Not again!

[SpeedoGuy]

HG, if you can not see the difference between a fledgling nation with a population of just 4 million and a superpower that accounts for half of the world's entire military spend, then there isn't much point discussing anything.

The first generations of Americans made a point of spending as little as possible on a professional military force. If Americans spend too much on military force today its because Europe and Asia have since taught us otherwise.

 

[Drifterwood]

Ah, another bash-the-USA thread clumsily framed to appear sympathetic for the victims of a shooting.

Noone has to bash you Speedo - you're happy slaughtering each other. More irony that is off your radar, that people defend gun bearing to save you from invasion, whilst those off invading other countries on your behalf, are actually safer than if they were at home. :smile:

Another strange factoid. More people die every year from guns in the US (incs. suicides) than died in the eight years of the War of Independence.

Honestly, I am genuinely amazed at what seems to me to be the irrational tolerance of your gun culture.

A serious question. Do people own guns because they have a patriotic duty to bear arms if necessary? Or is it because they are drug dealers,, in street gangs, criminals, and simply trying to defend themselves from these people?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Honestly, I am genuinely amazed at what seems to me to be the irrational tolerance of your gun culture.

I can't speak for others but I'm dismayed by irrational tolerance for violence, mainly that of guns, that seems to be glorified in the USA. I see glorification of violence, any violence, and our macho confrontational culture, rather than guns themselves, as the root of the problem here.

A serious question. Do people own guns because they have a patriotic duty to bear arms if necessary? Or is it because they are drug dealers,, in street gangs, criminals, and simply trying to defend themselves from these people?

Again, I can't speak for others but I don't think many Americans really believe that average citizens toting revolvers or shotguns are ever going to deter a professional military force. Indeed, untrained farm boys armed with their father's muskets could only annoy, but not deter, the King's professional army in 1776. It wasn't until actual trained infantry, with a lot of French aid, confronted British regulars and truly contested the issue.

I suspect most law abiding Americans today arm themselves to deal with the potential for violent crime. That's why I do.

 

[No_Strings]

Pre-emptive, over-sensitive defence is indicative of one thing.

 

[Drifterwood]

I can't speak for others but I'm dismayed by irrational tolerance for violence, mainly that of guns, that seems to be glorified in the USA. I see glorification of violence, any violence, and our macho confrontational culture, rather than guns themselves, as the root of the problem here.



Again, I can't speak for others but I don't think many Americans really believe that average citizens toting revolvers or shotguns are ever going to deter a professional military force. Indeed, untrained farm boys armed with their father's muskets could only annoy, but not deter, the King's professional army in 1776. It wasn't until actual trained infantry, with a lot of French aid, confronted British regulars and truly contested the issue.

I suspect most law abiding Americans today arm themselves to deal with the potential for violent crime. That's why I do.

If we pretty much completely agree, why do you always accuse me of America bashing?

Nice point about the French BTW. I didn't dare bring it up that they saved your ass :biggrin1:.

 

[Drifterwood]

AFP: Four dead, six wounded in two shootings in Colorado

Another tragedy.

Are there really 200,000,000 firearms in the US, as stated in the article?

 

[HazelGod]

AFP: Four dead, six wounded in two shootings in Colorado

Another tragedy.

Are there really 200,000,000 firearms in the US, as stated in the article?

Probably...the vast majority in the hands of responsible owners.

If you bothered to actually digest the events in Colorado, you'd know that it was an armed civilian who prevented the shooter from succeeding in his rampage. Not a policeman, not a soldier...but a regular citizen willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect the lives of her fellow human beings.

No more hypotheticals, boys and girls. Now we've seen the direct effect of the presence of armed resistance in a group targeted by an assailant bent on murder. I wish I could have heard the thoughts of stunned surprise in that guy's mind when he walked into that church and was greeted with gunfire. Undoubtedly, he was expecting a crowd of defenseless sheep, and he had come prepared to slaughter them at his leisure.

Gun-free zones are a generally stupid idea...and the notion of turning this entire nation into a gun-free zone speaks of ignorance so profound it could only come from someone who knows nothing of living here firsthand. When you get around to dissolving your stupid-ass monarchy, I'll gladly entertain your input on "modernizing" the anachronistic structural rules of American federal government.

 

[SteveHd]

Are there really 200,000,000 firearms in the US, as stated in the article?

