So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[U-533]

Originally Posted by loynokid

Exactly, guns don't murder, people do.

Words right out of my mouth ...
Just y'all say it more eloquently...

I own various weapons of differing size and shape and never in 35 years have I ever seen one of them get up and leave out all by it's onezees to kill some one.

So get it through to your heads it aint the weapon its the person.

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by U-533

Words right out of my mouth ...
Just y'all say it more eloquently...

I own various weapons of differing size and shape and never in 35 years have I ever seen one of them get up and leave out all by it's onezees to kill some one.

So get it through to your heads it aint the weapon its the person.

Yep, gotta agree with you there

[ASWnut101]

So you agree with what you said, Loynokid?

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

So you agree with what you said, Loynokid?

Yep, i do have to agree with myself...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.

I'm a firm believer in the words of the French philosopher Joseph Joubert: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory".

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government.

To some people, that's true. To people who are anti-gun-ownership the issue is the number of deaths brought about by guns, and I'm sure that there are a lot of gun owners who see no further than the guns themselves.

I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?

I currently only own one gun, a much joked-about 1903-model Springfield rifle, and its bolt has been missing for so long it may possibly never function as a weapon again. This makes it easy for me to discuss it from a detached point of view and claim to speak to the principle of rights versus actually shouting about MY rights, even though I use self-defence as an argument. Of course there are many who don't care about rights one way or another, and merely want to argue the case for them keeping their guns; just as many on the other side argue not whether the right is important, but rather that they know someone who was killed with a gun. Both of these argue from emotion rather than reason, and both are (in my opinion) not to be trusted.

If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.

An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that once I'm back on my feet and have my own place I plan to get a new pistol. I just don't know what kind yet.

I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?

I can't help much there, as I'm a firm believer in Mark Twain's adage "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". Further, I'll push my case by quoting another trite-but-true statistic: Last year, more than two million guns in America didn't shoot anybody.

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

Yes, it SLOWED. IT DID NOT RISE. They are clearly still going down.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.

And that makes it wrong? Useless? Oh, and did you even click on the link that SUBMAN1 Posted (You didn't even reply to it)? Or Dean's link?


And what is a comparable country to you? England? And as the graphs showed, the crime rate is still dropping.

Quote:

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.

Why does the US have to be like everyone else. Firstly we are not. The demographics tell the tale. More people from other countries want to come to the US than any other nation. Secondly with any freedom comes risk. When you come to this country you are afforded a great sense of freedom and responsibility. Unlike other countries, although it is headed in that direction, you are free to make the most of your life with limited government intervention. No one promises you any particular fairness. Work your ass off and make the best of your situation and you will prosper in the US.

Can we say the same for the nations you would so easily point to as beacons, with their regulation and tax burden ?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Yes, it SLOWED. IT DID NOT RISE. They are clearly still going down.

Um, not violent crime, it has levelled off. And if the decrease rate had been lets say 5% per year, and now is 2%, things are getting worse, year on year. But, like I said "that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data". I wasnt entirely serious with that post, thought I made that clear.

And that makes it wrong? Useless? Oh, and did you even click on the link that SUBMAN1 Posted (You didn't even reply to it)? Or Dean's link?

Yes, I looked at it, and responded to it. It didn't have much to do with what I'd posted before, and the link was four years old. That doesnt make it wrong or useless, I just don't see what he was getting at. Violent crime in the UK is rising, thats fairly obvious. Yet, there are more people murdered in the US, and more people murdered with guns. I want to hear why people think this is. Personally I think it's down to guns, what do you think?

Oh hang on, I've already asked that question, and you cut it out of my quote.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

And what is a comparable country to you? England? And as the graphs showed, the crime rate is still dropping.

I think the England and the US are roughly comparable, enough for this argument at least.

waste_gate, see the question i put right at the end of that quote, and am sick of asking. Why?
I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries.

[ASWnut101]

Population size, maby?

And let's see how long until this gets answered: Why are the UK Firearms crimes on the rise?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Population size, maby?

Nope, murder rate is deaths per 100,000 of the population, as I've already posted. A few times

[ASWnut101]

I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.

I think the England and the US are roughly comparable, enough for this argument at least.

Britain is not close to the US when it comes to firearm ownership. Britain has no bill of rights which requires the government to protect their citizens right (given by their creator) to bear arms. Cosequently in Britain if you defend yourself in your own home and the invader is injured or dies the home owner is brought to charges.

Their government has made everyone a victim or defendant by the laws.

I know the US is different, so is every country. But I'm asking about the US, and why more Americans die from gun violence than many roughly similiar countries.

I'd profer a response to this if you can point me toward a country which is 'roughly' similar in heritage, law, population, wealth, liberties, ethnic background, medical access, etc.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Britain is not close to the US when it comes to firearm ownership. Britain has no bill of rights which requires the government to protect their citizens right (given by their creator) to bear arms. Cosequently in Britain if you defend yourself in your own home and the invader is injured or dies the home owner is brought to charges.

Gah, I thought the idea behind my question would be clear after three pages

both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

That quote is from the same post you lifted the next one from. The difference in gun ownership is precisely why I'm mentioning the UK

I'd profer a response to this if you can point me toward a country which is 'roughly' similar in heritage, law, population, wealth, liberties, ethnic background, medical access, etc.

As a well-developed First World economy with high levels of personal freedom, I choose the UK.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion.

I've noticed a lot of gun lobbyists defending their right to protect the country from excesses of government. It sounds dated, most of the excesses of government can't be shot at. Personally, I think that if a militia is the goal, then have a militia. Well-armed & well-trained rather than just well-armed. Having one without the other is risky and dangerous (arms without training, that is).

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.

I posted Murders and Gun Murders, rather than manslaughter and police deaths. I believe shooting a burglar qualifies as manslaughter, open to correction though.
As regards the deterrence/intimidation factor, it's an excellent case for widespread gun ownership, but don't believe it's worth the cost.

Originally Posted by ASW

I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.

So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places

[August]

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means.

Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do.

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it.