No wrong. Your changing his scenario.lowing wrote:
2. Nope, you forced me into YOUR scenerio, I was pointing out its bias.
Can I add, not having my govt take away my right to defend myself and avoid getting shot OR stabbed by self defense?Vilham wrote:
No wrong. Your changing his scenario.lowing wrote:
2. Nope, you forced me into YOUR scenerio, I was pointing out its bias.
He is saying you get to choose if you are shot or stabbed. Now lets do this nice and mathematical for you. (Made up stats, but need them for an example).
Chance of dying from being shot = 70%
Chance of dying from being stabbed = 50%
Now lowing, which would you rather gamble on, getting shot or stabbed?
Lowing you know fully well that you don't get to a. decide where you get stabbed or shot or b. the chance of death from those injury's.lowing wrote:
Can I add, not having my govt take away my right to defend myself and avoid getting shot OR stabbed by self defense?Vilham wrote:
No wrong. Your changing his scenario.lowing wrote:
2. Nope, you forced me into YOUR scenerio, I was pointing out its bias.
He is saying you get to choose if you are shot or stabbed. Now lets do this nice and mathematical for you. (Made up stats, but need them for an example).
Chance of dying from being shot = 70%
Chance of dying from being stabbed = 50%
Now lowing, which would you rather gamble on, getting shot or stabbed?
You are going about this all wrong. those stats are biased in essence forcing me into a corner. You need to be asking, would I rather be shot in the head or stabbed in the head, would I rather be shot in the heart or stabbed in the heart, would I rather be shot in the arm or stabbed in the arm.
It is like you offering me a stick in the eye or a dish of ice cream. Of course I would take the ice cream.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-04-04 06:25:02)
Dade County, Florida created a tracking system to track the frequency of crimes committed by their 21,000 Concealed Weapon Permit Holders in 1987, between then and 1992, 4 crimes were committed by permit holders, none involving injuries, no innocents were harmed by a permit holder. The program was abandoned in 1992 because there were too few crimes to render it useful. The entire state of Florida recorded a total of 18 crimes by permit holders between 1987 and 1994. As of 1998, there was one incident when a permit holder shot someone after a traffic accident, but the shooter was determined to be acting is self defense. As of 1998, no permit holder had shot a police officer, while there were several cases of permit holders saving the life of an officer.Dilbert_X wrote:
But the fact remains that the vast bulk of spree shootings are carried out by licensed firearm owners.Reciprocity wrote:
people who legally carry concealed handguns statistically do not commit crimes.
As a firearm owner myself I would like to know how we can address that.
Then make that the standard requirement to own a gun.Reciprocity wrote:
people who legally carry concealed handguns statistically do not commit crimes.
The problem is that that is a hypothetical situation, it could never happen IRL. Criminals will always find ways to access and use guns. Period.DrunkFace wrote:
Then make that the standard requirement to own a gun.Reciprocity wrote:
people who legally carry concealed handguns statistically do not commit crimes.
Now 2 hypothetical scenarios.
1. No one has guns. The 'innocent' don't have guns, the 'criminals' don't have and can't get guns. For all intense and purposes guns just don't exist.
2. Everyone has guns. The criminals have guns and are willing to use them, the innocent also have guns for protection, they're free to get anywhere at any time.
Two very different very unrealistic extremes, but which do you think would result in lower deaths and less injuries? Now shouldn't you be striving to get as close to this situation as possible and not countering the problem with a bigger potential problem in the future??
well then surely you have thought of banning all blades longer than 1.5 inches, for the safety of the public who could stbbed in the cheek all the way to their brain stem..Vilham wrote:
Lowing you know fully well that you don't get to a. decide where you get stabbed or shot or b. the chance of death from those injury's.lowing wrote:
Can I add, not having my govt take away my right to defend myself and avoid getting shot OR stabbed by self defense?Vilham wrote:
No wrong. Your changing his scenario.
He is saying you get to choose if you are shot or stabbed. Now lets do this nice and mathematical for you. (Made up stats, but need them for an example).
Chance of dying from being shot = 70%
Chance of dying from being stabbed = 50%
Now lowing, which would you rather gamble on, getting shot or stabbed?
You are going about this all wrong. those stats are biased in essence forcing me into a corner. You need to be asking, would I rather be shot in the head or stabbed in the head, would I rather be shot in the heart or stabbed in the heart, would I rather be shot in the arm or stabbed in the arm.
