The Upside uv Gunz

Duck and cover
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Mon May 11, 2015 8:30 pm

I'v been waiting for the gun proponents here and elsewhere on the interweb to bring up the good arguments. Being an opponent, I never hav even tho I know them. I wuz hoping maybe sum media opinionator woud, and maybe, with so many millionz uv ownerz and dedicated & prezumably intellijent policy makerz cojitating on the matter, theyd kum up with sumthing I never thot uv.

But no.

The entire gun nut community haz prodused nothing supportable exept 'we like gunz'. Everything else haz been debunkt, disprooven, dispelled and dezervedly derided many timez by me and many otherz.

So I'm going to help you out here.

At the very least, it will be more ingredients to stir into the stew youv been churning for decadez.

1. Population control.

If you calculate from 1900 to now, there would potentially be many millionz more hungry mouths to feed in America if gunz had not been available to kill off their share uv the population. Thats about 5 jenerationz and all the offspring that didnt happen. It includez adults who got shot befor they woud hav died from other cauzez, adults who alredy reprodused, but coud hav made more babyz, adults who didnt reproduse, and offspring frum -.75 to approximately 17 yirz.

Hard to say with any presision how many more peeps woud be here now, but more than too many iz obviously not a good thing. We are hurting with 350,000,000 so 400 or 450 million woud be a nitemare. It woud be like India here, all other thingz being the same.

2. Increased averaje intellijens. Gun deths skew to the left side uv the bell curve. I offer no direct stats to back this up. Just look at the newz storyz and the youtube idiots. Look at the well known gun proponents, like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. Clearly idiots and the stats proov that owning a gun increasez your chansez uv getting shot. So, not only iz the population lower thanks to gunz, but the culling iz being dun at the naturally proper end uv the spectrum. Gunz & stupid are a dedly mix, and stupid tendz to like gunz.

3. Advansing the siens uv trauma care.

Without a reliable stream uv gunshot victimz flowing thru the sivilian helthcare system for the last century, our ability to deal with massive penetration woundz woud sertainly be less well developed. The sporadic opportunity uv war and the stedily declining fatalityz during war, along with the battlefield conditionz provide very little case material required for R&D. Our wounded soldierz are directly benefitting from the daily flow uv gunshot victimz into emerjensy wardz. Wut woud hav been fatal just 20 yirz ago iz now quite survivable.

4. Jeneral teknolojikl advansment.

Pretty much any product catagory that sellz well leadz to improving teknolojy, but weponry seemz to inspire inventorz more than just about anything else. The only possible ekseption I can think uv iz carz. Sure, computerz & fonez are popping now, but they got a few duzen senturyz uv injinuity to catch up to. If you want to debate this point, consider how much uv the electronic, kemikal, material, etc tek orijinated with the military and later spun off or trickled down to sivilian products.

OK. Therez 4 good arguments in favor uv gunz. Feel free to uze them az you pleez or try to strike them down.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Mon May 11, 2015 9:25 pm

JO 753 wrote:The entire gun nut community haz prodused nothing supportable exept 'we like gunz'. Everything else haz been debunkt, disprooven, dispelled and dezervedly derided many timez by me and many otherz.

That is factually incorrect. For example, I have cited official US government data that shows that for violent assault, defending with a gun results in fewer injuries than any other method. Neither you, nor anyone else here, has debunked that data.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Mon May 11, 2015 9:44 pm

OK, you hav 1 little sub-point that haz held up. The fact that its rendered moot by the ownership/carrying a gun risk AND the proliferation factor kinda demotivates spending any time trying to refute it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Mon May 11, 2015 11:49 pm

JO 753 wrote:OK, you hav 1 little sub-point that haz held up.

That one point is not so little, it is the single biggest reason people buy guns. And I have made many other points, all of which stand up to legitimate scrutiny.

JO 753 wrote: The fact that its rendered moot by the ownership/carrying a gun risk ...

If you are referring to the Branas study (one of Lance's favorites) that says if you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shot, then perhaps you have forgotten that study was debunked several years ago on this forum.

In fact, Lance accidentally discredited it himself when he argued that self reported claims are not reality. The Branas study is based on self reported (and unsubstantiated) claims about gun ownership (or non-ownership).

Lance has also discredited the Branas study when he argued that studies done by people who get funding from politically motivated groups are automatically biased and unreliable.

JO 753 wrote:... AND the proliferation factor kinda demotivates spending any time trying to refute it.

