you make the call - gun argument

http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/newforums/exchange.pl?read=42457


well those of you who have followed other topics posts, am i right or am i right?


brad

In 1990 there were 36,866 deaths involving firearms in the United States, roughly 50 times the number of firearm deaths in all of Western Europe.


Do you think this is because they had more guns in Europe?

come on andy, youre a smart guy.


you realize youre changing the subject.


the subject is crime and murder in great britian in the last year and a half roughly.


but to address your issue, how many of those deaths were either gang related, suicide, or justified self defense?


brad


p.s. did you read my post about the camps?

also, were the murder rates equivalent (in other words people were killed with knives instead of guns in western europe) ?

you cant look at the US as a whole because each state has completely diferent crime rates and different gun laws, of which there are many more on the local level than on the federal level. plus you dont know how many of those deaths were from illegal guns, or gang related or any number of other significant factors.


Pat

fart jokes, as some said, in South Park: The Movie kill people.

there you know everyone has automatic weapons and bombs and stuff.


theres a reason theyre never invaded.


but the price they pay is the constant killing both accidental and deliberate which we always read about in all the papers.


brad

But how about some anecdotal evidence of the funny deaths. You know, the guy who looks down the barrel to see if it's empty and kills himself? Or the guy who plays Russian Roulette but thinks you keep pulling the trigger without re-spinning the cylinder? Or the guy running for office who is pro-gun who shoots one off at a .... oh nevermind, it probably isn't funny is it? /images/smile.gif

the uncle f**ker song is probably the funniest five minutes ever on film!


Pat

I'm trying to address the general subject of whether more guns makes us safer or less safe. I have no idea what's happenend in G.B in the last year and a half nor if whatever has happened may have more than one explanation.


I'll read your post about the camps just now.


And thanks for the controversial compliment you gave me in your first sentence. Opinion is still split on the issue.

No sure, but I think violent crime of all kinds is much rarer there.

This review, believe it or not, is even better than the movie.

A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his anal wind


Bwaahaahaaa!


You know, if I hadn't seen the movie already, this "review" would have me running out to rent it. Very funny, and also kinda sad. The people who take the time to actually count how many times a swear word is used in a movie just kill me.


Matt

I have not seen this movie. But I will now. One question, if the movie is so horrible, why did a presumably good Christian boy from the ministry watch it so carefully? I'll let others speculate.

i dont suppose they liked The Exorcist either.


pat

To save the rest of us from evil. Kind of like when Rush told his listeners that they didn't need to read newpapers because he would read for them and tell them what to think about it.

Just one point: whether more guns or fewer make us safer isn't the entire issue here.


Some might feel that the relative degree of safety outweighs all other concerns, but others might feel that the RIGHT to be able to defend one's self and loved ones is at least as important.


In other words, I'd rather have a little less net safety, if it comes to that, and still have the right to defend myself, than the other way around. For those who would prefer safety at all costs, even at the expense of their own rights, I would just say, be careful what you wish for. The rights to self-determination and self-defense are worth more than any safety in my opinion.


A second point: Gun control works great, too: just ask Hitler and Castro.

Yes, crime is way up in Britain. In some areas and some crimes it is higher than that of the US. However, we weren't talking about crime in general, we were talking about murder. Put out the stats that show that murder in Britain is above murder in the US. Even if you get those, you still only have one data point. Sure, there are countries with more guns and less murder than the US and there are countries with less guns and more murder, but by and larger all the data suggest that an overwhelming majority of the countries with more gun control than the US have far less murder than the US.


I've put out plenty of sources, where are yours? I can give you many more sources, can you provide one? Can you provide more than anecdotal evidence and more than one trivial data point? Here's a 2000 article about Britain that points out that even then, the murder rate was 6 times in the US what it was in Britain (but that, as I noted above, the rate of some crimes were higher in Britain than in the US): http://www.stats.org/statswork/csm-crimeuk.htm


So, yes, I agree that crime is in many respects worse in Britain (and Australia) than it is here. However, we still have 'em whipped in murder.

I'm ambivalent about gun control, but don't buy the 'Hitler & Castro did it, so it must be bad' argument. As Hitler apologists love to point out, he made the trains run on time. Are we therefore to take the failure of Amtrack as an affirmation of how good our society is?


Would your right to self-determination make you comfortable with everyone having access to anthrax? To nukes? There are limits to this argument. Gun control is somewhere near that limit in my opinion, though I'm pretty uncertain where I'd put it. It does seem like other countries have solved this problem fairly well (i.e. similar number of guns but much less crime). We haven't, yet. I seem to remember an earlier bout of this now getting tiresome argument ending in the observation that Switzerland (I think) solved this problem by having much higher penalties for crimes committed with guns than those committed with other weapons (or none). Seems like a good solution, but good luck getting it past the NRA, which would start whining about slippery slope arguments and such.