It is like you offering me a stick in the eye or a dish of ice cream. Of course I would take the ice cream.
But ok ill play your silly game. Getting shot in head results in 99% death, getting stabbed in the head results in 90% death. I can go on for every region of the body if you want, eg I get stabbed in the cheek I will probably survive, I get shot in the cheek the entire bullet will still pass through the rear of my head causing massive bleeding. You are ALWAYS more likely to die from a gun shot wound and where in the body. Mainly because the wound a bullet causes is far in excess of a knife wound.
Anyone that says they would rather take the risk of a gun shot wound over a stab wound is talking rubbish or is suicidal.
Waiting for retort saying "but why would you not die from getting stabbed in the cheek, where the blade passes into the back of your head" Mainly because that would require a pretty damn long blade.
knives over 3 inches are banned, you can't walk around the street with one. Unfortunately knives are a necessary part of everyday life so enforcing that ban is impossible. Guns on the other hand aren't a necessary part of everyday life, unless you need to hunt to survive.lowing wrote:
well then surely you have thought of banning all blades longer than 1.5 inches, for the safety of the public who could stbbed in the cheek all the way to their brain stem..Vilham wrote:
Lowing you know fully well that you don't get to a. decide where you get stabbed or shot or b. the chance of death from those injury's.lowing wrote:
Can I add, not having my govt take away my right to defend myself and avoid getting shot OR stabbed by self defense?
You are going about this all wrong. those stats are biased in essence forcing me into a corner. You need to be asking, would I rather be shot in the head or stabbed in the head, would I rather be shot in the heart or stabbed in the heart, would I rather be shot in the arm or stabbed in the arm.
It is like you offering me a stick in the eye or a dish of ice cream. Of course I would take the ice cream.
But ok ill play your silly game. Getting shot in head results in 99% death, getting stabbed in the head results in 90% death. I can go on for every region of the body if you want, eg I get stabbed in the cheek I will probably survive, I get shot in the cheek the entire bullet will still pass through the rear of my head causing massive bleeding. You are ALWAYS more likely to die from a gun shot wound and where in the body. Mainly because the wound a bullet causes is far in excess of a knife wound.
Anyone that says they would rather take the risk of a gun shot wound over a stab wound is talking rubbish or is suicidal.
Waiting for retort saying "but why would you not die from getting stabbed in the cheek, where the blade passes into the back of your head" Mainly because that would require a pretty damn long blade.
Still, how about I avoid getting shot or stabbed all together by defending meyself instead of calling for a "bobbie" and waiting 30 minutes for them to show up and scoop me up for the morgue.
If some one got the drop on me and put a gun to my head, me being armed or not is pretty much meaningless, how about a more likely scenerio where I am at home asleep and a home invader breaks in? Guess who will be surprised?Vilham wrote:
knives over 3 inches are banned, you can't walk around the street with one. Unfortunately knives are a necessary part of everyday life so enforcing that ban is impossible. Guns on the other hand aren't a necessary part of everyday life, unless you need to hunt to survive.lowing wrote:
well then surely you have thought of banning all blades longer than 1.5 inches, for the safety of the public who could stbbed in the cheek all the way to their brain stem..Vilham wrote:
Lowing you know fully well that you don't get to a. decide where you get stabbed or shot or b. the chance of death from those injury's.
But ok ill play your silly game. Getting shot in head results in 99% death, getting stabbed in the head results in 90% death. I can go on for every region of the body if you want, eg I get stabbed in the cheek I will probably survive, I get shot in the cheek the entire bullet will still pass through the rear of my head causing massive bleeding. You are ALWAYS more likely to die from a gun shot wound and where in the body. Mainly because the wound a bullet causes is far in excess of a knife wound.
Anyone that says they would rather take the risk of a gun shot wound over a stab wound is talking rubbish or is suicidal.
Waiting for retort saying "but why would you not die from getting stabbed in the cheek, where the blade passes into the back of your head" Mainly because that would require a pretty damn long blade.
Still, how about I avoid getting shot or stabbed all together by defending meyself instead of calling for a "bobbie" and waiting 30 minutes for them to show up and scoop me up for the morgue.
Yeah have fun when someone jacks you and puts a gun to your head. Enjoy going rambo on him, ill be waiting for the obituary.
Meanwhile I just leg it from the dude with the knife and life to fight another day.
Victim’s use of gun=50% decline in likelihood of injurylowing wrote:
If some one got the drop on me and put a gun to my head, me being armed or not is pretty much meaningless, how about a more likely scenerio where I am at home asleep and a home invader breaks in? Guess who will be surprised?Vilham wrote:
knives over 3 inches are banned, you can't walk around the street with one. Unfortunately knives are a necessary part of everyday life so enforcing that ban is impossible. Guns on the other hand aren't a necessary part of everyday life, unless you need to hunt to survive.lowing wrote:
well then surely you have thought of banning all blades longer than 1.5 inches, for the safety of the public who could stbbed in the cheek all the way to their brain stem..
Still, how about I avoid getting shot or stabbed all together by defending meyself instead of calling for a "bobbie" and waiting 30 minutes for them to show up and scoop me up for the morgue.
Yeah have fun when someone jacks you and puts a gun to your head. Enjoy going rambo on him, ill be waiting for the obituary.
Meanwhile I just leg it from the dude with the knife and life to fight another day.
So you think your odds of surviving an encounter goes up when you can not defend yourself huh? Wow, sorry ya feel that way.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-04-04 15:46:12)
I'd rather kill a perpetrator than be his victim. maybe that's wrong.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Besides, last I heard armed resistance to an armed assailant is only slightly more effective at escaping an encounter without injury than simple acquiescence to the assailant's demands.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-04-05 02:25:24)
I think it is relevant. I do not care if your odds were less, you simply can not allow the criminal element to run amok because it is safer for you and no one gets hurt including the criminal. There is right and there is wrong and bottom line line is, some things are wroth defending and fight for, if not fight worth fighting against.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Adding "research paper source" isn't a citation. Besides, last I heard armed resistance to an armed assailant is only slightly more effective at escaping an encounter without injury than simple acquiescence to the assailant's demands. Of course, that data is at least eight years old, but I'm skeptical of a change of that magnitude.
I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion anyway, but there it is.
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-fi … ntrol.htmlHollisHurlbut wrote:
Adding "research paper source" isn't a citation. Besides, last I heard armed resistance to an armed assailant is only slightly more effective at escaping an encounter without injury than simple acquiescence to the assailant's demands. Of course, that data is at least eight years old, but I'm skeptical of a change of that magnitude.
I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion anyway, but there it is.
source Sagecraft study wrote:
The definitive study finds that, while handguns are used in vast numbers of crimes annually, they are even more often used by good citizens to repel crime (c. 581,000 crimes vs. c. 645,000 defense uses, annually).{14}
source wrote:
Even as a matter of theory (much less in fact), the police do NOT exist to protect the individual citizen. Rather their function is to deter crime in general by patrol activities, and by apprehension after the crime has occurred. If circumstances permit, the police should and will protect a citizen in distress. But they are not legally duty bound even to do that, nor to provide any direct protection -- no matter how urgent a distress call they may receive.
source wrote:
The theory that widespread gun ownership causes murder seemed plausible to Americans in the 1960s when ever-increasing gun sales went hand-in-hand with (actually, were a reaction to) ever- increasing crime rates. But this interpretation is exploded when the time frame is expanded to include statistics from the 1970s and 1980s. In those decades, handgun ownership continued to rise by c. 2 million per year, so that the American handgun-stock increased from 24-29 million in 1968 to 65-70 million in 1988. Yet homicide actually fell somewhat and handgun (and other gun) homicides decreased markedly.
I can provide sources, but they are from a subscription required service used by my school and I would have to email them for anyone to be able to read them.destruktion_6143 wrote:
nick, you consistently fail to provide sources. just pointing that out...
That stat doesn't actually show if guns were useful in deterring crime or not, it simply meansures how often people who deterred crimes also had a gun on them. It obvious can't measure how many of these crime deterrences would have happened anyway, even if the potential victim didn't have a gun.Pug wrote:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-fi … ntrol.htmlHollisHurlbut wrote:
Adding "research paper source" isn't a citation. Besides, last I heard armed resistance to an armed assailant is only slightly more effective at escaping an encounter without injury than simple acquiescence to the assailant's demands. Of course, that data is at least eight years old, but I'm skeptical of a change of that magnitude.
