Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Hi Rahvin, for the record I don't own a gun and see no need to. I have had several things stolen from me, and in each case having a gun would not have prevented it, as they occurred in my absence. Back in the 70's, living in Toronto, you could walk downtown single, female, elderly, etc, etc, after dark and not fear being mugged.I was involved in a noise pollution study, and out of curiosity we tried to correlate urban noise levels with violent crime, including rapes, mugging, etc. filtering the statistics to show the same kinds of crimes in the urban areas in the US and in Canada, and places where we could find data on noise levels in the various cities.We found a straight line correlation in both the US and in Canada, but the slopes were significantly different: Canada was much flatter than the US for the same noise levels.Interestingly, what this means is that for every noise level in the study, the rate of violent crime was higher in the US than in Canada.Obviously, other factors are involved, but one that does stand out is the difference in gun control: you can't carry a gun in Canada, and if you get caught doing a crime with a gun the penalties are significantly higher (as they are in Britain, btw).Gun ownership just means that both sides can have guns and shoot each other, while strict gun control means that both sides cannot have guns.Next of course is the tautological statement of the IRA propagandists - that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Myself, I trust the legal system and the police to deal with the people with guns, because I prefer to live in a civilization that has outgrown the "eye-for-an-eye" and "preemptive strike" mentality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi xongsmith, Curiously, a study of capuchin monkeys:
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says

quote:

---

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

​

The question of whether human aversion to unfair treatment”now shown by other primates”is an evolved behavior or the result of the cultural influence of large social institutions like religion, governments, and schools, in the case of humans, has intrigued scientists in recent years.

​

The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.

​

"It looks like this behavior is evolved . it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

---

Note that John Forbes Nash won a Nobel prize in economics for solving a part of the cooperation question:John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia
Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Nash equilibrium has been used to analyze hostile situations like war and arms races[1] (see Prisoner's dilemma), and also how conflict may be mitigated by repeated interaction (see Tit-for-tat). It has also been used to study to what extent people with different preferences can cooperate (see Battle of the sexes), and whether they will take risks to achieve a cooperative outcome (see Stag hunt). It has been used to study the adoption of technical standards, and also the occurrence of bank runs and currency crises (see Coordination game). Other applications include traffic flow (see Wardrop's principle), how to organize auctions (see Auction theory), and even penalty kicks in soccer (see Matching pennies).[2]

---

Tit for tat - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Each tit-for-tat agent scores a total of 28 points, over the six matches. Each defector scores only 26 points.

​

Despite the fact that the tit-for-tat agents never won a match and the defectors never lost a match, the tit-for-tat strategy still came out ahead, because the final score is not determined by the number of match wins, but the total points score. Simply put, the tit-for-tat agents gained more points tying with each other than they lost to the defectors.

​

The more tit-for-tat agents that there are in the described game, the more advantageous it is to use the tit-for-tat strategy.

---

It is not surprising to me that evolution has tested all the various options for "winning" the game/s of social interaction/s, and thus ending up with the optimum solution - because it has an increased survival advantage for the population.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : quote not qs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Legend, Curiously, your opinion on the matter is incapable of changing the facts.The proportion of criminals who carry guns in Canada and in the UK is much lower than the US - not because of gun control, but because of legislation that makes it a more serious offense when conducted with an outlawed weapon, and because of a cultural bias in America for Cowboy Vigilante Justice in the Great American Way, still living in the 1800's mentality. Crime in England and Wales 2007/08

quote:

---

• Gun crime makes up a small proportion of all violent crime: 1% of violent incidents in 2006/07 used firearms, according to the British Crime Survey, and the proportion of murders involving firearms (i.e. shootings) has remained at or below 12% since 1998/99.

---

Given that the chance of having a violent crime is low, and that of those violent crimes only 1% involve guns, it seems highly ridiculous to play "cowboy vigilante" and run around with guns -- in a civilized country like the UK.My personal recollection from the previous study was that Canada was similar to the UK, but I haven't found comparable statistics to verify that, however we can do some basic comparisons. What I did find was this:Page not found – City of Toronto

quote:

---

• In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10
• The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.

