A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

I just read your link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5322a2.htm) and the quote you pulled out of it was VERY self-serving.The entire thing focused on a recent shift AWAY from handguns, coincidentally to the very example I gave of the method used by my relative, and suggested that treatment of pressures should be a major goal.Yeah, access to "easier" methods of suicide may increase and individuals willingness to try, but as the article suggests, views of what is easy and acceptable can change and change quite rapidly.I would also note that the CDC article is dealing with an age group that would more or less have no bearing on licensing or regulation issues. The argument would have to be for elimination of their presence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Cool your jets wj. Not that I have been ignoring data, but I have not been keeping up with the back and forth between you and jar, so I must have missed the data in question.If there is data which suggests there is a drop in using guns with tighter regulations then I am open to looking at it, though I would like to understand what mechanism of the LICENSING or REGISTRATION did it (note that was all I was talking about).If you are suggesting that it was the RESTRICTION (meaning a general decrease in guns being around at all) I was not arguing against that.Infact, my post should have indicated I agreed that the availability of guns (more or less nearby, not just for sale) might help people select that as a method of suicide.Now the table turns on you. Did you read schraf's link to the CDC? It did more than suggest that the PROBLEM was not guns. While being a slim majority choice and definitely more effective, guns do not CAUSE the suicide, or lead to greater rates of suicide.This is why discussing gun regulation in conjunction with suicide is not very effective discussion. Suicide is the problem, not the method of choice (unless as the CDC article seems to imply, you are about to go after rope next?).Or are YOU choosing to ignore data which does not support your position... heheheh... not said seriously.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Reading your article pretty much backed up what I was saying. The restrictions had an effect of reducing the amount of guns (which I agree would lesson its choice for suicide). I think it even mentioned that the guns involved were often not obtained legally.And of course I repeat my statement that the problem is not guns, which is only a method, but other issues which push people to suicide.I couldn't find any great studies on Australian suicides, and the closest I could get was: Page not found - Wesley MissionIf you browse down through the article to suicide rates, you may find something quite interesting... while your data shows suicide by guns going down, the actual rates of suicide were climbing over the same period!Thus guns=/= more suicides, only increase as choice of method. So what?This is schraf's link: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5322a2.htmIt will tell you the same thing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My statement stands. And I am unsure what is not getting across here.Let me make this clear (and I believe this is the third time I have said this... if we include my posts to schraf). What I was trying to get at is that licensing and registration will not alter suicides by weeding out those will use them as suicides. I DO believe that with harder licensing there will be less guns around and so less will choose to use them in suicides.That may be a subtle distinction, but it is my position, and is borne out by the facts.Your assertion that since we don't know how many more suicides would have happened (when it is apparent suicides went up anyway), we know your position must be correct, is an argument from ignorance.What can clearly be seen in the data is that despite curbs on guns, and an additional decrease in the percentage CHOICE of gun as method, suicides continued to rise. Thus guns are not a causative factor. Whoops. I misread it. Good catch. Though it is an incidental point to the overall argument. You seem to continue to miss my point. I am not suggesting there would not be a change in method away from guns, similar as seen in Australia. My point (which is also seen in Australia) is so what?Why am I supposed to care how a person chooses to kill themselves? I just do not understand this dilemma. Ohhhhhhh man. You even managed to extract the same self-serving editorial comment that schraf did.1) Comparisons of suicides between the US and Australia are meaningless to this discussion.2) The decline in suicides in the US occurred DESPITE no real changes in gun laws as occured during the same period in Australia. This is a point in MY favor, not yours.3) Yeah, there was a decrease in suicide by firearms during that period. That was MY POINT. That was the POINT OF THE ARTICLE. And that is WHY I MENTIONED IT.The editorial note says that EFFECTIVE METHODS FOR SUICIDE (in this debate guns, but can also stand for other effective methods... even they reconized this) may not only help a less courageous person attempt suicide, but also make that attempt more likely to succeed. This is true as most people try to avoid pain and guns are thought to be pretty damn quick. Pills are another method thought to be less painful and so are high on the list, unfortunately (or fortunately) people that use pills can often be saved.So what? If we eventually have a pill which is quick and painless and more deadly than a self-inflicted gunshot does that negate concerns over guns when it becomes the prime method of suicide. And like I asked before, once guns are no longer the prime suicide method do we go after rope? This was not the message at all. It showed a shift toward suffocation as a method and a reduction in suicide in general, but did not have any concrete reasons. It stated that the motives behind suicide must be addressed.You guys certainly are making a lot of hay out of that editorial note, when the emphasis of the article was not reducing guns reduces suicides.As we saw clearly in the Australian study reducing guns did not affect suicide rates at all (unless you want me to use the same tactic as you just did and extrapolate a causative connection and say restricting guns increased suicide rates... maybe all those people that couldn't own guns?).You are clinging to an odd argument by bringing suicide into this.I wish you'd keep in mind that I am for some measure of gun licensing and registration. My whole point is that choice of gun as method of suicide does not make any case, or a hard case, for licensing and registration.Back to paraphrasing archie bunker: "Would'ya be happier if they jumped out'a winders?" (note: that is the preferred method of suicide in japanese children and pretty damn effective. The cause of a major spike in such suicides was high expectations and pressures regarding schools... not the availability of windows.)

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Although I agree that Jar is being a bit cute with his answers, I think he has made his position obvious enough.Essentially to end the possibility of private sales of guns (which seems to be your concern) one would have to end the existence of guns altogether. Licensing/background checks are superfluous to that issue as is the existence of gunshows/markets.One way one could use the stats you have shown more usefully is not to indict the events, or advocate greater licensing requirements, but to have law enforcement more vigilant at such events for infringements (private sales).They will never be stopped, but they can be limited.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What the????In one thread you are arguing with me that people should be helping in open revolution struggles and allowed to arm for them... including against the US.And I find you in this thread arguing for tighter gun laws and saying how you'd NEVER have one in your house!Oh yeah, guns might go off and kill someone in your family, right? But for Palestinians its teeeeeeerific! Oh yeah, those homemade bombs don't ever detonate accidentally killing a bunch of family members.You are indeed contrary-cycle.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well that about says it all. How? How would you arm yourself for a war against your own government, when it says you cannot have arms and has eliminated ways for you to get them?As it is, these people are discussing the US which you say people SHOULD be fighting. Thus you should at least alter your argument that "peaceful" Africa should not allow people to have guns, but the US should.That is if you are going to have any tiny bit of consistency.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

YOU would not need tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, etc etc... Only if you had enough people to form an ARMY would you need this. And then you would not get them on a black market, but rather from friends within the military that are taking sides in your civil war.The size struggle we have been discussing is individual size which is guns and basic explosives. I take it these are safer in home use than US guns, sold on the white market? And the tools of this will be safer in the home, how?You just can't have it all ways contra. But this is what it seems, you want a strong government that protects the people from themselves by making sure they stay disarmed, yet people should be arming themselves with explosive devices to overthrow that same government.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, yes there is. Here is your point... This coming from the guy who says in another thread that one should be engaged in violent struggles even if there is no hope for military success beyond getting a "warhead" in the direction of the enemy.You say sometimes it is most important to keep fighting just for pride, then that that is pointless and so one should give up tools of that kind of struggle.Thus you go back and forth. Pick a side of the fence my friend.BTW, rifles and handguns are useful in engagements against occupying forces and military forces. All I have ever argued is that one tank is not, one plane is not, etc etc... thus there is no reason for allowing certain division level weapons to be in the hands of citizens on a day to day basis.While large bombs are increasingly making ground forces useless when not protected by aircover, on the ground a rifle and a handgun makes every fighter stronger and it seems bizarre to say otherwise.The Vietnamese and many S American resistance groups did wonders with rifles and handguns.Your reference to Weaver and Koresh is even forced. Both were caught before being able to employ their weapons in any fighting situation. Starting a war tightly surrounded is essentially suicide. And in the case of Weaver, those killed were in some cases not even fighting at all.Before I go any further with you, I want a well detailed and coherent position. I also would appreciate you also read up on the subjects you reference.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That is my position as well. I simply critiqued current methods and strategy certain groups within their ranks were using. It was your exaggeration of my position which made you think otherwise. And this is where the contradiction comes in. You were not only not condemning, but actively promoting open conflict in the US. I think I even remember you were for use of "guns", and giving "guns" to Palestinians, as part of this.Clearly anyone starting an open conflict in the US today would be reduced to fighting with privately owned weapons.And of course its nice to note the irony of you calling it a popgun when you want to paint it as something other than an instrument of violence you maintain other times. Actually it could, as I have already pointed out examples.There are certain weapons which do not ADD any extra benefits, and might as well be picked up through alliances in the military, rather than having citizens own them before any conflict. Those I consider keeping restricted.But a rifle and handgun are effective in hitting targets and taking them down. Appropriate guerrila tactics can make them useful for protracted engagements. Of course I wouldn't suggest starting a war against the US unless you know a LOT of people are on your side. Except when addressing the Palestinian issue, as well as the Koresh and Weaver examples. We'll get to the latter two in a sec, but I have been waiting quite a while for you to show ANY real assessment of the material conditions of the Palestinians. I agree that there is little need. There are people who do need them in remote areas for protection (I have relatives whose lives have been saved by firearms against snake and bear attacks... yeah attacks). They can also arguably help a person fend off human attacks in rural and urban areas, but this is not an everyday affair.So little need.I disagree with your assessment that "civil small arms" are useless against an armed force. Urban warfare and dense wilderness environments remove all practical value of those REAL arms you are talking about. Observation of our own activities within such regions show our troops routinely go back to those "civil small arms" you denigrate. Again, your skills at situational analysis seem paralyzed. NEITHER case was a group beginning an attack on the US. BOTH had the government come to take them away in surprise maneuvers, which left them completely surrounded.The Koresh case was a bit more complicated in that they had some time to prepare for the larger forces, but they had NO WAY to get beyond a surrounded situation.Thus both had lost the "war", which neither started, well before it began. The situation would have been vastly different if they had begun a war and acted as if they were in war conditions, before they had already lost.I'm still interested how you went on and on about the effectiveness of S American resistance fighters, and then talk here about apaches just going in and blowing everyone away. It doesn't work down there does it? Neither does it work in urban centers. In open battle, like a battlefield, it would be suicide. It would be a joke. Tell me what good fighter bombers and tanks are in a city, if a good population of that city stands against them with small arms?Unless the goal is total annihilation of the city, the citizens would win... though a seige situation might be able to bring it to its knees over time.I think your assessments are bizarre when you try to pass handguns and rifles off as useless. Sure it would be great to have better arms, but that does not make them a joke.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So what you were doing was channeling the perspective of people in the midEast when you were telling me I should be active in their struggle? Thank you. This is the contradiction.You argue that resistance, even futile resistance, is worthwhile. Then argue that civilians should not be allowed access to weapons that give them a chance at resistance, because it would be futile.Is it resistance AT ALL, or resistance IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE?I should add that I am taking this from your perspective regarding the utility of guns. That's what I was talking about. Tanks, APCs, and fighter bombers cannot control a city, it ALWAYS comes down to man on man. And personal armor only goes so far. This is what I was talking about, and the fact that they can buy heavier weaponry does not take away one iota the usefullness of having guns, especially BEFORE they get their hands on larger weapons. I have discussed and given evidence for other strategies and tactics. You have done nothing but reassert your position that suicide bombing of random civilian population centers is all they have.If you need your memory refreshed, how about the assassination of the tourism minister? It had more political effect than any suicide bombing, and did not require a suicide attack, a bomb, or random killing. Indeed it was carried out with a gun... those things of little worth. Sorry I was not reading any of your posts before you addressed me, and then only those you wrote to me. So my mistake on that. But then I am left a bit confused. If people could need them for wildlife, why are you for their restriction, or how do you intend to restrict them? No. Never said that. The argument was a strategy which delivered 2:1 losses with no ability to achieve military objectives should be abandoned... unless one is truly fighting for ones ability to live at all. No no no. What is keeping you from understanding the tactical situation? They were surrounded from the outset, before they had even prepared for a war of some kind. It is not even known (in the case of Koresh) if they even wanted to.The government closing in and slaughtering a bunch of people that happen to have weapons, when they were not at war or even attempting war, and had no real public support outside their community, is simply no proper analogy to what we are discussing. Yes. I have already stated wilderness and urban areas are good cover. Not all, and that certainly isn't how all of them started (before getting outside aid). Individual members carry ordinary weapons and use them to effect.Yeah, if you get bigger support weapons that's nice, but they were not necessary. Who... and I mean really... WHO said anything about a few dudes in hunting jackets? You see how you keep making a person's position look absurd by not dealing with it at all? Total strawman here.Those rifles however, in the hands of NOT A FEW people, in dress which is not meant to stand out, can do quite a bit of damage. That's what? My position, if you read it entirely before addressing it line by line, was that bombers and tanks could be used to level an entire city. So yes if they were desiring a population's complete annihilation, as well as all structures, then you are in some big trouble.But then according to you, even resistance AT ALL is important right? And certainly having a gun will be better than a rock. Absolutely. Weighing in their favor is the fact that it is difficult for a government to wage absolute devastation against its own population (though it can and has happened), and that they can attack in other ways than just holing up like in a fortress. That is devastating even for modern forces. Except when you called them popguns and depicted people using them as small in number and wearing hunting gear.Again this is another of yoru contradictions. Well I understand that that is ONE of the positions you hold. In that I half agree with it.Back then personal arms meant more than they do today, however you are wrong about them being able to defeat a standing army.The American Revolution began and stood as guerilla warfare that could NOT stand in open combat with regular armies. They used this form to begin and operate until such time as they could gain allies with greater power, and so create more standard armies.This is the same capability people would have today. Starting with knives is possible, but highly unlikely and worse than what the FF's allowed for themselves.I should say I am not advocating the position that the only reason one should have the right to a gun is to fight one's own country, but am willing to argue that they are not totally useless in such an endeavour.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Am I mistaken? Were you not the person suggesting I was a hopeless capitalist for not being more active, and lambasting me by asking when I had ever helped them? No changing now Contra. In the face of facts that the random civilian targeting had not done anything of military value, you said that sometimes just fighting for one's pride was all that was important, and putting up ANY resistance was justified.You do not get to slink back and say "well they have to have a CHANCE of resistance." You are then changing your definition to a military utility, which when I said that was my criteria for criticism you said it was no good.Resistance AT ALL (I might add you said this in caps yourself), or resistance with a chance of success?Pick a side. It is going to hurt one of your positions. I think the opinion stated at the end of this paragraph is a logical argument. I think it is wrong in practice, as it allows for the beginning offensive and defensive actions necessary for an uprising to get off the ground. But there is something more important here.The preceding sentences do not support your argument when it then comes to the Palestinian conflict. Their "right" to defense in the form of random bombings is just as "nominal" as gun ownership, maybe even worse.If you say ALL resistance is good, then that makes even NOMINAL resistance good.I am staying consistent in that I agree with you that for a full revolution to occur, people will ultimately need MORE than just small arms, and so a revolution based on that is NOT good. Likewise, the tactics being used by the Palestinians is resistance in name only, futile, and ultimately self-destructive.You are not because you say ALL, even champion ALL, even NOMINAL, and then say for citizens that just isn't good enough. Uhhhhhh... maybe you haven't heard the news but gun ownership has not been linked to either of those two. Carelessness and proneness to violence is not inherent to a culture where arms exist and are owned by citizens.People also have accidents in cars and kill people with cars, so what? That does not make the car responsible, or the existence of cars what we have to worry about. Poor analysis. The man was involved with extremist groups and so they hit a true member of their opposition. It certainly had more effect than killing people on the street level of Israeli life with no control over the extremists they are fighting.And what's worse you deny the very obvious (which happened to be my more important point). It did not involve Palestinians losing one of their own, so the person could continue fighting, and did not involve the killing of random mixes of people including those in support of Palestinian causes.So even if we say it had the same political clout as a random suicide bombing, the real military achievement was better all around. And it came from a simple gun. Heheheh... humans are animals too. While that might sound a bit glib, it is true. There are human predators just as there are animal predators.Personally I think guns are more prone to get onesself hurt because of overconfidence and lack of training, but for a well trained person they can be pretty good in defense. That is why I am for licensing with proper training, and ownership of weapons with proof of safe storage capability.But cutting them out altogether? I have not seen any evidence that this does anything for real.,, except switch method of killing?I am interested in how britain defines the difference between farmer and city dweller when it comes to ownership of a firearm. Is it only with ownership of livestock or something, or on population density? Yeah, we can agree to disagree on that point. But then I think you miss my further point springing off of it. Are YOU the arbiter of who is fighting for their ability to live at all? Is it society? Who?If, according to your theory, once in a fight for one's life all resistance is good, then why don't individuals get to make that decision and have preparations for that possibility?Just because there are stats which show others may be clumsy or have bad intentions? I just have to disagree here. They were in horrible positions. Ever since Verdun, the concept of fortress as a "defensible position" against mechanized forces has gone the way of the dodo.I would hope (at least if I belonged to an uprising) that they'd have the common sense to NOT isolate themselves and "dig in". They might as well wrap themselves up in ribbon. Absolutely, once in that position, you are pretty much dead. But what you should be looking at is what they (by which I mean the whole Saddam clan) were doing up to the moment they were killed and or captured. They had evaporated their forces into urban environments and moved around to keep up a resistance. If they actually had the support of Iraqis, they might even have "won".Although I hate the guy to pieces, he did a pretty good job of keeping up a guerilla campaign against unbelievable odds. And some are still keeping it up.The Hussein example pinpoints the mistake you made with Koresh and Weaver. There was an entity which lived on past the Hussein's because the forces were not all wrapped up in one spot. With Koresh and Weaver (since it was Weaver's family itself as the sole target) they were fish in a barrel. We are in agreement that for a successful insurgency against a major power of any kind, the insurgents will need some higher support. But that does not negate that at the outset regular weapons are not only useful, they are extremely useful.You don't go from kitchen knives to buying fighterbombers on the black market. This, does not match this... I have never said that totally untrained and ill equiped forces stand a chance in battle against trained and/or well equipped forces. You infiltrate and shoot dead the crew of the cannon. With a good rifle and scope, you may not even have to infiltrate far. Okay... THIS can be dealt with pretty forwardly. What is it about the ownership or existence of guns which necessarily creates these costs? And how does this differ than people accidentally or intentionally using some other device to hurt someone?On a sheer cost/benefit ratio, there would be no reason for popular sports either. The amounts of injuries and deaths involved with them (and these are pretty much all accidental) would knock them right out since all it's about is trying to have some fun.I agree that tracking is essentially useless. But I think licensing could be useful to ensure a person has had proper training, as well as the capacity to store weapons and ammunition.