Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1897
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 436 of 452 (523148)
09-08-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by Legend
09-08-2009 6:50 AM


Re: burglary and murder
Modulous writes:

...and made some burglaries more dangerous to substance addicts

Yes, although you seem to present it as a negative side-effect. I don't understand why we should worry about burglaries carrying more risks to the burglar any more than committing murder carrying more risk to the murderer. Surely, if anything, that's a good thing isn't it?

NO. It is not a good thing that people at the bottom of world in desperation should be so casually killed over something as trivial as burglary (which is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude lower than being raped, boy).

Generally agreed. The ones who are compulsed to do it (e.g.kleptomaniac) but are essentially harmless run a greater risk of getting shot. I file that under the 'unfortunate but so what' category.

...like collateral damage? Wow - do i find this OFFENSIVE!

I file this under the Reasons we need to prevent YOU, Legend, from ever owning guns. You dont pass my screening test. Sorry, must most vehemently disagree.

I've heard the impact of burglary being described as 'second only to rape' wrt the sense of personal invasion and humiliation. As a victim myself I wholeheartedly concur with this assesment.

Well that may be in your mind (cause you are apparently only a man), but in my mind this is not so. I've been burgled, I've been held up on the street at gunpoint - none of what I've gone through is even in the same book, let alone the same page, as rape. As for murder...I've even had friends of mine murdered.

The whole thing about guns, on the initial level, is counter-intuitive. Guns attract guns, like gravitational objects in space. When that happens, duck. The more you arm yourself, the more the others take pleasure in taking you down.

- most of those who won't be deterred will be junkies and mentally unstable people.

Do you care about these people? I dont think you do.
- of the ones who aren't deterred, some will take greater risks to themselves and some will get hurt.

Desperation to the point of risking this is a terrible thing to experience - probably worse than being burgled....
- of the ones who aren't deterred, some will pose greater risks to the homeowners and some homeowners will get hurt.

Not if they leave or hide as has been described....
- some armed home invasions will still occur, but the MO will be changed.

They will be escalated to even more dangerous operations. The more you arm yourself, the more some crazy idiot will try to take you down.

We all have arguments and can lash out in anger but I don't think that anyone who kills someone by walking over to the locker, unlocking it, removing the gun, loading it and then pointing and shooting can be justified as having done it in 'the heat of the moment'.

The heat of the moment can last 14-36 hours, dude. Even longer.

Just like car security systems have pushed some car thieves to resort to burglary for car keys instead. I don't think we can tell if the overall shift will be towards more or less serious crimes, but for the purpose of this discussion I'm happy to accept a neutral shift, i.e. that some of them will go to commit other crimes of similar impact, yes?.

that's what i do when the car wont start - put it neutral and push it down the hill. {sorry - had to}


- xongsmith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Legend, posted 09-08-2009 6:50 AM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Legend, posted 09-11-2009 11:43 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 437 of 452 (523207)
09-08-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 8:21 AM


Re: Israel, Palestine, and reality.
Hi Hyroglyphx,

This is grossly off-topic.

The topic is Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also (rather than just) gun control, so I see the whole issue of the middle east actually being on target and on topic as a PRIME example of the irrationality of revenge. It's why we still have problems in that area.

I was just answering your question the way you posed it. The way your question was framed was that no one until modern-day terror groups have opposed Israel, which, of course, is an absurdity.

No, the question was in response to a comment by Legend. This is the second or third time I have pointed this out, and this is significant because without that comment you don't have the context of my question.

The question is NOT about what countries opposed Israel's formation, but which neighbors vowed to destroy it. When you talk about Hezbollah, the problem is (1) they were formed long after Israel declared independence, which was long after the joint jewish & palestinian state was formed following WW1, and (2) it was formed in response to specific aggression by Israel.

The modern state of Iran (which you tried to use earlier, when I pointed out to you before that you were off track on your response) is also not applicable because (a) they are not neighbors and (b) they did not have that government when Israel was formed.

To answer the question is easy: provide documentation from 1948 of a THEN neighbor that vowed to destroy Israel.

It's a small point, but I insist on accurate historical documented information, not just Faux News Sound Bites. If the claims were made, you should be able to find them.

After the Holocaust there were several propositions made for where to place the displaced Jews. No one wanted them there. Giving them back the land from which they came from seemed the most reasonable thing.

This is a common misunderstanding. Let me repeat my last post on this so you can have another go at the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

quote:
The Palestine Mandate,[1] or Mandate for Palestine,[2] or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948.

The preamble of the mandate declared:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[4]

That's 1917, after WW1 NOT 1948 after WW2. What was objected to in 1948 was the mass immigration of thousands of jews from around the world, and the (brand new) UN partitioning of Palestine.

Legend writes:

Message 331 ... Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. ...

Now, can anyone document which of Israel's (four) neighbors have vowed to destroy Israel?

Or is this another example of Faux News type hyperbole and exaggeration of a conflict that is perpetuated and empowered by Israel's policy of revenge.

They were then attacked by a multitude of nations who resisted their presence in the Middle East. What exactly should the young Israeli's have done? Let them kill them?

The question is whether Israels policies are perpetuating the conflict, rather than leading to a solution.

I say they are perpetuating it. The evidence is as simple as the fact that Hezbollah did not exist until many years after Israel was formed, and that the policies of Israel led directly to the formation of Hezbollah, and today lead directly to new recruits every year.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 8:21 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 10:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 438 of 452 (523243)
09-09-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by RAZD
09-06-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
RAZD writes:

Hi Legend, still having trouble I see.


Hi RAZD. Yes, I've always had trouble with misuse of statistics.

RAZD writes:

So you keep whining, yet you haven't pointed out what is out of context.


Your statistics show overall homicide/murder by firearms. The context is: the percentage of those crimes commited against armed victims. The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.
How many of those crimes have been commited in self-defense, victim turning the tables on the attacker?
All you've shown is that more guns will mean more death by guns. Which is fine but -in itself- is no reason to reject gun ownership, any more than car deaths or alcohol-deaths are reason to reject either.

RAZD writes:

Without evidence your position is just your assertions, whining about how much better you would be protected if you only had a gun. Without evidence it is just one opinion against another.


My evidence is the well-founded principle of armed deterrence.
My evidence is the significant percentage of criminals admitting that they are deterred by armed victims.
My evidence is the lower percentage of burglary and property crime in the US.
Your evidence is the higher percentage of armed murder in the US.

Now what?

RAZD writes:

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.


And I've said many times that without taking into account other factors that affect murder rates, these figures by themselves don't mean much.

RAZD writes:

The evidence that shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.


But so far you've only shown some evidence for the harm to society as a whole. You haven't shown -and have refused to accept- any evidence for the benefit to society as a whole.

RAZD writes:

What I see is that the statistics show an OVERALL increase in gun deaths during assaults, because more assaults are made with guns.


Could it just be that this increase is attributed to the US gun culture that's been ingrained into US society for over two centuries now? You know, when there was very little law or order and the way to solve your differences was with a gun.
The same culture that encouraged people to take and use guns to liberate their country?

Or could it just be that this increase is attributed to other unexamined factors, such as gang prevalence which is much higher in the US than the UK?

Unless you you can account for such variables all you have is some general statistics and loads of wishful thinking.

RAZD writes:

Overall benefit shown to society as a whole is NOT irrelevant nor is it out of context. Why? because it shows that for every instance where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun, another was enabled by an assaulter having a gun.


Where can I see the instances where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun?

RAZD writes:

I look at the total picture, the benefit to society as a whole, and the evidence shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.


Just because there are more gun deaths *doesn't* mean that there is no 'benefit to society as a whole'. To know that, you must know how many deaths and violence in general were *prevented* by the presence of guns and how many deaths and violence in general were *caused* by the presence of guns

You know neither! All you've done is to show that "guns kill people" and draw your pre-determined conclusion.

RAZD writes:

I notice you have no argument about Gandhi, Dr MLK, and the restoration of rights and liberties to millions of Indian and American citizens through non-violent means. I take this as confirmation that defense of rights and liberties does not need to involve firearms, and thus that your argument of using firearms to defend rights and liberties is refuted, as has your position that allowing citizens to carry guns results in an overall benefit to society.


I'm not arguing about Gandhi, Dr MLK, or even Dr Dre as it adds no value to this debate. The fact that some people have succeeded by non-violent means bears no relevance to the argument about the value of armed deterrence and is, in any case, overshadowed by the hundreds of thousands of instances where armed struggle defended rights and liberties very effectively. American War of Independence, anyone?

Blimey, if you really think that bringing up Ghandi and Dr Whoever strengthens your argument you must be really desperate!


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2009 8:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:15 PM Legend has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5800
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 439 of 452 (523285)
09-09-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by RAZD
09-08-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Israel, Palestine, and reality.
The topic is Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also (rather than just) gun control, so I see the whole issue of the middle east actually being on target and on topic as a PRIME example of the irrationality of revenge.

I've already been approached by several members cautioning us not to go down this road. If you can justify it to the moderators, I'll follow your lead.

I should add though that I agree that revenge is not a glorious thing. That's not even a contention worth mentioning, as we'll probably both agree.

Your post concerning Israel is inflammatory and extremely biased, as if Palestinians can do no wrong and Israelies can do no right. The reality of the situation is that neither side is guiltless and neither side should front all the blame. The situation in the Middle East is complex and trying to decipher that topic on a very specific topic in comparison is probably not justified.

I therefore think that if we are going to discuss this issue, we should probably create a new thread.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2009 8:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by onifre, posted 09-09-2009 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 443 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 440 of 452 (523315)
09-09-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Israel, Palestine, and reality.
Here's a link to the Israel/Palestine situation.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=11999

I'll join you there too.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 441 of 452 (523359)
09-09-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by DBlevins
09-06-2009 10:10 PM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Legend writes:

Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?


DBLevins writes:

What? Are you telling me that you can’t think of anyway to limit guns without criminalizing their possession? You seriously can’t be honest with yourself and answer your own question? The sad thing is that I laid out a clue for how you could do so and you couldn’t even take the time to comprehend what I wrote. You’re obviously being deliberately obtuse.

This isn't the Crystal Maze, this is a debating board. If you have a point, make it. If you have an answer, state it. If you want to play Cluedo, go somewhere else.

DBLevins writes:

Taking guns off the street, with buy-back programs such as Australia’s program; regulation of gun possession (which can run the gamut of criminalizing possession of automatic weapons or seriously restricting their possession to collectors who would submit to extensive background checks, to waiting periods and instructional requirements for those who desire to buy a gun), strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession, etc.


- Buy-backs: are like amnesties for profit. Amnesties are demonstrably not working: In Britain we had had loads of knife amnesties yet knife usage continues to increase.
- Regulation of gun possession: We had this to the extreme in the UK yet gun crime's going up.
- Strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession: my question included the words "without criminalising" so that doesn't answer it.

