What do you think about gun control laws?

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 18, 2022, 03:53:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:31:44 PM

How many guns are needed to destroy a tank? I haven't studied it that much, but I assume not many.

Eh?  Do you actually know what a tank is?

Well, a tank is something like a car, just armoured, right?

You don't know what a tank is? Are you locked in a box?

Yep, just like a car...

Cars aren't real.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 12:26:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help



Imagine this scenerio in America lol





About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead

Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.

Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?

Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.

So, you think guns never save lives?

Question for you.  Of the 300,000 lives you just guess are saved every year, how many of those involve being threatened with a gun?

I'm going to guess, most of them?

The main reason you need a gun to protect yourself is because the other guy is pointing one at you.

Where you get the 300,000 from?
Show your work.

Ax
Ax
Ax
Sword.





https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/05/how-an-ax-expert-stopped-a-robbery-and-other-odd-crimes/

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 12:26:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Google robbery usa
How many have guns.
So guns save but guns started...

You know what 1 minus 1 equals?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 18, 2022, 09:46:22 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 07:43:41 AM

Guns are not designed with killing people in mind

Killing living things is literally their only purpose.

They are also for making people afraid.

Yes, afraid of being killed.   

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 19, 2022, 01:05:14 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 12:26:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help



Imagine this scenerio in America lol





About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead

Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.

Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?

Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.

Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science. I am not going to doubt it just because of personal incredulity of somebody who has probably never handled a gun. Banning all guns is a policy that would never pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Let's do a crude cost-benefit analysis with the data from CDC:

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Let's be very generous and say that the very lowest estimate, that guns save 60'000 people per year, is correct.

In 2019, there were 39,707 firearm-related deaths in the United States

That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
So, banning all guns would have a cost-benefit ratio of 60'000:39'707=1.5:1.
OK, some of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if there were no guns to begin with, that is, that gun would not be necessary if the criminal had no gun. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 95% of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if all guns were banned (a ridiculous assertion). Then the cost-benefit ratio is 39'707+(60'000-39'707)*5%:39'707=1.025:1. It will never get below 1, no matter how much you try to twist the numbers.
And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?

I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 19, 2022, 01:05:14 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 12:26:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Google robbery usa
How many have guns.
So guns save but guns started...

You know what 1 minus 1 equals?

Robberies mostly happen while nobody is at home, so I do not understand what your point is.

Your data says the guns were used defensively, not that they saved any lives. Those statements are not the same.

I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.

You need to be less black & white about things and more gray. For one, defensive gun use (DGU) is a very complex, if not highly controversial issue. In the States, you've got the 2nd Amendment advocates leaning heavily into the 3m number and gun control advocates leaning heavily into the 60k number. There are lots of issues around methodologies, criteria, demographics, location, definitions, etc. used in all of these studies.

There is nothing settled about the "science" of it because there is no hard and fast, black and white, "science" to it. Where you're immediately tripped up in your numbers is conflating firearm-related incidents, deaths, 39k, with DGU's, injury or death. A DGU might be someone simply tapping their vest pocket to indicate they have a concealed pistol in a holster (whether they have one or not) as an intimidating gesture all the way up to someone killing another with an AR-15 at point blank range (Think Rittenhouse). So DGU #'s, by various definitions, criteria, are all over the place.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 01:31:29 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 19, 2022, 01:05:14 AM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 19, 2022, 12:26:53 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 18, 2022, 10:52:13 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 18, 2022, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 17, 2022, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on February 17, 2022, 12:35:40 AM

As you seem to have missed this then.

Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3                   the UK = 1.2

Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?

I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.

You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.

And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.

Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.

300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.

Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic

So, you think guns never save lives?

What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?

Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.

Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help



Imagine this scenerio in America lol





About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead

Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.

Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?

Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.

Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science. I am not going to doubt it just because of personal incredulity of somebody who has probably never handled a gun. Banning all guns is a policy that would never pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Let's do a crude cost-benefit analysis with the data from CDC:

Quote from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Let's be very generous and say that the very lowest estimate, that guns save 60'000 people per year, is correct.

Quote from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

In 2019, there were 39,707 firearm-related deaths in the United States

That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
So, banning all guns would have a cost-benefit ratio of 60'000:39'707=1.5:1.
OK, some of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if there were no guns to begin with, that is, that gun would not be necessary if the criminal had no gun. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 95% of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if all guns were banned (a ridiculous assertion). Then the cost-benefit ratio is 39'707+(60'000-39'707)*5%:39'707=1.025:1. It will never get below 1, no matter how much you try to twist the numbers.
And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?

I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.

Amazing science.
Yet your data range is 60,000-2.5M is even more crazy than the 500,000-3M

If the sicenec was so undeniable it would be very full of factual numbers.

