The problem with threads like this is that most people that post on them have an opinion or belief, and it doesn't matter what anyone says they won't change there mind. They just want to try and make you know that they are right and you are wrong. I may sound like one of those people to some of you, but I'm not. I have an opinion, but I'm not entirely married to it. If someone shows me enough logic and evidence to suggest that what I believe doesn't make sense, I am willingly to look at it closely and potentially change my beliefs. If you don't share that mentality than there is no point in you being involved in any kind of discourse because you have already closed your mind and aren't listening to anything anyone else is saying.
Time to start handing in the guns guys.
You don't need em, and kids don't need to keep being shot by them.
Considering my guns have never been used to shoot anybody.... unless you count that copperhead a couple years back..... why should I turn mine in?
For the greater good. For the same reason we should give up on most of the crap we have, but don't want to give up. For the same reason you should not smoke. For the same reasons we shouldn't drive cars. For the same reasons we should all be vegetarians. For the same reason we should give all our extra income to charity.
The problem is that most of us (myself included), don't want to make all those sacrifices to our lifestyles because we are inherently greedy. That greediness, is part of our natural survival instincts- we need to acquire and consume resources to live, so it is natural for us to want things, but until we learn to temper it, things will get worse for us.
Responding to the bolded part. Whose greater good? And who decides what is good for everyone? That is a very slippery slope with no real good answer. I sure don't know.
I agree with you in a purely idealized way, but I don't believe that contact with human nature will ever let those ideals play out. As soon as you start talking about the "greater good" you open up another whole mess of questions and problems. I think these questions are some that may never get answered to everyone's satisfaction.
That is true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or try to come to some agreement of what "greater good" means or how we could go about achieving it.
I mean, can't we concede that taking measures to reduce that amount of people that die from other people killing them is for the greater good. Can't we concede that taking measures to reduce the harm we do to our environment is for the greater good. I think most of us can actually understand quite easily what the greater good is. We just are weak, and don't really have the will or inclination necessary to make the sacrifices necessary achieve it. I feel like I am one of those people.
I know it would be better for the planet if I didn't eat meat. I should probably move closer to where I work, so I don't need to drive a car as often. There are numerous things that I do in my life that if I thought about it don't benefit the greater good. We are all flawed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. I carpool on a regular basis. I use public transit when I can. I bring my own bags to the grocery. I try not eat fast food. I obey the law etc... That is not near enough, but I figure have to start somewhere. I think getting rid of personal fire arms would be a show of good will that wouldn't really impede people's lifestyles. I mean you don't drive your gun to work. You don't eat your gun. Mostly it just sits in a cabinet.
Time to start handing in the guns guys.
You don't need em, and kids don't need to keep being shot by them.
Considering my guns have never been used to shoot anybody.... unless you count that copperhead a couple years back..... why should I turn mine in?
For the greater good. For the same reason we should give up on most of the crap we have, but don't want to give up. For the same reason you should not smoke. For the same reasons we shouldn't drive cars. For the same reasons we should all be vegetarians. For the same reason we should give all our extra income to charity.
The problem is that most of us (myself included), don't want to make all those sacrifices to our lifestyles because we are inherently greedy. That greediness, is part of our natural survival instincts- we need to acquire and consume resources to live, so it is natural for us to want things, but until we learn to temper it, things will get worse for us.
Responding to the bolded part. Whose greater good? And who decides what is good for everyone? That is a very slippery slope with no real good answer. I sure don't know.
I agree with you in a purely idealized way, but I don't believe that contact with human nature will ever let those ideals play out. As soon as you start talking about the "greater good" you open up another whole mess of questions and problems. I think these questions are some that may never get answered to everyone's satisfaction.
Yes I definitely need help understanding.
For instance, take Sarah Palin. She's pretty pro gun, but she is also supposably a Christian.
I'm not a Christian, and find it very confusing due to people like her, but I want someone to explain to me how someone can claim to be a true Christian, but still support firearms.
It is my understanding that Christianity is supposed to be about peace and love, and helping your fellow man. From what I've heard about Jesus, he isn't the sort of guy who would carry a gun or have them around. Isn't Jesus supposed to be the role model for Christians?
I contend that you can't truly embrace the tenants of Christianity and still own firearms. It is one of the deadly sins to kill another man; therefore owning a gun is just putting you that much closer to committing such a sin. Therefore you should not own a gun.