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, although you also insulted me as you suggest above, you did insult me for not having gotten involved.If you are not even going to admit this, then I really have no use in talking to you, as you are certainly a liar. I love this contradiction in you. You rip up the US and Israel for killing civilians all the time, and point to the hypocrisy when they deny that ability to others. And then here you are saying it is legitimate.Which is it Contra?My position is that blowing up purely civilian targets has just about 0 military value, besides its reduction of possible recruits and demoralization of soldiers. Killing civilians is mainly a political tool.Killing civilians at military installations, working on military projects, or acting as military leaders (in a civilian capacity) does have military value.Because of this, I think Israel and the US are hypocritical in both targeting strictly civilian areas, as well as selecting targets of minor value that will entail major civilian losses, and then blaming others for doing the same thing.In addition, they are practicing poor military tactics and strategy. Yet you have not moved to show how the specific actions are a credible threat to the enemy state. That is where the debate is, and NOT what you just posed above. Absolutely, so please stop preaching to the choir. Again, what is your position? On the one hand you talk like being able to just scratch is a good thing... but then in this thread you argue well if nails are liable to get infections and accidentally scratch the furniture, then the cat should be declawed because the scratching won't do much anyway. True. Without guns there can be NO gun accidents, but... This is not true. There is no necessary link here. If so, then one would expect to see much greater rates of accidents in places where lots of guns are owned, irrespective of the training of those owning them.It is training and not just numbers of guns which will determine the number of accidents. Yes, it is unremarkable. Obviously where there are NO cars there will be NO car accidents. But it is not true that where there are more cars there will by necessity be more car accidents (at the very least not proportionally).Your logic would have us in padded rooms, never to be let out. Okay, here is your challenge LIAR. You find me the CNN analysis which said what I just said, and the evidence you used to come up with the connection from that analysis and my analysis.Here's the deal LIAR, I didn't get it from CNN and there is no connection. I am so sick of this kind of debate from you I can't hack it anymore.If you manage to find something that can at least show me reasonably how you could have come to that absolutely false conclusion, I will continue debate on this subject.Otherwise, just stay quiet. I want a good debate, not just ANY debate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't want to debate your warning... I will cool it down... But I want to point out I wrote the piece as a whole knowing where I was going at the end.While the first use of liar might have been something he made a mistake about, the rest (which came hot and heavy at the end) were regarding his telling me where I got my information and analysis, so as to discredit my position. But on top of being wrong, it would also be impossible for him to know where I got my info.This means, at best he was fabricating information to throw at me. I've been through this before and am sick of it. I guess I could have said it nicer, but the charge would have to be the same wouldn't it?Am I free to point this out and challenge him to prove that he actually could have made such charges?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You had me at... I took a look back and realized I completely misread your statement. You not only don't have to vindicate YOUR position, I am obligated to apologize.I am sincerely sorry for mistaking what you were saying, and acting like a complete ass about it (which even Nosy pointed out).But this said, while I think your analysis of the US response and CERTAIN political repercussions was correct, it is missing the point I was making.Let's pretend first that it had the exact same PR problems as any bombing, it had real POLITICAL and MILITARY effects within Israel itself. More so than an average random bombing. Indeed, that is exactly why Israel really wanted blood... specific blood... after that. Why it was set as preconditions for movement on negotiations.They had hit a REAL target, which shook things up... I guess I would put it as they had finally created a real threat to the extremist gov't. Not just a credible threat that someone may get killed, but that important leadership targets could get hit, AND THE PERPETRATORS GOT AWAY.You overplay my insistence on gaining political leverage (via PR), and (and this could be a fault of my using vague wording) confused my discussion of political success with pure PR success.Because of my shameful display in both misreading your post, and overreacting to that misreading, I am self-imposing a be nicer to contra policy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)