Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 9:50 AM
31 online now:
Coragyps, edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,111 Year: 5,148/19,786 Month: 1,270/873 Week: 166/460 Day: 11/97 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1210 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 211 of 218 (552574)
03-29-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by ICANT
03-29-2010 4:56 PM


ICANT writes:

Well I am sorry but I don't believe all the propaganda that is put out by our government and the media.

Neither do I. Nor do I believe all the propaganda put out be either the extreme right or left wing-nuts. I investigate and then respond based on my own research.

in the 40's and 50's but I would dare say you were not a twinkle in the eye of your parents.

And this makes a difference how? I have studied history and have heard the stories from various friends and family living at the time. Just because I was not alive at that time does not make me totally ignorant of what occurred then. Are historians unqualified to discuss past history because they were not alive when these events occurred?

After the war was over things were tough in the area I lived in. But we all survived without big brother supplying our needs.

Really? I believe social security, unemployment and many of what you would term big brother legislation started with FDR in the 30s during the Great Depression when nearly 25% of the US working population was unemployed.

The government did not supply our food, healthcare, or anything we needed to survive. We worked for everything we had.

As many people still do. Though, I do though agree that there abuses in the welfare and other similar government sponsored systems I believe they do more good than harm. I believe the problem is more to do with ineffective enforcement and poorly written legislation than anything else.

I lived on a farm and worked on many farms. There was black and white working side by side. Each got paid the same amount of money. We went to the same Churches. We visited in each others homes in other words we were friends.

I applaud your seemingly equable treatment of other ethnicities and your hard work ethic. However, you cannot tell me that racism was not rampant in many parts of the country, much more so back than that it is now. If you do I would have to call you a liar.

I have lived in the South much of my life (Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia) and have seen racism even to this present day.

One experience I distinctly remember is when my father was at the time filling in as a temporary preacher at a church in the western pan-handle of Florida (what we call Floribama). He had been preaching there for several weeks when one day an African-American family walked into the church. The entire congregation was white and gave the family the cold shoulder and effectively ran them out (they left before the end of the service). At a church meeting immediately following the service that morning one of the elders stood up and started a racist rampage which most of the congregation was visibly condoning of. My father started getting red in the face and was visibly shaking (which my father and I do when we are incited with righteous anger). The elder than asked my father what he was upset about. Basically in a nutshell, my father told this elder and the entire congregation how ungodly and wrong they were and our entire family walked out of the church never to return.

I am positive this is not an isolated case and have witnessed racial slurs and hate speach from my earliest memories to present day. I have seen with my own eyes the progress this country has made in condemning and erradicating racial discrimination and intollerance. Racial intollerance and discrimination WAS a lot more rampant and vitriolic then than it is now. That is a fact.

In fact in the 50's I employed a couple of the ladies that had washed my clothes when I was a little boy. They helped take care of my kids. Later I started doing construction work and moved all over the state of Florida. When I went home on the weekends I had to visit those ladies so they could see the boys and know how they were doing. If I missed them they were very upset and felt I did not love them anymore. Many of my uncles and aunts could care less if I visited them.

Ok. Good story, not sure what the point is.

In our area we knew nothing of racial problems until it broke on the national scene.

Some areas had more racial problems than other areas but you cannot deny blatant racism and discrimination was more rampant and severe back than it is now.

The government did not tell us what to eat or what to buy. They sure did not tell us if we did not buy a certain product they would fine us.

Yes they did. Car insurance became compulsory in nearly every state beginning in the 1930s and 1940s.

"McCarthyism." Do you believe there were no people in the US in the 50's that had communist or Marxists beliefs?

Yes, but the # of communists in the country was less at its peak 80,000 in the 1940s down from 200,000 in the 1920s (compared with a population of 138,000,000 that is still only 0.05% of the population). By the mid-1950s they were down to 5,000 (0.003% of the population). The amount of power you and McCarthy accredited these people with is ridiculously stupid and ill-founded.

Yeah, I should believe good old McCarthy who was often intoxicated while Congress was in session, lied about his war record, censored by Congress for his outrageous and ludicrous accusations (him and his good friend J. Edgar), and died shortly thereafter of alcoholism.

Those and their offspring are the one promoting those ideas in America today.

How do you know? Wow, talk about stereotyping. So all the "communist" children inherit the sins of there fathers?

"Jim Crow laws." Weren't these laws put in effect in the 1800's not in the 1900's?

Now you are being deliberately ignorant. Jim Crow laws existed as enforced legislation until the mid and late 1960s.
Here are some examples that existed until the Civil Rights overturned them in the 1950s and 1960s:

Code of Alabama of 1940 Title 48, 301(31a) writes:

Separate accommodations for white and colored races. -- All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races, but such accommodations for the races shall be equal. All motor transportation companies or operators of vehicles carrying passengers for hire in this state, whether intrastate or interstate passengers, shall at all times provide equal but separate accommodations on each vehicle for the white and colored races. The conductor or agent of the motor transportation company in charge of any vehicle is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the division of the vehicle designated for the race to which the passenger belongs; and, if the passenger refuses to occupy the division to which he is assigned, the conductor or agent may refuse to carry the passenger on the vehicle; and, for such refusal, neither the conductor or agent of the motor transportation company nor the motor transportation company shall be liable in damages. Any motor transportation company or person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars for each offense; and each day's violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.

This law was not overturned until 1956 in the US District Court but Alabama still blatantly enforeced this law illegally until the mid 1960s.

There are many more examples listed here: Examples of Jim Crow Laws

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

"Segregation was awesome wasn't it!"

You don't think we have segregation today. Listen to the statements of Rev. Wright.

I dont care for Rev. Wright either but racial and political slurs is not the same as advocating racial segregation. #1 he is not a governmental intetity and has almost zero political power, #2 he may have used racially inciting language but he never advocated racial segregation that I am aware of

ICANT writes:

me writes:

"women were kept in the kitchen."

What is wrong with the woman in a marriage staying home and taking care of the home and children?

Nothing. I dont see anything wrong with this as long as it is voluntary and you do not guilt your wife or anyone else into doing this.

There is also nothing wrong with women working outside the home. As long as the children are adequately cared for what difference does make whether the father or the mother stay at home?

Men and women are equals, one should not be subservient to the other. Both my wife and I equally share household chores i.e. cooking, cleaning, taking out the trash, etc. When I am away on deployment or out to sea she takes care of nearly everything to do with the household i.e. paying bills, maintaining the vehicles, housekeeping, mowing the lawn, fixing broken things around the house, etc.

What is wrong with the man being a man and providing a living for his family?

Nothing. What is wrong with a woman wanting to provide a living for her family. If my wife had a better job and did not have the health problems she did I would have no problem staying at home and taking care of my family.

To say otherwise is male chauvinism.

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

"blacks in the ghetto."

Do you believe there are no getto's today?

Yes, unfortunately. But I dont believe they deserve to stay there.

Do you believe that those who have worked hard all there life are responsible for those white and black living in poverty?

Having worked personally with many of these people, Most of the people do not CHOOSE to live in poverty.

Do you believe the government should take their hard earned money and give it to those that set around and never try to better themselves?

What an ignorant and bigoted thing to say. How about we take you out of your comfort zone and place you in a home where the father is not there and the mother is trying to do everything to make ends meet and provide food on the table for her kids.

All mankind is created with equal opportunities.

Bullshit. Are you saying that a kid starving in Ethiopia or in the projects has equal opportunities to a rich kid? What a crock of shit.

All men are not created equal if we were we would all be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

All human beings deserve equal human rights. Or have you forgotten the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

When was the last time you got arrested for eating a big mac?

If I ever eat a big mac they might.

Your delusional if you are serious.

I don't eat food prepared by people other than my wife, or by myself. When we have food at Church I eat what we prepare.

That is nice, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

Following precedents is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it does not clearly violate the Constitution.


Unless the first ruleing violated the Constitution.

Um, that is a given.

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

Can you give me an example where you think the US SC has done this?

Interpertation of amendment XIV, and relavant rulings, which told the States they could not pass certain laws.

I read the amendment and am not understanding what the problem is. Please elaborate.

ICANT writes:

Me writes:

Do you really think the US Constitution, infinitesimally small compared with modern legislation, can adequately address ALL the hypothetical legal, economic, cultural, religious, health, welfare, and other concerns of a complex government system with three branches, 50 states, 2.7 million federal employees, tens of thousand of federal offices and a population of over 350 million people. I think not.

If the Constitution is not sufficient to address a problem there is a way to fix it. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to fix the Constitution. They only have the right to examine what is written down and determine if something matches what is written not what they think is written.

That is not what I asked, I asked if you thought the Constitution in its 6 page entirety adequately address all the problems and issues present in our current society.

The US Constitution only gives the framework of how our government should govern and it provides all the checks and balances to do this. The US Constitution clearly indicates the US Congress has the power to legislate federal laws binding on all US States.

They could suggest to the President or Congress that the Constitution needed amending. The Congress could then suggest amendments to fix any problem. Then if 3/4's of the States ratified the amendments they would become law.

I think you are confusing legislation with amending the US Constitution. Amending the Constitution is different than legislating law. Amending the Constitution means changing the scope of powers granted to the federal or state governments. Legislation means creating new laws or modifying existing laws that fit within the scope of powers granted by the US Constitution.

The problem is they want to do things that the States would not ratify in a Constitutional amendment. So they interpet the Constitution rather than follow the Constitution.

That is your opinion and one in which you need to provide specific examples to back up.

That brings us to the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

They try to figure out all kinds of ways to control gun ownership without asking the States for aproval which they would not get.

Some states and local municipal governments have made restrictions on the 2nd amendment that are more stringent than federal mandates. How does this fit into your world of left wing conspiracy?

So the government trys to use the commerce law to get their authority which flys in the face of a statement that the government can not restrict the citizens of owning and bearing arms.

So are you saying the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own and bear any weapon you think is appropriate for you to use i.e. an uzi, machine gun, bazooka, etc?

I think our forefathers intended for the citizens and States to have any arms that the federal government could posess in case they tried to put the people under a rule like they came out from under in England.

I do not think the founding fathers wanted people to have guns and arms solely so they can revolt against the newly elected government. Arms back during that time were more of a necessity than they are now. There was few if any standing militias, police forces was non-existent, living off the land by farming and hunting was a necessity not a sport or luxury, etc. A lot of things have changed over the past 200 years. I still believe in the right to bear arms and gun ownership, I just believe that with our current and growing population gun regulation and registration is a necessity in order for law enforcement to track these weapons and bring the right people to justice for armed crimes.

The citizens would be at a disadvantage if all they had was pickup trucks, shotguns and other small arms to go against an organized army that had tanks and bombs.

Are you saying you want the general public to have tanks and bombs so they can be on an equal basis with the US military? Are you that stupid? Really?!?

You say that could never happen in America. Are you sure it could not happen?

Can what happen?

Remember absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This sword cuts both ways. Religion has the power to corrupt the government as well.

If you don't think so visit Cuba. Or visit a gentleman that lives in Miami who was second in command to Raul in the 80's and 90's in Cuba. I could introduce you if you desired. He was there when Castro took over in the late 50's and saw what absolute power could do.

America is nothing like Cuba. We do not have a dictatorship. We have elected representatives. If you dont like yours, vote them out of office.

If you look at Cuba you will see those in power have anything they desire. There are drug stores that visitors can buy aspirn in. But the local population are not allowed to enter them must less buy anything no matter how much money they have. There is a big fellow about 225 lbs over 6' tall standing at the entrance to make sure the locals do not come in the stores. They have to shop in the stores desginated for them to shop in.

Thats nice, again what does this have to do with the price of tea in China.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2010 4:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 212 of 218 (552727)
03-30-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by New Cat's Eye
03-29-2010 12:08 PM


Re: What is a militia? What is appropriate?
Hi Catholic Scientist,

I'll just be brief.

Are you advocating as much regulation as possible while maintianing the minimum requirement of the amendment?

Not as much regulation as is possible, but I am fully in favor of having the same degree of regulation that other democratic governments have, such as Canada and England. The benefits to society are measurable.

The constitution does not restrict how much regulation can be imposed on gun ownership so long as the ability to form citizen militias is not infringed, and it charges everyone with the need to provide justice in a court of law for every citizen as much as is practical.

This condition is filled by having state National Guard units and by having state and local police forces. The National Guard units also provide necessary training in the proper care, and use of weapons of war. The police units also provide the necessary training in the proper care and use of weapons used to fight crime. State and local police units are also usually authorized to deputize citizens to provide additional resources when necessary.

The moutainmen in rural Montana don't need the same regulation as thugs in urban New Jersey.

Regardless of where you live, I see absolutely no possible rational reason for an individual to own an automatic weapon. If you want to play with weapons like this, then even more reason for regulation, however please note that you are free to join a National Guard unit where you can be trained in the proper use and care of such weapons, and allowed to use them in controlled conditions. When the time comes that such weapons are necessary to be used you can then go to your unit and be issued a weapon and the ammunition for it.

Same for handguns and joining a police unit. If you think that carrying a gun makes you able to enforce the law, then join a police force and get the training to do it properly. If you think carrying a gun can serve another purpose that is to the benefit of society, then think again.

But the inappropriate gun users are the ones who are using their illegal guns illegally. What kind of new laws would help if the inappropriate users aren't following the laws?

Any law that restricts the availability of guns will reduce the number of guns used illegally, and it will coincidentally reduce the number of accidents due to guns: the statistics show this. One needs only compare the US with Canada to see this.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2010 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2010 8:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 213 of 218 (552730)
03-30-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hyroglyphx
03-29-2010 7:09 PM


Equivocating Hyroglyphx
I'm really not seeing the objection with P&T other than perhaps contrasting the militia and people too much. Obviously the militia and people are interchangeable.

Go back and look at your video again.

Now on to bigger and better things in Message 201

And avoiding the issue.

You can't just blow someone away that happens to be where you don't want them to be.

It all depends on the circumstances, such as it is most anything else in life.

There are no circumstances that justify blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be.

That proof is well-established where the murder rate is through the roof (Russia, Mexico) but places where guns are abundantly prevelant (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia) the homicide rate is low.

Which are not comparable societies to the US, either way you cut the cheese (nor are the statistics necessarily gathered and reported in the same way).

Conversely, the facts show that where guns are regulated in countries like England and Canada, that ARE comparable, that the murder rate is lower than the US AND the rate of accidental death and injury is lower.

As I noted in Message 303 you need to read Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, you are making the same logical mistakes made in that thread.

Message 303: I expect anyone replying to me on this thread to have read my posts on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, and not repeat false arguments.

Please see Message 57 on that thread.

The statistics for comparing the US, England and Canada on equal footing are there: the US is unequivocally the loser.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-29-2010 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-31-2010 9:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 218 (552811)
03-31-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
03-30-2010 8:18 PM


The constitution does not restrict how much regulation can be imposed on gun ownership so long as the ability to form citizen militias is not infringed,

But the Supreme Court said that what can't be infringed is the right of individuals, the People, i.e. me and you, to keep arms. Its beside the point whether or not a criteria for a militia is filled by the police.

Any law that restricts the availability of guns will reduce the number of guns used illegally, and it will coincidentally reduce the number of accidents due to guns

The amount of the reduction of accidents doesn't justify disarming citizens. But again, since the 2nd amendment says that I have a right to own them, it doesn't matter if you want to take away peoples' guns to prevent some accidents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 8:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2010 8:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 215 of 218 (552815)
03-31-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
03-30-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Equivocating Hyroglyphx
There are no circumstances that justify blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be.

Not merely where you don't want them to be, but where they are not allowed to be while in the commission of felony. Those are the circumstances I am referring to. If an intruder comes in to your home and attacks you, you have the inalienable right to defend yourself. That includes killing the intruder if necessary. Circumstances dictate action.

Because of our other discussion on marxism it all makes sense now why you think you don't have a right to be secure in your person or property. It's because you don't believe in the concept of private property.