P.H., I think the reason, you and I don't seem to understand the basis of these arguments is because we tend to think logically, Not to say no one else is thinking logically, just that every body's point of view is flavored by life experiences.
Logically speaking a christian could say, because the U.S government has an army and uses it to kill people, I'm not going to pay taxes because my taxes are funding murder.
Logic almost never applies when it comes to politics or religion.
That said, owning a firearm doesn't have anything to do with religion any more than owning a sword or a battle hammer would. Yes it can be used to kill someone but then so can just about anything you pick up, you could choke a person to death stuffing cotton balls down their mouth, use a ham bone to bash someone's head in or even choke someone to death with the belt you use to hold you pants up.
It's not the inanimate object, it's the intent of the person that picks it up that makes an item deadly or not.
|
Way to politicize a tragic event for your own self-aggrandizing interests...no, the left isn't to blame at all, is it? [/sarcasm]Ok guys, first I have actually visited Arizona, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Second, bad people and wackos come in all stripes not just your opponents stripes. And finally come on people, lets stop blaming and realize a 9 year old girl was shot. Wake up this isn't about your politics it's about a horrible tragedy.This didn't happen in a vacuum. One side in this country preaches non-stop fear, anger, and violence, and it's not the left.
What self-aggrandizing interests? I'm pointing out the obvious. The rhetorical tone from the right in this country since Obama was elected has been nothing but fear, fear, fear, they're-destroying-America, death panels, socialism, secret Muslim, fear, fear, fear, next-time-we'll-be-armed, water-the-tree-of-liberty, buy-gold-because-the-world-is-going-to-end!
Who had crosshairs on Congresswoman Giffords' name on her website? I think it was Sarah Palin. You can point to incidents of leftist extremism easily enough, but irrationality is mainstream for the FOXNews, Palin, Beck set. This "Both sides are bad, ya'll" nonsense is an apology for all the right-wing nuttery that has this county paralyzed.
And for the record, this was an act of insanity and he might have found an entirely different target under different circumstances; but in this case he was attracted to the political flames being fanned by the far right.
And yes I realize this is a tragedy, and I am so goddamn angry that this happened that I am not going to tolerate right-wing apologists anymore.
As I recall she was one of the Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for the Obama health reform package.
Arizona is chock full of tea baggers and racists. I don't know much about Giffords, I think she is a blue dog (Republican Lite), but I don't know much about her record.Have you been paying attention to the rhetoric and politic maneuvering coming out of that place the past few years? From Birthright citizenship, to half-ass brownshirts harassing Mexicans, to this guy.
No, she wasn't.
|
That said, owning a firearm doesn't have anything to do with religion any more than owning a sword or a battle hammer would. Yes it can be used to kill someone but then so can just about anything you pick up, you could choke a person to death stuffing cotton balls down their mouth, use a ham bone to bash someone's head in or even choke someone to death with the belt you use to hold you pants up.
It's not the inanimate object, it's the intent of the person that picks it up that makes an item deadly or not.
The difference is that none of those things are designed specifically to kill people. That is the one, and only purpose a handgun has. You may go target shooting with it, but that piece of equipment was designed to do only one thing: taking the life of another human being in the most efficient way possible. And they are very, very good at what they do.
I understand the draw of guns, our society has been telling us they're really cool for the last 200 years, and we eat it up. Hell, I think they're really cool. But it doesn't change the fact that when you're carrying a piece, it says to the world "I am prepared to take off the head of that man over there if I feel like I need to." And that makes me uncomfortable.
|
Arizona is chock full of tea baggers and racists. I don't know much about Giffords, I think she is a blue dog (Republican Lite), but I don't know much about her record.
The only bigot I see here is you. Go away troll, back to the daily Kos or whatever leftist propaganda rock you crawled out from under.
|
|
No doubt her assassin is being portrayed as a martyr for the "Take Back America" cause.
Actually, from what I have seen and heard, he is being pretty roundly condemned by the political right. Sure there may be some Timothy McVey types out there that are looking at this guy as a hero, but for the most part the political right is just as appalled by this as the political left. I think that trying to apply a rational political motive to this act, which was committed by someone who has more than a few screws loose, is going to be hard. Rather than jumping to conclusions and making this a right/left issue to try and widen the gulf in the current political climate, let's use our shared grief and disgust to pull closer together.
|
|
This didn't happen in a vacuum. One side in this country preaches non-stop fear, anger, and violence, and it's not the left.
