Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[ImmortalFlame]

The state regulation?

The Mulford act.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

 

[Curious George]

Selective quoting doesn't really help. Here's the fuller context (emphasis mine):

"The frequency of self-defense gun use rests at the heart of the controversy over how guns affect our country. Progun enthusiasts argue that it happens all the time. In 1995 Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, and his colleague Marc Gertz published a study that elicited what has become one of the gun lobby's favorite numbers. They randomly surveyed 5,000 Americans and asked if they, or another member of the household, had used a gun for self-protection in the past year. A little more than 1 percent of the participants answered yes, and when Kleck and Gertz extrapolated their results, they concluded that Americans use guns for self-defense as many as 2.5 million times a year.

This estimate is, however, vastly higher than numbers from government surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted in tens of thousands of households. It suggests that victims use guns for self-defense only 65,000 times a year. In 2015 Hemenway and his colleagues studied five years' worth of NCVS data and concluded that guns are used for self-defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. They also found that self-defense gun use is about as effective as other defensive maneuvers, such as calling for help. “It's not as if you look at the data, and it says people who defend themselves with a gun are much less likely to be injured,” says Philip Cook, an economist at Duke University, who has been studying guns since the 1970s."
SOURCE: More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows


But that's not including all the guns that are used in violent crime, robbery and abuse cases that don't result in homicide.


Which would statistically be a much smaller number of people killing a much smaller number of victims.


Only if you deliberately misrepresent them, like you just did.

Yes but you said self defense vs death. If you would like to retract what you said and provide different statistics, that is fine too.

Guns in self defense are rare. Most people aren't walking around with their guns. Many crimes happen to children. Many crimes happen to people without guns. Why would we expect it to be anything but rare. But you know what is more rare...people dying from guns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not believe that regulation of firearms will affect the crime or violent crime rate (including murder rate).

Then you are wrong.

I believe that these rates will only decrease when we better address the fundamental needs of the our citizens.

So you think a more practical approach is solving the problem of the root cause of all crime rather than addressing the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals?

Makes perfect sense. And while we're at it, we shouldn't bother treating cancer patients and instead put all of our resources into curing death itself!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes but you said self defense vs death.

No, I said "They cause and facilitate far more murders and home invasions than they prevent." Not just "death".

If you would like to retract what you said and provide different statistics, that is fine too.

The statistics I provided already show you that guns are no more successful at preventing death and injury than literally ANY other method.

Guns in self defense are rare. Most people aren't walking around with their guns. Many crimes happen to children. Many crimes happen to people without guns. Why would we expect it to be anything but rare. But you know what is more rare...people dying from guns.

And you know what is far, far less rare? People using guns to COMMIT crimes.

 

[Curious George]

No, I said "They cause and facilitate far more murders and home invasions than they prevent." Not just "death".

You also said:

Lives which guns cause the loss of far more than they save.[/QUOTE

But in either instance you have not provided causation for murders or home invasions caused by guns.

You have shown statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership and increased likelihood of being victims of a crime. But perhaps that is because people that own guns tend to be in areas or situations where they are exposed to a higher incidence of crime.

 

[Curious George]

And you know what is far, far less rare? People using guns to COMMIT crimes.

And what makes you think they wouldn't commit crime without guns?

 

[Curious George]

So you think a more practical approach is solving the problem of the root cause of all crime rather than addressing the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals?

Makes perfect sense. And while we're at it, we shouldn't bother treating cancer patients and instead put all of our resources into curing death itself!

Except guns ownership isn't bad. Why would we amputate when we can cut out cancer?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But in either instance you have not provided causation for murders or home invasions caused by guns.

You have shown statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership and increased likelihood of being victims of a crime. But perhaps that is because people that own guns tend to be in areas or situations where they are exposed to a higher incidence of crime.

Are you seriously going to be this obtuse?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And what makes you think they wouldn't commit crime without guns?

The fact that, as multiple studies I have already posted show, the higher rate of gun ownership there is, the higher the crime rate becomes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except guns ownership isn't bad.

