Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting

[littlebabyjesus]

I like guns, but it's damn hard to argue against this link - the man makes a point

Yep. That's a very succinctly put debunking of the 'defending my home' argument.

This article links to some studies of crime stats that totally debunk the idea that homes with guns are safer, and also that carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. You may feel safer with a gun in your house or on your person, but you're not. You're just making yourself a target and potentially escalating any situation, plus adding the risk of accident.

Almost two-thirds of the people in the U.S. population live in homes without guns, and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, but also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high.

Everything in that article is as I expected to find, except one extra layer of fuck-up that hadn't occurred to me: namely that thieves will specifically target homes with guns in them because they want to steal those guns.

 

[Azrael]

8den, felony convictions are a matter of public record, and felons are banned from owning guns. That the researchers omitted this crucial variable speaks volumes, if only about unrecognized personal bias. The same objection almost certainly applies to the research LBJ linked.

Aw fuck ya fuckery, likefish, you've just gone and reinforced my point about semi-auto weapons being dangerous. Can you give a definition of "assault weapon" that doesn't equal "scary lookin' gun"? I hope for 8den's sake you can, looks like he could use some pointers on the technical details (like mags being removable, and ease of conversion depending on the specific weapon).

I'll wrap with our pal from the antipodes. A better exhibit of that weird combination, aggressive helplessness, you'll never find. I'd like to see the jester's absurd claim that guns are useless for self-defends survive a face-to-face with half these people; I doubt he'd make it past the first one. Fuck off, mate, I hate guns, but I hate people being made helpless even more.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'll wrap with our pal from the antipodes. A better exhibit of that weird combination, aggressive helplessness, you'll never find. I'd like to see the jester's absurd claim that guns are useless for self-defends survive a face-to-face with half these people; I doubt he'd make it past the first one. Fuck off, mate, I hate guns, but I hate people being made helpless even more.

Hmmm. flicking through a few of those at random, I don't find people's lives being saved by their guns, but rather burglars, robbers etc being shot at and caught. Noble, no doubt, but worthless as proof of anything in and of themselves - how many shop/home owners have been shot themselves after pulling a gun, for instance? No doubt you could produce a similar list of people who were killed or injured after trying to use a gun in self-defence.

As for felons not being allowed guns, well that might go a long way to explain why guns are a favoured item to be stolen during burglaries. Doesn't invalidate that research at all.

 

[Azrael]

The case I linked directly couldn't be a clearer example of a gun saving a life during a burglary.

Here's a report from the burglar's sentencing: he beat on his victim so hard that she had a heart attack, wouldn't stop despite multiple pleas, and was in the process of choking her when her sister shot him.

If Jim Jefferies is the badass bogan he portrays, how about he hops on a plane to America, goes look Debi Keeney in the eyes, and tells her to fuck off, she just likes guns. C'mon tough guy, how about it?

 

[8den]

What, besides the issue of there being more than one gun per American, discounting "historic" black powder weapons?

Yet increasing those weapons are held by fewer and fewer people in the 70s one in two households had guns now it's one in five.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The case I linked directly couldn't be a clearer example of a gun saving a life during a burglary.

Here's a report from the burglar's sentencing: he beat on his victim so hard that she had a heart attack, wouldn't stop despite multiple pleas, and was in the process of choking her when her sister shot him.

If Jim Jefferies is the badass bogan he portrays, how about he hops on a plane to America, goes look Debi Keeney in the eyes, and tells her to fuck off, she just likes guns. C'mon tough guy, how about it?

That's the problem with reducing policy debate down to individual cases. It would be rather extraordinary if it had never happened that having a gun proved to save someone. But that doesn't mean that you're safer with a gun.

We can all get emotional about individual cases. How about linking to the story of the small child who shot his sister?

And so the comedian's case still holds. You are faced with a decision - should I keep a gun at home for protection or not? Not knowing what the future holds, is my household safer with a gun in it or not? There can be only one sensible answer to that given the stats.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yet increasing those weapons are held by fewer and fewer people in the 70s one in two households had guns now it's one in five.

what's your source for these claims? according to http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822 32% of americans own a gun or live with someone who does (the gss survey); other surveys' results vary. i don't know about you but i make that about a third of households.

