quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Any stats to back up this attitude, or should your contemptuousness be enough evidence that we should start lighting the effigies?
You can't legitimately draw those conclusions from the Australian numbers. That's a particularly egregious example of what Dan has been complaining about. Is a 30 or 40% swing significant given the baseline and existing variance? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. Is it actually a 30% swing on a per capita basis? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. It's a perfect example of throwing out some numbers that sound good but don't actually show what the author claims they do.
FYI, the Snopes entry on the subject is helpful. More recent studies have been similarly inconclusive.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Rakeesh: This seems like a roundabout response to Stone_Wolf. If it wasn't then disregard. If it was, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave him be.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Laws that govern storage of weapons can only ever be punitive and never preventative because you can't legally enforce such a law until something has already happened with a weapon that was not stored according to the law. That is, of course, unless you want to have massive breach of privacy issues in requiring government officials enter a home to ensure proper storage on a regular basis (because having an inspection to ensure the guns are properly stored just once doesn't mean that those guns will always be properly stored).
I was speaking of banning semi-automatic weapons for personal ownership, but allowing shooting ranges to own them. The idea is, those who want to shoot them can still go to a range, rent them and then return them. But that's just an idea.
My point was, I see an all-or-nothing attitude from the majority of pro-gun advocates I've spoken to. Is there no room for practical compromise? If imposing some regulations helps reduce gun death and violence by even a few percentage points while still allowing gun ownership, isn't that worth looking at seriously?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Any stats to back up this attitude, or should your contemptuousness be enough evidence that we should start lighting the effigies?
You can't legitimately draw those conclusions from the Australian numbers. That's a particularly egregious example of what Dan has been complaining about. Is a 30 or 40% swing significant given the baseline and existing variance? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. Is it actually a 30% swing on a per capita basis? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. It's a perfect example of throwing out some numbers that sound good but don't actually show what the author claims they do.
FYI, the Snopes entry on the subject is helpful. More recent studies have been similarly inconclusive.
Yeah and upon further examination the kind of garbage statements that that think tank produced are par for the course for them, they also are paid-for liars on the subject of healthcare and global warming.
quote:Samp, you call a source I link to a liar (one of the worst) and when I ask for some evidence of that, you ignore me. Then when I make a basic statement which should be obvious, you ask me for sources? Come on! I'll do it, just to illustrate my point. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit it to my life time.
Stone_wolf: Your giant superfluous list of riots isn't a source supporting your claim, it is a list of riots, mostly in non-modern parts of the world — like you literally didn't even trim from that list places completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So no, it's not "*fundamentally* dishonest argumentation".
Hi Boris. I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
quote:But here's the point that the "Take away all guns" people are forgetting: You don't view weapon ownership as a human right, primarily because it isn't something you take advantage of.
The people who have lots of guns view it as a fundamental human right. *Many* of those view it as a right that they are willing to kill *and* die to protect. So I have three questions for you:
1. Are you truly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of the police and federal officers that would have to confiscate the guns those people own? 2. Are you truly willing to ensure that the people who don't agree with you are killed, possibly by the millions, in order to slightly decrease potential occurrences of mass shootings in the future? 3. Why don't you feel like a complete hypocrite for answering yes to either of the first two questions?
Wow. Your logic is essentially that if gun nuts in this country are literally as insane as you make them out to be and will prove gun-ban proponents' positions sane and salient by murdering police and federal officers in an epidemic of violence, it makes other people hypocrites. It's like a game of moral pass-the-buckery.
"Yassir, I done gone and shot that couple of cops when he done came ter take my gerns. Got 'em both with a 7.62 at 300 yards, were a nice clean shot on the first and my extended margazeen put the other one down afore he could radio in fer help. Now I tell you what, them gun-cerntrol folk got blood on their hands NOW, whoo-ee! Just like 'em lib-ruls to get all them boys murdered."
Also, just so that I'm sure I understand your idea of how the world works: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, Godric, there are almost no guns on the market now that are *not* "Semi-Automatic." Even modern revolvers meet the distinction of Semi-Automatic in that they fire a bullet with every pull of the trigger (Double action revolvers, at least. Good luck finding Single Action revolvers made in the past century). Conversely, I can go out right now and buy a rifle that doesn't meet the definition of "Semi-Automatic" but could still shoot through the engine block of a semi (there are very few high-caliber sniper rifles that are Semi-Automatic. The Barret .50 Cal. rifle is bolt-action and used to kill people from nearly a mile out by the military).
There is also no established definition of what constitutes an "Assault weapon" that doesn't rely almost entirely on purely cosmetic things. This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent). The Federal ban relied on things like, "This gun has a barrel shroud and a flash suppressor, so it is illegal." Neither of those things actually increases the lethality of a firearm. They just make it operate differently and protect the shooter from things like blindness and burning their hands on the barrel. This differs from what is referred to as an Assault *Rifle* which is defined as a weapon with a removable cartridge that allows the user to select between semi-auto, burst, and fully automatic firing methods.
And you know what, it's already illegal to purchase or sell any weapon made after 1986 that is capable of fully automatic fire, so a private citizen *can't* get the the weapons that our military currently uses as in this country. You can get one that was made prior to 1986 as long as you follow the requirements set out in the National Firearms Act, but nothing made new can be purchased legally. Modifying semi-automatic weapons made after 1986 to fire in a full automatic mode is *already illegal*. Modifying a weapon made before 1986 requires a high tax, registration with the ATF, and a whole lot of other stuff. There are companies that specialize in that, but they deal with a lot of laws doing so.
