|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote
What we need is more dead criminals and fewer dead victims. We can only do this by making the price of crime -- statistically -- much higher than it currently is. Or we can reduce "dead victims" by reducing the overall numbers of criminals, and we can do this by having a more just social system that allows people to live more fulfilling lives without needing crime to augment their existence. Fewer criminals would mean fewer dead criminals and fewer dead victims. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
American's seem inculcated into the norm of owning or carrying guns. Over here in the UK if I knew someone was carrying a gun I would inform the police.
And sometimes even when we (Americans) suspect a gun owner of not being quite right in the head, we don't turn them in. But not because it was against the law but because carrying a gun is aberrant behaviour (in the UK). You would have to be mentally disturbed to carry one on the street. I have a neighbor who walks the neighborhood, mows the lawn, and works on his vehicle with two pistols strapped to his waist and a huge knife. A couple of weeks ago, in addition to two pistols, he also had some assault looking weapon on his back while he stood on his lawn surveying the neighborhood. I honestly don't even know if that's legal, but when you live in the rural American West, guns are part of everyday culture. As far as I know, no one calls to complain about him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I were you I'd call the police, not to complain but just to ASK if what the guy is doing is legal or sounds suspicious to them. If they don't know about him they might want to.
What you are describing does not sound like your typical American gun owner to me. He sounds like he might be seriously paranoid, and that can be dangerous. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Or we can reduce "dead victims" by reducing the overall numbers of criminals, and we can do this by having a more just social system that allows people to live more fulfilling lives without needing crime to augment their existence. Fewer criminals would mean fewer dead criminals and fewer dead victims.
This is the right idea, but it would soon be interpreted to mean that poor people kill others with guns, rather than the truth.The truth is that illegitimate babies create Single Mothers who therefore live in both financial poverty because of that, but so do the fatherless children they all raise in the same inner city neighborhoods. Marriage is the best solution for both poverty and a high crime rate.But the Church has been undermined and the LEFT has insisted that sexual promiscuity hurts no one. What America needs is more of Bill Cosby.White America needs to support Cosby as he talks bluntly in the present Politically Incorrect environment of criticizing women, Feminism, sexual promiscuity, the Gay efforts for more liberalism in sexual excesses, and the self defensive Black leadership which silences Cosby and any white politician who would raise this as an issue to be dealt with. .. . .In this CDA Report, the Fragile Families data are used to calculate how much marriage could reduce poverty among couples who are not married at the time of the child's birth. This analysis finds that marriage would dramatically reduce poverty among the non-married mothers who are romantically involved with the fathers at the time of the child's birth. Specifically, if these mothers do not marry but remain single, about 55 percent will be poor. By contrast, if all the mothers married the child's father, the poverty rate would fall to less than 17 percent. Thus, on average, marriage would reduce the odds that a mother and a child will live in poverty by more than 70 percent. Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty | The Heritage Foundation Fatherless kids turn out to be 70% of all social problems including violent crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
See the two posts I made previously in this thread, linking to very good articles on the subject. So far it looks like nobody has even bothered to read them. How can you tell? Is it because no one has changed their minds? The technique of posting a link and a single sentence imploring the group to "read this" is not real effective here. I just assume when I see an essentially bare link post from you, that the link points to the National Review or the Heritage Foundation web page, and I usually won't bother with it. This time I did read one of the articles, but I did not get to far into it. Perhaps I missed the point you were trying to make. Perhaps if you quoted your favorite paragraph from the articles, and that favorite paragraph did not appear to be the same old wing nut stuff that was in the NRA press conference, you might get more readers. Stop using vinegar.
Perhaps I should just quote them in their entirety here? The one article I looked at was quite lengthy. What do you think will happen if you post it here without throwing us a bone, i.e. some commentary that is not just like this:
What we need is more dead criminals and fewer dead victims I doubt you can get anyone but the already convinced to read an article whose point is the above.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Forget the law for a moment, just follow the logic. Try to follow the logic of "most" not being the same as "all."
So, it follows that most people don't need to walk around in their day to day lives with a handgun. Yes, but again, most is not all, and I haven't heard you propose policy that applies to most but to all. What about that aren't you getting?
A "few" people should however walk around with a gun. Those people are in law enforcement No, many of them are not in law enforcement. Many of them are private citizens who need to walk around with a handgun for their own protection.
So what "few" people and where do they live, where it makes sense for them to carry a gun all day long? Maybe they don't need it all day. Maybe they only need it a few hours during the day. Regardless, your proposed policy is that they shouldn't be allowed to carry it any hours during the day, even the hours that they need to.
Are paraplegics at greater risk of being killed or assaulted? quote: That's from http://www.cnn.com/...CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html. The actual study is
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4574
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The personal feels much more real to you than statistics, but the reality is that percentages and probabilities based upon statistical sampling are a much, much better way to understand what is going on in the larger world outside our personal lives. Sure, but we don't make decisions in the statistical aggregate that apply only to the nonexistent "average person.' We make decisions that apply to real people's lives, who experience conditions as a result of individual circumstance and not aggregate statistical inference. You're committing the Ecological Fallacy and hoping none of us will notice. But I did notice, because like you I'm familiar with the act of lying by statistics. Excuse me, unintentionally misleading by the act of statistics.