---

More harm than good: Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Below we have assaults, murders and murders with firearms per capita with the US, Canada and the UK extracted: Crime Statistics > Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

# 6 United States:      7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom:     7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 	        7.11834 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable. Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

# 24 United States:  	0.042802  per 1,000 people
# 44 Canada:  	        0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom:  	0.0140633 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

So there is a cultural bias to murder in the US compared to Canada and the UK that is out of proportion with the assault per capita above. In other words in the US assaults are more likely to result in murder.
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

---

#  8 United States:  	0.0279271  per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada:  	        0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom:  	0.00102579 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

---

And there is a higher cultural bias to murder with guns in the US than in Canada or the UK.The source of information for each of these sets of statistics is the same, so there is no question of not having comparable information. From these results we can compare assaults, murders and murders with guns in these countries:

• Number of assaults about the same in each country.
• Number of murders about 3 times higher in the US than in Canada and the UK.
• Number of murders by firearms about 5.5 times higher in the US than in Canada, and about 28 times higher in the US than in the UK.
• Proportion of murders committed with guns is 65% in the US, 34% in Canada and 7.3% in the UK.

Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Like I've said -- I have had three occasions where things have been stolen from me. The problem for you is that I would not have been able to use a gun if I had one: I wasn't there, so gun ownership would not have prevented those crimes.The problem is not the "meth-addicted juvenile" about to steal things to feed his habit - it is that the juvenile has become a meth-addict, and having guns or not having guns will not solve that problem. What it does is give gun owners a panacea to pat themselves over the head about being a good citizen able to render justice in the Great American Way rather than deal with the actual problem.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Because it is "popular" therefore it is "right"? sorry that is the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Just because Schrubbia was able to lie his way into his little private Armageddon war of choice does not mean it was right. The price paid by Iraqii civilians is still not justified, even now that we know there was no imminent threat and that the "WMD" were all lies from the administration. All that the massive application of firepower has accomplished is vast wholesale murders of innocent civilian, and even still the problems are not resolved - and will not be resolved at the point of a gun.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. And yet the US warmongers had a very hard time assembling the "coalition of the coerced" and find anyone willing to go along with their preemptive strike on the insubstantial (and that falsified) evidence, so yes - civilization has by and large outgrown it. Other nations have come to realize that ...... Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : last stat comparison addedEdited by RAZD, : symbols corrected

---

Hi Legend, had to haul out the tired old mantra eh? And is still so low that it is insignificant. Curiously, that is not what I said at all.Look again at the statistics, from Message 57: Let's subtract (3) from (2) just for curiousity:
(4) Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country - without firearms

#  United States: 0.0148749 per 1,000 people
#  Canada: 0.00987658 per 1,000 people
#  United Kingdom: 0.01303751 per 1,000 people

Almost the same numbers for the US and the UK and a little less for Canada.The extra murders in the US seem to all be due to the availability and lax controls on guns, when the data is filtered to remove other trends. This is also why the number of assaults being virtually the same for the three cultures is important: without the guns the numbers are the same. But you have talked about shooting an intruder in your house - that is playing judge, prosecutor and jury in the best cowboy vigilante mode. Why, simple: guns make it easier to be violent and to cause violent situations to escalate into more violence. Curiously, one of the times involved burglaries in the neighborhood where several houses were entered, several of which were owned by gun people. One of the things stolen was guns. Which brings us back to Toronto and Ontario:

quote:

---

• In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm injuries - in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone - than with intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the firearm itself.10
• The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will result in serious injury or death.

---

That's some enduring peace of mind when a gun goes off and accidentally kills or maims a kid. The evidence shows that innocent people are more likely to be hurt or killed than the few armed intruders who happen to intersect with owners.Regardless, it appears you have made up your mind, your arguments are mostly emotional appeals, in spite of evidence to the contrary.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi DBlevins, thanks for taking the torch up ... One thing that won't show up in the statistics comparing one country with gun control versus a country without, is the fact that when a suspicious person is picked up by the police:(1) in a country where guns are not permitted they could be picked up and incarcerated for possession of an illegal weapon(2) in a country were guns are allowed, they get away with a talking ... before proceeding.BEFORE a crime is committed. Criminals in England and Canada know this, hence their greater reluctance to carry guns.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Coyote, thanks for your emotional response. Having done a lot of backpacking into remote mountain country with existing large predators, bears and mountain lions, and I still see little need for me personally to carry a gun.Having lived in rural america, as well as urban america, I still see little need for me personally to carry a gun. Do you need concealable handguns in the country? Machine guns? My uncle Walt changed from hunting deer with guns to hunting with bow and arrow, (1) because it was more of a challenge, and (2) because the number of people with guns made it unsafe. And curiously, I still see no reason presented for why I should carry a gun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Bluejay, thanks. No, the question I posed was why should I carry a gun or have one in the house. Interestingly, it would harm no-one, and it would save lives, many of them young. This is why we do have laws about drunkenness and driving while drunk, to control irresponsible behavior. Ah, so the issue is responsibility now. Is it responsible to have concealed weapons and machine guns carried, where the intent is to shoot other people if they offend your sense of correctness?What do you do about the irresponsible people with guns? Or do you think that, just because people can have a gun, they are necessarily going to be responsible with them? Do you think all people are responsible with alcohol?Curiously, I find it responsible to not carry\have a gun, as there is no reason that I can see for needing one. That does seem to be what the evidence in fact shows, isn't it? Fascinatingly, it also appears to be irresponsible behavior on the part of the gun user that causes these fatalities.And I still see no reason provided for why I should carry\have a gun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Bluejay, This is a debate forum, where arguments are supposed to be supported by evidence and logical deductions. Curiously the status quo is not a reason, it is just what happens to be the status quo. I lived in Canada for over 20 years, and interestingly the status quo there is different. As it is in England, Australia, etc. Thus the status quo is not a reason to carry\have guns. Which would be an argument if hunting were still a necessary part of living. So far I have lived my 62 years without having had to hunt for food, and don't see that changing in the near future. The need to have a gun for this purpose is thus very limited if it exists at all. As noted previously I had an uncle that hunted, but he switched to bow hunting due to the danger from gun hunters. He also found it more of a challenge, so if the argument is for sport (game) hunting, then bow hunting would seem to be equally if not more valid. As I say, I've been in wilderness areas with wild predators. One time I worked my way around a large salmonberry bush eating nice big juicy berries, and when I got back to where I started there was a large fresh steaming pile of bear-berry excrement, at which point I proceeded back down the path I had arrived by, being sure to make noise as I did so. The berries were delicious. Have I? Or are you reading more into my words than exists. Message 166

quote:

---

We see cognitive dissonance on a lot of threads, usually with YEC types trying to deal with the evidence of reality.

​

I see the same process occurring on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control on the issue of gun control.

​

This is obviously an emotional issue for many people, but I have yet to see a rational reason to have a gun presented.

​

I find it interesting to observe the process of cognitive dissonance in action (again).

---

This is just an observation that the arguments provided for keeping guns have not been based on the evidence, but on an emotional response is spite of evidence to the contrary. The argument from consequences is used: it's a logical fallacy unless it can be supported with evidence. Ignoring the contrary evidence is cognitive dissonance.Selecting only evidence that seems to support gun use while ignoring the contrary evidence or the fact that there are other factors involved in the chosen evidence is confirmation bias. Gun violence is increasing in England - so is the proportion of the population living in poverty, so is the proportion of immigrants escaping from violent cultures - and it is increasing from micro-miniscule to still micro-miniscule in comparison to the US. Message 143
No, it was about the lack of a logical reason to have\carry a gun, versus the evidence that shows that more harm seems to come from allowing free access to guns. As pointed out, alcohol is regulated, as is the use of vehicles. Message 144
So is there a context where my neighbor could enjoy the right to bear arms by driving an Abrams tank down main street while drinking beer?Or are there valid reasons for restricting the use of some forms of weapons?I don't need to have weapons to resist an invasion by a foreign army, because - as a developed and civilized society - we have people hired\assigned\volunteered and trained for that task.I don't need to have weapons to round up bank robbers and bandits, because - as a developed and civilized society - we have people hired\assigned\volunteered and trained for that task.I don't need to have weapons to protect my home and possessions from burglers, because - as a developed and civilized society - the people we have hired\assigned\volunteered and trained to protect our country and to provide a safe environment for the citizens, are doing an outstanding job to minimize the need for that, to the point that the risk is actually quite minuscule.As a consequence, I see no reason given yet, for why I should consider having\carrying a gun. So we agree that some degree of regulation is responsible behavior for an advance and civilized society, and the only quibble is about how much regulation to have and where to enforce it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks for your input. It's not so much that I don't want one, as that the "pro-access" argument is significantly absent of a logical reason to have one. The main argument presented so far fails to match the evidence. Out of curiosity: who are you defending your home from? China? Indians? Roving bands of bandits? Should your neighbor be able to have an abrams tank and do target practice in his backyard? A grenade launcher? Machine gun? Does that qualify under the right to bear arms? Just because someone wants them is that a reason?Do you think militias like the Michigan Miitia are good and responsible behavior?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi onifre, It's not that clear cut, actually.United States open-container laws - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In the United States, open container laws prohibit possessing and/or drinking from an open container of alcohol in certain areas. These laws concern open containers in public and/or in vehicles. They are controlled by the state law, rather than federal law, and vary from state to state.

​

There are a few public places in the United States, however, where open containers are always permitted in the street:

​

Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in compliance.[8] Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming have similar limits on the possession of open containers in vehicles, but not to the level of TEA-21 compliance.

​

As of November, 2007, only one state (Mississippi) allows drivers to consume alcohol while driving (as long as the driver stays below the 0.08% blood alcohol content limit for drunk driving), and only eight states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) allow passengers to consume alcohol while the vehicle is in motion. Still, local laws in these states may limit open containers in vehicles, although those local laws do not impact the state's compliance or noncompliance with TEA-21.

---

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted June 9, 1998, as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorized the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. Because Congress could not agree on funding levels the Act, which had continued past 2003 by means of temporary extensions, was allowed to lapse.

---

So that leaves a LOT of latitude on drinking and driving in some states. I remember passing through Nevada and seeing a beer drinking truck driver hauling three full size trailers ... Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Thanks for another appeal to emotion fallacy, Legend. So you are now advocating that students in college should be able to carry\have guns? Is high school next?Conversely, I'll bet that the survivors, and the relatives of those killed, had, and continue to have, more concern about how Seung-Hui Cho was able to get guns to carry:Virginia Tech shooting - Wikipedia

quote:

---

... The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others[1] before committing suicide. ...

​

Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school and continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[3] At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.

​

The attacks received international media coverage and drew criticism of U.S. laws and culture from commentators around the world.[4] It sparked intense debate about gun violence, gun laws, gaps in the U.S. system for treating mental health issues, the perpetrator's state of mind, the responsibility of college administrations,[5] privacy laws, journalism ethics, and other issues. Television news organizations that aired portions of the killer's multimedia manifesto were criticized by victims' families, Virginia law enforcement officials, and the American Psychiatric Association.[6][7]

​

The massacre prompted rapid changes in Virginia law that had allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years, a law that strengthened the NICS, which was signed by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2008.[8]

---

Looks like you picked another good reason for more gun control, not a reason for me, personally, to carry a gun - even though I went to school (briefly) at VTI.We also have the reports from various organizations following Columbine on similar situations:Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In May 2002, the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 U.S. school shootings. They had the following findings:

• Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.
• Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.
• Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
• There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
• Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
• Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.
• Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.
• Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
• In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.
• Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.[45]

[45] ^ Vossekuil, B; Fein R, Reddy M, Borum R, Modzeleski W (PDF). The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service. Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2008-08-24.

