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

Not at all. Some posters here -most notably RAZD- have argued for gun control on the basis of 'innocent' lives lost, i.e. people, children, accidentally killed by guns. So not a red herring at all. it appears to me that some people here have this emotional perception about guns. When people start talking about how the end of the world will come if guns are legalised I certainly get this impression. Mostly yes, although noone has actually showed why it would be so.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Show me where I've advocated otherwise.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It has the effect of increased violence and other crime in a society where there is very little deterrent for criminals. You seem to be prepared to put up with more violence and other crime but not with travel restrictions. well, it's a small world! Out of interest (and I understand if you don't want to answer) what period was that? Why not? If anyone had wanted to harm you I'm sure they'd find the means without waiting for guns to be legalised. People who are so inclined are already involved in crime, they're not waiting for guns to be legalised. If you're saying that crime will increase if guns are legal, can you explain why you think so? If you're saying that existing criminals will start using guns then as long as the intended victims also do, how's it going to make matters worse? What makes you think that most criminals will fancy their chances against armed-and-ready-to-shoot targets even if they're armed themselves?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yet, irrespective of their design, they both end up killing innocent people. Cars much more so than guns. But one is accepted in our society because of it's 'harmless' intent while the other rejected because of it's 'evil' purpose. Which brings us to my point: The tool's usage is what matters, not it's intended design or purpose. if you can show how legalising guns will turn the UK into the Wild West then go for it. Otherwise don't make pre-suppositions based on the tool's inherent 'evil' value which you superstituously derive from its purpose and design. See, I find it simplistic and somehow disingenuous when people reason along the lines of:
"Cars: designed for travel, therefore relatively harmless, therefore ok to have."
"Guns: designed to kill people, therefore dangerous, therefore don't want them." Only slightly. From Message 201:

quote:

---

Lastly, 10. Allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons, at which point we have long left the civilized world and have reduced the education environment to the wild west....is the end of civilization.

---

Yes dad!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I was there in the mid-late 80s. Phew, for a moment I was worried you might have been one of my teachers. Yes I do think it's scary, however I'm not pro-arming schoolchildren and I don't think that allowing responsible adults to own guns will necessarily lead to such a situation. Having said that, I'd really like to first see a change in the UK type of governance and consequently a change of legislation to reflect the concept of personal responsibility and eliminate the totalitarian trends currently masquerading as political correctness. In such an environment I'm confident that public gun ownership wouldn't result in schools with metal detectors, just as it doesn't happen in other well-adjusted societies with high gun ownership. But you have no reason to believe this is going to happen. This is just FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) spread by the anti-gun lobby, just as the anti-drug lobby has been spreading FUD regarding the legalisation of drugs. Yet, in countries like Holland and Portugal which have de-criminalized some or most drugs not only society hasn't descended into violent anarchy but has actually reduced drug-use and its side-effects. We won't know the effect of de-criminalizing guns until we actually try it.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This belief is just based on propaganda and the politics of fear rather than facts. Yes, accidents will happen as they happen with any tool (number of people who accidentally cut themselves with kitchen knives come to mind). Since when has the potential for individual accidents been a factor in banning an implement or machine? Never, as far as I can see, so why the double standards with guns?If you're referring to associated deaths by intent then I'm questioning this belief. What makes people think that once guns are easily available criminals will emerge out of the woodwork and start shooting everyone? Only anti-gun propaganda IMHO. I've lived in Southern Italy where the sight of ordinary people with shotguns walking round the village was common place and obtaining one was an easy process for most people. Yet crime there was much, much lower than in Britain and noone even entertained the idea that they might be shot (other than out in the woods during the hunting period).To counter your argument, there have been studies that show that criminals are deterred by the possibility of armed confrontation with homeowners ("Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins, Wright & Decker, Boston:Northeastern University press, 1994", "Armed and Considered Dangerous (Paperback) by James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi"). Gary Kleck in his "Targeting guns: firearms and their control" states that
56% of covicted felons agree that "criminals are more frightened of running into an armed victim than the police"! 38% reported that they had been scared off or shot at and injured by an armed victim.Also bear in mind that these figures err on the side of caution. Convicted felons interviewed in prison are not likely to admit that they've been scared off, so 38% is a very conservative number! Common sense would seem to suggest that any sane criminal who's not high on substance abuse would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance unless they're personally targeting the victim. But for discussion's sake let's take that 38% figure: a 38% reduction in the number of burglaries in Britain would represent a huge benefit to society just in terms of numbers of victims, police resources and other material reasons, without even taking into account the psychological effect to people who currently live in fear of being burgeld or robbed. Such a benefit would by far outweigh any accidental deaths that might occur. That's why ordinary citizens in Britain should be allowed to own and use guns in self-defense.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

quote:

---

RAZD writes:
So you are now advocating that students in college should be able to carry\have guns?

