scream "None of you seem to understand, I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!"

How difficult is this to get?

[Rob Wilson]

How the hell can anyone argue that it's not easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife? If a kid went around with a knife trying to do a school shooting, but with a knife instead of a gun, someone could just grab a chair to defend himself with against a knife-wielding nut because the knife-wielding nut has to come closer to inflict injury than a guy with a gun.

If someone comes at me with a gun, I can't defend myself with a chair because he can just stand a few meters away and shoot me. Whereas someone with a knife or a bat has to come near, allowing me time to react and pick some shit up and defend myself.

Or you can throw the chair and while he ducks you run out of the room... oh wait that works in both situations. Well I guess your in trouble then because there have been no incidences whatsoever of trained gun users firing at each other at short or long ranges and missing each other. Damn you really are screwed, because obviously all people armed with guns make kill shots at long distance due to their stellar 100% accuracy. IF they have a gun they are going to shoot at the people nearest them, as they are the threat, and guess what, that's ranges that a knife will work at.

BTW if someone has a knife and your stupid enough to go closer to them, chair or not, you deserve all the pain they give you. Throw chair, run away.

I mean, if someone came after me in the cafeteria with a gun, I'd be dead. But if he had a knife, he has to come close, and I can defend myself by throwing a vat of boiling cooking oil at him. Then as the guards haul me away, I can scream "None of you seem to understand, I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!"

Your cafeteria has vats of boiling oil just lying around on the counter? You need to report theem for health and safety violations... oh wait your quoting a scene from watchmen, winner.

How difficult is this to get?

IF only life were full of 100% accurate gun-toting bad guys and knife users who are helpless against chairs.

Guy's I'm for Gun Control and even I can see and tear apart some of these objections. How about a bit more thought and less emotional 'debating'.

As i said in my first post, it would take a major change ion the US psyche to enable a 100% voluntary ban on firearms in the country. Arguing for it won't get you anywhere. Try looking into ways to control the poor use/bad habits of those that already own them.

Don't forget that the vast majority of gun owners na dusers in the US are very conscientiously safe in their storage and use. It's the rest and the criminals (plus over-zealous police officers/security guards) that seem to cause the problem.

How about soem decent debating here, and less emotional rants ( or quoting comic books).

[His Divine Shadow]

These "imagine a scenario in my head to prove a point" posts are some of the most useless elements of the debate anyway, never leads anywhere, it just turns into a who has the wildest fantasy contest.

[Knife]

I find a lot of these contrived senarios about knives and guns and physical combat silly. A person with a knife that is insistent on using it in a crowd could do a LOT of damage. Sure you lose the 'ranged' portion of a gun, but as I think Rob is trying to point out, people who go into a crowd and open fire probably aren't the greatest shot in the first place and rely on a dense target to maximize the body count. Going into a crowd and start swinging and stabbing and you're going to get a lot of deep tissue trauma and hemorrhaging. Being hit by a bullet isn't an insta-kill like in hollywood, or as evidenced by the people who tackled him with gunshot wounds, like wise being stabbed by a knife wouldn't be an insta-kill either. Not the point, the damage done by multiple knife wounds in a crowd would be horrific. Worse yet, these nutballs can't get a knife or a gun, they'll start strapping fertilizer bombs to themselves.

While I'm not advocating that you go get into a fight to see, before people start making these idealized pictures in their head where if a 'badguy' had a [insert weapon here] other than a gun, all his victims could just jog outside the range of that weapon and stay safe until cops arrive; and instead of wrestling the badguy down, ask nicely and slap some cuffs on him instead of shooting, shocking, beating the shit out of him with night sticks to disarm and control him; they should actually understand a bit or two about how combat and weapons work. And yes, I realize that was one hell of a run on sentence.

[K. A. Pital]

Or, like I said, there could be solid statistical proof that a knife is as dangerous as a gun (at least in registered crime cases). That's pretty simple - find the percentage of successful gun assaults (i.e. gun assaults turned into firearm murder) and compare it to the same for knives.

[Knife]

Or, like I said, there could be solid statistical proof that a knife is as dangerous as a gun (at least in registered crime cases). That's pretty simple - find the percentage of successful gun assaults (i.e. gun assaults turned into firearm murder) and compare it to the same for knives.