The "All or nothing" attitude probably comes mostly from the wording of the second amendment. There are lots of arguments about what the intent and purpose of the second amendment was, but the simple fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Thus, the people you talk to don't feel they should have to budge in any way whatsoever. (A proper reading of the text and its construction would suggest that the people *are* the Militia, and when you consider how long it takes to mobilize a proper fighting force in the event of an invasion, having a bunch of people who can instantly respond to an invasion with their own weapons is useful at the very least.)
So the trick would be to find a way to improve gun laws without impacting the rights of gun owners. For instance, it would not be in any way against the wording of the constitution to regulate who is allowed to *sell* guns (And we already do). It would also not be against the constitution for the populace to start putting pressure on gun merchants to start requiring mandatory (but not legislated) training before a person can purchase a firearm.
There are several gun merchants who do this already. They won't allow someone to buy a weapon without having them shoot it first. If they can't handle it, they tell them to take some classes or they won't sell them the gun. If every gun store owner did that, I can guarantee that accidental gun deaths would drop significantly.
But the give no ground approach isn't limited to gun supporters, as evidenced by the guy who delights at the idea of dragging congressional representatives tied to a truck around until they "See the light" and happily obliging the "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" people, I would assume by killing them all. Which is *such* a civilized attitude. (See Here).
And probably the last thing I'll say on the subject, and I may not do a very good job of stating it, is that people have owned guns in this country since its creation. Semi-automatic weapons and expanded magazines have existed since the late 19th century. When I look at events like the tragedy in Connecticut and the others that have happened recently, I don't see a failure of gun policy. I see a failure of humanity.
The people that commit these acts are all too often shut off from the world without a single other person who gives a crap about whether they exist or not. They are people who are terribly alone and angry at the world for not including them, so they lash out at everyone around them.
The number of people who do this type of thing has been increasing steadily for years, and will continue whether we outlaw guns or not (People like to point out the guy in China who stabbed 23 kids and only injured them as a reason that gun availability is bad, but they ignore the event in 2003 when a man in China stabbed *and killed* 13 people over a land dispute). There are some deep injuries in our society that we are overlooking in the name of political gain. Reactionary legislation like gun bans in response to a societal failures is like putting Band-aids on a broken arm and pretending that will fix the break. At best, we prove ourselves delusional, and at worst we sacrifice our rights for a solution that could cause more harm than good.
And you may ask, "Why don't we just *try* doing this or that?" I don't know about you, but I trust our government with *trying* things about as far as I can throw them. The only way I'd ever go along with any legislation that is experimental was if it was tied to specific, realistic, measurable results being achieved in a specific time frame, and if it failed to meet those requirements, would be automatically repealed. Even then, I still wouldn't trust the government not to suddenly decide that the law should keep on existing despite meeting those requirements.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
Considering that the guy who shot Giffords was so far gone that reality would have had no influence on him, the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid, and you *should* apologize for stating it was a cause. I don't expect you did so, mostly cause you're you. But even if you did, I would have missed it because the statement by someone else asking if I should be somewhere shooting up a mall was offensive enough to take me off this forum for a good couple years. I just recently decided to come back to see if the vitriol in here has calmed down at all, and based on most threads I can see it hasn't, as evidenced by this response:
quote: Wow. Your logic is essentially that if gun nuts in this country are literally as insane as you make them out to be and will prove gun-ban proponents' positions sane and salient by murdering police and federal officers in an epidemic of violence, it makes other people hypocrites. It's like a game of moral pass-the-buckery.
"Yassir, I done gone and shot that couple of cops when he done came ter take my gerns. Got 'em both with a 7.62 at 300 yards, were a nice clean shot on the first and my extended margazeen put the other one down afore he could radio in fer help. Now I tell you what, them gun-cerntrol folk got blood on their hands NOW, whoo-ee! Just like 'em lib-ruls to get all them boys murdered."
Also, just so that I'm sure I understand your idea of how the world works: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
I'm seriously wondering if it's even possible for you to be in a political discussion without being a snarky reductionist douchebag. I guess that's just what you are.
But let me clarify my point for you, since it apparently flew right over your head. I would like you to consider for a moment whether a perfectly sane and logical human being, who believed heavily in the second amendment outlining a fundamental human right, could be willing to either kill or be killed in protest of the removal of that right. Do you think that's possible? Likely? I do. But even if there are no people who do that, there are plenty of people in this country who are not all there (I grew up in Rural North Carolina, so I know a few growing up) who are more than willing to shoot anyone who steps foot on their land without permission, and wouldn't hesitate to have a good old shootout of the type you have so eloquently written if someone came to disarm them.
And let's explain something else, in this country, if you perform an action that results in a reaction leading to the death of another person, you can be made legally responsible for that death. Whether you knew it would result in that death or not isn't a defense in most cases. If we enact legislation that can cause a reaction that will result in the deaths of many people, whether they are ignorant rednecks shooting cops or innocent people reacting to a SWAT raid, how would it not be hypocritical to enact such a law for the express theoretical purpose of saving lives?
quote: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
An estimation? Not possible. What do you think the percentage chance of such a law causing a civil war would be? Because I can see how such a thing at the federal level might cause civil war, given the way many gun owners (and states) feel about the second amendment.
Realize first that such a law would absolutely require a major modification to the Constitution, then realize that a significant portion of the population would not agree to such a modification. How much of a stretch to your imagination is to to think those people who oppose the modification could start an armed rebellion rather than submit to the removal of what they view as a human right? Whether the rebellion would be successful or not is immaterial. Only 3% of the gun owners in this country would have to die for the casualties of such an event to reach the million mark.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent).
*sigh* No. Do I need to explain why, again?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... Stone_wolf: Your giant superfluous list of riots isn't a source supporting your claim, it is a list of riots, mostly in non-modern parts of the world — like you literally didn't even trim from that list places completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Hold on, hold on hold on. Let the guy explain himself.
You've got to give the guy a chance to explain how things like drunken soccer riots in the UK would be substantially improved by a good injection of guns.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds legit to me. If I know anything, I know that guns have decreased violence worldwide. It's not hard to oh wait no...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
Considering that the guy who shot Giffords was so far gone that reality would have had no influence on him, the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid, and you *should* apologize for stating it was a cause. I don't expect you did so, mostly cause you're you.
Boris, you're trying to pretzel madly here. Ignoring entirely whether or not your future conditions for demanding an apology were worth the pixels they were printed on*, your demand was contingent on finding out that Giffords wasn't the primary target. Now you're trying to say you still deserve an apology even though Giffords was the primary target?
*to wit: was I concluding that violent rhetoric was "the" cause of it, or shall we look at what I said and see what was actually going on:
quote:Originally posted by the actual Samprimary, not the one in Borisworld I, individually, don't want to mutely accept dangerous rhetoric from the side that constantly references violence. I am utterly unsurprised that a multi-year spike in irresponsible, alarmist, right-wing rhetoric with allusions to violence and 'second amendment solutions' has coincided with a violent assassination attempt against a democrat.
Even if this man turns out to have NOTHING to do with any conservative leanings at all, even if the judge was the primary target or something, I don't see how democrats are wrong to feel worried by a mass rise in hate speech and terrorist attacks. The FBI are even reporting on it. this is not an imaginary bogeyman that Democrats are making up.
Frankly, I don't think liberals speak out enough against our current environment.
The one thing I want to see come out of this hideous event (besides the absolutely anticipated 'he's not OUR fault' spree) is the death of the goddamned irresponsible violent rhetoric: sarah palin's 'don't retreat, just reload!' and putting literal crosshairs on democrats (including today's victim), the tea party's "take aim" and "put the sights on Giffords" style egging. There's a culture of rhetoric like this that has grown like a cancer within Republican politics over the last two years, and now that there was a political shooting like this, the least we can get out of it is a realization that it is pathetic and irresponsible and should end immediately.
to which you said
quote:Samp, I'm going to copy and past that, and if it turns out that Giffords wasn't the primary target, I'm going to demand a public apology from you.
and now
Oh wow yeah I was obviously saying that Republican rhetoric was the cause of the shooting, because
wait
nope
no I wasn't
I guess I would totally apologize to you if, as you say, 'the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid' because yeah, that would be pretty stupid.
it's just kind of inconveniently not at all a statement I made sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
*headdesk* Pay attention to the word *possibly*. I don't think that many will die, but it *is* possible, though very remote, that events following such a ban could spark other events that result in deaths that reach the million mark and go beyond that.
But that's not the point I was making (yes, I exaggerated, southerners do that). I mean come on, even if half a percent of the gun owners out there get into a shoot out with police and die, you've introduced a piece of legislation that has resulted in more death than even prohibition.
The point I was making is that the people who are willing to demand that the government outlaw guns and confiscate them all and "To hell with the people who fight us!" are being hypocritical by saying the purpose of such a law is to save lives. The people who say that are not trying to save lives by supporting gun control, they are trying to win a political argument and thumping their chests like a bunch of primates.
If you were to ask me what I think needs to be done, my response would be to say that the government should require potential gun owners to successfully complete gun safety courses and stress that they not allow anyone who has not also done so to handle their firearms. That would be infinitely more successful a solution than any amount of banning, waiting periods, or registration laws could ever do. I mean look at how Switzerland handles it. They're number three in the world for number of guns per capita according to one of the previous lists, but have less than 1 firearm death for every 125,000 people.
Finally, I'm going to point this out real quick...the list that you guys are getting the 4.9 per 100,000 number from is showing all Homicides. not just gun homicides. Go here for the most recent statistics an the US's gun homicides. Please note that California, the state with some of the most strict weapons laws in the US, is on top with the most gun homicides. The next state, Texas, has half the number, and 2/3 the population.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Considering my father had to shoot his way out of one on that list...
Considering that, then .. what? What does the anecdote prove?
I find myself less interested in posting in this thread. I would rather take a break and let things cool down then escalate what is already quickly turning into a bad situation.
Topics like this, religion, abortion, etc, tend to polarize and both sides spend a lot of time yelling "APPLES" or "ORANGES" and very little that is useful gets accomplished, while a lot of alienation and desensitivity, not to mention bickering and back biting flourish.
And while discussions like this are important to have, they in and of themselves do not -do- anything unless we can freely and honestly exchange ideas and find a way to a middle ground which all parties find tolerable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I appreciate Stone_Wolf_ here at least being willing to come to the table.
I tried to post a thank you before, but my smart phone wouldn't let me...misnomer "smart phone", they should call it "frustratingly savant phone".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The point I was making is that the people who are willing to demand that the government outlaw guns and confiscate them all and "To hell with the people who fight us!" are being hypocritical by saying the purpose of such a law is to save lives. The people who say that are not trying to save lives by supporting gun control, they are trying to win a political argument and thumping their chests like a bunch of primates.
They would be hypocritical IF THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED that the result of such a law would be a net increase in deaths and violence. I don't want a gun ban, but I think (a) the possibility of mass casualty from a gun ban would be remote outside of a few fringe right-wing militias, and (b) it's a long moral pass to hold anti-gun voters as ultimately responsible for someone who murders a cop or a federal agent cause 'they came to take my guns!'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
*headdesk* Pay attention to the word *possibly*. I don't think that many will die, but it *is* possible, though very remote, that events following such a ban could spark other events that result in deaths that reach the million mark and go beyond that.
Ah, I see, we're supposed to entertain the wildest possible scenarios (not actually within the realm of reasonable possibilities), and if we don't, we don't believe *anything* adverse will happen at all. Brilliant. That's just brilliant thinking.
quote: But that's not the point I was making (yes, I exaggerated, southerners do that). I mean come on, even if half a percent of the gun owners out there get into a shoot out with police and die, you've introduced a piece of legislation that has resulted in more death than even prohibition.
Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people. That's not realistic. It just is not within the realm of possibility.
As Samp points out, should political violence, drawing partly upon populist anger related to gun bans and other government actions occur, there is a long moral path between the advocacy of such a ban, and the responsibility for such an outcome. And even then, the question of moral culpability is between the violent parties and those who advocate government action, and is not clear cut. We have perfectly good historical examples: abolitionists are not blamed for the death toll of the civil war, because we recognize deeper and more universal economic and social imperatives that drove political action leading to violence during that period. Should we suggest that abolitionists are responsible for the bloodshed? In part, they certainly were responsible for it: they helped bring it about. But we do not hold them morally culpable for the deaths stemming from the war, nor do we hold the Union in general responsible for the bloodshed, even though they precipitated it, intentionally, by refusing to allow secession.
So bringing up a remote political scenario involving violence, and attempting to temper an anti-gun movement by postulating that it will lead to violence (committed by the opposition to such measures, mind), is less than helpful. It plays very closely into the pro-gun lobby's tactics of fear over reason: the mere implication of violence; people carrying guns, people willing to die to protect guns, is a fear based philosophy. . No matter how unreasonable the solution of "more guns!" is, the gun lobby will offer it as a counter, and promise, by implication, violence against all opposition. And you're buying it.
quote: Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people
Half a percent of the gun owners in this country (estimated to be around 40 million from some sources I've seen, but is likely higher due to ) is about 200,000 people, Orincoro, not over a million. Math is hard, isn't it? But let's say for sake of argument, .05% of the gun owners out there choose to take up arms. Is that a small enough number? 20,000 people is not even remotely an unrealistic number who would rather die than give up their guns, and that's more than double the annual death count from gun homicides in this country right now.
And for clarification, my suggestion that the people who put such a law in place would be responsible for a great deal of death would involves Not *one* police or federal officer being killed. It assumes a best case scenario of only the gun owners being killed in such shootouts, because any time a group of police is assaulted with a firearm, they are authorized to used deadly force. These are people who, aside from being crazy about guns, have up until such a ban is implemented, done absolutely nothing wrong. After all, we're talking legally obtained guns here, and criminals can't legally obtain guns in this country. With a gun ban, you are instructing the government to forcefully remove personal property from its citizens. That is morally objectionable and an incredible violation of civil liberty.
Based on what I've read from some of the far left of the spectrum, the people who want a confiscation gun ban *know* that the death of gun advocates is very likely, and they just don't care. They actually *want* it. I mean hell, who cares about a bunch of dumb rednecks anyway. They're not really people, after all. To some of the gun control advocates I've read articles from, the idea of getting rid of guns is worth all the death it *takes* to happen, regardless of the death toll. And *that* is hypocritical, meeting Sam's little requirements for hypocrisy spelled out here:
quote: They would be hypocritical IF THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED that the result of such a law would be a net increase in deaths and violence
Further, comparing slavery and guns is kind of unrealistic as well. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not be willing to state that causing death to extend freedom is a greater moral purpose. Causing death to *restrict* freedom, as in the case of gun control, is a significant moral difference.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent).
*sigh* No. Do I need to explain why, again?
Oh please do. I'm dying to understand why you think the federal assault weapons ban actually accomplished anything. Do you have any evidence to suggest it has, or are you just choosing to believe what you want in the absence of any evidence that you are willing to not rationalize away? I mean, the ban didn't stop this. It didn't stop this. The only noticeable thing that occurred during that time is a sudden decrease in overall murders during the mid 1990s, which can be attributed to a number of other factors, and with no increase in homicides after the ban disappeared, such evidence is not truly valid. What exactly do you think the ban accomplished?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people
Half a percent of the gun owners in this country (estimated to be around 40 million from some sources I've seen, but is likely higher due to ) is about 200,000 people, Orincoro, not over a million. Math is hard, isn't it? But let's say for sake of argument, .05% of the gun owners out there choose to take up arms. Is that a small enough number? 20,000 people is not even remotely an unrealistic number who would rather die than give up their guns, and that's more than double the annual death count from gun homicides in this country right now.
