Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
8den, if anything's been debunked, it's a staw man, because I'm not drawing any comparison between the general situation in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK: as I said, quite plainly, I'm showing inconsistency.
The same goes for highlighting armed bodyguards employed to defend politicians who defend gun control: the claim isn't that Dianne Feinstein and Joe Sixpack face equivalent threats, but that those who claim that armed self-defense is ineffective don't believe their own claim. Since it's an absolute claim, differences of type and probability in the kind of threat faced aren't relevant.
Idris, unless you've something to say about the issue, we're done here.
The same goes for highlighting armed bodyguards employed to defend politicians who defend gun control: the claim isn't that Dianne Feinstein and Joe Sixpack face equivalent threats, but that those who claim that armed self-defense is ineffective don't believe their own claim. Since it's an absolute claim, differences of type and probability in the kind of threat faced aren't relevant.
Idris, unless you've something to say about the issue, we're done here.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Yes you are showing inconsistency, however the situation in Northern Ireland is much more different and requires a different approach.
If Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s was completely the same as the rest of the UK in that time period you'd have a point but you don't.
Armed self defence for politicians is only part of of anti terrorism/personal protection that senior politicians and VIPs have. Arguing that Obama has Secret Service protection therefore it's okay and right for everyone to have a concealed firearm on them is juvenile and simplistic comparison.
If Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s was completely the same as the rest of the UK in that time period you'd have a point but you don't.
Armed self defence for politicians is only part of of anti terrorism/personal protection that senior politicians and VIPs have. Arguing that Obama has Secret Service protection therefore it's okay and right for everyone to have a concealed firearm on them is juvenile and simplistic comparison.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
As I thought, you don't know, do you?
There was a checkpoint Charlie, he didn't crack a smile.
If you want to educate yourself, have a look at this:
CAIN: Northern Ireland Conflict, Politics, and Society. Information on 'the troubles'.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I gave up bothering to respond when the NI comparison was drawn. He's either arguing from a position of complete ignorance or his making a faulty comparison in the complete knowldedge that he is doing so. Either way, pointless. And the subject comes down to the right to bear arms again as usual rather than the conversation gun nuts don't want to have- how do people in the states de legitamise casual gun ownership? Socially. I can't see it coming from the top down because of interests.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
We haven't had a really good loon since Onar An or whatever his name was was giving it the biggun.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you've been done for a long time
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Merely resting, dear fellow. You've yet to begin. Still time, I guess.
Costs me nothing to spell out the NI comparison yet again, so here we go: I'm making no general comparison whatsoever between Northern Ireland and any other place, be it the rest of the UK, states of the union, or any other country. That means I fully acknowledge the country's history, stretching back to James I dispatching a bunch of planters there. So however good links about the Troubles may be, they're irrelevant, since they're trying to discredit a claim that's not being made. Several posters are rebutting a straw man. You're of course free to go on doing so, but if so, you're talking to yourselves.
The claim I make specifically acknowledged that Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK. It was, simply, that by authorizing PPWs in any situation, the British government has implicitly accepted that armed self-defense is justifiable. It wouldn't authorize legal carry just to make people feel safer. With that concession made, it's legitimate to say the British government is, at best, schizophrenic on the issue, and at worst, dishonest.
Costs me nothing to spell out the NI comparison yet again, so here we go: I'm making no general comparison whatsoever between Northern Ireland and any other place, be it the rest of the UK, states of the union, or any other country. That means I fully acknowledge the country's history, stretching back to James I dispatching a bunch of planters there. So however good links about the Troubles may be, they're irrelevant, since they're trying to discredit a claim that's not being made. Several posters are rebutting a straw man. You're of course free to go on doing so, but if so, you're talking to yourselves.
The claim I make specifically acknowledged that Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK. It was, simply, that by authorizing PPWs in any situation, the British government has implicitly accepted that armed self-defense is justifiable. It wouldn't authorize legal carry just to make people feel safer. With that concession made, it's legitimate to say the British government is, at best, schizophrenic on the issue, and at worst, dishonest.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
And the counter point that you just obtusely ignore that yes possessing a firearm when you trained to use one and are being specifically targeted by a violent terrorist organisation who are actively trying to murder you is justifiable. You also ignore the fact that NO ONE on this thread is arguing for a complete blanket ban on personal firearms ownership. So you are just wasting everyones time making this same argument over and over again
What that has to do with US gun control is beyond tenuous at this point.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And there was me bigging him up for being sensible. 