Maybe I'm just bad with google fu, but who the hell would have those stats? Should we have other info comparing lacerations to puncture wounds? Survivability between hemorrhage versus organ failure? Hypovolemic shock versus blunt force trauma? Lead poisoning versus steel poisoning?

[Broomstick]

For those stats I'd first go to the FBI and CDC. If they don't have something on that no one does.

[General Zod]

Since there are more deaths by guns than anything else, I don't see how anyone can draw the conclusion that knives can be just as lethal.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/33 ... _used.html

Code: Select all

Characteristic 	1980 	1981 	1982 	1983 	1984 	1985 	1986 	1987 	1988 	1989 	1990 	1991 	1992 	1993 	1994 	1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 

TYPE OF WEAPON 												 								
OR CAUSE OF DEATH 																				
  																				
Guns.................................................... 	62.4 	62.4 	60.2 	58.3 	59.0 	58.7 	59.1 	59.1 	60.6 	62.4 	64.3 	66.3 	68.2 	69.6 	70.0 	68.2 	67.5 	67.7 	64.9 	
  Handguns ........................................ 	45.8 	45.3 	43.5 	43.9 	43.8 	43.0 	43.9 	43.7 	45.3 	47.6 	49.8 	53.0 	55.4 	57.0 	57.8 	55.8 	54.6 	53.3 	52.1 	
Cutting or stabbing ........................... 	19.3 	19.4 	20.9 	21.8 	21.2 	21.1 	20.5 	20.3 	19.2 	18.2 	17.4 	15.8 	14.5 	12.8 	12.7 	12.6 	13.7 	13.0 	13.3 	
Blunt objects 1...................................... 	5.0 	5.2 	4.9 	5.7 	5.8 	5.5 	5.7 	5.8 	6.3 	6.0 	5.4 	5.1 	4.6 	4.4 	4.1 	4.5 	4.7 	4.6 	5.3 	
Personal weapons 2........................... 	5.9 	5.6 	6.7 	6.9 	6.6 	6.7 	6.8 	6.5 	6.1 	5.5 	5.5 	5.5 	5.0 	5.0 	5.3 	5.9 	6.1 	6.4 	6.7 	
Strangulations, 																				
asphyxiations..................................... 	2.3 	2.4 	2.4 	2.7 	2.5 	2.4 	2.6 	2.6 	2.2 	2.5 	2.0 	2.0 	1.9 	1.9 	1.8 	1.8 	2.0 	2.0 	2.2 	
Fire ..................................................... 	1.3 	1.3 	1.4 	1.2 	1.1 	1.4 	1.2 	1.1 	1.4 	1.2 	1.4 	0.9 	0.9 	0.9 	0.9 	0.8 	1.0 	0.9 	0.9 	
All other 3 .......................................... 	3.8 	3.6 	3.6 	3.5 	3.8 	4.2 	4.1 	4.6 	4.1 	4.1 	4.0 	4.3 	5.0 	5.4 	5.2 	6.1 	5.0 	5.3 	6.7 	

[His Divine Shadow]

Seems me there are two things you can do on the gun front in america that aren't impossible on the scale of making the drug war look winnable.

1) Make private sales without NICS checks illegal. This is a common way for criminals to get guns. Closing this off would be functionally equivalent to having to own a gun-permit for purchasing and owning guns. It would also be far, far easier to pass as a law than a firearms license scheme and probably be just as effective anyway (because the govt would probably just use the NICS system to see if they should hand out licenses or not to applicants).

2) Subsidise gun safes, stolen guns are another common method for criminals to get guns, try and lower prices of good safes and/or offer tax breaks to people who buy them.

[Rob Wilson]

Edit: a good control would be to look at statistical data from a country that isn't the US, or to compare the likelihood of death from a stabbing VS a shooting.

Something like this you mean. in the UK where guns are harder to get. knives are the weapons of choice. Well gosh it's almost as if what I've been saying all along is something that really happens. You'd think I'd had these debates before.

[Rob Wilson]

Personal weapons 2........................... 5.9 5.6 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.7

I've dealt with the table itself in answer to another post, but can I just say how funny I found it that personal weapons are defined as 'Hands, fists, feet, etc.'