DBLevins writes:

Gun control laws only purpose isn’t to decrease gun crime. It is also designed to keep such crimes to a lower level, because it is harder for those types of crimes to be enacted. There is a reason that murders involving firearms in the United Kingdom is significantly lower than those States who don’t have such laws.


There are actually many reasons why that may be.

DBLevins writes:

You also claimed that Gun control laws would increase the number of burglaries and by extension all crime


Not quite: I claimed that gun ownership for ordinary citizens will reduce the number of burglaries and liely some assaults and home invasions. But don't let that stop you.

DBLevins writes:

If that was true, then why have burglaries decreased?


I don't know... low unemployment? social reform programs finally worked? more burglars getting shot?
Your point being...?

DBLevins writes:

Factors such as employment are included. It makes sense that an increase in employment would decrease the crime rate and vice versa. Low employment is definitely factored into why crime increases. Do you actually READ the reports?

Factors such as employment are included in the BCS / HomeOffice reports?!? Or are they factored in the crime figures presented in the
BCS / HomeOffice reports ? Please explain and show me.

DBLevins writes:

So it seems you agree that there are other factors besides gun control laws that might effect burglary rates?


Why yes I do! Your point being...?

DBLevins writes:

Why don’t you include Scotland? Australia? Canada?


Because I don't have infinite time and resources. I initially compared US to the UK but you accused me of cherry picking the statistics. So I brought in Switzerland. You didn't like that. Now you want me to bring in other countries too? Sorry I'm not playing, thanks for asking.

DBLevins writes:

Why do you exclude Scotland? I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument. And yet, even though they strengthened their gun control laws we see that gun crime decreased. Hmmm.

quote:
Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline (of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the ten years to 2001.

LOL! You do realise that the Firearms Acts of 1997 is a UK parliament Act and not a Scottish one, don't you? You do realise that it applies equally to Scotland, England and Wales, don't you? I don't think you did now, didn't you? YOU thought that it was just stricter gun controls for Scotland that caused gun crime to temporarily decrease there, while in reality it was the same laws throughout the UK (except NI). Ooops, there goes your argument!!

DBLevins writes:

I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument


Really? ...is it the accent?
Or is it that when you thought you had some supportive evidence you suddently remembered how similar Scotland is to the US?
Pathetic really.

The rest of your post is too long, mostly pointless, irrelevant and in the same disingenuous spirit as the first part, so I'm not going to bother. If and when you have something original or persuasive, bring it to the table and we'll see.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by DBlevins, posted 09-06-2009 10:10 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by DBlevins, posted 09-11-2009 6:36 PM Legend has not yet responded
 Message 452 by DBlevins, posted 09-14-2009 6:31 PM Legend has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 442 of 452 (523381)
09-09-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Legend
09-09-2009 6:00 AM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Hi Legend, seems you are still caught in that cognitive dissonance + confirmation bias feedback loop.

Your statistics show overall homicide/murder by firearms. The context is: the percentage of those crimes commited against armed victims.

As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.

The context is the overall benefit to society, not just to those law-abiding citizens that carry guns, and CERTAINLY it includes the ADDITIONAL assaults caused by perps that carry guns. What you don't seem to include in your analysis is that every change you enact to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns makes it easier for NON-law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns and possibly makes even MORE likely that they will do so. Ignoring this tendency is fatal to a proper evaluation of the situation.

The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.

This has already been addressed. Lets go back to those statistics you just can't seem to understand, one more time, and we'll look at the first one from Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. (Message 57), as it deals specifically with this issue:

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.

(color for emphasis)
(now adding bold and larger font to emphasis the point).

The number of assaults is NOT CHANGED when gun controls are relaxed: people that feel they need to use assaults will continue to use assaults. If anything these statistics show a very small INCREASE in assaults with lax gun controls.

The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.

Precisely WHY the perps are MORE likely to be armed and dangerous when making assaults, and WHY assaults are more violent on average - shooting, stabbing or knocking out the victims first, rather than waiting to find out - in areas where guns are freely available. This is why the proportion of assaults that are murders is increased.

How many of those crimes have been commited in self-defense, victim turning the tables on the attacker?

Self-defense is not listed under murder -- if it is a legitimate case of self-defense. If it is someone blowing away a petty thief that had no weapon and was not trying to harm the victim, then there could be a case that the victim over-reacted with excessive force.

Murders would be assaults where the victims are killed rather than just beaten up - killed first, in case they have a gun tucked away somewhere.

My evidence is the well-founded principle of armed deterrence.

Assertion, unsupported by any evidence, is not evidence. Also completely invalidated by the use of non-violent means to defend rights and liberties, as used by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr MLK, all of whom, by the way, were not deterred in the slightest by the armed people against them.

My evidence is the significant percentage of criminals admitting that they are deterred by armed victims.

Which is hearsay and anecdotal, and it ignores the increase in criminal that arm themselves, and use those arms to continue their criminal behavior. It ignores the increase in the numbers of criminals because they feel "better protected" (enabled) with a gun. Take car-jacking as an example: a crime that is enabled by the use of guns (firearms were used in ~1/2 of all car-jackings).

My evidence is the lower percentage of burglary and property crime in the US.

Which ignores (doesn't correct for) the likely difference in the usage of security systems. The evidence shows that there is a measurable deterrent effect of installing security systems.

Nor does it include the prevalence of other crimes committed in place of burglary and property crime, such as muggins and car-jackings, that are enabled by the use of guns.