It looks slightly higher than other estimates I've seen.

Something that needs to be recognized is that the per-capita gun ownership hasn't changed drastically over the last several decades. The growth in firearms has been somewhat consistent with the population growth. Back when the population was 150 million there were about 80 million firearms.

 

[B_Monster]

Someone likes to argue just for arguements sake, its just dumb!

 

[dong20]

Probably...the vast majority in the hands of responsible owners.

No doubt. And largely irrelevant.

No more hypotheticals, boys and girls. Now we've seen the direct effect of the presence of armed resistance in a group targeted by an assailant bent on murder.

A circular argument.

While your comment wasn't aimed at me directly; first you don't get to determine the content of other's posts and second - I wasn't talking hypotheticals. The US has one of 'civilised' world's highest gun crime rates by a country mile, that's not hypothetical, it's a fact. The causes for this are arguable, but the tragic side effects of effectively unrestricted gun ownership are not. It's sad you're unable to see that.

You have no doubt see this, or something like it.

Gun Facts

Gun-free zones are a generally stupid idea...and the notion of turning this entire nation into a gun-free zone speaks of ignorance so profound it could only come from someone who knows nothing of living here firsthand.

I agree with you on the first point on principle but because of practicality. On you second point, has it occurred to you that sometimes a different perspective can be more objective? Or are you so closed minded as to rule that out on spec and so sure that a national psyche is incapable of substantive change?

When you get around to dissolving your stupid-ass monarchy, I'll gladly entertain your input on "modernizing" the anachronistic structural rules of American federal government.

Cheap, and spectacularly off target (or was deliberately so stated).

 

[RamIt]

Maybe the question shouldnt be if we should remove all guns from the population, but if we could.

The US spends billions annually on drug enforcement, unsuccessfully to a large extent. Why would illegal firearms be any different? While it is possible the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens would prevent the "random shooting" that happens every so often, it would do very little (speculative) to prevent the majority of violent crimes.

Not only would criminals still find a way to get firearms, but many responsible gun owners would object as well, creating an uprising the likes of prohibition. The amount of government spending and resources that would be used on removing firearms from the US would cause an upheaval in the general public, both at the disregard for the 2nd ammendment, and the skyrocket in taxes needed to undertake this. Where would the first budget cuts be made? Welfare? Education? Forget healthcare and social security.

So, we can quite possibly destroy our nation from the inside out in an attempt to remove what is basically a tool from the general public, or we can go after the source of the crimes, i.e. poverty, low education, and psychological health issues. Further licensing and weapons regulations might be a start, but they are not the final solution either.

 

[dong20]

Maybe the question shouldnt be if we should remove all guns from the population, but if we could.

I think it would be very difficult to achieve this. But that shouldn't be cause for not even trying (I mean really trying, not toothless faux-legislation) to control access to firearms, should it?

The US spends billions annually on drug enforcement, unsuccessfully to a large extent. Why would illegal firearms be any different? While it is possible the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens would prevent the "random shooting" that happens every so often, it would do very little (speculative) to prevent the majority of violent crimes.

Yes it does and that's a valid point, but it's also a rather defeatist stance IMHO, it's too hard so let's not bother? The alternative being...see below.

Not only would criminals still find a way to get firearms, but many responsible gun owners would object as well, creating an uprising the likes of prohibition. The amount of government spending and resources that would be used on removing firearms from the US would cause an upheaval in the general public, both at the disregard for the 2nd ammendment, and the skyrocket in taxes needed to undertake this. Where would the first budget cuts be made? Welfare? Education? Forget healthcare and social security.

Other nations seem to have effective gun control legislation and this tends to correlate with lower gun crime. Naturally, criminals will obtain firearms, they are, after all criminals - but it does appear to reduce the random and impulsive acts of violence perpetrated by otherwise law abiding citizens, and perhaps some of the clinically motivated cases.

On the civil unrest theme; I can't help but wonder if people are more likely to worry about the elevated risk of being shot and killed than a dilution of a constitutional amendment, or rather a more practical application of it - especially if one is black and under 35. It's something of a chicken and egg scenario, I'll grant.

So, we can quite possibly destroy our nation from the inside out in an attempt to remove what is basically a tool from the general public, or we can go after the source of the crimes, i.e. poverty, low education, and psychological health issues. Further licensing and weapons regulations might be a start, but they are not the final solution either.