[His Divine Shadow]

Thats a good point about the media and guns bit though. It's certainly an existing stereotype that criminals use guns in news and movies. It certainly brings guns to the forefront of ones mind. I'm getting this image of a feedback loop that keeps getting stronger, feeding of itself. Or to simplify: you're more likely to think of using a gun to kill first, before another tool, it's been drummed into you your whole life if you own a TV.

[Rob Wilson]

And why buy a machete when the average kitchen has a variety of knives, all of them more than adequate for mayhem and death? Knives are ubiquitous.

Knives are much more easily obtained than guns, so it's not lack of access to knives that make them less likely weapons than guns.

I personally think it comes down to the perception. People think that guns are worse and deadlier. There's also the intimidation factor, idiots are far more intimidated by guns than knives so tend to use them more themselves. Both are dangerous, but one has that extra feeling of danger about it.

In the UK, criminals seem to see the gun as a status symbol, or something you need to commit large scale crimes. Knives are cheap and therefore easy to get rid of and replace if you want to ditch any evidence, so they are far more used over here.

Oh and for those of you that still think they would fight back against an assailant with a knife. My wife is a Cash Office supervisor for a large discount chain in the UK, they have to watch video's of stores getting robbed so they know what to expect. 1 gang of 6 men hit 4 stores in rapid succession armed only with knives and machete's. Hazel says she'd never want to have that happen to her as the looks on the staff's faces during the robberies was pure terror.

As has been pointed out, taking away guns doesn't stop crime. Personally I don't want to take away peoples guns, if they want to go down a range and shoot at targets for fun, then that's their right, same as any other hobby. I just want them to know how to use them, keep them locked away (no need for them in the house really) and not wander around with them, thinking they'll magically turn into Clint Eastwood the first time someone tries to rob them.

[His Divine Shadow]

keep them locked away (no need for them in the house really)

By that I assume you mean use a safe in ones house, rather than some sort of centralized gun storing thingy.

[Alyeska]

I just want them to know how to use them, keep them locked away (no need for them in the house really)

If not in the house, where? Not everyone lives in a city where a centralized repository can be used. Not everyone lives near a gun club that can store the weapons. I live in Missoula Montana. The entire cities population is less than 70,000 people. I can drive for 5 minutes and be in farm land. Outside of city limits, its rural. What about people who live outside of town? What if I live in Lincoln Montana? A population of 1,100 people where you have to drive for an hour in any direction to find another settlement. What about people who live deep in the county? How about farmers? How about Alaskans?

[Serafina]

It all boils down to two simple points:

- Guns make killing and commiting crimes much easier, while they are not an effective deterrent to crime.
- Making access to guns harder will not prevent criminals from getting them if they really want to, but they will have to put more effort and money into it, lowering the number of guns used by criminals. Lowering the number of guns in the general population will also reduce the number of people who have easy access to them for murder etc, as well as the number of accidents. Last but not least, it makes tracking guns used in crime easier, since they will be less widespread.

As far as i have seen, no one has brought up anything that shows that guns are not more useful to criminals than knifes, that they are an effective deterrent to crime greater than their detrimental effect and that making access to guns harder has no effect on their spread amongst criminals.

[Formless]

- Guns make killing and commiting crimes much easier, while they are not an effective deterrent to crime.

*snip*

As far as i have seen, no one has brought up anything that shows that guns are not more useful to criminals than knifes,

Only because you haven't been paying attention. We just spent a page arguing that your first point is more perception than fact, that criminals in the UK have no problem causing mayhem with knives, and that only an idiot approaches a knife wielding attacker. You keep stating these things like they are indesputable or something, but I have yet to see you actually back up your points with hard evidence.

[Serafina]

- Guns make killing and commiting crimes much easier, while they are not an effective deterrent to crime.

*snip*

As far as i have seen, no one has brought up anything that shows that guns are not more useful to criminals than knifes,

Only because you haven't been paying attention. We just spent a page arguing that your first point is more perception than fact, that criminals in the UK have no problem causing mayhem with knives, and that only an idiot approaches a knife wielding attacker. You keep stating these things like they are indesputable or something, but I have yet to see you actually back up your points with hard evidence.

Except that no one gave any actual evidence for the assumption. If criminals prefer guns, then obviously because guns are more usefull for them.
Yes, a knife is also dangerous. But unless you want to argue that it is equally dangerous to a gun, that doesn't mean anything.

