So the question is whether you think Jesus advocated facing real threats completely unarmed, including facing threats against your family?
Years ago I had an internet discussion with an American about guns. He had visited Vancouver and he said he was glad he was carrying a gun. I pointed out to him that millions of Canadians walk those same streets every day completely unarmed.
What do you think would happen if a medium sized town made it so every home owner had a gun?
Do you think deaths from guns would go up?
Yes.
Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?
If you mean gun injuries and deaths committed during a crime, yes, they would increase.
If gun deaths did not go up, and violent crime rates did go down, would you consider that as making everyone "safer"?
It seems axiomatic that a reduction in gun injury and death would be equivalent to increased safety. I think government at all levels should embrace policies that reduce gun injury and death, thereby increasing safety.
Your questions reflect your attitude, that increased gun prevalence correlates with increased safety. It doesn't. It makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns, and it makes incidents like this more common: 6-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills father in Bartholomew County. According to this news report, "He put his gun down for just a minute, and that's all it took."
Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?
If you mean gun injuries and deaths committed during a crime, yes, they would increase.
No, I mean generic violent crimes like Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery.
It seems axiomatic that a reduction in gun injury and death would be equivalent to increased safety.
Do you consider a decrease in Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery, even when no gun was used in any of those crimes, to be an increase in safety?
Or do you only consider it an increase in safety when the reduction in crimes is only for crimes where a gun is used?
I think government at all levels should embrace policies that reduce gun injury and death, thereby increasing safety.
I'm asking about policies that reduce non-gun injury and death, do you also consider those to be an increase in safety?
Or do you only count it as an increase in safety when the number of crimes commit with a gun decrease? Do you omit non-gun crimes from your consideration of safety?
At a Boy Scout meeting with a gun safety lecture, the police officer giving the talk was discussing the different kinds of shotgun - double barrel, semi-auto & pump.
When he got to the pump action he told the scouts that the easiest way to talk a suspect into surrendering during a standoff is to work the action within their hearing.
When he got to the pump action he told the scouts that the easiest way to talk a suspect into surrendering during a standoff is to work the action within their hearing.
The easy way tends to work well in movies and TV shows - which is where most Americans get their ideas about guns.
Is this an anecdote from personal experience or something you heard? I wonder how his department would feel about him making such a statement to Boy Scouts. Such cowboy attitudes about guns are part of the problem.
It is a chilling sound when you know what it is.
As I gun owner I do not find the sound chilling at all. I wonder in what situations would a bad guy with a gun hear the sound and be affected by it. Your hypothetical standoff story sounds ridiculous.
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.
Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?
If you mean gun injuries and deaths committed during a crime, yes, they would increase.
No, I mean generic violent crimes like Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery.
So you're hypothetical question is this: If a town made it so that every homeowner had a gun, would it have an impact on crimes like aggravated assault, murder & manslaughter, forcible rape and robbery?
There's no need for this question or the ones that follow. I already understand your argument that an increase in gun injury and deaths would be balanced by a general decrease in crime. You haven't presented any evidence to support this.
There's no need for this question or the ones that follow. I already understand your argument that an increase in gun injury and deaths would be balanced by a general decrease in crime. You haven't presented any evidence to support this.
The argument would also mean that in a medium sized town in a roughly equivalent country, which does not have widespread gun ownership, the rates of such crimes would be significantly higher than they are in the States. And yet, they aren't. Funny, that.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Years ago I had an internet discussion with an American about guns. He had visited Vancouver and he said he was glad he was carrying a gun. I pointed out to him that millions of Canadians walk those same streets every day completely unarmed.
Okay, and? Thousands of people walk in the wilds of North America with guns, and thousands of other don't. I think one has to weigh the utility of having a gun in certain places versus not having a gun. There are places where having a gun is more of a liability than it is a defense, and others where it offers more of a defense than it does a liability.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
There are places where having a gun is more of a liability than it is a defense, and others where it offers more of a defense than it does a liability.
Back in Message 1113 Cat Sci said, "Don't bring a gun to a facility where you know that alcohol is going to be consumed." With a fair proportion of shootings involving alcohol it seemed odd to me that he would say that, though I didn't comment at the time. Whether or not you agree with Cat Sci's statement, are there really any places where gun violence hasn't occurred? Daycare facilities, schools, homes, cars, stores, workplaces, churches, parties, meetings, sports events, hiking trails, bicycle paths, courtrooms, etc. If the gun is needed for self-defense because one might be confronted by someone with a gun, and if one might be confronted by someone with a gun literally anywhere, then why would there be any place where the gun shouldn't be carried?
Proponents of widespread gun ownership for self-defense are encouraging people who do not possess the necessary qualities to arm themselves with a deadly object that is more a danger to themselves and those around them than to any potential threat. Almost everyone drives, but how many don't belong on the road? A lot, right? If you gave everyone guns, most would not be able to attain and maintain the competency and life style changes necessary to safely own one, let alone carry it.
So it's bullet caliber and velocity together that makes ammunition dangerous. The larger the caliber and the higher the velocity, the more dangerous a bullet is. I believe bullet shape makes a difference, too. And there are bullets that are designed to fragment inside the body to cause more widespread damage, as in this video:
If this bullet hits you anywhere, you'll either lose a limb or die.
When it comes to ammunition, gun control efforts have focused on magazine size. Shouldn't gun caliber and ammunition type also be regulated? How about limiting guns and bullets for self-defense to standard .22?
So you're hypothetical question is this: If a town made it so that every homeowner had a gun, would it have an impact on crimes like aggravated assault, murder & manslaughter, forcible rape and robbery?
There's no need for this question or the ones that follow. I already understand your argument that an increase in gun injury and deaths would be balanced by a general decrease in crime. You haven't presented any evidence to support this.
Kennesaw, GA, passed a law in 1982 that requires heads of households to have a firearm and ammunition (with exceptions):
quote:Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms. (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony. (Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
It isn't strictly enforced like doing door-to-door gun checks, or anything, but the rate of gun ownership is higher than average being estimated at 50% by the police Lieutenant.
The amount of violent crime in Kennesaw is very low compared to the state and nation:
I can find no evidence of an increase in gun injury and deaths.
Don't you consider Kennesaw to be safer despite all the guns that they have?
Do you think the presence of guns has had any impact on the low rates of violent crime? (don't forget that in your gun arguments, correlation does mean causation )
Why hasn't the town seen an increase in gun injury and death result from the high amount of guns that it has, given your claim that increasing the number of guns can only lead to an increase in gun injury and death?
Given that violent crime is low, and there is no increase in gun injury and death to be balanced, can you agree that it is possible to have a lot of guns in town and it actually benefit them?
There are places where having a gun is more of a liability than it is a defense, and others where it offers more of a defense than it does a liability.
You're almost always safer without a gun than with one. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
Yea, but all those defensive weapons sound to gay for the hardcore right-wing nut, not to mention the NRA that wont be happy until everyone can have their own personal nuke.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
Here's a chart of violent crime for the town of Westford, MA, roughly as far from Boston as Kennesaw is from Atlanta and only a little smaller in population (from Westford Crime Rate Report (Massachusetts)):
Violent crime is low just like in Kennesaw, and I imagine that since this is Massachusetts that gun ownership would be pretty low, too. Comparisons with national data doesn't support your position. You need data from before and after 1982 when the Kennesaw gun ordinance was passed to see if had any effect on gun prevalence and violent crime.
There are plenty of towns across the US with low violent crime rates, but looking at individual towns is not statistically significant. Go find as many outliers as you like, it won't prove anything. Violent crime should increase with increased gun prevalence because it will become easier for criminals to acquire guns, and gun injuries and death should just increase in general, but gun prevalence is only one of many factors, such as social and economic factors. Statistical analysis across a broad dataset is required to reach meaningful conclusions about individual factors.
)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
