City-Data Forum Guns save lives (generations, fence, lobby, violent crime)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

01-29-2013, 09:07 PM
 Location: Soldotna 2,256 posts, read 2,130,040 times Reputation: 1078

Quote:
 Originally Posted by greg42 How does it "save just one life" if more people are killed with guns than saved with them? Seems to me that math would be out of whack, if it is the case. The math is pretty simple: lets say 8000 people are killed with guns and 8001 are saved. Then, yes, literally just one life right? Hey, maybe that number saved is 15000, or even 50,000. I don't know, just an example. The higher the number, the better the argument, many more saved than killed. But instead, lets say 8000 people are killed with guns and 6000 people are saved. How can you argue that guns saved "just one life", let alone all 6000, when the net effect of having the guns is 2000 more people dead than without them? I don't see anything complicated there; it's quite simple in fact. Take away the guns completely, and only 6000 people would die vs the 8000 people who died with the guns. See? Yes, those particular 6000 people were saved, but at the expense of 8000 other people being killed. The net effect of "guns" in general in that example would be that 2000 more people died than if there were zero guns. Your beer analogy is backwards. Banning beer would be the "save just one life" argument. I'm not saying you or "pro-gunners" NEED to do anything. Hell I'm not even saying you're wrong! I'm just looking for a coherent argument that "Guns save lives" and not seeing one yet. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.

You use 8000 lives lost and 6000 saved and show a net loss of 2000.

You then proceed to say remove guns and supposedly the gun deaths would cease.

Error #1

You just can't remove guns. If every legal gun owner turned in their guns there would still be hundreds of thousands if not millions in the hands of criminals. The 8000 would still be there minus the few accidental deaths. The only difference is that you now create 6000 more victims that could not defend themselves.

Error #2

You say that there is no coherent argument that guns save lives. You just GAVE the argument. If 6000 lives are saved then 6000 lives are saved.

The other 8000 are irrelevant to this argument. No one claims guns don't take lives. Claiming they don't save life's is disingenuous.

But the fact that your example shows that guns save lives is all that's really needed.

You people keep using the if there were no guns argument.

Well hell, if there was no sex or blood transfusions or needle use then a million+ people would be alive today instead of having died or continuing to die from AIDS. But those things will always exist and wishing it were any other way is childish and nonsensical.

01-29-2013, 09:29 PM
 Location: Charlotte, NC 4,761 posts, read 7,832,914 times Reputation: 5328
To address this argument, one must also keep in mind that when a crime is prevented it does not always get reported. Statistics have shown that there are far more uses of a firearm to stop a crime than there are murders. One number I have seen used is 2,000,000 per year. This is supposedly an FBI statistic and not one put out by a biased group. I do not feel like verifying this at this time, but if we say even 25% of that is the actual number, that is still an awful lot of lives saved versus those taken, no matter how you want to slice it.

The gun ban argument continuously focuses proposed law on those who would be affected negatively and not the criminal element who will continue to ignore any ban, or become emboldened by such a law. The percentage of average firearm owners who commit crimes with a firearm has to besuited low in the grand scheme of things. So, tell me how taking away a particular type of arm from a law abiding owner is going to reduce crime. I stand by myopinionthat it will have no positive effect.

How about an actual common sense measure of requiring firearms be stored in a secure manner? No sock drawers, not between the mattress and box spring, not on a shelf. In a safe or strong box. How about actual enforcement of existing law and implementing mandatory minimum punishments for firearm convictions? Don't punish the law abiding citizen for the acts of criminals. That is not the answer and will create a further divide between pro and anti people.

01-29-2013, 10:04 PM
 Location: Soldotna 2,256 posts, read 2,130,040 times Reputation: 1078
Quote:
 Originally Posted by spankys bbq . How about an actual common sense measure of requiring firearms be stored in a secure manner?
This is silly. I carry my gun everywhere and should be able to store it anywhere. Right now it is on my dresser. I have others around the house.

Of course I don't have children in the house.

A common sense approach would be to realize that micromanaging behavior does not work and has no place in our society.

