|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Incidentally, I am speaking as someone who is for gun control and is a gun owner themselves. ... Guess this is my long-winded view that we need universal health care that is accessible by all. And a society that recognizes mental illness as being a legitimate medical condition as opposed to putting a stigma around it. Amen! And also a return to emphasizing personal responsibility.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
How can you remove peoples' capacity to administer lethal force without eliminating their ability to defend themselves?
Is lethal force the only form of self defence?
No. The issue you're failing to realize is that all modes of defending yourself have the capacity to be lethal. That's why if you remove the capacity to be lethal, then you remove all modes of defending yourself.
Utter rubbish. why do you think that without a gun, a person is completely defenceless?Why do you think that lethal force is the only defence? In a physical conflict, the best defence of all is to get your self out of the dangerzone, i.e. run away= not lethal. I agree that removing a gun does not remove the capacity to be lethal, but it does remove the possibility that a momentary, instantaneous (bad) judgement could result in the death of someone who does not deserve to die. That's why if you remove the capacity to be lethal, then you remove all modes of defending yourself.
bollocks. Defence does not = lethal force, and lethal force is not the only defence.
For the third time: I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime.
Then why do you support making it easy for people to be killed as a result of bad judgement while committing a relatively minor crime?
The right to use lethal force to defend yourself is already written into law.
If there is an imminent threat/danger to your life. but if you catch someone stealing your DVD player can you shoot them in the back as they run away? is that self defence?
People aren't being armed, they are arming themselves.
sigh... ok, "allowing people to arm themselves"
And you're just assuming the judgement was bad
Well shooting someone dead for burglary, seems to me to be bad judgement.Shooting someone dead for shoplifting seems to me to be bad judgement. Shooting someone dead for carjacking seems to me to be bad judgement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there is an imminent threat/danger to your life. but if you catch someone stealing your DVD player can you shoot them in the back as they run away? is that self defence? Not if you shoot them in the back once they have run far enough to not be a threat. AbE:
Well shooting someone dead for burglary, seems to me to be bad judgement. Shooting someone dead for shoplifting seems to me to be bad judgement. Shooting someone dead for carjacking seems to me to be bad judgement Why? And remember, the goal when you shoot someone is not to kill them but to stop a behavior. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Catholic Scientist writes: Here's your correlation:
I don't think that's impressive at all. Is that what you thought it would look like? First, thanks for putting this graph together. Second, yes, that's pretty much what I thought it would look like. In Message 2678 I said that, "States with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates," and that's precisely what your graph shows. Gun control laws, overwhelmed as they are in this country by the 2nd amendment, can not be expected to have a very strong impact. A much stronger relationship should exist between gun prevalence and gun deaths. The more guns in a population the more gun deaths one should expect. This isn't extraordinary - it's true of everything. The more automobiles, the more automobile deaths. The more houses with chimneys, the more chimney fires. It wouldn't be any different with guns. As many other countries have discovered, the most effective way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce gun prevalence.
Considering that Connecticut already had very strict gun control laws (they got an A), and a low amount of gun deaths across the state (6th place at 5.9), can you see that those things don't affect the gun deaths like those at Newtown? Yes, you're correct, as currently constituted gun control laws have little effect on incidents like Newtown. What would you propose to address just this one tiny part of the gun problem, namely guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill. If it could be prevented then incidents like the mass shootings in Newtown and Aurora and assassination attempts like President Reagan and John Lennon might never have happened. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Why?... And remember, the goal when you shoot someone is not to kill them but to stop a behavior.
Clearly in the homicide cases CS listed earlier (to which my posts are referring) this "goal" of non-lethal behaviour change was not achieved. Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
And remember, the goal when you shoot someone is not to kill them but to stop a behavior. Oh, bullshit, Jar. Stopping all behaviors permanently, I guess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How can you remove peoples' capacity to administer lethal force without eliminating their ability to defend themselves?
Is lethal force the only form of self defence? Of course not. But all self-defenses have the capacity to be lethal. That's why when you say that the average person should not have the capacity for lethal force, then what follows from what you are saying is that they will be unable to defend themself at all. Because all of the defenses have the capacity for being lethal. If I'm wrong, then provide me with a mode of defense that cannot be lethal.
No. The issue you're failing to realize is that all modes of defending yourself have the capacity to be lethal. That's why if you remove the capacity to be lethal, then you remove all modes of defending yourself.
Utter rubbish. why do you think that without a gun, a person is completely defenceless? I don't think that. As I said before, you could use your fist, or say, a frying pan. But again, those have the capacity to be lethal. So if you remove the average persons' capacity to use lethal force, then they cannot use those things to defend themself. Now, what can you use to defend yourself that does not have the capacity to be lethal?
Why do you think that lethal force is the only defence? Lethal force is not the only defense but all defenses have the capacity to be lethal.
In a physical conflict, the best defence of all is to get your self out of the dangerzone, i.e. run away= not lethal. Running away is not self-defense. Its retreating.
I agree that removing a gun does not remove the capacity to be lethal, but it does remove the possibility that a momentary, instantaneous (bad) judgement could result in the death of someone who does not deserve to die. Okay, well that's not what you've been saying so far.
That's why if you remove the capacity to be lethal, then you remove all modes of defending yourself.
bollocks. Defence does not = lethal force, and lethal force is not the only defence. Capacity. The capacity for being lethal. That's what you said. That's what we're talking about.
For the third time: I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime.
Then why do you support making it easy for people to be killed as a result of bad judgement while committing a relatively minor crime? Because people have a fundamental right to self-defense.
The right to use lethal force to defend yourself is already written into law.
If there is an imminent threat/danger to your life. Or your property, or the well being of another person.
but if you catch someone stealing your DVD player can you shoot them in the back as they run away? is that self defence? Depends on where you are and what the local laws are.
And you're just assuming the judgement was bad
Well shooting someone dead for burglary, seems to me to be bad judgement.Shooting someone dead for shoplifting seems to me to be bad judgement. Shooting someone dead for carjacking seems to me to be bad judgement What you are doing is glancing over all of the most dangerous elements of a crime to strip it down to the least threatening description possible so that you can make the resulting action look as bad as possible. That's not an honest assessment, that's a biased smear. If someone robs a store with a gun and the clerk shoots them, then they didn't get shot for just "burglary". They assaulted a person with a deadly weapon and that person defended themself. The robber didn't get punished for committing a crime, he assaulted a person who defended themself. There is no judgement of guilt, a person acted in their own self-defense. People have a right to be able to defend themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
First, thanks for putting this graph together. You're welcome. That's the second chart I've put together for this thread. It didn't stop you from insulting my efforts though
Second, yes, that's pretty much what I thought it would look like. They way you talk about it makes it sound like you think the correlation is much stronger.
A much stronger relationship should exist between gun prevalence and gun deaths. Its hard to get a "count" of the guns that are out there, but I did find percentages of gun owners at this site: A Look at Gun Ownership by State Using those numbers with the death numbers from that other page gets you this:
That's a much better correlation than the gun law strength one. Here's the numbers I used:
quote: What would you propose to address just this one tiny part of the gun problem, namely guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill. I don't know. I don't know anything about how the mentally ill are treated. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Fixed image link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In a similar vein, I can acknowledge that background checks are beneficial, but ultimately, I would like to see greater efforts in the fields of mental illness. My first reply to the OP:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Catholic Scientist writes: You're welcome. That's the second chart I've put together for this thread. It didn't stop you from insulting my efforts though Insulting your efforts? Even as a joke (you included a smiley) I have no idea what you're referring to.
Second, yes, that's pretty much what I thought it would look like. They way you talk about it makes it sound like you think the correlation is much stronger. I quoted the way I talked about it: "States with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates." How are you interpreting the word "tend"?
Its hard to get a "count" of the guns that are out there, but I did find percentages of gun owners at this site: A Look at Gun Ownership by State Using those numbers with the death numbers from that other page gets you this:
That's a much better correlation than the gun law strength one. Your image might have a typo in the URL, but anyway, a strong correlation between gun prevalence and gun deaths is pretty much what I expected. So my solution to reducing gun deaths is to reduce gun prevalence.
What would you propose to address just this one tiny part of the gun problem, namely guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill. I don't know. How about reducing gun prevalence? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
Running away is not self-defense. Its retreating.
In the sense of preventing (further) bodily harm to yourself? It is a form of defence.Lesson 1 in any martial arts "self defence" class will tell you this. Okay, well that's not what you've been saying so far.
Okay, well you've not been reading my posts. My whole argument here has been about trying to ascertain whether you think someone deserves to die for, e.g. committing burglary, and whether or not you think the the general public are best equipped to act as judge, jury and executioner, and administer that punishment. Possession of a gun allows for a split second decision or reflex to result in the immediate death of someone. a fist or a frying pan? not so much.(or are you saying that a fist is as lethal as a gun?) Depends on where you are and what the local laws are.
Do YOU consider it to be self defence, do you consider it to be a reasonable course of action to safeguard your DVD player?
What you are doing is glancing over all of the most dangerous elements of a crime to strip it down to the least threatening description possible so that you can make the resulting action look as bad as possible. That's not an honest assessment, that's a biased smear ... If someone robs a store with a gun and the clerk shoots them, then they didn't get shot for just "burglary". They assaulted a person with a deadly weapon and that person defended themself.
What you are doing is assuming that every crime committed presents an immediate danger to the victim's life, and is only defensible by lethal force. You provided the original list of gun deaths, you tell me.If "Burglary" is listed as the reason for the shooting, I assume"Burglary" was the crime being commited. If "Assault" was listed as the reason for the shouting, I assume the crime being committed was "Assault". If I come downstairs and catch someone stealing my DVD player, is the correct/reasonable action to blow his brains out?because by arming....no...*sigh*.. allowing people to arm themselves with guns... you are allowing a situation where every startled victim of crime has the power to instantly without thought or reflection blow someone elses brains out. The list of gun deaths YOU provided shows this in action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Insulting your efforts? Even as a joke (you included a smiley) I have no idea what you're referring to. Stuff like this:
quote: I've now created three original charts for this thread.
Your image might have a typo in the URL Is this one better:
I could see the other one, even in your quote. But the other one was a .png and this one is a .jpg, could that matter?
How about reducing gun prevalence? How?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In the sense of preventing (further) bodily harm to yourself? It is a form of defence. Lesson 1 in any martial arts "self defence" class will tell you this. So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property. How can you defend your property by running away? Is running away the only form of "self-defense" that you can think of that does not have the capacity to be lethal?
Okay, well you've not been reading my posts. But I have, you're just not realizing the ramifications of what you are saying.
My whole argument here has been about trying to ascertain whether you think someone deserves to die for, e.g. committing burglary, For the fourth time now, I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime.
and whether or not you think the the general public are best equipped to act as judge, jury and executioner, and administer that punishment. Self-defense is not administering a punishment. And in a situation where you need to defend yourself, you are the only one there who can act as judge and jury.
Possession of a gun allows for a split second decision or reflex to result in the immediate death of someone. a fist or a frying pan? not so much. But you phrased your argument as being that the average person should not have the capacity for lethal force. The ramification of that is removing their right to self-defense.
Do YOU consider it to be self defence, do you consider it to be a reasonable course of action to safeguard your DVD player? Not enough info to decide.
What you are doing is assuming that every crime committed presents an immediate danger to the victim's life, and is only defensible by lethal force. No, just the crimes where the perpetrator has a deadly weapon.
You provided the original list of gun deaths, you tell me. If "Burglary" is listed as the reason for the shooting, I assume"Burglary" was the crime being commited. If "Assault" was listed as the reason for the shouting, I assume the crime being committed was "Assault". I didn't look at the details of each one, it was a large cut n paste. Which one are you referring to as the "burglary"?
If I come downstairs and catch someone stealing my DVD player, is the correct/reasonable action to blow his brains out? Each situation is different and they need to be judge on a case by case basis.
allowing people to arm themselves with guns... you are allowing a situation where every startled victim of crime has the power to instantly without thought or reflection blow someone elses brains out. Yes, people have a fundamental right to self-defense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property. Your property is not your self.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property.
Your property is not your self. In the context of self-defense, your property is an extension of your self.
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024