|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.
quote: Link Do you dispute these findings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Well according to the opinions presented here, in most part, I should live in the state with the highest homicide rate.
Why do the gun nuts always use strawman arguments?
The highest homicide rate in Canada is in Nunavut, 15/100,000. Is it the guns? No I think it's because the place is filled with Nunavut Indians and they think different than White Europeans.
Oh yeah of course the obligatory racism.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
mram10 writes: I will keep my guns to protect my family... The most likely use of a gun kept in a family setting is against a family member or friend. Owning a gun puts a family at greater, not lesser, risk. How would you reduce gun deaths in this country? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So a gun isn't necessary for self defence? Of course not. As I've said, you could use your fist.
So, you don't think a court should decide if a crime has been commited? You don't need a court to tell you that someone who has broken into your house has committed a crime.
You equate due process and the principal of innocent until proven guilty with taking away peoples right to defend themselves? Its the logical extension of your argument. When confronted with a burglar who didn't get killed when shot at, your response was: "what about the next guy? and the next?" So first off, you treat burglary as an acceptable inevitability. You're already condoning the crime at the expense of the victim. Then, when I ask you why you defend the criminals, you respond that they are only suspected of a crime. But since it is illegal to break into peoples' houses, if someone has broken into a house then we know, beyond suspicion, that they have committed a crime. So again you give the criminal the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the victim. Finally, you say that the criminal has a right to due process before the victim acts. Well, what about the victim's right to not have his house broken into? Where's their due process? Oh that's right, the criminal took that away from them when they broke into the house. The criminal waves his right to due process when he eliminates the same right from his victim. The victim has the right to defend themself before the criminal has the right to due process. If you want to allow that criminal the right to due process (after breaking into someone's house), then you have to remove the right of the victim to defend themself. How else could you do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If someone does enter your home you'd probably be better off in a place where guns are rare and burglars don't commonly carry them....
Why gun advocates think a prevalence of guns in such situations makes such situation anything but likely to be more deadly is mystifying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
It's the people who have guns. Some of them shouldn't.
IT IS NOT THE GUNS. IT IS THE PEOPLE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, the criminals who don't get killed will get bigger and better weapons and they will be more inclined to use them.
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, they will start to question their illegal and wicked ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
petrophysics1 writes:
How the world "should be" is pretty much what laws are for. And nobody's telling you not to think about guns.
Don't pass laws for everyone based on your ethnocentric viewpoint of how the world should be and how everyone should think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
C'mon CS - you know full well that people who oppose widespread gun ownership, don't do so out of any tolerance of criminal action. But that's the logical extension of some of the arguments. Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people. And Heathens response to someone breaking into a house is to wait for a judge and a jury because the guy who has just broken into the house is just a suspect and has the right to due process, despite the fact that home owner's rights have already been removed by the criminal. Too they gloss over the criminal action as inevitable but don't give the same tolerance to the inevitability of people trying to defend themselves.
In general, in a society, widespread gun ownership will lead to more violent deaths than are prevented in the circumstances I've just referred to. That's because of who is using the guns more. Most homicides from guns are in urban areas with high poverty and low education. Those factors impact the number of homicides more that just the presence of guns does.
defenders of widespread gun ownership For the record, I don't want there to be a wide spread of gun ownership. Way too many bad guys have guns. The problem is that people want to impose blanket laws that apply to everybody. Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals. I don't want my ability to have a gun limited so that only the criminals are going to have guns.
the concept of an absolute right to self defence. Nothing is more important. There really isn't anything that I care more about than my own life (I don't have a family).
But I feel that we should, in the pursuit of the sanctity of life, in the pursuit of a civilised society, and in the pursuit of a safe environment, seek to limit our right to self defence to the most reasonable extent we can. I think we should focus on the criminals and leave the victims alone. If you want to pursue the sanctity of life, a civilised society, and a safe environment, then you should fight crime, not go after the people who are defending themselves against it.
And advocating a society in which we allow every person to arm themselves to the teeth with lethal weapons, strikes me as advocating a very unreasonable restraint on self-defence. Spoken like a true subject But its funny that you see legal allowance as being actual arming. Arming yourself to the teeth is very expensive and allowing people to do it does not provide them the means to do so. And I see focusing on restraining self-defense instead of focusing on preventing the crimes as being way more unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. Since we know that correlation doesn't imply causation, I wonder how you'd feel about the article if they phrased it the other way:
quote: Would you still have used it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
You can control your own bullets; you are responsible for your own bullets. You can't control the criminal's bullets.
Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people. Catholic Scientist writes:
But it isn't black-and-white. There's a whole spectrum of gray in between "law-abiding' and "criminal".
Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But that's the logical extension of some of the arguments.
No. That is a strawman.Not at all a logical extension. It is in fact an illogical extension. Edited by Theodoric, : PunctuationFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You got any evidence for that assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Do you have an argument or is this the best you got?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Does this mean you have stopped denying that there is correlation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024