Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 121 of 452 (520859)
08-24-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Legend
08-21-2009 11:40 AM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
quote:
It's not so much a wild assumption as an extension of the common-sensical principle of not starting fights with people who can hurt you.
So far in this debate, the only thing hurt has been your credibility.
Your common-sensical principle falls apart when both parties have guns. The only advantage you would have against another in that case, would be ground. You give up your ground advantage when you wander away from your more secure position. Its a plain, tactical, common-sensical ( to use your term) position to take. Your failure to address that point, and hand-wave it away just exposes the weakness of your argument.
You could begin repairing what little credibility you have left by addressing these points:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
Just saying your position is common-sensical is weak, so I am sure we would all appreciate it if you provided a much stronger reason for your argument.
quote:
Incorrect. SHOW ME how and where.
Frankly, I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Either that or perhaps it is you who has failed to read the thread. How many times should I repeat myself before you actually admit you have seen how and where?
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
quote:
If we follow my assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less burglaries.
Your logic and comprehension of statistics could use a brushing up. In any case, you have been shown why that is a false assumption:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
Your cherry-picking, common-sensical approach to the data just gives me the impression youre talking out of your backside.
quote:
It appears you haven't read the whole thread, like I advised you.
Thats funny, considering it was I who had to point you to posts in the thread you glossed over or dismissed. You can read them:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
quote:
Why should *I* need to change *YOUR* false perception? Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses?
You can lead a Dog to waterK
quote:
When the presented facts do not support the stated assertion, then I'm within my rights to label it a 'wild assumption'.
You have yet to show how the stated facts do not support the assertion. Moving the goal posts, cherry-picking, and your common-sensical approach of hand-waving away those positions, supported by facts, is plainly disingenuous as well as banal.
quote:
I'm not quoting a study, I'm presenting one of the factors that may affect the causality of the extra gun violence in the US.
Your common-sensical say-so has been shown to be cherry-picking of the data. Why do you persist in presenting this as an argument? Why should we accept your factor when you have been provided statistics that show that your notion is false, or at best misleading?
quote:
Unfounded speculation. An increase in circulation of registered guns bought by homeowners and which can only be obtained by gangs by taking the risk of burglary/robbery against an armed person in order to obtain a gun which can be tracked by police, bears no similarity to an increase in the circulation of knives where any gang member can legally and anonymously buy one from their local DIY store or outdoors & trekking shop.
Fallacy of the Fairy Tale. (Though this is wrong on many more levels.)
Gangs and criminals have already obtained their guns so your position that they would have to risk burgling a house sans weapon is pointless. RAZD already pointed out that unless you have your gun in your possession 24/7, you run the risk of losing it. Guns dont have tracking devices installed in them (that I know of) so serial number tracking doesnt strengthen your position any. It WOULD if the police could use satellite tracking to find the gun the criminal had obtained. Finally, you seem to believe that a criminal was a criminal from the day he was born. Non-criminals can obtain a gun, be law abiding citizens for a period of time, and then decide they want to rob their neighbors house with the nice 52 LCD TV. The point is that there are countless ways a gun, once bought, could end up on the street. One rational course of action, in light of that knowledge, would be to limit the number of guns, enforce and strengthen the regulation, and have a strong and balanced police institution.
You are also subtly contradicting your position here.
quote:
DBLevins writes:
Gun control laws are designed to limit criminal access to guns. They also have been designed, in the past, to limit ownership of certain weapons that threaten the safety of society, such as automatic weapons. While it would be impossible, imho, to get rid of all the weapons "on the street', gun control laws would help make it harder for criminals to get them.
Yet, they don't. Despite strict gun controls, gun crime in Britain has been rising steadily over the.