What I do with my gun in my house is none of the govts or anyone else's concern.

01-30-2013, 08:10 AM
 Location: Pittsburgh area 9,912 posts, read 24,650,216 times Reputation: 5163
Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnonymouseX You just can't remove guns. If every legal gun owner turned in their guns there would still be hundreds of thousands if not millions in the hands of criminals. The 8000 would still be there minus the few accidental deaths. The only difference is that you now create 6000 more victims that could not defend themselves.
The proclamation is "Guns save lives". The only way to truly test that statement is to demonstrate what would happen without so many guns. It's essentially theoretical of course because as you state you can't just remove guns very neatly and have them all or mostly disappear. I don't disagree with that observation, that there would still be some illegally obtained guns. But in order to demonstrate that guns save lives one would have to look at the picture without most guns Look at the lives that are saved and ended when they are available as they are now. Then look at how the numbers would change if they were more restricted. Otherwise you're not really making a good case for that simple statement.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnonymouseX The other 8000 are irrelevant to this argument.
After I wrote yesterday's bit I was waiting for someone to say this or similar. In fact I almost made an additional point about it then. My main thinking on the other 8000 is that to say they're irrelevant is to give up. You're effectively stating that you can't reduce this number and that it doesn't matter if we don't reduce this number. Even with only 6000 saves, you're effectively saying the 8000 killed is worth it to have the guns. If those are the numbers, I don't really think I can agree. I would tend to be more sympathetic if the number of saves could be demonstrated to be higher than the number killed.

Both of your points hinge upon the idea that even if gun availability were significantly restricted that somehow most of those 8000 (or whatever number) gun deaths would still happen. I have a hard time conceding that assumption when you look at stats like that chart posted earlier (gun murder rates in developed world) and actual recent new restrictions in places like Australia (where they were shocked enough by mass killings to do significant new restrictions). Now, the reality is, none of those countries (I don't think) have a constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms, so the idea that the US could be as restrictive as some of them are is again essentially theoretical. Politically not really possible, legally possible but some parts might take a constitutional amendment (see again: politically not possible). But for the sake of arguing that "Guns save lives", it is reasonable to include such ideas. Otherwise you're just saying "Guns in the out of control way they are in the US nonetheless save a few lives", and there's nothing significant to debate because a couple of anecdotes prove that.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnonymouseX You people keep using the if there were no guns argument.
Seriously? "You people?" Don't group me in with some "you people". My remarks are strictly mine alone. You won't find me strongly advocating against guns in general. I am personally not a gun owner, it is true, but I have been around them enough and shot a few guns here and there, and I'm realistic about what can really be done in the US as far as restriction. But that doesn't mean we can simply ignore what the results might be if changes to availability were made.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnonymouseX Well hell, if there was no sex or blood transfusions or needle use then a million+ people would be alive today instead of having died or continuing to die from AIDS.
Well that's true. The needle use is a good example, rather analogous to the gun example. Except, I think it could be very easily demonstrated that needles save a helluva lot more people than they kill. It's not so easily demonstrated with guns. Blood transfusions, though not a piece of hardware, would turn out the same way.

I'm not talking about some magical no guns world here as it would have to be in some magical no sex world. (That would be some evil magic to be sure. )

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AnonymouseX But those things will always exist and wishing it were any other way is childish and nonsensical.
It's not wishing it were some other way. It's thinking about how things might be different if they were another way in order to compare it to how things are (and in order to judge whether the statement of this thread is correct). There's a difference.

01-30-2013, 09:09 AM
 Location: Soldotna 2,256 posts, read 2,130,040 times Reputation: 1078
Quote:
 Originally Posted by greg42 It's not wishing it were some other way. It's thinking about how things might be different if they were another way in order to compare it to how things are (and in order to judge whether the statement of this thread is correct). There's a difference.
To compare how to ways may be different requires two equal sets if data.

We have no legitimate data concerning what would happen if guns were removed.

Utilizing Australia as an example is logically incorrect because Australia's history and culture is essentially alien to ours.

A more apt comparison is a state with extremely lax gun laws like say mine, VA, or Alaska vs one with severe gun laws like say DC or New York or Illinois.

The data proves that reduced gun laws accompany reduced gun murder rates. Period. No argument otherwise exists.

Note I use murder only as utilizing accidents or self defense is stupid. You can't ban accidents and self defense is an irrevocable right.

The rates of fire arm murders per 100000 stack up like this.

Strictest gun laws
DC - 12.46
NY - 4.12
Illinois - 2.93
California - 3.2
Massachusetts - 2.02

Laxest gun laws
VA - 2.58
Arizona - 3.53
Vermont - 0.75
Wyoming - 2.01
Montana - 0.76

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports

With the exception if Arizona and Massachusetts which are statistical outliers, all the states with the laxest gun laws have less gun murders than those with the strictest.

Why? Banning guns and increased gun laws don't work...

That's what I meant by you people. You people includes anti gunners plus all the other people that want to discuss based on emotions. Both groups are illogical.

The numbers are available for you to compare.

There us nothing to discuss. Allowing guns and relaxing the gun laws results in more saved lives.

The strictest region in the country, DC is 12.46 vs arguably the laxest, Alaska, 2.24.

12.46 vs 2.24. There are more guns in Alaska than people in DC yet far less gun murders. Clearly guns save lives.

01-30-2013, 01:09 PM
 1,733 posts, read 2,421,958 times Reputation: 2119
It's not just about guns saving lives. It's about preventing them. Less guns means the criminals have less chance of being shot. Do you think a criminal will want to break into my house, when I have a 12 gauge loaded with 15 shells of 00 buckshot and slugs? I don't think so. What if I had a bat? They probably wont be nearly as scared. There was a video I saw a couple weeks ago of inmates being interviewed about this question. All of them said exactly what I stated.

01-30-2013, 05:06 PM
 Location: Charlotte, NC 4,761 posts, read 7,832,914 times Reputation: 5328
Anonymous, I should have been a bit more clear in regards to storage. Guns should always be in a safe when not in direct control.of the owner. In other words, if you leave one at home it needs to be locked up. Having it within easy reach is not what I was talking about. Only when an arm is not close enough to be considered in one's possession. If for nothing other than allowing access to burglars. Yes, I know they can steal the safe.

01-30-2013, 06:41 PM
 922 posts, read 1,908,432 times Reputation: 507
I feel a large heavy gun safe goes along way in being a responsible gun owner. I'm surprised insurance company's haven't gotten after home owners to lock them up or they don't get replaced if stolen. If its not on you or you are not home lock it up. Its like leaving a car running he driveway. honest people don't steal, bad guys do.

01-30-2013, 08:52 PM
 Location: Soldotna 2,256 posts, read 2,130,040 times Reputation: 1078
Quote:
 Originally Posted by spankys bbq Anonymous, I should have been a bit more clear in regards to storage. Guns should always be in a safe when not in direct control.of the owner. In other words, if you leave one at home it needs to be locked up. Having it within easy reach is not what I was talking about. Only when an arm is not close enough to be considered in one's possession. If for nothing other than allowing access to burglars. Yes, I know they can steal the safe.
Since safes can be stolen then the entire argument is pointless.

Safes can be stolen so locking up the gun is pointless.

Unless you propose to buy me a large bolted down safe...

Though you still miss the point that neither you nor the country as a whole has any business deciding what I do with my property in my house.

02-01-2013, 07:00 AM
 1,733 posts, read 2,421,958 times Reputation: 2119
Quote:
 Originally Posted by spankys bbq Anonymous, I should have been a bit more clear in regards to storage. Guns should always be in a safe when not in direct control.of the owner. In other words, if you leave one at home it needs to be locked up. Having it within easy reach is not what I was talking about. Only when an arm is not close enough to be considered in one's possession. If for nothing other than allowing access to burglars. Yes, I know they can steal the safe.

It's my house so it's my choice to lock up a gun.
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.