Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

OK. In order to answer that, we need to make a few assumptions. Firstly, we assume we are talking about someone of good mental and physical health, of working age, live in a decent neighbourhood and without serious previous convictions (we discount minor stuff like speeding). Assuming all that, possessing a gun, in and of itself, makes that person no more statistically likely to commit a crime and/or discharge their firearm at another human or themselves.

Agreed. 

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

However, if that same person has previous serious convictions, the chances of their commiting a crime with that firearm goes way up, obviously.

Agreed. 

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

Those with mental health problems are statistically likely to use that firearm on themselves.

Agreed. 

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

So are the elderly (unfun fact: The elderly are a demographic with the second highest suicide rate in the US).

Agreed. 

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

And if they live in a bad neighbourhood and buy a weapon for home defence, it is statistically likely that they will be so jumpy that they will perforate a family member (if you live in a bad neighbourhood, you are 43 times more likely to shoot a family member with your weapon than a criminal.

Actually, I disagree.  What you are refering to is the oft cited Kellerman study, and is refuted here. 

www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:35PM, Ebon wrote:

This is because humans do not deal well with constant pressure so you think that half-glimpsed shadow is a burglar and it turns out to be Little Timmy who can't sleep).

I agree. 

Now, first of all, I would like to think that we all make the assumption, that unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we consider a person to be "of good mental and physical health, of working age, live in a decent neighbourhood and without serious previous convictions". 

In that case, what reasons would we have to restrict them? 

all

Oct 7, 2010 -- 5:16PM, farragut wrote:

I'd be happier if the oldtimer had been armed and had ventilated the young punk.

Not me. I'm glad when a "young punk" gets a good, swift kick in the ass -- so to speak -- and maybe the fear of God put into him. Gives him a chance to get back on the straight and narrow. The world is full of good people who started out as "young punks." Ironically, oftentimes it's just those sorts who -- after being put in their place and scared straight -- go on to be good cops. On more than one occassion, I've had a veteran officer tell me, "Well, when I was young, I was a real hell-raiser, a real trouble-maker."

Oftentimes, trouble-making or criminal behavior in youngsters is just a sign of boldness and a willingness to take risks. Those are very good attributes -- they just need to be re-routed into the right direction.

Firearm or no, again, I'd rather just see a young hooligan get the living crap scared out of him and maybe learn a valuable lesson, than to die while still only in his teens.

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:48PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Actually, I disagree.  What you are refering to is the oft cited Kellerman study, and is refuted here. 

 www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html 

Point retracted in light of new evidence. Substitute that your home defence firearm is slightly more likely to  unintentionally kill a family member than to intentionally kill a criminal. However, it should be remember that those are figures for deaths only and figures for defensive wounding were unavailable.

Now, first of all, I would like to think that we all make the assumption, that unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we consider a person to be "of good mental and physical health, of working age, live in a decent neighbourhood and without serious previous convictions". 

 In that case, what reasons would we have to restrict them? 

You're asking me? I'm a lot closer to your side the solf's on this one.

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:58PM, Ebon wrote:

Point retracted in light of new evidence. Substitute that your home defence firearm is slightly more likely to  unintentionally kill a family member than to intentionally kill a criminal. However, it should be remember that those are figures for deaths only and figures for defensive wounding were unavailable.

We should also consider cases where criminal activity was stopped because of threat of force.  Not all cases of self defense with firearms result in the use of firearms. 

Oct 8, 2010 -- 4:58PM, Ebon wrote:

You're asking me? I'm a lot closer to your side the solf's on this one.

Dispassionately of course.  I know you are more on my side than solfs.

all

"In the case of terminal illnesses, I agree. However, alzheimers and mental illness means that you are, by definition, not in your right mind. Knowing that, do we not have a responsibility to save people who do not understand the nature of their actions?"

A person can have both, one could lead to the other. The terminal illness leads to depression, etc. 

However, in the case of suicide, guns aren't required, therefore I don't see it as being the actual factor of the suicide, merely a tool- like jumping in front of a train.