Cdc has been banned from studying gun related information.
Gun death alone should not be taken out of context from gun injury.

The use of a gun to rob someone (robbery is different from burglary - which i found out while researching "violent crime") may not result in a gun death or injury.
So the statistic of gun harm in your comparison need to be included.
Your stats are bad.

Yes
People with bad mental health should not have guns.
The risk of being able to mass murder or suicide more outweighs your fear of potentially being robbed.
Carry a fake wallet with 2$ in it if you fear being robbed.

Dunno why cdc has data when they were barred from collecting...

Either way

By state, florida and texas (very pro gun and not poor) are middle.
And if you take the estimates of injury, basically doubles the number.

So lets give them a rough 25 per 100,000.
Texas at 29M = 7,250 gun incidents
Florida at 21M = 5,250 gun incidents.

Texas violent crime 130,000 in 2020.
Florida 81,000 in 2018

Shiuld we expect more shootings?
Less shoottings?




California with more poor more crime tougher gun control rougher police at 7 death -> budget 14incidents per 100,000.
Cali pop 39M = 5,460gun incidents
167,000violent crimes

Is the 37,000difference between cali vs texas becuase of guns?  More population?   Larger poorer population?   More gangs?


If thw science is so sciency we should be able to referwnce a paper.
Nra has lots pf money, why are they hiding it?
Should we trust them like we trust big oil or big tobacco or big sugar?







https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-injury.html

https://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/where-does-your-city-rank-violent-crimes-increase-in-texas-for-2020/

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime

https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Amazing science.
Yet your data range is 60,000-2.5M is even more crazy than the 500,000-3M

If the sicenec was so undeniable it would be very full of factual numbers.

Are you being serious here? Of course one should expect large confidence intervals here, rather than precise numbers. First of all, this is a social science, and large confidence intervals are common in social sciences. Second, what the hell do you expect when dealing with counter-factuals such as what would have happened if one did not have a gun? Estimating counter-factual deaths cannot be precise. If somebody claimed to have a precise number, that would be way more alarming than somebody claiming to have a large confidence interval. Lack of p-values and confidence intervals is what is alarming in science, not when they are present. But you seem to be just as clueless about social science as you are about guns.
See the summary of a social science paper I have written:

What will the language we speak now look like in the future? To a large extent, that question is impossible to answer. The vocabulary of our language will gain, but also forget (How many young people today know what a floppy disk is, yet alone what a fiacre is?), words related to technology, the development of which is impossible to predict. The vocabulary of our language will also receive words from languages that will be used in international communication, which is dependent on politics, and it is also impossible to predict long-term. Morphology and syntax follow some scientific laws (analytic languages evolve into agglutinative ones, agglutinative ones evolve into fusional languages, and fusional languages evolve into analytic ones.), but those laws are difficult to model computationally and probably full of exceptions (Armenian language, for example, is an agglutinative language that evolved from the fusional Indo-European proto-language, but there is no reason to think there was a time when it was an analytic language.). Morphology and syntax are also probably somewhat influenced by politics (It seems as though languages with many adult learners, such as English or Late Latin, tend to have simpler morphology but more complicated syntax. Similarly, some syntactic structures that recently appeared in the Croatian language are probably an influence of the English language.). Nevertheless, is it possible to predict how the phonology of a language will develop? Here, I have researched exactly that, I have tried to make a computer model of the phonological evolution of languages. Although I was not particularly successful at that, I believe my work can come helpful to others, at least not to repeat the mistakes I have made, because, as far as I know, nobody has done anything like that. I have also researched whether computer models can be used in toponomastics, and, related to that, what effect do different parts of the grammar have on the entropy of human languages. I came to the conclusion that, in the Croatian language, phonology takes away at least 1.62 bits per symbol of collision entropy of consonant pairs, that syntax takes away 0.21 bits per symbol (that is the most certain result of those four entropy measurements), and that morphology takes away at most 1.57 bits per symbol. Only 5.99 bits per symbol of entropy of pairs of consonants is semantics. The probability of the pattern of the first two consonants in names of rivers in Croatia being k and r appearing accidentally is between 1/300 and 1/17.

The confidence interval here is between 1/300 and 1/17. If you don't like that, sorry, that is how science works. Or do you think science works somehow differently, and that what I was doing there is somehow not science?

If a good guy with a gun shoots dead a bad guy with a gun, that is not a life saved. Someone is dead.

Again, someone might be a POS today, but shooting them dead with a gun doesn't give them a 2nd chance to make amends or do their time.

A civilised society has a judicial system. A court, trial, judge and sometimes jury. Putting a gun in peoples hands, regardless of the circumstance, overrides that and places the power of a judge, jury and executioner in the hands of an ordinary citizen

Of course, the guns exist and there are hundreds of millions of them. You cant wave your hand and whisk them out of existence. But it is clear that they do much more harm in society for the fact they exist then if there were no guns.