Don't be a complete jackass. Estimates yield about 50 million *households,* including over half the population of the US.
Last time I checked, there was an average of more than one person per household.. Huh, gee "math is hard," but it's easy to make yourself look like a jackass. (Note: the high side of estimates of people with access to guns or living in households with guns would put the number over a million. A conservative estimate would have the number closer to just under a million. Personally I do not care to argue specifics, because I don't find that it matters. Your quibbling of "just a half percent," as being not much was ridiculous, and it still is).
quote: Further, comparing slavery and guns is kind of unrealistic as well. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not be willing to state that causing death to extend freedom is a greater moral purpose. Causing death to *restrict* freedom, as in the case of gun control, is a significant moral difference.
You have this habit of mistaking semantics for fact. To wit: "restricting freedom," is not the avowed purpose of gun control advocacy. In fact, we could, if we were only to wage this battle in semantic terms, claim that gun control is a fight *for* freedom: the freedom from the presence of dangerous weapons.
Think back on the slavery issue for a second: secessionists claimed that their *freedoms* to govern themselves and to engage in slavery were being impinged upon. Their *freedom* to *enslave*. In the same vein, gun advocates claim a freedom to be armed and potentially dangerous, and react against that "freedom," being impinged. You see, there are two sides to that coin, as there usually are.
You have to start with the understanding that not everyone sees gun control as fundamentally different, from, say, emancipation: both are the advocacy of changes to the way our constitution is read, which affect people's personal freedoms and liberties. And it could as easily be said that gun control and the repeal of the 2nd amendment is a stroke in *favor* of freedom. I make no such argument, but I do not countenance *you* making the opposite claim unchallenged.
quote:Based on what I've read from some of the far left of the spectrum, the people who want a confiscation gun ban *know* that the death of gun advocates is very likely, and they just don't care. They actually *want* it. I mean hell, who cares about a bunch of dumb rednecks anyway. They're not really people, after all. To some of the gun control advocates I've read articles from, the idea of getting rid of guns is worth all the death it *takes* to happen, regardless of the death toll. And *that* is hypocritical, meeting Sam's little requirements for hypocrisy spelled out here:
Faceless, baseless, unsourced and directionless claims such as this deserve absolutely no response from me, whatsoever. I say this merely as a courtesy, to let you know that I did see it, and that I do not see it as deserving of response.
I quote myself for emphasis:
quote: I make no such argument, but I do not countenance *you* making the opposite claim unchallenged.
Do not respond by addressing what I said about what gun control means as an argument. It was an example of semantic quibbling of the type you were doing. It is not an argument I am making.
And I keep getting reminded why I left this forum in the first place...So much civility. Outright personal attacks are so useful in a political discussion. But hey, 50 million households means .5% is 250,000 households. The average household is 2.59 people. So 500,000 people. Would every person in the house get killed in a confiscation shootout? Maybe, but most likely not. .5% isn't outside the realm of possibility. But you're still just arguing outside the point I'm making in an attempt to discredit me and thus dismiss everything I'm saying as a result. You haven't addressed the point that people would die as a result of a ban, thus making such a ban extremely deadly.
quote: freedom from the presence of dangerous weapons
People who believe that banning legal gun ownership will grant them this kind of freedom are outright delusional. For reasons that have been mentioned countless times, it is *impossible* to remove all weapons from this country. Aside from "dangerous weapons" being a completely vague description (A claw hammer is a dangerous weapon. A kitchen knife is a dangerous weapon. But I guess it's okay if we follow China's lead and start planning for registration of Kitchen knives like their recent spate of mass stabbings has convinced them to do), banning firearms that are currently legal without grandfathering only makes lawful citizens into criminals.
quote: Faceless, baseless, unsourced and directionless claims
Gave you a link already to an article published in the Des Moines register (And posted on the writer's blog, which is where the link takes you). The fact that you didn't read it is your fault, not mine. I'll find a bunch more if you want.
quote: Think back on the slavery issue for a second: secessionists claimed that their *freedoms* to govern themselves and to engage in slavery were being impinged upon. Their *freedom* to *enslave*. In the same vein, gun advocates claim a freedom to be armed and potentially dangerous, and react against that "freedom," being impinged. You see, there are two sides to that coin, as there usually are.
And I'm glad you've proven my point about gun ownership being something that could *spark a civil war*. One side viewed abolition as an expansion of freedom. The other viewed it as a restriction of their existing freedoms and an unlawful confiscation of property. And it started a civil war. One side of this sees gun control as an expansion of freedom from gun violence. The other sees it as a restriction of their existing freedoms and unlawful confiscation of property. Do you see any similarities here?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB]And I keep getting reminded why I left this forum in the first place...So much civility. Outright personal attacks are so useful in a political discussion
quote: Math is hard, isn't it?
I would characterize this as mocking. Mocking is not civil.
quote: Do you see any similarities here?
Of course I do. I brought up all those similarities myself. Aren't you the clever one for pointing them out!
The differences, of course, are also deep. Namely that the issue about guns has no connection to a deeper, region-wide economic imperative, and the issue of gun ownership is not an issue of state's rights, meaning that there is no reason why a coalition of states would develop to threaten secession from the union, and thus no hope of gun advocates organizing themselves effectively enough to pose a serious military threat.
And if all that weren't enough, there is no threat of this happening *anyway*, because gun control will never progress to this point (or if it does, it will do so very, very slowly). The issue of slavery was a catalyst for the civil war, but not the sole cause: there were deep economic issues in need of resolution, and slavery was exacerbating them, and increasingly functioning as a cause for the north to fight for. Guns and gun control do not function as a catalyst because they are not well connected with any particular economic imperative driving appart the interests of different states or regions. They never will serve as such a catalyst either: the existence of slavery formed the basis of an economic conflict: the South's oligarchy had atrophied the entire souther economy and locked out competition from the north. Guns do not do this- they just cause lots of unnecessary death, and so states can to a good degree govern themselves on the topic of violence- there is no economic interest, nationally, to drive strict gun control. This is sort of like how slavery was ended abruptly and completely in the space of a few years, but civil rights took another century. Why? There wasn't a particularly compelling economic reason for the north to fight for civil rights in the south. That took the culture changing to make it happen- but economic needs make things happen much faster.
So yes, I pointed out the similarities. The differences, however, are equally important.
posted
I'd argue in favor of decreasing gun regulations. Yes, there's a good chance that the total number of gun related incidents might increase dramatically. But if half of the audience in the Aurora shooting had been concealing . . . the loss of life would have been decreased. If teachers had been allowed to pack. . . .
My supposition is a radical, Libertarian one. I acknowledge that. It's ultimately a question of the individual right to protection versus a purported universal level decrease in gun crime (which isn't necessarily backed by statistical data).
Yes, there's a lot less shootings in the UK. But (per capita) there are WAY more bombings. Crazy people are crazy people. I'd rather have the right to maximize my own ability to survive, and that of my family, than have an overall societal reduction in violent crime. But maybe I'm just being selfish and optimistic.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: [QB] I'd argue in favor of decreasing gun regulations. Yes, there's a good chance that the total number of gun related incidents might increase dramatically. But if half of the audience in the Aurora shooting had been concealing . . . the loss of life would have been decreased. If teachers had been allowed to pack.
This is the sort of conclusion you come to when you aren't using Baysian statistics. You've only considered what would have happened in Sandy Hook if half the teachers had been armed.
But what about he other 180 school days a year in the other 100,000 public schools. There have been only 7 incidents in the last 20 years where there have been mass shootings in a school. You are talking about arming millions of people in schools to prevent an extremely unlikely event. These things are really tragic when they happen, but the odds of them happen in any given school are vanishingly small.
If an average teacher is carrying a gun at school, what do you think the odds are that someone innocent will get shot. Why don't we assume the same rate that there is for concealed carry permit holders which is 1 in 101,000. (In the past 5 years 395 concealed carry permit holders have committed homicide. There are roughtly 8 million concealed carry permit holders).
In the the US and 3.7 million full time equivalent school teachers. If we assume the same rate as for other concealed permit holders, can expect 37 school killings a year if we arm every teacher.
There have been about 60 school shootings in the US in the past 20 years. Most of those have been cases where one student shot one other student. Many of them were accidental. In those instances, having a lot of armed teachers would not have prevented the shooting and it would have made it far more likely that at least one more person would have been shot.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There have been about 60 school shootings in the US in the past 20 years. Most of those have been cases where one student shot one other student. Many of them were accidental. In those instances, having a lot of armed teachers would not have prevented the shooting and it would have made it far more likely that at least one more person would have been shot.
If I was speaking about a bunch of untrained yokels carrying handguns in the back of their trousers, you might have a statistical point. But that isn't what I advocated. I was speaking in unyielding generalities. Gun locks? Alarm systems? Guards at entrances? There are a lot of possibilities that could save life without significant diminishing returns.
But Aurora would have certainly turned out differently if a reasonable number of people had been carrying firearms.
Do you disagree that madmen when, denied access to guns, will not turn to other means of mass destruction?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, The Rabbit is pointing out, and you are steadfastly ignoring, that you cannot infer that the statistical outcome over time will be improved, by showing that changing one condition in one situation allows you to infer a more desirable result. You cannot infer that statistical outcomes will improve based on this one change, because you cannot factor in the negative consequences of implementing it.
So while it is true that if half the theater in Aurora were armed, there may well have been fewer deaths, or even more likely the shooter would not have carried out the attack. However, in order to achieve the state of having half a theater armed, you half to arm half of people *everywhere*, all the time. The mere incidence of accidents that occur due to guns being carried, were gun carrying to be expanded to roughly half the population of the US, would shoot up (pardon the expression), to a much higher casualty rate over time than is incurred by random acts of mass violence.
So you would have introduced an possibly enormous social ill, to counteract what is, in fact, a statistically insignificant rate of massive shooting violence. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning (and to be killed by it), to be killed in a car accident, to drown, to trip and fall and die on a flight of stairs, and to be murdered by a family member while you sleep. Statistically speaking.
And the problem with these arguments is that gun advocates don't like "statistically* speaking, because gun culture is very personal and pride based. A gun owner would tell you, perhaps with justice, that he or she is not a statistic. But what is often forgotten is that when talking about a national movement, one way or the other, involving hundreds of millions of weapons: the stats don't lie. All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers, and that statistically, not accounting for any single event, they cost more lives than they can ever save.
The question I put to you is: do you think it is desirable to trade the remote possibility of a mass shooting in your vicinity taking place without armed people to respond to it, for a chronic condition of constant smaller incidents in which guns are mishandled or used capriciously in public places because so many people are carrying them? Are you willing to make this trade, with the understanding that a *higher* rate of fatalities is *guaranteed* as the result? Because a higher rate of gun fatalities is virtually guaranteed by a higher rate of concealed carrying. The stats only go in one direction.
While I have to say, I find the right, in its essence, to keep and bear arms to be important to the fundamental freedoms of our nation, I do not see as why that right extends to carrying a weapon of such awesome killing power in daily life. And frankly, I think the founding fathers would probably agree with that assessment as well. I think the right to have guns is actually important. But there is that little clause at the beginning of the 2nd amendment, that helpfully explains *why* it is important. And self-defense while you drop off mail at the post office is not what they were talking about.
posted
Orincoro, Rabbit, as I was quick to point out, I would gladly trade a higher overall statistical death rate in return for a decrease in loss of life in some of these incidents, or more specifically if me or my family was under attack.
Then again, I guess I can get a conceal carry in my state under current law. So my argument is somewhat moot.
I don't understand, however, why increasing security at schools (to some reasonable degree) isn't a valid option. As long as the crazies think that a gun is an effective option, they'll use one. If we can mitigate some deaths, we should. If they think that EVERYONE is packing, and they can't get away with a gun rampage, death tolls might be much higher from improvised explosive devices.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Lots of druggies Godric shoot cops, is it the fault of anti drug people that those cops died or the fault of the addicts?
IP: Logged |
quote: All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers
Except that the data isn't *really* telling us that, because the data you're using is incomplete. Yes, the US has a lot of gun violence in comparison to most European 1st world countries. We also have more guns. But guess what, Switzerland has a 2:1 ratio of people to guns, but has a homicide rate well below 1 per 100,000. In Addition, most European 1st world countries do not have the Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and Social stresses that the US has.
If you look at the demographics of any European country, you'll find that the racial and social demographics lean very heavily toward the people who have lived in those areas for over a thousand years. Conversely, the US is still constantly undergoing social development and assimilation of other cultures simply because it is an immigrant culture. If you look at many wartorn nations, you'll see that the major causes of those wars are often ethnic, racial, or religious in nature. Frankly, given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
[ January 03, 2013, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lots of druggies Godric shoot cops, is it the fault of anti drug people that those cops died or the fault of the addicts?
Depends on who you ask. I've heard many many legalization advocates blame anti drug people and laws for the murders caused by cartels.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
But you would not legalize all drugs based on that alone, but on several other statistics.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Are you willing to make this trade, with the understanding that a *higher* rate of fatalities is *guaranteed* as the result? Because a higher rate of gun fatalities is virtually guaranteed by a higher rate of concealed carrying. The stats only go in one direction.
I don't agree that this is a forgone conclusion, as I feel one area we as a country failed is wide spread safety testing. We do have a lot of available training, which is great, but unless we make safety performance testing a part of gun ownership, such accidents will likely continue to seem so inevitable, although they are not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And the problem with these arguments is that gun advocates don't like "statistically* speaking, because gun culture is very personal and pride based. A gun owner would tell you, perhaps with justice, that he or she is not a statistic. But what is often forgotten is that when talking about a national movement, one way or the other, involving hundreds of millions of weapons: the stats don't lie. All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers, and that statistically, not accounting for any single event, they cost more lives than they can ever save.
It seems to me that the only statistic that usually matters to gun control advocates is 26 deaths and the direct gun deaths per 100,000 stats. Those are just as emotional as pride based reactions of gun advocates.
Also couldn't the fact that the likely to be struck by lightning, get in a car accident, or drown than be a mass shooting victim be a statistic used to argue against more gun control? It is of course ignoring the rest of gun violence.
I think fall more along the lines of the article BlackBlade posted. It hasn't been long enough to tell if people are ignoring it, agree with it, or haven't gotten around to adressing it yet.
I just don't see that banning guns can really be a viable solution. Better regulations in terms of education, permits, and requirements on re-selling guns along with more funding to mental health facilities seems like a better option.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
Except Boris wasn't talking about current immigration rates, but the current social, ethnic, and demographic factors. Which are much more a result of immigration in the past than now.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
Except Boris wasn't talking about current immigration rates, but the current social, ethnic, and demographic factors. Which are much more a result of immigration in the past than now.
Not to mention the fact that most foreign born immigrants to those places share ethnicity and race with the dominant majorities in those places. Australian immigrants are primarily from New Zealand, South Africa, England, India, and China (there is a significant Asian population in Australia as well). Irish Immigrants are primarily European. Immigrants to Hong Kong are primarily Chinese (only 6 percent of the population in Hong Kong are from nations other than Hong Kong/China). Swiss immigrants are, again, primarily European. In fact, if you look at the immigration statistics from that list you posted, you'll probably find that the majority of the immigrants to those nations have a similar ethnicity or race as the existing majority. I haven't looked through many of those, but I seriously doubt there is quite the same spread of ehtnicities and races seen in the US's current immigration demographics. None of these countries have the same Racial tensions that the US has, either.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers
Except that the data isn't *really* telling us that, because the data you're using is incomplete. Yes, the US has a lot of gun violence in comparison to most European 1st world countries. We also have more guns. But guess what, Switzerland has a 2:1 ratio of people to guns, but has a homicide rate well below 1 per 100,000. In Addition, most European 1st world countries do not have the Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and Social stresses that the US has.
You're not arguing against my point, you're outline why my point applies in the US, even if it doesn't apply in Switzerland, where compulsory service is still the law.
quote: If you look at the demographics of any European country, you'll find that the racial and social demographics lean very heavily toward the people who have lived in those areas for over a thousand years. Conversely, the US is still constantly undergoing social development and assimilation of other cultures simply because it is an immigrant culture.
On the contrary, most Western European nations are immigrant countries, meaning that their populations are increasing through immigration faster than they decrease through emmigration. The UK, German and France all have immigration rates significantly higher than a century ago (in fact, more per capita immigration than the US experiences in some cases) and they are only rising, causing demographics and ethnic balance to change increasingly- and yet gun violence, thanks to regulation, does not increase at a pace to match.
So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While everyone in Switzerland has a gun, they still have massive regulation, such as training,permits, tracking ammunition sales, etc.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has). Also, gun control has done nothing to quell the racially and socially motivated violence in, say, South Africa for example. South Africa has some pretty restrictive gun laws and is one of the few nations with racial and social stresses that even remotely compare with the US. They experience a 33 in 100,000 homicide rate, with a gun homicide rate of around 15 in 100,000. South Africa is also considered a modernized first world nation.
Conversely, the previous example of Gaza/West Bank is one where there are relatively few guns, but a significant amount of gun Violence. Sources posted here state that Gaza/West Bank has relatively few guns/person. With a population of over 3 million, there are only about 125,000 guns estimated. Their gun homicide rate is almost exactly on par with the US. They certainly have a lot of racial and ethnic stress, though.
So no, the point is most definitely *not* doubly moot. You are simply trying to rationalize your belief in an interpretation of a single statistic in the face of data that doesn't support your interpretation of that statistic.
"America has lots of guns. America has lots of gun violence. Therefore, taking away guns or increasing bureaucratic regulation will reduce gun violence." This is probably the most simplistic view on gun control you can hold, and you're defending it. There are a multitude of factors in play, as I've said over and over, and you're only paying attention to one of them. That is nothing more than simple ignorance.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has).
You have no concept of what you speak. Five centuries ago, Spain and other parts of souther Europe south western France were controlled by North African Moors. The crusades were, as much as anything, racial. They have us beat on race warfare in Europe- both for volume and duration.
(ETA: internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration," because EU citizens are not foreigners).
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has).
You have no concept of what you speak. Five centuries ago, Spain and other parts of souther Europe south western France were controlled by North African Moors. The crusades were, as much as anything, racial. They have us beat on race warfare in Europe- both for volume and duration.
(ETA: internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration," because EU citizens are not foreigners).
Go look at some freaking data on Immigration for individual countries instead of looking at the total immigration numbers. But its still beside the point. The European nations learned long ago to handle racial, political, and ethnic differences without as much violence, and those issues are not nearly as prevalent in European society. It took two world wars for that to happen, but it did. The US hasn't learned the same lessons yet, and it may actually take another civil war for that to happen. I hope it doesn't.
The US is a completely different part of the world, different culture, different experiences, different *everything*. And that's the point I've been trying to drill into your head. Your arguments regarding gun violence in other nations are *immaterial* to determining a solution to gun violence in this country.
Further is that many nations that heavily restrict gun ownership do not have constitutions that guarantee the right to own them. If you want to restrict or control gun ownership in this country, you must either change the constitution or come up with a solution that follows the constitution. Requiring gun merchants to provide or require proof of prior training in gun safety and storage before selling weapons would not go against the constitution, and would result in fewer accidental shootings at the very least. Outlawing guns with specific features goes against the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and the effectiveness of such a ban is at question.
With all that said, I'm done with this. You're arguing miniscule points that have no bearing on the subject at hand or the arguments I've made. This isn't a discussion at this point.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you said, "Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier."
he mentions " internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration,""
is this a 'miniscule point' that has no bearing on the subject? It's certainly relevant to an argument you've made, in trying to paint other parts of the world as conclusively pretty much not at all a model for the US.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
I got this, yes. Even Canada is more ethnically diverse than the United States.
IP: Logged |
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
No. It is not so. But rates of immigration are in many cases, currently higher than to the US (as a function of population percentage).
These numbers are tricky though: the US has a probably higher rate of illegal immigration in a few areas. On the other hand, European urban areas are experiencing higher rates of immigrant settlement (partly due to falling native birth rates), from outside the EU. The borders of the EU are also more porous than the US, and immigration and emigration have higher rates of turnover as well, as does internal migration, making a breakdown problematic.
But one thing is clear: demographics in Europe are changing very quickly thanks to immigration. And Europe is poised for increasing waves of immigration as birth rates continue to fall. Yet, gun violence, and violent crime in general, are low by international standards, and by the standards of the US.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
