DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Leave the guns alone!!!
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 408, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/10/2011 05:17:35 PM · #76
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Post your study, I'd like to read it, but as it is I see you asking for links and information that verifies what I've said (which I posted and you dismissed as useless), while I don't see you posting any supporting evidence for your view points...


I'm not responsible for your education, but here Let Me Google That For You.

A sampling from the first page of links that you'll get.

//www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
A literature review, listing and summarizing relevant studies indicating correlation between increased gun ownership/availability and death and/or serious injuries.

//canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html
Another literature review, this one from our friends to the North. Of particular note on the knife versus gun angle is this finding that: "shootings were 12 times more likely to result in death than assaults with a sharp instrument. The case-fatality rate was at 16.2 percent in incidents involving firearms, as opposed to 1.3 percent in those involving knives (Barber et al., 1996: 488). While firearms are surely lethal weapons, the severity of an injury sustained in an attack also depends on the intention of the attacker. The previous review (Gabor, 1994: 31-35) looked at the question of intent and noted its complexity. Among other considerations, the author outlined how the offender does not always premeditate the crime, nor is the offender always motivated to kill. The judgement of the offender may be impaired by alcohol or drugs; and the decision to shoot may be impulsive. Each of these empirical observations remain valid."

//www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=63E04EC510C7A299B5031DDCF42B8FD4.inst3_3b?docId=5000574216
"A higher incidence of weapon-carrying, and guns in particular, among youths has been identified as a key factor in the recent increase in youth violence. Weapon-carrying increases risk of death and serious injury to both the carrier and others."


I think I agree that at least in the case of non-committed attacks (essentially unplanned, just heat of the moment type attacks) the gun might be more effective..

Argue it as you will, I just cannot believe that a lack of guns would stop violence..
01/10/2011 05:20:16 PM · #77
Originally posted by Nullix:

The guy was a nutter.

Occult Altar Found in Tucson Shooter̢۪s Backyard


Wow... It's good that we've managed to tie religion into this.. Perhaps regulation of religion would also be a good idea...

Oh, come on, admit it! Crazies + Religion are like Fuel + Oxidizer... One spark and shit's gonna go badly!
01/10/2011 05:27:49 PM · #78
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Post your study, I'd like to read it, but as it is I see you asking for links and information that verifies what I've said (which I posted and you dismissed as useless), while I don't see you posting any supporting evidence for your view points...


I'm not responsible for your education, but here Let Me Google That For You.

A sampling from the first page of links that you'll get.

//www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
A literature review, listing and summarizing relevant studies indicating correlation between increased gun ownership/availability and death and/or serious injuries.

//canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html
Another literature review, this one from our friends to the North. Of particular note on the knife versus gun angle is this finding that: "shootings were 12 times more likely to result in death than assaults with a sharp instrument. The case-fatality rate was at 16.2 percent in incidents involving firearms, as opposed to 1.3 percent in those involving knives (Barber et al., 1996: 488). While firearms are surely lethal weapons, the severity of an injury sustained in an attack also depends on the intention of the attacker. The previous review (Gabor, 1994: 31-35) looked at the question of intent and noted its complexity. Among other considerations, the author outlined how the offender does not always premeditate the crime, nor is the offender always motivated to kill. The judgement of the offender may be impaired by alcohol or drugs; and the decision to shoot may be impulsive. Each of these empirical observations remain valid."

//www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=63E04EC510C7A299B5031DDCF42B8FD4.inst3_3b?docId=5000574216
"A higher incidence of weapon-carrying, and guns in particular, among youths has been identified as a key factor in the recent increase in youth violence. Weapon-carrying increases risk of death and serious injury to both the carrier and others."


I think I agree that at least in the case of non-committed attacks (essentially unplanned, just heat of the moment type attacks) the gun might be more effective..

Argue it as you will, I just cannot believe that a lack of guns would stop violence..


For the hyperbolic billionth time, NOBODY is arguing this.

What people ARE arguing however, is that attempting (and succeeding in) the reduction of violence of certain natures (such as gun violence) is a necessary and decent thing. No matter how much negativity, violence, and bad things your own life has seen, giving up on doing so simply because shit is going to happen anyway is and unbelievably horrific concept, to me.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 17:28:07.
01/10/2011 05:30:21 PM · #79
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Argue it as you will, I just cannot believe that a lack of guns would stop violence..


One last attempt - No. One. Is. Making. That. Argument.

