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

Wait, doesn't everyone else too?It's not that far off the mark I might add.

Hi, Onifre. Being 21 is apparently enough assurance that someone is responsible with alcohol. Yet, thousands of deaths are caused by alcohol each year.Isn't this a good reason to apply to alcohol the exact same certifications that you want for guns?Why should the two be treated differently?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay, This is a debate forum, where arguments are supposed to be supported by evidence and logical deductions. Curiously the status quo is not a reason, it is just what happens to be the status quo. I lived in Canada for over 20 years, and interestingly the status quo there is different. As it is in England, Australia, etc. Thus the status quo is not a reason to carry\have guns. Which would be an argument if hunting were still a necessary part of living. So far I have lived my 62 years without having had to hunt for food, and don't see that changing in the near future. The need to have a gun for this purpose is thus very limited if it exists at all. As noted previously I had an uncle that hunted, but he switched to bow hunting due to the danger from gun hunters. He also found it more of a challenge, so if the argument is for sport (game) hunting, then bow hunting would seem to be equally if not more valid. As I say, I've been in wilderness areas with wild predators. One time I worked my way around a large salmonberry bush eating nice big juicy berries, and when I got back to where I started there was a large fresh steaming pile of bear-berry excrement, at which point I proceeded back down the path I had arrived by, being sure to make noise as I did so. The berries were delicious. Have I? Or are you reading more into my words than exists. Message 166

quote:

---

We see cognitive dissonance on a lot of threads, usually with YEC types trying to deal with the evidence of reality.

​

I see the same process occurring on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control on the issue of gun control.

​

This is obviously an emotional issue for many people, but I have yet to see a rational reason to have a gun presented.

​

I find it interesting to observe the process of cognitive dissonance in action (again).

---

This is just an observation that the arguments provided for keeping guns have not been based on the evidence, but on an emotional response is spite of evidence to the contrary. The argument from consequences is used: it's a logical fallacy unless it can be supported with evidence. Ignoring the contrary evidence is cognitive dissonance.Selecting only evidence that seems to support gun use while ignoring the contrary evidence or the fact that there are other factors involved in the chosen evidence is confirmation bias. Gun violence is increasing in England - so is the proportion of the population living in poverty, so is the proportion of immigrants escaping from violent cultures - and it is increasing from micro-miniscule to still micro-miniscule in comparison to the US. Message 143
No, it was about the lack of a logical reason to have\carry a gun, versus the evidence that shows that more harm seems to come from allowing free access to guns. As pointed out, alcohol is regulated, as is the use of vehicles. Message 144
So is there a context where my neighbor could enjoy the right to bear arms by driving an Abrams tank down main street while drinking beer?Or are there valid reasons for restricting the use of some forms of weapons?I don't need to have weapons to resist an invasion by a foreign army, because - as a developed and civilized society - we have people hired\assigned\volunteered and trained for that task.I don't need to have weapons to round up bank robbers and bandits, because - as a developed and civilized society - we have people hired\assigned\volunteered and trained for that task.I don't need to have weapons to protect my home and possessions from burglers, because - as a developed and civilized society - the people we have hired\assigned\volunteered and trained to protect our country and to provide a safe environment for the citizens, are doing an outstanding job to minimize the need for that, to the point that the risk is actually quite minuscule.As a consequence, I see no reason given yet, for why I should consider having\carrying a gun. So we agree that some degree of regulation is responsible behavior for an advance and civilized society, and the only quibble is about how much regulation to have and where to enforce it.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) • • •

Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks for your input. It's not so much that I don't want one, as that the "pro-access" argument is significantly absent of a logical reason to have one. The main argument presented so far fails to match the evidence. Out of curiosity: who are you defending your home from? China? Indians? Roving bands of bandits? Should your neighbor be able to have an abrams tank and do target practice in his backyard? A grenade launcher? Machine gun? Does that qualify under the right to bear arms? Just because someone wants them is that a reason?Do you think militias like the Michigan Miitia are good and responsible behavior?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) • • •

Hi onifre, It's not that clear cut, actually.United States open-container laws - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In the United States, open container laws prohibit possessing and/or drinking from an open container of alcohol in certain areas. These laws concern open containers in public and/or in vehicles. They are controlled by the state law, rather than federal law, and vary from state to state.

​

There are a few public places in the United States, however, where open containers are always permitted in the street:

​

Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in compliance.[8] Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming have similar limits on the possession of open containers in vehicles, but not to the level of TEA-21 compliance.