Right. Because teh left never said "their going to poison the air, posison teh water, and kick old people out on the streets."
The left never acted in violence, and many of the town halls on healthcare debate- 7 of the 11 worst ones were.....leftist healthcare supportors.
The left never acted in violence with broken windows and slashed tires to military recuriters.
Your full of crap. The left runs its scare mongering just as bad as the right. You just refuse to look.
Perhaps but because of her relatively moderate stances, she may clearly have been anathema to those who believe that the strident narrow path of Tea Party governance is the only true way.No, she wasn't.As I recall she was one of the Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for the Obama health reform package.
Arizona is chock full of tea baggers and racists. I don't know much about Giffords, I think she is a blue dog (Republican Lite), but I don't know much about her record.Have you been paying attention to the rhetoric and politic maneuvering coming out of that place the past few years? From Birthright citizenship, to half-ass brownshirts harassing Mexicans, to this guy.
No, the guy who killed her is a complete whack job. That is the complete extent of it with regard to politics.
I have more to say but I am tired of dealing with bigoted dumbasses.
|
|
I would like to remind people that we still have no idea why this guy did what he did. Remember that Mayor Bloomberg in New York City tried to tell us that the Time Square bomber was a Tea Party member who was upset over the health care bill. That turned out to be not true. It could be that this guy is another John Hinkley Jr. and committed this horrific crime in an attempt to impress someone else. Lets let the fine men and women of the FBI and the police do their job and wait until all the facts are in before we start throw stones in glass houses.
|
|
Personally, I feel much safer living in a country where we don't feel it's our RIGHT to carry guns. I'd rather walk around knowing that no one has a gun, than feeling like everyone does.
Then the only people that have then are criminals.
Gun Control won't solve these problems, but it would still be a step in the right direction. To see that these tragedies don't continue requires an entire paradigm shift. It requires people to get rid of the everyman for himself attitude, and start thinking more about community building. It requires having a population that is willing to sacrifice more of what they have to help reach out to their fellow citizens. We don't do a good enough job of that here in Canada, and IMO the US attitude is even worse. The entire nation is built on the idea that everyone has the right to do what ever they want (within the loose laws that exist), which doesn't lead to strong community. This attitude has always struck me as ironic given the amount of people in the states that claim to be Christian.
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.
America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
|
|
Just because you are responsible with your guns doesn't mean that other people will be. There are numerous instances where some guy who keeps guns in the house with no real intent to use them on someone has come home drunk and done something stupid with a firearm.
By that logic, your going to give up your car, right? Because a) they kill more people then guns, b) some people arent responsible
It is my belief that sometimes you need to give up certain liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. I believe this is one of those cases.Now, I realize that americans in particular value their "freedoms", and so do I, but I also value the greater public good and well being, and I realize that sometimes we all need help being responsible, and that there are times when we should sacrifice freedoms for the greater good.
Sure. Some of us will give up our 2nd ammendment. But you have to give up your 1st ammendment ones, for teh betterment of society. SOund good?
For example, I would support laws that would ban the use of gas powered cars. I realize that by doing so I would be giving up a certain amount of freedom of choice, but this sacrifice would in the long run make our world a better place and offer a brighter future to our children, so in my view it would be worth it. However, we live in strange times, where people are willing to sacrifice all sorts of liberties in the name of Homeland security, but still want to be free to have their guns, smoke, drink, eat terrible food and drive cars that poison the air, which are all far more likely to kill them than a terrorist.
Silly example. There isnt anything useful, to replace them yet- electric powered cars cant replace trucks and bigger vehicals which are still necessary.
Actually, given the current airport scans, people arent exactly willing to give up many of thier liberties. More then a few things homeland security is doing have people outspoken.
Your a prime example of when Ben Franklin use to talk about.
|
|
Remember that Mayor Bloomberg in New York City tried to tell us that the Time Square bomber was a Tea Party member who was upset over the health care bill. That turned out to be true. It could be that this guy is another
What kinda misinformed wack job are you? The times square bomber was NOT A TEA PARTY MEMBER.
He was a muslim islamist, A Pakistan born US citizen, whom got training from teh pakistan taliban, and his motivation was religious/war related.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69437A20101005
You are criminally misinformed. Get a clue.
|
|
Remember that Mayor Bloomberg in New York City tried to tell us that the Time Square bomber was a Tea Party member who was upset over the health care bill. That turned out to be true. It could be that this guy is anotherWhat kinda misinformed wack job are you? The times square bomber was NOT A TEA PARTY MEMBER.
He was a muslim islamist, A Pakistan born US citizen, whom got training from teh pakistan taliban, and his motivation was religious/war related.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69437A20101005
You are criminally misinformed. Get a clue.
Dude, calm down. I am on your side. It was a simple typo that I went back and fixed when I realized it. However, you should have been able to glean that I meant the opposite of what I actually wrote by the context of the rest of my post. Please switch to decaf and stop posting angry.
... that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or try to come to some agreement of what "greater good" means or how we could go about achieving it.
I mean, can't we concede that taking measures to reduce that amount of people that die from other people killing them is for the greater good. Can't we concede that taking measures to reduce the harm we do to our environment is for the greater good. I think most of us can actually understand quite easily what the greater good is. We just are weak, and don't really have the will or inclination necessary to make the sacrifices necessary achieve it. I feel like I am one of those people.
I know it would be better for the planet if I didn't eat meat. I should probably move closer to where I work, so I don't need to drive a car as often. There are numerous things that I do in my life that if I thought about it don't benefit the greater good. We are all flawed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. I carpool on a regular basis. I use public transit when I can. I bring my own bags to the grocery. I try not eat fast food. I obey the law etc... That is not near enough, but I figure have to start somewhere. I think getting rid of personal fire arms would be a show of good will that wouldn't really impede people's lifestyles. I mean you don't drive your gun to work. You don't eat your gun. Mostly it just sits in a cabinet.
Again, in general theory I agree with you. But what I don't agree with are the details of what is for the greater good...and there is the problem. Sure, if we could all do the right things for the greater good we should...but my greater good and yours are two different things. Even things that you see as facts and can back them up with evidence I can find other evidence, just as compelling, that refutes you. So who is right?
Also agreed that it's a worthwhile discussion...but I guess I see it mostly as a philosophic or academic discussion.
As to your assertion that we should all give up guns...I also don't agree with that, though you've given your reasons well enough and I understand why you have your opinion. As someone upthread mentioned, most gun crimes are done with illegaly obtained guns anyway...taking away law-abiding citizens guns would not change that fact.
Ultimately I believe that human independence and freedom is extremely important. I also understand that there are tragedies that happen because of that independence and freedom. It is not an easy thing. Where do the limits for the greater good end? When does it cease becoming for the greater good and simply be about control? Where is the line drawn when you impinge on people's rights and freedoms for the greater good...what if it's 50 people? 5000? 5 million?
|
It is my understanding that Christianity is supposed to be about peace and love, and helping your fellow man. From what I've heard about Jesus, he isn't the sort of guy who would carry a gun or have them around. Isn't Jesus supposed to be the role model for Christians?
Christianity has been more about forcing itself on people, whether they want it or not, than anything else for the past 2000 years or so.
To PH: You mention why shouldn't people be willing to give up some rights and give up guns. What rights are you speaking about? The right for women not to fear being helpless against a man trying to assault them? The right of people who want to be able to protect their loved ones from someone trying to harm them?
As the ad said, "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal."
As a smaller than average size male who is married, I fear for my ability to physically protect my loved ones. A weapon certainly helps to even the playing field.
As to the actual incident, from what I've read about the person who supposable did this (trying to believe innocent till proven guilty), this person had serious mental issues. The fact that he has been describe as emotionally disturbed AND a drug user (many people that are emotionally disturbed use illegal drugs to "self-medicate") leads me to believe he was very disturbed. He apparently lived with his parents, why didn't they recognize his dangerous mental state and take steps to get help?
|
|
Dude, calm down. I am on your side. It was a simple typo that I went back and fixed when I realized it. However, you should have been able to glean that I meant the opposite of what I actually wrote by the context of the rest of my post. Please switch to decaf and stop posting angry.
Given the incredibly stupid things posted about this shooting, no I shouldnt be able to glean that you meant the opposite- I've seen people blame Palin, Right wing, teaparty among other things.
Please dont tell me what to do, when you cant say what you meant.
|
The problem with threads like this is that most people that post on them have an opinion or belief, and it doesn't matter what anyone says they won't change there mind. They just want to try and make you know that they are right and you are wrong. I may sound like one of those people to some of you, but I'm not. I have an opinion, but I'm not entirely married to it. If someone shows me enough logic and evidence to suggest that what I believe doesn't make sense, I am willingly to look at it closely and potentially change my beliefs. If you don't share that mentality than there is no point in you being involved in any kind of discourse because you have already closed your mind and aren't listening to anything anyone else is saying.