Your evidence is the higher percentage of armed murder in the US.

Nope, my evidence is that the number of assaults is virtually unchanged whether guns are available or not, that this is because of economic factors rather than the degree of protection individuals may have.

My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults are more violent, and more likely to end in the death of the victim, where guns are available. An increase in the number of victims killed is likely if the assaulter believes the victim may have a gun, so rather than have a deterrent effect it has an increased violence effect.

My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults that involve murder of the victims by firearms is undeniably, significantly and unequivocally increased, when guns are made more available.

My evidence is that the net effect to society is a greater death rate for victims of crime, without ANY demonstrable significant effect on the rate of crime.

And I've said many times that without taking into account other factors that affect murder rates, these figures by themselves don't mean much.

Which is just more whining without substance if you don't provide figures and documents showing what those other factors are and how they affect the information presented. Those "other factors" could just as easily make your position even more untenable than it is - you just assume that they will be counter to the evidence that shows high gun controls = more living victims.

Could it just be that this increase is attributed to the US gun culture that's been ingrained into US society for over two centuries now? You know, when there was very little law or order and the way to solve your differences was with a gun.

Curiously, the "cowboy era" was surprisingly short.
http://www.usatourist.com/english/inside/cowboys2.html
From mid to late 1800's.

And even then, people who "solved their differences" with a gun were still subject to laws and justice. Towns had sheriffs and judges, and trials involved juries, lawyers, evidence ... murder and robbery were still murder and robbery, against the law, and punishable offenses.

The same culture that encouraged people to take and use guns to liberate their country?

Which is what makes enacting minimal gun controls very difficult, thus resulting in the increase in gun usage by criminals that causes the increased harm to society. England does not have that problem, so why would you want to give up to gun controls you have, as they result in far fewer deaths of victims and far less murders by firearms?

Or could it just be that this increase is attributed to other unexamined factors, such as gang prevalence which is much higher in the US than the UK?

Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims. You need to show what these "unexplained factors" are and then demonstrate that there is a significant effect on the statistics as a direct result.

Unless you you can account for such variables all you have is some general statistics and loads of wishful thinking.

So then you should actually provide evidence for what these factors are and how they affect the results. Waving your hands and saying that there could be other factors involved is not in any way demonstrating that there ARE other factors, factors that SIGNIFICANTLY affect the data (and which has somehow been ignored by all the people compiling all the statistics - which you will now claim is due to their "antigun bias" conspiracy), and demonstrate HOW it affects the data.

You claim it: you support it. Waving your hands and invoking mysterious unknown factors is not an argument.

I'm not arguing about Gandhi, Dr MLK, or even Dr Dre as it adds no value to this debate. The fact that some people have succeeded by non-violent means bears no relevance to the argument about the value of armed deterrence and is, in any case, overshadowed by the hundreds of thousands of instances where armed struggle defended rights and liberties very effectively. American War of Independence, anyone?

Blimey, if you really think that bringing up Ghandi and Dr Whoever strengthens your argument you must be really desperate!

Ah -- so you have no answer to the reality that non-violent solutions are available and effective in defending the rights and liberties of VAST numbers of people: the numbers of blacks in the US in the 50's exceeded the population of the colonies in 1776, the population of India was even greater.

Your inability to deal with the reality of non-violent methods is just another example of your cognitive dissonance: you can't believe that you can solve your problem without resorting to violence.

Wars don't bring peace, nor do they create anything more than temporary solution to problems. People in civilized societies don't employ wars to force others to live their way, they resolve conflicts by other means. What you don't seem to understand is that how you deal with problems, whether on a personal, local or regional basis, is all tied together, and that attitudes of revenge and retaliation IN PLACE of equality, justice, rights and liberties are self-defeating in the long run. Wanting to engage in vigilante cowboy justice at home translates to the behavior of Israel in the middle east.

Israel vs N.Ireland - you lost that argument: N.Ireland solved their problem by putting the guns down, Israel still has their problem.

Gandhi vs revolution - you lost that argument: Gandhi solved the rights and liberty problem of India by non-violent means, without guns, and without the bloodshed of revolution.

Dr. MLK vs revolution - you lost that argument: Dr. MLK solved the rights and liberty problem of blacks in the US by non-violent means, without guns, and without the bloodshed of revolution.

Gun access vs gun controls - you lost that argument: there is a net LOSS rather than any kind of gain when you compare results in the society as a whole.

Now what?

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Legend, posted 09-09-2009 6:00 AM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Legend, posted 09-10-2009 5:50 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 443 of 452 (523394)
09-09-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2009 10:59 AM


No evidence for Legend claim.
Hi again Hyroglyphx,

I've already been approached by several members cautioning us not to go down this road. If you can justify it to the moderators, I'll follow your lead.

It is on the topic of two wrongs don't make a right, it is on the topic of the irrationality of revenge, and it is about the same mental position as gun control taken to the world stage.

Your post concerning Israel is inflammatory and extremely biased, as if Palestinians can do no wrong and Israelies can do no right. The reality of the situation is that neither side is guiltless and neither side should front all the blame. The situation in the Middle East is complex and trying to decipher that topic on a very specific topic in comparison is probably not justified.

I've not said the Palestinians are blameless, just that the policy of Israel is self-perpetuating the war in the middle east.

It's just that I would think after some 60 plus years of FAILURE to resolve the issue, that a different method MIGHT be tried.

Is it biased and inflammatory to point out the historical FACT that Hezbollah came into existence, continues to be in existence, and is growing, is due to the behavior of Israel?

