4 year old shoots pregnant mother in head.

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Dear Lord - I spent some time providing a reasoned and level discussion on this topic and this was your reply. I do think you have run out of a logical argument.

Okay, lets look at the numbers to see the if the benefits outweigh the cost.

Arguably, I can conclude that +6,024 people's lives were saved because the firearm was used in defense of life or property. 4,126 people were killed or injured due to criminal activity or irresponsible use. That is +1,898 in favor of gun rights. It is important to note that there is a lot of information messing from the statistics. Like, are the children killed or injured also part of the mass shooting numbers?

Now, if we look at the very bottom, unintentional shooting only make 1,613. This is the number that is relevant to the OP. Still smaller than the lives saved by 4,411 in favor of gun rights. Conclusion, guns save lives more than they take lives.

 

[Zoii]

Okay, lets look at the numbers to see the if the benefits outweigh the cost.
View attachment 250800
Arguably, I can conclude that +6,024 people's lives were saved because the firearm was used in defense of life or property. 4,126 people were killed or injured due to criminal activity or irresponsible use. That is +1,898 in favor of gun rights. It is important to note that there is a lot of information messing from the statistics. Like, are the children killed or injured also part of the mass shooting numbers?

Now, if we look at the very bottom, unintentional shooting only make 1,613. This is the number that is relevant to the OP. Still smaller than the lives saved by 4,411 in favor of gun rights. Conclusion, guns save lives more than they take lives.

Well..that was you most objective reply to date. This is how discussions should be reasoned. So good response You're Maths though is awful -

Look again - The bottom section you circled that you deem to be positive for guns = 6042 deaths or injuries

Now move your eyes to the top - The total Deaths + Total Injuries = 42 837

Ya! you're wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out on your maths
Thats 36 795 in the negative

Nevermind. At least you're attempting to be objective and not subjective .... as a tip though - you need to read the sub-headings more carefully... take for example mass incidents - see how there is a supernumeral 2 against it....now go to the bottom - 340 was the number of incidents NOT the number of people killed or injured.

Now look you don't need to justify the numbers to me anyway - This is your society's debate. But please...dont enter the debate saying guns save more lives than they killed - That wont go down well because , as you can see, you are plainly wrong.

The argument should be approached along the lines of the benefits you and your society gets by owning a gun...eg hunting/sporting etc, protection etc etc...versus the negative outcomes. Then decide what the line in the sand is and how that might be mitigated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Noone disputes that a gun isnt capable of stopping a crime. Statistically though - despite your anecdotes - they cause far more issues. Self defence is cited in around 10% of cases.... which is less than deaths due to accidental discharge of a gun. I attach a citation for your review should you choose.
Gun Violence Archive

To be honest, I think since we're now talking about this we can consider this having gone far off topic.
Still doesn't disprove my point that guns are used for self-defence.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well..that was you most objective reply to date. This is how discussions should be reasoned. So good response You're Maths though is awful -

Look again - The bottom section you circled that you deem to be positive for guns = 6042 deaths or injuries

Now move your eyes to the top - The total Deaths + Total Injuries = 42 837

Ya! you're wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out on your maths
Thats 36 795 in the negative

View attachment 250803
Nevermind. At least you're attempting to be objective and not subjective .... as a tip though - you need to read the sub-headings more carefully... take for example mass incidents - see how there is a supernumeral 2 against it....now go to the bottom - 340 was the number of incidents NOT the number of people killed or injured.

Now look you don't need to justify the numbers to me anyway - This is your society's debate. But please...dont enter the debate saying guns save more lives than they killed - That wont go down well because , as you can see, you are plainly wrong.

The argument should be approached along the lines of the benefits you and your society gets by owning a gun...eg hunting/sporting etc, protection etc etc...versus the negative outcomes. Then decide what the line in the sand is and how that might be mitigated.

Perhaps, however if we compare the United States "gun problem" to the "knife problem" of the UK, it becomes very difficult to conclude that removing guns from the equation will result in less deaths.

"The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high."
London stabbings 2018 – latest knife crime statistics and attacks in Clapham, Crouch Hill and Shepherds Bush?

Perhaps we all (to include the op) should focus our attention on the UK knife violence problem and get their own house in order before lecturing the United States on gun violence.