---

You can look through other school killings (and injuries) here:
List of school-related attacks - WikipediaYou will note that this list includes all similar killings around the world, and yet the US figures as a predominant recurring theme.Additionally, in the broad scheme of things, the number of people killed by Cho - and other similar killers - is still less than the numbers of people killed accidentally by guns every year, a number that would logically increase in proportion with any increase in the number of people that have\carry guns, while relaxing gun laws would not prevent more Cho style killings.Accidental Gun Deaths Last Five Years of Record

quote:

---

The number of fatal firearms accidents for the last five years of record are:
2002 - 762;
2003 - 730;
2004 - 649;
2005 - 630;
2006 - 680.

---

国产欧美性爱视频_日本精品高清一区二区_97亚洲国产一区二区_日本护士做xxxxxhd

quote:

---

According to U.S. government figures, the majority of gun deaths that occur in this country are caused by homicide and suicide. For example: In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348. During that same time period, 802 individuals died due to accidental gun related deaths. Half the victims involved were children (individuals under 18 years of age).

---

Darn, there's those "maimed children" again eh? Is it an emotional appeal when the numbers tell you that half the victims of accidental deaths were children?Meanwhile we continue to see statistics that show more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns:Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/

quote:

---

FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a decision that, if upheld, could dismantle strong gun controls that have contributed to Hawaii's low number of deaths by firearms.

​

An analysis by the Violence Policy Center of 2005 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Hawaii is lowest in both household gun ownership -- 9.7 percent -- and gun deaths per 100,000 -- 2.2. The national per capita gun death rate was 10.3 per 100,000.

​

The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.

---

It still looks to me like the statistics support gun controls, rather than any personal benefit to having\carrying a gun.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added other school link

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Legend, equivocating now? Curiously, I call that advocating that students should be able to carry\have guns.Interestingly, the fact that an unstable student was able to purchase guns with ease, with no background check, does indeed indicate to me that there needs to be more stringent gun controls so that other unstable people don't cause the same kinds of problems. If you don't see this as reasonable social precautions, then you are essentially advocating guns being freely available to anyone, including any other unstable people. Quite so: this is why guns don't solve problems, and having more guns won't solve the problem. Other students with guns would not eliminate the numbers of students killed with guns. Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.Consider a scenario where the professors were intentionally armed and trained to deal with this kind of situation, and one of them managed to shoot Cho without hitting any students and before he killed more than a couple of students: this may have saved lives in that one instance, but it doesn't stop the problem from recurring, nor does it make an argument for people to have\carry guns as a general rule.People solve problems by taking care of these "fundamentally wrong" elements in society, rather than pretending that having guns freely available to everyone would improve things so they don't have to bother about the "fundamentally wrong" elements.Fascinatingly, though, the statistic I quoted involved accidental deaths of people in the US, of which 1/2 are children: these are not deaths due to "fundamentally wrong" elements in society, they are deaths due to improper use and easy access to guns.The point being that the number of children killed accidentally by guns was far greater in number than the number of children killed in schools die to lax gun controls. Having more guns available would increase the number of accidental deaths AND make it more likely that someone like Cho would have easy access to guns. Overall there would be more childhood deaths. Gun violence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

% homicides      Firearm homicide
Country          with firearms    rate per 100,000 pop.
England & Wales         8           0.12
Australia              16           0.31
Ireland                24           0.32
Canada                 34           0.54
Switzerland            37           0.56
United States          65           2.97

---

Data on Israel not included (possibly due to the problem of sorting out the data from the effects of their ongoing war/s), but it looks like your information is not entirely correct. In addition:Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]

​

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

---

Much more regulated than in the US. Therefore the logical conclusion is that much more regulation is recommended, if you want to follow the Switzerland model. In addition:Crime in Switzerland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Convictions for infliction of bodily harm have steadily increased throughout the 1990s and 2000s, with 23 convictions for serious injury and 831 for light injury in 1990 as opposed to 78 and 2,342, respectively, in 2005.

---

Having guns freely available does not seem to be holding the increase in assaults causing bodily harm at bay - which fascinatingly has been one of your arguments against strict gun controls, hasn't it?Firearms in Israel

quote:

---

Nearly everyone interested in the preservation of the Second Amendment in America points to Israel as proof of how ordinary citizens, armed and trained, are a deterrent to crime and terrorism. And it's true! However,a quick glance at the rigid gun laws in Israel will show that it has far stricter firearms laws than many people, including myself, previously thought.

---

Even stricter gun controls than in Switzerland. Israel also has a much higher incidence of terrorist attacks than the US, being in a state of war, which results in many more deaths than are normal in a civilized state. Part of their problem is the failure to deal with people, marginalizing them, rather than solving the problems. Certainly the Israel approach has failed to solve the problems there for some 50+ years -- perhaps because the idea of solving social problems with guns just doesn't work.Overall it still looks like strict gun controls - and solving problems that otherwise result in gun violence - are still a better idea for a civilized society. Once again demonstrating that an armed citizenry is not a solution to the problem/s, but an excuse to fail to deal with the problem/s.Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Because guns don't solve problems, having more of them available will not solve anything, while the statistics show that having increased availability of guns does result in higher deaths due to accidents than are currently due to psycho-killers and robbers using guns.Solve the problem of the psycho-killers, drugs, gangs, and the social inequalities, and all the arguments you have advanced for people needing to carry a gun evaporate like a bad dream.In the interim, the number of people having\carrying guns kill more people than are ostensibly protected (even themselves), according to the statistics, so it looks to me like we are well on the road to a civilized society where having\carrying guns is just not a necessary thing.As such, I see no rational reason for me personally to carry\have a gun.Meanwhile, I do think that law abiding citizens do need to be protected from people like this:Savannah Morning News

quote:

---

Kelly Obrien-Dickey, 42, told detectives she pulled the handgun on Ramon Ortiz, 37, at Broughton and Price streets about 10 a.m. because he matched the description of a Middle Eastern terrorist, a preliminary report stated.

​

Ortiz told officers he had simply asked Obrien-Dickey for directions to the Inner City Night Shelter, prompting her to curse him in Spanish, brandish the Colt .45 gun, and order him to the ground, according to the report.

​

Obrien-Dickey also demanded Ortiz take off his backpack and shoes, then struck him in the face and kicked him, police reported.

​

She later said that she believed he was on a mission.

​

Obrien-Dickey was taken to the Chatham County jail on a felony charge of aggravated assault, and Ortiz was given a ride to the Inner City Night Shelter on Arnold Street.

---

How's that for the cowboy vigilante justice mentality in action?Looks like people with guns don't solve problems either.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : example addedEdited by RAZD, : word Edited by RAZD, : end

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Michamus, I've been better and I've been worse, thanks for asking. I hope you are well and keeping safe.Let me pull a few of your comments together: That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? We both agree that there are people who should NOT be allowed to possess the power of life and death by firearms, and the question is how do we establish this in an equitable way.Studies show that the part of the brain associated with making decisions involving consequences don't fully form until early 20's in most people, never for some people that qualify as psychopaths:

quote:

---

Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior.[3][4]...
The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes.[11][12][13]

---

So if I were to advocate some basic gun controls, completely ignoring (for now) the issues of existing laws, enforcement problems and constitutional rights, I would start with an age limit, and criminal background check (with fingerprints) and a psychological evaluation. The decision cannot be made by the person, as a psychopath or an idiot (your friend with the shotgun) is incapable of seeing that they are not qualified (just as incompetent people are incompetent at determining that they are incompetent). The criminal background check should include reference to drunken and abusive behavior, not convictions for things like traffic violations. It is a basic problem of societies that half of the population is less competent at any single task than the other half, and are unable to recognize it. The social problem is defining\setting the level/s of competence that best suits society as a whole for things with major consequences.No offense intended, but I find it interesting that militaries seem to like to recruit people under this age limit, perhaps because they are easier to train to kill other people as a result. On the other hand, I also find people with military training (and especially those that have experienced actual combat) to be much less cavalier about the idea of shooting someone for some imagined infraction, such as the lady with the gun.The argument that Legend provided for Switzerland and Israel also does not address the fact that almost all of these people received proper training through the military on the use and misuse of such weapons, as well as a very restrictive licensing program.So I would also include a good training program, which could involve the use of a gun club to provide opportunities to learn how to use, handle, store and care for a gun in a safe manner, and where the prospective gun owner demonstrates ability, care, and responsibility. Kind of like driver's education and the driver's exam.As a society we see the need for driver training (particularly for young people), testing, and periodic checks to ensure that the drivers on the road know, and are able, to behave in a safe manner. This also includes the loss of a license for inappropriate (drunken, repeated violations, etc) behavior or for those who are no longer able to drive in a safe manner.Driving a vehicle has the potential of causing severe bodily harm, but it is not something intended for causing severe bodily harm to people. Designed with the purpose of causing severe bodily harm to those on the other end of the gun, and with a potential for deadly results in the wrong hands, just as cars, and even hammers, can be deadly in the wrong (which includes careless) hands.But the psychological check is the best idea I can see at this time, with the potential to separate the Cho/s from the average chump/s that want a gun. Agreed, he fell through the cracks in the social network, in spite of many warning signs. Part of the problem is that psychological disorders are frequently ignored and stigmatized, thus interfering with treatment. In a more perfect society those signs would have been recognized and Cho could have been treated to relieve the condition/s that drove him, and in such a society gun controls would not be necessary, as he would not have "needed" to buy guns or any other weapons of distruction. So it's kind of a Catch-22 situation: people who have a "need" to carry\have a gun may not be able to pass the psych-eval, and those able to pass the psych-eval may not "need" to carry\have a gun.Likewise solving the problem of poverty and crime will cause Legend's "need" to protect his property evaporate.In this regard, the best gun control would be solving the social problems that lead to improper use of guns, which is why I say that guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. Of course, but the solution is not spreading more guns around, it is dealing with the problems face-on and trying to solve them for the benefit of all. And when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.I actually think that we, here in the US, in Canada, in England, and other civilized societies - societies not directly involved in war/s on home turf - are well on the way to reaching this ideal state at a practical level, a level that makes the occurrences of incidents like Cho and Columbine very rare and unusual, and where the level of damage they cause is very small compared to the numbers of deaths due to accidents.As a result, I personally see no need to have\carry a gun in my neck of the woods. I have seen no argument on this thread that would persuade me otherwise. I also expect that soldiers returning from war-zones will be happy to put their guns away, and be able to enjoy the well earned freedom to walk down a street unarmed. Certainly, when you get to go home to stay, I hope that this is something that you will ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi again Legend, my internet was down for two days, or I would have replied earlier. It should be obvious, that if you think the students would have been better off if they had carried guns, and that you have continued talking about how they would have been better off if they had carried guns, or of how many lives would have (theoretically) been saved if they had carried guns, that you are clearly advocating that it would have been better if they had been allowed to carry guns. Except that I don't have an anti-gun zeal: I just see no need to have\carry a gun, and I don't find a single one of your arguments to be persuasive in that regard. In other words, you want to be able to engage in cowboy vigilante justice, just as I originally pointed out, just like the woman did. Again, this is something that should be obvious to anyone with a responsible attitude towards the use of guns: she was not capable of making a proper evaluation of the situation, but someone who instead operated on their fears and their biases, not rational behavior. No, you presented me with a hypothetical situation, which simply is not persuasive, (a) given the extremely small chances of actually having gun in hand in a situation where it would actually be useful, and (b) given that the probability is less than my chances of accidental injury or being assaulted with my own gun, as the statistics say, while (c) not guaranteeing that my actually having gun in hand in a situation where it would be useful, would necessarily result in my continued health and happiness: having A gun does not guarantee having superior fire-power nor ability.The possibility of such an occurrence also pales to insignificance compared to other dangers of accidental death that I face every day from driving or bicycle riding, or the danger of being killed by a disease, like cancer.I'm 62 years old, and in 62 years of living, I have not encountered a single incident where having\carrying a gun would have made a difference, nor do I know of anybody who has. Interestingly, I have lived in many places, from Maine to British Columbia and from Ontario to Mississippi, and many places in between. I've been to most Canadian Provinces, all but 4 states, parts of Mexico, France, England, Russia and some other countries as well - obviously not hiding from society at large. I have traveled simply, and I have always found people friendly and helpful, perhaps because I expect people to be friendly and helpful, rather than people intent on doing me harm. Perhaps because I live simply, without need of a "Plasma TV" and other "conspicuous consumption" items.

• "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone."
• "With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor. The ancient philosophers, Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek, were a class than which none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward."

- Henry David Thoreau, an enlightened individual, in my humble opinion. Curiously, treating the symptoms has never solved a single problem. Really? You have actual evidence of this? My personal opinion is that the mid-east war is self-perpetuated by Israel -- do you know of any similar situation where some other solutions have been attempted, and have been overwhelmed?Perhaps the English and Irish problem with IRA terrorism? Ooops, that was solved by going away from the guns and bombs "armed deterrent" approach to one treating people as (gasp) people.Once again, the answer to the problem is to solve the cause/s of the problem, not the symptoms.So yes, in my opinion, trying to solve social problems with guns is like trying to install lightbulbs with hammers: you can hammer the lightbulbs into place, but you don't end up with working lights.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

Hi Jon, having fun? Actually all you answered with was an irrelevant logical fallacy. The only message of yours I can find addressing any comments of mine is Message 263, where you said:

quote:

---

Are you saying that the facts detailed by RAZD in Message 252 are wrong?

​

LOL. Of course not; they are merely stupid and irrelevant. Telling us that "the more guns we got the more gun deaths there will be" is a ridiculous statement that tells us absolutely nothing we do not already know; what's more, it does not at all support the position that banning guns is necessary anymore than "with more cars there are more car deaths" supports the notion of banning cars.

---

Curiously, my position has not been for banning guns, but for regulating them or better still, making them unnecessary in a mature civilized society. Your comments about banning are a red herring fallacy, and comparing deaths by gun to deaths by car is also a red herring.The issue is about minimizing deaths within a society in an equitable social way, while maximizing benefit. If you have not noticed, there has been an awful lot of safety provisions built into cars to reduce injury and death, while still providing transportation. With these added safety means deaths by car have been reduced while population and the number of cars on the roads has increased.Gov't released auto death data - Aug. 1, 2005

quote:

---

Overall, 42,636 people died in car crashes in the U.S. last year. That's fewer than the 42,884 who died in 2003.

---

The population in the US grows annually by just under 1%, so we have more people and less deaths. The article goes on:

quote:

---

In 2004, 1.46 people died for every 100 million miles driven in this country. In 2003, that number was 1.48. In 1966, 5.5 people died for every 100 million vehicle miles driven, according to NHTSA, and the death rate has been steadily improving since then.
...
Over half -- 55 percent -- of those killed in vehicle crashes were not wearing safety belts.

​

"Drivers are safer today on our nation's highways than they have ever been, in part because of the safer cars, higher safety belt use and stronger safety laws that this Department has helped champion", said Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in an announcement released by NHTSA.

---

Thus adding cars does not necessarily result in more deaths by car, because of the social regulation to maximize the benefit of transportation while minimizing the social cost in deaths and injury.Now if you really want to address this issue head on, you will show that there is a program of added safety features that has shown reduced deaths by guns in the same way.Otherwise all we have is your assertion of your opinion, and curiously, we all know how I feel about the influence of opinions on reality (or you should by now anyway). Message 263
Of course, and that is why it is more relevant to compare societies that are similar (US, Canada, UK) than ones that are significantly different (Switzerland, Israel).However, the real issue is to address the social issues as part of the solution to crime/violence rates, so that you can see the same kinds of trends as is realized by the regulation and safety features for cars.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •