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

Not at all. Some posters here -most notably RAZD- have argued for gun control on the basis of 'innocent' lives lost, i.e. people, children, accidentally killed by guns. So not a red herring at all. it appears to me that some people here have this emotional perception about guns. When people start talking about how the end of the world will come if guns are legalised I certainly get this impression. Mostly yes, although noone has actually showed why it would be so.

---

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

Would the UK be a safer place if guns were legalised in the same way that they are, for example, in the US?On what do you base your conclusion? So we should make cars safer - Yes?How can we make guns safer? Hmmmmm. How about making them illegal? Other than the ability to shoot people what are we sacrificing by banning gun ownership?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was under the impression that it was highly regulated, compared with the US, for example. One gun per permit, stricter restrictions on the types of weapons allowed, purchasing of ammo etc. That's the entire crux of the argument, though. There is agreement that some weapons are not reasonable - the argument is over whether a semi-automatic handgun is or not. You don't get to decry that your opponents want people to be completely defenceless just because they disagree over what is and what is not a reasonable defence tool. They don't. I never said they did. I just said that most people agree that a person should be able to defend themselves so defence is not the issue at stake and claiming that your opponent believes that making people defenseless is a good idea is not a strong argument since it misses the point. Then don't say that your opponent believes that if it is actually what you believe is the result of your opponents opinions on gun control. No they aren't.I've traded on the black market. I don't have lots of money. A street dealer can be making less money than a McDonald's worker. His boss is probably making about the same as a duty manager at McDonald's. Not really. A gun is a defence tool against other people who have guns in an environment where they don't get to turn to the police for protection of their territory. I am not making an argument for or against gun control. I'm just trying to show you that you're argument misses the point and that therefore you are going to go around with circles with your opponents without any meeting of minds. Just because I think your argument is weak, or is a poor rhetorical ploy - does not mean my opinions on gun control differ from yours. I was just hoping to tighten up the debate a little.Your opponents think differently than you. You should not assume that the consequences you think will happen as a result of their policies are consequences they believe will happen. Just because you think not having a short range firearm is 'defenseless' does not mean they think that. So don't say they believe that being defenseless is good for society, since that is clearly not what they are stating they believe.Incidentally - I have been fired at by a small handgun while I was staying with my family in New Orleans. Fortunately, the worst I've had to deal with here in the UK are a few knives and bottles and clubs - the only firearm I've seen in the UK belonged to an ex-girlfriend's father. I have lost a work colleague after he was shot to death in my local Chinese takeaway. I am not entirely divorced from gun crime and firearms. I say this to point out that you not only assumed my opinions on gun control were contrary to yours, but that this must be because of complete inexperience with firearms. You did not have the information at your disposal to make this assessment.I urge you to stick to the facts.

It is a red herring. Yes, innocent lives lost (because of a lack of guns or because of their prevalence)is a statistic of import in the debate. But adding it to your sentence is irrelevant. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are designed to complete their job without killing people. Trying to spin it any other way looks pretty disingenuous to me. I missed that post. Or are you exaggerating here? So stick to that, rather than making some argument about how guns are inert entities and are not inherently evil. It is not relevant, yes?

Show me where I've advocated otherwise.

---

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

It has the effect of increased violence and other crime in a society where there is very little deterrent for criminals. You seem to be prepared to put up with more violence and other crime but not with travel restrictions. well, it's a small world! Out of interest (and I understand if you don't want to answer) what period was that? Why not? If anyone had wanted to harm you I'm sure they'd find the means without waiting for guns to be legalised. People who are so inclined are already involved in crime, they're not waiting for guns to be legalised. If you're saying that crime will increase if guns are legal, can you explain why you think so? If you're saying that existing criminals will start using guns then as long as the intended victims also do, how's it going to make matters worse? What makes you think that most criminals will fancy their chances against armed-and-ready-to-shoot targets even if they're armed themselves?

---

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

Can I ask what your actual opinions on this (with regard to the UK specifically) are? I have seen fire-arms in Brixton pubs as semi-concealed acts of machismo on a couple of occasions but have never been the victim of any actual use. Or ever seen one actually used. My experience is exceptionally limited. Despite currently living in Brixton (supposedly the "gun capital" of Britain as per some reports) and Merthyr Tydfil (again one of the more deprived areas of Britain) at one stage in my life.My guess is that in the equivalent environment in the US (Urban, poor, "black" by US definitions in the case of Brixton) my experience of guns, gun crime and gun death would be significantly higher.So even in this inner city "hellhole" where gun crime and drugs are supposedly the norm I, as a resident and person who has lived here on and off my whole life, have no real experience of guns. That surely tells us the difference between cultural attitudes to guns here and in the US?

