Topic: The Gun Topic

[HolsteinCow]

Keeping the Southern States in the Union. The Slavery bit was thought up by Lincoln and his advisers. They decided on that because it would give them a reason to fight. The North largely didn't like slave owners and Lincoln gave them an excuse. For the record, even during the Civil War, the North didn't free their slaves. In fact, until the Constitution was amended to include a ban on slavery, the Emancipation of slaves ONLY occurred in states that fought for the Confederacy.

so in this alternate history of yours:

1)the south seceded for no reason
2)the north declared war on the south using slavery as an excuse because the fact that they didn't recognize the csa as a sovereign nation wasn't enough of an excuse to fight

where exactly did learn history

[Axelgear]

Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?

Not sure compared to guns but how many people die from pools... About 2000 a year, give or take a hundred or two, and about 100,000 are injured. Firearms related accidents? About a few hundred deaths (In the area of 5-700) and injuries, I can't find stats for. So, yeah, pools are more of an accident risk than guns.

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.

Guns give some people self-defense, the ability to defend their lives and property. Sounds vital enough to me. Besides, if you're willing to agree that people dieing is okay because of something because taking it away would be an inconvenience for you, well...

This was after the fact. And the homicides weren't always committed by the abuser, either.

So... Self-defense? Snapping? In the case of snapping, I doubt it'd do much to not have a gun (Poison, knife, etc.) and self-defense I'd have called a good thing.

Yet again, you're ignoring the point I'm making. But whatever, I'm not going to explain it again.

Your point seemed to be that it reduced murder rates to ban guns. We've seen places with and without gun restrictions that have low murder rates, some of which have the lowest murder rates in the world. We know banning guns doesn't get them out the hands of criminals. I'm wondering what your point is exactly.

1)the south seceded for no reason

Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

2)the north declared war on the south using slavery as an excuse because the fact that they didn't recognize the csa as a sovereign nation wasn't enough of an excuse to fight

They didn't recognize state's rights to secede from the Union, something guaranteed by the Constitution until Lincoln threw it out (And suspended Habeas Corpus too, I might add), and attacked a sovereign nation.


For the record, I should point out that a part of the NRA's founding was to ensure gun rights went to black people and armed them against the KKK.

[HolsteinCow]

Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

so the south won the civil war because we ended up annexing cuba 30 years later, my mind is blown

[Axelgear]

.... Riiiight... Moving on...

[Plank of Wood]

Oh, they seceded for a reason. They didn't like the way the nation was headed and split off. Things like manifest destiny (They wanted to take annex Cuba, for example) didn't fit with the Republicans.

so the south won the civil war because we ended up annexing cuba 30 years later, my mind is blown

*high fives*

[Axelgear]

Why are you high fiving him? That made no sense. The South lost the Civil War because it lost its sovereignty, that was merely a part of why they seceded.

[Werechicken]

Okay compared to guns how many swimming pool deaths have there been?

Not sure compared to guns but how many people die from pools... About 2000 a year, give or take a hundred or two, and about 100,000 are injured. Firearms related accidents? About a few hundred deaths (In the area of 5-700) and injuries, I can't find stats for. So, yeah, pools are more of an accident risk than guns.

I'd like actual figures from a study not some numbers you clearly just made up. Your estimate for gun related deaths and injuries is laughably low while your pool related figures seem suspiciously high in terms of both deaths and injuries

Also you keep mentioning banning cars, despite the fact that cars are far more common and are vital to many people, whereas guns are not, with the possible exception of a few tiny minorities.

Guns give some people self-defense, the ability to defend their lives and property. Sounds vital enough to me. Besides, if you're willing to agree that people dieing is okay because of something because taking it away would be an inconvenience for you, well...

Fail. If I asked 1,000,000 Americans what they would rather give up their gun or their car how many do you think would seriously say they'd give up their car? Maybe those who live in very rough areas or gun fanatics, such as yourself, who believe that they can sense when they will be attacked and therefore will be able to draw their gun in an instant, or wake up immediately and grab their gun, however most rational people would say their gun without hesitation.

[Axelgear]

I'd like actual figures from a study not some numbers you clearly just made up. Your estimate for gun related deaths and injuries is laughably low while your pool related figures seem suspiciously high in terms of both deaths and injuries

It doesn't fit your idea, so it must be made up! Gasp! Okay, fine.

Drowning statistics

Gun accident statistics

It also points out that the largest group of people who suffer from fire-arms related deaths are teens committing suicide.

Fail. If I asked 1,000,000 Americans what they would rather give up their gun or their car how many do you think would seriously say they'd give up their car? Maybe those who live in very rough areas or gun fanatics, such as yourself, who believe that they can sense when they will be attacked and therefore will be able to draw their gun in an instant, or wake up immediately and grab their gun, however most rational people would say their gun without hesitation.

Depends who you ask and where. I'm no gun fanatic, I just like the idea of being able to defend myself. As for giving up either, you shouldn't have to. Just because people use something, though, doesn't make it safer. Should people using it more often mean you can ignore the amount of suffering and death it causes? Guns are used a lot too, for fun, for safety, and for food. Just because not as many people have them doesn't mean they should be excised.

[Daxx]

Protip: If you cite your sources, people won't accuse you of making **** up.

[Axelgear]

Meh... I'll try to do so in future.

[/lurk]

Those figures are meaningless without comparing swimming pool ownership to gun ownership.

Go do that, and then you can call it an argument. Although all that argument would amount is "only a few guns cause fatal accidents," which isn't really worthwhile for trying to argue against tighter gun control.

[Axelgear]

Those figures are meaningless without comparing swimming pool ownership to gun ownership.

Go do that, and then you can call it an argument. Although all that argument would amount is "only a few guns cause fatal accidents," which isn't really worthwhile for trying to argue against tighter gun control.

Actually, Lurk, there's anywhere between 200 to 300 million guns owned in the United States, owned by about 60 million people (1/5th of the population). Even if every house in the United States had a pool, 730 accidental deaths from 200-300 million items is a trifling statistic against 2000 from a far lower number of owned items.

If anyone could get me any number on the amount of pools owned, that'd be great. I'm having a hard time finding that.

[/lurk]

That's easy to point out, but I wasn't just talking about numbers. Sometimes you're actually required to think about things. Maybe things like "How are swimming pools and guns different?" Or perhaps "How do the people who use swimming pools differ from those who use guns?"

In any case, the fact that they killed seven hundred and thirty people by accident in the U.S. in 2003 isn't a great argument against gun control.

[Werechicken]

While I find it a bit suspicious that those figures are posted on a site where you can buy stuff for guns I'll let it slide.

As for your swimming pool comparison I'd say try comparing the overall level of deaths related to a large body of water that would be difficult to keep kids away from compared to a small compact object that can easily be locked away.

Oh and as for your incessant comparison of guns to cars (published in 1994 so the predictions may not be accurate but they do show a very clear trend):


For your center of disease control and prevention, a report comparing deaths by firearms and deaths by car.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Table_1

[Axelgear]

Guns didn't kill anyone. People mishandling them did. I hate that line of logic because it's so inane. Guns, pools, cars... They don't kill ANYTHING, it's people using them that cause the problems. A gun doesn't have a finger to pull its own trigger.

As for how swimming pools and guns differ, that really doesn't seem to matter. Swimming pools result in more accidental deaths and injuries than guns. Cars result in more deaths, injuries, and suffering than... Anything, really. These are the points I present. Guns, pools, cars... They all have positive and negative uses. We shouldn't throw the whole thing out because some people misuse them.


Out of curiousity, where did you get that graph, by the way? Because it's incorrect. There were 17,000 murders in the US as of 2006, and that's been the average for the few years before, and that's all deaths, not just gun related. We also know that only a few hundred die from accidents in the US.

These statistics sound flawed. Unless, perhaps, they're including suicide, but even then that sounds fishy...

Edit: For the record, I believe that if someone wants to commit suicide, it's their call.

Also, here are suicide statistics.

Note that 17,000 or so firearms deaths are suicides. I was right, they DID include suicides, and therefore that graph is flawed. Suicide is not a crime and does not affect other people beyond the consequence of someone simply not being there. Their life, their choice, their fault. Not murder.