Azrael, you've lost the plot with the NI comparisons. In extremis, it's possible to imagine situations where there are arguments for gun ownership. But let's be clear, this isn't the argument in the US. The argument in the US is that this is the desirable situation, that this is and ought to be the permanent state of being. That this *is* freedom.
Azrael, you've lost the plot with the NI comparisons. In extremis, it's possible to imagine situations where there are arguments for gun ownership. But let's be clear, this isn't the argument in the US. The argument in the US is that this is the desirable situation, that this is and ought to be the permanent state of being. That this *is* freedom.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
8den, yes, I know plenty gun control advocates aren't arguing for a complete ban on personal firearms ownership. I'd be surprised if there's no one here defending a ban on legal civilian carry for self-defense purposes. If that's the case, then everyone here supports may issue concealed carry, which is, I admit, unexpected!
LBJ, the NI comparison's been ... let's say misunderstood, as a general comparison between NI and the rest of the UK. That would, of course, be absurd, and wasn't made. (And could've been clarified a lot sooner if the temperature hadn't been needlessly raised. I didn't object to the tone of Idris' post 'cause I'd suffered a fit of the vapours, but 'cause I knew we'd get sidetracked, and that's exactly what happened.) Its original purpose was to show that the British govt's adopted an absolutist position that it doesn't believe. That opposition to dogma applies also to gun rights advocates who oppose any restrictions on gun ownership.
LBJ, the NI comparison's been ... let's say misunderstood, as a general comparison between NI and the rest of the UK. That would, of course, be absurd, and wasn't made. (And could've been clarified a lot sooner if the temperature hadn't been needlessly raised. I didn't object to the tone of Idris' post 'cause I'd suffered a fit of the vapours, but 'cause I knew we'd get sidetracked, and that's exactly what happened.) Its original purpose was to show that the British govt's adopted an absolutist position that it doesn't believe. That opposition to dogma applies also to gun rights advocates who oppose any restrictions on gun ownership.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Okay now thats just pathetic specious reasoning.
First you admit that you'v'e been making a straw man argument, you've been arguing against a position no one here has taken. And then you've made a staggering leap, because some posters here can see a argument for some people to be issued a conceal carry licence in very specific circumstances, we support the concept of blanket conceal carry laws.
You're either very very very stupid to make this leap, or a very poor troll.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
To clarify yet again, 8den, "may issue" does not refer to blanket concealed carry laws: that's "shall issue," and even shall-issue excludes categories like convicted felons. I'm not suggesting that everyone here supports shall-issue carry laws.
And yes, I would be surprised if no one here supported a blanket ban on civilian carry of loaded guns.
And yes, I would be surprised if no one here supported a blanket ban on civilian carry of loaded guns.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
So to be clear you're arguing against a position no one here on this thread has voiced, but one that you suspect may exist among someone on this forum?
You do know what a strawman is.
Now will you kindly stop prevaricating?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Having just seen a fine example of one, yup, sure do!
I'm defending the right of citizens to own and carry weapons for self-defense purposes, and against several gun control arguments that have been raised, such as the particular threat guns pose to children, and the ineffectiveness of armed self-defense. I'm keeping it as specific as I can given what's been offered.
If everyone here supports may-issue concealed carry, what criteria should be used to make it fair? Typical are demands that an applicant show a "credible" threat to their life. As the many examples stateside show, such as NYC handing carry licenses to celebs while denying them to people who've been subjected to threats and attacks from gangs and organized crime, this is much easier said than done.
I'm defending the right of citizens to own and carry weapons for self-defense purposes, and against several gun control arguments that have been raised, such as the particular threat guns pose to children, and the ineffectiveness of armed self-defense. I'm keeping it as specific as I can given what's been offered.
If everyone here supports may-issue concealed carry, what criteria should be used to make it fair? Typical are demands that an applicant show a "credible" threat to their life. As the many examples stateside show, such as NYC handing carry licenses to celebs while denying them to people who've been subjected to threats and attacks from gangs and organized crime, this is much easier said than done.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Gun control would be a more effective way of reducing gun violence therefore eliminating the need for a conceal carry licence to defend yourself from the fact that there are too many firearms in the US.
The solution to a problem is not more of what is causing the problem.
If you want to argue the merits of New Yorks conceal carry laws, argue that don't bring a ridiculous analogy to Northern Ireland.