1995/1996. You? So you don't think (apparently as a teacher?) that the need for schools with metal detectors as per the US is a scarey prospect? I had my moments at Pen Y Dre but being shot was never really a concern. Some people are involved in heavy crime and generally speaking they end up shooting other people involved in heavy crime. This will continue regardless of gun laws.However once every teenager with a bit of attitude has access to "dad's gun", a weapon and a consideration that would otherwise not be available, you have a very different society on your hands.A society that I want to avoid.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and year change - I am going senile in my old age!

Yet, irrespective of their design, they both end up killing innocent people. Cars much more so than guns. But one is accepted in our society because of it's 'harmless' intent while the other rejected because of it's 'evil' purpose. Which brings us to my point: The tool's usage is what matters, not it's intended design or purpose. if you can show how legalising guns will turn the UK into the Wild West then go for it. Otherwise don't make pre-suppositions based on the tool's inherent 'evil' value which you superstituously derive from its purpose and design. See, I find it simplistic and somehow disingenuous when people reason along the lines of:
"Cars: designed for travel, therefore relatively harmless, therefore ok to have."
"Guns: designed to kill people, therefore dangerous, therefore don't want them." Only slightly. From Message 201:

quote:

---

Lastly, 10. Allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons, at which point we have long left the civilized world and have reduced the education environment to the wild west....is the end of civilization.

---

Yes dad!

---

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

Mixed and complicated. But as you say, given that I have also lived in a 'gun capital' (aka Moss Side) without personally encountering any firearms problems, I'm basically happy with the way things are. I'd like a solution that involves me having a firearm that hurts baddies and didn't hurt family or myself and that nobody else in the world was allowed to have.If I could see a good empirical argument for more ownership, I'd be willing to change my mind in a heartbeat. But post hoc ergo propter hoc type arguments don't really convince me. It seems to me that the more guns exist, the more my chances are I'll be shot by one of them. The more legal they are, the more legitimate businesses will sell them, the more factories will build them. That's not a rigorous argument - before evolution gun control, fox hunting and Tibet were the topics I'd debate all the time. I grew tired with the unconvincing arguments, decided that both sides have a point and that in general its a good idea not to have a lot of guns around - but if there were a lot of guns around it might be worth considering owning one myself. For the moment - I'd rather criminal gangs share a small number of firearms rather than each member having their own personal stash.Under circumstances where I would want a gun - it would be something akin to a shotgun rather than a semi-automatic pistol or the like.

Well that's just a silly comparison isn't it? When almost every family is involved in using millions of guns non stop throughout every single day, then maybe we can start to compare them in this fashion. I think that cars are accepted because of their vital role in transportation that enables a large economy (which funds healthcare foreign aid and other life saving things), and they are constantly being redesigned to reduce fatalities during their constant use.The other is rejected because people believe the associated deaths are not sufficiently compensated for. I don't think legalising guns will turn the UK into the Wild West. I think it will increase the number of guns in the UK. If you want to convince me that an increase in the number of firearms and the associated deaths that go with that will be compensated for in some other way then that is fine. Agreed.

Hi Legend, equivocating now? Curiously, I call that advocating that students should be able to carry\have guns.Interestingly, the fact that an unstable student was able to purchase guns with ease, with no background check, does indeed indicate to me that there needs to be more stringent gun controls so that other unstable people don't cause the same kinds of problems. If you don't see this as reasonable social precautions, then you are essentially advocating guns being freely available to anyone, including any other unstable people. Quite so: this is why guns don't solve problems, and having more guns won't solve the problem. Other students with guns would not eliminate the numbers of students killed with guns. Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Consider a scenario where the professors were intentionally armed and trained to deal with this kind of situation, and one of them managed to shoot Cho without hitting any students and before he killed more than a couple of students: this may have saved lives in that one instance, but it doesn't stop the problem from recurring, nor does it make an argument for people to have\carry guns as a general rule.People solve problems by taking care of these "fundamentally wrong" elements in society, rather than pretending that having guns freely available to everyone would improve things so they don't have to bother about the "fundamentally wrong" elements.Fascinatingly, though, the statistic I quoted involved accidental deaths of people in the US, of which 1/2 are children: these are not deaths due to "fundamentally wrong" elements in society, they are deaths due to improper use and easy access to guns.The point being that the number of children killed accidentally by guns was far greater in number than the number of children killed in schools die to lax gun controls. Having more guns available would increase the number of accidental deaths AND make it more likely that someone like Cho would have easy access to guns. Overall there would be more childhood deaths. Gun violence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

% homicides      Firearm homicide
Country          with firearms    rate per 100,000 pop.
England & Wales         8           0.12
Australia              16           0.31
Ireland                24           0.32
Canada                 34           0.54
Switzerland            37           0.56
United States          65           2.97

---

Data on Israel not included (possibly due to the problem of sorting out the data from the effects of their ongoing war/s), but it looks like your information is not entirely correct. In addition:Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]

​

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

---

Much more regulated than in the US. Therefore the logical conclusion is that much more regulation is recommended, if you want to follow the Switzerland model. In addition:Crime in Switzerland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Convictions for infliction of bodily harm have steadily increased throughout the 1990s and 2000s, with 23 convictions for serious injury and 831 for light injury in 1990 as opposed to 78 and 2,342, respectively, in 2005.

---

Having guns freely available does not seem to be holding the increase in assaults causing bodily harm at bay - which fascinatingly has been one of your arguments against strict gun controls, hasn't it?Firearms in Israel

quote:

---

Nearly everyone interested in the preservation of the Second Amendment in America points to Israel as proof of how ordinary citizens, armed and trained, are a deterrent to crime and terrorism. And it's true! However,a quick glance at the rigid gun laws in Israel will show that it has far stricter firearms laws than many people, including myself, previously thought.

---

Even stricter gun controls than in Switzerland. Israel also has a much higher incidence of terrorist attacks than the US, being in a state of war, which results in many more deaths than are normal in a civilized state. Part of their problem is the failure to deal with people, marginalizing them, rather than solving the problems. Certainly the Israel approach has failed to solve the problems there for some 50+ years -- perhaps because the idea of solving social problems with guns just doesn't work.Overall it still looks like strict gun controls - and solving problems that otherwise result in gun violence - are still a better idea for a civilized society. Once again demonstrating that an armed citizenry is not a solution to the problem/s, but an excuse to fail to deal with the problem/s.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Because guns don't solve problems, having more of them available will not solve anything, while the statistics show that having increased availability of guns does result in higher deaths due to accidents than are currently due to psycho-killers and robbers using guns.Solve the problem of the psycho-killers, drugs, gangs, and the social inequalities, and all the arguments you have advanced for people needing to carry a gun evaporate like a bad dream.In the interim, the number of people having\carrying guns kill more people than are ostensibly protected (even themselves), according to the statistics, so it looks to me like we are well on the road to a civilized society where having\carrying guns is just not a necessary thing.As such, I see no rational reason for me personally to carry\have a gun.Meanwhile, I do think that law abiding citizens do need to be protected from people like this:Savannah Morning News

quote:

---

Kelly Obrien-Dickey, 42, told detectives she pulled the handgun on Ramon Ortiz, 37, at Broughton and Price streets about 10 a.m. because he matched the description of a Middle Eastern terrorist, a preliminary report stated.

​

Ortiz told officers he had simply asked Obrien-Dickey for directions to the Inner City Night Shelter, prompting her to curse him in Spanish, brandish the Colt .45 gun, and order him to the ground, according to the report.

​

Obrien-Dickey also demanded Ortiz take off his backpack and shoes, then struck him in the face and kicked him, police reported.

​

She later said that she believed he was on a mission.

​

Obrien-Dickey was taken to the Chatham County jail on a felony charge of aggravated assault, and Ortiz was given a ride to the Inner City Night Shelter on Arnold Street.

---

How's that for the cowboy vigilante justice mentality in action?Looks like people with guns don't solve problems either.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : example addedEdited by RAZD, : word Edited by RAZD, : end

---

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) • • •

I was there in the mid-late 80s. Phew, for a moment I was worried you might have been one of my teachers. Yes I do think it's scary, however I'm not pro-arming schoolchildren and I don't think that allowing responsible adults to own guns will necessarily lead to such a situation. Having said that, I'd really like to first see a change in the UK type of governance and consequently a change of legislation to reflect the concept of personal responsibility and eliminate the totalitarian trends currently masquerading as political correctness. In such an environment I'm confident that public gun ownership wouldn't result in schools with metal detectors, just as it doesn't happen in other well-adjusted societies with high gun ownership. But you have no reason to believe this is going to happen. This is just FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) spread by the anti-gun lobby, just as the anti-drug lobby has been spreading FUD regarding the legalisation of drugs. Yet, in countries like Holland and Portugal which have de-criminalized some or most drugs not only society hasn't descended into violent anarchy but has actually reduced drug-use and its side-effects. We won't know the effect of de-criminalizing guns until we actually try it.

---

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

Well how do you intend to stop it? If guns are more accessible then more people will have guns. That inevitably includes people that you would rather not have guns. I thought you were advocating in your discussion with RAZD that students should carry guns? Anyway how do you avoid a dramatic increase in students carrying guns if guns become a standard feature of households as you seem to wish? So what? Why would we expect the legalisation of drugs to result in "violent anarchy"? Why wouldn't we expect the legalisation of guns to result in increased incidents of gun crime? You are comparing apples with tinned carrots. What is your point? Fortunately this is desperately unlikely to happen in the UK anytime soon.

It is amazing how a people can become so brainwashed into accepting life without freedom that they will even start to believe that it is the way things ought to be.So sad.

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin