|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 07 2012 23:52 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 23:15 Agathon wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?? Isn't a bulletproof jacket and an helmet more usefull? Maybe a shield too? A gun don't protect yourself, it just kill your aggressor, IF you see him coming, IF your gun is close to you and IF you're fast and accurate enough to kill him before he kills you. As a protection, a gun is almost useless. And the number of murders per capita in USA is another proof. I could be ok for your "unalienable human right" argument, but why fire weapons?? A "bulletproof" vest means that the bullet won't penetrate your body, however, the power of the hit will still break somr of your ribs. A "bulletproof helmet" laughable. Guns are awesome for protection.
Are they? http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
|
On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure.
I'm guessing you have no idea how terrible big cities are in terms of violence. Using an article that takes such a small location of 30.2k residents(July 2011) really doesn't show anything. Concealed carry is and always will be fine in small locations like that, but when you get to big cities with more than 30k people, it turns into a huge mistake.
Your last paragraph is such crap. An act of cowardice? Didn't know wanting to walk down a street without someone randomly pulling out a gun and mugging me was being a coward. Carrying guns on the street would create more problems than it would solve. If you want to keep a gun in your house, more power to you. But I don't want anyone who has no authority with a gun in public.
|
On August 07 2012 23:52 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 23:15 Agathon wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?? Isn't a bulletproof jacket and an helmet more usefull? Maybe a shield too? A gun don't protect yourself, it just kill your aggressor, IF you see him coming, IF your gun is close to you and IF you're fast and accurate enough to kill him before he kills you. As a protection, a gun is almost useless. And the number of murders per capita in USA is another proof. I could be ok for your "unalienable human right" argument, but why fire weapons?? A "bulletproof" vest means that the bullet won't penetrate your body, however, the power of the hit will still break somr of your ribs. A "bulletproof helmet" laughable. Guns are awesome for protection.
Then explain me why so many people are killed in US (one of the highest rate per capita in the world, and the highest of all western countries) despite they have free gun access? If guns are awesome for protection, why is US people not protected?
|
On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem.
How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated.
Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well.
Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing.
|
On August 08 2012 00:27 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem. How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated. Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing.
Not a bad point (re: alcohol). You are right just because something is a risk factor doesn't mean getting rid of it. What I would say in response is that it means that you need some seriously good reason to jusstify a potentially harmful activity/product, and then regulation to mitigate its harmful effects.
If guns do not protect you (which the above pensylvania based study seems to suggest) then what reasons do you have left? Even hardened anti-gun control lobbyists accept that the reason why it was in the US consititution (to protect yourself from a dictatorial goveernment) is no longer a valid excuse. Similar to alcohol you could make the argument that it is simply ingrained in X's society'e culture, and that banning it (e.g.prohibition) causes more harm that the legalisation of said activity. In the cases of guns howeve I just don't see that this argument (re prohibition causing more harm than good) standing much scrutiny, however if you are willing to expand on this I am willing to read.
Alcohol perhaps should be more regulated, and it is in various societies (I'm thinking Scandinavia mainly but am no expert in the subject).
|
On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases)
It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing.
White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc.
The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
|
On August 07 2012 23:17 zatic wrote:
iPlaY.NettleS : Please research before you post. Their gun laws for private ownership are still comparable to the rest of Europe.
I don't see how military issued service rifles (without ammunition) - which is the unique part - change anything in relation to crime and/or murder stats.
To be fair, reading the article, it seems Swiss people are more into firing guns than Dutch people (firing competition with 200,000 people attending, 8 million total inhabitants). I'm guessing Germany would be closer to the Swiss in that regard. The Belgians also had easier laws last time I checked (which was around 2000). I do believe there are some fairly big differences within Europe.
Anyway, back to the relevance of the Swiss militia rifles: I've seen people argue (in this thread) that tighter gun laws would prevent a lot of 'spur of the moment' incidents. The wiki article mentions that gun related incidents around domestic disputes often involve these militia issued firearms. See the final part of text:
"The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms"
So it might not have been the original point of NettleS, but the article does have some relevance. Besides that, it also shows how low the incident count actually is (1 for every 250,000 inhabitants) despite the availability of army issued ordinance.
|
On August 08 2012 00:04 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. I'm guessing you have no idea how terrible big cities are in terms of violence. Using an article that takes such a small location of 30.2k residents(July 2011) really doesn't show anything. Concealed carry is and always will be fine in small locations like that, but when you get to big cities with more than 30k people, it turns into a huge mistake. Your last paragraph is such crap. An act of cowardice? Didn't know wanting to walk down a street without someone randomly pulling out a gun and mugging me was being a coward. Carrying guns on the street would create more problems than it would solve. If you want to keep a gun in your house, more power to you. But I don't want anyone who has no authority with a gun in public.
This. To a degree, having a single gun in your house is understandable (though I don't forsee myself doing it). But, I cannot remember a single time in which a crime was prevented successfully with a gun.
In fact, the only time I can think of was when a woman with her baby were being robbed, and the mother pulled out a shotgun and killed the defenseless robber. He was a criminal, obviously, but would anyone really consider that a positive ending? He didn't have a weapon on him, and he was just shot and killed because it was, "self defense."
As a personal example, I know a story that almost went horrrible because of his gun. He left his side door open one night, and (I guess a neighbor called it in), because two police officers entered. They assumed someone had broken in, so they were quiet, had their guns out, and were slowly creeping around the house. My friend heard someone downstairs, so he grabbed his gun. As he rounded a corner, he saw two men in the dark with flashlights and guns in hand. When they eventually pointed the light in his direction, he got scared that they had found him and would attack him. He raised his gun and tried to fire (in "self defense"), but had no bullets in it (This dude's kinda dumb...). He could've shot a cop, then likely have gotten injured himself, if he used his gun properly.
EDIT:
P.S. What i've never understood is why people aren't just restricted to riot-control grade weapons. They VERY rarely kill, and will definitely be enough to fend off a common criminal.
Why would you every be allowed to have ammo attachments and legitimate weapons of war? When will you ever need to unload +10 rounds to defend yourself?
P.S.S. There's an enormous difference between rural and suburban gun usage and urban gun usage. The majority of people in the world live in cities, I believe, so (because you can't apply US laws onto people differently) shouldn't this discussion be based mostly on cities/urban environments and their connections with guns?
|
I want to clarify that the United States is nothing like any European country. The only country atm that can compare itself to the US is Canada(aka US north) and they allow for possession of guns there.
It's a question of costs outweighing the benefits. And you when look at when, were and why there is gun violence in the US we tend to just write it off as cultural. The numbers support this conclusion. I can understand in the more violent US cities the desire for gun control but it has been detrimental to do so in the past only increasing violence.
You guys seem to think of the US like Mexico where civilian Cartels are running cities, dragging people out of their houses and shooting them. Oh, btw civilians can't even own guns in Mexico. In the US we embrace the idea of self defense such that if the police can't get the job done then its up to the populace. We HATE being dependent on the government and it will be a cold day in hell when they take guns away from our populace.
The world is a dangerous place and I would rather be prepared. Statistics, however they are dressed, just aren't a good argument for most Americans.
|
On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
Differences in racial profiles regarding criminal acts in the US pretty much entirely due to the combination of historical damage to community structures in certain minorities, historical and current discrimination both state-sanctioned and non, income and asset disparity, socioeconomic immobility, and the differing rates of poverty and opportunity available to members of each community as a result.
In the US, if you are born poor then you will probably not have the opportunity to get a degree no matter how bright you are and you may not even get the chance to finish high school. Your teachers probably won't care enough about you to even look to see if you are smart, and they won't expect anything out of you but disrespect and violence. Your parents or guardians will be too busy trying to make ends meet or cope with the way their lives have turned out to push you to succeed. You won't have any connections to get you nice cushy internships or interviews for well paid positions.Even when you get a job, you probably won't make enough to live without benefits or the use of charitable services such as food kitchens - especially if you have a family of your own - and you will probably have few opportunities for promotion. You will live in broken down housing surrounded by broken down people who have lost hope of changing their circumstances and are doing whatever they can to avoid thinking about it. If you have children of your own you will be just as unable to provide for them all you wish to as your parents were.
It will be hard to cope and harder still to hope for better. At times, you will despair of the system and your life. At times you might be so angry that all you can do is fight - fight the people at the bar, hit out at your partner or even kids, fight the walls of your apartment, anything to make the tension fade. At times, the promise of immediate monetary reward might make small-time crime irresistable - what would it feel like to be able to give your little girl the pink bicycle she wants? to buy new, on-brand presents for Christmas? to be caught up on rent just once? And crime has a tendency of escalating - a mugging gone wrong is a murder.
In the USA, you are much more likely to be born poor if you are born black than if you are born white. It is this disparity of poverty that creates the disparity of crime rates.
+ Show Spoiler +Committing criminal acts for reasons other than absolute need is wrong. It is, however, not inexplicable.
|
The "right to bear arms," provided by the 2nd amendment, is to the bill of rights as the idea of jihad is to the koran. A blemish on an otherwise enlightened work.
This is an outdated part of our constitution that was written during a time when militias were necessary for basic protection. We no longer need civilian militias... That is what the police force is for. You will never be 100% safe, even carrying a gun, so stop imagining this is what is at stake here.
|
On August 08 2012 03:08 Thenerf wrote:
I want to clarify that the United States is nothing like any European country. The only country atm that can compare itself to the US is Canada(aka US north) and they allow for possession of guns there.
If you believe our gun control laws are in ANY way similar, you are completely out of your mind. We are also not US north. We would never in a million years adopt your firearms legislation, amongst a long list of other things we are baffled about. Canada is more like Europe than it is the US in many respects, and firearms are one of them.
|
On August 08 2012 11:49 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Differences in racial profiles regarding criminal acts in the US pretty much entirely due to the combination of historical damage to community structures in certain minorities, historical and current discrimination both state-sanctioned and non, income and asset disparity, socioeconomic immobility, and the differing rates of poverty and opportunity available to members of each community as a result. In the US, if you are born poor then you will probably not have the opportunity to get a degree no matter how bright you are and you may not even get the chance to finish high school. Your teachers probably won't care enough about you to even look to see if you are smart, and they won't expect anything out of you but disrespect and violence. Your parents or guardians will be too busy trying to make ends meet or cope with the way their lives have turned out to push you to succeed. You won't have any connections to get you nice cushy internships or interviews for well paid positions.Even when you get a job, you probably won't make enough to live without benefits or the use of charitable services such as food kitchens - especially if you have a family of your own - and you will probably have few opportunities for promotion. You will live in broken down housing surrounded by broken down people who have lost hope of changing their circumstances and are doing whatever they can to avoid thinking about it. If you have children of your own you will be just as unable to provide for them all you wish to as your parents were. It will be hard to cope and harder still to hope for better. At times, you will despair of the system and your life. At times you might be so angry that all you can do is fight - fight the people at the bar, hit out at your partner or even kids, fight the walls of your apartment, anything to make the tension fade. At times, the promise of immediate monetary reward might make small-time crime irresistable - what would it feel like to be able to give your little girl the pink bicycle she wants? to buy new, on-brand presents for Christmas? to be caught up on rent just once? And crime has a tendency of escalating - a mugging gone wrong is a murder. In the USA, you are much more likely to be born poor if you are born black than if you are born white. It is this disparity of poverty that creates the disparity of crime rates. + Show Spoiler +Committing criminal acts for reasons other than absolute need is wrong. It is, however, not inexplicable.
Before you post such garbage you should actually run a proper investigation. Doing so might have allowed you to avoid looking like one of the biggest idiots to disgrace these boards over the last few years.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 01 2012 03:18 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing. Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing. "In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:" "deterring tyrannical government;" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I thought democracy was a big enough deterrant for tyrranical government. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the people want a tyrranical government, and then defend themselves from it?
I still think that tyranny in government does NOT imply that there should be a civil war against democracy, through usage of guns.
It was probably meant for instances like when the sheriff is corrupt, or on 'someones side', in which case you'd be in possible mortal danger. But I obviously can't say for sure. I do find your interpretation horribly wrong though. I'm not trying to be cute with words, I'm trying to read into what they wrote oh so many years ago when the world was different, and what purpose it served them.
I highly doubt your guns are deterring tyrannical government. Pls do give a recent example, if you want.
I'm simply suggesting that, your constitution (probably like the bible) could use a more modern-like interpretation, and perhaps a minor revision. SImply upholding the rights of 200 yr old americans seems backwards. The constitution should strive for a little more; or atleast try to be applied to modern society. Citing rights of the first free americans seems stupid. It is now your right. You justify it.
|
On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past.
I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common.
That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation.
|
On August 08 2012 00:37 froggynoddy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:27 Millitron wrote:On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem. How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated. Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing. Not a bad point (re: alcohol). You are right just because something is a risk factor doesn't mean getting rid of it. What I would say in response is that it means that you need some seriously good reason to jusstify a potentially harmful activity/product, and then regulation to mitigate its harmful effects. If guns do not protect you (which the above pensylvania based study seems to suggest) then what reasons do you have left? Even hardened anti-gun control lobbyists accept that the reason why it was in the US consititution (to protect yourself from a dictatorial goveernment) is no longer a valid excuse. Similar to alcohol you could make the argument that it is simply ingrained in X's society'e culture, and that banning it (e.g.prohibition) causes more harm that the legalisation of said activity. In the cases of guns howeve I just don't see that this argument (re prohibition causing more harm than good) standing much scrutiny, however if you are willing to expand on this I am willing to read. Alcohol perhaps should be more regulated, and it is in various societies (I'm thinking Scandinavia mainly but am no expert in the subject).
First, I would point out that just because civilians would never win a stand-up fight against a modern military doesn't mean guns would not help protect against a dictatorship. Instead of fighting traditional battles, you wage a guerrilla war. No military on Earth could possibly protect every refinery, factory, power plant, bridge, highway, radio tower, harbor, and rail depot in the country; and if it comes to blows, guns certainly can't hurt your odds.
Second, I would point out that there are plenty of studies that do support the idea that guns protect people, they're earlier in the thread and easy to find on google. I'm not citing any because I don't think they're very valid, but neither are the pro gun-control ones. They're all either biased or forgetting to control for important socioeconomic and cultural differences. I would rather argue from almost pure philosophy, because at least then, we can all agree (sort of) on what is actually fact.
Last, I would say that if you need a seriously good reason to justify something, that alcohol should be removed before guns. Alcohol only provides entertainment. Guns provide entertainment (shooting at a range), and they allow hunting, they help protect individuals' freedoms, and as a last resort can be used in self defense. By my count alcohol has one use, guns have four.
As a closing point, I'm not in favor of having no regulations at all. I don't mind background checks, and I don't mind a safety course for pistols and/or anything semi-auto or full-auto. But no gun should be outright banned either; if I fulfill the proper safety course, I should be able to own and operate a Vulcan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan)
Edit: Fixed a typo, and wanted to thank froggynoddy for being pretty reasonable.
On August 08 2012 16:02 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 03:18 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing. Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing. "In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:" "deterring tyrannical government;" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I thought democracy was a big enough deterrant for tyrranical government. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the people want a tyrranical government, and then defend themselves from it? I still think that tyranny in government does NOT imply that there should be a civil war against democracy, through usage of guns. It was probably meant for instances like when the sheriff is corrupt, or on 'someones side', in which case you'd be in possible mortal danger. But I obviously can't say for sure. I do find your interpretation horribly wrong though. I'm not trying to be cute with words, I'm trying to read into what they wrote oh so many years ago when the world was different, and what purpose it served them. I highly doubt your guns are deterring tyrannical government. Pls do give a recent example, if you want.
During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR.
|
On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation.
Still doesn't change the statistics. It shouldn't be explained away, but rather be used as an incentive to try to change things, if ever so slightly.
|
On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:37 froggynoddy wrote:On August 08 2012 00:27 Millitron wrote:On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem. How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated. Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing. Not a bad point (re: alcohol). You are right just because something is a risk factor doesn't mean getting rid of it. What I would say in response is that it means that you need some seriously good reason to jusstify a potentially harmful activity/product, and then regulation to mitigate its harmful effects. If guns do not protect you (which the above pensylvania based study seems to suggest) then what reasons do you have left? Even hardened anti-gun control lobbyists accept that the reason why it was in the US consititution (to protect yourself from a dictatorial goveernment) is no longer a valid excuse. Similar to alcohol you could make the argument that it is simply ingrained in X's society'e culture, and that banning it (e.g.prohibition) causes more harm that the legalisation of said activity. In the cases of guns howeve I just don't see that this argument (re prohibition causing more harm than good) standing much scrutiny, however if you are willing to expand on this I am willing to read. Alcohol perhaps should be more regulated, and it is in various societies (I'm thinking Scandinavia mainly but am no expert in the subject). Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:02 Cutlery wrote:On August 01 2012 03:18 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing. Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing. "In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:" "deterring tyrannical government;" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I thought democracy was a big enough deterrant for tyrranical government. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the people want a tyrranical government, and then defend themselves from it? I still think that tyranny in government does NOT imply that there should be a civil war against democracy, through usage of guns. It was probably meant for instances like when the sheriff is corrupt, or on 'someones side', in which case you'd be in possible mortal danger. But I obviously can't say for sure. I do find your interpretation horribly wrong though. I'm not trying to be cute with words, I'm trying to read into what they wrote oh so many years ago when the world was different, and what purpose it served them. I highly doubt your guns are deterring tyrannical government. Pls do give a recent example, if you want. During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR.
This would be like you defending yourself from an invasion from cuba or mexico. Fine, but this is why you have a military, not a hand-gun (concealed or otherwise). And any secret resistance does not flaunt their guns and shoot at will. And believe it or not; guns are not scarce in a war enviroment. Stricter gun regulations would possibly only serve to help: You need to be organized, not be a vigilante in order to successfully participate in a resistance group. And actual gunfire is of secondary use, and weapons still not scarce.
|
On August 08 2012 16:20 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:On August 08 2012 00:37 froggynoddy wrote:On August 08 2012 00:27 Millitron wrote:On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem. How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated. Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing. Not a bad point (re: alcohol). You are right just because something is a risk factor doesn't mean getting rid of it. What I would say in response is that it means that you need some seriously good reason to jusstify a potentially harmful activity/product, and then regulation to mitigate its harmful effects. If guns do not protect you (which the above pensylvania based study seems to suggest) then what reasons do you have left? Even hardened anti-gun control lobbyists accept that the reason why it was in the US consititution (to protect yourself from a dictatorial goveernment) is no longer a valid excuse. Similar to alcohol you could make the argument that it is simply ingrained in X's society'e culture, and that banning it (e.g.prohibition) causes more harm that the legalisation of said activity. In the cases of guns howeve I just don't see that this argument (re prohibition causing more harm than good) standing much scrutiny, however if you are willing to expand on this I am willing to read. Alcohol perhaps should be more regulated, and it is in various societies (I'm thinking Scandinavia mainly but am no expert in the subject). On August 08 2012 16:02 Cutlery wrote:On August 01 2012 03:18 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing. Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing. "In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:" "deterring tyrannical government;" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I thought democracy was a big enough deterrant for tyrranical government. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the people want a tyrranical government, and then defend themselves from it? I still think that tyranny in government does NOT imply that there should be a civil war against democracy, through usage of guns. It was probably meant for instances like when the sheriff is corrupt, or on 'someones side', in which case you'd be in possible mortal danger. But I obviously can't say for sure. I do find your interpretation horribly wrong though. I'm not trying to be cute with words, I'm trying to read into what they wrote oh so many years ago when the world was different, and what purpose it served them. I highly doubt your guns are deterring tyrannical government. Pls do give a recent example, if you want. During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR. This would be like you defending yourself from an invasion of cuba or mexico. Fine, but this is why you have a military. And any secret resistance does not flaunt their guns and shoot at will. And believe it or not; guns are not scarce in a war enviroment. Stricter gun regulations would possibly only serve to help: You need to be organized, not be a vigilante in order to successfully participate in a resistance group. And actual gunfire is of secondary use, and weapons still not scarce.
Again, I know civilians wouldn't stand a chance against a military in a stand-up fight. I'm not even saying defend myself. I'm fully aware if it comes to blows against a professional military, I'm probably dead; but I take solace in the fact that any resistance movement by a populace as heavily armed as ours could not fail. Guns would be scarce in civilian hands in a country that had strict gun regulation. Unless you either have your own guns, you have to resort to stealing them from the military, which is a tall order when you're unarmed. Plus, people would be more effective using their own weapons, since they'd be more experienced with them.
Most insurgents in Iraq act either alone, or with very small groups. In Afghanistan, at least against the Soviets, the Afghanis also fought in small numbers. Organization is both easier, and not as important in such small groups.
|
On August 08 2012 16:17 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Still doesn't change the statistics. It shouldn't be explained away, but rather be used as an incentive to try to change things, if ever so slightly.
It does change the statistics. You don't think there's a difference between "fucking niggers taking our jobs and raping and killing and taking our stuff" and "We live in a country with segregation and a lot of people living in poverty, which is boosting crime rates. We have to work against this in order to create a better society for everyone".?
You really don't see the difference between the two? What exactly did you mean by "change things"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