[Formless]

Except that no one gave any actual evidence for the assumption. If criminals prefer guns, then obviously because guns are more usefull for them.

Since we already covered this fallacy ridden pile of garbage, allow me to quote myself:

Then there are cultural factors to consider. Guns are used by criminals more often because that is the weapon most criminals think of using first. Its the weapon most often depicted in the media, both news and entertainment. Its the most well known, and perceived to be an easy way to kill someone. Take away guns, and criminals might just shift their thinking. And again, that's the whole point of the argument people are trying to make.

Or maybe consider what His Divine Shadow had to say:

Thats a good point about the media and guns bit though. It's certainly an existing stereotype that criminals use guns in news and movies. It certainly brings guns to the forefront of ones mind. I'm getting this image of a feedback loop that keeps getting stronger, feeding of itself. Or to simplify: you're more likely to think of using a gun to kill first, before another tool, it's been drummed into you your whole life if you own a TV.

Or Rob Wilson:

I personally think it comes down to the perception. People think that guns are worse and deadlier. There's also the intimidation factor, idiots are far more intimidated by guns than knives so tend to use them more themselves. Both are dangerous, but one has that extra feeling of danger about it.

In the UK, criminals seem to see the gun as a status symbol, or something you need to commit large scale crimes. Knives are cheap and therefore easy to get rid of and replace if you want to ditch any evidence, so they are far more used over here.

Again, like I told Zod: do not present evidence you haven't actually taken the time to analyze. It might not say what you think it says.

(And yes, I realize the irony that I was the one who earlier asked the media censorship debate be taken elsewhere, but this is a value neutral assessment)

Yes, a knife is also dangerous. But unless you want to argue that it is equally dangerous to a gun, that doesn't mean anything.

You made the argument that guns are somehow more dangerous or more useful to criminals, you have the burden of proof. The proposal that knives are just as dangerous and useful to criminals is the null hypothesis, especially in light of Rob Wilson's information on the subject and the assessments of people who actually know how combat works.

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

[Serafina]

Then there are cultural factors to consider. Guns are used by criminals more often because that is the weapon most criminals think of using first. Its the weapon most often depicted in the media, both news and entertainment. Its the most well known, and perceived to be an easy way to kill someone. Take away guns, and criminals might just shift their thinking. And again, that's the whole point of the argument people are trying to make.

Which would be a good thing, since knifes are less efficient weapons than guns.

It's also ignoring the possiblity that criminals are using guns because they are the better weapon. If knifes were better, professional criminals would use them instead.

You made the argument that guns are somehow more dangerous or more useful to criminals, you have the burden of proof. The proposal that knives are just as dangerous and useful to criminals is the null hypothesis, especially in light of Rob Wilson's information on the subject and the assessments of people who actually know how combat works.

So you ARE making the argument that knifes are just as efficient as weapons as guns?
Yes, for a lot of crimes, like mugging or rape, there is little to no difference between knifes and guns (and knifes might actually be more useful).
But could you commit a robbery with a knife? A bank robbery? I hardly think you can blame the fact that guns are used for those solely on the media.
Is it as easy to commit murder with a knife as it is with a gun?

Incidentially, you completely ignored part of the posts you quoted:
Rob said that criminals purchase guns (in the UK) for large-scale crimes. I don't think they could commit such large-scale crimes nearly as successfully without guns. Feel free to convince me otherwise.


Frankly, i think it's ludicrous to look at the fact that guns are used widely by criminals if they have access to them and conclude "oh, they are just doing it because of the media". It's equally ludicrous to propose that guns are not better at killing or not more usefull for certain crimes than a knife.

[General Zod]

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

[Rob Wilson]

For Aleyska and HDS -

Actually I was talking about gun clubs, as that's how it's mainly done over here (that cultural bias creeping in I'm afraid). That said I hadn't really considered the whole 'wide open spaces' problem. But I have no problem with them being properly and securely stored.

My main problem is with people carrying them and wanting to use them in public. I just can't see a need or concieve of them doing so safely - even police officers can be killed with their own weapons. What on earth makes people think they'll fare better with no training or experience?

Again I blame the perception that people have. 'Guns are dangerous, therefore I will be too dangerous to tackle if I have one.' It's wrong and very provably so.