I agree, not so much that they are, or should be a tool of the 'general' public but that tackling the sources of gun crime should be given higher priority than removing the tools used to perpetrate them. But that doesn't mean the head in the sand attitude evidenced by some here that (it's hopeless, and futile to try) is the right approach either. That sounds like fatalism enshrined as government policy.

I agree as HG said earlier, much of this is speculative but then of course so is much of any counter argument. The stark reality is however that unless the US is willing to accept what is happening within society (especially to young black males) as mere statistical 'noise' then continued inertia (and denial) on this issue wouldn't appear to be the best option because clearly, it's not working.

 

[Drifterwood]

The UK has a gun death ratio of .4 per 100,000 whilst the US has a ratio 15 per 100,000. That is the statistical reality.

HG you are more fanatical in your advocacy of and acceptance of gun culture than the most ardent fundamentalist creationist is to Genesis and Leviticus.

 

[HazelGod]

A circular argument.

While your comment wasn't aimed at me directly; first you don't get to determine the content of other's posts and second - I wasn't talking hypotheticals. The US has one of 'civilised' world's highest gun crime rates by a country mile, that's not hypothetical, it's a fact. The causes for this are arguable, but the tragic side effects of effectively unrestricted gun ownership are not. It's sad you're unable to see that.

You have no doubt see this, or something like it.
Gun Facts

You need to do some reading into the meaning of "circular." In argumentation, the term is used to denote the fallacy of a self-reinforcing position. If you can explain how anything I've said qualifies as being circular, I'd love to hear it.

You also completely misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't presuming to dictate the content of debate. I was referring to the discussions that arose after the VT shooting incident where various "what ifs" were being put forth with regard to the (lack of) sanity of schools' zero gun policies. One of those was the hypothetical what if someone in the targeted group of victims was carrying a concealed handgun?

My remark pointed out that this has been elevated out of the realm of supposition. It's been demonstrated exactly what the result of that "what if" would be. That's the fact.

As for your "facts" you're citing, perhaps you should do some remedial coursework in statistical analysis. You don't think the fact that you're linking to a site called Gun-Control-Network.Org might imply just the slightest bit of bias in the information they disseminate? While they aren't as egregiously inflammatory as DW's stupid comparisons to war casualties, they're a case study in statistical misinformation unto themselves.

First, they're including suicides in their calculations. Almost 60% of all gun deaths are suicides...so while that sucks for their families, it's no compelling reason to rescind the Second Amendment for everyone. I'll go ahead and sound callous...if people want to blow their own heads off, that's their problem...and their right, as far as I'm concerned. Suicide prevention isn't a valid criterion for abolition of freedoms for everyone. Eliminating the despondent from the discussion and focusing on the homicides cuts the death rates by more than half, and that chart looks a whole lot less linear. Suddenly, the USA is in line with France and Finland, and it's the Swiss who have a real problem.

Furthermore, their comparisons of nations are apples-to-oranges at best...and more like apples to integrated circuits in reality. The USA is a nation of 300M+ individuals...there's an entire order of magnitude difference in our population compared to any other on that chart. Exacerbating this is the enormous difference in population density as well. The USA averages 31 people per square kilometer...no other nation charted by GCN.Org has fewer than 100. And some notables that are held up as models for lack of gun violence, like the UK, have densities over 240. Basically, the USA has a shitload of people widely spread out over an enormous landmass...a reality as completely dissimilar from any of the Western European nations compared by that site as imaginable. I suggest you stay away from pre-compiled statistics in the future...try looking at the raw data from as unbiased a source as possible. You'll find that conclusions you draw for yourself are much less likely to be shredded so easily as those you swallow predigested.

Finally, I have to correct yet another flaw in your reading comprehension. I have never advocated unrestricted firearms ownership. Sensible limitations on the procurement and usage of weapons is absolutely necessary for our society to function. Blanket prohibitions on the entire country and knee-jerk reactionary legislation are not...and in fact are generally counterproductive to their stated purpose of making people safer.

 

[dong20]

The UK has a gun death ratio of .4 per 100,000 whilst the US has a ratio 15 per 100,000. That is the statistical reality.

Not exactly.

In 2005/6 there were 50 firearms homicides in England and Wales (1 was an airgun). This is against a population of about 60 million = 0.083 per 100,000. The worrying thing is that while the rate is low, it is increasing.

The US rate for firearms Homicides is 'about' 12,000 per year or about 4 per 100,000 The figure among among young black males can be closer to 100 per 100,000 in some urban areas. I think the general rate is about 10 times that of whites. I'm not sure where your figure of 15 originates.

HG you are more fanatical in your advocacy of and acceptance of gun culture than the most ardent fundamentalist creationist is to Genesis and Leviticus.

I disagree, and on many aspects of what he says he may be right. I don't believe that gun control will solve the problem of gun crime, though I do think it may be a step in the right direction.

Gun control is only a part of any solution, and it may only be a relatively small part of the problem, the real issues in the US are deep rooted social, economic and racial inequalities and 'gun culture'. In the UK have the some or all of former to varying degrees but we don't (for the most part) have the latter.

However, as for those denying it's a factor (or even a problem at all) and using that denial as justification for inaction and dismissal of any other viewpoint? Well, aside from being arrogant it flies not only in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary but simple common sense.

 

[odd_fish_9]

Pre-emptive, over-sensitive defence is indicative of one thing.

What, hoplophobia?

Freud had some unflattering things to say about the fear of weapons.

 

[dong20]

You need to do some reading into the meaning of "circular." In argumentation, the term is used to denote the fallacy of a self-reinforcing position. If you can explain how anything I've said qualifies as being circular, I'd love to hear it.

People with guns are safer because they can shoot other people with guns who are trying to shoot them, because they have guns. Therefore having guns make people safer?

Maybe not circular by your interpretation, but seriously flawed by mine.

You also completely misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't presuming to dictate the content of debate. I was referring to the discussions that arose after the VT shooting incident where various "what ifs" were being put forth with regard to the (lack of) sanity of schools' zero gun policies. One of those was the hypothetical what if someone in the targeted group of victims was carrying a concealed handgun?

Well, that's as may be. I was referring to this thread. See above.

As for your "facts" you're citing, perhaps you should do some remedial coursework in statistical analysis. You don't think the fact that you're linking to a site called Gun-Control-Network.Org might imply just the slightest bit of bias in the information they disseminate? While they aren't as egregiously inflammatory as DW's stupid comparisons to war casualties, they're a case study in statistical misinformation unto themselves.

Not at all. And I was quite aware of the source. I could have cited a pro-gun website. The reason I chose them is because they are, as you say not entirely inflammatory and a little wider focussed than most lobby sites.

On a related point, as you point out, I didn't say or agree with what DW said, so if you want to insult people's intelligence (as you often seem enjoy doing, for some misplaced reason) - please do it to his face not mine.

That said, you're a fine one to lecture me about the use of statistics to back up an argument.

First, they're including suicides in their calculations. Almost 60% of all gun deaths are suicides...so while that sucks for their families, it's no compelling reason to rescind the Second Amendment for everyone. I'll go ahead and sound callous...if people want to blow their own heads off, that's their problem...and their right, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, your point being? The site clearly states that and I made no allusion to the contrary, all I did was provide the link, the inferences are entirely your own. Again, cheap tactics.

Suicide prevention isn't a valid criterion for abolition of freedoms for everyone. Eliminating the despondent from the discussion and focusing on the homicides cuts the death rates by more than half, and that chart looks a whole lot less linear. Suddenly, the USA is in line with France and Finland, and it's the Swiss who have a real problem.

I have always been arguing from a perspective of homicides. I can't recall mentioning suicides other than, perhaps in passing. You can try and suggest otherwise for whatever purpose - to your hearts content. It won't make it so.

However for the sake of clarity:

The US rate on that site for homicides is 3.98/100k or 8 times the Swiss rate of 0.50/100k. How exactly, are those figures 'in line', is it some other meaning of 'in line' that I'm unaware of? I'd suggest you find a calculator and not lecture me on remedial maths.

I think the Swiss will sleep fine tonight.

Furthermore, their comparisons of nations are apples-to-oranges at best...and more like apples to integrated circuits in reality. The USA is a nation of 300M+ individuals...there's an entire order of magnitude difference in our population compared to any other on that chart. Exacerbating this is the enormous difference in population density as well. The USA averages 31 people per square kilometer...no other nation charted by GCN.Org has less than 100. And some notables that are held up as models for lack of gun violence, like the UK, have densities over 240. Basically, the USA has a shitload of people widely spread out over an enormous landmass...a reality as completely dissimilar from any of the Western European nations compared by that site as imaginable.

Unimaginable, really? Thanks for the geography lesson though. Having lived in a cave in Patagonia almost my entire life, naturally I had no idea of the differing size and population densities of the US and Europe.

I wonder though what this reality (as you put it) have to do (directly) with people in the US having a greater propensity toward shooting each other than us huddled euro-masses? Is it loneliness, boredom?

I'm being facetious of course but your argument is mostly tangential. Yes, the US and Europe have different geologies and lower average population densities. But remember that gun crime is far higher in urban areas of the US where population densities are more akin to those in European urban areas. And, guess what? gun crime rates in European cities are higher than those in rural areas too.

However not to labour a point about your motives and attempts to misdirect the argument but yet again I catch you in a fallacy; The population density of Finland is 15-17/Km2, the gun homicide rate in Finland is 0.35/100k. Just to step outside Europe - Australia comes in at packed 2.6/Km2 and a rate of 0.24. Now, what was your point again?

I suggest you stay away from pre-compiled statistics in the future...try looking at the raw data from as unbiased a source as possible. You'll find that conclusions you draw for yourself are much less likely to be shredded so easily as those you swallow

Well, when you stop citing statistics as evidence for your argument then perhaps I'll stop referring to them in mine. If you want to play the patronizing game, after all it seems to be your MO, feel free, it's water of a duck's back to me. I can tango too.

Finally, I have to correct yet another flaw in your reading comprehension. I have never advocated unrestricted firearms ownership. Sensible limitations on the procurement and usage of weapons is absolutely necessary for our society to function. Blanket prohibitions on the entire country and knee-jerk reactionary legislation are not...and in fact are generally counterproductive to their stated purpose of making people safer.

Did I say you had? Please point out where I did. Have I advocated a total ban on all firearms under any circumstance? again please show me where I have. Perhaps it's your own reading comprehension that's in need of some spit and polish?

If you're going to resort to shoddy tactics such as (more) insults and misdirection and perhaps outright lies, you really are wasting my time. I'd rather discuss the issue sensibly with someone who's up to the task.

 

[odd_fish_9]

Are there really 200,000,000 firearms in the US, as stated in the article?

Nobody knows. That's the usual minimum estimate but it's really no more than a wild-assed guess. The vast majority of them never hurt anybody, though of course those ones don't get into the news.

 

[odd_fish_9]

People with guns are safer because they can shoot other people with guns who are trying to shoot them, because they have guns. Therefore having guns make people safer?

Maybe not circular by your interpretation, but seriously flawed by mine.

You've misstated the problem.

Postulate a simple situation, good guys with guns vs. bad guys with guns. As stated, nobody is at a disadvantage. Now you pass a restrictive gun law. The good guys obey your law, because they're the good guys. The bad guys don't obey it because they're the bad guys. Now the situation is different. The good guys don't have guns, the bad guys do.

Would you seriously try to argue that you have just made the good guys safer?

 

[dong20]

You've misstated the problem.

Postulate a simple situation, good guys with guns vs. bad guys with guns. As stated, nobody is at a disadvantage. Now you pass a restrictive gun law. The good guys obey your law, because they're the good guys. The bad guys don't obey it because they're the bad guys. Now the situation is different. The good guys don't have guns, the bad guys do.

Would you seriously try to argue that you have just made the good guys safer?

I don't believe so but it's late, gimme a break!:smile:

What I'm saying is that having a gun only makes one safer if your opponent doesn't. Much like you do, in reverse. In other words to be safe it's necessary for everyone to have a gun, to level the playing field so to speak.

Violence breeds violence, we know that already. But the form that violence takes (on average) will depend on the weaponry at hand (on average) - be it guns, knives, axes whatever - not so? If everyone is armed equally, no one is safe (or, more accurately at equal risk). It's a self serving argument.

Bad guys won't play fair, that's a constant so it factors out because it applies to all violent crime.

In the UK and where I spend much of my time, Zambia and sometimes Zimbabwe - there's plenty of crime but comparatively little gun crime. I may feel threatened running into dodgy characters late at night but I'm not expecting to get shot by them because these are not gun cultures. In the same situation in the US I may feel differently.

Think past your own experiences.