• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

Ikari said:
Cross country evaluations are often difficult due to the differences in society, population, and laws. For us, it's a relatively low number since there are so many people and guns in our society and so few accidental deaths. Since it's below that of gravity, I don't see it as a huge problem.
Click to expand...

Well, that might be a problem in and of itself, but not one I see ending. However, if we are going to be so well armed, it's not unreasonable to try to limit the collateral damage of our choices.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, the burden of proof is on you concerning this one. You're the one claiming it a problem.
Click to expand...

What problem?


I am free to own guns. I am free to use them in self defense. You have the problem of wanting trigger locks. :shrug:


Don't care what you believe. He's a responsible gun owner, but makes silly claims that people don't mess with him because he has guns. He's nearly 7 foot tall and 300 pound. There's a another reason people don't mess with him. But I proved my point
Click to expand...


Cool, then you would have no problem putting a sign in front of your home reading "Gun Free Home"?

Please post pics.



BTW, I don't see a link for what you add here. Let me link something for you:

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[60] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.[60] For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[60] Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim.[60] Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.[60] In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[60] During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[61] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[60]

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.[62] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69]

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, claiming that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[60] The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.[70] A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[71]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just an overview, but it has links and we could get the FBI stats if we want. ;)
Click to expand...






:lol: yeah, a hoplophobe is a great source. :roll:

A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns
Click to expand...


All the more reason to arm your self. :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, that might be a problem in and of itself, but not one I see ending. However, if we are going to be so well armed, it's not unreasonable to try to limit the collateral damage of our choices.
Click to expand...

But you'll never eliminate the consequences. Those are consequences of freedom and must be bore by any people wishing to be free. As I said, the accidental gun death rate is lower than that from gravity; so it doesn't seem like a huge problem. You have a higher probability of dying by slipping in the shower than you do of randomly being shot.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What problem?


I am free to own guns. I am free to use them in self defense. You have the problem of wanting trigger locks. :shrug:





Cool, then you would have no problem putting a sign in front of your home reading "Gun Free Home"?

Please post pics.










:lol: yeah, a hoplophobe is a great source. :roll:




All the more reason to arm your self. :shrug:
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I don't own a gun, and rarely lock a door, and I've never been robbed. As one neighbor kid put it, someone would be crazy to break into my house.

However, not the point. WIkipedia is just a summery source. It gives you an idea of the issue. It has other links, and if you're interested, you can click on those.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I've said before, I don't own a gun, and rarely lock a door, and I've never been robbed. As one neighbor kid put it, someone would be crazy to break into my house.
Click to expand...


Good for you, why do you think your anecdotal personal experiences are relevant?

However, not the point. WIkipedia is just a summery source. It gives you an idea of the issue. It has other links, and if you're interested, you can click on those.
Click to expand...



Interested in what? Hoplophobic ramblings of chicken little perportions? no thanks.


My gun is no threat to anyone I don't want it to be. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
But you'll never eliminate the consequences. Those are consequences of freedom and must be bore by any people wishing to be free. As I said, the accidental gun death rate is lower than that from gravity; so it doesn't seem like a huge problem. You have a higher probability of dying by slipping in the shower than you do of randomly being shot.
Click to expand...

It's not all or nothing IMHO. Nor do I see it as anything to with freedom. We have all kinds of safety laws that are in place, and are no less free for them. I'm not less free because I have to wear a seat belt when I drive, or orange when I hunt, or put my German Shepard on a leash when I walk him. reasonable precautions just don't worry me too much.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not all or nothing IMHO. Nor do I see it as anything to with freedom. We have all kinds of safety laws that are in place, and are no less free for them. I'm not less free because I have to wear a seat belt when I drive, or orange when I hunt, or put my German Shepard on a leash when I walk him. reasonable precautions just don't worry me too much.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. There are reasonable things to do for aggregated effects which are of concern. However, freedom itself is not a safe situation. Because you allow people to be free, some will take advantage. We allow guns, thus there will be some percentage of gun crime, there will be murder and suicide and accident due to guns. That will not be made zero. You can try to minimize if you want. And with accidental gun deaths, it's rather well minimized. If you can't even beat gravity, then you're not really high on the list of probability.
 
Ikari said:
That's not the point. There are reasonable things to do for aggregated effects which are of concern. However, freedom itself is not a safe situation. Because you allow people to be free, some will take advantage. We allow guns, thus there will be some percentage of gun crime, there will be murder and suicide and accident due to guns. That will not be made zero. You can try to minimize if you want. And with accidental gun deaths, it's rather well minimized. If you can't even beat gravity, then you're not really high on the list of probability.
Click to expand...

I've never claimed it would be zero. I claim it's a reasonable effort to lower it. I personally think the numbers are too high, so I don't agree that is is already as low as it can possibly go.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've never claimed it would be zero. I claim it's a reasonable effort to lower it. I personally think the numbers are too high, so I don't agree that is is already as low as it can possibly go.
Click to expand...

It's as low as it can reasonably go. You can make it near zero by banning guns and confiscating weapons. Once there are not a lot of guns, you can't have a lot of gun crime and such. However, that involves some rather unsavory tactics which fly in the face of freedom. So we can take it as low as we can while still respecting the rights and liberties of the individual. And because we choose to respect those rights and liberties, we note that there will be consequence for doing just that.

As I said, you can't beat gravity. If you can't beat gravity, you're not very high on the list of likely ways to die. You're well more likely to die in the shower than from accidentally being shot.
 
Ikari said:
It's as low as it can reasonably go. You can make it near zero by banning guns and confiscating weapons. Once there are not a lot of guns, you can't have a lot of gun crime and such. However, that involves some rather unsavory tactics which fly in the face of freedom. So we can take it as low as we can while still respecting the rights and liberties of the individual. And because we choose to respect those rights and liberties, we note that there will be consequence for doing just that.

As I said, you can't beat gravity. If you can't beat gravity, you're not very high on the list of likely ways to die. You're well more likely to die in the shower than from accidentally being shot.
Click to expand...

I think that is our disagreement.

The Evidence:

In a systematic review, Hahn et al. reviewed three studies that measured the impact of CAP laws on juvenile unintentional firearm-related deaths. Hahn et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. One of the three studies examined the impact of CAP laws on firearm-related and non-firearm-related juvenile suicides and homicides. The second study evaluated the impact of CAP laws on overall violent outcomes (all homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape) to test the hypothesis that CAP laws impede self-defense. The third study measured the impact of unintentional firearm-related deaths among juveniles under the age of 15 in states with felony CAP laws. The findings on juvenile homicide and violent outcomes were inconsistent and mostly lacked statistical significance. A few of the underlying studies found associations between CAP laws and juvenile violent outcomes in a few states. However, the reviewers did not view the available evidence as sufficient to establish the effectiveness of CAP laws as a public health intervention.

The Bottom Line:

Although CAP laws may represent a promising intervention for reducing gun-related morbidity and mortality among children, in the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.

Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws for Guns | Public Health Law Research

So, while I can't claim it has reduced the problem, would you change your mind if it did reduce the deaths? Again, I just think it is a reasonable effort.
 
It would depend on how much it was able to reduce the effect and through what measures it took to get that result.
 
Ikari said:
It would depend on how much it was able to reduce the effect and through what measures it took to get that result.
Click to expand...

Well, what we're talking about are safety locks and punishing parents who are irresponsible. That much. How far would it have to go down before you would think it was a reasonable effort?
 
At least a factor of two. Though I think trigger locks in and of themselves are unreasonable.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just curious, Why?
Click to expand...

Because you're affecting my ability to use my firearm in a timely manner when I may need to do just that. I have the right to keep and bear arms, it's a necessity to a free State. Things which hamper that, which affect my efficiency with my guns or ability to quickly use them work against that basic right.
 
Ikari said:
Because you're affecting my ability to use my firearm in a timely manner when I may need to do just that. I have the right to keep and bear arms, it's a necessity to a free State. Things which hamper that, which affect my efficiency with my guns or ability to quickly use them work against that basic right.
Click to expand...

Well, there's another place we disagree. They are not that difficult. An adult can remove it rather quickly, and if there is enough time to use it at all, there's enough time to remove the lock. You're still free to own and legally sue the weapon.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, there's another place we disagree. They are not that difficult. An adult can remove it rather quickly, and if there is enough time to use it at all, there's enough time to remove the lock. You're still free to own and legally sue the weapon.
Click to expand...





Seriously? An adult has enough time to "Remove it rather quickly",? I would laugh at your ignorance if it wasn't so sad. :lamo



and if there is enough time to use it at all, there's enough time to remove the lock
Click to expand...


How did you arrive at this nonsense? This ought to be good... :lamo
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Seriously? An adult has enough time to "Remove it rather quickly",? I would laugh at your ignorance if it wasn't so sad. :lamo






How did you arrive at this nonsense? This ought to be good... :lamo
Click to expand...

Well, it makes sense to me. The gun is unloaded, and the trigger lock is on. You remove the lock, and load the weapon. This happens if you're awaken by someone breaking in. You have some time before they get to you. We're talking want, 1-2 minutes to unlock and load? 3?

If the person is already in the room, what's the odds you will reach the draw?

Of course, if you have a large dog or three, what's the odds they get into the house? ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, it makes sense to me. The gun is unloaded, and the trigger lock is on. You remove the lock, and load the weapon. This happens if you're awaken by someone breaking in. You have some time before they get to you. We're talking want, 1-2 minutes to unlock and load? 3?

If the person is already in the room, what's the odds you will reach the draw?

Of course, if you have a large dog or three, what's the odds they get into the house? ;)
Click to expand...




As one who teaches both carbine and handgun, I can only tell you that you have the rest of your life to win a gun fight.


If you want to bank on 2 minutes to react to a threat, well, Tell me where to send the flowers to your funeral.



Now, I keep a loaded 1911 in a biometric gun locker on the nightstand, I can get into it in under 2 seconds. That would be a better argument on your part, if "Saftey" was actually your concern instead of incremental gun prohibition. :shrug:


That said, The state has no business requiring either.



edit to add. When I lived in NM, not only did I have an occasion to require the use of a firearm, but the dogs in the neighborhood that was robbed had dogs were poisoned by this person.


Just sayin. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
And this happens how often (home invasion)?
Click to expand...

Depends on where you live. I spent a year and a half in Sacramento CA. and experienced one attempted home invasion, (my home) and what stopped it was that unmistakable sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked..... never saw 2 guys put one in front of the other as fast as those 2 boys did.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
As one who teaches both carbine and handgun, I can only tell you that you have the rest of your life to win a gun fight.


If you want to bank on 2 minutes to react to a threat, well, Tell me where to send the flowers to your funeral.



Now, I keep a loaded 1911 in a biometric gun locker on the nightstand, I can get into it in under 2 seconds. That would be a better argument on your part, if "Saftey" was actually your concern instead of incremental gun prohibition. :shrug:


That said, The state has no business requiring either.
Click to expand...

I would say the question is less about what you could do, but what about most could do. If you keep a loaded gun in your draw, I think you're inviting trouble. What happens if you're broken into when your not home? Could they find and take the gun? How when others leave home? What's the odds they put the gun elsewhere?

As for time, how long do you thing a person has once they hear the break in until the person gets to them? Unless they been in the house before, and know everything abut the situation, they have to be careful. Slows them down. Again, if you don't hear them, and they are in the room, 2 seconds won't be fast enough.
 
Crunch said:
Depends on where you live. I spent a year and a half in Sacramento CA. and experienced one attempted home invasion, (my home) and what stopped it was that unmistakable sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked..... never saw 2 guys put one in front of the other as fast as those 2 boys did.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't use the words never. However, seems rare as best I can tell. And I would still say a couple of three good dogs would have been just as effective if not more so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom