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

Gosh I know!! All those pesky laws stopping us doing whatever we feel like. Why don't they just let us be free to do whatever we want? Do they not think we are responsible adults capable of making our own decisions? Fucking laws. All of them. It's just the nanny state in action. Who do the police think they are huh? Babysitters? Laws are just the government's way of controlling us into submission. Screw them. Anarchy is the only true freedom!! Fight the power!!! Yeyhaaaah!! Or are some restrictions on freedom absolutely necessary for society to function? In which case stop making stupid statements and explain why whatever it is you are talking about (presumably the right to bear arms) is a vital freedom rather than an unnecessary danger?

This belief is just based on propaganda and the politics of fear rather than facts. Yes, accidents will happen as they happen with any tool (number of people who accidentally cut themselves with kitchen knives come to mind). Since when has the potential for individual accidents been a factor in banning an implement or machine? Never, as far as I can see, so why the double standards with guns?If you're referring to associated deaths by intent then I'm questioning this belief. What makes people think that once guns are easily available criminals will emerge out of the woodwork and start shooting everyone? Only anti-gun propaganda IMHO. I've lived in Southern Italy where the sight of ordinary people with shotguns walking round the village was common place and obtaining one was an easy process for most people. Yet crime there was much, much lower than in Britain and noone even entertained the idea that they might be shot (other than out in the woods during the hunting period).To counter your argument, there have been studies that show that criminals are deterred by the possibility of armed confrontation with homeowners ("Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins, Wright & Decker, Boston:Northeastern University press, 1994", "Armed and Considered Dangerous (Paperback) by James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi"). Gary Kleck in his "Targeting guns: firearms and their control" states that
56% of covicted felons agree that "criminals are more frightened of running into an armed victim than the police"! 38% reported that they had been scared off or shot at and injured by an armed victim.Also bear in mind that these figures err on the side of caution. Convicted felons interviewed in prison are not likely to admit that they've been scared off, so 38% is a very conservative number! Common sense would seem to suggest that any sane criminal who's not high on substance abuse would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance unless they're personally targeting the victim. But for discussion's sake let's take that 38% figure: a 38% reduction in the number of burglaries in Britain would represent a huge benefit to society just in terms of numbers of victims, police resources and other material reasons, without even taking into account the psychological effect to people who currently live in fear of being burgeld or robbed. Such a benefit would by far outweigh any accidental deaths that might occur. That's why ordinary citizens in Britain should be allowed to own and use guns in self-defense.

---

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

Are you saying that the facts detailed by RAZD in Message 252 are wrong? It is always a potential factor. If the machine in question results in benefits that significantly outweigh the risks (e.g. cars) then I don't think many here would oppose the machine in question on principle alone.However you have yet to make any fact based argument at all that this is the case in relation to guns. So are you able to make a fact based argument that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for your position? Or not? Are you attempting to use anecdotal "evidence" in place of objective facts?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

RAZD writes:
So you are now advocating that students in college should be able to carry\have guns?

​

Legend writes:

​

No I didn't. I just showed you yet another situation where carrying a gun would have been useful, lifesaving even.

...

Legend 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?!

​

---

Not at all. My position in this thread has always been supporting the right of ordinary citizens to have guns at home and to shoot any intruders. You've asked for a reason to carry a gun and I presented you with one. I'm not advocating freely arming students in the classroom but if there ever was an argument for this position then the Virginia Tech massacre is surely it. Please explain how am I equivocating? Then you're letting your anti-gun zeal take over your good judgement. Of course I see this as reasonable social precautions. That's why I don't advocate providing guns to anyone under 21, or with a history of aggressive violence or mental illness. You seem to assume that anyone who supports lax gun legislation is some kind of gung-ho, Rambo, free-for-all type of person. I want to live in a safe and fair society as much as you do. I believe that allowing ordinary people (within some constraints, as mentioned) access to guns is a step closer to that goal. I'm against totalitarian prohibitions and the treatment of ordinary citizens like criminally irresponsible idiots. Hope this is clearer. I never claimed that guns will solve the problem, I've claimed that guns will alleviate the symptoms. Burglaries and robberies are manifestations of social problems. Armed deterrent isn't going to solve these problems but it will improve the symptoms. Just like fighting disease, until a cure is found the symptoms must be dealt with in order to make the patient more comfortable. I agree in that it won't stop the problem from manifesting again. But the benefit of saved lives surely makes a case for people carrying guns, doesn't it? Noone here is suggesting that we ignore those elements! Owning guns isn't about ignoring the problem it's about dealing with the symptoms. It's also about accepting and applying, as a society, individual liberty and personal responsibility. Please see my last response to Modulous. Accidents will happen but the benefits of armed deterrent greatly outweigh the risks. You're referring to the regulations that the National Militia imposes, as any National Militia should. The fact remains that most Swiss males over 21 have a gun at home. Yet their crime rate is among the lowest in the world.

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.

