|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 6, 2005 12:10:41 GMT -5
Those stats I put up were only to make the point that guns are a major cause of death. I'm going to disagree on the self defiance issue. Guns particularly hand guns which are small and can be carried unseen are very helpful in saving lives. ‘gun stats’If the people who said they thought they would have died ether almost certainly or probably (granted a hard claim to test.) That is 747,500 lives saved. Now even if only 10% of those people would have died that is still 74,750 lives saved vs. the 30,00 or so deaths. This differ slightly from some stats that went were used a few years back for a house bill that basically said it was normal to have a gun to keep your self safe. (I’m trying to find the thing, but have not yet). I agree that we should take steps to save lives, but I do not think forcing law abiding citizens to become defenseless is going to get the job done.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 6, 2005 14:20:49 GMT -5
Hi teancum79,
Well ya know this is a tough question for me. Let me trace back through some of my history so that I can draw on personal experiences....
Well my mom was held at knife point out in a dark parking lot when she was pregnant with me. She had a hand gun, so the guy decided to leave her alone....maybe saved our lives.
Then there was the time that my brother mis-fired a hand gun in his room right next door to mine when I was 9 and he was 15 (my mom allowed him to have guns). Luckily he had the gun aimed in the opposite direction from my room and it shot through a full-length mirror and then a window--otherwise I might not be here since the walls were card-board thin in our cheap little house.
But then there was the time that my mom told me about where she almost bludgeoned my biological father to death with a soft-ball bat. She said she had snuck up right behind him where he was sitting on the couch and was ready to do it--then paused and thought to herself that it must really be time to leave the marriage.
Hmmm...well I must say that I think I would rather be shot to death than to be bludgeoned to death with a bat--or stabbed to death with a knife.
KEEP CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 6, 2005 15:05:19 GMT -5
Does this mean that you wish to ban anything and everything that is used for self defence only? Pepperspray comes to mind. That needs to be banned because the only reason to have it is for self defense.
Why is "protection from wildlife" not considered self defense?
Complete anarchy? What exactly do you think we have now? There are not enough police officers to effectively patrol the streets. The punishments for commiting crimes are a joke. And that is if they aren't able to cop a plea, or they get let loose on a technicality. I won't even mention the corruption in the system.
You are suggesting that the every day honest joe become nothing more than sheep for those who would break the law.
If you let even one person die to save that one person then NO, it isn't worth it. Unless you are wanting to play favourites when it comes to who's lives are saved and who has to die to save them.
The more likely question is: What is the acceptable lives saved/lives lost ratio? I personally believe that if you have to let more people die in order to save fewer people then the system doesn't work. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
God already tried that once. {flood, noahs ark} Didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 7, 2005 11:54:57 GMT -5
If the people who said they thought they would have died ether almost certainly or probably (granted a hard claim to test.) That is 747,500 lives saved. Now even if only 10% of those people would have died that is still 74,750 lives saved vs. the 30,00 or so deaths. that is a ridiculous statistic which forms no real proof of anything other than people's paranoia, please don't waste my time with these kinds of stats in future (statistics aren't very good evidence at the best of times, but this is completely ludicrous) defenseless from what? if the homicide rate drops then the rest of the crime statistics are pretty irrelevant, unless you consider crime prevention to be more important than people's lives. Hmmm...well I must say that I think I would rather be shot to death than to be bludgeoned to death with a bat--or stabbed to death with a knife. you can run away from a maniac with a bat, you can't run away from a bullet. it takes some real intent to bludgeon someone to death, to shoot someone you only have to pull a trigger. Does this mean that you wish to ban anything and everything that is used for self defence only? Pepperspray comes to mind. That needs to be banned because the only reason to have it is for self defense. i said you shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons purely for self-defence purposes. if you learn how to box in order to feel safer walking the streets at night then your not going to be arrested for that. whether pepperspray would count as a weapon or whether there could be some kind of sub-category to allow things like that is another issue (eg. things which don't cause permanent damage or irritants etc.) but in general you should not be allowed to carry offensive weapons for any reason, shall we say? because animals aren't people. animals can't get married or start up their own business, they are not considered the same in law. i just mean that if you go camping in the woods where there are bears then in that situation you would be justified in bringing a magnum with you to protect yourself in case you come under attack. it's not like you can reason with a wild animal, if it's chasing you it wants to kill you. the USA sounds like a really backwards place to me, but surely you agree that if no-one had guns (criminals included) then the country would be a safer place? i don't mean that crime would be reduced, i mean that fewer people would be killed each year. that is the comparison i would like to make, but teancum kept responding to my proposition that lives would be saved by saying that the crime rate would increase - that's the only reason i brought it up. speaking in market rhetoric, if one person dies to save another person then there has been no overall loss or gain so it hasn't made a difference whether guns are allowed or not, other than the complete waste of time and money involved in forcing people not to use guns any more. ah, but He didn't kill everyone, did He?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 7, 2005 15:08:04 GMT -5