In order to keep guns limited to non-criminal homeowners, you would need to have gun control laws. Those same laws which help police track guns by serial number.
quote:
1) Sometimes it increases risk. It can be done if you're living by yourself but with having a family and especially with the children being in separate rooms you can't just wait and hope that your wife or kids won't panic and make a noise. Even more worryingly you're giving the intruder the chance to come upstairs and put himself within harm's range of your family. Why take that risk?
Do you tell your children what to do in case of fire? Do you have a plan, if they are too small to fend for themselves, to move them away from danger in such a case? If you do, then what can you not understand about having a plan in case of burglary? If you dont, I would recommend you develop a family plan in such cases. We always had a plan, as a family, for different problems. In our case, I had a roll up ladder I could use to escape out my bedroom window for various emergencies, as a 5 year old. I knew where to go, who to run to, and what to do if something bad happened. Why take the risk of NOT having a plan.
quote:
Who said anything about Rambo-style tactics? I'm advocating -if possible- attacking the intruder before they can get the lay of the land and establish an offensive planK2) By waiting in ambush you're giving the intruder a tactical advantage. When he first enters your house he's at his most ignorant and therefore at his most vulnerable. He doesn't know the layout of the house, the lay of the land so to speak, how many people live there, where they are located, etc. The only thing he does know is his entry point, the window or door he came in from, which can be also used as his exit point. This is the time to attack him. if he's not incapacitated by the attack his first instinct would be to flee and that's bound to be through his only known route. It's all about not giving him time to think and choices to make. You give him just enough time for the adrenalin to kick in and you allow him only one choice: flee. if you wait upstairs in ambush you give him the time to assess the layout of the house, how many people live there, where they're likely to be, how wealthy they are, etc. He can then decide if he just wants to steal your TV and leave or if he'd like to torture you until you give him your credit card number and then rape your wife as he's just seen her picture in a bikini on the mantlepiece and she looks hot. Why take that risk?
No youre not. Besides that, you contradict yourself. If, as you say, he doesnt know the layout of your house, he wouldnt know where you are waiting for him in ambush, and he wouldnt know if you were waiting for him anyways even if he thought your bedroom was occupied. Therefore, you have the tactical advantage.
Secondly, it doesnt matter how much you know the land if you dont know where they are or even how many are there. Take this with a grain of salt if you like, but I am not some shmo who doesnt understand this type of position. I have had extensive training in similar circumstances. The chances of you, your family, or an innocent bystander being hurt rises significantly if you should go out and confront an intruder or intruders. You are better off having a safe room to hold up in or a way to escape and notify the authorities.
quote:
3) When you're in a confrontational situation time is against you. You MUST take action, fight or flight, that's what nature has programmed us for. If you just do nothing or just wait in ambush the adrenalin that's gathering inside your body will cause a build up of lactic acid on muscle tissue (since you're not using your muscles to fight nor to flee) which in turn produces a feeling of weakness and the loss of endurance capability in the muscle. In short, the more time you wait in ambush the less effective you're going to be. Why take that risk?
If you have a plan, and practice that plan on occasion, you can be more rational about your actions, and your adrenalin rush is not nearly so great. If you know what you are supposed to do, then you lessen any risk of fear fatigue. Ideally, the time you have would be spent calling the police who would arrive before you tired yourself out waiting for the intruder to enter the bedroom door.
Finally, it seems you have not fully read the responses given to you.
quote:
"Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of actionK
Rhavins position is the best course of action. Though really, this part of the debate is just becoming a distraction. Whether you decide to go Rambo or not, is a concern for me, but I think the only way you might be convinced is if it did happen to you and you find yourself regretting your actions. So, Im leaving it to you to have the last word on that portion of this debate.
quote:
And let me be perfectly clear about the following: doooonn'tKbeKsuch...aK..paaatroniisiing...diiickheeaaad.
I probably wouldn't have resorted to patronizing dickheadedness if you wouldn't act like a patronizing dickhead.
DBLevins writes:
I will need to read through the posts before I continue,...
I suggest you do.
That really wasnt necessary. It didnt move the debate forward. It just made you look like a patronizing dickhead, since I already pointed out my OWN lack of information on all the responses in the debate at that time. Of course, my reply was in response to a statement you had yet to address, and still have not. Namely:
quote:
What part of having gun control laws would make only bad guys ( words) having access to guns? Why would gun control laws stop the police from having them?
and again, the attitude is blatant:
quote:
Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses?
quote:
I suggest you go back and read the rest of this thread before you embarrass[sic] yourself further.
For my part, I apologize for being patronizing and if it eases your mind, Ill try to keep my replies to you more civil.
This post was written over a few days, so I apologize in advance if it might miss some point or repeat something needlessly. That and with the little time I might have I am sure I miss errors in grammar or make technical posting mistakes.
I will try to fix them as I see them or as they are pointed out to me.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 11:40 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2009 8:57 PM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 127 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 11:52 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 122 of 452 (520864)
08-24-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Legend
08-21-2009 11:40 AM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
In the interest of moving the debate forward, and hopefully tackling one issue at a time, I wanted to reply to you seperately from my previous reply. I'd like to continue those replies later if possible but that's frankly up to you.
You stated in Message 111 that:
Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.
I asked you how that would be true, as those governmental institutions involved with police and security would not relinquish their ability to use deadly force. Your reply here Message 113:
I'm stating that the criminalisation of gun ownership ensures that law-abiding citizens have no access to guns while it has minimal effect on criminals who still do.
is a straw-man argument, as nobody is suggesting that the guns be taken away from all law abiding citizens, as far as I understand. This also doesn't address the point that governmental institutions involved with keeping the peace would still have access to guns.
Finally, here: Message 115
I'm not talking about the ability of the State to defend itself, I'm more concerned about the (lack of) ability of citizens to defend themselves. I suggest you read some of the previous posts on this thread.
You glossed over the last part of this statement: "...the state to defend itself and it's citizens?"
You still have not shown how gun control laws would make gun ownership a crime by law abiding citizens ipso facto. Nobody is suggesting that all law abiding citizens not be allowed to have guns. It is being suggested that guns be limited, that laws be strengthened, and that more guns do not lessen crime.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed some technical posting errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 11:40 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:10 PM DBlevins has replied
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 12:20 PM DBlevins has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 452 (520869)
08-24-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by DBlevins
08-24-2009 3:40 PM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
You still have not shown how gun control laws would make gun ownership a crime by law abiding citizens ipso facto. Nobody is suggesting that all law abiding citizens not be allowed to have guns. It is being suggested that guns be limited, that laws be strengthened, and that more guns do not lessen crime.
Gun control advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 2nd Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of gun ownership is the ultimate goal.
I'd also like to echo the sentiments expressed by Legend that by definition, criminal don't obey the law, so how is passing a law going to somehow subvert their attempts? If you pass a law banning guns altogether, resourceful and enterprising criminals still find ways to get them. So in reality the law-abiding citizens have been effectively disarmed and the criminal continues to usurp legal authority.
At the base level we see that it is therefore a self-defeating and circular principle.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 3:40 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 8:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 124 of 452 (520896)
08-24-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 4:10 PM


Gun control laws and the slippery slope
First of all, nobody is suggesting that guns be banned by law. I never said it, and nobody on this thread said it, as far as I remember. Can we try not to go down that path? I am not arguing that all guns should be banned, whether or not I think it might be a good thing.
Secondly, you, like Legend, are falling into a slippery slope fallacy. You could make the same case argument about taxes. I could insert any number of controversial arguments in place of 'gun control'.
Anti-Abortion advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 14th Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of all abortions is the ultimate goal.
Back to this statement...
Gun control advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 2nd Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of gun ownership is the ultimate goal.
The point you seem to miss is that these gun control advocates are not saying, 'Get rid of all guns!'. Notice it is gun control, NOT gun removal. What happens is that you have certain groups who wish to make their case for gun rights by excluding any middle ground. That is what makes it a slippery slope argument. They believe that any control over their right to bear arms would be an affront to their basic liberties.