Note: There are no gun ownership rights in the UK. So , other than wishful thinking, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any lives will be saved as a result of abolishing the 2nd amendment. Based on this statistic alone, the only thing we can conclude is that people will continue to kill other people regardless if they can legally own a gun or not. I would further note the obvious that the only logical outcome to banning guns in the U.S. is that only criminals will have guns. This is for two reasons. First, many responsible gun owners will become criminals for owning an illegal firearm and refusing to hand them over to the State. Second, if a criminal is willing to murder or commit crimes such as robbery and murder, we cannot expect them to all of a sudden become compliant to gun laws.

Conclusion: The benefit to repealing the 2nd amendment does not outweigh the cost. We can only anticipate that their will be a spike of knife violence and crime, law abiding citizens will be unarmed, and criminals will be armed. This will result in increase deaths from knife attacks and gun violence from illegally owned firearms by criminals. In regards to the trends of gun violence increasing, there is no evidence to suggest that the guns are the problem. The guns existed in the US for hundreds of years. The only logical conclusion is the problem is in the culture and society, not the guns. We can go down a million rabbit holes to figure out what the cultural and sociological issues are. But it isn't guns.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That depends; How important is it for you to cut vegetables, meat and various and sundry other foods when you are preparing them?

Well, important when I do need one. I kept knives high and out of reach of children when I was raising them. Not once did I ever leave a sharp knife where they could pick it up and play with it.

 

[Zoii]

Perhaps, however if we compare the United States "gun problem" to the "knife problem" of the UK, it becomes very difficult to conclude that removing guns from the equation will result in less deaths.

"The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high."
London stabbings 2018 – latest knife crime statistics and attacks in Clapham, Crouch Hill and Shepherds Bush?

Perhaps we all (to include the op) should focus our attention on the UK knife violence problem and get their own house in order before lecturing the United States on gun violence.

Note: There are no gun ownership rights in the UK. So , other than wishful thinking, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any lives will be saved as a result of abolishing the 2nd amendment. Based on this statistic alone, the only thing we can conclude is that people will continue to kill other people regardless if they can legally own a gun or not. I would further note the obvious that the only logical outcome to banning guns in the U.S. is that only criminals will have guns. This is for two reasons. First, many responsible gun owners will become criminals for owning an illegal firearm and refusing to hand them over to the State. Second, if a criminal is willing to murder or commit crimes such as robbery and murder, we cannot expect them to all of a sudden become compliant to gun laws.

Conclusion: The benefit to repealing the 2nd amendment does not outweigh the cost. We can only anticipate that their will be a spike of knife violence and crime, law abiding citizens will be unarmed, and criminals will be armed. This will result in increase deaths from knife attacks and gun violence from illegally owned firearms by criminals. In regards to the trends of gun violence increasing, there is no evidence to suggest that the guns are the problem. The guns existed in the US for hundreds of years. The only logical conclusion is the problem is in the culture and society, not the guns. We can go down a million rabbit holes to figure out what the cultural and sociological issues are. But it isn't guns.

Good gracious - this is terribly wrong just purely from the stats you are using.

There were 40147 incidents involving a knife (NOTE not necessarily an actual stabbing) in the UK
This caused 278 Deaths..... so mathematically - 0.7% of knife incidents led to death

That compared to 25% of gun incidents in the USA led to death.

Now also note the number of Mass Shooting events 340 - Thats almost One a Day. Heck in Los Vegas you had 51 deaths and 851 injured. Now how many mass events (thats 5 or more killed by one person n a single event) involving a knife did you find in the UK or USA? This is yet another example of how poor your argument is.


Wow somehow your bizarre logic came to the conclusion that this proves guns would be better - Yea better at increasing the number of deaths.

AND thats before we even add the death rate due to stabbings in the USA - but lets do that and check if the stats are consistent...I could only get from the FBI site 1704 deaths (dont know the incident rate of stabbings)

Look - this isnt going to help you in an intelligent conversation with someone if you go in and sprout - guns save lives. Truly you will be made to look like a total idiot because your stats won't back you.

You are better to go in with logic that says...These are our benefits we get from guns eg hunting/recreation, self defence, etc etc.....and then discuss if those benefits outweigh the risks. If they dont then you can talk about risk mitigation. If the benefits do outweigh the risks, then you have a stronger ground for your argument

Right now though, Your own stats that you post here are blowing your arguments out of the water and no making you look too good.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well, important when I do need one. I kept knives high and out of reach of children when I was raising them. Not once did I ever leave a sharp knife where they could pick it up and play with it.

And if you had left it out where your child could pick it up, who would have been the one to blame if the child stabbed himself/herself? You or the knife? That is the issue of the OP.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Good gracious - this is terribly wrong just purely from the stats you are using.

That compared to 25% of gun incidents in the USA led to death.

And of the 25%, how many of those deaths were as a result of a firearm being used in self defense, home invasion, or an officer firing the weapon in the line of duty? I think killing the bad guy would be a good thing. However, your argument seems to imply that it is negative.

Furthermore, since this is a Christian forum, I would be remissed if I did not include the biblical passage in which Jesus himself commanded his apostles to buy a sword to use for self defense. Contextually, this would apply to any weapon for self defense to include firearms.

"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied. (Luke 33:36-38)

Edit: In regards to this:

There were 40147 incidents involving a knife (NOTE not necessarily an actual stabbing) in the UK
This caused 278 Deaths..... so mathematically - 0.7% of knife incidents led to death

I think that this is exactly the reason why I want a gun. Why would I settle for a knife for home defense if it would statistically only give me a 0.7% of killing the guy when I can have a hand gun that would give me a 25% chance of killing the guy. Furthermore, the odds will be less in my favor if the guy breaking into my home had a gun and I only had a knife. Hence, "never take a knife to a gun fight."

 

[Zoii]

And of the 25%, how many of those deaths were as a result of a firearm being used in self defense, home invasion, or an officer firing the weapon in the line of duty? I think killing the bad guy would be a good thing. However, your argument seems to imply that it is negative.

Furthermore, since this is a Christian forum, I would be remissed if I did not include the biblical passage in which Jesus himself commanded his apostles to buy a sword to use for self defense. Contextually, this would apply to any weapon for self defense to include firearms.

"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied. (Luke 33:36-38)

Edit: In regards to this:

I think that this is exactly the reason why I want a gun. Why would I settle for a knife for home defense if it would statistically only give me a 0.7% of killing the guy when I can have a hand gun that would give me a 25% chance of killing the guy. Furthermore, the odds will be less in my favor if the guy breaking into my home had a gun and I only had a knife. Hence, "never take a knife to a gun fight."

Geez...... You have shot yourself in the foot so many times in this thread and given exponents of gun control all the ammunition they need

 

[dgiharris]

I'm going to say that your logic is flawed by one serious: in the past 30 years, the VAST majority of mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, an area that lawful gunowners will not enter with guns because they respect the law, while criminals do not.

This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I'm arguing. My argument has nothing to do with "gun free zones". I've never argued for gun free zones... This is a red herring.

My argument is simply asking for stats that back up the good-guy-with-a-guy GOP political spin...

I'm well aware that there are plenty of anecdotes and examples of good-guy-with-a-gun... But anecdotes aren't data...

You didn't address my argument at all...

... I don't think the problem is the second amendment. I actually consider myself to be pro-2A. The issue is that not enough people pay heed to the DC v. Heller ruling which dictates "It's an individual right, but not an unlimited one"

"Any old idiot gets to have a gun" is the idea that needs to go away. That can be handled via screening, testing, and universal background checks.

I didn't mean to infer that we lose the second amendment. My argument was more of the Socratic method of asking "why" in the hopes of getting to the root cause and real issues...

Why do we have the second amendment? What benefit is there to having the 2nd amendment? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

I'd like us to actually put some thought into this issue from all sides.

But you are right, the idea that "Hey, guns are our god given right and ANYONE should have access to them and we can't have any gun control because that opens the door to repeal of the 2nd amendment therefore we are going to fight ANY attempt at limiting this amendment...." is just a really really bad way to go about this issue

Does that satisfy you?

Sorry no it doesn't. They are anecdotes not data.

Here's a few more:
...
If people aren't finding these examples, it's because they're not looking.

the above is the answer to a question I didn't ask...

Yes, I found these examples, but that wasn't my question. My question was specifically about data and stats... If I ask you a quantitative question like, "Has the use of seatbelts decreased fatalities" the answer is not to link me to a bunch of different articles where a seatbelt saved a life...

No.

The answer would be to provide some sort of source that shows the general trend and data of seatbelts reducing fatalities.... Something like, Before this seatbelt law was passed, States experienced 1 fatality per 8,000 citizens but after it was passed that number dropped to 1 fatality per 12,000 citizens...

It very well could be that good guys with a gun reduce crime at a rate that far exceeds the amount of gun violence that would occur had there not been a good-guy-with-a-gun GGWAG... but as near as I can see, there is no hard statistics backing up that argument. Yes, there are anecdotes and nice shiny stories on Fox News everytime a GGWAG pops up. but anecdotes aren't data...

 

[Darkhorse]

It very well could be that good guys with a gun reduce crime at a rate that far exceeds the amount of gun violence that would occur had there not been a good-guy-with-a-gun GGWAG... but as near as I can see, there is no hard statistics backing up that argument. Yes, there are anecdotes and nice shiny stories on Fox News everytime a GGWAG pops up. but anecdotes aren't data...

Actually, I have an entire book full of statistical data on this and other aspects of "gun violence", but since it was compiled by John Lott, you would disregard it, just like you disregard Fox.

Besides, I have a life away from the internet, and it needs frequent attention.
Maybe I can give that data some attention soon, for those who are interested.

 

[dgiharris]

Actually, I have an entire book full of statistical data on this and other aspects of "gun violence", but since it was compiled by John Lott, you would disregard it, just like you disregard Fox.

Besides, I have a life away from the internet, and it needs frequent attention.
Maybe I can give that data some attention soon, for those who are interested.

I don't disregard Fox News, I just acknowledge their incredible bias and account for that.
You can be biased and still be right, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

FWIW, I judge things on their own merits, just because it comes from Fox News doesn't mean I automatically disbelieve it.

I did do some quick google fu trying to find hard stats on this subject... to be fair, it is a hard question to answer statistically.

Part of the problem is actually understanding and framing the proper question in a way that it can be answered via statistics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry no it doesn't. They are anecdotes not data.

Well, there's no point having a discussion then if you think those are anecdotes and not actual examples of what you asked for.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Geez...... You have shot yourself in the foot so many times in this thread and given exponents of gun control all the ammunition they need

Care to explain why? Your rebuttal is lacking substance.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And if you had left it out where your child could pick it up, who would have been the one to blame if the child stabbed himself/herself? You or the knife? That is the issue of the OP.

I would be at fault if I left the knife within reach of a small child. The knife didn't do anything of its own accord.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would be at fault if I left the knife within reach of a small child. The knife didn't do anything of its own accord.

Exactly. The same principle applies to any potentially dangerous or deadly item that becomes in the hands of a child. To include a gun. In the case of the OP. This whole thread is not a gun violence issue. It's a poor parenting issue.

 

[Zoii]

I would be at fault if I left the knife within reach of a small child. The knife didn't do anything of its own accord.

@ jason
execpt knife stabbings only result in death in for 0.7 percent of incidents whereas if its a gun death results in 25% of incidences.... this was from the statistics you furnished yourself Jason. @RestoreTheJoy take note

"Common sense is not so common"
Voltaire 1770

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

@ jason
execpt knife stabbings only result in death in for 0.7 percent of incidents whereas if its a gun death results in 25% of incidences.... this was from the statistics you furnished yourself Jason. @RestoreTheJoy take note

"Common sense is not so common"
Voltaire 1770

I am confused, are you suggesting that because knives are safer than guns a parent should be held accountable but parents should be absolved of any responsibility for leaving guns in the reach of children because they are so lethal? It's ironic that you bring up common sense when common sense says "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". Let's break this down as simply as possible and be real hear and use real common sense. In the real world there are literally millions of guns in the United States...period. These guns are not going anywhere regardless of any gun laws...period. Making a law to ban guns will be as effective as the drug bans and the last I checked, there were still a lot of drugs in this country. The point is that the only thing banning guns will accomplish is disarming the law abiding citizens because by definition, only law abiding citizens will abide by the law. This will leave guns solely in the possession of criminals. Some of these criminals are really bad people.

Have you ever had a home intruder? I pray you haven't, but I have. Let me tell you it is scary. I will tell you that when you wake up in the middle of the night discovering someone is in your home (sometimes more than one), you are going to wish you had a gun. If you are walking down the street and a group of young punks corner you in an ally to rape you, unless you are some kind of Jedi knife master, you are going to wish you had a gun.

So before we can go any further about seriously considering repealing the second amendment and make laws banning guns, what is your plan to enforce the law? How do you expect the U.S. government to seize all the weapons?

 

[Zoii]

I am confused, are you suggesting that because knives are safer than guns a parent should be held accountable but parents should be absolved of any responsibility for leaving guns in the reach of children because they are so lethal? It's ironic that you bring up common sense when common sense says "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". Let's break this down as simply as possible and be real hear and use real common sense. In the real world there are literally millions of guns in the United States...period. These guns are not going anywhere regardless of any gun laws...period. Making a law to ban guns will be as effective as the drug bans and the last I checked, there were still a lot of drugs in this country. The point is that the only thing banning guns will accomplish is disarming the law abiding citizens because by definition, only law abiding citizens will abide by the law. This will leave guns solely in the possession of criminals. Some of these criminals are really bad people.

Have you ever had a home intruder? I pray you haven't, but I have. Let me tell you it is scary. I will tell you that when you wake up in the middle of the night discovering someone is in your home (sometimes more than one), you are going to wish you had a gun. If you are walking down the street and a group of young punks corner you in an ally to rape you, unless you are some kind of Jedi knife master, you are going to wish you had a gun.

So before we can go any further about seriously considering repealing the second amendment and make laws banning guns, what is your plan to enforce the law? How do you expect the U.S. government to seize all the weapons?

Errrrrr.........no....we don't allow guns in Australia except under special circumstance.... So we don't have the insanity of your issues.

Your very desperate to make the stats work for U... They do not but it's interesting to see what explanations you come up with.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Errrrrr.........no....we don't allow guns in Australia except under special circumstance.... So we don't have the insanity of your issues.

Great! The reality of the situation is that there are currently millions of guns in my country. So unless you have a brilliant plan to get those guns out of the picture, you have no solution. I learned very quickly in the military that if you complain about a problem without providing a solution, you are doing nothing but whining.

Your very desperate to make the stats work for U... They do not but it's interesting to see what explanations you come up with. So far you've come up with some imaginative ones even involving Jedi's

Common sense is not "making the stats work for U", it is speaking about reality over fantasy. It would be wonderful if we could wave a magic wand and make all guns in the US disappear. But reality says that isn't going to happen. Repealing the 2nd amendment will not magically make the guns disappear. The problem is not the guns, it is that there are guns in the hands of irresponsible criminals. Laws are only as good as they are enforced so what is the proposes solution to enforcing the gun ban and removing guns from the hands of criminals and locating the millions of unregistered guns currently in possession by criminals? Reality also says that a firearm is far superior to self defense and home defense than any knife or sword. I don't care if you are the next Bruce Lee, you will lose in a gunfight. As long as there are criminals in this country who are armed with the intent to do me and my family harm, myself and millions of other responsible gun owners will die before they are left unarmed and unable to protect their families.

But you guys knock yourselves out and shoot each other all you want. It's your country so I couldn't care less. Just give up on the BS you throw to those outside of the USA and save it for your own countrymen who you want the right to shoot.

Great! So why don't you worry about Australia and let me worry about the United State mate. Because one thing is clear, you are clearly ignorant of the reality of the issues centered around gun control and how to fix them. Nor does it appear that you have any concern about solutions, just to complain about them.

Now back to the OP. It is a tragedy that the mother was killed. But lets not be fooled to thinking that the major issue is a lack of gun control. The mother died because of her irresponsibility...period. To blame the "evil guns" is nothing more than a scapegoat to complain about a gun problem that many non-Americans know nothing about. The mother's death was her own fault hopefully people can learn from her mistake and take steps to better secure their weapons and keep them out of the hands of children. Or, we can continue to merely complain about the rights of another country.