I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

#301
#301
NCFisher said:
Which is why nothing equalizes the playing field faster, more efficiently, and less dangerously than a firearm for the person defending themself. About a third of annual murders do not involve a firearm. More people annually are beaten to death with hands/feet than are killed with all types of rifles and shotguns. Handguns are preferred by lawful citizen and criminal alike for their utility, not necessarily for their effectiveness.

And you're examining half the equation - firearm deaths - without examining deaths/injuries avoided due to defensive presence of a firearm regardless of whether it was fired or brandished to warn off attack. The lowest estimates ranges from 80K to 100s/1000s; some have even estimated defensive uses from 1 - 2.5 million. If we assume the approximate middle range of say, 500K, we're considering a potentially much higher rate of murder and injury than currently experienced.

I don't know your intentions, but frequently 'just sensible gun control' is often coming from prohibitionists who know little about firearms and don't seem to care about 2A rights or defensive use; they fully believe disarming lawful citizens will by extension disarm the criminal. This is foolish. There are between 300-400 million firearms in U.S. circulation and has approximately doubled or tripled since the 1990s Brady Act and implementation of NICS. Despite that explosion of arms in circulation, until the last couple years the murder rate had fallen steadily and reduced to about 1/3 of the peak in the mid-90s, and at/near the lowest in nearly a century. Also during this time CCW has become nearly ubiquitous. Accidental shootings also precipitously declined to ridiculously low levels. So the problem - clearly - is not related to the number of guns in circulation or numbers of people lawfully carrying them and exercising their rights.

The mid-1990s were also the peak for robbery, agg. assault, rape, and burglary. Gun crime does not rise and fall in a vacuum, but ebbs and flows with general crime rates.
Click to expand...

A lot to unpack here, but let's just start with the most basic. You say that more people are killed with "hands and feet" than firearms. 2019 FBI stats show that around 4% of homicides are committed with hands & feet; 73% with firearms.

You seem to feel that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," so...let's just say that words fail.

If you were truly concerned about defensive use of weapons, you'd be glad to see technology that would prevent criminals from using stolen weapons to commit crimes whereas you could use your weapon to defend yourself against guns or other weapons.
 
#304
#304
creekdipper said:
A lot to unpack here, but let's just start with the most basic. You say that more people are killed with "hands and feet" than firearms. 2019 FBI stats show that around 4% of homicides are committed with hands & feet; 73% with firearms.

You seem to feel that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," so...let's just say that words fail.

If you were truly concerned about defensive use of weapons, you'd be glad to see technology that would prevent criminals from using stolen weapons to commit crimes whereas you could use your weapon to defend yourself against guns or other weapons.
Click to expand...

No, I said more people killed by hands/feet than rifles and shotguns. That includes AR15s, AKs, etc. I've used the FBI UCR reports since the 1990s. For 2019, 564 were killed by rifles and shotguns and 600 by hands/feet. Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

No did I say or imply supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," let's just say reading fails.

My first and foremost concern is that a defensive gun fires when it's needed, not that it fits your arbitrary and misplaced definition of "truly concerned". Whether a criminal steals it is a concern subordinate to the primary reason for owning it to begin with. It certainly won't lead me to adopt an unreliable 'smart gun' - such as the Lodestar I linked in another reply - with a fingerprint pad known to not work in adverse conditions that then requires me to use a PIN pad or log onto it with a smartphone app. I suggest you don't either but would respect your choice to support unreliable firearms by purchasing one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#306
#306
OHvol40 said:
You take my stance advocating for self-determination and try to make it analogous to slave ownership? I’ve seen some mental gymnastics in this forum, but that takes the cake.

Nothing you conjure up will convince me that I should allow you to impose your contested view on when life begins on me and my family. Good luck with that, though.
Click to expand...

Your "argument" boils down to your totally arbitary and unscientific beliefs...just as those shared by some slaveowners (and more recently, other well-known groups) who "believed" that "inferior races" were subhuman).

No, I know that logic, reason, and science will never convince everyone, but you can't blame a person for trying. If you can make an argument that human life does not begin at conception and can do so without relying upon superstition, you're welcome to make the attempt. You're tge one who has declared yourself to be closeminded.
 
#307
#307
creekdipper said:
A lot to unpack here, but let's just start with the most basic. You say that more people are killed with "hands and feet" than firearms. 2019 FBI stats show that around 4% of homicides are committed with hands & feet; 73% with firearms.

You seem to feel that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," so...let's just say that words fail.

If you were truly concerned about defensive use of weapons, you'd be glad to see technology that would prevent criminals from using stolen weapons to commit crimes whereas you could use your weapon to defend yourself against guns or other weapons.
Click to expand...
You have clearly never worked in law enforcement or biometrics
 
#310
#310
K-town Vol Fan said:
My body my choice, right? Isn't that what you were saying a few months ago? Or does that not apply here because you disagree morally with the choice.
Click to expand...

A few months ago there was a political shot being pushed on people, many already with natural immunity. It was labeled as a “vaccine” but was far from it. We also see in hindsight how idiotic the push was. Not sure how you compare that to killing a human out of convenience. Even your idiotic drug stance affects more people than just the user and in many cases an unborn child.
 
#311
#311
NCFisher said:
No, I said more people killed by hands/feet than rifles and shotguns. That includes AR15s, AKs, etc. I've used the FBI UCR reports since the 1990s. For 2019, 564 were killed by rifles and shotguns and 600 by hands/feet. Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

No did I say or imply supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," let's just say reading fails.

