What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Obliquinaut]

I guess I should have told you to go to that site that you keep posting with those number and tell you look at the figures and see for yourself.

Why do you dislike actual scientific studies?

 

[Aldebaran]

Why do you dislike actual scientific studies?

You mean you don't like the figures I posted for you (that don't coincide with the anti-gun narrative)? Those numbers came from the site that YOU originally posted. Suddenly not liking that site so much?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I guess I should have told you to go to that site that you keep posting with those number and tell you look at the figures and see for yourself. But I won't trouble you with that. Here are the numbers. In 2014, the number of gun deaths is the lowest since 2000, even though there are far more guns around now than back in 2000, with the numbers generally falling since 1998.

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

You know, I took your advice and I used the PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH FIREARMS from that data and I regressed it on RATE OF GUN HOMICIDES/100,000 from the same dataset.

Here's what the regression looked like:
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

I got a line with an adjR^2 = -.1248 It was effectively FLAT between 1997 and 2014. The F-test on the regression had a p-value = 0.9717. MEANING I would be making a SERIOUS error to assume the slope of that line was anything but ZERO.

And when you compare year-based data the rate of gun homicides between 1997 and 2013 is pretty flat...as is the proportion of households with guns. 1997 was an exceptionally high year for gun homicides and would have overleveraged the regression so I dropped it.

NOW, I'm also aware that these are TIME SERIES DATA so drawing a time-series F-test on the regression might be biased *(I don't normally do time series data, so I'm not so comfortable dealing with it). ANd I will readily grant this was crude and off the cuff. But hopefully you get the idea that you can't just go poking at the data and draw really robust conclusions based on your "feels".

You can check it out for yourself. Here's the data:

Yr HomRate %Households withguns
2014 3.43 31
2013 3.54 37
2012 3.7 33.1
2011 3.55
2010 3.59 31.1
2009 3.75
2008 4.01 34
2007 4.19
2006 4.29 33.1
2005 4.18
2004 3.97 34.7
2003 4.11
2002 4.11 33.5
2001 3.98
2000 3.84 32.4
1999 3.88
1998 3.37 34.8
1997 7.07

 

[Obliquinaut]

You mean you don't like the figures I posted for you (that don't coincide with the anti-gun narrative)? Those numbers came from the site that YOU originally posted. Suddenly not liking that site so much?

And that's why I ran some statistics on them. You may not be all that savvy with statistics but generally it's not possible to easily draw simple conclusions from the data. Especially the conclusions you want to draw. FYI.

 

[Aldebaran]

You know, I took your advice and I used the PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH FIREARMS from that data and I regressed it on RATE OF GUN HOMICIDES/100,000 from the same dataset.

Here's what the regression looked like:
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

I got a line with an adjR^2 = -.1248 It was effectively FLAT between 1997 and 2014. The F-test on the regression had a p-value = 0.9717. MEANING I would be making a SERIOUS error to assume the slope of that line was anything but ZERO.

And when you compare year-based data the rate of gun homicides between 1997 and 2013 is pretty flat...as is the proportion of households with guns. 1997 was an exceptionally high year for gun homicides and would have overleveraged the regression so I dropped it.

NOW, I'm also aware that these are TIME SERIES DATA so drawing a time-series F-test on the regression might be biased *(I don't normally do time series data, so I'm not so comfortable dealing with it). ANd I will readily grant this was crude and off the cuff. But hopefully you get the idea that you can't just go poking at the data and draw really robust conclusions based on your "feels".

You can check it out for yourself. Here's the data:

Yr HomRate %Households withguns
2014 3.43 31
2013 3.54 37
2012 3.7 33.1
2011 3.55
2010 3.59 31.1
2009 3.75
2008 4.01 34
2007 4.19
2006 4.29 33.1
2005 4.18
2004 3.97 34.7
2003 4.11
2002 4.11 33.5
2001 3.98
2000 3.84 32.4
1999 3.88
1998 3.37 34.8
1997 7.07

This is a comparison of the number of households with guns vs gun deaths. Yes, it's pretty flat, although it has been accepted that the number of guns in the country (the things that people say is the problem that needs to be addressed) has increased by quite a bit.

Now, what is it that you say is the problem that needs to be addressed? Is it the number of total guns in the country, or the number of them that each owner possesses, or something else?