​

Legend writes:

​

No I didn't. I just showed you yet another situation where carrying a gun would have been useful, lifesaving even.

...

Legend writes:

​

So the fact that a gun-totting psychopath walked into a public place and started firing for nine minutes, with long intervals of changing grounds in between, and noone could stop him because *noone had a bloody gun* indicates to you that there should be even more stringent gun controls for ordinary citizens?!

​

---

Not at all. My position in this thread has always been supporting the right of ordinary citizens to have guns at home and to shoot any intruders. You've asked for a reason to carry a gun and I presented you with one. I'm not advocating freely arming students in the classroom but if there ever was an argument for this position then the Virginia Tech massacre is surely it. Please explain how am I equivocating? Then you're letting your anti-gun zeal take over your good judgement. Of course I see this as reasonable social precautions. That's why I don't advocate providing guns to anyone under 21, or with a history of aggressive violence or mental illness. You seem to assume that anyone who supports lax gun legislation is some kind of gung-ho, Rambo, free-for-all type of person. I want to live in a safe and fair society as much as you do. I believe that allowing ordinary people (within some constraints, as mentioned) access to guns is a step closer to that goal. I'm against totalitarian prohibitions and the treatment of ordinary citizens like criminally irresponsible idiots. Hope this is clearer. I never claimed that guns will solve the problem, I've claimed that guns will alleviate the symptoms. Burglaries and robberies are manifestations of social problems. Armed deterrent isn't going to solve these problems but it will improve the symptoms. Just like fighting disease, until a cure is found the symptoms must be dealt with in order to make the patient more comfortable. I agree in that it won't stop the problem from manifesting again. But the benefit of saved lives surely makes a case for people carrying guns, doesn't it? Noone here is suggesting that we ignore those elements! Owning guns isn't about ignoring the problem it's about dealing with the symptoms. It's also about accepting and applying, as a society, individual liberty and personal responsibility. Please see my last response to Modulous. Accidents will happen but the benefits of armed deterrent greatly outweigh the risks. You're referring to the regulations that the National Militia imposes, as any National Militia should. The fact remains that most Swiss males over 21 have a gun at home. Yet their crime rate is among the lowest in the world.

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.

---

I can't see in these statistics how many assaults occurred in the knowledge that the victim was armed. Until we can see that, these numbers are neither here nor there. If Swiss felons are anything like US felons then a significant proportion of them wouldn't attack an armed victim (re: Message 257). Now, now, suggesting this is bordering on disingenuity. The Israeli state wouldn't even exist without its armed deterrent. Enough said. Agreed. Until that happens you're suggesting we just lie defenseless in the face of the occasional psycho-killer, junkie or gang who happen to target us? Which statistics show how many people are saved by carrying guns? Where can I find statistics reporting how many people weren't robbed or burgled because of the armed deterrent? Please show me! I don't know where you live but it appears to be a crime-less, perfect place. Unfortunately the rest of us don't inhabit the same world as you.

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.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath because she was carrying a gun?!?Or is it that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath who happened to be carrying a gun?Pleeeasee....what is the point of even mentioning this?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I'm saying that the facts presented by RAZD demonstrate only the negative side-effects of gun ownership. Knowing the number of people accidentally killed by guns has no value unless we know the number of people saved by guns and the number of crimes prevented or deterred by guns. You conveniently ignored most of my response in Message 257. The value of armed deterrent is well proven. Are you able to make a fact-based argument for the effective criminalisation of guns in the UK? You know, other than that "guns kill people" ? I'm using anecdotal evidence based on personal experience to illustrate a point in my argument. You mentioned your having lived in Brixton and Merthyr to highlight your point about the minimal impact of guns in Britain. Why the double standards?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You're missing the point: the fact that this woman was a nutter (or not) has *nothing to do* with her carrying a gun. One doesn't necessitate the other, yes? I naturally fully understand that people I don't approve or trust will be empowered by having guns. That's the price you pay for living in free society: people you don't like can do things you don't like.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