Oh give me a break littlepea. And how often do people actually have time to react--and thus run away from--someone who pulls a bat or knife out? That argument is just not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 7, 2005 16:32:22 GMT -5
the USA sounds like a really backwards place to me, but surely you agree that if no-one had guns (criminals included) then the country would be a safer place? i don't mean that crime would be reduced, i mean that fewer people would be killed each year. I understand. You are refering to your 'ideal society' thing from the other thread? I was talking about the really real world that I currently live in. the one where you aren't going to stop criminals from having guns. and the fact rermains that if you ban guns from every civilian then only the cops and crooks will have guns. that sounds so much safer a world to live in to me.... (sarcasm) Are you saying so what the crime rate increases as long as the number of deaths go down? That surely is what it sounds like to me. Perhaps that is where He screwed up...
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Dec 7, 2005 16:44:30 GMT -5
Littlepea you have to realise that Americans have different values to us. Their whole history is based on the Genocide of the Native inhabitants of "their" country.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 7, 2005 17:25:56 GMT -5
Well if you don’t want stats what do you want? You are talking about saving a life or two by banning guns and allowing crime to ran rampant. How does this make sense? For those who do want some more information on the subject ‘Click me’ Anyway Citizens being armed keeps people safe much more than any of the get rid of the guns projects I have seen. I lived in Sydney for awhile nearly every first floor window and door had metal bars on them. And the lower quality of these were often bypassed. The inability of people to defend themselves can only serve to make violating a persons rights a more viable option. If removing guns from a society means saving the lives of persons who rob, murder and rape I think I’ll pass on that. Guns are for hunting, plinking (shooting targets), self defense and if all else fails to keep our other rights in place. I know of only two nations that have enough armed citizens to force the government to behave if they ever needed to. Guns are about safety and freedom. I don’t know if you understand those ideas or not, but I and many other Americans do.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 7, 2005 18:30:37 GMT -5
Oh give me a break littlepea. And how often do people actually have time to react--and thus run away from--someone who pulls a bat or knife out? That argument is just not realistic. my point is merely that guns are far far too powerful to have in free circulation. I understand. You are refering to your 'ideal society' thing from the other thread? I was talking about the really real world that I currently live in. the one where you aren't going to stop criminals from having guns. and the fact rermains that if you ban guns from every civilian then only the cops and crooks will have guns. that sounds so much safer a world to live in to me.... (sarcasm) i'm not saying you can make the change overnight, i'm saying that you should aim to be like the UK as far as guns are concerned. practically no-one has a gun in the UK and our homicide rate is 3 times lower than that of the USA ... that is indeed what i'm saying, because nobody's property is more important than a life, rape and other assaults are not as bad as murder, as long as lives are saved then it must be worthwhile. Well if you don’t want stats what do you want? You are talking about saving a life or two by banning guns and allowing crime to ran rampant. How does this make sense? For those who do want some more information on the subject ‘Click me’ i didn't say i don't want any stats, i said i don't want retarded statistics like the one you quoted. stop being a snatch, of course i know what those values mean, but you all seem to have a warped perception of the value of a human life. if what you're saying is true then every country which restricts guns would be complete anarchy and that simply isn't the case. in fact, polytheist thinks that the USA is practically anarchy at the moment, and you're the ones with the guns ... i was about to say that it's not just the guns which makes your homicide rate so high, there's a combination of factors (and probably more that i haven't thought about), but basically the film Bowling for Columbine states the points i was about to make much more succinctly that i could, so just go and watch that. if guns made the place safer then the USA would be the safest country in the world and that is clearly untrue.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 8, 2005 1:40:11 GMT -5
Well I suppose you will have to define what sort of stats you accept. I'm interested to know what makes the previous ones bad. Opinion is limited, but the gun clock is based on law enforcement records.