Those advocating for regulation/restrictions on gun ownership are arguing that some reduction in the current easy-availability of firearms would result in lower (Not. Zero.) incidents of death and/or serious injury when it comes to violent crimes, suicide, etc. and make it more difficult (Not. Impossible.) for those with ill intent to obtain firearms with which to commit crimes such as that perpetrated against Representative Giffords.

Go read the studies (note the plural). If a reduction in death and/or serious injury is the goal, the evidence is on the side of regulations/restrictions that reduce easy access to firearms.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 18:00:31.
01/10/2011 05:39:07 PM · #80
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Argue it as you will, I just cannot believe that a lack of guns would stop violence..


One last attempt - No. One. Is. Making. That. Argument.

Those advocating for regulation/restrictions on gun ownership are arguing that some reduction in the current easy-availability of firearms would result in lower (Not. Zero.) incidents of death and/or serious injury when it comes to violent crimes, suicide, etc. and make it more difficult (Not. Impossible.) for those with ill intent to obtain firearms with which to commit crimes such as that perpetrated against Senator Giffords.

Go read the studies (note the plural). If a reduction in death and/or serious injury is the goal, the evidence is on the side of regulations/restrictions that reduce easy access to firearms.


Ahh.. Now I understand... You're arguing to "reduce easy access to firearms" to "reduce serious injury or deaths related to firearms"..

Man, that's a good idea! I bet if fewer people have guns, then fewer people will get shot.

*shakes head* - it would seem you are refuting my statement by telling me that you don't expect it to be 100% effective. Umm.. Ok, I agree, if fewer people have a gun handy, then they'll choose something else to be violent with, and that does lower gun related crime and injury.. I just don't think that the lack of a gun instantly makes people behave better...

Making it harder to get firearms means only that those who don't really care about them one way or the other will simply never bother. Those who care will still get them, criminal or not. I'd really bet this whacko would have done just fine being a whacko without a firearm to help him.
01/10/2011 05:45:38 PM · #81
Originally posted by coryboehne:

I just don't think that the lack of a gun instantly makes people behave better...

No matter how often you're beaten over the head with your own hyperbole, you don't get it. Might as well have, as Barney said, an argument with a dining room table.
01/10/2011 05:51:39 PM · #82
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

..

I'm sorry for your pain. My answer to some of your questions is yes, but not to all of them.

..


Meh, you silly bear... Those are experiences, not pains...

And yes, some of them were tragically painful, but don't be sorry, I'm not! They've served to make me who I am today, and I like who I am now..
01/10/2011 05:59:16 PM · #83
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Ahh.. Now I understand... You're arguing to "reduce easy access to firearms" to "reduce serious injury or deaths related to firearms"..

. . .

Making it harder to get firearms means only that those who don't really care about them one way or the other will simply never bother. Those who care will still get them, criminal or not. I'd really bet this whacko would have done just fine being a whacko without a firearm to help him.


No. That is not what we are arguing, that is the strawman you are arguing against.

You want to say that if a gun is not available, the criminal/person attempting suicide/etc. will just reach for a knife, or a baseball bat, or . . . whatever. You seem to think that the outcome will be the same, regardless - i.e., that if someone was going to commit a crime that resulted in a serious injury/death because they had a firearm, that a serious injury/death would result even without the firearm because the criminal would have simply used some other sort of weapon to accomplish the same end. In other words, you are arguing that the availability of guns makes no difference on the absolute rate of serious injury or death, and the consensus of the evidence indicates that you are simply wrong.

Go back and look again - if you even looked the first time - at the studies from the Google search posted above. The evidence is that, holding other things equal, when guns are more prevalent and available, the rate and amount of incidents of serious injury and/or death increase. Guns are not just a fungible method of causing injury, the prevalence of guns increase the absolute amount and per capita rate of injuries that occur.

In other words, it is not accurate to say that the criminal will simply use another method and will achieve the same result. While that may be possible in theory, it is not born out by the real world evidence.

The wacko that attacked Representative Giffords may have well been just as big of a wacko without a gun, but, despite your insistence to the contrary, it is not only clear, but obvious, that he would have had to work much harder and had a more difficult time achieving the level of harm that he did without a gun.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 18:00:11.
01/10/2011 06:01:07 PM · #84
Given the number of people kicking themselves that they didn't phone and report a nutter before he went and did something stupid - does anyone have the phone number?
01/10/2011 06:06:10 PM · #85
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I just don't think that the lack of a gun instantly makes people behave better...

No matter how often you're beaten over the head with your own hyperbole, you don't get it. Might as well have, as Barney said, an argument with a dining room table.


I know that when you're told by five people that you're wrong, you usually are...

I just fail to see it.. I've re-read the thread, and it seems to me that I've been busy saying that regulation doesn't work, people behave like shit anyway and if someone really wants to do something horrible, the lack of a gun will not prevent it.

Seems to me that everyone else has been busy telling me we're talking about something else (me from what I can tell mostly), and that I'm a bit of a nutter myself.

***

It seems to have gone south about right here:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Another point RE: the Giffords assassination attempt..

Since it was indeed a point-blank shot, I submit that the gun actually SAVED HER LIFE.

Sound like odd logic? Ok, I'll explain.

Essentially, since he was so close, a knife or other bladed object would have been a viable option. And although we are afraid of gun shot wounds, they are in effect (discounting hydrological shock, which is minimal in all but the largest handguns (.500 S&W for example)) nothing more than holes through your body.

Now, taking that information, we know that most bullets are < 1/2" in diameter, while we also know that most knives are >1" in diameter. (funny enough, this is the reason that broadhead arrows are so darn effective, they are often >1" dia)...

Given that if he had chosen a knife instead of a gun, it's very likely that he would have delivered a fatal stab wound at such a close range (severed arteries are a BAD thing...)... So, it is actually possible (maybe even likely?) that a knife would have delivered a fatal blow..

*shrug* - mostly my point is that we spend too much time talking about the damned weapon of choice, really it's the people that are the problem, not the object they choose.


And a knife wouldn't have killed and wounded 13 others.

Look, I think most people in here have been able to make good points without resorting to ignorantly ridiculous bullshit. Kindly do the same :D


*****

And I do stand by that statement, it's very likely that a close range knife attack would have killed her...

I wasn't even arguing that he would have been a more effective mass killer (which he may or may not have been, admittedly this nutcase would have probably screwed up any plan).. or anything else. Just that this might be an illustrative case of a situation where a gun was actually not the most effective weapon, and I think that if the guy had actually been thinking for himself, instead of just choosing the normal weapon of choice, he might had actually killed many more people, whatever method he choose..

Clearly, my mistake here (as it has been elsewhere) is trying to actually talk about this as a complex thing, and introducing way too many attackable facts/fallacies/etc, when if I wanted to "win" (which isn't really an admirable goal IMO) I would have just used simple rhetoric, you know, the kind that those silly hate fueling politicians use - where everything is black and white, there is a right and a wrong, a good and a bad, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN-BETWEEN.

I don't know why, but it seems I like to live my life in that gray area in-between, where nothing is really ever right, nor is it ever really wrong - it just is, and we then use our own value systems and ethics to classify it as being good/bad, etc. But, again, I'm not much good with rhetoric as I don't think anything is ever really black and white, cut and dry.

Good news though.... I seem to be an EXPERT at ranting.
01/10/2011 06:08:49 PM · #86
It went south because you chose to believe I was attacking you personally, and not just your erroneous opinions.
01/10/2011 06:10:50 PM · #87
Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time.


Google how many children are killed by a firearm kept in the house. As a pediatrician, that's all I have to say.
01/10/2011 06:14:46 PM · #88
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Ahh.. Now I understand... You're arguing to "reduce easy access to firearms" to "reduce serious injury or deaths related to firearms"..

. . .

Making it harder to get firearms means only that those who don't really care about them one way or the other will simply never bother. Those who care will still get them, criminal or not. I'd really bet this whacko would have done just fine being a whacko without a firearm to help him.


No. That is not what we are arguing, that is the strawman you are arguing against.

You want to say that if a gun is not available, the criminal/person attempting suicide/etc. will just reach for a knife, or a baseball bat, or . . . whatever. You seem to think that the outcome will be the same, regardless - i.e., that if someone was going to commit a crime that resulted in a serious injury/death because they had a firearm, that a serious injury/death would result even without the firearm because the criminal would have simply used some other sort of weapon to accomplish the same end. In other words, you are arguing that the availability of guns makes no difference on the absolute rate of serious injury or death, and the consensus of the evidence indicates that you are simply wrong.

Go back and look again - if you even looked the first time - at the studies from the Google search posted above. The evidence is that, holding other things equal, when guns are more prevalent and available, the rate and amount of incidents of serious injury and/or death increase. Guns are not just a fungible method of causing injury, the prevalence of guns increase the absolute amount and per capita rate of injuries that occur.

In other words, it is not accurate to say that the criminal will simply use another method and will achieve the same result. While that may be possible in theory, it is not born out by the real world evidence.

The wacko that attacked Representative Giffords may have well been just as big of a wacko without a gun, but, despite your insistence to the contrary, it is not only clear, but obvious, that he would have had to work much harder and had a more difficult time achieving the level of harm that he did without a gun.


I did, and yes I can see that there is a correlation shown. But I just have a hugely hard time imagining that people are just more prone to violence when a gun is available, and that IS exactly what you are arguing, correct?
01/10/2011 06:24:19 PM · #89
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time.


Google how many children are killed by a firearm kept in the house. As a pediatrician, that's all I have to say.


Ohh, so we're bringing accidental into this as well... Well I can honestly agree with that, having nearly shot myself accidentally once (old 20 gauge shotgun, no half-cock safety and the hammer caught on some brush I was going through, damn near removed my right foot)..

But if we're going to start talking about that as a factor in regulation, (forgive me for the reductio ad absurdum), we will eventually find ourselves limiting speed limits to 10mph, making stairs out of gym-mats (that could be fun I admit!), and making sidewalks out of jello (any idea how many people are killed by falling each year?)...

I'd say, maybe, just maybe, that is a case (horrible as it is) of survival of the fittest, granted it's not the kid's fault, but when talking about evolution it's all about the genes, and the kid's genes are the same as the parent's genes, who was obviously deficient enough to make the gun available and operable for the kid to kill themselves with... I know, this whole concept of personal responsibility doesn't really sit well with some folks, but...... Well, it is what it is. And, while I'd never wish death upon a child, I do think we live in a society that manages to allow even the most idiotic to survive, which really can't be good for the overall genetics of our species, now can it? Bah, the hell with it, in true ad absurdum style, let's line the roadways with giant steel spikes instead of guardrails, let's make guns mandatory, everyone needs to carry one, cocked and locked, at all times.. Let's start building high rise buildings without windows, and let's increase the speed limit to 150 MPH, but get rid of airbags! Hell, I figure 20 years of that and we'd be back down to an efficient society full of intelligent responsible people..
01/10/2011 06:26:31 PM · #90
Originally posted by coryboehne:

I did, and yes I can see that there is a correlation shown. But I just have a hugely hard time imagining that people are just more prone to violence when a gun is available, and that IS exactly what you are arguing, correct?


I believe he is arguing that the outcome of that violence is more serious and more often fatal, not more likely.
01/10/2011 06:31:29 PM · #91
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I did, and yes I can see that there is a correlation shown. But I just have a hugely hard time imagining that people are just more prone to violence when a gun is available, and that IS exactly what you are arguing, correct?


I believe he is arguing that the outcome of that violence is more serious and more often fatal, not more likely.


Exactly.
01/10/2011 06:57:50 PM · #92
I wasn't arguing anything about regulation with the pediatric data. I was arguing that even if it is legal it may be unreasonable to own a firearm. I have a nurse with a purple tazer and is getting ready to get a nice matching handgun. That stuff just makes me cringe because odds are higher than it's going to hurt someone she knows than someone who deserves it.
01/10/2011 07:05:50 PM · #93
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



I've always wondered how it came to pass that we in this country came to consider it a god-given right that we would be allowed to arm ourselves to the teeth without any oversight at all. It's insane. It's beyond insane, it's terrifying.

R.


OOO OOO! a gun thread!

Well, Bear. If you'll dick around on the internet a bit you'll find references to well over 100,000 gun laws
on this continent. I'll wager that doesn't quite fit the definition of "without any oversight at all." But
I was prepared for the ritual of trying to blame inanimate objects for crime in the US. I would really have been
a bit worried if it hadn't happened. What truly disappointed me was the local sheriff in AZ who tried to lay
the shooting on the Tea Party. The man should be impeached. And..... all the liberals who are trying to lay the
shooting at conservatives door-steps, by pointing out their references to "bulls-eyes", "targeting", etc., when
they themselves use the same language!!!!! Look how quick the liberals claim the injured congresswoman now that
she represents an opportunity to lambaste the republicans and Tea Partyians, plus maybe slip some legislation
thru to ban guns. When in reality the woman was a republican only a short time ago. Her beliefs didn't change,
she just changed her party to keep herself in service. I like her and agree with many of her beliefs.
I just hope AZ will change it's laws as Virgina did after their tragedy. Had the community college action separating
the shooter from the institution for mental issues been followed up on by law-enforcement, this idiot might have gotten some help and
been prevented from purchasing a gun in the first place.

Now Bear, I do have fears that terrify me. Old codgers allowed to drive their cars to the farmers markets and
drug stores, etc Willy-Nilly with seemingly no effective oversight. We lose dozens of citizens per year from
this terrible scourge. I think we should ban auto-mobiles and old people. That would definitely lower our carbon
output. But as old as you and I are we may be in for a bit of trouble. Maybe the death panels could help us out!!! ;0
01/10/2011 07:05:56 PM · #94
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time.


Google how many children are killed by a firearm kept in the house. As a pediatrician, that's all I have to say.


I did...

With this stats, I say we should stop using electricity as power source, stop walking, stop carrying guns, never go to doctor, stop eating or drinking, don't even think about swimming, don't use fire anywhere any time, keep the rats alone, don't even climb up to your chair and never EVER drive a car or get in one as passenger...

Dr, I thought know you are much smarter than this :(

Life is full of accidents. From spilling your milk to elbowing your loved one in the night. These particular accidents however result is something much worse than a black eye. These are the top 10 accidents that could land you 6 feet under.

10. Electrocution
~500 Deaths / Year

9. Getting Hit by a Car
~1,100 Deaths / Year

8. Firearm Discharge
~1,150 Deaths / Year

7. Complications with Medical Procedure
~3,000 Deaths / Year

6. Choking
~3,200 Deaths / Year

5. Drowning
~3,500 Deaths / Year

4. Fire
~3,700 Deaths / Year

3. Poisoning
~9,500 Deaths / Year

2. Falling
~15,000 Deaths / Year

1. Car Crash
~44,000 Deaths / Year


There are already gun laws, and they are just fine... even more than fine. Because of some STUPID ASS punk want to hurt someone, doesn't mean we can stop him just taking his gun away... he will do it one way or another.

By the way, as you will see if you research on it, lawful gun owners are the nicest people around with exception of one or two... as you can't stop people drinking and driving, you can't blame everyone for that.

If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine, that's your business... We never force you to own one... and you should leave us alone as well, we may save your life one day.

Message edited by author 2011-01-10 19:27:37.
01/10/2011 07:15:42 PM · #95
Originally posted by FocusPoint:



2. Falling
~15,000 Deaths / Year



Banning gravity should solve this problem.
01/10/2011 07:50:17 PM · #96
I think what you fail to illustrate with those stats are the benefits reaped by the "cost" of the accidental deaths.

Can you imagine a society without electricity? cars? medical care? eating? etc. To prevent those deaths by banning the offending agent would make society nonfunctional. Can you imagine a society without guns? Hmmm, it seems we have such societies and they seem to work as well as those with guns.

I'm not going to be a main participant in this thread because I just don't feel the need. This is one of those arguments that is completely beyond the pale in polarization. The NRA considers any and all limitations on gun ownership, no matter how reasonable or minor, to be tantamount to banning them completely. It's silly.
01/10/2011 07:59:48 PM · #97
Doctors say there are parts of our brain do different work such as controlling vision, speech, taste etc. I wonder if we can find that little part says "violent" and get rid of it right after birth, like a mandatory circumcise...

would that work?
01/10/2011 08:02:21 PM · #98
Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Doctors say there are parts of our brain do different work such as controlling vision, speech, taste etc. I wonder if we can find that little part says "violent" and get rid of it right after birth, like a mandatory circumcise...

would that work?


That's all very 'Brave New World' isn't it.
01/10/2011 08:06:31 PM · #99
I like the saying “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

It should also be noted that police officers are not required to risk their lives to protect anyone. Of course, some officers are willing to risk their lives, but nothing requires it of them. Even if the officer sent to help you is willing, 9 times out 10 he or she will not be there in time to do any good. You may have heard the saying "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." In many locations it often takes hours for the police to arrive.

I say this not to denigrate police officers but to point out that you can't expect one to be there when you need protection. And if you're not willing to do what it takes to protect yourself or your loved ones, how in God's name can you expect anyone else to? Is a police officer's life somehow worth less than your own? As I see it, if you're not willing to do whatever it takes, up to and including the use of deadly force, to protect yourself and your loved ones, then the world is better off without your cowardly ass.


01/10/2011 08:47:50 PM · #100
Originally posted by FocusPoint:

Doctors say there are parts of our brain do different work such as controlling vision, speech, taste etc. I wonder if we can find that little part says "violent" and get rid of it right after birth, like a mandatory circumcise...

would that work?


You can't remove what isn't there.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 06:51:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 06:51:38 AM EDT.