Guns and Gun Control and how it relates to DP...

[CCADP]

continue here

(from the other thread FOOD AT POLUNSKY where we got off track

[truth1]

Sorry. I just saw this thread after I made a post on the other. I will try to remember in the future.

[CCADP]

no; thats fine!

I just made the thread after reading the other one; and realizing this whole discussion was still under "food at..." so i made the new thread so any one interested won't miss it!

[truth1]

Turid, this is from the other thread.

I know those statistics seem compelling, however they can be deceiving. For instance, according to Gary Kleck, author of "Stopping Power", 70 million people own firearms. So, keeping that number in mind, consider some statistics put the number of accidental shootings (children) at a few hundred a year. So, let's say 300 children die per year due to accidental shootings. Now, we cannot assume that all 70 million have children, so lets say that half of them do (the actual number is probably closer to 75%). That would be 0.00086% of the families with children being directly affected by accidental shootings. Now, if you consider an increase of 300%, that would result in 0.0026% being affected by accidental shootings. I know an increase of 300% sounds compelling, but, just remember, when you take all things into consideration, the increase is not really that great. I have always been a critic of statistics because they can be manipulated to support an argument. And you are right, it does fall on the responsibility of the parents. As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, people often read the part that says "...right to keep and bear arms..." and ignore the rest. It is a full sentence and should be read that way. The part they leave out (especially the NRA) is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words, the only people given the "right" to bear arms are those of a "well organised Militia"--meaning the Army and police. They are the people obligated (especially the military) to protect the security of a free state. Otherwise, for the average citizen, being able to have a gun is a privilege. I have long been a critic of certain passages in the constitution. Some of them are outdated and are no longer relevant.

[Turid]

Turid, this is from the other thread.

I know those statistics seem compelling, however they can be deceiving. For instance, according to Gary Kleck, author of "Stopping Power", 70 million people own firearms.

It's nothing new that statistics are being used to back up people with their own agendas. Keeping in mind that Mr. Kleck made a few bucks on writing this book, wonder who else paid him for writing it? Who is benefitting from spreading such bogus? Gary Kleck, the weapon industry, or both? Were the Univerity of Luisville totally mistaken? Or did they simply make a qualified guess?

So, keeping that number in mind, consider some statistics put the number of accidental shootings (children) at a few hundred a year. So, let's say 300 children die per year due to accidental shootings. Now, we cannot assume that all 70 million have children, so lets say that half of them do (the actual number is probably closer to 75%). That would be 0.00086% of the families with children being directly affected by accidental shootings. Now, if you consider an increase of 300%, that would result in 0.0026% being affected by accidental shootings. I know an increase of 300% sounds compelling, but, just remember, when you take all things into consideration, the increase is not really that great. I have always been a critic of statistics because they can be manipulated to support an argument.

Exactly. This person wrote a book. He is a University Professor, however, wonder how much money he made from his books aside from what various implicated parties - which would most assuredly consider his claims as good for business make out of that book? Although I am Norwegian and the love for weapons is really something new to me, it does not mean that I'm a sucker.

And you are right, it does fall on the responsibility of the parents.

In an ideal world, parents would be totally aware of the possible dangers. However, that is not how the world works.

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, people often read the part that says "...right to keep and bear arms..." and ignore the rest. It is a full sentence and should be read that way. The part they leave out (especially the NRA) is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you agree with me that most people who own guns doesn't own them because they're worried about the security of a free State, but for ANY other reason than that? Actually, that is the only reason why are allowed to own guns in the first place. Also: How many gun owners do you actually believe are aware of "why" they are allowed to own guns?

In other words, the only people given the "right" to bear arms are those of a "well organised Militia"--meaning the Army and police. They are the people obligated (especially the military) to protect the security of a free state. Otherwise, for the average citizen, being able to have a gun is a privilege. I have long been a critic of certain passages in the constitution. Some of them are outdated and are no longer relevant.

So what you're saying here, is actually that those who are allowed to own guns are ONLY those who belong to "well organized militia", like the Army and the police, but it's a privilige for the rest.

Again: We're talking about how things "should have been". (Although I do not agree with that either). You choose to rely on the "information" you're being fed with by Gary Kleck, who is clearly sponsored by the weapon industry and other types of "militia" groups which is a steadily growing problem in the US.

As you say: Numbers and stastictis may be manipulated, but I trust the information provided by the University of Luisville. Simply because that specific information fits too well with what I've observed for myself, and it also supports what I read and hear about.

Also: It makes a whole lot of sense, as opposed to the Gary Kleck and his "friends whose only interest is to be lining their pockets with other people's death.

--Turid

[Turid]

Another huge problem that is most definetely coming out of parents who aren't making sure their children don't have access to guns, are the increasing numbers of teen-agers bringing guns to school and wipe out entire school communities.

How many such incidents have you had the latest 10 years?

Where do you think the weapons came from? Do you think the teen agers had enough money go buy these weapons on the black market?

Turid

[truth1]

Turid,

Follow me on this: the only information I used from the book was that 70 million people have weapons. That is all. The other data was done by performing calculations with the info you provided. I did not read this man's book. I simply looked up the info on the net. It said 70 million. So you automatically assumed that this man "is clearly sponsored by weapon industry". What would you base this on? You jump to conclusions easily. Talk about not believing everything you read. You said "the information supports what I hear and read about". I get it, you believe what you read and hear when it is what you WANT to read and hear. If you read something you do not like, you have this "don't believe everything you read" attitude. I gave you information based on the percentages YOU PROVIDED and you still rejected them. I do not know what country you are from but I am quite sure your math is the same as our math. Any comments?

[Turid]

Turid,

Follow me on this: the only information I used from the book was that 70 million people have weapons.

That means that every 3,5 or 3.6 American have 1 gun each. Considered all the crimes that are being committed with guns, Do we agree that this is an enormous amounts of guns per American?

Can we also agree that not ALL Americans are liberitarians - like yourself - who allegedly take 100% responsibility for their own actions?

Can we also agree that guns poses an enormous threat once drugs, insanity, gangs, and povery are issues the American sosiety isn't doing much to get rid of?

What's left then? (Of the safe users of guns like yourself, I mean???)
Do you honestly believe that all of the 3.5 or 3.6 who own guns are to be trusted with it when we take into consideration all the needless deaths, damages and tragedies that occured and the other issues we have been discussing prior to this? Such as drug abuse, parents are keeping guns in children's homes, the high crime rate and things such as domestic violence?

It's of course a high probability that the amount of "legal guns" that counts 70 milions - (and that there IS MOST DEFETELEY an unknown amount of illegal weapons ) poses a tremendous real threat to society!

In sum - you've got a huge problem dealing with it, evidenced by the enormous crime rate stemming from use of guns. (Legal AND illegal!!) Ovsiously - 70 million guns, is a lot more than what you need- in order to keep a mlitia protecting you from your goverment, which was the original idea in the first place. IF that was the original idea, that is.

You speak as if 70 million guns aren't really that much. Actually, 70 million guns in a population of 250 million is a HUGE amount of guns on a population of 250 millions!!

That is all.

Are you suggesting that isn't enough as it is? Or did I misunderstand??

The other data was done by performing calculations with the info you provided. I did not read this man's book. I simply looked up the info on the net. It said 70 million. So you automatically assumed that this man "is clearly sponsored by weapon industry". What would you base this on?

That it makes perfect sense to me that the person who wrote the book has a common cause with the weapon industry. Things like that happens all the time. It's no secret that this is a growing industry and if an idiot is willing to write a book that supports the claim of this industry, he's being paid to do it too!!

You jump to conclusions easily. Talk about not believing everything you read.

Am I jumping to conclusion now?? How come?? By using what is called COMMON SENSE? However, believing everything I read, particularly when it comes to a person writing a book this industry would be particularly interested in, would be jumping to conclusions according to your definitions. Obviously, somebody needs to take a reality check here! In this instance - that is not me!

You said "the information supports what I hear and read about". I get it, you believe what you read and hear when it is what you WANT to read and hear.

Oh? So although what I read mirrors what I see with my own eyes is co-inciding with what I say, I'm NOTsupposed to not beliveing it? Are you trying to suggest that the weapon laws aren't creating a major problem in the society you're living in? When what I read demonstrates that problem, I'm not supposed to believe it? Wake up now, will you?

If you read something you do not like, you have this "don't believe everything you read" attitude.

I explained to you why I believe what I do believe above. This is entirely your own assumptions - which sure is not MY problem. You're the one who is living in complete denial. Not I.

I gave you information based on the percentages YOU PROVIDED and you still rejected them. I do not know what country you are from but I am quite sure your math is the same as our math. Any comments?

Exactly which percentages are you referring to?

Turid

[truth1]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I did not say 70 million was not enough. No where in my post did I even insinuate such a notion. What I said was that the increase in crime of 300 percent was not alot when you consider how many children are accidentally shot compared to how many people have guns.
You said: "That it makes perfect sense to me that the person who wrote the book has a common cause with the weapon industry. Things like that happens all the time. It's no secret that this is a growing industry and if an idiot is willing to write a book that supports the claim of this industry, he's being paid to do it too!!" How can you say such a thing when you NEVER EVEN READ THIS MAN'S BOOK? You have no idea what it is about. He could be for banning guns for all you know. You ARE jumping to conclusions because you are saying that this is a pro gun book. You never even read it. I have not read it either; however, I am not the one saying that this guy is for or against guns. So, you are the one that needs the reality check. Anyone else reading this? Please explain to Turid what "reality" is! She has selective reading. It is funny, you are so well informed and everyone else is in denial. It is real easy to be an intellectual bulimic. You keep spouting statistics that support your cause. You also asked "what percentages"! You were referring to accidental shootings and said there was an increase of 20% for white adolescents and 300% for black adolescents. You do not remember posting that? THOSE are the percentages I was referring to. Please try to pay attention in the future. It is really frustrating when I have to explain everything to you.

[Turid]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I did not say 70 million was not enough.

OK. If I misunderstood you on that, I apologize.

No where in my post did I even insinuate such a notion.

I'm glad to hear that. But I'm not going to insinuate that you "mean" - personally - that 70 million guns are enough. Do you think it's enough?

What I said was that the increase in crime of 300 percent was not alot when you consider how many children are accidentally shot compared to how many people have guns.

Everything is relative. I guess if you consider the effect and the after effect of an atomic bomb, a handgun is to be considered no more serious than a cats-fart. However, if you take into the consideration the effect of a gun shot to a human being, we're talking about something different.

When you say that "you do not think the increase in crime of 300 percent was not alot when you consider how many children are accidentally shot compared to how many people have guns". That is on my top ten most cynical statements I've heard.

You said: "That it makes perfect sense to me that the person who wrote the book has a common cause with the weapon industry. Things like that happens all the time. It's no secret that this is a growing industry and if an idiot is willing to write a book that supports the claim of this industry, he's being paid to do it too!!"

YOU told me about the book. I read what I could find about the book, and the reason for writing it became clear enough for me to say what I did.

Did you read it?

How can you say such a thing when you NEVER EVEN READ THIS MAN'S BOOK?

Again: Did you read it??

You have no idea what it is about.

Neither have you. However, you felt confident enough to be citing that book to try to strike down what I said.

He could be for banning guns for all you know. You ARE jumping to conclusions because you are saying that this is a pro gun book.

He might be. That does not mean that I agree with his statement. Which was what I was responding to. Not the entire book. BTW: When are you going to respond to the questions I've asked you in my previous postings?

You never even read it. I have not read it either; however, I am not the one saying that this guy is for or against guns. So, you are the one that needs the reality check.

Oh - do I? You're the one who is saying that an increase of 300% compared to how many guns there really are isn't impressive enough for you to say "get rid of it". I'm not. I do get a reality check each time I visit someone on death row who tells me they had way too easy access to guns. Which reality check have you conducted?