I therefore think that if we are going to discuss this issue, we should probably create a new thread.

See Message 15

In the meantime, I still see a dearth of evidence for what Legend claimed: conclusion it does not exist.

Enjoy.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 444 of 452 (523458)
09-10-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Modulous
09-08-2009 1:01 PM


Re: the price of crime prevention
Modulous writes:

I was referring specifically to two people, not a society at large concept.
If two people who are in a position of antagonism face off from each other and both have loaded guns the chances of injury or death occurring has increased as compared to only one party having a gun or both parties with hand held weapons.


Yes, that's true, although this is assuming that both people are in a position of equal potential gain and equal potential loss. However, in a home invasion/burglary scenario this isn't necessarily the case. The defender has everything to 'play' for, while the aggressor has little or doubtful potential gain. The risk/benefit ratio is much higher for the aggressor than it is for the defender. Of course if the invader decides to dis-regard this (as in the case of junkies, psychos, etc, as discussed) then you're right, the chances of injury or death will be increased for both parties. I hope you agree that, in most situations, the presence of a gun on the player with the lower risk/benefit ratio should be enough to avert a confrontation.

Legend writes:

That would be true in a situation where guns were freely carried, fully loaded. However, we're talking about allowing citizens to have guns in secure places at home. We all have arguments and can lash out in anger but I don't think that anyone who kills someone by walking over to the locker, unlocking it, removing the gun, loading it and then pointing and shooting can be justified as having done it in 'the heat of the moment'.


Modulous writes:

If we could guarantee that people would keep their weapons unloaded and locked in a locker you might have a point. In this reality, though, they often don't and instead keep them in a drawer or other unsecure location.


Yes, you're right, though I would put this under the 'accidental' deaths, in the same manner that a child may get hold of a gun that they shouldn't and shoot their sibling. If people treat a potentially dangerous tool irresponsibly or carelessly people will get hurt. This hasn't stopped us from using knives or cars among others, so I don't see why it should stop us using guns. We have to look at the overall picture, not just the potential cost.

Legend writes:

If someone wants to kill you -for whatever reason- they'll find a way, guns or no guns.

Modulous writes:

This strikes me as a fallacy - it might be true, but it isn't necessarily so. I'd suggest that there exists some people that are capable of the brutality of beating somebody to death. There are some people who might want you dead, but can't get that brutal but could stab you. Maybe all people are capable of beating someone to death - but only if they really really want you to die. If someone wants to hurt you, maybe kill you for a split second and they have a knife and are close - it is much easier for them to do it. I suggest that the presense of blades results in more people being killed in arguments, robberies, brawls etc.
I suggest that a gun, which requires minimal effort to use and can be done at a distance (a psychological benefit - there are concerns that modern warfare is 'too distant' making it much easier to condemn innocents to death) - is such an effective tool at hurting and killing that more people who want you dead will follow through with the act.
I would have thought that pulling a trigger is easy compared with stomping on someone's face repeatedly.


I agree that guns make people killing easier, just like the presence of knives does, as you point out. However, this cuts (no pun intended) both ways as it makes potential victims better equipped to deter or fight potential attackers. The point I was trying to make that was that 'heat of the moment' situations don't give cause for murder despite any anger or frustration present. Most homicides in such situations are accidental, e.g. you say something about my mother, I hit you in anger, you fall and break your neck. These are "I didn't mean to" situations. Such cases aren't going to be affected by gun ownership, either way. In extreme instances where someone lashes out with a knife or stamps on someone's face we normally find that there's already an underlying cause, such as previous history between the two parties or mental disorder on the attacker's side, which affects the attack. The attacker would have some serious grievance against the victim or some pent-up aggression and an argument is just the trigger to bring this aggression to the forefront. These are "I'm looking for someone to kill" cases and IMHO their frequency won't be affected by gun ownership, though their severity might.

Legend writes:

I've heard the impact of burglary being described as 'second only to rape' wrt the sense of personal invasion and humiliation. As a victim myself I wholeheartedly concur with this assesment


Modulous writes:

You've been raped and burgled?


Damn, that came out all wrong! I meant of course that I've been the victim of burglaries, not rape.

Modulous writes:


1) Wait for the house to be empty (A more common tactic in the US than in the UK).
2) Take the homeowner by surprise, with a weapon already drawn and take steps to ensure the homeowner can not get to their weapon and load it at any point (by either tying the homeowner and other occupants up, or injuring them).

With the first tactic the feeling of humiliation remains, with the latter, the physical danger to the homeowner is increased. Granted - there are occasions where the homeowner will beat the thief and succesfully defend their home.

Again, we have to take into account the cost/benefit and risk/benefit ratios. Is a burglar going to wait till the homeowner leaves? That would involve continuous surveillance, increased risk (neighbours may be alerted by his behaviour) and waste of time. Most burglars wouldn't be prepared to spend that time and carry that risk, burglary is mainly an opportunistic crime. As for (2) if a burglar is prepared to ignore risk of injury to himself and the risk of a burglary sentence converted to a murder one, so that he can steal some stuff then I think we're talking about a psychopath or smackhead and we've already addressed those categories.

Modulous writes:

I would like to take issue with the 38% figure, or more specifically your handling of it. First of all, it assumes that the burglar knows that you are armed and that you are at home. It also assumes that being deterred is the same as being so deterred so as to not commit the crime.


yes, like I said I used it mainly for illustrative purposes, though I strongly believe this figure would be actually higher.