There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. There are some cherry-picked correlations, but those are contradicted by other correlations.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 4:04 am

xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. There are some cherry-picked correlations, but those are contradicted by other correlations.


Of course there is evidence - it is really simple stuff. Without guns there would be no gun involved crimes, and no homicides by gun. Self-evident, I`d say.

As for correlations - it is perfect. Every single gun involved crime or homicide depended upon someone having a gun.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 4:11 am

JO - another up-side of guns for your consideration... Pure pleasure in the ultimate feeling of power - packing heat, the thrill of the shootout, the bragging rights over ones wounds - of course all assuming you are still alive. And, and, and - overcoming of feeling insecure, emasculated, etc. - now that must be a rush.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 5:10 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. There are some cherry-picked correlations, but those are contradicted by other correlations.

Of course there is evidence - it is really simple stuff. Without guns there would be no gun involved crimes, and no homicides by gun. Self-evident, I`d say.

As for correlations - it is perfect. Every single gun involved crime or homicide depended upon someone having a gun.

Yes, that is a tautology, but it's also a straw man. Without cars there would be no deaths by car, and without swimming pools there would be no children drowning in them. Without "object X" there would be no death by "object X". Yes, we all know that.

But that isn't what I said. Go back and reread what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly think I wrote. I was not referring only to gun crimes or gun homicides. I was referring to ALL crimes and ALL homicides. There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. In the US, the number of guns have been going up and the crime rate has been going down. No one knows if there is a causal link between crime and gun proliferation.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Tue May 12, 2015 5:49 am

Thats a good addition TJ. Thanks.

xoup, why are you rehashing the same old crap here? There are a dozen other thredz full uv it alredy.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 6:45 am

JO 753 wrote:xoup, why are you rehashing the same old crap here?

I'm just replying to stuff you posted. I didn't initiate it, you did. If you didn't want to rehash it, then why did you include some of it in the opening post?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Tue May 12, 2015 6:57 am

To explain the purpose uv this thred.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 7:55 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. There are some cherry-picked correlations, but those are contradicted by other correlations.

Of course there is evidence - it is really simple stuff. Without guns there would be no gun involved crimes, and no homicides by gun. Self-evident, I`d say.

As for correlations - it is perfect. Every single gun involved crime or homicide depended upon someone having a gun.

Yes, that is a tautology, but it's also a straw man. Without cars there would be no deaths by car, and without swimming pools there would be no children drowning in them. Without "object X" there would be no death by "object X". Yes, we all know that.

But that isn't what I said. Go back and reread what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly think I wrote. I was not referring only to gun crimes or gun homicides. I was referring to ALL crimes and ALL homicides. There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. In the US, the number of guns have been going up and the crime rate has been going down. No one knows if there is a causal link between crime and gun proliferation.


Nope – not a straw man at all, just a simple fact. And my reply was spot on too – addressing exactly what you wrote. And even if you didn`t mean it that way, it doesn`t alter the truth in what I wrote, nor make it irrelevant.

As for deaths from drowning – they are surpassed by deaths from firearms, so I`d be happy to see swimming pools addressed right after guns. Why not even address them at the same time, to save on creating new laws and such. No concealed carry for swimming pools, and none for guns.

As for traffic accidents – those deaths do outnumber those from firearms – just barely. But the better statistic would be deaths per usage minute. Since almost everyone either drives or rides in a vehicle while only about 35% of households have guns, the number of deaths by guns per usage minute far exceeds those for vehicles. So I`d say the same should apply here. No concealed vehicles….

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 8:06 am

JO 753 wrote:To explain the purpose uv this thred.

This thread could have been justified without the false claim you made in the opening post.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 8:29 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. There are some cherry-picked correlations, but those are contradicted by other correlations.

Of course there is evidence - it is really simple stuff. Without guns there would be no gun involved crimes, and no homicides by gun. Self-evident, I`d say.

As for correlations - it is perfect. Every single gun involved crime or homicide depended upon someone having a gun.

... But that isn't what I said. Go back and reread what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly think I wrote. I was not referring only to gun crimes or gun homicides. I was referring to ALL crimes and ALL homicides. There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides. In the US, the number of guns have been going up and the crime rate has been going down. No one knows if there is a causal link between crime and gun proliferation.

Nope – not a straw man at all, just a simple fact. And my reply was spot on too – addressing exactly what you wrote.

