|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
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:
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.
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. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
DBLevins writes:
Not true! In the UK it's legally impossible for ordinary citizens to own a gun, even for sporting purposes. Our Olympic Shooting Team have to train in France FFS!!
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. DBLevins writes:
Not true for the UK. Here, the only people with guns are the police and the criminals. Ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed.
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. DBLevins writes:
There's nothing hyperbolic about it! In Britain, only bad guys and the police have guns. And the police aren't always on the side of the good guys!
Your previous hyperbolic statement that gun control laws would create a place where ONLY ‘bad guys’ have guns is false and misleading. Legend writes: First, how are you going to limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership? DBLevins writes: 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. Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
Legend writes: 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. DBLevins writes:
I'm claiming that gun laws, at least in the UK, haven't achieved their objective, which was to reduce gun crime. Even accounting for an increasing population, gun crime's still going up. Gun control laws have demonstrably failed.
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? DBLevins writes: The number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales as measured by the BCSshowed 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? I'm attributing this to a number of other factors that affect burglary, like the drop in unemployment (last year excepted) and the rise in house alarms sales. The thing is you can't really make much of looking at any one's country's burglary rates, unless you take those other factors into consideration. I'm looking at two countries (Uk/Us) that have similar cultural values and socio-political structure and I see that in the US -where many people carry guns and have the right to use them in defense- there are proportionatelly much fewer burglaries than in the UK. I can't detect any other factors that are specific to the US and may affect this trend, other than gun legislation and attitudes towards guns, as I can in other countries such as Japan for instance. If you do feel that there are other factors that explain away this discrepancy feel free to bring them to the table. BTW, the reference link you provided fails to open.
DBLevins writes:
without seeing the full report is difficult to judge this comment. Are they talking about burglaries committed under the influence? If yes, it's natural that the perpetrators wouldn't consider risk to themselves, as they wouldn't in any other aspect of their life if they're drunk or drugged up. quote: This would seem to suggest that your reference concludes that burglars rarely consider the risk to themselves. Eg. Overall, guns do not deter them. However, these kind of burglaries only account for some of the figures. Rationally thinking burglars would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance and Wright and Decker (1994) support this view.
DBLevins writes: 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) And that makes perfect sense given that in the US is likely that the homeowner will be armed and prepared to shoot.
DBLevins writes:
Again, without knowing the context of this quote it's difficult to comment. I presume that they're talking about crime in general not burglary specifically. If they're talking about burglary specifically then I seriously dispute the last sentence.
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. DBLevins writes:
Police activity is already discouraged in Britain, so this is a moot point.
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). DBLevins writes:
I'm not cherry-picking data, I'm just trying to compare like for like. If I was really cherry-picking then I'd be also mentioning Switzerland which has one of the highest gun ownership rates and one of the lowest crime rates in the world! However, I accept that Swiss society and culture is very different than the Uk/Us which is why I haven't brought it up. 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. I'm happy to include Australia as it's a similar culture and society to the US/UK. I'll have a look at this gun buyback program and will respond in due course.
DBLevins writes: 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. Gun crime in the UK has increased from approx 5.2 (thousands) in 1998 to approx 9.4 in 2006. That's a nearly 80% rise! Population in the same interval has risen from 58.5 milion to 60.5, a rise of 3.4%. So it's fair to say that the rise in gun crime is statistically significant. And that's despite continuous tightening of gun legislation to the point where ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning any type of firearm. That's why I'm saying that gun controls disarm the people who most need the guns for defense and have no effect on the people who use them offensively. Edited by Legend, : No reason given. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Presumably you also see no reason for wearing a seatbelt, or a motorcycle helmet, or washing your hands before eating. ...I see no reason given yet, for why I should consider having\carrying a gun. I bet the Virginia Tech survivors can see many reasons why they should have been carrying a gun. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes: Some firearms are still legal in the UK.Primarily shotguns and center fire rifles that are either single shot, or bolt action. Also it looks like any rimfire rifle may be legal too. Although this is technically true the law requires that you're either a member of a rifle or muzzle-loading gun club to apply for one of these, or -for a shotgun- you have another 'valid reason' to need one, such as pest control for example. As I've found out, keeping one in the house for self-defense doesn't constitute a 'valid reason'. So, as there's no rifle club near where I live and I'm not a farmer, I'm not allowed to own a gun. This is why I'm saying that ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed in the UK. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes:
I bet the Virginia Tech survivors can see many reasons why they should have been carrying a gun.onifre writes: I bet the dead ones see many reasons why the killer shouldn't have been carrying one. Yet, despite VA state prohibiting the carrying of guns in schools, the killer brought guns into campus and used them. What a suprise, a law being ignored by someone who intents harm! The people who obeyed the law were those who desperately needed a gun at that time. They paid the price with their lives.
onifre writes: Also, your statement barely makes sense. Are you saying that a shoot-out between the attacker and the students whould have been better? The attack in the school lasted 9 minutes during which Cho fired 174 rounds which means he must have reloaded his .22 revolver at least twice, taking between 10-15 seconds each time. *If* other students had been allowed to carry guns they would have ample opportunity to shoot him and end the carnage. Unfortunately, they weren't and they didn't. Does that make sense to you now?
onifre writes:
If you're caught up in a violent situation where you feel your life is in imminent danger and you have no escape route then you'll use whatever means at your disposal to enhance your survival chances. It's not whether you have the 'balls' or not it's just whether you have the means. I wonder how many people really have the balls to pull out a gun and get into a shoot-out like that. It's easy to play it up on a forum, it's a lot different when real bullets are flying by you. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes: So, as there's no rifle club near where I live and I'm not a farmer, I'm not allowed to own a gun. This is why I'm saying that ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed in the UK. onifre writes: And yet you're still alive and well, typing away about how dangerous society is when you don't have a gun. How do you do it? How do you survive your daily life without a gun? Should we expect you to be dead soon because you're not armed? How many tiimes this week did you have to flee a gun-man's attack? I haven't been in a car-crash recently either but I still wear a seat belt when I drive. You point...? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Oh yeah that would have been terrible. It's much better that they just lied helpless while Cho picked them off at his ease.
Can you imagine the carnage if a bunch of armed untrained yahoos tried to get in a shoot out with the shooter?. Theodoric writes:
That's right, just let the killer go on a killing spree undisturbed instead.
The last thing I want is an untrained, nervous, excited hero wannabe, getting in a shoot out with a killer Theodoric writes:
what's that got to do with my right to defend myself in my own home with a gun? Do you know anything about guns and using them? If you could have a gun for self defense, what would it be? Handgun? If so what caliber? Shotgun? Assault rifle? Where would you keep it? Would you lock it up? Have a trigger lock? What kind of loads would you use? Would you practice regularly? Would you maintain it? Do you have children? MOst people don't think about any of these questions. Have you? Do you know, off the top of your head, the stopping distance of your car at 70mph? No? Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes:
Do you know, off the top of your head, the stopping distance of your car at 70mph? No? Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car?Straggler writes:
My point is: Theodoric is trying to imply that the fact that I may not be fully aware of what calibre or type of weapon I require somehow invalidates my right to own one for self-defense. I'm saying that this is equivalent to preventing someone from potentially owning a car if they don't know what type of car or engine size they need so that they can travel from A to B.
What is your point here? Legend writes: Guns are designed to kill people. They are highly likely do that in either capable or incapable hands (more likely to inflict harm on unintended victims in the hands of the incapable). Guns are designed to propel small chunks of metal around at high velocity.Cars are designed to propel large chunks of metal around at high velocity. Both kill people just as effectively, in the wrong hands. Cars -like guns- are just tools an can be used for either good and evil depending on the people who use them.
Straggler writes: Unless in the hands of a maniac cars are not generally used to intentionally kill people. Unless in the hands of a maniac, police or the armed forces guns are not generally used to intentionally kill people either. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Legend writes:
Unless in the hands of a maniac, police or the armed forces guns are not generally used to intentionally kill people either.Straggler writes:
In the hands of an ordinary citizen concerned with their and their family's safety it has the same purpose as an insurance policy, as Hieroglyphx stated elsewhere. It's something you wish you'll never use but if you do need to use it, you're grateful you have it.
Well what is the purpose of a gun then? Straggler writes: If you want a gun but aren't worried about the ability to kill people why don't you just get yourself a blank shooting replica? Who said I'm not worried about the ability to kill people? I was just pointing out to you that design doesn't always necessitate intent nor usage. Cars aren't designed to kill people yet more people die hit by cars than hit by bullets. Guns are designed to kill people yet in peacetime situations very few people die from gun usage, proportionately. I really fail to see where you're coming from. Britain has the worst violent crime rate in Western Europe. I've experienced violence first-hand on a number of occasions and so have many others in my family and social environment. If you're really not worried about it fair enough, it's your prerogative, but why would you want to minimize other people's chances of defending themselves should the worst happen? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
The people who obeyed the law were those who desperately needed, in approximate order, the following things before they needed a gun: 1. Early infant development counseling, with an emphasis of treating babies at risk - with Cho's parents and the infant Cho - to direct his upbringing away from such a broken mind. - ok, that wasnt available & no one has a time machine. 2. Childhood psychology visits to correct the absence of 1. 3. Teenage psychology visits to correct the absence of 2. 4. College screening for detection of instability in Cho's mind, to correct the absences of 1, 2 and 3. 5. Proper attention to the screams of help he was leaving around him before the incident, to correct the absence of 1-4. 6. Beefier gun detection at the school grounds to prevent their entry. 7. More police on campus to respond quickly. 8. Perhaps an armed floor guard on every floor. 9. Maybe here, in the unfortunate face of failure on everything before, a designated student protector in each class
I actually agree with you. However, those measures that you mention aren't (and some of them shouldn't be, as you rightly point out) applied. So as it stands ordinary citizens are disarmed and at the mercy of the occasional psychopath. I think it's only fair and just that the playing field is levelled a bit and people are allowed to defend themsleves in a more effective manner other than hide and wait for the police to arrive.
xongsmith writes:
Apart from your ever so slight exagerration, SHOW ME where I advocated allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons. I didn't. RAZD asked for a reason why he should have a gun and I gave him a few including the possibility of attack by an armed psychopath, as in Virginia Tech. Lastly, 10. Allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons, at which point we have long left the civiized world and have reduced the education environment to the wild west.So, frankly, your solution is nothing short of promoting the destruction of civilization. Sorry. I cannot support that. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Exactly. It's like preventing people from taking driving lessons if they don't know how to drive a car!
Not only that but the very law prevents you in the first place from ever gaining the expertise you desire. Theo here invalidates it a priori and then uses circular logic to establish his point.
Hyroglyphx writes: Some people have never seen their airbags deploy, so does that invalidate its purpose? It's like an insurance policy. You hope you never have to use it, but should the time ever come that you need it, its purpose becomes invaluable. Absolutely! I wonder if the people here who think that if you want a gun you're some kind of Rambo-like sociopath also believe that people who buy insurance are some kind of pessimistic doom-mongers or maybe fraudsters or have some other sinister purpose for wanting insurance? For the record, I'm against access to guns for ordinary citizens without appropriate checks and controls, just like I'm against access to cars for people without driving licenses or a history of dangerous driving. I fully support controlled ownership of guns, including handguns, that ordinary citizens (with no history of agressive violence or mental health problems) can keep in a safe place at home to use for their family's and property's protection should the need arise. Some people here seem to think that this would take us back to the Wild West or would bring the end of the world or something. I'm puzzled and worried about this attitude. I think it would make for a much safer and fairer society, both in the short and long term. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
RAZD writes:
So you are now advocating that students in college should be able to carry\have guns? No I didn't. I just showed you yet another situation where carrying a gun would have been useful, lifesaving even.
RAZD writes:
So the fact that a gun-totting psychopath walked into a public place and started firing for nine minutes, with long intervals of changing grounds in between, and noone could stop him because *noone had a bloody gun* indicates to you that there should be even more stringent gun controls for ordinary citizens?! Looks like you picked another good reason for more gun control, not a reason for me, personally, to carry a gun Even though this isn't going to stop the next Cho, just as current gun controls don't stop determined psychopaths?! Even though it's just going to ensure that the next victims are even more defenceless?! sorry but I just fail to follow or understand your line of reasoning.
RAZD writes: You can look through other school killings (and injuries) here:List of school-related attacks - Wikipedia You will note that this list includes all similar killings around the world, and yet the US figures as a predominant recurring theme. Yes and this recurring need of children in your country to kill their classmates indicates something fundamentally wrong in your social fabric that has nothing to do with the means of carrying out those killings. If you seriously believe that removing all guns would stop those killings then you're deluded IMO. All that would change would be the method of the killings not their ocurrence. Teenagers wouldn't machine-gun their classmates they would just petrol-bomb them or gas them instead.
RAZD writes: Additionally, in the broad scheme of things, the number of people killed by Cho - and other similar killers - is still less than the numbers of people killed accidentally by guns every year, a number that would logically increase in proportion with any increase in the number of people that have\carry guns, while relaxing gun laws would not prevent more Cho style killings. I've stated before that unless we can compare the figures of lives saved or deaths prevented by gun usage then you're just presenting only one side of the coin.
RAZD writes: Meanwhile we continue to see statistics that show more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns: An analysis by the Violence Policy Center of 2005 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Hawaii is lowest in both household gun ownership -- 9.7 percent -- and gun deaths per 100,000 -- 2.2. The national per capita gun death rate was 10.3 per 100,000. The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.
Yet in countries like Switzerland and Israel where most men over 21 have guns at home and many are allowed to carry in public, crime rates are among the lowest in the world. Which shows -if nothing else- that your blanket statement of "more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns" is incorrect. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
SHOW ME where I did that or forever hold your peace! You were the one who advocated that the other students should have been allowed to carry guns. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
cavediver writes: How does
quote: square with this:
quote: The first quote is my position on gun ownership and usage. The second quote is my reply to RAZD who indirectly asked for reasons to have a gun. I hope the distinction is clear.
cavediver writes: Surely anyone that thinks that students on campus carrying weaponry is a good idea isn't of sufficiently sound mind to possess a weapons license? I partly agree. Giving guns to anyone and their dog without checks is not a good idea, especially younger people. However, I also support the idea that people who meet certain criteria should be allowed to carry in public, but that's digressing from my main argument which is that ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns at home and use them in self-defense. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Straggler writes: Well when you buy a car I assume that it's ability to kill people is something you avoid rather than look for? Thus making your comparisons of cars with guns somewhet irrelevant. Cars aren't designed to kill innocent people, yet they often do. Guns aren't designed to kill innocent people, yet they often do. When I buy a car I don't intend to go out and start killing people with it. Likewise, when I buy a gun I don't intend to go out and start killing people with it. The comparison is relevant because it highlights that guns, like cars, are just tools - there's nothing inherently evil about them, only with the people who use them
Legend writes:
I really fail to see where you're coming from. Britain has the worst violent crime rate in Western Europe.Straggler writes:
Burglary and property crime is lower in the US, homicide rate is higher. What's your point?
And how does it compare to the US whose attitude and laws regarding guns you seem to want emulated here? Straggler writes:
Then you'll no doubt be familiar with the Gurnos Estate. I've lived there for a few years as a teenager. Some of my extended family still live there. I know first-hand that the attitude of the main gangs at the time was that they would steal and rob safe in the knowledge that no-one could touch them, residents or police. The only houses they avoided were those of the local hard-men, because they knew that they risked some serious injury (at that time or later) if they did. The only deterrent they appreciated was violence. They wouldn't as a rule target houses or people that might potentially harm them. It's one of the reasons I now believe that gun ownership and self-defense laws for ordinary citizens would be a good thing.
I have also lived in Merthyr in Wales. Straggler writes:
If by legalising guns you mean making them available to the average householder and allow them to use them at home if need be, then IMHO society would be a safer place. Does legalising guns make society safer or more dangerous. That is the question here. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024