It is the not the sharing of ones beliefs that is the issue, it is the constant bickering over minor minutia that precludes any rational discussion that is the issue. The people who most often call for so-called logic and evidence are those who are least likely, in my humble opinion, to listen to it, or even acknowledge it in the first place. Those who tend to ask for information to change their open mind, seem to be the ones who are most closed minded on a said issue but just want to, as a last ditch effort, to appear to be open to listening, when in fact they are not.
**Flag and FORGET** then we can all live peaceful lives.
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
No it hasn't. However Gun Control does have a major problem, mainly the states with loose purchase and sale laws which make it ridiculously easy to obtain firearms which are then smuggled into states with tighter restrictions.
The problem with gun control is that it does need to be enacted on a Federal level and that restrictions need to be uniform.
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
Does that take into account crimes that are avoided by the victim being armed?
|
|
It is my understanding that Christianity is supposed to be about peace and love, and helping your fellow man. From what I've heard about Jesus, he isn't the sort of guy who would carry a gun or have them around. Isn't Jesus supposed to be the role model for Christians?Christianity has been more about forcing itself on people, whether they want it or not, than anything else for the past 2000 years or so.
Another flag and forget moment brought to you by the word: Ignorant and the Fibonacci sequence!
|
|
Does that take into account crimes that are avoided by the victim being armed?
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
No it hasn't. However Gun Control does have a major problem, mainly the states with loose purchase and sale laws which make it ridiculously easy to obtain firearms which are then smuggled into states with tighter restrictions.
The problem with gun control is that it does need to be enacted on a Federal level and that restrictions need to be uniform.
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
How could it? By definition they're avoided and therefore unquantifiable.
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.
|
|
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.
However, there are a large number of other factor that could be involved as well. Just two that I noticed are that, based on what I learned in Geography, the nations that have lower rates have generally more homogeneous and less urbanized populations than the U.S. that could certainly play a role as well. I don't think that we could point to just one factor and say that is the cause without further study.
So now that you have a gun you aren't scared? That's a bunch of BS. You are still scared. Having a gun doesn't make you safe.
To PH: You mention why shouldn't people be willing to give up some rights and give up guns. What rights are you speaking about? The right for women not to fear being helpless against a man trying to assault them? The right of people who want to be able to protect their loved ones from someone trying to harm them?
As the ad said, "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal."
As a smaller than average size male who is married, I fear for my ability to physically protect my loved ones. A weapon certainly helps to even the playing field.
As to the actual incident, from what I've read about the person who supposable did this (trying to believe innocent till proven guilty), this person had serious mental issues. The fact that he has been describe as emotionally disturbed AND a drug user (many people that are emotionally disturbed use illegal drugs to "self-medicate") leads me to believe he was very disturbed. He apparently lived with his parents, why didn't they recognize his dangerous mental state and take steps to get help?
|
|
However, there are a large number of other factor that could be involved as well. Just two that I noticed are that, based on what I learned in Geography, the nations that have lower rates have generally more homogeneous and less urbanized populations than the U.S. that could certainly play a role as well. I don't think that we could point to just one factor and say that is the cause without further study.
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.
David,
That's absolutely what I was trying to say. Clearly I didn't do as good a job of that as I could have. The availabiltiy of guns may not be a signifciant factor in the difference in murder rates. but if that's the case, it's hard to argue, as was done earlier in the thread, that "An armed society is a polite society."
|
Does that take into account crimes that are avoided by the victim being armed?
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
No it hasn't. However Gun Control does have a major problem, mainly the states with loose purchase and sale laws which make it ridiculously easy to obtain firearms which are then smuggled into states with tighter restrictions.
The problem with gun control is that it does need to be enacted on a Federal level and that restrictions need to be uniform.
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
As long as the crime is reported, yes. If, for example, someone prevents a shoplifting by showing the shoplifter that he has a gun, yet still calls the police to report the attemted shoplifting, it will still be reported as a crime involving a gun (at least the criminal statistic in germany works that way).
Dude, calm down. I am on your side. It was a simple typo that I went back and fixed when I realized it. However, you should have been able to glean that I meant the opposite of what I actually wrote by the context of the rest of my post. Please switch to decaf and stop posting angry.Remember that Mayor Bloomberg in New York City tried to tell us that the Time Square bomber was a Tea Party member who was upset over the health care bill. That turned out to be true. It could be that this guy is anotherWhat kinda misinformed wack job are you? The times square bomber was NOT A TEA PARTY MEMBER.
He was a muslim islamist, A Pakistan born US citizen, whom got training from teh pakistan taliban, and his motivation was religious/war related.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69437A20101005
You are criminally misinformed. Get a clue.
Thanks for trying David, but I think your effort are wasted on this thread. When I see the ignorant hate and bigotry being spewed at Arizona I can't help but think of Bugleyman and think of how sad these absurd generalizations about Arizona are.
I'm temped to advocate for the basic human right of self defense, but I think this thread is just not worth the energy.
Take care.
So now that you have a gun you aren't scared? That's a bunch of BS. You are still scared. Having a gun doesn't make you safe.
Not having doesn't make me safe either. Saying it does is even more bs.
And if the person who is threatening me and mine believes I am armed (even if I am not actually, which many gun control proponents forget, not everyone has to have a gun for guns to protect people), they are less likely to continue doing so and will attempt to find a weaker target.
|
|
However, there are a large number of other factor that could be involved as well. Just two that I noticed are that, based on what I learned in Geography, the nations that have lower rates have generally more homogeneous and less urbanized populations than the U.S. that could certainly play a role as well. I don't think that we could point to just one factor and say that is the cause without further study.
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.David,
That's absolutely what I was trying to say. Clearly I didn't do as good a job of that as I could have. The availabiltiy of guns may not be a signifciant factor in the difference in murder rates. but if that's the case, it's hard to argue, as was done earlier in the thread, that "An armed society is a polite society."
Okay, then I misunderstood. I am just getting back into the swing of things after a few weeks off from school and am suffering from some serious sleep deprivation.
Does that take into account crimes that are avoided by the victim being armed?
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
No it hasn't. However Gun Control does have a major problem, mainly the states with loose purchase and sale laws which make it ridiculously easy to obtain firearms which are then smuggled into states with tighter restrictions.
The problem with gun control is that it does need to be enacted on a Federal level and that restrictions need to be uniform.
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
How could it? By definition they're avoided and therefore unquantifiable.
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.
Now what are the rates for other crimes? Rape? Home burglary? Assault?
|
|
Thanks for trying David, but I think your effort are wasted on this thread.
I was raised to believe that doing good is never a wasted effort, even if it doesn't appear to have an effect. Doing good and TRYING to remain civil is it's own reward.
First, I offer my sympathies for the victims of the shooting.
Second, political assignations are a tragedy for the entire nation regardless of ideology.
Third, all the wild speculation and blame tossing going on in this thread doesn’t mean shit.
The real reason for the shooting won't come out until the police psychologists have a chance to interview the guy who did it so maybe everyone should shut up until real facts are released.
|
|
Now what are the rates for other crimes? Rape? Home burglary? Assault?Does that take into account crimes that are avoided by the victim being armed?
Gun control has been shown to be a failure. In teh US at least. The cities and states that have the strongest gun control have the worst crimes.America was founded on the everyman principle.(among many other things). Never going to happen.
No it hasn't. However Gun Control does have a major problem, mainly the states with loose purchase and sale laws which make it ridiculously easy to obtain firearms which are then smuggled into states with tighter restrictions.
The problem with gun control is that it does need to be enacted on a Federal level and that restrictions need to be uniform.
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
How could it? By definition they're avoided and therefore unquantifiable.
However, according to this site, America does have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, which has strict gun laws. To say this was entirely, or even largely, due to the Second Amendment would be far too simplistic an argument, but this does show that an armed society is not necessarily safer.
That site has all that information as well. However linking to it is a problem as changing the checklist at the top doesn't change the url.
maybe everyone should shut up until real facts are released.
You want people to let facts get in the way of their unfounded opinions? Sheer madness, I tell you!
That site has all that information as well. However linking to it is a problem as changing the checklist at the top doesn't change the url.#5 Canada
#9 United States
#13 United Kingdom
Burglaries per capita
#7 United Kingdom
#9 Canada
#17 United States
Assaults per capita
#6 United States
#8 United Kingdom
#9 Canada
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
maybe everyone should shut up until real facts are released.You want people to let facts get in the way of their unfounded opinions? Sheer madness, I tell you!