Modulous writes:

But rather than quibbling over figures, let us assume they are at least in the right order of magnitude and say, for ease, that 300,000 people are saved having a burglary and 300 extra people are killed or injured during a burglary per year. It seems in that case that you are making the judgement that it is worth killing/injuring 1 innocent person to prevent 1,000 burglaries. Even if only 10% of those are actual deaths then it is still 1:10,000.


The figure that sways the balance is the 14% of burglaries which involve "violence or threat of violence" according to the Home Office. Unfortunately they don't break that number down, as to how many deaths, serious injuries, etc. But assuming for argument's sake that 90% of those are just threats and only 10% result in death or injury and are prevented. That would then balance out the number of deaths/injuries caused vs prevented (about 300 on each side). That would mean overall the total innocent death/injury figures wouldn't change but we would have saved an awful lot of people from the violation of burglary and also saved police resources which could be more efficiently used to reduce crime elsewhere.

Ofcourse you are also concerned about the death rise in deprived or unstable perpetrators who will take greater risks. So am I, just not enough to let it blind me to the anguish and fear of the innocent victims who -through no fault of their own- have their rights, liberties and sometimes their lives trampled over by others. Living in fear is a terrible thing and I see no excuse for justifying it.

Modulous writes:

While your opinion may be that it is still worth it - I'm sure you'd agree that many others might not like paying that price. And since it then becomes a subjective judgement as to the value of human life and the quality of that life, no statistics or empirical figures are going to save us.


I agree. As I've been trying to explain to RAZD, it's very difficult to quantify the costs and the benefits. The thing to do would be to put it to a referendum. Let the people decide how they want to live their lives. If only we lived in a democracy, eh?

Modulous writes:

Which is why I don't actually attempt to debate the issue. I just try and encourage people to open up discourse so they can arrive in a place like this. Thanks for responding well to my post.


Appreciate the debate. It certainly got me thinking more about a couple of points. Cheers.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2009 1:01 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 2:01 PM Legend has responded
 Message 446 by Modulous, posted 09-10-2009 2:28 PM Legend has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 445 of 452 (523464)
09-10-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Legend
09-10-2009 1:18 PM


Re: the price of crime prevention
I don't mean to quote mine your very well written post, but this caught my eye:

Legend writes:

If only we lived in a democracy, eh?

"If only" is right. Because, frankly, we don't live in a democracy, at least not in the US.

We live in a Plutocracy.

quote:
A Plutocracy is a government controlled by a minuscule proportion of extremely wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class.

Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these ‘plutocrats’ controlled the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, the armed forces, and most of the natural resources. To a certain degree, there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals may exert such strong influence on governments, that the effect can be compared to a plutocracy.


Furthermore:

quote:
The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy are said to have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government.".

Positive influence includes campaign contributions; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, bribes, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK and the United States or the oil industry oligarchy, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, which may back right-leaning political action committees (PACs), as well as billionaire George Soros' efforts to influence US politics by backing left-leaning PACs.


That's why "the people" aren't allowed to make their own choices. Because special interest groups control the decision making process. This is why in the US the pro-gun campaign is not a movement of the people, it's a movement pushed by those in power (NRA, Gun Industy, etc.).

It's not a movement to help reduce crime, or to provide home defense for citizens, it's a movement to help those with financial interests gain more profit. The less gun-control there is, the more money gun manufactuers can make. If there is too much restriction on buying guns, it will hurt their revenue.

We can sit here and argue whats right and wrong, but in the end it comes down to profit -vs- risk. It is currently believed that the profit outweighs the risk, when it comes to guns, so gun-control will be controlled and manipulated with the occasional "win" for the gun-control advocates to set them at ease for a while.

In the words of the Wu tang Clan:

Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Legend, posted 09-10-2009 1:18 PM Legend has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Legend, posted 09-11-2009 6:34 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 446 of 452 (523467)
09-10-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Legend
09-10-2009 1:18 PM


Re: the price of crime prevention
Yes, you're right, though I would put this under the 'accidental' deaths, in the same manner that a child may get hold of a gun that they shouldn't and shoot their sibling. If people treat a potentially dangerous tool irresponsibly or carelessly people will get hurt. This hasn't stopped us from using knives or cars among others, so I don't see why it should stop us using guns. We have to look at the overall picture, not just the potential cost.

I agree. However, if a policy will increase accidental deaths we need to take that seriously.

The point I was trying to make that was that 'heat of the moment' situations don't give cause for murder despite any anger or frustration present. Most homicides in such situations are accidental, e.g. you say something about my mother, I hit you in anger, you fall and break your neck.

Maybe - but the ones that involve guns (in the USA, the majority of homicides during argument do involve guns IIRC) don't fall into this category.

Again, we have to take into account the cost/benefit and risk/benefit ratios. Is a burglar going to wait till the homeowner leaves? That would involve continuous surveillance, increased risk (neighbours may be alerted by his behaviour) and waste of time.

They might not wait until they leave, it is not the only way to determine if someone is home. If they look up your telephone number they could try calling. Or they could just knock on the door. One burglar tried that at my house once - I didn't answer because I didn't recognise the person knocking on and then he tried to climb through my bedroom window on the first floor. He almost killed himself running away when he saw me sat there.

I agree. As I've been trying to explain to RAZD, it's very difficult to quantify the costs and the benefits. The thing to do would be to put it to a referendum. Let the people decide how they want to live their lives. If only we lived in a democracy, eh?

I'm fairly sure the consensus in the UK would be not to allow firearm ownership to increase.

Appreciate the debate. It certainly got me thinking more about a couple of points. Cheers.

No worries - it's always interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Legend, posted 09-10-2009 1:18 PM Legend has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 447 of 452 (523495)
09-10-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by RAZD
09-09-2009 9:15 PM


Let's cut to the chase.
RAZD writes:

Hi Legend, seems you are still caught in that cognitive dissonance + confirmation bias feedback loop.

three words: pot, kettle, black.

RAZD writes:

As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Let's put it to one side for a minute and we'll come back to it later.

RAZD writes:

What you don't seem to include in your analysis is that every change you enact to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns makes it easier for NON-law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns and possibly makes even MORE likely that they will do so.

Yes...guns can we used for good and for evil. We've already established that.

RAZD writes:


# 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

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.

Great. So...?

RAZD writes:

The number of assaults is NOT CHANGED when gun controls are relaxed: people that feel they need to use assaults will continue to use assaults.

Congratulations. You just proved that increased gun ownership doesn't increase violence. Thank you for supporting my point.

Legend writes:

The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.


RAZD writes:

Precisely WHY the perps are MORE likely to be armed and dangerous when making assaults, and WHY assaults are more violent on average - shooting, stabbing or knocking out the victims first, rather than waiting to find out - in areas where guns are freely available. This is why the proportion of assaults that are murders is increased.

SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!

RAZD writes:

Murders would be assaults where the victims are killed rather than just beaten up - killed first, in case they have a gun tucked away somewhere.

SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!

RAZD writes:

My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults are more violent, and more likely to end in the death of the victim, where guns are available.

SHOW ME evidence that led you to the conclusion that guns (NOT social factors) have caused (NOT merely facilitated) the extra deaths.

RAZD writes:

My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults that involve murder of the victims by firearms is undeniably, significantly and unequivocally increased, when guns are made more available.

SHOW MEevidence that led you to the conclusion that guns (NOT social factors) have caused (NOT merely enabled) the assaults.

RAZD writes:

My evidence is that the net effect to society is a greater death rate for victims of crime,,


SHOW ME how guns were the cause of the greater death rate.

RAZD writes:

Which is just more whining without substance if you don't provide figures and documents showing what those other factors are and how they affect the information presented. Those "other factors" could just as easily make your position even more untenable than it is - you just assume that they will be counter to the evidence that shows high gun controls = more living victims.

I'm not assuming anything, YOU are the one making all the assumptions here. I'm just pointing out that until you take into account other factors that do affect crime you can't draw any conclusions either way.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims.


BZZT!! WRONG! It's been repeatedly shown that gangs contribute to a siginificant percentage of crimes, especially killings. I'm quoting from the Times

quote:
An extra 180 officers from the Targeted Response Unit were despatched every night to areas plagued by gang violence. As a result, killings fell most sharply in the most dangerous neighbourhoods, with murder down 55 per cent in one district and by 52 per cent in another.

Yet you continue to hand-wave away the effect that factors such as gang-violence have on US crime rates. Let's remind ourselves what YOU said earlier:

RAZD writes:

As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.

Nicely put! When are you going to start practicing what you preach?

So, to recap: You can support your assertion that guns provide a Net LOSS to society by simply showing that:
1) Guns cause violence. The operative word here is cause i.e. if the perpetrators didn't have guns they wouldn't have initiated the violence.
2) Guns provoke violence, i.e. that the violence started because the perpetrators believed the victim to be armed.
3) Guns do not prevent violence and criminals are not deterred by guns i.e. the number of aggressors who attack despite the knowledge or strong suspicion that the victim may be armed.

And remember: It's YOU who said:

Assertion, unsupported by any evidence, is not evidence.

Eagerly awaiting your *evidence*!

=====================================================================

P.S: I see your Ghandi and I raise you a Hitler, a Stalin and a Normandy Landing.

Edited by Legend, : added P.S


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2009 8:41 PM Legend has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 448 of 452 (523511)
09-10-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Legend
09-10-2009 5:50 PM


Re: Let's cut to the chase. ... Again?
Hi Legend, just some simple points.

Congratulations. You just proved that increased gun ownership doesn't increase violence. Thank you for supporting my point.

Curiously, you just once again proved confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, because that is not a valid conclusion from the data.

The data shows that there are the same NUMBER of assaults, not that there is the same LEVEL of violence. The rest of the data -- the parts you conveniently ignore because they refute your conclusion -- show that the VIOLENCE of the attacks is GREATER when guns are allowed.

SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!

Again? Just start at Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. (Message 57) ... and read the facts.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims.


BZZT!! WRONG! It's been repeatedly shown that gangs contribute to a siginificant percentage of crimes, especially killings. I'm quoting from the Times

Except that you fail to show that these crimes would NOT be committed without the existence of the gangs, which is what you need to do to counter my argument that the existence of gangs does not necessarily change the number of incidents in a significant way.

Curiously, your link does not claim a direct connection between gangs and violence. Interestingly, you also ignore the evidence of the contribution of easy access to guns that gangs also provide, and which is mentioned IN YOUR LINK:

quote:
Increasing violence among teenagers and other youths appears to have contributed to a nationwide crime spike, the Justice Department said Tuesday.

Gangs and gun violence are partly to blame for the rise in crime that is on pace to increase for the second straight year, says Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a prepared speech.
...
FBI data from last fall show violent crimes, including murders and robberies, rose by 3.7% nationwide during the first six months of 2006. Those findings came on top of a 2.2% crime hike in 2005 — the first increase since 2001.
...