 

[Aldebaran]

And that's why I ran some statistics on them. You may not be all that savvy with statistics but generally it's not possible to easily draw simple conclusions from the data. Especially the conclusions you want to draw. FYI.

No, you're correct in that I'm not as much into statistics. But there are things beyond statistics that factor into decisions. If a person decides whether or not to purchase a particular firearm (or any firearm at all), there's more to look at other than how many there are in the USA, how many people are shot each year, etc. How about things like being able to go hunting, or how much fun it would be to go out to the range for a couple hours and do some target shooting, or having something to teach your son or daughter about and how to properly use? Maybe there are statistics on things like that, but I doubt it.

Now, there are naturally going to be statistics about how many self defense shootings there are. But if someone chooses to have one for defense because they would otherwise have no protection if someone were to break into their home, then that's something that goes well beyond what a statistic chart would tell them. Here's a link to plenty of stories about women who were armed and are in much better shape as a result: A Pivotal Moment - A Mom's Story

 

[Obliquinaut]

This is a comparison of the number of households with guns vs gun deaths. Yes, it's pretty flat, although it has been accepted that the number of guns in the country (the things that people say is the problem that needs to be addressed) has increased by quite a bit.

Then you can run the data and do the stats if you like!

Now, what is it that you say is the problem that needs to be addressed? Is it the number of total guns in the country, or the number of them that each owner possesses, or something else?

I'm saying a few things:

1. You don't understand how data works and that it isn't as simple as taking a couple of random data points and drawing a line.

2. It is best to draw conclusions based on the best data available and analyzed using the best methods (which is why I preferred the Boston University paper since they did a pretty robust analysis)

3. Our numbers are off the charts compared to every other developed nation on earth. If we drop a few percentage points in gun homicides it is still ridiculously higher than almost any other developed nation on earth as is our gun ownership rates!

and finally:

4. THERE IS NO REASON THAT A HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY SHOULDN'T BE ANALYZING EVERY SCRAP OF DATA POSSIBLE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A LOBBYING GROUP IN SERVICE TO THE GUN INDUSTRY.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No, you're correct in that I'm not as much into statistics. But there are things beyond statistics that factor into decisions.

As I said I make my living doing RESEARCH. I've been around the block a few times and believe me when I say "I've heard that line before and it is usually put out there by people who want their biases enshrined and their foreordained conclusions accepted."

When people put down statistics and their value to understanding data I know they don't really have a solid position.

The fact that you prefer anecdotal data and inflated numbers provided by lackies of the NRA as well as no interest in the actual data these lackies are characterizing for you is all I need to know about the relative value of your position.

 

[Aldebaran]

Then you can run the data and do the stats if you like!

I didn't see figures on the site for how many guns there were by each year. But if it's true that there are far more now that 15 or so years ago, and the rate of deaths per 100,000 people has actually dropped during that time, then specific numbers don't really need to be run to see that we have far more guns, but the number of deaths is still fewer.

4. THERE IS NO REASON THAT A HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY SHOULDN'T BE ANALYZING EVERY SCRAP OF DATA POSSIBLE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A LOBBYING GROUP IN SERVICE TO THE GUN INDUSTRY.

Unless that particular agency has already had a history of bias: bias: Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

But when you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense for firearms research to be done by an agency that actually has the word "firearm" as part of it's title (BATFE) rather than one that has "disease control" as its name and purpose?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I didn't see figures on the site for how many guns there were by each year. But if it's true that there are far more now that 15 or so years ago, and the rate of deaths per 100,000 people has actually dropped during that time

Actually, as I stated earlier: based on the data that I pulled from that site: you can't make that claim.

That is what it means when you have a non-significant p-value on the F-test of the regression. You cannot claim there is a negative trend.

What you did was randomly grab a couple of data points and look at the line between them. That is NOT how data is handled. There is "noise" around the regression line. The regression line is built up as a best fit THROUGH ALL THE DATA. Some years are up, some down. That's they key. (And, it's even more difficult when working with potentially autocorrelated datasets like time-series).

Unless that particular agency has already had a history of bias: bias: Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

I'm still waiting to see the actual paper or presentation these claims are based on. Sorry. You keep pointing to a paper/presentation that I have yet to find and you don't seem to care that it can't be found.

But when you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense for firearms research to be done by an agency that actually has the word "firearm" as part of it's title (BATFE) rather than one that has "disease control" as its name and purpose?