Anyone else reading this? Please explain to Turid what "reality" is! She has selective reading. It is funny, you are so well informed and everyone else is in denial. It is real easy to be an intellectual bulimic. You keep spouting statistics that support your cause. You also asked "what percentages"! You were referring to accidental shootings and said there was an increase of 20% for white adolescents and 300% for black adolescents. You do not remember posting that? THOSE are the percentages I was referring to. Please try to pay attention in the future. It is really frustrating when I have to explain everything to you.

Please - the rest of you, tell me what reality is. Obviously, the guy here knows and I don't. One thing you should remember, I'm not ONLY talking about accidential shootings, but shootings in general. The easier the access to guns is, the more shootings it will be.

Unless you know otherwise of course.

Turid

[truth1]

Turid,

I have mentioned on several occasions that I did NOT read his book. But, that is irrelevant. Here is why (please pay close attention here): not once did I ever make assumptions about the authors stance on gun control. I merely said that he came up with the number 70 million. I gave his name and the title of his book in case you wanted to investigate further. However, after seeing results of my mathematical wizardry, you immediately said that he was influenced by the industry. You had absolutely nothing other than MY numbers to base that on. By the way, as far as 70 million people owning guns, that number is fine with me. I do not care if people want to own a gun. Don't kid yourself, if guns were illegal, do you really think that murder rates would drop? Like a murderer would decide not to shoot someone because they dont want to get arrested for having an illegal gun! If there were no guns, they would use knives, or shanks, or something similar. A gun makes murder convenient, it is still possible by other means.

[Turid]

Turid,

I have mentioned on several occasions that I did NOT read his book. But, that is irrelevant.

If it isn't relevant anyway, why are you asking me numerous times if I have read the book. It's "irrelevant" anyway, isn't it?

Here is why (please pay close attention here):

If you have such a problem treating me with the respect this forum expects for you, don't post. Next time you're patronizing me by saying things like: "Here's why, (please pay close attention here" - as if I weren't paying attention to what you are saying of if you wer trying to give the impression that my attention span is somewhat limited, the discussion stops HERE.

Not once did I ever make assumptions about the authors stance on gun control. I merely said that he came up with the number 70 million.

Which should of course have told you what the author's stance was, right?

I gave his name and the title of his book in case you wanted to investigate further. However, after seeing results of my mathematical wizardry, you immediately said that he was influenced by the industry.

I say that because that is what I believe. Do you have a problem with that? It still is what I believe.

You had absolutely nothing other than MY numbers to base that on.

Which was enough to tell me what I wanted to know.

By the way, as far as 70 million people owning guns, that number is fine with me. I do not care if people want to own a gun.

I certainly do not hope you're one of those who keeps asking for the death penalty whenever your theories fail then.

Don't kid yourself, if guns were illegal, do you really think that murder rates would drop?

When / Where did I say that? BUT I AM THE ONE WHO IS KIDDING MYSELF???

Like a murderer would decide not to shoot someone because they dont want to get arrested for having an illegal gun! If there were no guns, they would use knives, or shanks, or something similar. A gun makes murder convenient, it is still possible by other means.

I never thought so either. You're trying to put the words in my mouth. Unsuccesfully so. Nice try though

Turid

[Turid]

Truth,

If you can somehow TRY to respond to me without treating me as child, putting words in my mouth, I will respond to you.

Before that, discuss with yourself, or with somebody else.

Thank you,

Turid

[truth1]

It is irrelevant if I had read it beacuse I was not the one that was saying he was pro gun and influenced by the gun industry. That was my point. The author's stance could NOT have been given by the statement " 70 million people have guns". He could have easily said "70 million people have guns and I think that is wrong". I do think you are wrong in assuming the affiliation of the author. AND AGAIN: I DID NOT READ IT! I Cited the book so that you would know where I had gotten 70 million from. Confidence was incidental. Youdo not agree with his statement? What statement? That 70 million people have guns? That was the ONLY piece of information I cribbed from him. THAT WAS IT. I will try to respond to you in a civil manner, however, you have to pay attention to what you read and say. Think about it, you said you did not agree with his statement--even though he only said "70 million people have guns". You treated everything I said as his words. Because of that, I said you needed to pay attention. Now, as far as I am concerned, this conversation is over.

[truth1]

It is like I am in an elementary school debate.