​

As of November, 2007, only one state (Mississippi) allows drivers to consume alcohol while driving (as long as the driver stays below the 0.08% blood alcohol content limit for drunk driving), and only eight states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) allow passengers to consume alcohol while the vehicle is in motion. Still, local laws in these states may limit open containers in vehicles, although those local laws do not impact the state's compliance or noncompliance with TEA-21.

---

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted June 9, 1998, as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorized the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. Because Congress could not agree on funding levels the Act, which had continued past 2003 by means of temporary extensions, was allowed to lapse.

---

So that leaves a LOT of latitude on drinking and driving in some states. I remember passing through Nevada and seeing a beer drinking truck driver hauling three full size trailers ... 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) • • •

Hi, RAZD. It's the principle of "innocent until proven guilty": it's not fair of you to demand that the pro-gun crowd prove that their law is "innocent," as it were... this is common practice in debates.----- In my 27 years, neither have I.But, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a situation may arise in the near future in which the ability to hunt would be a major asset. Emergency preparedness is a responsible and rational thing in my mind.----- Okay, so what is your point in asking why we should have guns, if not to argue that we shouldn't have them?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

His comment was about anyone explaining why "he" should have a gun.Then Coyote went off the edge making outlandish claims about gun control.So if you don't mind I made a comment about it. Why don't you understand the context of what Coyote said? He said that city folks and busybodies should not worry their pretty little heads about ANY gun control, because they don't know what it means to live in "the hills". Are you trying to tell me Coyote believes in gun registration? Has RAZD said all guns should be banned?My point, Mr. out of line, was that I live in the country and I am a gun owner and hunter.(yes kind of important in order to understand the CONTEXT of my comment) and I think gun control of some kind is necessary. There is per capita as much gun violence in 'the hills" as there is ion the cities.People that equate gun control with banning guns are disingenuous at best. Are you saying you and Coyote are not equating them?

---

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

You notice how no one ever references a source for this BS. Because it isn't true.Find me a source.

quote:

---

What is most troubling about HB 155 is the phony history the "whereas" clauses cite as a pretext for criminalizing the keeping of lists. Supposedly, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler both used gun registration "to confiscate firearms and render the disarmed population helpless. . . ."

​

Historians whom I consulted scoff at this. According to Dr. Cristoph Strupp of the German Historical Institute in Washington, Hitler actually liberalized Germany's gun laws, except for Jews and other "enemies of the state." But, he added, it would be "basically naive" and "a-historical" to think that owning guns "would have made any difference in their fate."

​

"There was virtually no resistance in Germany not because there weren't guns but because there was no will to resist," explained Dr. Nathan Stolzfus, an associate professor of history at Florida State University. "The clear majority in Germany received Hitler as he presented himself. . . ."

​

Dr. Louis A. Perez, a University of North Carolina professor of history who formerly taught at the University of South Florida, said that upon seizing power Castro actually distributed guns to the Cuban population, reversing course only when street crime became a problem.

---

SourceEdited by Theodoric, : Forgot Source

---

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

Well, what do you mean - or rather - can you be more specific as to what kind of death are the result of drinking alcohol? Isn't it drinking while driving that causes the thousands of deaths? According to RAZD's wiki link, only one state allows drivers to consume alcohol in a vehicle, so for the most part, it's completely illegal in the US except for one state. The reason being, as you stated, thousands of deaths result from that single action.What other deaths are the result of just the consumtion of alcohol that couldn't be avoided any other way?So I see no need to make alcohol illegal when making drinking while driving illegal takes care of the "thousands of deaths" part... Not completely, I know, but the other deaths resulting from alcohol are usually gun related and could have been avoided if the person didn't have a gun. Probabaly just a fist fight, maybe.Let me give you a hypothetical scenario:Say you weren't allowed to take guns into a bar, legally allowed, which means, aside from criminals, a regular guy like you or me (I use me losely ) who owns a gun. And you followed that law and went to a bar, got drunk and ended up face to face with a dude bigger than you. Not saying that you specifically would do this, but now lets change that original law and lets say you can take guns into bars... You're face to face, but in this case you notice you have the gun and pull it out to intimidate the bigger dude to avoid confrontation. But, since you've never been in the situation and he has, he manages to take the gun from you, maybe with the help of friends. Now you're fucked, can risk getting shot and it's all because you brought a gun.If you got shot and died as a result of both you and the other guy being completely wasted and handling a gun, which law do you think would have helped you more: a background check before you buy drinks, or a (hypothetical) gun control law that says "no guns in bars?" If the thousands of deaths are the result of drinking while driving or drinking then driving, I believe that is currently illegal (except for one state).If you want guns to be treated the same as drinking and driving, then guns would be illegal.But the gun control laws are not set up to avoid the accidental or willful deaths caused by gun use, it simple regulates who can buy them and registers who owns them. It's part of that products guildlines. Just as a drivers license and insurace are specifically required for driving. Or for selling alcohol in a bar. Or being an electrician. Each "thing" has a set of guildlines one must follow that is part of the product itself, and not the result of what it can do.- Oni