Most people aren't under threats and violence from gangs and organised crime, so suggesting that a tiny percentage of people feel the need to protect themselves from these threats, as justification to allow everyone to carry concealed firearms, is again such an over simplistic argument it would be given a D to any student making in a middle school debate class.
The solution to a problem is not more of what is causing the problem.
If you want to argue the merits of New Yorks conceal carry laws, argue that don't bring a ridiculous analogy to Northern Ireland.
Most people aren't under threats and violence from gangs and organised crime, so suggesting that a tiny percentage of people feel the need to protect themselves from these threats, as justification to allow everyone to carry concealed firearms, is again such an over simplistic argument it would be given a D to any student making in a middle school debate class.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Tbf the casual attitude and mass ownership of firearms in the US is used as justification to own more guns.
300 million plus guns in the states
so the arguement goes you cant possibly control them 
You could put all the killings and mayhem From troubles in one year in the states and they'd be congratulating themselves on a massive reduction in killings and mayhem.
I like guns I'd have a veritable arsenal if I could but I cant and I'm happy I cant because it means If I cant tool up easily and cheaply it means most other people cant either and frankly a lot of people shouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun. Concealed carry is a ludicrious idea that proves the US has lost the plot with guns
300 million plus guns in the states
so the arguement goes you cant possibly control them You could put all the killings and mayhem From troubles in one year in the states and they'd be congratulating themselves on a massive reduction in killings and mayhem
.I like guns I'd have a veritable arsenal if I could but I cant and I'm happy I cant because it means If I cant tool up easily and cheaply it means most other people cant either and frankly a lot of people shouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun. Concealed carry is a ludicrious idea that proves the US has lost the plot with guns
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
8den, opponents of gun control obviously disagree that guns are causing the problem. I don't deny for a second that criminals being able to access guns exacerbates violent crime, but since legal guns are used thousands of times a year in self-defense, they also prevent crime and save lives.
I accept there's a reasonable argument for restricting guns despite their lifesaving use. What's unreasonable is arguing that armed self-defense is ineffective, and that if guns were restricted, no innocent lives would be lost. Its effectiveness doesn't rest on any specific comparison, but on the available evidence, including the NCVS, Kleck's research, and the recent CDC report.
Likefish, are you arguing that all concealed carry is "a ludicrious idea," regardless of how specific or well-founded the threat? If so, is that because you're claiming that armed self-defense is ineffective; and if so, d'you have any evidence for that claim?
I accept there's a reasonable argument for restricting guns despite their lifesaving use. What's unreasonable is arguing that armed self-defense is ineffective, and that if guns were restricted, no innocent lives would be lost. Its effectiveness doesn't rest on any specific comparison, but on the available evidence, including the NCVS, Kleck's research, and the recent CDC report.
Likefish, are you arguing that all concealed carry is "a ludicrious idea," regardless of how specific or well-founded the threat? If so, is that because you're claiming that armed self-defense is ineffective; and if so, d'you have any evidence for that claim?
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Thats nice. However the fact remains that the US dominants the statistics on violent gun homicides
So the small minority of people who are saved each year by owning a firearm is dwarfed by the number of people murdered by firearms. Further as Australia shows that a drastic reduction in private firearms leads to a similar reduction in the number of suicides using a firearms, with no increase in the number of suicides using another method.
Not to mention the fact that the US has had over 25 mass shootings in schools this year.
No but the effectiveness of armed self defence is dwarfed by the number of people murdered using firearms.
An entire country arguing that they should keep their guns to protect themselves from the massive amount of gun violence, isn't an argument it's moronic.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Even the data most favorable to gun control, the 1994 NCVS survey, found 65,000 defensive gun uses per year.
For 2013, the FBI recorded 122,266 uses of guns in robbery, 139,931 in aggravated assault, and (for 2012, most recent data I can find) 8,855 gun murders. In the same year, there were 258 justifiable homicides by private citizens.
Murder, robbery, and agg. assault combined comes to 271,052 (and since the three offenses are often committed together, that's almost certainly inflated). Against that, 65,000 defensive gun uses (given increases in population and liberalization of gun laws, now almost certainly an underestimate) is not close to "a small minority of people."
And that's using the data most favorable to gun control. If that's inaccurate (as it may well be), the weight of the argument is even further against restricting legal access to guns to drive down crime.
For 2013, the FBI recorded 122,266 uses of guns in robbery, 139,931 in aggravated assault, and (for 2012, most recent data I can find) 8,855 gun murders. In the same year, there were 258 justifiable homicides by private citizens.