You either are going to have to assimilate or defect to a country that holds similar beliefs as you, because I'm afraid that the concepts of private property and the right to bear arms are just too ingrained within the culture to change.

the facts show that where guns are regulated in countries like England and Canada, that ARE comparable, that the murder rate is lower than the US AND the rate of accidental death and injury is lower.

How is Canada and England more comparable to the US in relation to murder and accidental death or injury than Mexico, Switzerland, Russia, or Saudi Arabia?!?! Murder is murder, RAZD. Mexico and Russia are far more regulated than the US and their murder rate is vastly higher. Switzerland and Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth and have less than England and Canada. That's because there is no comparison. To suggest otherwise is a distortion from gun grabbers.

Besides, again, guns don't equal murder. No tool equals murder. There are sociological reasons for murder, which you seem to gloss over.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 8:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2010 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 216 of 218 (552947)
03-31-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
03-31-2010 8:59 AM


Hi Catholic Scientist,

But the Supreme Court said that what can't be infringed is the right of individuals, the People, i.e. me and you, to keep arms. Its beside the point whether or not a criteria for a militia is filled by the police.

Curiously, what the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to regulate firearms and weapons.

The amount of the reduction of accidents doesn't justify disarming citizens. But again, since the 2nd amendment says that I have a right to own them, it doesn't matter if you want to take away peoples' guns to prevent some accidents.

Interestingly, your opinion cannot alter reality. The reduction in the amount of violent assaults resulting in death AND the reduction in the number of accidents resulting in maiming or death IS a rational reason for the regulation of weapons.

Certainly the regulation of weapons similar to what is in Canada and England is justified on this basis.

The fact is that this can be done without violating the second amendment stipulation that militias can be formed by existing avenues, ones that also provide for proper training, thus making the users safer in the process.

You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight crime, then join a police force and get trained in fighting crime.

You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight a war, then join a National Guard unit and get trained in fighting a war.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2010 8:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2010 10:13 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 217 of 218 (552959)
03-31-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Hyroglyphx
03-31-2010 9:11 AM


Re: Equivocating Hyroglyphx missing the picture
Still not getting it?

Not merely where you don't want them to be, but where they are not allowed to be while in the commission of felony.

So they get the death penalty just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If an intruder comes in to your home and attacks you, ...

I find it hilarious that you can't answer a simple question without bending it around, subtracting some elements or adding extra stipulations.

The question is simple: is there a circumstance that justifies blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be? No other conditions, just being in the wrong (in your opinion) place.

Now I've said there are no such circumstances. What's your answer (if you've got a straight answer)?

... and attacks you, you have the inalienable right to defend yourself.

Curiously, that right to self defense exists regardless of location, so tacking this on to the issue of blowing away someone just for being in a place you don't want to be, is just you begging the question.

Interestingly, self defense doesn't depend on having a gun.

Amusingly, if you invite a person in your own home and then attack them, they are legally justified to defend themselves. If someone wanders into your home and you attack them, they are justified in defending themselves.

How is Canada and England more comparable to the US in relation to murder and accidental death or injury than Mexico, Switzerland, Russia, or Saudi Arabia?!?!

Obviously, you have failed to read the other thread. Color me surprised.

There are several issues that, just perhaps coincidentally, have to do with data control. The kinds of controls typical of what is done in scientific population study experiments to remove factors that can cause false correlations. Without such controls you just have a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy in comparing numbers.

There are also factors that have to do with how the various statistics are gathered and reported and the comparable accuracy of the reported statistics in different countries. These are much more likely to be done in a strictly comparable way in closely related and similar countries.

Interestingly, I find that I can compare my cultural experiences with Canadian and English cultural experiences much more than I can with Mexican, Russian, Swiss and Arab cultural experiences.

Certainly there is a common cultural history shared to a high degree between the US and Canada that does not exist for Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. This shared common cultural history also exist to a lesser degree with England.

This is born out by the first statistic reported in the post on that other thread that I link you to (for your edification):

Message 51: Below we have assaults, murders and murders with firearms per capita with the US, Canada and the UK extracted:

Crime Statistics > Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:
# 6 United States:      7.56923 per 1,000 people   	
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.