I'd be OK with that! I'd even be happy if the FBI ran the values. Crime reporting systems in the US are a fractured mess from what I've heard. But I'm willing to entertain the data from any unbiased source. If you have a problem with the CDC (even though you don't really have a problem with them in that I suspect you don't have any opinion of their work overall and if your health or safety were threatened you'd be just as happy to have the CDC's input), but if you have a "selective" problem with the CDC then let's have the data from somewhere.

And the NRA doesn't get to dictate what the results are either.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'd be OK with that! I'd even be happy if the FBI ran the values. Crime reporting systems in the US are a fractured mess from what I've heard. But I'm willing to entertain the data from any unbiased source. If you have a problem with the CDC (even though you don't really have a problem with them in that I suspect you don't have any opinion of their work overall and if your health or safety were threatened you'd be just as happy to have the CDC's input),

Maybe if they were working to cure cancer or some other disease rather than using selective data to push more more restrictions on what I own.

but if you have a "selective" problem with the CDC then let's have the data from somewhere.

Yes. Somewhere that has a history of being unbiased would be fine with me. Personally, I don't see a real need for anyone to gather statistics to tell me what I can or should do.

And the NRA doesn't get to dictate what the results are either.

But they do get to have a voice in the discussion. Gun owners become a member of that organization to be their voice.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Maybe if they were working to cure cancer or some other disease rather than using selective data to push more more restrictions on what I own.

I'm still waiting to see proof of your claims there.

Yes. Somewhere that has a history of being unbiased would be fine with me.

Again, still waiting for evidence to support that claim (other than someone talking about something someone said somewhere about something)

Personally, I don't see a real need for anyone to gather statistics to tell me what I can or should do.

That's because you don't know that it is pretty much what is done that touches every single thing in your life. Do you pay insurance? Your rate is based on statistics. Do you buy products from the store? Yup, QA/QC is statistics. Do you use any medicine? Again, the reason you can get it is because it has been tested through massive layers of statistical analysis. There's so much in your life that is driven by statistics but few people know enough about them to know where they're used.

But they do get to have a voice in the discussion.

Sure. But not the ONLY voice. And not simply by buying legislators.

Gun owners become a member of that organization to be their voice.

Only insofar as owning guns is proven to not be detrimental to our overall safety. You can't own a full automatic gun right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large. YOU can't own a nuclear weapon right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large.

Need I go on to explain the world to you?

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm still waiting to see proof of your claims there.

Again, still waiting for evidence to support that claim (other than someone talking about something someone said somewhere about something)

Here. Although you'll probably just read it in order to look for fault with it: The History of Public Health Gun Control – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

That's because you don't know that it is pretty much what is done that touches every single thing in your life. Do you pay insurance? Your rate is based on statistics. Do you buy products from the store? Yup, QA/QC is statistics. Do you use any medicine? Again, the reason you can get it is because it has been tested through massive layers of statistical analysis. There's so much in your life that is driven by statistics but few people know enough about them to know where they're used.

I don't look into the statistics about any of those things when I make my decisions.

Only insofar as owning guns is proven to not be detrimental to our overall safety. You can't own a full automatic gun right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large. YOU can't own a nuclear weapon right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large.

Need I go on to explain the world to you?

Do you think owning a gun in general is a danger to society at large?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Here. Although you'll probably just read it in order to look for fault with it: The History of Public Health Gun Control – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

To be fair, as a professional researcher I am less prone to simply take data thrown at me with out critically evaluating it. In this case, even though this is actually just a blog by a pro-gun physician I'll look at it.

FINALLY there is an analysis of CDC-based research. Took you long enough!

Now, granted the primary focus here is one article by Kellerman and a discussion of a possibly flawed sampling technique. This is futher bolstered by an in-depth analysis of Dr. Kellerman's position statements. That is dangerously close to an ad hominem debate point (focusing on the author rather than the data), but generally I'm willing to entertain that perhaps the data was skewed by a non-standard sampling technique.

I don't necessarily plan on reading the entirety of the Tennessee Law Review article (I assume you haven't either, so no harm, no foul).

As I said earlier; if a solid case can be made that the CDC has a history of systemic bias in their research then definitely remove it to another disinterested 3rd party. Perhaps the Criminologists that the blogger you linked to prefers.

I don't look into the statistics about any of those things when I make my decisions.

Those are decisions you make. You don't get to choose where you show up in actuarial tables, for instance. Basically the decisions are made for you. Your lack of knowledge of the statistics doesn't change one whit that they are primarily responsible for the options you have available.

Do you think owning a gun in general is a danger to society at large?

The data seems to support it. I don't think it is an obvious case of "if I buy a gun I'm going to hurt someone", but rather if I become part of the larger set of gun owners in society I have thereby increased the rate of gun ownership and provided one more potential gun that can be stolen and used by someone of ill intent or can be used by someone in my home to commit suicide etc.

It is a probability game.

I actually think it works the other way. That indeed our high gun ownership rate is a sign of an underlying pathology in our society. We appear to have an unhealthy relationship with guns, or perhaps our pathology is one of being prone to fear of "the other" and our feelings of mistrust of society in aggregate.

America was founded by and maintains a type of "pioneer spirit" that really doesn't fit in modern society. We have retained a sense that we are capable of surviving alone and in the wild while, in reality, we AREN'T capable of that by and large. We fantasize that we are the cinema heroes we see on the screen, when we aren't that. We are just scared children who think that getting a gun will make us into a man.

No one is arguing against the idea that a gun can, in the hands of someone properly trained, turn a potentially bad situation into a good situation. One CAN protect themselves with a gun. But statistically it won't actually be used that way. It is far more likely that a gun in the home will result in a bad situation for the general public.

This is not to say that it can't be good in the right hands and the right situation.

 

[Aldebaran]

America was founded by and maintains a type of "pioneer spirit" that really doesn't fit in modern society. We have retained a sense that we are capable of surviving alone and in the wild while, in reality, we AREN'T capable of that by and large.

Perhaps not. But guns serve different purposes depending on each particular type. For example, I'm not a hunter, so my preferences aren't for the types that are used for that purpose. Plenty of other people know how to hunt, and they know how to prepare and eat what they catch. If they benefit that way, then I see no problem with it.

We fantasize that we are the cinema heroes we see on the screen, when we aren't that. We are just scared children who think that getting a gun will make us into a man.

Ok, now this is the kind of talk that makes it sound like you're just looking down on gun owners and poo pooing them for owning guns. Who is this "We" you're referring to? Most people are quite realistic about how a gun is used in defense and that we aren't "cinema heroes".

No one is arguing against the idea that a gun can, in the hands of someone properly trained, turn a potentially bad situation into a good situation. One CAN protect themselves with a gun. But statistically it won't actually be used that way. It is far more likely that a gun in the home will result in a bad situation for the general public.

What do statistics say would happen with someone who actually has training rather than just buying a gun, loading it and hoping for the best? I doubt there are statistics on this because there are variable levels of training and experience to be had.

This is not to say that it can't be good in the right hands and the right situation.

Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Who is this "We" you're referring to? Most people are quite realistic about how a gun is used in defense and that we aren't "cinema heroes".

I don't believe that. There are too many people who are unrealistic about their abilities in just about every sphere of existence. I include myself in that tally.

What do statistics say would happen with someone who actually has training rather than just buying a gun, loading it and hoping for the best?

Statistically that person would be less likely to do damage with it. But you keep avoiding the larger point which is that we see a positive correlation between increased gun ownership by the populace and increased gun deaths. Most of these deaths are not in self-defense or in the service of the overall good.

It could be that correlation is not causation, but it indicates something is amiss.

Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

So you didn't quite get my point? OK. I'll try again: yes guns can be used for good and self-defense. But the point is that apparently in getting the guns into the hands of those for whom only good things happen we have a LOT (as in a LOT a lot) of bad outcomes for many, many others.

Think of it in GLOBAL terms:

The US was able to end WWII with two atomic bombs dropped on population centers. It may have even saved my own father's life (he was shipping out to the Phillipines when they dropped the bomb, and he would have probably been at least in a supporting role for the Home Islands invasion of Japan which was estimated to cost enormous numbers of GI's lives).

BUT we know today that not every country on earth should have a nuclear arsenal. Arguably NO ONE should. But none of those who have them are willing to give them up. You know, for "security's sake".

Sounds a lot like your argument for guns in the hands of individuals. SURE some nations are going to be really good citizens with their nuclear arsenals, but some nations will be very very bad with theirs.

The problem is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If the US was able to save my dad's life by dropping two nukes on Japan does that mean that the world is now better off with rapidly proliferating nuclear weapons?