If guns caused murder why is Switzerland not the murder capital of the world? Guns are a tool no better or worse than the man who uses it (paraphrase from Sane).
If guns are removed another method will be used. The way to end violence in the long run is to teach people to behave themselves and respect others. In the short term the threat of a person defending themselves helps to keep crime in check.
I am quite well aware of the value of human life, but I refuse to believe that the life of a criminal is more valuable than that of a law abiding citizen. Those are the kind who only hurt or kill others who are attempting to harm them. Those are the kind of people who keep the nation safe for those who prefer to not be armed. Cops help, but privately armed and responsible citizens are a much more cost effective way to prevent crime.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 8, 2005 11:06:25 GMT -5
i'm not saying guns cause murder (as i've said time and time again) but you are saying that guns make the place safer and that is not true.
this is the stat i object to: "If the people who said they thought they would have died ether almost certainly or probably (granted a hard claim to test.) That is 747,500 lives saved. Now even if only 10% of those people would have died that is still 74,750 lives saved vs. the 30,00 or so deaths." ... it's completely ridiculous that you would try and use this as evidence in support of your claims - why say 10%? why not say 1%? then you would have only 7,475, which obviously doesn't outweigh the 30,000 odd ... it's a completely arbitrary figure and the stat itself shows nothing other than people's paranoia, and even at its best nothing like what you say can be determined from it. if there's a 100% chance that someone might die, that still doesn't mean that someone will die if i don't produce a gun - the "might" could only be a 1% chance (and that is a chance i'm sure anyone would rather avoid, so they could be justified in producing a gun) but you don't take this into consideration when you divide the figure by 10 ... really it's the dumbest statistic i've ever seen attempted as back-up to what you are saying ... it demonstrates that guns can deter criminals, but you can not possibly determine from that the number of lives guns have saved.
"if guns are removed then people will use other methods to inflict violence on others" - i agree, but in a violent society it would be best to have absolutely no weapons at all, surely? if you agree then you must also agree that it's better to have no guns at all rather than have everyone armed ...
"the way to end violence in the long run is to teach people to behave themselves and respect others" - yes i agree, but if you had no guns then your homicide rate would be lower - it's such a simple concept: guns are far too powerful to be in the hands of everyday citizens, people should not have the power to kill so easily (especially in such a violent society as the USA). the UK is a very violent country (crime statistics show that we are more violent than america, last i checked) but despite this our homicide rate is 2-3 times lower than the USA, the only major difference being that nobody has any guns.
what exactly do you mean by cost effective? a homicide rate 2-3 times higher than the UK, but those deaths make up for the money saved from having to fund an efficient justice system? in other words you are putting a value on human life, so you can chuck that argument right out the window ...
every civilised, democratic society must aim for the ideal "rule of law" (do you know what that is?). under the rule of law people should not be allowed to take the law into their own hands, so the government should really be discouraging that. the status quo in the USA is unacceptable (as polytheist pointed out) so why are you so happy to accept it?
your reasoning is becoming more and more illogical and i can't be bothered repeating myself any longer, so next time try and put some thought into your posts for a change.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 8, 2005 11:27:16 GMT -5
What are you talking about?