---

I can't see in these statistics how many assaults occurred in the knowledge that the victim was armed. Until we can see that, these numbers are neither here nor there. If Swiss felons are anything like US felons then a significant proportion of them wouldn't attack an armed victim (re: Message 257). Now, now, suggesting this is bordering on disingenuity. The Israeli state wouldn't even exist without its armed deterrent. Enough said. Agreed. Until that happens you're suggesting we just lie defenseless in the face of the occasional psycho-killer, junkie or gang who happen to target us? Which statistics show how many people are saved by carrying guns? Where can I find statistics reporting how many people weren't robbed or burgled because of the armed deterrent? Please show me! I don't know where you live but it appears to be a crime-less, perfect place. Unfortunately the rest of us don't inhabit the same world as you.

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.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath because she was carrying a gun?!?Or is it that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath who happened to be carrying a gun?Pleeeasee....what is the point of even mentioning this?

---

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

Happened? Surely the point here is that the "paranoid, prejudiced sociopath" in question had easy access to a gun with which she could act out her "paranoid prejudiced sociopathic" tendancies.You seem to advocate legalising guns on the basis of concluding that only those who you think wil use them sensibly will be empowered by such legislation. This is obviously false.

I believe RAZD supplied data[you know facts] that debunked this line of argument you keep using in relation to homicide.Here I will repost it.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

---

Do you have evidence for their total crime rate being "among lowest in the world? Because I don't see it. Source
Click on the different categories. Do you see any of them where Switzerland is "among the lowest in the world"?Total crimes(per capita)
#20
Total crimes
#31
Total Murders
#48
Total Murders(per capita)
#57 much better, but that wasn't your argument
Total Murders with Firearms
#23
Total Murders with Firearms(per capita)
#19
Suicide rates in ages 15-24
#3Now what was your argument again?

---

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

Or maybe the contrary belief is based on propaganda and the politics of fear rather than facts Or maybe both sides have a little fear and a little propaganda. Individual accidents has been a factor in opposing the building of nuclear power stations.You know the reason we don't let people have access to nuclear weapons or miniguns? That's the standard in play here. The potential harm in proliferation versus the good in defence and deterrence. All things being equal the greater the number of weapons, the greater number of people will be harmed by those weapons. The debate should focus on whether this increase will be compensated for elsewhere, such as a greater decrease in people being harmed by those weapons via the deterrence effect. Which argument? Not mine, I'm not advancing one. I'm just trying to help you understand your opponents and stop setting up strawmen.

LOL. Of course not; they are merely stupid and irrelevant. Telling us that "the more guns we got the more gun deaths there will be" is a ridiculous statement that tells us absolutely nothing we do not already know; what's more, it does not at all support the position that banning guns is necessary anymore than "with more cars there are more car deaths" supports the notion of banning cars. Seriously? You think that getting to work on time is MORE important in the long run than saving a person's life? That's a rather heartless assertion; perhaps the Queen was right to keep your gun It is simply ridiculous to attempt to compare crime rates between different countries based solely on relative gun ownership figures. There are plainly far too many other factors that affect crime/violence rates. You are looking at a problem with LOADS of variable causes, picking out the variable you most detest, and putting it forth as a sole cause.The reason no pro-rights folk have posted any statistics and figures is because they all know better than to attempt such a fallacious undertaking. Doing so would make their arguments as flawed as yours. And since they're in it to win it, making flawed arguments just won't cut it Try as you might, they will not sink to your level.Like I said before... so sad.

---

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

So it seems the answer to my question is "No". Or is it actually because the facts are against them? Yes an inability to acknowledge contradictiry facts in order to cling onto a preconceived position is sad.

Do you seriously think that the only/most significant benefit to a highly mobile society is that they can arrive at work on time? Do you think that humanity was forever turning up late until cars became prevalent?

LOL. It simply does not matter. Showing a statistical relationship is not the same as showing a causal one.Please show that guns cause crime.

---

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

The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.If you look at figures like murder, there is a tendency for higher incidence in countries with more lax gun laws. Also there does not seem to be a substantial decrease in things like burglaries in countries with lax gun laws as Legend proposed.Maybe you might want to research your point and actually provide some evidence. You make lots of assertions, but as of yet have provided no evidence to back them up.

---

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

I'm saying that the facts presented by RAZD demonstrate only the negative side-effects of gun ownership. Knowing the number of people accidentally killed by guns has no value unless we know the number of people saved by guns and the number of crimes prevented or deterred by guns. You conveniently ignored most of my response in Message 257. The value of armed deterrent is well proven. Are you able to make a fact-based argument for the effective criminalisation of guns in the UK? You know, other than that "guns kill people" ? I'm using anecdotal evidence based on personal experience to illustrate a point in my argument. You mentioned your having lived in Brixton and Merthyr to highlight your point about the minimal impact of guns in Britain. Why the double standards?

---

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

You're missing the point: the fact that this woman was a nutter (or not) has *nothing to do* with her carrying a gun. One doesn't necessitate the other, yes? I naturally fully understand that people I don't approve or trust will be empowered by having guns. That's the price you pay for living in free society: people you don't like can do things you don't like.

---

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

No you are missing the entire point. There will always be nutters. But we don't have to make guns available to them. That is the point. Are you advocating lawlessness on the basis of personal freedom now?Every single law restricts personal freedom to some extent. The same question applies to every law and that question is balance. Does a law restrict personal freedom unnecessarily? Or does it restrict personal freedom for necessary reason?Not giving people, in particular those most prone to violent and irrational acts, easy access to the ability to efficiently kill each other seems like a decent reason.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.