I'd also like to echo the sentiments expressed by Legend that by definition, criminal don't obey the law, so how is passing a law going to somehow subvert their attempts? If you pass a law banning guns altogether, resourceful and enterprising criminals still find ways to get them. So in reality the law-abiding citizens have been effectively disarmed and the criminal continues to usurp legal authority.
How is such a law going to prevent the peace keeping institutions of the country from bearing arms? You really think that the State is going to just give up their right to arm its forces? There is little merit in that argument.
Limiting the number of guns going out, strengthening and enforcing gun control legislation, and providing for the safety and security of law abiding citizens through a professional police force would be steps in the right direction toward less guns in criminal hands. And you could answer the question of how other governments have been able to enjoy less crime with less guns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 8:53 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 452 (520901)
08-24-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by DBlevins
08-24-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Gun control laws and the slippery slope
First of all, nobody is suggesting that guns be banned by law. I never said it, and nobody on this thread said it, as far as I remember. Can we try not to go down that path?
You may not but there are countless others that do, and even those that claim they aren't want to restrict it so far that they might as well. That is what I'm operating under right now and the mindset that I'm dealing with.
Secondly, you, like Legend, are falling into a slippery slope fallacy. You could make the same case argument about taxes. I could insert any number of controversial arguments in place of 'gun control'.
How is that a slippery slope if what were are discussing is on topic? I'm not introducing anything other than guns and the people who rail against them.
The point you seem to miss is that these gun control advocates are not saying, 'Get rid of all guns!'. Notice it is gun control, NOT gun removal. What happens is that you have certain groups who wish to make their case for gun rights by excluding any middle ground.
And what you seem to be missing is that many, many restrictions have already been addressed and passed, yet the endorsement to continue to further restrict them never ceases. So what do you think that is tantamount to? You can say you don't want to take guns away, but that doesn't reflect what we see. That's not a slippery slope, that's calling someone out to clarify what exactly they're hoping for.
How is such a law going to prevent the peace keeping institutions of the country from bearing arms? You really think that the State is going to just give up their right to arm its forces? There is little merit in that argument.
I'm not talking about peace keeping institutions (law enforcement I assume?), I'm referring to the common citizen.
Limiting the number of guns going out
Which effect gun control sales, which effects people's livelihoods, which affects my ability to procure legal guns, etc. Why not simply limit what is a legal firearm? There is no need to have automatic weapons for home defense, so right there no automatic weapons. Beyond not having felony convictions or not being entered in to a database for individuals with serious mental illness, what reasonable reason is there to preclude anyone from having a firearm? If you limit the amount of guns, then you inherently limit who gets to have one. There are millions of citizens, most of which are law-abiding citizens. So who get to have them and who don't?
strengthening and enforcing gun control legislation
That's vague and non-descript. Can you please elaborate with some specificity?
and providing for the safety and security of law abiding citizens through a professional police force
We don't already have that???
would be steps in the right direction toward less guns in criminal hands.
No, actually it really wouldn't considering there are firearm rings all around the world who illegally smuggle in arms. That's how countries with stringent firearm laws still have murders by handguns. In the US it is the job of the ATF to monitor and regulate the sale of legal and illegal arms in to the United States.
And you could answer the question of how other governments have been able to enjoy less crime with less guns?
Yes, it's very simple. Social norms dictate people's behaviors, which is really the cause of crime to begin with, not guns. The unfettered glorification of violence is one, the general disrespect of our citizens is another, and the fact that we have the 3rd largest population all play significant roles in why this society is homicidal.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 8:03 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 126 of 452 (520902)
08-24-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by DBlevins
08-24-2009 2:40 PM


pre-emptive where it needs to be.
Hi DBlevins, thanks for taking the torch up ...
