Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It substantiates graph two. But graph one is still suspect to me.

Good Morning Migueltojose: Graph one is simply suspect of correlating to graph 2. Together, they mean that increased gun ownership leads to increased violence with guns, much in the way that increased eating of cookies correlates to an increase in waste size. It’s really common sense in the end.

I own no guns. My neighbor owns 58 (his dad and grandpa were sheriffs). On average we own 29. I think the 80/20 rule applies. 20% of the people own 80% of the guns… So I still think chart one is suspect.

This isn’t problematic at all actually. 100% of the gun accidents, gun suicides, gun deaths, gun robberies, gun rapes, and gun incidents of all kinds are caused by whatever percent of the people who have guns. None of the above are caused by people without them. There is no need to trouble our heads any further on that one Miguel.

The problem is, as I’ve suggested before, just because some people can’t handle “freedom” (i.e. gun rights)… doesn’t mean we all have to give them up.

The problem is that people who can’t handle freedom are handling guns.

1. The risk of homicide by firearm is actually much much less for most of us when you take out the “statistically probable” groups that you don’t fall into. (Each of us will be different)… but the data is there to slice and dice by race, gender, age, geography, relationship, etc.

Without regard to demographics, a person with a gun is the only person who can do harm to others with a gun.

1. The bad guys are killing each other for the most part. The FBI data doesn’t necessarily illustrate this but it can be inferred from the entire set of data.

That is true. I have pointed that out before when we were discussing the self defense argument for gun ownership.

1. “They” (the bad guys) are more likely to fall out of the gene pool because they are irresponsible and can’t handle their… stuff… they won’t make it…

The problem is that we are not isolated as individuals in a society. Bad guys cause collateral damage.

Should we deny the vast majority their rights because a small minority can’t handle them?

The question in my thinking is whether it should be a right at all.

What we all need is education, enlightenment and evangelization coupled with conversion, repentance and prayer. And vigilance. And charity.

None of which seem to be augmented very well by weapons.

We don’t need our rights further infringed upon by a central government.

We need to be the stewards of the spirit, integrity and flexibility of the Constitution.

I am having trouble imagining what a Constitution would be without a central government.

We need men, loaded with ample amounts of testosterone, to have outlets for their aggression… sports, rough play, hunting, competing, etc.

Testosterone is not an aggression outlet. It is an aggression enabler. Natural amounts of it are sufficient without elevating it with weapons.

Kids sit on the couch and play violent video games but don’t have an outlet for all the aggression that builds up. They need safe, socially acceptable, effective outlets.

And that would be guns?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Zoltan Cobalt; You are absolutely right. **"…it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons." **

It goes right along with the the FACT that if there were no guns there would be no gun related killings or suicides or accidental shootings or whatever. I admit it…it is a FACT.

Liberals LOVE this train of thought because it is true and it makes them feel good to be right about something for a change.

Actually, liberals love this sort of train of thought because it’s so simple that people of all ages can understand it easily, and it resonates at a core level. Simplicity is especially beautiful when it’s profound.

I hear this every time my lovely wife, Trophia, entertains her sorority sisters from UC Berkeley. ---- “…oh Zoltan, you just have to admit that the world would be a better place without guns…”

The only problem is that implementation of this state of “Nirvana” is impossible. It just ain’t gonna happen.

if you are referring to a perfect society, actually that’s a concept called Utopia. Nirvana is an inward state of being achieved through enlightenment.

So, where were we? Oh yes, I am researching the impossible for the absurd…I’ll get back to you.

I trust that you are the man for the job. Now, rustle up another batch of impossible and absurd and hurry back.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Actually, liberals love this sort of train of thought because it’s so simple that people of all ages can understand it easily, and it resonates at a core level. Simplicity is especially beautiful when it’s profound.

if you are referring to a perfect society, actually that’s a concept called Utopia. Nirvana is an inward state of being achieved through enlightenment.

I have every confidence that you are the man for the job. Now, rustle up another batch of the impossible and the absurd and hurry back.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[white_sheep]

Fortunately, I grew up with guns around. I had my pellet gun with me at almost all times as a kid. When I was a little older I used real guns and would hunt doves daily during the season. Guns are part of my culture, so I would be pro gun regardless.

