Guns vs crime in Brazil

[MMMMMM]

There are lots of moderate Iraqis; Iraq is actually one of the most modernized Arab countries. The Saddam-follower insurgents, the fanatical followers of that radical imam (Mehdi militia, I think it is called), and the al-Qaeda troublemakers in Iraq are all relatively small minorities.

In fact a few weeks ago, two very prominent Iraqi imams called that radical young imam with the militia (al-Mahdi?),and Zarqawi, both "infidels" and "criminals"! Guess that's one way to put the shoe on the other foot [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

"Leftism refers to nothing more than change.

Rightism prefers the status quo.

Nothing to do with ideologies."

Where did you come up with that? Not trying to be smart ass, but that definition is news to me. I've always considered Leftism to refer to a place on the sliding scale somewhere in the direction of socialism/communism.

[Gamblor]

Right-wing politics

Right is historically associated with conservatism (actually, the other way around) because conservatives are interested in conserving the status quo; meaning averse to change. For the most part, those averse to change were those that had something to lose, mainly power.

Sidebar: This is not fact, but depending on who you ask (among various fiction authors), the right has been historically associated with male, and the left has been historically associated with the female. Early on, the Church and the men who ran it realized that to hold on to political power, they would have to assume the role of the only conduit to heaven. Included in their campaign to demonize women was language; the Italian and French words for left (sinistre and gauche) are examples of this, and political thought that demanded reduced power for the Church (i.e. change) and more power for the people was "left" wing thought.

Of course, the left and right have flip flopped on the issues so many times the meaning gets lost and the labels are now considered only in relation to each other.

[Cyrus]

"I think making it illegal for citizens would have some benefit. "Crime of Passion" murders and sucides would probably show some decrease. Certainly there are other means than guns to kill yourself or your spouse, but most are not as effective, so the success rate on attempts would go down."

There is more to it : the availability of a weapon that can inflict non-correctable damage. With the same amount of rage, I'd speculate that a husband would beat his wife to pulp rather than kill/seriously injure her with a gun.

How many times have we said (and deep down, truly felt so) that we want to "just kill that guy"? Or that we would wanna end it all and kill ourselves? Guns have the ability to translate that momentary feeling to a permanent damage.

"What will almost certainly not happen with gun control is that hardened criminals will be disarmed."

Criminals will always find guns. It is also, I believe, a fact that criminals kill with guns other criminals way more often than they kill simple civilians - whether in "fun"/drive-by shootings or in the process of a crime.

So it would be a good idea to peruse the relevant data, if there is any such.

"I don't think the first benefit is worth the cost of reducing the ability of the law-abiding citizen to defend himself against criminals, or if it becomes necessary, the government."

I don't know about civilians defending themselves against criminals. How many of those incidents are they reported in the United States? I doubt the incidents are significant. (And if you were to argue that guns act as a deterrrent, the the crime stats would rebutt that argument. They are off the scale.)

As to government, I already submitted that the lone citizen is helpless against the government no matter what kind of arsenal he is stocking

[Cyrus]

"The right has been historically associated with male, and the left has been historically associated with the female."

I love to watch you two debate an issue!

Now it is "Leftism"... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Gamblor]

You'll notice that this line was located in a "Sidebar" ( outside the main point, for you cunning linguists) which opened with "This is not fact, but", implying that it might be a valid, if not verifiable, explanation.

One too many Camparis, perhaps.

Nevertheless, did you have anything of substance to add, Sir Jejune? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[natedogg]

cyrus: As to government, I already submitted that the lone citizen is helpless against the government no matter what kind of arsenal he is stocking


This is a strawman argument. No one is claiming that it's important for individuals to own guns so that they can resist as individuals or even as small groups.

Your argument falls down as soon as you encounter the notion of large organized groups of armed citizens.

It's MUCH easier to become an organized armed resistance if you already have the arms.

It's nearly impossible for a large disorganized citizenry to turn into an organized armed resistance if they have their guns taken away from them before they decide to organize and fight.

Duh.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

Pay attention, Cyrus! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[luv_the_game]

Once again -- WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A SMALL GROUP OF CITIZENS DEFEATED A GOVERNMENT FORCE?

I think the answer to you question may be 1783 (American Revolution.) Although you may want to count Afghanistan. Against the Soviets, that is, not the Americans.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about civilians defending themselves against criminals. How many of those incidents are they reported in the United States? I doubt the incidents are significant. (And if you were to argue that guns act as a deterrrent, the the crime stats would rebutt that argument. They are off the scale.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument: The crime rate is high, therefore guns don't deter crime. Perhaps you should study the scientific method. There's a little thing called a control group. I don't think you have enough evidence to demonstrate that more gun control would reduce the crime rate. You can certainly compare the crime rates of countries with and without gun control, but there are lots of other factors involved, so it's easy to support whichever side of the argument you favor by choosing a particula pair of countries (as both advocates and opponents of gun control frequently do). Switzerland (or at least some of its cantons), I believe, requires adult males to own guns and has a low crime rate. England has strict gun control and a fairly high crime rate. I haven't seen statistics of how crime rates have changed in countries that have instituted gun control.

I don't know that I would support gun control even if I knew it would reduce the homicide rate. I think the right to self defense is extremely important. As far as statistical evidence of citizens defending themselves, I think there is a lot that doesn't get reported, and indeed some that can't be reported. I don't know how many people decide not to burglarize a house because they know the occupant is armed. I don't know how many people are walking in a rough neighborhood, and show their weapon to someone who starts folowing them (who may or may not have been intent on robbing or assaulting them). Such incidents often don't get reported (particularly if the person who showed the weapon was violating concealed weapons laws.

Yes, a gun gives you the power to kill someone easily in the heat of the moment. Possessing such power requires a lot of responsibility. In a free society, I think we have to trust citizens with that responsibility.