Gangs and criminals have already obtained their guns so your position that they would have to risk burgling a house sans weapon is pointless. RAZD already pointed out that unless you have your gun in your possession 24/7, you run the risk of losing it. Guns dont have tracking devices installed in them (that I know of) so serial number tracking doesnt strengthen your position any. It WOULD if the police could use satellite tracking to find the gun the criminal had obtained. Finally, you seem to believe that a criminal was a criminal from the day he was born. Non-criminals can obtain a gun, be law abiding citizens for a period of time, and then decide they want to rob their neighbors house with the nice 52 LCD TV. The point is that there are countless ways a gun, once bought, could end up on the street. One rational course of action, in light of that knowledge, would be to limit the number of guns, enforce and strengthen the regulation, and have a strong and balanced police institution.
One thing that won't show up in the statistics comparing one country with gun control versus a country without, is the fact that when a suspicious person is picked up by the police:
(1) in a country where guns are not permitted they could be picked up and incarcerated for possession of an illegal weapon
(2) in a country were guns are allowed, they get away with a talking ... before proceeding.
BEFORE a crime is committed. Criminals in England and Canada know this, hence their greater reluctance to carry guns.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 2:40 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Legend, posted 08-26-2009 12:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 127 of 452 (521017)
08-25-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by DBlevins
08-24-2009 2:40 PM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
DBLevins writes:
Your common-sensical principle falls apart when both parties have guns. The only advantage you would have against another in that case, would be ground.
As opposed to the tactical advantage you have when only the other party has guns. Which is....what exactly?
DBLevins writes:
Its a plain, tactical, common-sensical ( to use your term) position to take. Your failure to address that point, and hand-wave it away just exposes the weakness of your argument.
What point? My point is that we should be allowed to have guns in the home and use them in case of an intrusion. What's yours?
DBLevins writes:
You could begin repairing what little credibility you have left by addressing these points:
Here Message 43, here Re: gun ownership as a deterrent (Message 47), and here Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. (Message 57)
Your logic and comprehension of statistics could use a brushing up. In any case, you have been shown why that is a false assumption:
Here Message 43, here Re: gun ownership as a deterrent (Message 47), and here Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. (Message 57)
I've already addressed these at Message 44, Message 45, Message 50 and Message 58.
See what fun it is when you just throw around reference to previous posts without actually making a point?
DBLevins writes:
Why should we accept your factor when you have been provided statistics that show that your notion is false, or at best misleading?
WHAT statistics? The irrelevant ones or the ones that have nothing to do with the point at hand? SHOW ME the statistics, make your point and then you might have an argument.
All you have so far is your vague rants about how I've been shown wrong and such. Your saying so doesn't make it so.
DBLevins writes:
For my part, I apologize for being patronizing and if it eases your mind, Ill try to keep my replies to you more civil.
Apology accepted and thank you for trying.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 2:40 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 128 of 452 (521020)
08-25-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by DBlevins
08-24-2009 3:40 PM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
Legend writes:
I'm stating that the criminalisation of gun ownership ensures that law-abiding citizens have no access to guns while it has minimal effect on criminals who still do.
DBLevins writes:
is a straw-man argument, as nobody is suggesting that the guns be taken away from all law abiding citizens, as far as I understand.
If that's the case then there's no argument here and we can all just go for a pint. Unfortunately, in Britain, law abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns. Criminals on the other hand, have no regard for the law and do have guns.
DBLevins writes:
This also doesn't address the point that governmental institutions involved with keeping the peace would still have access to guns.
So what? What's that got to do with anything?
Legend writes:
I'm not talking about the ability of the State to defend itself, I'm more concerned about the (lack of) ability of citizens to defend themselves. I suggest you read some of the previous posts on this thread.
DBLevins writes:
You glossed over the last part of this statement: "...the state to defend itself and it's citizens?"
I didn't gloss over it, it's just that we've been talking about the right and ability of citizens to defend themselves. When you're woken up in the middle of the night by an intruder, the state's not going to be there to help you.
Legend writes:
You still have not shown how gun control laws would make gun ownership a crime by law abiding citizens ipso facto.
How else do you expect gun controls to be implemented other than by passing legislation criminalising the possession and usage of guns?
Legend writes:
Nobody is suggesting that all law abiding citizens not be allowed to have guns. It is being suggested that guns be limited, that laws be strengthened, and that more guns do not lessen crime.
First, how are you going to limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
Second, I've already showed many times in this thread that in the UK where laws have been strengthened to the max, gun crime is steadily rising.
Third, the evidence so far by looking at the Uk vs US (similar cultures and socio-political structures) points to the conclusion that more guns *do* lessen certain kinds of crime.
quote:
A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2009 3:40 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 12:30 PM Legend has replied
 Message 135 by DBlevins, posted 08-26-2009 8:11 PM Legend has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 129 of 452 (521024)
08-25-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Legend
08-25-2009 12:20 PM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
A quote like this has no value if there is no link to the actual study. Not that I am saying this is untrue but there is no way to confirm the figures or the interpretation by the author are accurate. The author of the piece has written a couple pro gun pieces but other than that I have no reason to accept her as an expert.
ABE
By the way the piece was written in 2003. Anything more recent?
Edited by Theodoric, : final comment

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 12:20 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 130 of 452 (521058)
08-25-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 12:30 PM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
She's not referencing the source but I believe she's referring primarily to "Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins, Wright & Decker, Boston:Northeastern University press, 1994" and also probably material like "Armed and Considered Dangerous (Paperback) by James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi".
Unfortunately I couldn't find any online prints of either, not for free anyway, but in both those sources (and undoubtedly in many others) seasoned burglars and robbers confess that their biggest deterrent is potential confrontation by an armed homeowner.
In any case why would anyone need scientific studies to be persuaded of a self-evident truth, such as that intruders don't really like fighting against armed honeowners?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 12:30 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 131 of 452 (521193)
08-26-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
08-24-2009 8:57 PM


Re: pre-emptive where it needs to be.
RAZD writes:
One thing that won't show up in the statistics comparing one country with gun control versus a country without, is the fact that when a suspicious person is picked up by the police:
(1) in a country where guns are not permitted they could be picked up and incarcerated for possession of an illegal weapon
(2) in a country were guns are allowed, they get away with a talking ... before proceeding.
BEFORE a crime is committed. Criminals in England and Canada know this, hence their greater reluctance to carry guns.
Yet gun crime in Britain is steadily rising. So this alleged reluctance of criminals to carry guns is all in your imagination.
Besides, our police is now too busy targeting the law-abiding citizens to have time to search criminals!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2009 8:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:19 PM Legend has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 132 of 452 (521197)
08-26-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Legend
08-26-2009 12:07 PM


Re: pre-emptive where it needs to be.
Your first link doesn't support your claim. It says, and I quote:
quote:
the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.
It does say
quote:
According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year.
and
quote:
The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales.
The fact that crime incidents is going up can't be directly correlated to crime rates going up, either. The three areas with the most crime, London, Manchester and Midlands, are urban areas, I think. (I know London and Manchester are, not sure about Midlands)
That means you need to look at population trends as well. For instance, if you have a 10% rise in crime, but a 20% rise in population, the amount of crime per person has actually gone down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Legend, posted 08-26-2009 12:07 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Legend, posted 08-26-2009 12:41 PM Perdition has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 133 of 452 (521200)
08-26-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Perdition
08-26-2009 12:19 PM


Re: pre-emptive where it needs to be.
Perdition writes:
Your first link doesn't support your claim. It says, and I quote:
"the trend in gun crime overall has been going down."
That's not true. Maybe he means for just one year (2006/2007), but looking at the chart you'll see that the trend is going up.
Perdition writes:
It does say
quote:According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year.
Which means that it's gone up! (although the chart says otherwise for that year, so that's probably a typo).
Perdition writes:
quote:The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales.
I never claimed it was! I just said that it's been rising despite stringent gun control laws.
Perdition writes:
The fact that crime incidents is going up can't be directly correlated to crime rates going up, either. The three areas with the most crime, London, Manchester and Midlands, are urban areas, I think. (I know London and Manchester are, not sure about Midlands)
That means you need to look at population trends as well. For instance, if you have a 10% rise in crime, but a 20% rise in population, the amount of crime per person has actually gone down.
Even if the rise in gun crime corresponded with a rise in population (which I doubt), the fact would still remain that gun laws haven't reduced, let alone stopped, proliferation of gun violence like you, RAZD and other seem to think.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:19 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:44 PM Legend has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 134 of 452 (521201)
08-26-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Legend
08-26-2009 12:41 PM


Re: pre-emptive where it needs to be.
Even if the rise in gun crime corresponded with a rise in population (which I doubt), the fact would still remain that gun laws haven't reduced, let alone stopped, proliferation of gun violence like you, RAZD and other seem to think.
Gun laws are never going to STOP gun crimes, but they will keep them down to a much lower level.
Which means that it's gone up!
Well, it means gun related homicides have gone up, while all gun crime has gone down recently. But even so...59 in a year? That's how much a committed crazy could take out in one day in America. So don't go whining about gun crime increasing in Britain when you can count by hand the number of homicides without taking off your shoes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Legend, posted 08-26-2009 12:41 PM Legend has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 135 of 452 (521291)
08-26-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Legend
08-25-2009 12:20 PM


Where's the Statistics?
How else do you expect gun controls to be implemented other than by passing legislation criminalising the possession and usage of guns?
Legislation does not have to criminalize the possession of guns for ALL citizens. Even in the United Kingdom, you are allowed to have certain types of guns if you use it for sport or in the course of your job. You have a lot of hurdles to go through but not ALL citizens are refused the right to have a gun. While that might be cold comfort for the one who really desires to have a gun, the point is that it isn’t true that only criminals have guns.
Your previous hyperbolic statement that gun control laws would create a place where ONLY ‘bad guys’ have guns is false and misleading. The State has not given up that right and would not give up its right to have an armed institution to protect its citizens.
First, how are you going to limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
I don’t understand how you can seriously ask that question. It sounds like you haven’t thought it through. It’s akin to asking me how I am going to set speed limits without making it illegal for any speed.
Second, I've already showed many times in this thread that in the UK where laws have been strengthened to the max, gun crime is steadily rising.
And you have been shown many times that it is an abuse of the statistics to make the leap that gun laws make for more gun crime. What is the per capita ratio? Is it statistically significant?
Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 42 per cent, representing over eight
million fewer crimes, with domestic burglary and all vehicle thefts falling by over a half
(59% and 61% respectively) and violent crime falling by 41 per cent during this period.
Property crime has fallen considerably since 1995. Overall household acquisitive crime,
as measured by the BCS, has fallen by more than half (55%) between 1995 and
2006/07 interviews, although there was no statistically significant change in acquisitive
crime between 2005/06 and 2006/07
For both burglary and vehicle-related thefts, having security measures in place was
strongly associated with lower levels of victimisation.
The number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales as measured by the BCS
showed no statistically significant change between 2005/06 and 2006/07. Since 1995 the number of domestic burglaries estimated by the BCS has fallen by 59 per cent from
1,770,000 to 726,000 in the 2006/07 BCS
BCS Survey
If you are going to make the argument that gun control laws make burglaries more likely, then how do you explain the 59% decline in domestic burglaries from 1995 to 2006/2007?
While I couldn’t find a resource where I could read the reference you provided, I did find this overview provided by Barnes and Noble.