  • That a growing number of offenders appear to be younger, and their crimes more violent, and that laws in some states provide few, if any, tough penalties on juvenile offenders.
    ...
  • Offenses committed by people using firearms pose a major threat not only to communities, but also to police. So-called "straw purchases," where gun owners buy their firearms through a go-between is an area of concern.

    The Justice Department plans to distribute $18 million in grants nationwide this year to prevent and reduce illegal gun sales and other firearms crimes.


  • (color and underline for emphasis).

    Did you notice the emphasis on greater gun control measures as part of the solution?

    How much of a part is apparently contributed? Fascinatingly, even an increase 3.7% of violent murders and robberies (if ALL the increase was due to gangs) is NOT a significant escalation, when the difference between the US and the UK is order of magnitude greater (Message 57 again):

    [#] 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.

    Of course one can't directly compare an increase in violent crime with the level of violent crime, but increasing the US level by 3.7% (regardless of whether due to lax gun controls, gang violence or other as yet unidentified factors) still leaves you with total assaults:

    {# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people} x 1.037 = 7.84929151 per 1000 people.

    Still not significantly different from Canada or the UK.

    Next, if we increase the proportion of murders by firearm in the UK by 3.7% we still get:

    {# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people} x 1.037 = 0.00106374423 per 1000 people.

    Which is STILL so far below US and Canada:

    quote:
    #  8 United States:  	0.0279271  per 1,000 people   	
    # 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

    This still shows hat the murder by firearm rate is STILL 5 times higher in Canada than in the modified UK and 28 times higher in the US than in the modified UK.

    This is not a significant difference, even assuming ALL the increase is due ONLY to gang violence. Once again your evidence does NOT support your assertion.

    Do you have any evidence of a significant factor?

    quote:
    An extra 180 officers from the Targeted Response Unit were despatched every night to areas plagued by gang violence. As a result, killings fell most sharply in the most dangerous neighbourhoods, with murder down 55 per cent in one district and by 52 per cent in another.

    Amusingly, this reduction is NOT due to an increase in gun ownership by people in the neighborhoods, but by increased GUN CONTROL by using trained and protected police officers to (temporarily?) suppress violence in the neighborhoods.

    What you are advocating is that people in these neighborhoods should be able to arm themselves and that this will somehow reduce the crimes in these areas -- do you really think this is a practical solution in "the most dangerous neighborhoods" in the US?

    You can support your assertion that guns provide a Net LOSS to society by simply showing that:...

    ... there are more murders, more violence and more use of guns in similar crimes where guns are relatively easy to obtain.

    Once again, see Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems. (Message 57). You still have failed to rebut the evidence, mostly because you fail to address it.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : added more from legends link

    Edited by RAZD, : clarity


    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 447 by Legend, posted 09-10-2009 5:50 PM Legend has not yet responded

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 3260 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    Message 449 of 452 (523603)
    09-11-2009 11:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 436 by xongsmith
    09-08-2009 4:27 PM


    Re: burglary and murder
    Legend writes:

    The ones who are compulsed to do it (e.g.kleptomaniac) but are essentially harmless run a greater risk of getting shot. I file that under the 'unfortunate but so what' category.


    xongsmith writes:

    ...like collateral damage? Wow - do i find this OFFENSIVE!

    May be some camomile tea would help?

    Alternatively you can use the AddressBar on your web browser to navigate to a fully conforming web-site where everyone shares exactly the same well-adjusted, sanitised views as you.

    xongsmith writes:

    I file this under the Reasons we need to prevent YOU, Legend, from ever owning guns. You dont pass my screening test.


    ....and people with such authoritarian mentality demonstrate yet another good reason why the rest of us should have guns.


    "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 436 by xongsmith, posted 09-08-2009 4:27 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 3260 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    Message 450 of 452 (523656)
    09-11-2009 6:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 445 by onifre
    09-10-2009 2:01 PM


    Re: the price of crime prevention
    Legend writes:

    If only we lived in a democracy, eh?


    onifre writes:

    "If only" is right. Because, frankly, we don't live in a democracy, at least not in the US.


    Join the club mate!

    onifre writes:

    We live in a Plutocracy.
    That's why "the people" aren't allowed to make their own choices. Because special interest groups control the decision making process. This is why in the US the pro-gun campaign is not a movement of the people, it's a movement pushed by those in power (NRA, Gun Industy, etc.).

    It's slightly different here in Britain. We are ruled by an elected oligarchy who are supposed to represent the people but in reality are elected with the minority of vote (no proportional representation here). Our "special interests" groups are more of a moralising, self-righteous minority whose primary objective are to vindicate their own morals, rather than advance the good of the people. That's why we end-up with fucked-up, oppressive, petty little policies and laws which presume guilt and irresponsibility on the common man, like this one.

    That's one of the reasons why the government won't even discuss relaxing gun legislation and it's one of the reasons why I want people to be armed, as a wake up call to some jumped-up, deluded, unelected Baroness who can dictate how the rest of us live our lives from the bubble of her Surrey mansion.

    Rant over.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a different note I'm off to sunny Italy for a couple of weeks, so if I don't answer any posts I'm not being evasive it's just that I'm chilling by a cafe somewhere. If anyone manages to produce any evidence for the net loss of gun ownership, no need to tell me I'll just know: the tower of Piza will straighten up


    "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 445 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 2:01 PM onifre has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019