Wrong. You added the word "gun" where I did not use that word, and in doing that, you changed it into something I did not say. You attempted to refute an argument I did not make. That is the very definition of a straw man fallacy. It does not matter that what you said is true or factual, it fails to refute my claim, for the simple reason that it does not address my claim as I stated it.

Go back and reread the part above in red. That is my claim, and nothing you have said has even come close to addressing it, let alone refute it. Seriously. If there's something you still do not understand about the part in red above, please ask, but stop making faulty assumptions about what you think it means.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 8:36 am

Erm - your red excerpt says... guns

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 8:36 am

- guns make handy paperweights

- guns can be used to open beer bottles&cans, and to switch off lights (see the documentary 'The Cartridge Family')

- the heat of the barrel after firing can be used to warm up your coffee

- shell.casings can be made into jewelry

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 8:40 am

xoup:

there is plenty of evidence that more guns means more homicides:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... and-death/

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 8:56 am

TJrandom wrote:Erm - your red excerpt says... guns

OK, well, thanks for revealing you have the reading comprehension of a bag of hammers.

Apparently I need to explain this at the level even a two-year-old can understand.

Here is my original claim:

xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides.


Here is what you mistakenly think I wrote:

TJrandom mistakenly thinks I wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more gun crime or even more gun homicides.

Do you see the two words in blue? Those two blue words are not in my original claim. By adding those two blue words to my claim, as you did, it changes it into something I did not say.

My original claim was not limited to only gun crime or only gun homicides. My original claim was about ALL crime and ALL homicides.

Do you get it now?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 9:03 am

ElectricMonk wrote:xoup: there is plenty of evidence that more guns means more homicides:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

I already debunked that here:
viewtopic.php?p=458431#p458431

The authors of each of those journal papers explicitly admit they do not know the cause. They do not claim that their studies are evidence that more guns cause more crime.

Sorry, Monk, but your argument is refuted by your own sources.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 9:04 am

xouper wrote:My original claim was not limited to only gun crime or only gun homicides. My original claim was about ALL crime and ALL homicides.

Do you get it now?


which is entirely irrelevant: guns can assist crimes, even if they are not used in a particular crime.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 9:10 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:My original claim was not limited to only gun crime or only gun homicides. My original claim was about ALL crime and ALL homicides.

Do you get it now?

which is entirely irrelevant: guns can assist crimes, even if they are not used in a particular crime.

I see you too have the reading comprehension of a bag of hammers.

You are not allowed to change the meaning of my claim. Doing that is the very definition of a straw man fallacy.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 9:19 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Erm - your red excerpt says... guns

OK, well, thanks for revealing you have the reading comprehension of a bag of hammers.

Apparently I need to explain this at the level even a two-year-old can understand.

Here is my original claim:

xouper wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more crime or even more homicides.


Here is what you mistakenly think I wrote:

TJrandom mistakenly thinks I wrote:There is no evidence that the proliferation of guns is the cause of more gun crime or even more gun homicides.

Do you see the two words in blue? Those two blue words are not in my original claim. By adding those two blue words to my claim, as you did, it changes it into something I did not say.

My original claim was not limited to only gun crime or only gun homicides. My original claim was about ALL crime and ALL homicides.

Do you get it now?


No no no.... I never changed your quote to add those blue words - you did in this post above.

BTW - I got it earlier, but I am not restricted to only address what you intended. I get to add a bit too. So please lay off the hissy fit - you don`t need it.

And please don`t tell me what I think - just ask if you must...
Last edited by TJrandom on Tue May 12, 2015 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 9:20 am

xoup -

US homicide rates are higher than anywhere else - what is your explanation, if guns are utterly blameless for that?

my sources say that there is a correlation, not a causation. So please start THINKING about the issue instead running away and hiding behind possible loopholes in the little data the NRA allowed us t collect.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 9:31 am

TJrandom wrote:BTW - I got it earlier, but I am not restricted to only address what you intended.

That's true. Except you were trying to refute my claim, in which case you must address only what I actually say, without any additions to it. When you address things I did not say, then your comments are not a valid rebuttal to my claim.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by TJrandom » Tue May 12, 2015 9:38 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:BTW - I got it earlier, but I am not restricted to only address what you intended.

That's true. Except you were trying to refute my claim, in which case you must address only what I actually say, without any additions to it. When you address things I did not say, then your comments are not a valid rebuttal to my claim.


OK.

Are you ready to move on to swimming pools and vehicles – deaths per usage minute? No concealed carry... ?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 9:40 am

ElectricMonk wrote:xoup - US homicide rates are higher than anywhere else

That is factually incorrect. Brazil and Mexico have rates four times higher.