My first and foremost concern is that a defensive gun fires when it's needed, not that it fits your arbitrary and misplaced definition of "truly concerned". Whether a criminal steals it is a concern subordinate to the primary reason for owning it to begin with. It certainly won't lead me to adopt an unreliable 'smart gun' - such as the Lodestar I linked in another reply - with a fingerprint pad known to not work in adverse conditions that then requires me to use a PIN pad or log onto it with a smartphone app. I suggest you don't either but would respect your choice to support unreliable firearms by purchasing one.
Click to expand...

The question was what can be done to address "gun violence." Why you choose to cherry pick "rifles and shotguns" is beyond me. That's not moving the goalposts; that's moving the entire stadium.

I said I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, and your immediate response was to go on about how you "don't my intentions" and then launched into talking about people trying to prohibit gun ownership. If that wasn't trying to establish a link, then you did a great job fooling everyone. I'm just mentioning a possibility for making guns safer, not saying that it's a perfect solution. But that's a different topic from abortion and ought to be taken to a different thread anyway.
 
#315
#315
creekdipper said:
A lot to unpack here, but let's just start with the most basic. You say that more people are killed with "hands and feet" than firearms. 2019 FBI stats show that around 4% of homicides are committed with hands & feet; 73% with firearms.

You seem to feel that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are "prohibitionists," so...let's just say that words fail.

If you were truly concerned about defensive use of weapons, you'd be glad to see technology that would prevent criminals from using stolen weapons to commit crimes whereas you could use your weapon to defend yourself against guns or other weapons.
Click to expand...

I’m not worried about criminals using stolen guns to commit crimes. I’m worried about more .gov intrusion into our lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#316
#316
creekdipper said:
So homicides are caused by lack of education? Please explain the concept.
Click to expand...

Homicides are a people problem that most every gun control advocate refuses to address. The tool used to commit homicides is irrelevant.

Education about and familiarization with firearms would prevent the vast majority of accidental deaths from gun shots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#317
#317
creekdipper said:
The question was what can be done to address "gun violence." Why you choose to cherry pick "rifles and shotguns" is beyond me. That's not moving the goalposts; that's moving the entire stadium.

I said I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, and your immediate response was to go on about how you "don't my intentions" and then launched into talking about people trying to prohibit gun ownership. If that wasn't trying to establish a link, then you did a great job fooling everyone. I'm just mentioning a possibility for making guns safer, not saying that it's a perfect solution. But that's a different topic from abortion and ought to be taken to a different thread anyway.
Click to expand...

Address the epidemic of violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Vol423
#319
#319
creekdipper said:
The question was what can be done to address "gun violence." Why you choose to cherry pick "rifles and shotguns" is beyond me. That's not moving the goalposts; that's moving the entire stadium.

I said I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, and your immediate response was to go on about how you "don't my intentions" and then launched into talking about people trying to prohibit gun ownership. If that wasn't trying to establish a link, then you did a great job fooling everyone. I'm just mentioning a possibility for making guns safer, not saying that it's a perfect solution. But that's a different topic from abortion and ought to be taken to a different thread anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, no, I responded to
People can be killed in a variety of ways, but the easiest, most efficient, and least threatening to the perpetrator is to use a firearm. How do the numbers of mass stabbing incidents (or any alternative weapon) compare statistically to incidents involving firearms? There are many readons for that, but there is no argument that guns are the weapon of choice.
Click to expand...
by essentially saying 'yes' and one-third of murders don't involve firearms, and that a category - long guns - are fewer than those beaten/strangled to death. That's an affirmation of what you said and an adjunct comment, it isn't "moving" anything.

I don't know you. Some 2A supporters align with prohibitionists on some things - outlawing AR/AKs, high capacity magazines as two quick examples - things I oppose. One thing control advocates and prohibitionists - even the 2A types - routinely do is cloak themselves in talk of 'safety'. I gave you the benefit of doubt to speak for yourself.
 
#320
#320
creekdipper said:
Your "argument" boils down to your totally arbitary and unscientific beliefs...just as those shared by some slaveowners (and more recently, other well-known groups) who "believed" that "inferior races" were subhuman).

No, I know that logic, reason, and science will never convince everyone, but you can't blame a person for trying. If you can make an argument that human life does not begin at conception and can do so without relying upon superstition, you're welcome to make the attempt. You're tge one who has declared yourself to be closeminded.
Click to expand...
I am entrenched in the sciences on a daily basis. Have a doctorate in a healthcare field (anesthesia specifically) after completing nursing school and a surgical technology degree before that. Please don’t pretend to talk over my head about anything pertaining to this matter, it has nothing to do with science, it’s purely opinion and religious indoctrination that tends to sway people one way or another on this issue. I choose to let people determine their own beliefs, you choose not to.
 
#321
#321
NCFisher said:
Well, no, I responded to
by essentially saying 'yes' and one-third of murders don't involve firearms, and that a category - long guns - are fewer than those beaten/strangled to death. That's an affirmation of what you said and an adjunct comment, it isn't "moving" anything.

I don't know you. Some 2A supporters align with prohibitionists on some things - outlawing AR/AKs, high capacity magazines as two quick examples - things I oppose. One thing control advocates and prohibitionists - even the 2A types - routinely do is cloak themselves in talk of 'safety'. I gave you the benefit of doubt to speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


A couple of random thoughts.

First, I think we'd all agree that while long guns can be used to kill humans its going to be a far lower proportion of total gun violence than are handguns. If someone uses a long gun it was probably a planned killing. Handguns might be resorted to in a panic, in a robbery gone bad, in a drug deal gone bad, etc.

Second, any of the gun proponents on this board take pride in how careful they are to prevent their guns from being misused or stolen. They then dismiss complaints about society at large not being that good about this issue.

The problem I have is that there are plenty of gun owners out there not nearly as responsible as the board members might be. Now the board members who claim they are responsible don't want to be "penalized" for the lack of effort by their less responsible counterparts. Ok. But that doesn't fix the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top