I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion anyway, but there it is.source Sagecraft study wrote:
The definitive study finds that, while handguns are used in vast numbers of crimes annually, they are even more often used by good citizens to repel crime (c. 581,000 crimes vs. c. 645,000 defense uses, annually).{14}
As I mentioned earlier, the disconnection between the number of guns and the homicide rates just gives you an indication of when gun availability reached it's saturation point. Once people (and criminals) start owning several guns, the number of guns goes up but the number of people with access to a gun doesn't. You could probably find similar data for car ownership vs. deaths from auto accidents. They rise together then at some point stop having any relation to each other as you reach the point when the increase is predominantly coming from people owning more than one car. By the same logic you would have proved that cars have nothing to do with auto accidents.Pug wrote:
source wrote:
The theory that widespread gun ownership causes murder seemed plausible to Americans in the 1960s when ever-increasing gun sales went hand-in-hand with (actually, were a reaction to) ever- increasing crime rates. But this interpretation is exploded when the time frame is expanded to include statistics from the 1970s and 1980s. In those decades, handgun ownership continued to rise by c. 2 million per year, so that the American handgun-stock increased from 24-29 million in 1968 to 65-70 million in 1988. Yet homicide actually fell somewhat and handgun (and other gun) homicides decreased markedly.
Sure it does, if you trace the footnote it's linked to a study.PureFodder wrote:
That stat doesn't actually show if guns were useful in deterring crime or not, it simply meansures how often people who deterred crimes also had a gun on them. It obvious can't measure how many of these crime deterrences would have happened anyway, even if the potential victim didn't have a gun.
So then the saturation point was in the 1960s, since the figures have fallen significantly as a percentage since then?PureFodder wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, the disconnection between the number of guns and the homicide rates just gives you an indication of when gun availability reached it's saturation point. Once people (and criminals) start owning several guns, the number of guns goes up but the number of people with access to a gun doesn't. You could probably find similar data for car ownership vs. deaths from auto accidents. They rise together then at some point stop having any relation to each other as you reach the point when the increase is predominantly coming from people owning more than one car. By the same logic you would have proved that cars have nothing to do with auto accidents.
The study has no way of telling if the gun was the determining factor or not as they can't recreate the situations without firearms and see what happens. You'd expect there to be lots of cases of armed people stopping crimes simply because people will try to thwart crimes and lots of Americans have guns.Pug wrote:
Sure it does, if you trace the footnote it's linked to a study.PureFodder wrote:
That stat doesn't actually show if guns were useful in deterring crime or not, it simply meansures how often people who deterred crimes also had a gun on them. It obvious can't measure how many of these crime deterrences would have happened anyway, even if the potential victim didn't have a gun.
The average gun owner in the US owns 7 guns (2004) whereas in 1994 the average gun owner owned 4 guns.Pug wrote:
So then the saturation point was in the 1960s, since the figures have fallen significantly as a percentage since then?PureFodder wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, the disconnection between the number of guns and the homicide rates just gives you an indication of when gun availability reached it's saturation point. Once people (and criminals) start owning several guns, the number of guns goes up but the number of people with access to a gun doesn't. You could probably find similar data for car ownership vs. deaths from auto accidents. They rise together then at some point stop having any relation to each other as you reach the point when the increase is predominantly coming from people owning more than one car. By the same logic you would have proved that cars have nothing to do with auto accidents.
If saturation has been reached, wouldn't reducing guns therefore increase violence?
I think it's proof gun ownership is not linked to violence.
I agree that the total number of guns has no correlation, but that the number of people with access to a gun has a strong correlation.Pug wrote:
Well then, we agree that guns has no correlation with the crime or homicide rate, albeit the conclusion has been reached in different ways.
That can be taken a few different ways. Can you clarify?PureFodder wrote:
I agree that the total number of guns has no correlation, but that the number of people with access to a gun has a strong correlation.Pug wrote:
Well then, we agree that guns has no correlation with the crime or homicide rate, albeit the conclusion has been reached in different ways.
I would argue that. I believe you would find a stronger correlation with homocide rates and population densities than with number of peopel with 'access to a gun.' By the way, did you mean legal access, or just guns being physically possible to pick one up?PureFodder wrote:
I agree that the total number of guns has no correlation, but that the number of people with access to a gun has a strong correlation.Pug wrote:
Well then, we agree that guns has no correlation with the crime or homicide rate, albeit the conclusion has been reached in different ways.