It's a tough call. Certainly as far as I'm concerned my life is possible because my dad wasn't killed in Japan. But is it a good thing overall that today we have people like Kim Jong Un wanting to get his hands on these things?

Mmmmm, probably not.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't believe that. There are too many people who are unrealistic about their abilities in just about every sphere of existence. I include myself in that tally.

But that's a fatalistic approach. If you deem yourself to be unrealistic in your ability about pretty much everything, then you're expecting to fail at everything. I'd rather not look at things that way.

Statistically that person would be less likely to do damage with it. But you keep avoiding the larger point which is that we see a positive correlation between increased gun ownership by the populace and increased gun deaths. Most of these deaths are not in self-defense or in the service of the overall good.

The point I'm trying to make is that in your personal life, you have to take a look at yourself and decide what you're capable of, what your skills are, what your training and experience is and what you're willing/able to do. Ignoring your own personal traits and focusing on statistics ignores all of that. And if statistics lead you to take a fatalistic approach to everything, then that's not a very desirable way to live. If it's for you, then fine. I choose not to do it that way.

BUT we know today that not every country on earth should have a nuclear arsenal. Arguably NO ONE should. But none of those who have them are willing to give them up. You know, for "security's sake".

Sounds a lot like your argument for guns in the hands of individuals. SURE some nations are going to be really good citizens with their nuclear arsenals, but some nations will be very very bad with theirs.

Most countries have actually been doing just fine with their nuclear weapons. The ones the USA used did save many lives. Since that time, no country has used theirs in any way. If NK does, then they'd be the first. It doesn't mean that nobody should have them. If the other countries that have them now didn't have them since World War 2, there would have been more wars between then and now. No doubt the USA would probably have been invaded by now. We'll never know that, of course, but China could have pulled off something like that by now if we didn't have nuclear weapons. That's how they act as a deterrent. In the same way, people simply owning guns is a deterrent to home invasions that don't even necessarily need to be fired to be effective.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But that's a fatalistic approach. If you deem yourself to be unrealistic in your ability about pretty much everything, then you're expecting to fail at everything. I'd rather not look at things that way.

My point is there are enough people out there who misjudge their abilities (it is a common human foible) that increasing their access to dangerous materials will likely result in the numbers we see in our society with regards to gun deaths.

The point I'm trying to make is that in your personal life, you have to take a look at yourself and decide what you're capable of, what your skills are, what your training and experience is and what you're willing/able to do. Ignoring your own personal traits and focusing on statistics ignores all of that. And if statistics lead you to take a fatalistic approach to everything, then that's not a very desirable way to live. If it's for you, then fine. I choose not to do it that way.

How many people every single day are arrested for drunk driving in the USA? According to the FBI in 2014 alone there were 1,117,852 arrests for drunk driving (SOURCE)

There's over 1 million Americans who thought they were able to drive after drinking sufficiently to impair their abilities.

Do you honestly think there are no Americans who grossly misjudge their ability to protect themselves with a gun?

Most countries have actually been doing just fine with their nuclear weapons.

You are aware of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, right? I mean you do know that's why there are as few countries as their are with nuclear weapons right? That it is generally accepted that FEWER countries should have nukes as opposed to MORE, right?

And you can see the parallel I'm drawing with regards to guns, right?

The ones the USA used did save many lives. Since that time, no country has used theirs in any way.

You might wish to read the history of nuclear weapons and proliferation. Look at Kashmir. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons in order to "protect themselves against the other". BUT Pakistan is a failing state overrun by Islamic extremists. Wait until the Pakistani government completely collapses and let me know how safe you feel then.

If the other countries that have them now didn't have them since World War 2, there would have been more wars between then and now.

Not really. We've still had plenty of wars, usually proxy wars like North Korea and Vietnam. The nukes didn't stop the bloodshed

No doubt the USA would probably have been invaded by now.

Without nuclear weapons the US would have been invaded? Where do you get that from?

We'll never know that, of course, but China could have pulled off something like that by now if we didn't have nuclear weapons.

China? Really? No idea where you are getting that idea. China, if they really wanted to, could destroy the USA in under a week today without ever dropping a nuke. They hold so much of our debt that they could decimate our economy. But they have no reason to do so. So why would anyone care if we had a nuke?

That's how they act as a deterrent.

That's what we are told about Kashmir as well. "MAD", mutually assured destruction. Worked for the US and Russia during the Cold War...oh, except for briefly during the 1990's after the USSR collapsed and the entire nuclear infrastructure was laid bare for particularly bad actors to try to get their hands on some fissile materials. We had to step in and put in some controls and buy up a lot of it ourselves just to make sure the nuclear material didn't make it into the wrong hands. But shipments were intercepted.

In the same way, people simply owning guns is a deterrent to home invasions that don't even necessarily need to be fired to be effective.

Excellent point: and just like guns in the home we pay dearly for having this "defense". We have massive areas of contamination spread around the USA that were former nuclear weapons plants (Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, etc.) where Americans were harmed by the mess left over. AND we have to CONSTANTLY be wary of nuclear proliferation...because if some of our nuclear weapons material was stolen from us it could wind up in the wrong hands and harm could come to us. (That's why we are terrified of proliferation in general.)

If your theory was correct we'd all be safer if EVERYONE had nuclear weapons. But no one (NO ONE) on earth thinks that would be a good idea.

Why is good for Americans to all be armed to the teeth when we don't even want that to happen globally?

 

[Aldebaran]

My point is there are enough people out there who misjudge their abilities (it is a common human foible) that increasing their access to dangerous materials will likely result in the numbers we see in our society with regards to gun deaths.

So there are. Then be realistic about your OWN abilities and quit worrying about the statistics on everyone else.

How many people every single day are arrested for drunk driving in the USA? According to the FBI in 2014 alone there were 1,117,852 arrests for drunk driving (SOURCE)

There's over 1 million Americans who thought they were able to drive after drinking sufficiently to impair their abilities.

Are you making a case for outlawing alcohol, or a case for having laws against negligent gun use?

Do you honestly think there are no Americans who grossly misjudge their ability to protect themselves with a gun?

It would have been DIShonest for me to have said that, which is why I never did.

You are aware of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, right? I mean you do know that's why there are as few countries as their are with nuclear weapons right? That it is generally accepted that FEWER countries should have nukes as opposed to MORE, right?

And you can see the parallel I'm drawing with regards to guns, right?

It's not all that parallel. One is a treaty between countries over what they themselves do, and the other is about a government restricting it's own people about a basic right.

Not really. We've still had plenty of wars, usually proxy wars like North Korea and Vietnam. The nukes didn't stop the bloodshed

North Korea didn't have them at the time, and Vietnam still doesn't, as far as I know. But going back to what I said, do you see us being in a hurry to march into NK?

Without nuclear weapons the US would have been invaded? Where do you get that from?

China has the numbers to make that happen. Nothing would stop them otherwise. Conventional weapons wouldn't be enough.

China? Really? No idea where you are getting that idea. China, if they really wanted to, could destroy the USA in under a week today without ever dropping a nuke. They hold so much of our debt that they could decimate our economy. But they have no reason to do so. So why would anyone care if we had a nuke?

They would care because they wouldn't want one of ours heading their way. Isn't that obvious?

Excellent point: and just like guns in the home we pay dearly for having this "defense". We have massive areas of contamination spread around the USA that were former nuclear weapons plants (Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, etc.) where Americans were harmed by the mess left over. AND we have to CONSTANTLY be wary of nuclear proliferation...because if some of our nuclear weapons material was stolen from us it could wind up in the wrong hands and harm could come to us. (That's why we are terrified of proliferation in general.)

If your theory was correct we'd all be safer if EVERYONE had nuclear weapons. But no one (NO ONE) on earth thinks that would be a good idea.

Why is good for Americans to all be armed to the teeth when we don't even want that to happen globally?

The only connection I've tried to make between guns and nukes is that they act as a deterrent against an attack--one of them being against a country, and the other being on a more personal level in your own house, or even just you when you're out in public.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Are you making a case for outlawing alcohol, or a case for having laws against negligent gun use?

Are the words I'm using unfamiliar to you?

It would have been DIShonest for me to have said that, which is why I never did.

Yet you don't seem capable of understanding my point.

North Korea didn't have them at the time, and Vietnam still doesn't, as far as I know

Wow. Are you even reading what I wrote?

They would care because they wouldn't want one of ours heading their way. Isn't that obvious?

It is almost as if my posts are coming through to your computer in some sort of unbreakable cipher.

I don't think I have time to explain these points to you any simpler than I already am. Sorry.