rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:40 AM
Original message |
Poll question: Will eliminating all handguns cost lives? |
|
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 11:39 AM by rrneck
Edit to rephrase question.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:45 AM
Response to Original message |
1. In business news: Proctologists report tsunami of new patients.. |
|
Says one noted proctologist, "Business is really looking up".
|
fascisthunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. Yes, there is certainly a light at the end of the tunnel. nt |
tularetom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:50 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Your premise is faulty |
|
If all handguns were eliminated it would not cost lives.
However, it isn't possible to eliminate all handguns.
|
Simo 1939_1940
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Perhaps one of the goals of the OP was to determine |
|
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 11:56 AM by Simo 1939_1940
how many folks believe that it's possible to eliminate all handguns. ;-)
Edited to insert omitted word
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. That's one of the flaws. Thete are at least two more. nt |
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. Some people defend themselves with handguns who might otherwise die. |
|
But the poll is certainly faulty.
|
tularetom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
21. Arguably it would be a wash |
|
If I used a handgun to kill a bad guy who otherwise would take my life the net increase in lives cost would be zero.
Now arguably I could say that it is a productive life for a non productive one but that is a subjective judgment.
But once again, anybody who thinks that handguns could be eliminated is delusional so the argument is moot.
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
fascisthunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:53 AM
Response to Original message |
4. if only we had more weapons, the world be much more safer and gentler |
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
PavePusher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
19. Implying that before firearms, or any weapons, the world was a utopia? |
|
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 12:10 PM by PavePusher
Sheesh, indeed...
|
Simo 1939_1940
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
5. I voted *other* due to the fact that there is no way to |
|
eliminate any commodity for which there is strong demand.
Also - since we'll never be able to measure the number of defensive gun uses with perfect accuracy, we'll never know with absolute certainty if DGUs outnumber offensive gun uses, or vice versa. I'm comfortable with the belief that the presence of firearms creates a "null" effect - with DGUs essentially balancing out OGUs in terms of societal harm.
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
A flawed poll like this does little to illuminate the actual harm or benefit to society and much to illuminate the feelings of partisans on both sides of the issue.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
13. Black and white think much? |
|
If it is not one extreme or the other, is ain't happening?
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. Why is the poll flawed? (It was intended to be so) nt |
Simo 1939_1940
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
20. Ha ha - good job, rrneck! |
Simo 1939_1940
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
18. Not sure what your point is, unless you are attributing |
|
attitudes to me that I do not harbor.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
28. Your post is full of words like |
|
"eliminate any commodity for which there is strong demand.
Also - since we'll never be able to measure the number of defensive gun uses with perfect accuracy, we'll never know with absolute certainty if DGUs outnumber offensive gun uses, or vice versa. I'm comfortable with the belief that the presence of firearms creates a "null" effect - with DGUs essentially balancing out OGUs in terms of societal harm."
What you are saying if it is not 100%, it doesn't count.
The real world is not only shades of grey, but full of color also. Not all that many absolutes.
|
frebrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message |
11. Unrecc for a totally impossible premise! |
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. Much deserved indeed. Thank you. |
|
But even taken as a hypothetical, why is the poll flawed?
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:46 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Rephase the question to read: "Without handguns, will more people be killed by them?" |
|
Of course the answer is no. But the gun nuts have a problem comprehending straight forward logic.
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
Some people defend themselves with handguns who might otherwise die. There are other flaws though.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
27. Flaws like no one having hand guns? |
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
29. Well, no. It could ne a hypothetical question I guess. |
|
The question only assumes lives will be lost. Another poll assumes the opposite and is equally flawed.
There are more flaws in both.
|
ileus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message |
23. eliminating all handguns would cost fun.... |
|
Sure shotguns and rifles are a blast to shoot and hunt with....but the handgun, there's nothing more fun than putting 250 rounds of pistol ammo downrange.
You can carry 4 or 5 pistols and a 4 hours worth of ammo in a really small package. I'm looking for a compact 40 now to add to my handgun shooting enjoyment.
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. I've considered a compact. 40 |
|
but I'm too attached to my 1911.
And I'm a cheap bastard.
|
RSillsbee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
26. I'm really happy w/ my CZ RAMI |
|
More of a sub compact though
|
ProgressiveProfessor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |
25. Yes it would cost lives and livelihoods |
Starboard Tack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
30. 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. |
|
How do you reconcile that little factoid?
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
Starboard Tack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. Thanks. I didn't want to include that number, because not all involved handguns. |
|
But you're right, it's a significant number. I see you are finally coming around. Good for you.
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
34. More sophistry and bullshit from you. |
|
How many used, needed, or wished they had a gun when they were assaulted?
You may think you're talking to yourself but you're not. You are, however, making a fool of yourself.
|
cleanhippie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
35. You NAILED the last point! Spot on! |
Starboard Tack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
36. No we're talking to the world. Thanks for joining me on the ride. |
ProgressiveProfessor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
33. Its one of many things that need to be considered |
|
The problem is that not all metrics are available. To pontificate based on known incomplete data is dishonest at best
|
rrneck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
37. It's emotionally honest. |
|
And a quick road in his rush to umbrage.
|
ProgressiveProfessor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
38. Satisfying perhaps, but not honest |
oneshooter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
39. Nobody ever claimed he was honest. n/t |
Starboard Tack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
40. Do you have complete data? We're having a conversation here. |
|
I'm not pontificating any more than you and I don't accuse you of dishonesty.
|
ProgressiveProfessor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-29-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
41. As we have discussed previously those metrics are somewhere |
|
between highly disputed to unavailable, yet they are a key to making rational decisions.
IIRC you declined to pursue them.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 12:18 PM
Response to Original message |