The authors, two criminologists and a social ecologist, contextualize the behavior within the street culture and conclude that most burglars burgle in order to support drugs or alcohol and rarely consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
This would seem to suggest that your reference concludes that burglars rarely consider the risk to themselves. Eg. Overall, guns do not deter them.
I’ll take the overview with a grain of salt but it does suggest you are mistaken, unless you can provide me with a more substantial reference?
The following is from this reference: Burglary of Single-Family Houses, Guide No. 18 (2002), Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Deborah Lamm Weisel
In the United States, most residential burglariesabout 60 percent of reported offensesoccur in the daytime, when houses are unoccupied.(11)
Occupancy. Most burglars do not target occupied houses, taking great care to avoid them. Some studies suggest burglars routinely ring doorbells to confirm residents' absence. How long residents are away from home is a strong predictor of the risk of burglary...(26)
Burglarized houses often have unlocked or open windows or doors.(40)
Studies show that alarms, combined with other security devices, reduce burglaries. Burglars are less likely to gain entry when a house has two or more security devices (including window locks, dead bolts, security lights, and alarms).(42) Studies of offenders show that burglars may avoid houses with good locks, burglar bars or other security devices.
Burglars often know their victims,(74) who may include casual acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people for whom they have provided a service (such as moving or gardening), or friends or relatives of close friends. Thus, offenders have some knowledge of their victims, such as of their daily routine.(75)
(11)Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000).
(26)Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention, by Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson,HOME OFFICE RESEARCH STUDY NO. 74, First published 1982
(40)Waller and Okihiro (1978); Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(42)Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(75)(Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins)?,Wright and Decker (1994).
Hopefully this is not too long, but it is relevant to the discussion
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Crime victims may incur other costs if they rely on violence or its threat to deter offenders. Game theory research indicates that relying on individuals to prevent and respond to crime can discourage police activity, thereby creating greater opportunities for offending (Cressman, Morrison, and Wen 1998).
Mead's (1918) discussion of punitive justice points to further, macro-level consequences of punishments based on an "attitude of hostility" that may underlie individual violent responses to crime. These effects include support for the narrow beliefs that crime is caused exclusively by individual characteristics and a corresponding decrease in concerns for the social conditions that contribute to it. Sanctions communicate a society's views on crime and punishment, but they also convey assumptions about individual rights and citizenship (Duff 1996). Treating people as citizens requires that punishment create prudential incentives to obey the law, but it must supplement and not replace rational, moral persuasion. As Bentham reminds us (in the gender-specific language of the time), "it has been too frequently forgotten, that the delinquent is a member of the community, as well as any other individual. . . His welfare is proportionately the welfare of the community-his suffering the suffering of the community" (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins 1973:42). Thus, although perceptions about danger may inform the decision to offend, a sanction system that resorts to fear of pain is not a panacea for crime.
Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs
The above, found on ProQuest.
Third, the evidence so far by looking at the Uk vs US (similar cultures and socio-political structures) points to the conclusion that more guns *do* lessen certain kinds of crime.
A Couple of things wrong with this statement.
One, you’re refusal to look at other countries which just makes you look like you are cherry-picking the data. Why not include Australia? After Australia adopted a gun buyback program, overall homicide rate declined. Not only that but household victimization has also declined.
An estimated 259,800 households were victims of at least one break-in during the 2005 reference period, down from 354,500 in 2002.
From this site
If we followed your logic should not household crime increase?
Second, the evidence does not suggest what you imply. You haven’t taken into account other factors that might effect the statistics, such as population size, or incidence size. For instance, if in a population of millions, the instances of gun crime was 10 last year and this year it is 12, I would not be wrong in claiming crime rose by 20% over one year, but statistically that would be insignificant. I would expect there to be some fluctuations in the amount over time.
That, and as population increases, you should expect that the number of crimes might increase while the crime rate decrease.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed error in nesting
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed url links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 12:20 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Legend, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 AM DBlevins has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024