Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Dark_Nexium, Jan 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    But, that's not really saying anything.

    Unless you are advocating that nothing ever be banned or prohibited (in which case, you are basically arguing for anarchy), what you just said there is nonsensical. It's like saying that most of the topics on the front page are in English, not saying that there is a problem with that but making an observation.

    It doesn't add anything to the discussion at all.

    Kimball Kinnison
  2. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    You mean, just like your last three posts?

    Anyway, you're jumping to conclusions about my motivations again. This is getting quite tiresome. It was a quantum observation, one to put things into perspective a little bit. If that's not your perspective, too bad. It's certainly not your place to say that perspective has no place in this thread.

    Let it go, man.
  3. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    No need to get all touchy. Did I hit a little close to home about posts being nonsensical?

    In this thread, you have consistently shown an unrealistic response and have ignored things said to you, preferring to give responses that don't really answer the questions asked of you. For example, you posted:
    Of course, you completely neglected a few very simple points.

    1) I specifically defined "responsible gun owner" as "law abiding". A person who simply blows the head off of a bike thief is in violation of the law. Lethal force is only allowed by the law when it is in self defense (or defense of someone else's life).

    2) You specifically said that you have a problem with the responsible gun owner, but then when on to talk about the threat of irresponsible owners. Here's a little hint for you. If a gun owner isn't willing to obey the law, how will passing more laws restricting that gun owner going to make any difference?

    3) When several people pointed out that you are using a very inaccurate stereotype, your response was your nonsensical "observation". In response to that I specifically questioned what it had to do with anything in this thread. You then gave a very hostile response that again said virtually nothing, let alone anything relating to the topic. All I asked was for you to clarify what you meant (as your post made no sense whatsoever). That's not an attack by any measure.

    So, are you going to respond to the actual points that people have made, or should we just expect more nonsense from you?

    (Note: I could go on to point out that your nonsensical comment could easily be interpreted as being against all prohibitions, which would be directly in conflict with your prior comments advocating the prohibition of firearms. That's especially curious considering your talking in that post about hypocrisy. Were you then calling yourself a hypocrite? If that's the case, then why should be accept your viewpoint, as it is logically inconsistent?)

    Kimball Kinnison
  4. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Mmm, let me see there's two nonsensicals, one nonsense and one completely unrealistic. Only one question in this rant here:

    If you put it that way, Kimball: no and yes.
  5. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    So, if you aren't going to respond to actual points that people made, then you are basically trolling, which is against forum rules. Thank you so much for playing, but you need to insert more quarters to continue.

    Have a nice day.

    Kimball Kinnison
  6. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Well that's all good because you have been baiting for two pages.
    To think that I actually did my best to explain it to you... I shouldn't have bothered.
  7. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    No, I haven't been baiting. I've been asking you to explain your position and pointing out where you have completely misinterpreted others' positions, not to mentioned numerous stereotypes and fallacies.

    You are more than welcome to try and answer the actual points that people have made if you want, but your portrayals of gun owners just shooting a bicycle thief in the head out of the blue were completely off base. The only person who talked about doing that was you, which makes that a clear straw man argument (major fallacy).

    When I described part of the reason for my learning martial arts (let me give you another part of the story: I was informed my multiple credible sources that there were threats made about killing me), and how that is similar to someone getting a gun, you completely ignored the main point of the post to respond with a mindless two-liner of
    Never mind what I actually wrote (about using it to defend yourself if you are attacked), you chose to respond to what I didn't say.

    Calling you on your numerous fallacies isn't baiting. Would you care to actually respond to any of the substance of any of the posts here correcting your straw man arguments? Or would you rather just continue trolling or spamming?

    Kimball Kinnison
  8. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I'm going to sleep.
    It's midnight.

    Tomorrow, I will once again respond to your posts. One by one. If I have enough time, because that's going to be one long post. If not, I'll save a draft for you and continue the next day. I will try my utmost to explain why I said what I said - again, because I've done that before. I'll do it, just to keep you from badmouthing me with your trolling and spamming.

