Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2701 of 5179 (732592)
07-08-2014 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2700 by Diomedes
07-08-2014 8:36 PM


Re: Chicago
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2700 by Diomedes, posted 07-08-2014 8:36 PM Diomedes has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(1)
Message 2702 of 5179 (732627)
07-09-2014 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2675 by New Cat's Eye
07-08-2014 10:24 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2675 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-08-2014 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2703 by jar, posted 07-09-2014 8:07 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 2707 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 9:42 AM Heathen has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2703 of 5179 (732634)
07-09-2014 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2702 by Heathen
07-09-2014 5:02 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2702 by Heathen, posted 07-09-2014 5:02 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2705 by Heathen, posted 07-09-2014 9:11 AM jar has not replied
 Message 2706 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2014 9:29 AM jar has replied
 Message 2726 by hooah212002, posted 07-09-2014 7:00 PM jar has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2704 of 5179 (732636)
07-09-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2688 by New Cat's Eye
07-08-2014 2:54 PM


Re: Chicago
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2688 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-08-2014 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2708 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 10:05 AM Percy has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 2705 of 5179 (732639)
07-09-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2703 by jar
07-09-2014 8:07 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2703 by jar, posted 07-09-2014 8:07 AM jar has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2706 of 5179 (732641)
07-09-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2703 by jar
07-09-2014 8:07 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2703 by jar, posted 07-09-2014 8:07 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2719 by jar, posted 07-09-2014 12:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2707 of 5179 (732642)
07-09-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2702 by Heathen
07-09-2014 5:02 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2702 by Heathen, posted 07-09-2014 5:02 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2711 by Heathen, posted 07-09-2014 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2708 of 5179 (732643)
07-09-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2704 by Percy
07-09-2014 8:27 AM


Re: Chicago
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:
percentage | state | deaths
0.517 Alabama 16.2
0.578 Alaska 20.4
0.311 Arizona 14.6
0.553 Arkansas 14.4
0.213 California 7.7
0.347 Colorado 10.8
0.167 Connecticut 5.9
0.255 Delaware 9.9
0.245 Florida 11.5
0.403 Georgia 12.6
0.067 Hawaii 3.2
0.553 Idaho 12.8
0.202 Illinois 8.2
0.391 Indiana 10.8
0.429 Iowa 6.8
0.421 Kansas 10.5
0.477 Kentucky 12.4
0.441 Louisiana 19.2
0.405 Maine 7.9
0.213 Maryland 9.3
0.126 Massachusetts 4.1
0.384 Michigan 11
0.417 Minnesota 6.8
0.553 Mississippi 16.1
0.417 Missouri 14
0.577 Montana 15.4
0.386 Nebraska 8.2
0.338 Nevada 14.5
0.3 NewHampshire 8.2
0.123 NewJersey 5.2
0.348 NewMexico 14.9
0.18 NewYork 5.1
0.413 NorthCarolina 11.6
0.507 NorthDakota 9.5
0.324 Ohio 9.9
0.429 Oklahoma 14.4
0.398 Oregon 11.4
0.347 Pennsylvania 10.1
0.128 Rhode 4.6
0.423 SouthCarolina 14
0.566 SouthDakota 9.2
0.439 Tennessee 14.4
0.359 Texas 11
0.439 Utah 12.2
0.42 Vermont 10.3
0.351 Virginia 10.8
0.331 Washington 8.9
0.554 West 14.1
0.444 Wisconsin 8.6
0.597 Wyoming 15.6
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2704 by Percy, posted 07-09-2014 8:27 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2710 by Percy, posted 07-09-2014 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2709 of 5179 (732644)
07-09-2014 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2700 by Diomedes
07-08-2014 8:36 PM


Re: Chicago
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:
We shouldn't be talking about gun control in the wake of this.
We should be talking about our mental healthcare program.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2700 by Diomedes, posted 07-08-2014 8:36 PM Diomedes has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2710 of 5179 (732645)
07-09-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2708 by New Cat's Eye
07-09-2014 10:05 AM


Re: Chicago
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2708 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 10:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2712 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 10:39 AM Percy has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(1)
Message 2711 of 5179 (732646)
07-09-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2707 by New Cat's Eye
07-09-2014 9:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2707 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 9:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2713 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 10:50 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 2716 by Diomedes, posted 07-09-2014 11:24 AM Heathen has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2712 of 5179 (732648)
07-09-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2710 by Percy
07-09-2014 10:21 AM


Re: Chicago
Insulting your efforts? Even as a joke (you included a smiley) I have no idea what you're referring to.
Stuff like this:
quote:
As someone earlier noted, you *are* taking the Faith approach. Denying the obvious with a straight face is a rhetorical device, not evidence in your favor.
...
He and Catholic Scientist are like a two-man "The Onion", but focused on gun issues. For many of their messages, nothing more need be said.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2710 by Percy, posted 07-09-2014 10:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2718 by Percy, posted 07-09-2014 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2713 of 5179 (732649)
07-09-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2711 by Heathen
07-09-2014 10:21 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2711 by Heathen, posted 07-09-2014 10:21 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2714 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2014 11:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 2758 by Heathen, posted 07-16-2014 2:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 2714 of 5179 (732650)
07-09-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2713 by New Cat's Eye
07-09-2014 10:50 AM


So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property.
Your property is not your self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2713 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 10:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2715 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2014 11:20 AM Coragyps has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2715 of 5179 (732651)
07-09-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2714 by Coragyps
07-09-2014 11:02 AM


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:
The early theories (on self-defense) make no distinction between defense of the person and defense of property. Whether consciously or not, this builds on the Roman Law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the pater familias — the male head of the household, sole owner of all property belonging to the household, and endowed by law with dominion over all his descendants through the male line no matter their age.
...
In the Two Treatises of Government, John Locke asserts the reason why an owner would give up their autonomy:
...the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
...
For modern theorists, the question of self-defense is one of moral authority within the nation to set the limits to obedience to the state and its laws given the pervasive dangers in a world full of weapons. In modern societies, states are increasingly delegating or privatizing their coercive powers to corporate providers of security services either to supplement or replace components within the power hierarchy. The fact that states no longer claim a monopoly to police within their borders, enhances the argument that individuals may exercise a right or privilege to use violence in their own defense. Indeed, modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right, and in all cases, with no exceptions, justifies all uses of violence stemming from this right, regardless whether in defense of the person or property. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The inclusion of defense of one's family and home recognizes the universal benefit claimed to stem from the family's peaceable possession of private property.
source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2714 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2014 11:02 AM Coragyps has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024