egafd.com

Sam:

Thanks once again for your kind words. If you have any knoweldge of firearms please share with us, it would be informative. I am sorry that you seek to misrepresent my views with weary references to the Wild West, these always come up when gun control is debated, and it is sad that you are so unimaginative, but there you go. Arguments built on emotion alone usually end up there.

You mention that as many people die in gun accidents as in homicides. In fact, as at 2008, there were 592 fatal gun accidents (0.19 % per 100,000), accounting for 0.5% of all fatal accidents. But make up figures as you go along if it pleases you.

You comments panic stricken, frenzied civilians again shows that you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. But do feel free to pontificate, it's a free country. Talk out of your arse if you like, I shan't be offended.

Robches wrote:

> I am basing it on Professor Gary Kleck's 1993 study for Florida
> State University, which found 2 million defensive gun uses per
> year, and US DoJ's 1994 study "Guns in America: National Survey
> on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" which identified 1.5
> million defensive gun uses per year.

I believe the conclusions of the following reports/articles make interesting reading if you're in the "stricter control of gun ownership" camp:

National Institute of Justice - Guns in America: National Survey on
Private Ownership and Use of Firearms

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Berkeley Media Studies Group - Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

SURVEY RESEARCH AND SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE: AN EXPLANATION OF EXTREME OVERESTIMATES

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

Robches wrote:

> Sam .... You mention that as many people die in gun accidents as in
> homicides. In fact, as at 2008, there were 592 fatal gun
> accidents (0.19 % per 100,000), accounting for 0.5% of all
> fatal accidents. But make up figures as you go along if it
> pleases you.


Actually what Sam said was that 20 times more die in gun accidents than in mass-murder sprees. See the difference Robches?

I'll leave Sam to cite his own sources, but either way you're misquoting him and leaving aside squabbling over statistics, I'm sure you'd agree that 592 accidental gun deaths is 592 too many, no? How many of those could have been prevented by stricter gun controls?

- Eric

a m playlist wrote:

[quote] I believe the conclusions of the following reports/articles make interesting reading if you're in the "stricter control of gun ownership" camp:[/quote]

Indeed.


"Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott?s and Kleck?s research indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths."

and


"Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide .... Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates .... The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."

- Eric

[quote]Actually what Sam said was that 20 times more die in gun accidents than in mass-murder sprees. See the difference Robches?[/quote]

To be fair to Robches I did compare the gun-related homicides and accidents. Though you are also right when I did the comparison on mass-shootings and accidents. Since we were specifically talking about 'mass-shootings', that's what I meant, but said 'homicides' by mistake. My fault.

[quote]Thanks once again for your kind words. If you have any knoweldge of firearms please share with us, it would be informative.[/quote]

Why would it be informative? I'm specifically talking about untrained civilians, who are armed and in the most terrifying, stressful moment of their lives. My experience of guns would in no way shed any light on how I'd act under those circumstances. I could be a member of some rifle club and happily go shooting targets every weekend. It might make me a better shot but it wouldn't make me any more able to control the fear and adrenaline if someone was trying to kill me. If it would, I challenge you to explain how.

[quote]I am sorry that you seek to misrepresent my views with weary references to the Wild West, these always come up when gun control is debated, and it is sad that you are so unimaginative, but there you go.[/quote]

The wild west likeness is apt. Too many Americans see themselves as cowboys. Europe never had a 'wild west' and so don't have this sentimental and romantic outlook on guns. Unless they've been watching too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood films, mind.

[quote]Arguments built on emotion alone usually end up there.[/quote]

Both a hatred and love of guns can bring up emotions, Robches. Are you sure it's not your fascination of guns that's colouring your judgement?

[quote]You mention that as many people die in gun accidents as in homicides. In fact, as at 2008, there were 592 fatal gun accidents (0.19 % per 100,000), accounting for 0.5% of all fatal accidents.[/quote]

As Flat_Eric seemingly worked out, and I've explained, I meant homicides from mass-shootings, since this was the particular subject we were originally discussing. My mistake. These things happen - what you gonna do.....shoot me? !laugh!