Like millions of Americans, guns have saved me from from violent attack. On several occasions, none of which were my fault. Since I would probably be dead due to one of these instances, I am naturally pro-gun. Guns saved my life.

 

[pnewton]

Despite the spate of gun crime in that 18 month period in Sydney… nothing makes mass gun ownership a more stark horror story than the unadulterated basic statistics. You can’t argue with that.

I can. First, one cannot pick those statistics that support and idea and omit others. Second, one cannot show any relationship beyond coincidence when such an enormous amount of variable exist. Statistics are useless unless on can isolate variables and include* all* the data, say Sudan.

 

[pnewton]

We need more testosterone.

I find this very funny. Chauvinistic, but funny.

 

[Wuggums47]

It’s hard for me to feel like there wouldn’t be less gun suicides and murders if we didn’t have access to guns so readily, but at the same time I know I would enjoy shooting guns, I don’t own one, but I have shot them before. Marksmanship is a lot of fun to me. I’m a vegetarian, so I wouldn’t want to hunt with one though.

 

[white_sheep]

It’s hard for me to feel like there wouldn’t be less gun suicides and murders if we didn’t have access to guns so readily, but at the same time I know I would enjoy shooting guns, I don’t own one, but I have shot them before. Marksmanship is a lot of fun to me. I’m a vegetarian, so I wouldn’t want to hunt with one though.

That’s right, with no guns, people would have to kill themselves and others with something else. Does it really matter? Is it better for people to kill themselves with poison than to shoot themselves?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s right, with no guns, people would have to kill themselves and others with something else. Does it really matter? Is it better for people to kill themselves with poison than to shoot themselves?

Some suicides will find another way, and some will be dissuaded by the difficulty of doing it some other way. In interviews with people that have attempted suicide, many report that their periods of commitment to suicide were quite short - some as short as 5 minutes. Clearly for these people, something that delays their suicide for just a few minutes would make the difference between death and getting the help they need.

 

[Annie39]

Some suicides will find another way, and some will be dissuaded by the difficulty of doing it some other way. In interviews with people that have attempted suicide, many report that their periods of commitment to suicide were quite short - some as short as 5 minutes. Clearly for these people, something that delays their suicide for just a few minutes would make the difference between death and getting the help they need.

Prescription drugs are just steps away for many people, probably more people than those who own guns. The person in my life who threatened to commit suicide has several prescription psychotropic drugs. To my knowledge she does not own a gun.

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

I can. First, one cannot pick those statistics that support and idea and omit others. Second, one cannot show any relationship beyond coincidence when such an enormous amount of variable exist. Statistics are useless unless on can isolate variables and include* all* the data, say Sudan.

There’s a lot of variables in any given country’s experience it is true, but when you take a group of reasonably similar and like minded countries and put gun ownership to the test in a very basic way… even with the remaining variables, there is a common theme.

One thing that the graph does demonstrate as a factor… is it is not just numbers but attitudes towards guns that make a difference.

Take Norway in the graph for example…

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms1_zps370bf3fc.jpg i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms2_zpscdedb70f.jpg

… she has up to a third the volume of guns that the US has but the gun homicide rate is negligable. The difference here is that due to Norways geography it has a large hunting and sport shooting tradition. These areas of gun use typically have a strong emphasis on gun safety, training and storage ingrained in each owner. Norway does not issue gun licenses specifically for self defense and it therefore absolves the gun from needing to be quickly accessible as a barrier between people in everyday life. Guns for self defense simply can’t be locked away from easy access if the window breaks at 3am. It must be close and ready to use at all times otherwise what is the point of them for that purpose.

The Sudan can’t be evaluated alongside these countries as it has been in a state of low grade war in Darfur for years. Guns are part of war unfortunately.

