Comments on: In It For The Money: Brawling About Guns it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ricebrnr Ricebrnr Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:12:46 +0000 Additional material for reasoned discourse: [link]

I would specifically call out 2 & 7 to bolster the arguments I presented.

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

By: suswhit suswhit Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:17:19 +0000 de·ter

Discourage (someone) from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
Prevent the occurrence of.

I’m pretty sure that killing a kid who went to the store for Skittles did not deter anything. He’s not deterred, he’s dead. Since Zimmerman initiated the interaction it’s hard to argue that he was the victim. Zimmerman harassed Martin (prob in part because his gun emboldened him) and then when Martin (maybe) tried to defend himself he was shot by this vigilante. This does not make society a better place. But, I’d guess you disagree.

By: Ricebrnr Ricebrnr Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:08:00 +0000 Hmmm, well directed at me or not, as a gun owner and carrier I responded to your comment in kind. I suppose if you find it insulting well perhaps you need to look at how you present your arguments in “discourse” first. Besides, I directed my comment at your comment. Being misinformed or ignorant is only an insult if you are NOT open to discourse.

In any case, again your argument fails on it’s face.

In Zimmerman’s case, he certainly DID DETER Mr. Martin from continuing the assault. An assault (a broken nose and lacerations to the back of the head) consistent with the narrative that was presented. Whatever the circumstances leading up to the assault, that FACT is not in dispute.

Also I suppose that gun owners are much less fearful than you imagine. Gun-ownership and concealed carry are at an all time high. Crime (even “gun” crime) is allegedly at an all time low (all based on DOJ and CDC stats). While the correlation between the 2 is debatable, what is not is that “carrying guns does more harm than good.” That is simply untrue.

So I simply disagree that the acts of criminals are an argument to limit the majority of law-abiding citizens, especially concealed carry licensees (who have to pass backgrounds checks for the “privilege”).

If that were the case, I’m waiting for calls to limit the buying and selling of cooking implements such as knives and pressure cookers.

By: suswhit suswhit Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:41:35 +0000 Re: 3. My comments were not intended for you while yours are intended to insult me. I guess that’s a good example of the discourse on gun control. If you don’t like the message insult the messenger. In the spirit of the current debate let me note that “if someone is pounding your head against the pavement” it seems your gun didn’t deter them.

I simply disagree that random people of varying degrees of intelligence, mental stability and moral fortitude (not to mention eye sight and aim) carrying guns does more good than harm.

By: ricebrnr ricebrnr Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:06:28 +0000 Wow what an informed comment. The only one worhty of retort is it doesn’t take superpowers to know if someone is pounding your head against the pavement or in a full MMA mount and doing great bodily harm to you or a loved one.

Gun owners carry to protect themselves and their loved ones. Anyone else would have to be at great consideration. For example see the Gabby Giffords shooting which also happens to be one of the very few “mass” shootings to occur not in a gun free zone where an armed bystander could assist.

Generally concealed carriers protect society at large not by direct action but but more like a vaccine. We get it to protect ourselves first and foremost. You get some benefits via herd immunity if you choose not to.

By: suswhit suswhit Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:09:09 +0000 Hi, It’s me! [waving both hands in mock greeting]

1. If you are using a gun to “protect” “people” you better have a supernatural power to discern good people from bad people. See “George Zimmerman.”

2. We’ve already reached 50 and it’s only June. [link]

3. Can’t fix stupid. [link]

4. People are still going to commit suicide. Let them do it in a way that isn’t so f*&#@g messy.

5. If Shaun of the Dead is correct, zombies move really slowly and are dumb as, well see #3, so it’s unlikely that we will need a well-armed militia to defeat them.

It’s not impossible. Something is better than nothing. Embrace change. [link]

By: Ricebrnr Ricebrnr Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:45:30 +0000 David,

Thank you for the props and thank you for this follow up which I have anxiously been awaiting.

As someone who rationally supports gun-rights allow me to debate a few points.

1) Your medical analogy regarding efficacy is stretched. How many people with terminal illnesses volunteer to take drugs with chances just as you’ve stated OR WORSE for the chance the slim chance that it will prolong their lives? Even at great cost personally and financially? Did you know that a variant of the HIV virus is being used to cure Leukemia? Why Angelina Jolie just had a couple radical surgeries because there was a chance that her life will be prolonged. “But it might save your life” is a very crucial comment. The difference is gun owners get to choose and prepare BEFORE their lives are at risk.
2)Also I reject how you parsed your statistics or more to the point I reject which statistics you started your premise with. How about we start with the presumed gun numbers. 310 million guns per the above. Number of gun owners? Didn’t see that but some estimates are 44-192 million ( How about the stats for # of guns vs. # of guns used in crimes? Or # of legal gun owners vs. # of those that commit crimes. Please let us know how those numbers compare to say # of prescribed meds vs. # of illegal use of meds or # of prescription users vs. # of prescription abusers and/or suicides. Then let us discuss efficacy.
3) Speaking of suicides, shouldn’t we be discussing the efficacy of keeping the Golden Gate Bridge as well then? On average someone jumps from it every other week! (
4) Right forcing gun owners to keep their weapons disassembled is unconstitutional because it’s not “handy” then. Because criminals (not lnown for their generosity or patience) rarely allow you the time to place a 911 call let alone reassemble your device for brandishing.