Guns dont save lives. They take lives. Families have been destroyed because a gun they thought would protect them ended up killing their own. Whether some sleepy husband is startled in the middle of the night to his wife coming home late and entering the bedroom to get shot as an 'intruder' or the kids getting their hands on it and playing with it etc. The disgusting amount of homicides and mass shootings that happen every week. Who is the gun saving?

Guns are the ultimate in escalating a conflict. If a robber goes to a bank with a gun and demands cash, just give him the cash. A 'good guy' rising to the occasion with a gun of his own will only end up with someone dying or getting hurt.

Do you think the guys who go to school with a gun to shoot as many people as they can would have the guts if they only had a knife? How about that fuckhead in New Zealand who killed over 50 people in a mosque... Do you think if he had a knife he could have pulled that off? Or that Breivik fuckwit from Norway... How successful would he have been if he had a knife?

We get that you troll here with stupid shit. But at least base your trolling on something that is even remotely believable.

Guns do not save lives. They take them. That is their design.

You will not convince anyone of your BS just like you failed to have us ponder whether guns even existed just because you didn't think they did. Everything you come up with is just so bizarre and just nonsense that no sane person would ever entertain. So either you're a troll, off the meds or in need of meds.

Now you should probably do what you suggested in your last post and leave this 'debate'

I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring.

Boring is the word that's for sure.

Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.

That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.

so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?

= ME TO SAY NO.   IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.

And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?

I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.

And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.

Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.

You plan to walk around with an ak?
What if everyone walked around with an ak?
Whos the mugger and whos just carrying for self defense?
How will the cops know?
How will the othrr pedestrians feel when you empty you +30round mag in sec of contious fire?





And mental health is dwfinitely cause for most mass shootings
Mentally stable people dont commit mass murder or suicide.

Half or all usa suicides were wih a gun.
So if they had no gun - suicide minimized to a more treatable method of death.
(24,000 out of 45,000 from cdc)


Glick's team studied 35 mass shooting cases that occurred in the United States between 1982 and 2019 and involved shooters who survived and were brought to trial.

Analysis of various sources of medical evidence on the mass shooters showed that 28 had mental illness diagnoses. Eighteen had schizophrenia and 10 had other diagnoses including bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, personality disorders and substance-related disorders.


https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-15/many-us-mass-shooters-had-untreated-mental-illness-study

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

A civilised society has a judicial system. A court, trial, judge and sometimes jury.

And I am quite sure they don't do a good job, that they have put my mother in jail innocent. And, also, sometimes, as in self-defense, it is important to do things faster than what they can decide what to do. You know, when seconds count.

Putting a gun in peoples hands, regardless of the circumstance, overrides that and places the power of a judge, jury and executioner in the hands of an ordinary citizen

Which may or may not be the right thing to do. But it is certainly sometimes necessary, as courts are useless when the seconds count.

But it is clear that they do much more harm in society for the fact they exist then if there were no guns.

No, it is not clear. As far as I know, literally all the studies about defensive gun use show us otherwise. Like, literally all of them.

Guns dont save lives. They take lives. Families have been destroyed because a gun they thought would protect them ended up killing their own. Whether some sleepy husband is startled in the middle of the night to his wife coming home late and entering the bedroom to get shot as an 'intruder' or the kids getting their hands on it and playing with it etc. The disgusting amount of homicides and mass shootings that happen every week. Who is the gun saving?

Once again, I trust people who have actually made the studies about defensive gun use more than your guesses. If you think you know better than all of them, you are similar to a Flat-Earther or Alan Savory or other pseudoscientists.

So either you're a troll, off the meds or in need of meds.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.

Name 3 studies.


The fact you think a fully auto gun is a good self defense weapon leads me to beleive you have no idea whats going on.
 - Name your gun of choice that you reasonably feel you will buy if given the chance.
 - what scenario will you be planning on using it?

And you seem to want to ignore all the numbers that clearly prove than gun ownership causes more deaths, it’s unequivocal whereas your wishful thinking figures based on hearsay have no concrete basis.

As for someone such as yourself being allowed a gun, I do not know your circumstances, but as risperidone is given for schizophrenia, bi-polar and aggressive mania and does not cure, just treat the symptoms, and as I personally think that gun ownership should have  more control than it does, then no. 

Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.

It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!

And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.

Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.

Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 19, 2022, 06:43:08 AM

Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.

That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.

so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?

= ME TO SAY NO.   IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.

So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 21, 2022, 12:55:03 AM

Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.

It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!

Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 21, 2022, 02:58:38 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on February 21, 2022, 12:55:03 AM

Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.

It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!

Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?

You are mentality disturbed.