What the Sudan does demonstrate is the negative effects of peoples ‘militia’ with cause to stand up to the government… these people have a number of different ideologies and form into separate militias, half the time fighting each other. I don’t see how the US experience of an uprising against a tyrannical government would be any different. People will always have different concepts of what a new government should look like.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

What the Sudan does demonstrate is the negative effects of peoples ‘militia’ with cause to stand up to the government… these people have a number of different ideologies and form into separate militias, half the time fighting each other. I don’t see how the US experience of an uprising against a tyrannical government would be any different. People will always have different concepts of what a new government should look like.

Absolutely - Excellent point. I think Iraq might be shaping up to be another good example.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[pnewton]

There’s a lot of variables in any given country’s experience it is true, but when you take a group of reasonably similar and like minded countries and put gun ownership to the test in a very basic way… .

I would say that my experience posting here makes me disbelieve the premise that these countries are “like-minded”.

 

[Rau]

…
The problem is, as I’ve suggested before, just because some people can’t handle “freedom” (i.e. gun rights)… doesn’t mean we all have to give them up. …

Should we deny the vast majority their rights because a small minority can’t handle them?..

By “some people”, I assume you imply a minority? What makes you believe it is only a minority that should not possess guns? That’s a brave assumption. I suggest vast numbers of people who are non-criminals and not mentally unstable, would make poor stewards of firearms in the home. And no method of making an effective (and broadly accepted) determination of who should, or should not, own guns has been devised. Drawing the line at criminals and the mentally unstable will not keep us (or the gun owner) safe from misuse.

When you refer to “rights”, do you refer to the right conferred in the constitution, which is a right “the people” are free to review at any time. Perhaps the more fundamental question is not whether would-be gun owners should surrender a right, but what rights are appropriate to require in the 21st century?

 

[Annie39]

Rau
You write: “I suggest vast numbers of people who are non-criminals and not mentally unstable, would make poor stewards of firearms in the home. And no method of making an effective (and broadly accepted) determination of who should, or should not, own guns has been devised. Drawing the line at criminals and the mentally unstable will not keep us (or the gun owner) safe from misuse.”

I’m interested to know what information in your possession prompts you to write the above statement. Would you share this information? Who are these vast number of people to whom you refer who make poor stewards of firearms in the home?

Annie

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan,

I was all set for a good laugh. But after reading the article you cited, I must say I was disappointed on that score. Instead what I saw was a well-constructed psychological experiment that seemed to address the question it set out to answer in as efficient and accurate way as possible. How else would you measure aggressive behavior tendencies in a safe and ethical manner? Asking them to guess how much hot sauce they could tolerate seems like a pretty good way of doing that. The only way you could find the experiment laughable is if you found the question of the experiment laughable in itself. And that seems, on the surface of it, to be a reasonable and relevant question. It would be nice to know, for instance, if exposure to guns can cause aggressive behavior after the fact. I found it scientifically fascinating that testosterone levels could be affected merely by handling a gun for 15 minutes.

Leaf, I am really sorry you did not see the humor in this study.

While the question of the experiment was not really funny the premise was laughable.

We have a bunch of liberal, anti gun grad students sitting around with too much time on their hands. So they plot an experiment that will bolster their agenda of a gun free world.

Lets show that guns increase testosterone in males, and that leads to aggressive behavior, and that proves that all guns should be eliminated and the world will be a better place. Ta-Dah!

So they choose a a study group. of MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS, any one of whom has a higher testosterone level than 10 forty year males. They allow the subjects to fondle a pellet gun (which they explain is not real) Then they check his saliva for an increase in testosterone ( I maintain that they could have had the subjects fondle the keys to a new Porsche GT and produced an equal increase of testosterone…or more.)

Next they had the subjects drink water loaded with “Red’s Hot Sauce”. The subjects were then told that they could add hot sauce to the water of the next control group. Since they were all high on testosterone, they dumped enormous quantities of hot sauce into the water of the following group. This is more of a prank than a show of aggression.

To prove aggression, I would have told the subject… WHO… laced his water with hot sauce and let him confront that subject and kick his a**. That would PROVE aggression.

I think it was hilarious.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually, liberals love this sort of train of thought because it’s so simple that people of all ages can understand it easily, and it resonates at a core level. Simplicity is especially beautiful when it’s profound.

I think “simplistic” would be a better word…

Take your quote: “…it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons.”

While remarkable in a profound sense of the obvious, it brings to mind the old saying:

“He who beats his sword into a plowshare, will plow for he who did not.”

Makes a good case for a serious benefit of gun ownership.

if you are referring to a perfect society, actually that’s a concept called Utopia. Nirvana is an inward state of being achieved through enlightenment.

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate that.

So if I correct my statement to read: “The only problem is that implementation of this state of UTOPIA is impossible. It just ain’t gonna happen.”

…would you agree?

I trust that you are the man for the job. Now, rustle up another batch of impossible and absurd and hurry back.

Thank you,
Gary

I am on it! :banghead:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, I am really sorry you did not see the humor in this study.

While the question of the experiment was not really funny the premise was laughable.

We have a bunch of liberal, anti gun grad students sitting around with too much time on their hands. So they plot an experiment that will bolster their agenda of a gun free world.

Lets show that guns increase testosterone in males, and that leads to aggressive behavior, and that proves that all guns should be eliminated and the world will be a better place. Ta-Dah!

This is an ad hominem attack, which is poor form in debating. Rather than attack the opponent’s claims or arguments, you attack the opponent’s character or motivations.

So they choose a a study group. of MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS, any one of whom has a higher testosterone level than 10 forty year males.

Do you think that fact corrupted the results of the experiment? Remember, the control group who where given a child’s toy instead of a gun were also from that same group of male college students. The absolute level of testosterone is not the issue. The experiment was about measuring the relative change in testosterone levels between the two groups. Selecting males of that age is entirely appropriate because that is also the age group in which a large fraction of the gun violence happens. I think the experimenters chose very wisely in this regard.

They allow the subjects to fondle a pellet gun (which they explain is not real) Then they check his saliva for an increase in testosterone ( I maintain that they could have had the subjects fondle the keys to a new Porsche GT and produced an equal increase of testosterone…or more.)

And you might be right. But that has no bearing on the question at hand.

Next they had the subjects drink water loaded with “Red’s Hot Sauce”. The subjects were then told that they could add hot sauce to the water of the next control group. Since they were all high on testosterone, they dumped enormous quantities of hot sauce into the water of the following group. This is more of a prank than a show of aggression.

To prove aggression, I would have told the subject… WHO… laced his water with hot sauce and let him confront that subject and kick his a**. That would PROVE aggression.

That might be a better measure of aggression, but it is also a measure that you as a researcher could not ethically carry out. By the way, the experimenters did not really let any subject’s hot sauce decision affect any other subject’s. The concentration of hot sauce that each subject drank was exactly the same for everybody. However you could leave out the entire hot sauce part of the experiment and just stop after the saliva test. That would have been enough of a significant result without the “aggression test”. The correlation between testosterone levels and aggression has already been well-established and needed no further experiments to prove it.

 

[Rau]

Rau
You write: “I suggest vast numbers of people who are non-criminals and not mentally unstable, would make poor stewards of firearms in the home. And no method of making an effective (and broadly accepted) determination of who should, or should not, own guns has been devised. Drawing the line at criminals and the mentally unstable will not keep us (or the gun owner) safe from misuse.”

I’m interested to know what information in your possession prompts you to write the above statement. Would you share this information? Who are these vast number of people to whom you refer who make poor stewards of firearms in the home?

Annie

No less information than held by those who believe that everyone (except the mentally unstable and criminals) having guns is a fine thing.

 

[LongingSoul]

Do you think that fact corrupted the results of the experiment? Remember, the control group who where given a child’s toy instead of a gun were also from that same group of male college students. The absolute level of testosterone is not the issue. The experiment was about measuring the relative change in testosterone levels between the two groups. Selecting **males of that age is entirely appropriate because that is also the age group in which a large fraction of the gun violence happens. **I think the experimenters chose very wisely in this regard.

Too true. (And I might add that a large group of mothers who had raised boys could have told them that to start with.)

ideas.time.com/2012/07/24/the-overwhelming-maleness-of-mass-homicide/