LOL! I like the fact that while I'm talking about crime rates you cherry-picked firearm homicide figures.What have you shown other than more guns lead to more gun-related deaths? Maybe you'd also like to demonstrate how more cars result in more car-related deaths.But since you're so keen on figures, allow me to indulge you: Gun ownership (guns/residents):
Switzerland : 0.46 (3 out of 34)
UK : 0.056 (29 out of 34)so we've established that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, more than *8 times* that of the UK. Let's move on, You're right, I concede that Switzerland's crime rate isn't among the "lowest in the world". It's still *quite low* and more importantly: it's much lower than other countries with much lower gun ownership rates. Let's have a look, shall we? Burglaries (per capita)
# 7 out of 54 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 13 out of 54 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
weighted average: 5.1 per 1,000 people Murders (per capita)
# 46 out of 62 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
# 56 out of 62 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people Total Crimes (per capita)
# 6 out of 60 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 20 out of 60 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people
weighted average:33.7 per 1,000 people Robberies (per capita)
# 8 out of 64 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
# 43 out of 64 Switzerland: 0.290827 per 1,000 people
weighted average:1.0 per 1,000 peopleThe Murder figures in particular are quite interesting: despite 8 times the number of guns in Switzerland than in the UK, the UK murder rate is more than double that of Switzerland! Which puts your gun homicide rates into perspective. It also puts to sleep the argument that proliferation of guns causes an increase in violence. That you don't have one!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In your mind, perhaps. Not in this tread however.And for the record, my argument has been that gun ownership seems to discourage certain types of crime, property crime in particular. Statistical data from the US and Switzerland support my argument. Yet related stats show you wrong: Murder rate (per capita)# 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
# 47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
# 48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
# 49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
# 50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
# 51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
# 52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
# 53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
# 54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
# 55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
# 56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
# 57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
# 58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people Gun ownership (per 100 residents)3 Switzerland 46.0
11 Germany 30.0
12 New Zealand 26.8
14 Greece 23.0
22 Italy 12.1
24 Spain 11.0
29 United Kingdom 5.6 Once again, the numbers prove you wrong: Burglary rate (per capita)
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
# 31 Greece: 1.49035 per 1,000 people
# 44 Spain: 0.591359 per 1,000 peopleEdited by Legend, : added source for stats

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

what ommitted numbers? What I did was that I went to Nationmaster and selected the murder rates for UK and the subsequent 12 countries below it. I then looked up the gun ownership list for those countries and all of them (at least the ones that appear on the list) have a higher ownership rate than the UK. I then correlated these countries against the Burglary rate figures on Nationmaster and lo and behold they all but one had lower burglary rates than the UK too. My only intentional ommission is New Zealand which has a slightly higher rate than the UK (# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people).

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Like I said I started off with countries with lower murder rates than the UK so the US wasn't amongst them.But, you know what, I was the first one on this thread to compare UK with the US -and only with the US- as I insisted it's the country closest to us both culturally and socially so many other factors that affect crime could be narrowed down. I was then accused of cherry-picking and selectively comparing and such like so then I started bringing other countries stats into the equation.Karma's a wonderful thing, isn't it?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Depends what you mean by 'American' gun laws, as different states have their own laws, particularly about carrying in public. Like I said a few times already I would like to see citizens have the right to have guns at home and use them in self-defense as long as they're over 21 with no mental illness and no history of aggressive violence or substance abuse. This would automatically exclude about half of the people on the Gurnos I reckon. The rest of the people there are pretty decent folk trying to do their best within their environment. I appreciate things have changed since, but when I was there most of the violence and crime was caused by two gangs for which there was absolutely no deterrent as neither the law, nor the residents could touch them. No, let me rephrase that: the only deterrent was disproportionate violence and the risk of disproportionate violence. There were no guns at the time (not that I knew of anyway) but couple of the local hard men used to employ baseball bats and a samurai sword to enforce their will. Allowing the ordinary folk on the estate to be armed and empowering them to use their guns in their defense would have shifted the balance of power from the junkies and layabouts who ruled by fear to their terrorised victims.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes I did. And in Message 274 I conceded, admitting that -although fairly low- it wasn't among the lowest in the world. Well done.The point however was about how a country like Switzerland with loads of guns around had lower crime rates than countries with few guns around, like the UK, *NOT* whether Switzerland sits at #54 or #55 in the crime rate table.So you managed to point out a slight exaggeration in my statement but have failed to advance your own argument or contradict mine. The goal posts were always there. You just failed to put the ball between them. My argument has always been that gun controls don't work and I've been using the crime rate in the UK as evidence of that. I've been doing that as far back as Message 42 in this thread. So your statement is plainly false. LOL! I actually used the NationMaster link that YOU posted to get my facts! Go ahead and check, the source is linked in my posts.It's quite ironic that I used data from the resource that YOU provided to destroy YOUR argument, don't you think? What does that show? that when more guns are around more people will be killed by guns? Yet *as I've already shown you* more people get killed in the UK than Switzerland even though there are fewer guns around.
So what's your point? Nothing? I thought so. Oh hold on!! Back in Message 261 YOU were quite happy to use Switzerland stats to make YOUR point. Now, when the stats are turned against your argument then suddenly you remember that "Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society" ??How disingenuous! Do you think poverty might be affecting those Murder by Firearm figures that you happily throw around?Do you think any other factors might be affecting those Murder by Firearm figures that you happily throw around?I'm just asking because that didn't appear to be a concern when YOU presented those figures!How disingenuous! You're the one who wanted facts. You're the one who re-hashed meaningless figures out of their rightful context.
When I provide you relevant stats in an appropriate context you start throwing your toys out of the pram. Maybe you should be looking to change your signature! Yet I've shown you that it hasn't. Yet I've shown you that there is.All YOU've shown is that you support gun-controls because "guns kill people".

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"