I'm not trying to make th argument that gun control must be bad because Hitler and Castro did it; I'm just saying that it does potentially pave the way for tyrannical government at some point in the future (not that I think this is looming anytime soon. But rights once lost are very hard to regain).


The nuke/anthrax example is irrelevant because those are not weapons of self-defense but rather are WMD (which are also impractical for use in personal self-defense). However


Bear in mind that self-determination may be, or become, impossible without the right to self-defense.


Also, the right for individuals to have nukes or anthrax does not come under the umbrella of self-determination except in the most far-fetched or contrived philosophical sense. However the right to immediate personal self-defense does come under the umbrella of self-determination because it is often a prerequisite for self-determination.

The notion that only criminals and cops can have guns is deeply disturbing. I'm surprised it isn't more disturbing to more people.


So you have to be defenseless if a criminal with a gun comes after you? What a crock. The overall murder rate means more than YOUR right to life and self-defense in a crisis situation?


This seems just one aspect of fundamental philosophical differences between much of Europe and the USA, and also between many liberals or conservatives in the USA. The liberals tend to value security and "quality of life" more than their rights. The conservatives tend to value their RIGHTS more than comfort and security.


Well, I think those who want more comfort and security for everyone should have the right to work towards that end. However I think those who vaue their own RIGHTS more highly than comfort and security should be able to live that way as well...without interference from those who would remove rights from others for what they see as "the good of society." WHOSE DEFINITION OF GOOD? How about this: everyone define "good" FOR THEMSELVES, and as long as they aren't harming others, they be left unmolested in pursuit of their own personal goals and life. IMO that's how a society should be run.

within the past 3 months (6 months for sure) ive posted a bunch of links about how british crime is exploded (including murder in london im pretty sure) so i had hoped one of the regular readers would chime in and agree with me. if youre really interested you can search for my posts (set o.t. for past 3 months or 6 months or whatever).


anyway, just to be clear, i dont think it really matters (M's view), but facts are facts and i think your original post misrepresented the current situation in britian (although this post you may be right in line suggesting murder is not in line with explosion in crime, although it might be for big cities like london.)


brad


p.s. i guess im just lazy

"In 1990 there were 36,866 deaths involving firearms in the United States, roughly 50 times the number of firearm deaths in all of Western Europe.


Do you think this is because they had more guns in Europe?"


How many of those were suicides? How many of those were felons killed during comission of a crime? How many of them were gang-bangers killed during a drive-by by other gang-bangers?


When you get the number of fatalities that actually matter, get back with us. Also might want to get some data that aren't over a decade out of date.


The Baron

Given the choice, I'd prefer not to just limit the issue to murder. Let's include the entire range of violent crimes. While a murder ends a life, rape, assault, mayhem, arson and the rest can ruin that life for good. Ask the next rape victim you meet how good her life is since she didn't have the ability to protect herself.


When you talk to the security guard from the Tukwilla, Washington tavern that was burnt down with him inside; ask him whether he'd have prefered to have been armed when the two strongmen broke in and duct taped him to the bar.


Hell, ask me. When the young man currently running from the police after robbing a "payday loan" check cashing establishment started to draw a gun when he stumbled across me. He seemed rather put off when I drew mine first and took a safe position behind a parked car. Strangely enough, he changed his mind about drawing and continued to run until he was caught about an hour later. Sure enough, he had the pistol he'd used in the robbery tucked into the waistband of his pants.


Next let's throw out all of the fatalities resulting from criminals being killed during a crime, gangland deaths resulting from gangland shootings, suicides and the rest of those that really aren't pertinent to society as a whole.


Personally, I'd prefer to not carry a gun. Unfortunately I've been both shot and stabbed and I found both experiences to be thoroughly below the median of my life Fun-O-Meter. They suck a lot. It hurts a great deal. It ruins clothes and takes up tremendous amounts of time and money to fix the damage. Nope, don't care to let it happen again. Personally I'll always take the option of shooting the street person with his knife when he tries to shank me for my wallet. I'll always take the option of shooting the crackhead who's having his best psychotic break to date and wants to hit me in the head with a broken 2X4.


They choose to take violent action against me, far be it from me to insult them by assuming they haven't considered the full range of effects that might result because of their actions. Not my job to think for them.


The Baron