People have a right to life, liberty and property (stolen from John)
Everyday in this country there are people who have so little respect for other humans that they rob rape and murder them. How does letting a person defend themselves from such actions devalue human life?
Criminals love gun control it makes their job easier.
It is just lucky that higher rates of persons having weapons and lower murder rates occur?
Do you really think that those 700+ thousand people who used a gun to protect themselves were all over reacting when they said they would have certainly or probably been killed had they not taken action?
If you dislike my dividing the figure by 10 (an act to not over state the issue as some people may have hipped up a situation.) Fine 740,000 or so lives are saved every year by guns – the 30,000 who die =over 700,000 lives a year that are saved by citizens owning guns.
If you want to save lives ban alcohol, Tobacco and cars. They kill a ton of people. When I took drivers ed they had posters up all over the walls stating that 50,000-55.000 people were killed by cars in the past year.
Guns are saving lives every year and preventing crime. They make for a safer more peaceful and on the whole better society.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 8, 2005 14:33:48 GMT -5
alcohol, tobacco and cars are pretty dangerous, that's true, but we're talking about weapons here. knives are dangerous but we can't ban knives because we need them to prepare and eat food - we can't ban cricket bats because we need them to play cricket (well, the english do at least) - if we banned these things then we'd have to ban anything that can be used as a weapon despite its primary purpose (which would include practically everything). but we're not talking about these things, we are talking about things which are primarily weapons to be used against people - handguns and flick-knives etc. (both of which are banned in the UK).
ideally you should not take the law into your own hands - the law allows self-defence in limited situations because it is not totally out of touch with reality and recognises that it is unreasonable to expect people to just stand there and take a beating if someone attacks them etc. i never said this devalues human life, i merely object to your suggestion that people should be encouraged to do this since it saves resources in funding a police force - as if the deaths caused by this anarchy are worth less than the money required to improve the system.
forget about the 740,000 number, there's no way of determining how this figure can be adjusted to serve the purpose you want it to serve, try and find something more relevant.
in my opinion, the UK and the USA are not vastly different societies, yet your homicide rate is so much higher than ours - there must be a major difference between us which can explain this and the only thing i can see is that you all have guns while we don't. why are you still going on about crime prevention? the only way you can compare the two is if you are willing to put a value on human life, and i am not prepared to do that.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 9, 2005 1:55:47 GMT -5
Is this another case of I don't like those stats so lets pretend they are not there?
Do you have any information on gun ownership and use?
Can you show that there is a direct link between people having guns and higher rates of murder?
I'd like to see something more than the assumption that fewer guns will result in a better society. It is kind of funny that DC has been the murder capital of our nation for many years. They also have some of the strictest gun laws.
As far as the police force goes they do a good job with a lot of things, but if someone shows up to kidnap rape or murder you they are not going to wait 5-10 or more minutes for the copes to arrive and discuss it with them.
The USA is one of the only nations where the government can't cancel the next election. If nothing else civilian ownership of guns forces the government to play by the rules. My freedom of religion and speech are kept safe by the guns that are owned.
When push comes to shove having good guys with weapons is better than only bad guys having them which is the case in many countries.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 9, 2005 2:06:34 GMT -5
I found this on line a few years back the web link is now dead, but I thought you all might find it interesting.
GUN REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. 3. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface. 4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. 5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? 6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. 7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. 8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any. 9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. 10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. 11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? 12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others. 13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. 14. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians. 15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety. 16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. 17. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer. 18. Assault is a behavior, not a device. 19. Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer. 20. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson. 21. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to control them. 22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. 23. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more. 24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. 25. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control. 26. "...a government by the people, for the people..."
To it I would add a. Criminals and those wishing to control people have the greatest interest in making people defenseless b. That a gun is an object and does not have mind control abilities c. If the issue was saving lives than premarital and extramarital sex would be banned as would cars and fating foods. d. A person who places the life of a murder above the life of their victim needs a reality lesson. e. Just because some people can't properly fly a plane does not mean the rest of us should not be allowed.
|
|