Since accidents happen to the best of us, you cannot deny that more guns and more areas where guns are allowed to be carried will lead to more accidents with guns. You also cannot deny that normal people sometimes argue and get into fights, so the more people who argue and fight who also are carrying guns at that time, the more likely some will use said weapon in a fit of anger. It's human nature I'm afraid. You're not using your cerebral cortex in a moment of rage.

On the flip side, increasing the number of guns in a population won't change the number of nutters who are willing and planning to commit mass-killings. They are psychopathic, which is a real medical condition. But, it does increase their ability to acquire guns and it does make it less likely that someone will report them to the authorities just for enquiring about how they could get hold of said weapons. None of this you can seriously deny.

Now we come to where there's a little more conjecture and where we mainly disagree: does arming civilians decrease the number of deaths from mass-shootings which you seem so obsessed with people being protected from? Your argument seems to be based on a civilian pulling out his shooter and popping the maniac before he does much damage. My argument isn't that that can never happen but that in a crowded cinema, 1 madman and 10 armed civilians shooting at each other will cause one heck of a noise. There's be lots of screaming and running (from the kids at very least). It'll be each man for themselves. There'll be confusion about which guy with the gun is the real nutter. It won't be like in a film where the nutter is on one side of the room, behind an upturned table and all the good guys at the other end ducking behind chairs. What if he's the in the middle of a crowd with people all around him? He can spray bullets any way he chooses but anyone in the crowd firing back will be putting civilians behind the nutjob at risk. And when you're in a hurry, scared and stressed, you will more than likely miss unless you've been trained to handle such situations. My argument is that all this will lead to a much more dangerous society to live in than a society that has strict gun laws like the UK.

Guns are designed to kill. That's their only job. This makes them different to cars, knives and baseball bats. A gun is designed specifically to produce as much damage, penetration, accuracy and range to make killing things easier. I say the more of these things we have lying around, or carried on our person the more danger everyone is in.

And you can forget this notion that it makes you, as an individual, safer. Nearly half of gun-related deaths are suicides. You're more likely to top yourself if you can make it quick and painless. The biggest danger to all our lives, whether we have guns or not, is ourselves. That's a fact.

But since I've been answering all the questions here and you've been interested in my experience with firearms I'd like to ask you a question, if I may.

What's your experience with how people behave and react under extreme stress and fear?

Cheers.

Sam:

I am sorry you cannot seem to get beyond images of the Wild West and panicky crazed civilians blasting anything that moves. As I have said, since you clearly have no knowledge of guns and shooting, your views are a bit akin to a non driver trying to think what it must be like to drive on a motorway. What seems scary from a position of ignorance becomes second nature with training and practice.

With regard to gun accidents, the 2008 figures of 0.19 deaths per 100,000 represent a fall of 94% from the all time high in 1904, despite the fact that there are more guns per head in the USA now than then. Perhaps your view of the modern US as a sort of Wild West is a bit anachronistic?

I can point to studies such as Kleck's, or the fact that in the US states which issue carry permits (49 out of 50 I believe) experience, not conjecture, shows that people who take the trouble to obey the law and carry a gun legally behave in a responsible manner and do not cause law enforcement problems. But if you are honest, your mind is made up. You think that guns are designed only to kill (you might like to mention that to competitors at the Olympics) and that owning a gun for self defence puts you at more risk than being defenceless (in which case I am sure the likes of David Cameron would insist that their bodyguards disarm at once). Your position is set in stone, and I never for a minute thought I would change your views, indeed the only reason I responded at all was that you namechecked me in your first post at the top of the page. However, I thought other readers might find it interesting to see this issue debated. We have done that now though, I don't think there is much to add, do you?

[quote]I am sorry you cannot seem to get beyond images of the Wild West and panicky crazed civilians blasting anything that moves. As I have said, since you clearly have no knowledge of guns and shooting, your views are a bit akin to a non driver trying to think what it must be like to drive on a motorway. What seems scary from a position of ignorance becomes second nature with training and practice.[/quote]

Seriously, Robches. I don't know why I have to repeat myself numerous times, only for you to miss the point again and again. Having experience with guns IS NOT the same as having experience in being fired at and dealing with fear, adrenalin and the most pressure you'll feel under EVER. I can't think of a more extreme case of stress than someone trying to kill me. Got that? Someone can be brilliant at boxing, for instance, on the bag, pads and sparring. They're fast, accurate, powerful and have great timing. They look the part. You then put them in a ring in some old workingmen's club in Wigan, in front of 600 jeering drunks and everything they've learnt goes out of the window. They flop. For the last time: Experience with guns IS NOT experience in dealing with the most stressful moment of your life. People do not act like Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity when their lives are in danger. You can train which makes you better prepared but we're talking about everyday civilians who aren't battle-hardened and unused to being fucking shot at by lunatics trying to kill them. Real life isn't one long movie script, Robches. Sorry if that fact has just blown your mind.

[quote]With regard to gun accidents, the 2008 figures of 0.19 deaths per 100,000 represent a fall of 94% from the all time high in 1904, despite the fact that there are more guns per head in the USA now than then. Perhaps your view of the modern US as a sort of Wild West is a bit anachronistic?[/quote]

Do you think massive advances in medical practices and science might have a bigger impact on the death rate? You sever your femoral artery in 1904 and I don't give you much chance of lasting an hour. Today you'll live if you can get to the hospital on time. Also, the fact that many more guns have safety catches today will have had a major effect.

You're right, of course: my mind was made up. I am always open to change, though. If, say, lots of countries who have liberal gun laws have an ever decreasing homicide rate from guns, and generally become lower than countries with very tight regulations regarding guns then I'd have to rethink what I believe. Generally, though, the more guns a society has means more deaths from guns, and until that changes it is you who is left with the problem of justifying the crazy notion that civilians carrying guns up and down the high street, around supermarkets, in cinemas, restaurants, bowling alleys, colleges(!) and maybe even pubs and clubs (where people are more than likely intoxicated(!!)), is a sensible, safe society.

I'd still like to know why nutters with guns aren't going utterly mental on our arses here in the UK, since it's just one big gun-free zone. How are we all still alive, Robches?

Sam Slater wrote:

> I'd still like to know why nutters with guns aren't going
> utterly mental on our arses here in the UK, since it's just one
> big gun-free zone. How are we all still alive, Robches?
>
>

There are several countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Sweden etc that have high gun ownership but they don't have as many massacres as the USA. In this country pre-First World War we had very lax gun laws but no one went on a rampage. Perhaps there is another solution rather than just liberal gun laws...

Stats:

Gun-related deaths per 100,000:

USA 10.27
Canada 4.78

So, yes, the USA has around a 2 and a half times higher gun-related death rate compared to Canada. What could possibly account for this?

Number of guns per 100 people:

USA 88.8
Canada 30.8

The USA has nearly 3 times as many guns, proportionally, than Canada. So, 3 times as many guns means 2.5 times the gun-related death rate. There's a pretty close correlation there.

Let's look at Europe's top 10s:

Number of guns per 100 people:

Switzerland 45.7
Finland 32
Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Austria 30.4
Germany 30.3
Iceland 30.3
Greece 22.5
N. Ireland 21.9

Death rate per 100,000:

Estonia 12.74*
Finland 6.86
N. Ireland 6.82
Switzerland 6.4
France 6.35
Austria 4.46
Norway 4.39
Portugal 3.72
Belgium 3.48
Slovenia 3.07*

Not so straight forward but 6 countries with the highest number of guns per 100 people are in the top 10 for most gun-related deaths per 100,000. *Estonia and Slovenia are hard to gauge given the guns per capita and gun-related deaths per capita stats are from different decades. The death-rate for Estonia was from 1994 when the last of the Soviet Army was leaving, which the gun-rate was taken from 2007 which is pretty low now (will have been very different in 1994) A similar tale for Slovenia (2000 - 2007). Sweden, Germany and Greece come in at 13th, 17th and 18th.

The countries with the fewest guns, per capita are:

Romania, Poland, Netherlands, Hungary, UK, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova.

The countries with the lowest gun-related deaths per capita are:

Poland, UK, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands and Bulgaria.

So, 6 of Europe's countries with the fewest gun-related crimes per capita also are from the 8 European countries with the fewest guns per capita.

There are always exceptions to rules but you can't deny there's a theme here. The more guns, the more deaths from guns.




Please note: Given the small population of Cyprus and the many military bases there I have omitted this country. The military presence for such a small country skews the results, but even if left in, it doesn't alter the general theme.