    But now I need some sleep because you're giving me a headache.
    So - you'll get your replies AND I got a headache! Hope you're happy with that.
  9. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    I agree with everthing but the headbutting [face_not_talking] I mean really that would hurt the person give the headbutt just as much. :p Well that's if you have never really done that. I never really got that far sadley. :(
  10. Ree Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2005
    star 5

    Even if someone used a gun in self defense, they still killed someone whether it was intentional or not.
    And i agree with what Mr44 said. He seems to be the voice of reason around here.
  11. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Thats not true though. Guns can and have been used in self defense without having to actually SHOOT the other person. Sometimes it reaches that point, but a criminal seeing the person they're trying to rob or attack has a gun can lead to said criminal running off instead. Reread my last post, I was specifically referring to how a gun could be used in self-defense without actually killing someone.
  12. Ree Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2005
    star 5
    I know but I choose not to believe it, sorry mate. It just doesn't register logically in my head *shrugs*
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Why doesn't it register logically in your head? It happens. Case in point a few months ago a former miss america stopped someone that was trespassing on her property and in a outbuilding where people have stolen from before. She had a gun and held him at gunpoint until a passing car stopped and called police. She did also shoot out at least one of the tires of the guy's car, but she didn't simply kill him.

    On the other hand, and this analogy does rely on making an assumption of your political leanings, but so you'd be ok with banning abortion unless its a life or death situation because it just doesn't register logically in my head that someone would have sex but not be willing to accept the possible outcome of it?
  14. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Everything was nice, peaceful and quiet on here. Mr44 posted an observation, saying that he found that using guns is an aspect of human nature that isn?t limited to one outlet. He then goes on to speculate if the same morals can be applied to other things like alcohol, butter, cars, lighters, etc.

    Kimball Kinnison doesn?t respond. He?s nowhere to be seen.

    Then I reiterate more or less the same thing, albeit noting that a lot of the threads here deal with these different aspects of human nature and how they?re dealt with in different countries. I list a similar set of conflict areas, and suddenly Kimball Kinnison is on his hind hooves. He has four questions for me, which I will answer here:

    Nothing. What does butter have to do with cars? The reason I listed these things ? I think that it was clear to everyone, but apparently not for Kimball Kinnison ? is that they?re things that are talked about on the board, with people?s opinions differing over to ban them or not. ?Banning? or ?prohibiting? being the common denominator here, which I?ve pointed out a number of times.

    Ah, see now, if I were to go into this ? which I think is a very good starting point for having a good, deep, philosophical talk about bans and restrictions, as opposed to personal tales such as ?my bike was stolen? ? you?d probably call me a troll and denounce it as being off-topic. You did, actually. While, at the same time, you don?t seem to want to consider a meta-discussion. As this topic is about gun laws and restrictions, any meta-discussion on laws and restrictions in general is valid. The only reasons anybody could call it trolling are because they don?t like the outcome, or that they?re just not bright enough to deal with the subject matter..


    No ? and you could have gathered that from reading my other posts. The fact that you?re asking this implies that you didn?t. So, you?re drawing the wrong conclusions and I point it out to you, but then you actually come out and state that the only reason for me listing these things can be that I don?t like them, which is of course extremely simplistic, thus showing that you are unable to grasp the bigger encompassing themes. You just ignore the fact that you misunderstood me and just go on misunderstanding in the very same vein. So I explain. Then you tell me that I?m not saying anything ? again showing that you have no interest in this line of discussion. That?s fine by me, but I was trying to move the debate to a higher philosophical plane. You could say that you don?t care for that, that you?re more pragmatic, but NOT that I?m not saying anything. Why do you tell me that I?m not saying anything, while ignoring throwaway comments by Mr44 and Lowbacca ? or your own. It?s obvious you?re out to get me. Just because I see things differently than you. Seems to me, then, that the person who doesn?t belong here is you, and not me.

    So, yeah, I get tired. I?m not on here for any personal vendettas, and I?m not here to defend myself against people who just want to see me hang. I want to have a good, open debate, where all sides can freely share their views. And you don?t allow me that - no, you make me have to take this half hour off to write this post, just so you can?t call me a troll or a spammer. That?s beyond making me have to defend myself ? that?s just downright childish. Never in my seven years on here have I been accused of spamming or trolling, and I?m sure not accepting it from some hothead like you.

    Then, just when I?m getting tired, you move in for the kill: you retread some old cows that were moved under the bridge pages earlier.


  15. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    2 things to consider.

    Orlando, Fl 1966, 36 brutal rapes occured. Many women went out and bought handguns. Local leftward leaning newspapers wanted these purchases stopped but instead the Orlando Police Department set up a training program specifically for women.
    1967 only 4 rapes occured.
    *Armed and Female by Paxton Quigley pg 12

    The United States Department of Justice did a study of rape in 1979, in over 32,000 attempts, 32% were committed, however when a women fought back using a knife or firearm, only 3% of attempts were actually committed.
    Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities U.S. Department of Justice pg 31



    Although that was addressed to K_K , The problem is that your responses have been short and do not appear to be in-synch with the the proposed use of force.
    Remember when you stated that I'm "not above the law", SO WHAT!? I never proposed acting outside of the law.
    So what was your point? If you are trying to argue that "no one will really act within the boundries of the law" then we need to address that, which is fine.
    Criminal gets shot, shooter gets locked up. The end.

    My point to my personal exerience is that it showed that this stuff is real, it was starring me in the face Saturday Morning.


    while I'm at it here's two things to consider.


    In 1989 the city of Kennesaw in the state of Georgia passed a law requiring that the "heads of households" keep at least one firearm in the house, the residential burglary rate dropped 89% after the law was passed and has remained low ever since.
    "Crime Control Through the Private use of Armed Force": Social Problems Journal Febuary 1988 pg 15



    1996 Research showed that 95% of all 9-1-1 calls are dispatched too late for the police to stop a crime or arrest a suspect
    "This is 911 Please Hold" :U.S. News and World Report, G. Witkin June 17, 1996 pg 30

    There is a reason that Citizens Arrest exists, its SPECIFICALLY for things like this. In most states, you must witness first hand that a crime has occured, and then and only then can you confine the person till the police arrive, if you falsely make a citizens arrest you can be found guilty of False Imprisonment





  16. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I know but I choose not to believe it, sorry mate. It just doesn't register logically in my head *shrugs*

    Ree, I think you just posted the statement that could form the starting point for compromise here.

    If someone doesn't even consider firearms to be a defensive tool, than any use is going to seem excessive. On same the token, when others speak of using a handgun to prevent a crime, very rarely is that handgun ever used, as it simply forms a part of a larger self defense mentality.

    As I've always said, neither is automatically better than the other, as both have their own set of positives and negatives. It just depends on what perception the person is used to.
  17. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Master_SweetPea, apologies - when I said 'you're not above the law', I meant 'you' as in 'one' (one is not above the law), not you personally.

    Your Kennesaw example - any figures on gun crimes? Otherwise, the example is incomplete and doesn't tell us much.

    Your 1996 research article only shows that the police doesn't function properly. That's a good reason to clean that up, not a reason (in my opinion) to provide the people with guns.

    Perhaps you could look into foreign figures, as well, see if there's a good alternative?
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Perhaps you could look into foreign figures, as well, see if there's a good alternative?

    Watto, it's a common trend that isn't unique to the US and is based on fundamental physical limitations.

    If a crime occurs, the person has to dial an emergency contact number (911 in the US, 999 in England, etc..) describe the situation, the dispatch center then has to dispatch an officer, who then has to respond.

    Quick response times have been brought down to 5 minutes or so, but even then, 5 minutes seems like an eternity to the victim. (Of course, in certain rural areas, where distances are great- or in congested heavy urban areas, this is going to increase) What SweetPea is describing isn't a matter of the police in the US "being broken," but rather basic physical limitations that apply everywhere.

    However, it's a difference of perception in the role of the victim. Generally, in the US, people have a more individual mentality where they aren't going to wait. People in other countries have more of a reliance on waiting on the authorities.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I only have a few minutes (getting ready for a business trip), but I will respond to a few of these points.
    Well, why don't we start from here?

    What Mr44 said was:
    Note carefully what I bolded there. Mr44's mention of alcohol, butter, cars and lights was specifically relating to things that have higher mortality rates than guns. He actually had a point to that.

    You, on the other hand, said this:
    Your list doesn't correlate with his point, that of things that cause more deaths are not banned, so why ban guns? Instead, you went off on a complete tangent becasue those things are sometimes discussed on the boards.

    Specifically, you included items like WMDs, pollution, and sex and crime on TV. Of those last items, only pollution would really count as something that has any real impact on mortality rates. (The US's WMD policy has no impact on the domestic mortality rates.) You then went on to say that because the policies on those unrelated topics didn't match up "we're raising hypocrites all across the board." It was this last statement (as well as your list of policies) that I directly questioned.

  20. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I understand what you're saying, and thank you for the elaboration.
    I can see how my posts would have offended you, seeing how you're coming from the PPOR standpoint. I'm sorry - that wasn't my intention.

    It's because when people mention 'responsible gun owner' that I immediately think 'well, wherever there's responsible gun owners, there will be irresponsible ones, as well'. That's the position from which I started debating, and it's obvious I didn't make that distinction clear, so again, apologies. Looking back, I don't get why I typed 'have a problem with the responsible gun owner', and I think it's possible that I forgot to type 'don't'. [face_tired]

    Anyway.
    My stance is one of trying to look further. Further than what's known. Not facts, not speculation, just logic. Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings? I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my behind here. So. Be weird if there's no place on the board here for logic? And sure, if my logic is crap, keep tellin' me. I'm telling you! :)

    So, back to the bike theft.
    What I'm saying is call the cops when your bike is stolen. Hope the cops catch the thief. Later. Hope you find your bike back in the depot. Or not - getcha money back from the insurance. Putting lethal force at the hands of citizens is only going to make citizens (not the responsible ones!) interpret the law. Why would you want to have that? So, all I'm saying is, try my way. If it works over here, why wouldn't it work for you?

    That's not that nonsensical, right?

    EDIT: I was picturing something really Tarkinesque there with the "I WROTE THEM!" :p
  21. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Comes down to:
    Regs on here all seem pretty decent fellows - explicit views, but decent altogether. What I keep trying to point out is that laws that prohibit stuff or ban stuff shouldn't be made just to suit you - but that will work for that untrustworthy guy who lives up your street, as well.
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    What I'm saying is call the cops when your bike is stolen. Hope the cops catch the thief. Later. Hope you find your bike back in the depot. Or not - getcha money back from the insurance. Putting lethal force at the hands of citizens is only going to make citizens (not the responsible ones!) interpret the law. Why would you want to have that? So, all I'm saying is, try my way. If it works over here, why wouldn't it work for you?

    That's not that nonsensical, right?


    No of course not. But you also aren't differentiating between perceptions. I also think your post could also be linked to Ree's post above.

    Neither set of assumptions is perfect, as both have their flaws. This example is focusing on a bike, which is a situation that is pretty easy to rationalize. But what if we were focusing on something more serious-sexual assault, home invasion, etc...?

    Australia has been used as a comparison to the US before, and while we're not picking on Australia, as a country, it does have quite a few categories of crime that are much higher than the US.

    Ree hit the nail on the head when he indicated that he simply doesn't perceive a gun to be a tool for self defense. Are there serious criminal incidents that could be prevented in Australia if this perception changed? I'd wager that there would be. But even so, I'd assume that most Australians simply wouldn't consider it, and accept a higher level of crime as a trade off for feeling institutionally secure..(ie... relying on the response of authorities.)

    As I somewhat simplistically summed up before "more rapes, but less gun violence" and vice versa.

    I also think it was in a previous gun thread where someone summed up the typical British response to violence as "grabbing a cricket bat and running to a neighbors house to wait for the police." This seems to be the position you are advocating.

    In the US, there is more of an individual focus, and more people perceive that they are in charge of their own well being. I think the majority of people in the US aren't content to wait for a police response, and instead would act in their own behalf, if possible.

    As much as it is a foreign concept to you that someone would use a gun to defend themselves, I think it's just as foreign of concept in the US to abandon one's home/well being to an intruder. Of course I'm using generalities, but as I said, both assumptions have positives and negatives.
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    [voice=Vader]Apology accepted, SuperWatto.[/voice] :p

    Actually, no it isn't logical, because you are misunderstanding what logic is.

    Logic is a process, nothing more. You can't separate logic from facts, because logic by itself is meaningless. Logic is only a useful tool when you either start from a set of facts or from a set of assumptions and then apply logical reasoning to that set of facts/assumptions.

    In your example, it would only be logical if you make one assumption (an assumption that does not hold as true in the real world). You have to assume that by prohibiting guns you would be able to completely remove them from society. That doesn't hold, because the only viable means to prohibit guns is through criminalizing them, and the criminals have no incentive to surrender them.

    Yes, there is a place here for logic, but you need to provide the basis for that logic first, outlining the assumptions and facts upon which it is based, for it to be valid logic.

    There are several problems with this approach, though.

    First of all, as I recall (Mr44 might have the actual statistics) most stolen property isn't recovered by the police, especially not in a timely fashion. That is a very inefficient way to prevent such crimes.

    Second, taking the attitude of "getcha money back from the insurance" ignores the fact that this ultimately increases insurance costs for everyone. That's not even taking into consideration the deductible on the insurance (in my case, $500) that the individual has to pay out of pocket. The money to pay the insurance claim has to come from somewhere, and if insurance companies are not able to make a profit off of their investments because of increased claims rates, they will pass on the cost of those increased rates in the form of higher premiums. That's just basic economics.

    Third, are you honestly saying that if you came across someone who was trying to steal your bike, you would not say a word to them, but would instead just call the police? You wouldn't even ask them (even from a distance) what they were doing with your bike? I find that hard to believe as it is counter to basic human nature.

    Finally, you forget that lethal force is already in the hands of citizens and criminals. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will still have them, and both the citizens and criminals will still have knives, clubs (bats, pipes, etc), chains, and so forth. In one self de
  24. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Right to bear arms?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-c3IuhWf0
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings? I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my behind here. So. Be weird if there's no place on the board here for logic? And sure, if my logic is crap, keep tellin' me. I'm telling you!

    I'd respond that sometimes, human behavior runs contrary to logic.. No really! :p

    In the US, the period which saw the greatest number of school shootings occurred in the 90's, and they have been declining to pre90's levels since reaching that peak. Perhaps paradoxically, perhaps not (depending on one's point of view) this is also the same time the US had in place the federal "assault weapons ban."

    So in this specific example, the most school shootings occurred during the same period as the most restrictive gun laws, at least in the US.

    What changed? Schools instituted more comprehensive mental health programs and increased the availability of counselling. In short, small problems were targeted before they became big problems, and school violence, even the type where guns weren't used, dropped. Obviously, there are exceptions like Cho, whose picture you supplied, but the overall trend holds.

    I'm not claiming that school violence increased because of the strict gun laws, or vice versa, but simply put- the problem of school violence isn't a gun issue, it's a health issue.

    This is where I think we disagree. To me, when you point at the gun and "say look! evil!" it seems shortsighted, almost the easy way out. Of course, I guess that's the nature of debate ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.