ElectricMonk wrote:- what is your explanation, if guns are utterly blameless for that?

You are the one making the claim, thus the burden is not on me to provide any explanations.

ElectricMonk wrote:my sources say that there is a correlation, not a causation.

You claimed there was evidence of causation, and then cited some correlations. Except correlations are not evidence of causation.

ElectricMonk wrote:So please start THINKING about the issue instead running away and hiding behind possible loopholes in the little data the NRA allowed us t collect.

Wow. I hope you didn't get any stink on your fingers when you pulled that bit of BS out of your ass.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 9:47 am

TJrandom wrote:Are you ready to move on to swimming pools and vehicles – deaths per usage minute? No concealed carry... ?

If you have something you want to say, then say it.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 10:15 am

Xoup, congratulations on grouping the US together with Brazil and Mexico - if more people thought like you, maybe we could get even worse than they are.
Are you really proud of the fact that we must compare ourselves to these states?

there are plenty of proofs to show that pro-gun interests have pressured regulators, legislators and scientist not not to research gun violence - that is a documented fact.

and since some of us are trying to have a constructive discussion, why don't you try to, for a change, be actually constructive instead of just making it your goal to force others to do all the research?

if a country has cheap and freely available gas-powered hedge-trimmers, and another country has only scissors, which country do you think would, on average, has the shorter and straighter hedges?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by xouper » Tue May 12, 2015 12:28 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Xoup, congratulations on grouping the US together with Brazil and Mexico ...

I did not "group" anyone together. You claimed no other country had a higher homicide rate than the US. I was merely pointing out your claim is false.

ElectricMonk wrote:there are plenty of proofs to show that pro-gun interests have pressured regulators, legislators and scientist not not to research gun violence - that is a documented fact.

Here is the law Congress passed in 1996:

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That is not a blanket prohibition of all research on gun violence, only that funded by the CDC. Anyone is free to do whatever research they want using other funding.

ElectricMonk wrote:and since some of us are trying to have a constructive discussion, why don't you try to, for a change, be actually constructive instead of just making it your goal to force others to do all the research?

When you make a claim, as you did, it is your burden to produce evidence, not mine. That's how it works on a skeptic forum.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Tue May 12, 2015 1:02 pm

Great moviez.

Wut woud moviez and action TV showz be without gunz? HA! Theyd be krap!

Robocop woud be a sappy sifi melodrama.

Dirty Harry woud be Clean Harry.

The God Father woud be about the incontinent grand uncle who came over for Thanksgiving and ruined the couch.

NYPD Blue woud be NYSS Pink (social services)

24 woud be the same, but it woud be considered an alternate universe dystopian sifi. An insane, perverse America in wich gunz are everywhere!

Granted, we dont hav to hav real gunz so common we are litterally shoveling shellz out uv the driveway befor we go to work in order to hav them in our entertainment, but it helps the moviemakerz who are trying to portray realizm without being boring.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Tue May 12, 2015 4:11 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The entire gun nut community haz prodused nothing supportable exept 'we like gunz'. Everything else haz been debunkt, disprooven, dispelled and dezervedly derided many timez by me and many otherz.

That is factually incorrect. For example, I have cited official US government data that shows that for violent assault, defending with a gun results in fewer injuries than any other method. Neither you, nor anyone else here, has debunked that data.

Xouper, I freely admit I haven't had the time or inclination to follow all X number of pages on all the threads on this issue, though I am interested in it. Do you mind re-linking those studies for me, so I don't have to search for them?

Full disclaimer: on this issue, you and I might see (more) eye to eye. While I have no stake whatsoever in defending/attacking gun laws, I've also seen no compelling evidence that gun control does much to stem violent crime (which is the primary reason given to implement gun control laws). There does seem to be some strong evidence that gun control would reduce certain kinds of things, such as suicide rates, possibly domestic abuse/crimes of passion, but not specifically violent crime (to my knowledge).

JO 753 wrote:Population control.

Even if the most extreme estimates of how much impact gun ownership has on gun violence is true, the total number of people that (might) have been saved with more strict laws would not make any meaningful impact on global population, and even if it did, shooting people to stem population growth is not a "good" argument.

JO 753 wrote:2. Increased averaje intellijens.

I think you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate that gun owners fall lower on any given IQ tests. More likely you just disagree with people who defend gun ownership, and therefore consider yourself intellectually superior to them. The reality is both sides are probably equally intelligent but simply come from polar opposite philosophical standpoints.