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!! Not true for the UK. Here, the only people with guns are the police and the criminals. Ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed. 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! Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership? 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. 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. 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.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. And that makes perfect sense given that in the US is likely that the homeowner will be armed and prepared to shoot. 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. Police activity is already discouraged in Britain, so this is a moot point. 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.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. 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"

Wrong!!!From your own link

quote:

---

Semi-automatic and pump-action centrefire rifles were banned following the massacre in Hungerford, Berks, in August 1987.

---

quote:

---

It has also been illegal to own a handgun, even for sporting purposes, following laws introduced after the Dunblane shooting in March 1996

---

That is not ALL guns.

quote:

---

Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[6] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

​

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition

---

SourceSome 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.

---

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

Hi, Onifre. Oh, I didn't provide my reference. Sorry.I was using these estimated statistics (Table 2, Page 3), which I found through this Wikipedia article. Basically, in 2000, 85,000 deaths were caused by alcohol, and 43,000 were caused by motor vehicle collisions.According to the article, about 17,000 deaths were alcohol-related crashes, leaving about 68,000 alcohol-related deaths that did not involve car wrecks, at least half of which are health issues.Firearms, in contrast, caused 29,000 deaths. According to the Wikipedia article, 16,000 of these were suicides; 10,000 were homicides, and about 800 were accidents.----- Let me provide an arguably much more realistic hypothetical scenario:Let's say your wife and children get killed in a car accident caused by a man who ran a red light. Which do you think would have helped you more: a background check before you get a driver's license, or a car control law that says, "no cars on this road"?Banning is always going to be more effective at avoiding the unwanted results than is licensing. So, shouldn't we advocate bans in all hypothetical scenarios like this?Is there any safety issue for which we couldn't produce an identical hypothetical scenario?----- Maybe I'd better back up a little bit. I'm not against gun licenses or registrations: I joined this debate because RAZD's comments strongly indicate that he thinks we shouldn't have guns.It appears that I may have judged him incorrectly, though, so I'll wait for him to respond to my last post before I keep pushing this.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Which he duid not say and which he has already clarified.

---

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

Hi, Theodoric. No he didn't: he said city folks and busybodies should worry their pretty little heads about their own gun control, and not try to apply their laws in "the hills": Message 137----- Yes, you've said this before.Now back it up with something. I have already produced an argument against this claim of yours (Message 7), which has not been picked up seriously by anybody yet. You're welcome to be the first.Edited by Bluejay, : I didn't qs-box Coyote's quote

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay, Fair enough, then alcohol needs more control, or to be banned completely. I'm a pot man myself, no deaths at all in our camp. Well the above scenario happened to a friend of mine while I was with him and it's not that uncommon to be shot with your own gun. Neither I think. "No cars on this road" is too weak of a sign; a background check isn't relevant to the accident. If there are cars on the road and you're on it, the risk is unavoidable. Like during Prohibition? Look, I really see no point to guns. I personally find them boring. Hunting can be fun if that's what you were raised doing and enjoy, but humans have hunted long before guns; guns are just an easier way to do it. Gun exist now and many people enjoy them, whatever, but lets not act like it's a real right to own a gun. It's no more a right to own a gun then it is to own a TV. It's your right to defend yourself, guns again seem to be the easier way to do that (unless you're a Ninja).It's a made up right because we found a way to form metal to shoot a bullet and kill a potential attacker. Big deal. Guns deserve no special treatment, no special place in our society and definitely no law to protect them, other than because it's your property.You have the right to defend yourself, I think that's where it should end. We don't need guns to do that, we just use them because of they're the best way to do it in many circumstances (unless you were facing a Ninja).In my true opinion, it's a shitty product. It's caused nothing but harm to either people or animals, even to the point of hunting having to be regulated because it was just to easy shoot animals from 300 yards. Try over hunting an area with a bow & arrow, you'll be eaten by a bear long before you make it. It has no value to society other than an EBay sale. It's pointless and meaningless and has only now become something that people would actual die before giving up. And all because they think they have a right to have one.But I'm realistic. I know it exists and fear propaganda has driven people to believe they now need one for protection. Hey, if that's what you think, then own one. But the product should be regulated, registered and licenses required. I'd like to see an eventual ban on the product comepletely, but first we'd need to ban Republicans. - Oni