Statistically, yes it is.

Why would we amputate when we can cut out cancer?

Why waste time trying to do something you'll never be able to achieve rather than actually do something that can actually save lives?

 

[Curious George]

Statistically, yes it is.


Why waste time trying to do something you'll never be able to achieve rather than actually do something that can actually save lives?

Unfortunate that you think trying to solve root problems are a waste of time.

Did it occur to you that any amelioration of these problems will save lives?

 

[Curious George]

The fact that, as multiple studies I have already posted show, the higher rate of gun ownership there is, the higher the crime rate becomes.

No. You posted studies that showed that where gun ownership increases so too does crime rate. This does not explain why such a correlation exists and to conclude that it means guns cause more crime is a manipulation of statistics. It is where this discussion about these statistics began. It is intellectually dishonest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unfortunate that you think trying to solve root problems are a waste of time.

I think trying to solve all violent crime isn't as simple and immediate a step to take as making firearms harder for criminals to obtain.

Did it occur to you that any amelioration of these problems will save lives?

Sure it will. But so will gun control, and it will do it far quicker and in a more immediate way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. You posted studies that showed that where gun ownership increases so too does crime rate.

So you admit that guns are not a deterrent and are, in fact, failing in their basic duty, right?

This does not explain why such a correlation exists and to conclude that it means guns cause more crime is a manipulation of statistics.

When all research leads to the same correlation, it is reasonable to assume a causal relationship - especially when it is just plain obvious that having access to guns makes it far easier to commit violent crime.

It is where this discussion about these statistics began. It is intellectually dishonest.

You are the one who has yet to present a single study of your own, and wilfully misrepresented a study I posted. I've been entirely honest, you haven't.

 

[Curious George]

I think trying to solve all violent crime isn't as simple and immediate a step to take as making firearms harder for criminals to obtain.


Sure it will. But so will gun control, and it will do it far quicker and in a more immediate way.

But that is just one of the places we disagree. Gun control will decrease gun deaths. Nothing in that statement logically entails gun control will then decrease total deaths.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But that is just one of the places we disagree. Gun control will decrease gun deaths. Nothing in that statement logically entails gun control will then decrease total deaths.

Again, violence and murder correlate with availability of firearms.

Or do you honestly believe that the entire world has the exact same murder rate, regardless of availability of firearms? Do you seriously believe that access to firearms plays no role in determining whether an individual will actually carry out a murder?

 

[Curious George]

So you admit that guns are not a deterrent and are, in fact, failing in their basic duty, right?


When all research leads to the same correlation, it is reasonable to assume a causal relationship - especially when it is just plain obvious that having access to guns makes it far easier to commit violent crime.


You are the one who has yet to present a single study of your own, and wilfully misrepresented a study I posted. I've been entirely honest, you haven't.

I did not willfully misrepresent anything. I quoted your study quoting a statistic about the number of instances of guns used in self defense. How is that a misrepresentation? It is using a fact that you have tacitly accepted.

 

[Curious George]

Again, violence and murder correlate with availability of firearms.

Or do you honestly believe that the entire world has the exact same murder rate, regardless of availability of firearms? Do you seriously believe that access to firearms plays no role in determining whether an individual will actually carry out a murder?

No I believe that murder rate fluctuates regardless of gun control because intentional homicides are not contingent on guns or gun availability.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did not willfully misrepresent anything. I quoted your study quoting a statistic about the number of instances of guns used in self defense.

You quoted part of a paragraph that said a survey was carried out in which estimates were drawn that there were 65,000 defensive gun uses per year, when the very next part of that same paragraph specifies that said statistics accounts for less than 1% of victim-based crime and that self-defense with a firearm is just as successful (and likely to result in injury) as calling for help.

How is that a misrepresentation? It is using a fact that you have tacitly accepted.

You selectively quoted a passage without context (and provided the wrong source for it).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I believe that murder rate fluctuates regardless of gun control because intentional homicides are not contingent on guns or gun availability.

Then please explain to me how and why crime correlates with gun availability.