JO 753 wrote:3. Advansing the siens uv trauma care.

The military offers more than enough of this, and anyway, killing people for the sake of science is no longer a viable argument.

JO 753 wrote:4. Jeneral teknolojikl advansment.

As above.

JO 753 wrote:OK. Therez 4 good arguments in favor uv gunz. Feel free to uze them az you pleez or try to strike them down.

Those really aren't good arguments for gun ownership.

Personally, I probably lean towards the general argument that gun ownership is fine until such time as it can be demonstrated that gun control would significantly reduce violent crime. I don't think that's happened yet, and there even appear to be studies that actually indicate those variables are largely irrespective of one another. If it could be demonstrated that gun control would reduce violence, then personally I would be more inclined to advocate for gun control, but not before. I firmly believe that poverty and inequality are to greater blame for violent crime than gun ownership (and the statistics do back this up), and we should focus our energy tackling those issues if we wish to stem violence, not the red herring that is gun ownership.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Tue May 12, 2015 5:02 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:Even if the most extreme estimates of how much impact gun ownership has on gun violence is true, the total number of people that (might) have been saved with more strict laws


You hav misinterpreted the premise. The + aspect uv gunz az compared to gunz being completely unavailable outside uv the military. For #1, thered be zero gun related fatalityz since 1900.

I think you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate that gun owners fall lower on any given IQ tests.


Gun ijits

The military offers more than enough of this, and anyway, killing people for the sake of science is no longer a viable argument.


No. Not even in the same magnitude. And nobodyz talking about killing peepl for siens, we are talking about peepl being injured and the development uv tekneeks to deal with the rezults.

Those really aren't good arguments for gun ownership.


Better than the wunz foisted upon us by the gun proponents!
Last edited by JO 753 on Tue May 12, 2015 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Tue May 12, 2015 5:06 pm

JO 753 wrote:1. Population control.


I failed to include peepl who lost their reproductiv ability due to a gunshot injury.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Tue May 12, 2015 5:30 pm

JO 753 wrote: You hav misinterpreted the premise. The + aspect uv gunz az compared to gunz being completely unavailable outside uv the military. For #1, thered be zero gun related fatalityz since 1900.

As a thought experiment, it’s an interesting argument. But 100% gun restriction is obviously an impractical (read: impossible) solution.

And anyway, as Xouper has pointed out (I think probably correctly), a reduction in gun-related fatalities would not necessarily translate to a total reduction in fatalities. The same number of people may well end up being killed, or close to it; they would just end up being killed with other kinds of weapons. This is where we really need to refer to the evidence for whether a reduction in gun ownership translates to a reduction in total fatalities (not just gun-related fatalities), and how significant that reduction is (if any).

JO 753 wrote: Gun ijits

Anecdotal evidence. You’re better than this.

JO 753 wrote: No. Not even in the same magnitude. And nobodyz talking about killing peepl for siens, we are talking about peepl being injured and the development uv tekneeks to deal with the rezults.

Semantics. Developing medical techniques for dealing with certain types of injuries is a field of science. And I think you’ll find many of our techniques for dealing with gun-related injuries comes from military research. Regardless, this isn’t a good argument; it’s not ethical for really obvious reasons.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue May 12, 2015 5:41 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:And anyway, as Xouper has pointed out (I think probably correctly), a reduction in gun-related fatalities would not necessarily translate to a total reduction in fatalities. The same number of people may well end up being killed, or close to it; they would just end up being killed with other kinds of weapons. This is where we really need to refer to the evidence for whether a reduction in gun ownership translates to a reduction in total fatalities (not just gun-related fatalities), and how significant that reduction is (if any).


In another thread, I linked doctors comments on how much more lethal gun-wounds are. Only in the last 20 years has trauma care gotten so good and so widespread that gunshot deaths have been dramatically reduced (as JO mentioned). But treating gunshots is incredibly expensive (often $1 million or more in the 1st year).
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/show ... ullet.html

My personal concern is much more the psychological effects of widespread acceptance.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Tue May 12, 2015 6:16 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:In another thread, I linked doctors comments on how much more lethal gun-wounds are. Only in the last 20 years has trauma care gotten so good and so widespread that gunshot deaths have been dramatically reduced (as JO mentioned). But treating gunshots is incredibly expensive (often $1 million or more in the 1st year).
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/show ... ullet.html

My personal concern is much more the psychological effects of widespread acceptance.

Thanks EM. When I say that I'm generally on the side of allowing gun ownership, I do so with the strong caveat that I don't have a particular stake in this. I'm quite open to the alternative (in fact, I began in line with the standard political-left stance, that we should restrict gun ownership, but shifted somewhat when I couldn't find convincing arguments for the position). I'll check out your link (and any other studies you have available -- Ill also review those other studies linked above once I have time).

My one immediate concern with this particular piece is that, first of all, it's an emotionally charged article clearly intended to persuade its readers of an agenda. I'm highly suspicious of these kinds of sources, even when I agree with their conclusions. The other major problem is that I see no comparison with the costs for non-firearm related injuries, nor a clear indication that these costs would drop significantly with guns out of the picture. I expect a similarly serious injury from a blade would be as costly, financially and psychologically, as from a gun, (possibly even moreso). That may or may not be the case, but this article doesn't really address that and it's an important point.

I'm not really willing to take it for granted that gun violence is more common, more deadly or more costly than other forms of violence, nor that reducing gun ownership necessarily constitutes a reduction in violence overall (I'm actually not even convinced it will result in a significant reduction in gun violence, let alone all violence). It may well be the case that it is, and if that's the case it wouldn't be surprising, but I'd like to see the evidence before I make that assumption.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Wed May 13, 2015 12:42 am

CS, you are basicly questioning the effectivemess uv gunz.

Just az many people being killed by another wepon or improvized meanz woud require 2 conditionz:

1. All the deths were intentional and based on conditionz that were not fleeting.

This failz quite obviously. Many homisidez & suisidez are spur uv the moment, many murdererz are enabled by the gun (in other wordz, of it wuznt so eazy, they woudnt do it) and many shooting deths are aksidental.

2. Killerz are alwayz willing and able to sekseed with less effectiv meanz, no matter how much time and effort.

Also quite obviously false.

There were plenty uv homisidez, suisidez and aksidents that happened during the time period that didnt involve gunz and sertainly many uv the homisidez and suisidez that were commited with gunz woud hav been dun sum other way.

Unless you believ the victimz were all fated to die on or near the same day, befor they coud reproduce, your objection failz. Gunz work az advertized.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by JO 753 » Wed May 13, 2015 1:26 am

Herez a new wun, but its pure conjecture:

Without gunz, peeps intent on murder woud be doing it in a much wider variety uv wayz.

This woud make investigation more difficult and possibly create a more hazardous envirement due to this larj variety bekuming more commonly known.

Yes, everybody 'knowz' therez a million wayz to die and a million wayz to kill, but usually, not being particularly creativ or hard working, the averaj person will just go with the eaziest and most effectiv available method.

The gun haz established a sort uv standard by wich all other methodz can be jujd. The angry spouse, disgruntled former employee, cheated biz partner, etc, will see eazy availability (good chans he alredy haz a gun), exellent sekses rate, effectiv frum a substantial distans, good chans uv leaving no evidens connecting him to the crime.

ALL other methodz are inferior on at least a few uv theze counts.

Plus, since shootingz are so common, the damaj dun haz bekum sort uv acceptable. If you get caught, the gory mess dun by the bullet will not be a big part uv the trial. If you did the same damaj with a nife, it sertainly woud be! "He didnt just stab her in the hart, he spent a good ten minits turning the entire area into a chunky stew.' The jury woud be screaming for the deth penalty to be reinstated!

I'm not confident in this wun. Americanz alredy employ alot uv different methodz, often in an attempt to get away with it, and I dont know if non gun nut countryz hav a problem with too much variety.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Wed May 13, 2015 1:40 am

Jo, provide some studies that actually find what you assert, then we can talk. Otherwise we're just debating your best guess.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed May 13, 2015 3:39 am

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02 ... ves-00006/

has a discussion on the topic, with articles at the bottom.

CS, you don't seem to understand how a bullet wounds a person: while a sharp knife more or less parts the tissue cleanly and destroys very little total material, a bullet actually drills a hole, or even multiple ones if it fragments. Unlike knifes, bullets also penetrate deep even in unskilled hands - most edged weapons never reach as deep as a bullet.

this article from 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9183471
puts the average treatment cost of gunshots more than 10x the price of knife wounds.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Upside uv Gunz

Post by Canadian Skeptic » Wed May 13, 2015 5:35 am

I understand probably better than you think. In any event, those links were what I was asking for re: financial costs. Thanks.