Guns,guns, and more Guns

[Lons]

Aren't you the guy who supposed something above about having no friends?

Yeah it's for telling the truth, read my other post again.

 

[RobinBHM]

Interesting data on US gun crime here:

This lists the last 72 hours

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours
So far this year:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
To take data on children Jan 1 to 20 April 2021
94 children 11 and under killed
333 children 11-17 killed
It may be simplistic but if America had no guns, there would be over 400 less children dead this year.

I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than this:
if America had tough gun controls, there would be less people dying and getting injured.

 

[D_W]

I remember when 50 caliber rifles became available and kind of stylish. I'm not sure that one has ever been used in a crime, but it makes for good fantasy news stories. I would have to guess that most of the guns used in murders are junk cheap stuff. You won't hear someone mention jennings or makarov or some such thing on the news because it doesn't get the same fear as "assault rifle!!!!" or other scary terms. It looks like about 89% of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.

Figured I'd look this up - there actually have been a few used in crimes here. There's a page dedicated to trying to get them banned, but their criminal use tends to be mostly having them when making a threat (that is, in the US, if you make a threat at someone in anger or out of nuttiness, it's a crime and people will come take your stuff away - when someone makes a threat and they have five guns and one is a 50, then its "police removed 5 firearms from mr. miller's property, including an armalite 50 caliber rifle". There were a few actual shootings (5?), but some looked more like an intent to dazzle (as in, so and so shot at various people but no one was injured).

As a former gun owner, I wonder when the news talks of the ability to hit someone over a mile away with the expectation that people think they could actually do it. I suspect the sniper records with any rifle over about 1500 yards are educated luck shots and there's one for every several hundred misses. From my days target shooting, over a couple of hundred yards (assuming you could even make a shot in perfect conditions), bullets move left or right with the wind like a wiffle ball.

 

[D_W]

I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than this:
if America had tough gun controls, there would be less people dying and getting injured.

that's certainly true, or at least it seems to me that it would be. but you need to substitute "if there was a confiscation, there would be fewer".

Not sure controls would have a very significant effect at this point.

 

[D_W]

Yeah it's for telling the truth, read my other post again.

There's an onion story in here somewhere.

"man who lost all of his friends for telling facts surprised to learn that his former friends were tired of his opinions and fake laugh after telling them what's up".

 

[Trainee neophyte]

It may be simplistic but if America had no guns, there would be over 400 less children dead this year.

Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general?

(In defence of outlawing guns, the childhood rate of death from gunshot is many times higher in the USA than any other country (except Lithuania?!)

 

[RobinBHM]

that's certainly true, or at least it seems to me that it would be. but you need to substitute "if there was a confiscation, there would be fewer".

Not sure controls would have a very significant effect at this point.

The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership.
If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.


There are 2 simple facts:

1. No civilian needs to own or use a gun.
2. If America had no guns, there wouldn't be many thousands of gun deaths every year.

It really is that simple, America has a major problem with guns.
Remove the guns you don't have the problem.


Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.

 

[RobinBHM]

Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general

Outlawing guns is not detriment to society.
Guns are unnecessary.

There are no honest arguments that can claim otherwise.

 

[John Brown]

Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general?

(In defence of outlawing guns, the childhood rate of death from gunshot is many times higher in the USA than any other country (except Lithuania?!)

If you outlawed swimming, I'd wager that drownings would increase.
But there is some benefit to be had from swimming pools.

 

[Spectric]

If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot?

What are the repercussions going to be from that police officer being found guilty of murder and not manslaughter, if someone shows the slightest signs of resisting arrest you are just going to shoot them rather than risk injuring or killing them during the arrest and then facing trial yourself.

 

[Jacob]

If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot?

That's the theory. It doesn't work.
They haven't yet worked out why not. They probably never will, bearing in mind it's already 220 years since the 2nd amendment
Being quicker on the draw isn't quite what it's cracked up to be in cowboy films.

 

[Peterm1000]

The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership.
If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.


There are 2 simple facts:

1. No civilian needs to own or use a gun.
2. If America had no guns, there wouldn't be many thousands of gun deaths every year.

It really is that simple, America has a major problem with guns.
Remove the guns you don't have the problem.


Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.

I am pretty vehemently opposed to uncontrolled gun ownership, but there are situations where in the US I think you would say that gun ownership was necessary that do not apply in the UK. The US is much wilder than the UK and there are animals out there that can do you serious harm and you can be hours and hours away from help. In those circumstances, I think you would want a gun.

 

[Jacob]

I am pretty vehemently opposed to uncontrolled gun ownership, but there are situations where in the US I think you would say that gun ownership was necessary that do not apply in the UK. The US is much wilder than the UK and there are animals out there that can do you serious harm and you can be hours and hours away from help. In those circumstances, I think you would want a gun.

Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk.
Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter

 

[D_W]

The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership.
If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.


There are 2 simple facts:

1. No civilian needs to own or use a gun.
2. If America had no guns, there wouldn't be many thousands of gun deaths every year.

It really is that simple, America has a major problem with guns.
Remove the guns you don't have the problem.


Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.

Ahh, you live in a country without bears. Nobody needs a car here, either, and certainly nobody needs to fly for vacation (I'm told these two things are ruining the planet and threatening our extinction).

 

[D_W]

Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk.
Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter

That's a very liberal idealistic answer, Jacob. Bear repellents work sometimes. A large bore pistol or rifle is always carried by guides where there are bears.

We have a serious deer population problem. In my township, no hunting is allowed, so the township has hired professional hunters. They can't remotely keep up. The cell phone generation is losing interest in hunting and while we see bears only occasionally in Pittsburgh, the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.

 

[Stan]

the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.

I wonder if the deer think their state has a serious human problem?

In reality, I see your point. Here in the UK farmers, gamekeepers and similar people have good reasons to have a gun. I cannot see that any other civilian does.

 

[Jacob]

That's a very liberal idealistic answer, Jacob. Bear repellents work sometimes. A large bore pistol or rifle is always carried by guides where there are bears.

We have a serious deer population problem. In my township, no hunting is allowed, so the township has hired professional hunters. They can't remotely keep up. The cell phone generation is losing interest in hunting and while we see bears only occasionally in Pittsburgh, the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.

Release a few wolves?
Could "bear repellent" include guns which just produce a very loud bang?
Just wondering.

 

[RobinBHM]

Ahh, you live in a country without bears. Nobody needs a car here, either, and certainly nobody needs to fly for vacation (I'm told these two things are ruining the planet and threatening our extinction).

Yes I realise there are instances where guns do act as protection.

However, how many people lives do guns save each year by preventing deaths by bears?
For context, there were 15,000 deaths in 2019 from guns. (Not including suicides).

Or to put it another way, if there no guns at all, would the number of deaths from wild animals be greater than deaths from people shooting each other.


I fully accept America has a culture which includes guns. I don't know if it stems from the Wild West frontiers or what but it is a fact; guns are part and parcel of America. Guns are a huge sport / hobby in America.

 

[RobinBHM]

If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot

That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue.

 

[D_W]

I wonder if the deer think their state has a serious human problem?

In reality, I see your point. Here in the UK farmers, gamekeepers and similar people have good reasons to have a gun. I cannot see that any other civilian does.

"I was just walking home from browsing expensive ornamental and here this human kid with a really stupid haircut comes blasting around the corner and just nails me, now I'm walking around on three legs lucky to be alive"

Farmers in some areas, maybe most areas, need a gun for livestock and property protection ( groundhogs problems here equal cows with broken legs, and coyote will take calves or sheep). There were probably wolves here at one time, but aren't now.

Past control for deer would've been coyote hunting fawns, and same with bears and cougar, plus Indians. Remove the predators and the deer increase in number fast. They're naturally inclined to have surplus fawns to counter predation, but we've removed part of the equation.

They're good lean red meat, too. It's kind of a waste to not manage them. As farms have gotten bigger with less manpower, folks with damage tags (tags from the state to the to shot deer out of season to identify that they were taken legally) can't keep up. Suburban produce farms have taken to fencing huge areas with high tension stainless , which is only feasible if you have affluent customers. The csa that we used fenced 255 acres, but wouldn't say what it cost. The fence they used is held in basically by telephone poles and 12 feet high. They were letting anyone they could find fill damage tags and getting 40 a year and making no progress. What we've found here is that deer don't occupy wild areas if there are populated areas or farms. Even yard ornamentals are a apparently far superior in taste to what's in the forest. When we hike, there are no deer in the woods where they'd be if there weren't people.

All of my yard plants are thin until you get above head height for deer. I don't mean browsed, but rather they're eaten to the stem with a poof on top. Boxwood and marigolds and barberry are the only things I have that they don't eat.