Note how this establishes that the data for the three countries is comparable.

We now have controlled for cultural differences, and thus can focus on the differences between having guns generally available at will and having gun ownership restricted by regulations.

The differences between the US, Canada and England are more likely to be just due to the different availability of guns than to any other factor.

To make the argument even more logically and rationally sound we continue with the same source of information as the assaults to compare the following statistics:

(ibid): Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
quote:
# 24 United States:  	0.042802  per 1,000 people   	
# 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

So there is a cultural bias to murder in the US compared to Canada and the UK that is out of proportion with the assault per capita above. In other words in the US assaults are more likely to result in murder.


Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:
#  8 United States:  	0.0279271  per 1,000 people   	
# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

And there is a higher cultural bias to murder with guns in the US than in Canada or the UK.

The source of information for each of these sets of statistics is the same, so there is no question of not having comparable information. From these results we can compare assaults, murders and murders with guns in these countries:


  • Number of assaults about the same in each country.
  • Number of murders about 3 times higher in the US than in Canada and the UK.
  • Number of murders by firearms about 5.5 times higher in the US than in Canada, and about 28 times higher in the US than in the UK.
  • Proportion of murders committed with guns is 65% in the US, 34% in Canada and 7.3% in the UK.
Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.

Canada is closer to the US than England in their gun regulations, and we see the results of this with Canada falling between the US and England in the statistics.

With the only significant difference between the US, Canada and England being the gun regulations, the significantly higher rate of murder by firearms is unequivocally correlated with the possession of firearms in the US and the relatively lax regulations in the US compared to England and Canada.

That's the reality here: lax guns laws result in more deaths by guns and a higher level of violence in assaults, even though the number of assaults is the same.

It's almost like an evolutionary response.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-31-2010 9:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 218 (553067)
04-01-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
03-31-2010 8:45 PM


But the Supreme Court said that what can't be infringed is the right of individuals, the People, i.e. me and you, to keep arms. Its beside the point whether or not a criteria for a militia is filled by the police.

Curiously, what the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to regulate firearms and weapons.

There's nothing curious about that because nobody is advocating a lack of regulation nor claiming that there is no regulation. What's curious is why you even bring that up.

Stay on point here... You're trying to say that having the police and national guard fullfills the requirements of the militia so taking away the citizens' guns wouldn't violate the amendment. But you're wrong because the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, i.e. it is an individual right that we all have.

Interestingly, your opinion cannot alter reality.

Arrogantly, you say that while acting like you think that yours can:

Certainly the regulation of weapons similar to what is in Canada and England is justified on this basis.

A fine opinion, but like mine, it cannot alter reality.

The fact is that this can be done without violating the second amendment stipulation that militias can be formed by existing avenues,

Bafflingly, you're still ignoring the Supremem Court ruling. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if militias would otherwise still be formed, the right is that of the individual people.

You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight crime, then join a police force and get trained in fighting crime.

You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight a war, then join a National Guard unit and get trained in fighting a war.

We want to have the capability of defending ourselves and our families, protect our chickens from coyotes, protect out vegetables from rabbits, hunt food, entertain our favorite hobby, and enjoy some recreational shooting.

The reduction in the amount of violent assaults resulting in death AND the reduction in the number of accidents resulting in maiming or death IS a rational reason for the regulation of weapons.

How many deaths would be prevented? What are the adverse side-effects of the regulation?

But regardless, weapons are already regulated.

ABE:

With the only significant difference between the US, Canada and England being the gun regulations, the significantly higher rate of murder by firearms is unequivocally correlated with the possession of firearms in the US and the relatively lax regulations in the US compared to England and Canada.

quote:
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people


Assuming the population of the U.S. is 307 million people, 0.03 deaths per 1000 people comes out to 9210 deaths from murder by firearm.

9210...

From the CDC, I found this info:

quote:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234

The death prevention from firearm regulation like that of UK/Canada is negligible.

Its just too insignificant to be the main reason for taking away people's guns.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2010 8:45 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019