Hotair had an article here on when people wait for the facts, and when they don't.
This guy was a loon. All the gun laws I know of talk about background checks to keep people like that from getting guns, clearly they worked here. (sarc) I'm not going to blame Sarah Palin anymore than I'll blame President Obama.
If guns are outlawed...
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go order a half dozen copies of KQ 16 to send to family.
|
|
That site has all that information as well. However linking to it is a problem as changing the checklist at the top doesn't change the url.#5 Canada
#9 United States
#13 United KingdomBurglaries per capita
#7 United Kingdom
#9 Canada
#17 United StatesAssaults per capita
#6 United States
#8 United Kingdom
#9 Canada
Ok, so just my computer that doesn't like doi9ng that, then.
Just to put the murder rates in the samew format for compoarison
Murders per capita
#24 United States
#44 Canada
#46 United Kingdom
Despite it's horrid- even appaling- start and some harsh words and hot tempers, this thread still interests me.
Let me first start off by saying I hope that the wounded recover, and that I pray for the souls of those who have died, especially the young. I know they are in a better place.
With respect to politics, well...this is not a political issue. Someone killed a lot of people, which makes it a matter of crime and justice. I understand that a lot of people, myself included, would like to see their political views rise up and make everyone rational beings who agree with each other on everything, but this situation is not the place to look for something like that to happen. Far from it.
In terms of religion, it does have a place here, just not where people want to force-fit it in. Pray for the souls of those who have died if that is your wont/mandate. If you are not religious, leave the dead in peace. I assure you, no matter what you believe, they are not going to pull themselves out of their torpor to sign online and give your post a +1.
In terms of guns...now that's something I can debate a bit. I'm in favor of gun control, although I do realize that the states with the most serious laws against guns tend to have the highest gun rates- I live in NY, in Brooklyn to be precise. I do not think that one causes the other or vice versa, but that it is a combination of factors. I've seen gun laws do a lot of good here, but I've also seen an increase in the amount of illegal guns. I do realize that the second amendment gives us the right to carry firearms, but there is a huge difference in the firearms of 1776 and the firearms of 2011(I feel weird writing that year. I think we should have ray-guns or phasers or SOMETHING like that by now). I do believe that they are weapons, not tools, and should be treated as such. That said, I'm a melee weapon afficionado myself, and I know what it's like to be harrassed by police for everything from weapons I picked up at conventions to stuff I was carrying to go to martial arts class. And as an aside, I'm glad you shot that snake Moorluck, as it could have bitten you or someone in your family. Not that people should go about killing everything that they percieve as a threat(I like snakes), but I'm sure you were just defending yourself and your family. I'm sure you're also a damn good shot if you're a target shooter. That said, no, I don't think Farmer Bob should have a LAW, or SAM, but I'd love it if he had an RPG- we could finally play Farmer: The Ho-Down! Seriously though, I do think we need some kind of look at the types of firearms we're producing today to put into the hands of people(not necessarily the military, as surpluses should be kept to an absolute minimum), as some of them really do skirt the line of practicality(and make life difficult for forensics workers and lawyers who are trying to prove that it was self defense when you really need a mop and bucket at the crime scene).
When it comes to firearms or weapons in general, I do wonder whether or not it is an all-or-nothing type of philosophy, however. An armed society IS a polite one and I yearn for the ability to walk down the street with my various pointy bits on my person proudly displayed. Noone would really bother me(or anyone else for that matter). Still, there are good reasons why I can't. If you want to use the new True Grit movie as a reference, you also have to keep in mind the people that
In closing, for some reason, this issue or thread resounds deeply in us all. Maybe it's because we fear for what could happen to ourselves, maybe we see a loved one's death in that of the little girl. Emotions are running high and skins grow thin. It's understandable, and human. Still, let's take the perhaps irrational and illogical road here and cool off a bit. No matter how angry we get with each other over religion, politics and philosophy, it's not going to bring back the dead.
maybe everyone should shut up until real facts are released.You want people to let facts get in the way of their unfounded opinions? Sheer madness, I tell you!
|
And as far as guns protecting your family, statistics show that when guns are involved in violent crimes, the highest group of statistics are one family member using it on another.
How do you control for the effect of the fact that most family members are around other family members for a larger proportion of time than any other person they know?