Murder, robbery, and agg. assault combined comes to 271,052 (and since the three offenses are often committed together, that's almost certainly inflated). Against that, 65,000 defensive gun uses (given increases in population and liberalization of gun laws, now almost certainly an underestimate) is not close to "a small minority of people."
And that's using the data most favorable to gun control. If that's inaccurate (as it may well be), the weight of the argument is even further against restricting legal access to guns to drive down crime.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
An instance of 'defensive gun use'
Noting the date of your figure, my example above, from the year before publication, may well have fallen under the time period considered. The bloke was acquitted, so I can only assume he counts as one of the 65,000.
Noting the date of your figure, my example above, from the year before publication, may well have fallen under the time period considered. The bloke was acquitted, so I can only assume he counts as one of the 65,000.
Last edited:
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
From over twenty years ago, in Louisiana, a state hardly known for its fair and impartial justice system. On the facts as presented in the article, I'd say the person who shot Yoshihiro Hattori should've been convicted of manslaughter at least, and very possibly depraved-indifference murder.
So yes, if that homicidal idiot hadn't been armed, a life would've been saved. There's plenty of ways to have a general right to keep and bear arms, and keep guns out the hands of people like him, such as in-depth training in self-defense laws, simulations of self-defense situations, psych testing, and so on.
We can also find plenty examples of police involved in negligent homicide, yet most governments don't use this as reason to restrict weapons to specialists (and even then, there's been more than enough examples of specialist officers involved in unjustifiable shootings).
So yes, if that homicidal idiot hadn't been armed, a life would've been saved. There's plenty of ways to have a general right to keep and bear arms, and keep guns out the hands of people like him, such as in-depth training in self-defense laws, simulations of self-defense situations, psych testing, and so on.
We can also find plenty examples of police involved in negligent homicide, yet most governments don't use this as reason to restrict weapons to specialists (and even then, there's been more than enough examples of specialist officers involved in unjustifiable shootings).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
See my edit. If you're going to quote studies from 1994, I'll bring up cases from 1993, especially if they count, which this one would have to - he was acquitted of any crime.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
And that survey is a heap of crap
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
Yeah but you fail to mention the
84,000 non fatal injuries from GSW
11,000 homicides using a firearm
21,175 homicides using a firearm
So that 258 "justifiable" homicides figure is dwarfed by the 10,000s of people killed by guns
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
It is - but the problem with US gun control is that any measure that is likely to get in* is far more likely to reduce the 258, rather than the tens of thousands.
* given the numbers of firearms in circulation over there, the lack of any meaningful controls on them falling into the wrong hands, and the outright unlikeliness of any US administration approving measures to seek out and seize guns in the wrong hands.
MrsDoyle
ahh, go on...
you really do't get what we're saying do you, it really is as simple as I said pages back...
less availability of guns = less opportunity to use them, for both nefarious and 'legitimate' purposes = fewer deaths
- simple maths...AND evidenced by Australia very very recently. I've now lost any comprehension I might have had as to why you Azrael are still trying to over complicate that very simple truth and to try to refute it; it is not a nebulous opinion, it's a cold fact.
The fact that it would be extremely difficult to sway the US citizenship and government on the matter is a different debate
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
As I said, LBJ, I used the 1994 figures as a courtesy to advocates of gun control, since they're the most favorable to the gun control position. I'm addressing your strongest case.
OK, so you've an example of a "justifiable homicide" from the period that was clearly a miscarriage of justice. We're all agreed that shooting was unjustified, and the verdict was a disgrace. Is there any evidence that this case from one state is in any way typical of cases in the other 49, or even of cases in Louisiana?
8den, the article you linked reserves most criticism for other surveys, including Kleck's. The NCVS is the data most favored by advocates of gun control. If you think it's a "heap of crap," which data would you prefer be used?
And from where are you getting homicide data you've listed?
OK, so you've an example of a "justifiable homicide" from the period that was clearly a miscarriage of justice. We're all agreed that shooting was unjustified, and the verdict was a disgrace. Is there any evidence that this case from one state is in any way typical of cases in the other 49, or even of cases in Louisiana?
8den, the article you linked reserves most criticism for other surveys, including Kleck's. The NCVS is the data most favored by advocates of gun control. If you think it's a "heap of crap," which data would you prefer be used?
And from where are you getting homicide data you've listed?
Similar threads