 

[DotCommunist]

lol felons are banned from owning guns. I assume thats about as effective as the war on drugs which the US is currently giving up on the down low

 

[pesh]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away
Guns LOL.

 

[DotCommunist]

ammo would need looking at with a hard stare as well. You get those hollow point rounds where the entry wound is tiny and the exit wound is as big as a fat mans dinner plate. Now I know the justifications for having hunting rounds that don't through-and-through but I'm struggling to see which game you are hunting in a philedelphia ghetto. With a cheapo glock pistol. Theres only one reason for those rounds in pistols and its not bringing down large fauna.

 

[DotCommunist]

that Derek Bird killed near everyone he shot with that sort of bullet. And he was allowed it legally.

 

[BandWagon]

lol felons are banned from owning guns. I assume thats about as effective as the war on drugs which the US is currently giving up on the down low

Felons would definately respect that, they're well know for obeying the law.

 

[BandWagon]

I really think this is the situation:

Nothing will change with regard to gun control because if it was possible it would already have been done.
There are too many guns in the place to ever ban them.
Any controls you could ever put in place would be trivial and would have no effect.
Guns are embedded in the American psyche and will never be displaced.
Americans value their right to own guns more than the 30,000 gun deaths every year.
It's a huge industry which buys advertising and politicians in equal measure.
There's no mechanism by which gun control could be implemented.

 

[likesfish]

hollow point ammo is for hunting and self defence which is and will be considered legal and derek bird wasn't allowed an assault rifle so he had to make every shot count so with a .22 that means head shots.
One of the problems with Gun laws in the states is they are really really badly written and loop holed like mad california is notorious for it.
More UK Legal Pistols - The Firearm Blog
even the UK gets in on the act although a long barreled pistol or the advanced nitro powder pistol isnt going to end up in the hands of a murderer or a criminal anytime soon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yet increasing those weapons are held by fewer and fewer people in the 70s one in two households had guns now it's one in five.

Demographic distribution of guns held makes little difference to the cost implications of a buy-back of 300 million guns. Any buy-back will need to be "at cost" or through an "independently-assessed current value" scheme, in a situation where even a .22LR single shot rifle can be worth anything between $50 and $500.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ammo would need looking at with a hard stare as well. You get those hollow point rounds where the entry wound is tiny and the exit wound is as big as a fat mans dinner plate. Now I know the justifications for having hunting rounds that don't through-and-through but I'm struggling to see which game you are hunting in a philedelphia ghetto. With a cheapo glock pistol. Theres only one reason for those rounds in pistols and its not bringing down large fauna.

Auto and semi-auto firearms have a harder time feeding non-jacketed ammo - it's a friction thing. That said, use of fmj (full metal jacket) rounds also have issues (not least the fact that through-and-through penetration can mean injury to 3rd parties).

 

[8den]

Demographic distribution of guns held makes little difference to the cost implications of a buy-back of 300 million guns. Any buy-back will need to be "at cost" or through an "independently-assessed current value" scheme, in a situation where even a .22LR single shot rifle can be worth anything between $50 and $500.

It's an expensive proposition, but it's not the most expensive project the US government has undertaken in our lifetime, so the argument that the cost is too prohibitive is simply untrue, plus one could argue that a buy back would put a large amount of cash directly into the economy which could stimulate fiscal growth.

Pickman's I'll need to look at the source of that figure, it is something similar to your GSS figure which puts figures of Americans who hunt at 15% and people under 35 who own a gun at 15%, so I maybe misremembering a statistic, if I'm wrong, I'll happily apologise. I'm afraid I can't really engage with the debate this weekend, as I have to deal with a sudden bereavement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry to hear that 8den.

Your point about cost is true enough, I think - with the will to do it, it could be done financially, although I have to say that it would in effect be pretty regressive, as the poorest in society would be given the least money.

But that's not the problem here. The problem here is that, despite the evidence to the contrary, half the population think that the best way to protect yourself against crime is to arm yourself, and those people are backed by the current interpretation of the constitution. Add in the influence of a powerful gun lobby and the massive resistance to all kinds of federal regulation in many of the states with the worst problems (a resistance that comes tinged with a large dose of racism), and these things are going to remain this way until other very big changes have happened. Never say never, but not in the foreseeable future.

 

[Idris2002]

Sorry for your trouble, 8den.

 

[likesfish]

Arizona is actually attempting to pass a law to make it illegal to implement federal firearms laws .
the last time a state tried this shit the 101st turned up and Made them.
the lunatic sheriff and his brave oath keepers vs a battalion of tanks would be but isn't going to happen

 

[kebabking]

...the lunatic sheriff and his brave oath keepers vs a battalion of tanks would be but isn't going to happen

pity...

guns are great, but against much bigger guns? nah...

 

[kebabking]

...But that's not the problem here. The problem here is that, despite the evidence to the contrary, half the population think that the best way to protect yourself against crime is to arm yourself...

i spend no time in the states at all, so i'd welcome the knowledge of those that do - i know people think that having guns in the house makes them safer, but what, if any, public education is done to show that its actually not the case, and that infact having a gun in the house for 'home defence' is a far quicker road to the death of those in the house than being defenceless in the face of the 3am home invasion?

 

[8ball]

Cheers for the damnation, LBJ, and right back at ya, you anarchos make for great table talk between the baby eating.

lBJ is an "anarcho" now?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

lBJ is an "anarcho" now?

Yeah.

 

[8ball]

Yeah.

I'm not sure whether the madface means "I'm not an anarcho, dammit!" or "Smash Teh SYstem!!!"

 

[likesfish]

i spend no time in the states at all, so i'd welcome the knowledge of those that do - i know people think that having guns in the house makes them safer, but what, if any, public education is done to show that its actually not the case, and that infact having a gun in the house for 'home defence' is a far quicker road to the death of those in the house than being defenceless in the face of the 3am home invasion?

thing is the two things are completely different
having a gun in the house means suicide accident or a row ending up with somebody dead is much more likely.
chance of home invasion is completely different though.

everyone thinks they will be careful ,wont get down, lose their temper their kids aren't stupid etc etc etc
but scary black people want to come and kill them

theirs also but honey I need this ar15 with all the latest tacicool add ons to protect the family much like I need another camera,drill,fishing rod,golf, record etc etc etc

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not often I say this, but likefish speaks sense there.

 

[kebabking]

thing is the two things are completely different...

yes, i'm fully aware of that, for reasons you know full well. i'm wondering what attempts are made within US society to educate the 'home invasion' nuts that actually not only will they not win a firefight in the event of a 3am home invasion, but that they'll either shoot their family by accident, use the gun in an otherwise 'harmless' domestic, or that their kids will play 'catch the 9mm'...

 

[DotCommunist]

yes, i'm fully aware of that, for reasons you know full well. i'm wondering what attempts are made within US society to educate the 'home invasion' nuts that actually not only will they not win a firefight in the event of a 3am home invasion, but that they'll either shoot their family by accident, use the gun in an otherwise 'harmless' domestic, or that their kids will play 'catch the 9mm'...

the ad campaign highlighting the stats on people being killed in the house with their own guns and child deaths through horsing around with that gun dad told you not to touch under pain of pain was that prevelant it made its way into a simpsons episode (the one where homer joins the NRA)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yes, i'm fully aware of that, for reasons you know full well. i'm wondering what attempts are made within US society to educate the 'home invasion' nuts that actually not only will they not win a firefight in the event of a 3am home invasion, but that they'll either shoot their family by accident, use the gun in an otherwise 'harmless' domestic, or that their kids will play 'catch the 9mm'...

It's what you'd expect, though. Those that campaign for gun controls highlight this. Those that campaign against gun controls ramp up the fear of intruders and the right to defend yourself, and downplay the other dangers. And the right to defend yourself trumps empirical evidence.

You can see it right here with Azrael - you can always find individual stories of people who were glad they had a gun, and use those stories to talk up the idea that it is your constitutional right to defend yourself in this way, and how dare anybody say different. And then what likefish said comes in - I'm not that idiot who let a gun be used by a kid, I'm not that idiot who will lose his temper and use the gun against a family member, I'm not that idiot who allows their gun to be stolen, and I'm not that idiot who is so badly trained at using a gun that they let the other guy shoot them first.

tbh the fact the pro-gun lobby doesn't depend on empirical evidence to argue its case makes its case all the stronger. Tragedies happening in the home are things that should be addressed by making gun owners more responsible. We, the gun owners, need to be responsible, educate each other, etc. But don't you go taking away my rights because that other person got it wrong.