My position is that gun ownership makes one less safe, not more. I don't disagree with this position. My point is that, regardless of this position being true, it doesn't follow that a lack of gun ownership makes everyone more safe instead of less. Under some circumstances, not owning a gun will make you demonstratively less safe. And that these circumstances are statistically significant enough not to legally preclude gun ownership. In every way it's similar to the principle that forgoing vaccinations makes you less safe, not more; yet that lends no support to the contention that mandatory vaccination would make everyone more safe, not less. And for that reason, even though in the statistical majority of circumstances vaccination is a good idea, we don't force everyone to have vaccinations. Neither, then, are we justified in forcing everyone to disarm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But since a significant source of guns used in crimes is stolen guns, reducing the number of armed citizens should also reduce the number of armed criminals. Only if you can't tell the difference between a function and its first derivative. I can, which is how I know you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Talk of arming teachers and equiping kids with kevlar backpacks is an anathema to me and the idea that the solution is more guns is barking mad. We on the "pro-legal gun ownership side" (if Coyote, Faith, CS, and others won't object to that description) have, I think, largely stipulated that armed teachers is likely to injure or kill more students than would be protected. I think that's pretty obvious. But, you know, nobody ever hurt anybody with a kevlar backpack. Or with kevlar basically anything you could wear. So I'm always surprised when I see posts like yours, or the sentiments I saw after Aurora, where people wondered not only why a private citizen could buy an assault rifle but why they could buy a kevlar vest. Really? Because you have a right not to be shot, is why. Because you have a right to prevent bullets from passing into your body. I understand the sentiment that private citizens shouldn't have weapons, even if I disagree with it, because we're talking about a form of defense, there, that involves aggressive injury of an assailant. Well, weapons don't discriminate like that. But kevlar? The notion that private citizens should be forced by their government to allow themselves to be shot is absolutely insane, and just another example, in your case, of the meek, learned helplessness that attends UK-style utter disarmament of a people against criminal predation. People should just be able to break into your house. People should just be able to shoot bullets into your body. People should just lie down and accept all of that, bear all of that physical risk, because it's the cop's job to do something about it, not yours; yours is to lie down and pray that they get there in time. If not? Well, that's life, I guess. So why not kevlar backpacks? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Faith, there's a well-known web browser you can use on the Mac, Linux, and PC called "Lynx"; what's well-known about it is that it is text-only. Doesn't show images at all. Traditionally it was used for viewing web pages through text-only, command-line interfaces, back when those were more common, but you may find it of use if you're still on dial-up (or an ancient computer) and modern web pages are a bit too much.
Just a suggestion. Lynx.browser.org is where it can be downloaded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But Dr Adequate's chart plots gun deaths instead of murders, and Switzerland's gun death rate is consistent with its gun ownership rate. And Norway? Sweden? Cyprus? If the red line Y=X wasn't simply drawn on the chart, would you honestly see a trend at all? Also, shouldn't we be suspicious of the fact that as a result of how the axes are misaligned, the trendline indicates that the only way for a society to have zero gun deaths is to have a negative number of guns? Anybody can draw a line on a chart inside a cloud of points, and the power of suggestion will cause you to believe that you're seeing a trend where there isn't one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall
By Phillip Reese Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked. http://www.sacbee.com/.../california-gun-sales-increase.html Just completing your quote. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hi Crash, thanks for the info about Lynx.
I have to say that I disagree with you about armed teachers, though. I do think teachers should be armed, and that blog post Coyote linked to that I had so much trouble loading gets into all that very persuasively in my opinion. It's near the top of the article so easy enough to find. It's hard to single out a particular paragraph to copy here. Only teachers who WANT to be armed, of course, who volunteer to get the training and the licensing. I still think that picture of the rifle-toting Israeli teacher says it all, only here I think it should be concealed-carry, and only a few volunteers would be plenty. Again, Larry Correia who wrote that blog makes the case very well, and he describes his own extensive experience that qualifies him probably better than anyone here to give an opinion, including owning a gun store that sold to the police and being an instructor for concealed carry permits, which he did for free for teachers in the state of Utah. He knows about the laws that regulate guns and he interprets the statistics in a way that makes sense to me finally. In fact he knows more than anybody else I've read on this subject. I've already passed his blog around and recommend it to everybody here as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Yes, but again, most is not all, and I haven't heard you propose policy that applies to most but to all. What about that aren't you getting?
What policy do you know of that covers ALL people? That's a ridiculous requirement. All I'm saying is, most people are not in danger so it follows that most people don't need to carry a handgun around. Doing so would make them seem paranoid and delusional. It is NOT rational to carry a gun as you stated earlier.
ny of them are private citizens who need to walk around with a handgun for their own protection. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. Can you reference someone (an average citizen) that needs to carry a handgun while walking around...? Even if you're a jewelry store owner, who tend to carry guns, they can instead hire a security person who's job requires them to carry a gun, to do the job. I don't see any scenarios where average citizens walking around the city need to be strapped.
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities From your link:
quote: Those people, the largest group of victims, shouldn't be carrying guns. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do think teachers should be armed, and that blog post Coyote linked to that I had so much trouble loading gets into all that very persuasively in my opinion. Well, I can respect that and disagree. I think under almost every possible circumstance it's a bad idea to have someone carrying a firearm in a room with children - but, the idea of an armed non-teacher, perhaps someone selected that day out of a rotating pool of staff and equipped with a concealed gun, strikes me as a reasonable compromise. As they say, the gun-wielding guard at Columbine couldn't stop the shooting, though he may have nevertheless saved lives by buying others time to evacuate; on the other hand, the gun-wielding principal of Pearl High School certainly did, and saved the lives of dozens of his students. (The weapon he used to do so would have been made illegal under many of the policies advocated in this thread.) Regardless what we definitely need to do is stop putting up signs that say that a place is a gun-free zone. How completely fucking stupid is that? Crazy people are bringing guns to these places because they know that they won't meet armed resistance, because the signs say so. Can anyone make that make sense to me? What's the point of announcing it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024