Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

You did push me to it! Assuming that the presence of guns causes the extra violence in the US is just a wild assumption, nothing more. You're ignoring other contributing factors. For instance, gang proliferation is much higher in the US than the UK. Gangs are hardly affected by gun controls and are responsible, proportionately, for the largest number of crimes. This is just one of many factors which may explain why more crimes are committed in the US with guns. Sorry, but that's just moralising nonsense. Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for. It's all about your right to live in your house without fear, threat or risk of harm. I strongly disagree. Guns may exacerbate violence when it occurs but the value of armed deterrent is well established on an international level, as well as a domestic one. Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers. Predators overwhelmingly target the weakest members of the herd, not the strongest ones. Unless you can show that the burglars knew that guns were stored at the houses, that they suspected the owners to be present and armed and despite that they still broke in, then sorry but that means nothing other than you have lots of burglaries in your neghbourhood. You're presenting just one side of the coin. How many intruders are confronted and routed by armed householders? How many robberies/burglaries/gome invasions are averted because of armed householders? Until you can compare these figures all you're putting forward is wishful thinking.Besides,even if it turned out that more innocent people are hurt by guns that would still bear no impact on the right of people to own guns, any more than the number of innocent people killed in car accidents has an impact on the right of people to own and drive a car. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say. What evidence? All you've done is bombard me with some numbers and loads of conjencture and appeal to emotion (the maimed kids...ahhhhh....).

---

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

Yeah, because I'm sure we're all thinking of the value of the life of the person victimizing you who very well may be there to rob, rape, murder, or torture you.It's easy to say what you'll do when you're not actually in the situation, but we'll see if you offer your intruder a cup of tea while you're being brutalized. So what do you suggest? Sitting around waiting to uncover their intent and motive? How are you supposed to know the intentions of someone breaking in to your house? You do realize that a simple B&E can and does turn in to murder, I presume? It's not about that. It's that they are victimizing people in their own domicile, violating their civil rights, brutalizing, thieving, and conniving people to meet their own ends. What you are suggesting is totally unreasonable, because you have no clue what the intruder is actually doing or what they're capable of once they realize they've been discovered.

---

"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

Even more ironically, if students had been allowed to carry weapons in VA it's almost certain that the number of victims wouldn't have been that high.But that's it, some people here value human life as long as its perseverance serves their high ideals. When innocent victims die as a direct result of the practice of those high ideals, they'll quickly point the finger to something else like films or videogames.And if you dare to question the value of their morality you'll be labelled a trigger-happy cowboy faster than you can say "a gun's just a tool you self-righteous prick."

---

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

I've never understood why anyone would place more blame on guns and their manufacturers over the person who wields it with the forethought of malice. It doesn't make any sense, as if murder will someone stop if every gun was melted in to some benign object. Oh, and that's another thing... Human ingenuity perseveres, sometimes in undesirable ways.You take guns away and people will switch to knives, pipes, axes, etc, etc. Murder is here to stay until the fix the actual root of the problem; their mind! In prison they'll resort to collecting cellophane wrappers from cigarette packs, wad them together, heat and melt them, and then taper the edges in to a rigid stabbing tool. Should that be a new anti-smoking/anti-gun advertisement?Or what about vehicular homicide or involuntary manslaughter via motor vehicles? Should we take away cars, which easily kill more people every year than guns could ever hope or dream? Or should we not make responsible gun/car owners suffer, but hold accountable those who misuse those objects?Cars can't drive themselves, guns don't discharge themselves, and knives don't randomly plunge in to internal organs... It takes people to use the tool. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? You seem to get it, what the hell are these other people going on about? The people you and I are dealing with in opposition to some of our cherished ideals are the kind who see the victimizer as the victim, and if we only took the time to understand their plight and their pain, we could rehabilitate them. That's all fine and good in its time and place. Where it's an inappropriate and unreasonable place and time to do that is inside my home where I've just stumbled upon an intruder who was never invited in to my personal space. Since I have no idea what they're capable of or their exact intentions, because I'm not a fucking mind-reader, I will do whatever is necessary to defend myself, my family, and my personal property. If the circumstances permit me to kill the assailant, then so be it. Yeah, well, I value my right to possess and utilize firearms. They can call me whatever they want. I call it the blessing of being free.

---

"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

***blink***You are equating the potential destruction power of firearms with that of knives etc.? It certainly is a lot easier to run from a pipe, rather than a hail of bullets.Look, I'm not gung-ho anti-gun, but some limits are needed. Flood the environment with weapons of war certainly helps war to happen.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Thing is, the environment is already flooded with weapons. Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.

---

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

quote:

---

Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.

---

How is that? Are you suggesting that gun control laws would take guns away from the police? FBI? Military? Are you suggesting that putting 'limits' on gun control, will take them away from 'good' poeple?I will need to read through the posts before I continue, but your comment was just plain fallacious.

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. I suggest you do.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm curious how you equate, 'gun control laws = criminalization of gun ownership = only bad guys have guns'?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.Of course, I still wonder how gun control laws would only allow 'bad' people to have them? Which is what you stated. Do you believe that gun control laws would make it a crime for the State to defend itself and it's citizens?

Yet, they don't. Despite strict gun controls, gun crime in Britain has been rising steadily over the years. The clue's in the word 'laws'. By definition, criminals don't obey laws. The majority of gun crime in the UK and Europe is committed with illegal (never licensed) firearms. 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.

---

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

It is still a tiny fraction of what it is the US.To suggest gun control is failing because of a small number of incidents is as absurd as suggesting that buglary should be legal because people still nick stuff.

The point isn't that the number of incidents is small, the point is that incidents are rising despite strict gun controls.Gun control laws were tightened to reduce gun crime (the Hungerford & Dunblane shootings were trigger events). But they haven't, they've failed.

---

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

I was pointing out the obvious, that even if you got rid of every firearm that murder and assault would still take place, and that all that disarming law-abiding citizens does is give a greater advantage to the one's who misuse it in the first place. Ergo, it's a self-defeating principle. Yep, they are instruments of war. Just like before when there were no guns there were various weapons of war throughout the ages. Are you seeing a correlation? It's not the weapon, it's people. It's ALWAYS been people.Besides there are limits and there are restrictions. But those restrictions vary from sovereign nation to sovereign nation.

---

"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

quote:

---

Assuming that the presence of guns causes the extra violence in the US is just a wild assumption, nothing more.

---

You’re making the wild assumption that the presence of guns would act as a deterent, and you have been shown that that is false. If we follow your assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less crime and that is patently false. If you weren’t emotionally wedded to your ‘cowboy’ mentality, you could see why: Here, at Message 43 of 114, here, Message 47 of 114, and here, at message 57 of 114.So it appears that you’re not debating in good faith. You could change that perception by: not moving the goal posts by now equating ‘socio-cultural’ connections between two countries [bold] you [/bold] arbitrarily chose. Because as it stands now, it appears you’re resorting to Cherry-picking the data. Finally, making the claim that someone is giving a ‘wild’ assumption, even after being presented with facts, is disingenuous and plainly banal.

quote:

---

Gangs are hardly affected by gun controlsThis is just one of many factors which may explain why more crimes are committed in the US with guns.

---

Would you show me the study you’re referring to above?
You have failed so far to show that this is true.There isn’t as much data on gangs in the United Kingdom, as there is in the United States but I did come across this (my bold)

quote:

---

Where do weapons come into the equation?
Again it's very difficult to say. A Home Office study published in 2004 looked at arrested adults who declared gang membership.
[bold]It found an increase in the numbers claiming to carry any weapon, but little change in the number claiming to have carried a gun. Experts think the increase is down to more knives being in circulation.[/bold]

---

From this link.And the correlative would be that more guns in circulation would lead to an increase in gang members claiming to carry guns.

quote:

---

Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for.

---

Why do you continue to entertain this position when you have been shown that it is very likely, NOT to be true, in those cases which have been outlined to you. Going out Rambo-style is not the best tactic to employ in regards to where you, your family, and innocent bystanders are concerned. A tactic outlined by Rhavin, that you conveniently glossed over. Having a predetermined safe room, communication devices, and/or escape routes for your family is the most tactically sound strategy for keeping you, your family, and innocents safe, in the case of a burglary.

quote:

---

Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise[sic] risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for.

---

Rambo was a movie. Hollywood exaggerates the survivability of its actors because it just wouldn’t be any fun seeing them get ‘wasted’ in the first five seconds of a shootout. You aren’t Neo; you, your family, and innocent bystanders, don’t have the ability to dodge bullets; we aren’t in the Matrix. Bullets that go flying around and out of a house have the nasty habit of going through walls and even striking innocents. If you think having a shootout in your house would leave your family and others safe, I would not want to be your neighbor. If you should still be unclear about that, let me repeat it to you slowly. Rammbbowasamoooovvvvie.

quote:

---

Guns may exacerbate violence when it occurs but the value of armed deterrent is well established on an international level, as well as a domestic one. Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers.

---

You have shown that this is false. Your comprehension of the data has already been questioned. Cherry-picking the data does not help your position.

quote:

---

Unless you can show that the burglars knew that guns were stored at the houses, that they suspected the owners to be present and armed and despite that they still broke in, then sorry but that means nothing other than you have lots of burglaries in your neghbourhood[sic].

---

Or it could mean that unless you have a permit to carry your gun, and you do so all the time, it has a chance to be stolen, which just exacerbates the problem with criminals having guns. More guns equal more crimes committed with armed criminals.

quote:

---

You're presenting just one side of the coin. How many intruders are confronted and routed by armed householders? How many robberies/burglaries/gome invasions are averted because of armed householders?

---

It is up to you to show the data that intruders would be deterred by armed householders, as that is your position. Present the data and we can continue.

quote:

---

Besides,even if it turned out that more innocent people are hurt by guns that would still bear no impact on the right of people to own guns, any more than the number of innocent people killed in car accidents has an impact on the right of people to own and drive a car. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say.

---

We have ‘car control’ laws. You know. Those pesky laws that tell you how fast you can drive and what side of the street you’re supposed to drive on. Among other laws which allow your license to be revoked. Besides that, lets be real, equating owning a gun with owning a car is just plain silly. Cars were not made to ‘kill’. They weren’t made for self defense. Guns were not made to make peoples shopping easier (unless you count hunting as ‘shopping’) nor were guns made to facilitate the easy transportation of people and goods over distances.Finally, something to chew on in regards to how a majority of the Supreme Court views our Second Amendment right.By the way this opinion was written by Justice Scalia, who I wouldn’t call a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
No. 07—290
June 26, 2008(my bold)

quote:

---

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. [bold] Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not [/bold], see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for [bold] any sort [/bold] of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

---

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. Incorrect. SHOW ME how and where. If we follow my assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less burglaries. Guess what? They do! It appears you haven't read the whole thread, like I advised you. Why should *I* need to change *YOUR* false perception? Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses? When the presented facts do not support the stated assertion, then I'm within my rights to label it a 'wild assumption'. 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.

quote:

---

Where do weapons come into the equation?
Again it's very difficult to say. A Home Office study published in 2004 looked at arrested adults who declared gang membership. It found an increase in the numbers claiming to carry any weapon, but little change in the number claiming to have carried a gun. Experts think the increase is down to more knives being in circulation.

---

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.
In short, you're just making silly extrapolations. 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 plan. Didn't you read my response to Rahvin in Message 50? What are you on about? Didn't you read my response to Rahvin in Message 50? I stated: "Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of action for three reasons:". I wouldn't call it the most sound but it's not bad under certain circumstances. I've already explained that in my response to Rahvin in Message 50. Didn't you read it? Oh no you didn't! And let me be perfectly clear about the following: Doooonn'tbesuch...a..paaatroniisiing...diiickheeaaad. Which part are you disputing?
That most crime is opportunistic?
That the value of armed deterrent is well established ?SHOW ME what, how and where or else go back to watching your Rambo/Matrix film trilogy. oh, wow, I suppose that puts me in my place. I mean, you have questioned my comprehension of data....how am I going to recover from this....my argument has been shot down in flames. Even if we ignore the fact that criminals prefer to use illegal and unregistered guns, for obvious reasons, the problem lies with the fact that the potential victims remain unarmed. Armed criminals have the advantage when the victims are unarmed. Arming both sides levels the playing field and gives the victims a chance they wouldn't otherwise have. No,no, no. It was RAZD's position (presumably you're his spokesperson) that gun-ownership causes more harm than good. He presented data to show the harm that guns cause but no data to show the benefit. I just called him up on it.I suggest you go back and read the rest of this thread before you embarass yourself further.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

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