|
Post by littlepea on Dec 9, 2005 12:13:45 GMT -5
Is this another case of I don't like those stats so lets pretend they are not there? since it's the same stat as before, then in fact it's the same case of "i don't like that stat so let's pretend it's not there" - the 740,000 figure shows that guns can prevent crime, it doesn't show that guns save lives. not as much as i'd like, my main point is that the UK doesn't have any guns and we have a homicide rate 2-3 times lower than the USA. the only way to show this would be to have two identical societies, one with guns and one without, and then compare. that isn't possible, so i'm attempting to compare the USA and the UK since they are very similar societies to live in - 2-3 times higher points to some major difference between us and guns is the first thing that springs to my mind. i don't find that funny at all ... there could be any reason for that, however, and in a country where guns are in practically uncontrolled circulation i shouldn't imagine it's hard for someone to get their hands on one even if they live in one of the more controlled areas. it's a difficult situation, i agree, but you should still not be allowed to kill your attacker. even if you go to war you can't cancel the election (and i'm talking about a proper war where your country is actually in danger, not like vietnam or iraq)? what a waste of valuable time and resources during a crisis ... you don't need guns to revolt if your country is oppressing you. having no bad guys with guns (which is what we have in the UK) is better than having both good guys and bad guys armed. you can't have good guys with guns and bad guys without guns and no-one having guns is better than bad guys having guns, at least as far as lives are concerned, in my opinion (based on the comparison between the USA and the UK). 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. i disagree with a lot of that stuff, but if you follow this line of thinking logically: "Just because some people can't properly fly a plane does not mean the rest of us should not be allowed." that would lead to absolutely no laws at all since, just because some people can't live peacefully doesn't mean that i should have my freedom restricted ...
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 9, 2005 14:12:15 GMT -5
[quote author=littlepea board=society thread=1133478637 post=1134148425 it's a difficult situation, i agree, but you should still not be allowed to kill your attacker. [/quote]
Really no bad guys in the UK have guns? Congrats you are the only nation in the entire world to pull that one off. Australia has more or less the same laws and there are many bad guys with guns there.
[quote author=littlepea board=society thread=1133478637 post=1134148425
it's a difficult situation, i agree, but you should still not be allowed to kill your attacker. [/quote]
And I'm wondering under what sort of twisted logic is it morally wrong to protect my life. Do you really think that a murders life is more valuable than an innocent person’s?
[quote author=littlepea board=society thread=1133478637 post=1134148425 you don't need guns to revolt if your country is oppressing you. [/quote]
And what are we supposed to use to rebel with (heaven forbid that should ever happen). Should I arm myself with a kitchen knife, paint ball gun or maybe I can use a good sharp stick? I doubt I’m going to have a supper powered lazar gun handy.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 9, 2005 15:01:08 GMT -5
in the UK there are practically no guns (handguns, i mean). of course there are exceptional cases where people do commit crimes while armed with guns but they are extremely rare. we do have a problem with knife crime, but our homicide rate is 2-3 times lower than the USA, so i think we're better off. i don't see what you are trying to prove by comparing us to australia - what difference does it make that lots of austrlians have guns despite their restrictive laws when we're talking about the UK?
it's wrong to kill someone who doesn't mean to kill you - you can't kill someone who's stealing your property, you can't kill someone who's mugging you and you can't kill someone who only wants to injure you. if you intentionally shoot someone and they die then you're going to be prosecuted for murder, self-defence could only be plead if you had no chance of escape and you had a reasonable belief that your attacker was just about to kill you by shooting you himself.
if someone mugs you with a gun, he doesn't want to kill you he just wants your money, so you can't just pull out your gun and shoot him. the same goes if you find someone trying to rob your house or if someone's trying to rape you - you can't just kill them. you can fend them off, of course, but you can't just shoot them in the head.
a murderer's life is still a human life and is worth more than any property or any kind of injury to yourself apart from death.
what do you need guns for if your country is oppressing you? to take on the army if they turn against you? yeah, like that'll work ... a democratic government can't turn despotic overnight, there are plenty of safeguards in place to stop that happening, eventually getting down to the point that the law enforcers will not enforce the law that the legislators tell them to. this is known as the rule of law, one of the fundamental aspects of which is the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial).
the more realistic way that your government can turn to oppression would surely follow the example of nazi germany. in that case the people were initially in favour of the change and by the time they figured out it was a bad idea it was too late, but it's hard to see how any country can guard against this (and i don't see how gun ownership could aid your cause in this situation).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 9, 2005 19:29:24 GMT -5
it's wrong to kill someone who doesn't mean to kill you - you can't kill someone who's stealing your property, you can't kill someone who's mugging you and you can't kill someone who only wants to injure you. if you intentionally shoot someone and they die then you're going to be prosecuted for murder, self-defence could only be plead if you had no chance of escape and you had a reasonable belief that your attacker was just about to kill you by shooting you himself. I would not shoot someone over simple theft (TVs, computers, cars etc.) but if someone is placing my life or the life of my family in danger. I can kill them. And I would be well within my moral right to do so. I have a moral obligation to protect myself and family from harm. And if the choices of another person forces me to choose between killing them or risking the life of an innocent person I am justified in shooting them dead. I’ll drain the whole darn clip into them if need be and if that does not stop them I will beast them with whatever object is handy. I will live and I will protect do not tell me on what ground I can or can not kill someone! As far as the Australia thing they seem in many ways to be as close or closer to the USA than England. For one the size of the nation is fairly close. We have states that dwarf you country. There is also a lot of ethnic and cultural diversity. Both nations also have lingering issues with the way they have dealt with the locals. As far as the over throwing government thing goes I sure hope that never has to happen, but IF this little bubble of peace we live in and tell ourselves will always last ever pops I plan to be ready. If it never does and no one ever threatens my family than Barney dolls paper targets and old CD’s are the only thing I’ll ever aim my gun at.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 9, 2005 21:39:28 GMT -5
Some more information: “Social Utility The Lott-Mustard Study. With the publication of the Lott-Mustard study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," [43] advocates of shall-issue licensing systems have significant criminological support for the claim that shall-issue systems save lives, prevent rapes and robberies, and confer benefits that extend well beyond those garnered by the people who are issued the permits. Analyzing crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United States throughout the period 1977-92, Lott and Mustard found that when shall-issue licensing laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 7.65 percent, rapes fell by 5.2 percent, robberies fell by 2.2 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. In 1992 there were 18,469 murders, 79,272 rapes, 538,368 robberies, and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties that did not have shall-issue licensing systems. Had those counties had such laws, Lott and Mustard found, there would have been 1,414 fewer murders, 4,177 fewer rapes, 11,898 fewer robberies, and 60,363 fewer aggravated assaults. On the other hand, property crime rates increased 2.7 percent--after the passage of shall-issue laws--so there would have been 247,165 more property crimes. Lott and Mustard conclude that criminals respond to the threat of being shot by victims by substituting less risky, nonconfrontational crimes. The results further showed that, while passage of shall-issue laws resulted in immediate altered violent crime rates, an additional reduction occurred over time, and that for most violent crimes like murder, rape, and aggravated assault, concealed-weapon laws had the greatest deterrent effect in counties with high crime rates.” ‘article link’ “Does owning or carrying guns deter violent crime? Or does it allow more citizens to harm one another? In 1998 legal scholar John Lott wrote a book that presented the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. His provocative conclusion: More guns mean less crime. Now, in the new paperback edition of that book, Lott expands upon the path-breaking research of the first edition. Extensive new evidence is presented on the impact of right-to-carry, one-gun-a-month, safe storage, and other gun laws. This event features a discussion about guns, crime, safety, and self-defense.” ‘click me’
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 10, 2005 11:09:02 GMT -5
it's wrong to kill someone who doesn't mean to kill you - you can't kill someone who's stealing your property, you can't kill someone who's mugging you and you can't kill someone who only wants to injure you. It is seriously more complicated than that. At least in the USA. It has much more to do with convincing the courts that you were a frairad for your life and that you did NOT use 'excessive force'. This is the way it is supposed to be. Unfortunately it is not the way it always works. At least not in the USA Unless you use 'excessive force'. aIn which case you are just as guilty as the one who assualed you. Unless the person you killed was the victim of some psychological disorder. Then you are the aggressor. Sounds stupid I know but I have seen it happpen to many times. I am currently attending school to get a paralegal degree so that when the state of Indiana goes with the "paralegals must be certified(or licensed) I will already have a leg up. And then you will likely spend several years in prison for excessive force. This is where so many people get screwed from watching tv and listening to 'backyard lawyers'. Yes you have the right to defend yourself. However, you only have the right to use enough force as necessary to prevent harm to yourself. The problem with this is that it is the court that decides what was necessary, not you. Do not get me wrong. I agree with what you are saying. I merely want to point out that the way things should be and the way things are sometimes are complete opposite of one another.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 10, 2005 15:38:36 GMT -5
the law works on the basis that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so it's only right that self-defence shouldn't be too easy to establish. in my opinion firing a gun at someone is in itself excessive force unless you are actually involved in a shoot-out with the bad guys, beverly hills cop style ... i still don't see the relevance of australia considering that my argument is that if the USA had the same attitude to guns as the UK does then you would not have so many homicides (i originally said that you should have the same laws as the UK, but you also need to respect, obey and enforce the laws and that would require the same attitude towards guns in general - so i'm not really moving the goalposts here, just clarifying ). you say that australia is about the same size as the USA - what has geography got to do with it? the population of Oz is 20 million, the population of the UK is 60 million, the population of the USA is 297 million, but size is really irrelevant to the comparison however you think of it. i can't account for how they enforce their gun laws, if they even have similar gun laws to the UK, but even so their homicide rate is significantly lower than the USA and roughly the same as the UK (slightly higher, if this site is accurate), so even if you prefer to compare the USA to Australia that doesn't affect the discussion. you are still going on about how guns can deter crime - i can't disagree with you about whether or not that is true, but i'm just asking you to consider whether it's worth all the lives lost ... as far as violent crime is concerned, check out these statistics (the "league tables" of crimes in each country): AssaultsMurdersRapesRobberiesTotal Crimesthere are other crime statistics in there that i didn't draw attention to because they aren't "violent crime", which is what gun ownership is supposed to deter (because how can guns deter fraud and embezzlement?). eg. robbery is not the same as burglary - robbery is theft + violence, ie. mugging; burglary is theft without violence - so i only linked to robbery. as you can see, the USA has higher rates of violent crime than the UK in all the areas i considered relevant, although the UK has a higher rate of crime overall. i wonder if pro-guns advocates only refer to the total rate of crime as evidence, which that would be rather misleading considering violent crime is what people need weapons to defend themselves against. the number of murders in the USA is 12,658* - 8,259 of which were committed with firearms (check the site, the numbers are on there) ... can you seriously suggest that if no-one had any guns (other than the police and the military etc.) then this number would not be reduced? * NB. this is different from the 30,000 figure, since that was a figure for all homicides (ie. all kinds of killing, including manslaughter and acquittals for whatever reason), murder is only one form of homicide.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 12, 2005 16:12:20 GMT -5
I disagree. I think rape IS just as bad as murder. As a matter of fact, I think that it is a tragedy that we cannot just execute every pedophile, rapist, and murderer tommorow. I would be happy to pull the trigger myself. We go after "terrorists" in other countries and cheer at their deaths--and yet we allow "terrorists" to flourish and live in freedom within our own country. Ohio has even proposed giving sex offenders special "pink license plates". Stupid.
Oh yeah.......and I still say that I would rather be shot with a gun, than be beaten or stabbed to death. I'm glad that guns are far more powerful--and if I had to choose whether to be murdered with a bat, knife, or gun--I would choose the gun.
Perhaps the U.S.A. could reduce the number of gun deaths each year if they offered suicidal persons the option of a safe and legal euthanization--since suicide is where the majority of "gun deaths" originates in this country.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 12, 2005 18:26:22 GMT -5
Every nation is different and I do not think that removing guns from the law abiding citizen will reduce crime. You talk as if passing a law will make something happen. To the best of my knowledge Marijuana, methamphetamines(sp) and a whole slew of other drugs are illegal to have. Who has them only the guys who do not follow the law. You can not (with out becoming a total police state) prevent bad guys from having guns.
1. The strictest gun laws in the nation and the highest murder rate is in the same place. 2. I do not think that laws that only protect criminal safety and place good citizens at risk is a move in the right direction. 3. If people would stop committing crimes guns would not be an issue.
Taking guns away from the people who are using them correctly is not going to reduce crime, save lives, or advance the society in any fashion. The time and energy that would be spent on such an effort would better serve society in dozens of other ways.
Anyhow on the issue of the legalities I’m aware there are some problems if you ever use a weapon. I never want to shoot anyone, but I can’t explain to my daughter( assuming I have one some day) that I did not want to risk some jail time so I just stood by while she was rapped. I’d much rather spend a few years in jail. As to excessive force I would shot to stop cops have the same policy. They spell stop K.I.L.L. though.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 12, 2005 20:07:28 GMT -5
I disagree. I think rape IS just as bad as murder. As a matter of fact, I think that it is a tragedy that we cannot just execute every pedophile, rapist, and murderer tommorow. I would be happy to pull the trigger myself. We go after "terrorists" in other countries and cheer at their deaths--and yet we allow "terrorists" to flourish and live in freedom within our own country. Ohio has even proposed giving sex offenders special "pink license plates". Stupid. well, the people that are elected to create laws in your country disagree and you have to follow their rules - rape is not as serious as murder in the USA or the UK, as far as i'm aware. i agree that it's stupid to go after terrorists in foreign countries (which is an impossible battle) rather than spend the money sorting out the problems in our own countries, but that's another matter entirely. that is totally not the point. i would also choose the gun if i had to choose how to die (in fact i'd rather choose an overdose of morphine, much less painful). if you could choose which weapon thugs, junkies and random assault aggressors were armed with, you'd be a fool to prefer that they had guns rather than bats or knives. nonsense - the murder statistics refer to murder, not suicide. You talk as if passing a law will make something happen. bullshit - do you read what i actually post, or only what you think i'm going to post (i call this "reading with your eyes shut" )? that's why i changed my argument to say that if you could somehow adapt your society to have the same attitude to guns as the UK then you would have fewer homicides. it couldn't be done overnight, but you've got to start somewhere (it'd probably take something like 50-100 years). well, practically none of the bad guys in the UK have guns, so if you make an effort then it does make a difference. so you agree that if you take guns away from people who misuse them then that would reduce the number of homicides (and hence make it worthwhile to society)? it's impossible to take guns away from all the bad guys, there will always be a tiny minority who have guns, but you can't say it's impossible to make a significant difference. i can't be sure exactly what you meant to say in the last two sentences, but as far as shoot to kill policies are concerned, they have their place - eg. anti-terror police often need to shoot to kill to prevent the terrorist detonating a bomb which he might be carrying (like the thing recently with the air marshall) - but if your everyday bad guys didn't have guns then the police wouldn't need to shoot to kill quite as often as they do. you should look into the laws where you live to check what you can and can't do if you're concerned about it (bringing up ridiculous scenarios like that isn't constructive for the sake of this discussion). the law allows you do plead "self-defence" when you are protecting others, illogically (though unsurprisingly, since the law is often quite considerate in areas like this) - or at least, there should be some equivalent for the protection of others (the technicalities might differ between different states or countries). i think you'll find it still refers to some kind of "proportionality" or "reasonable force" - in which case you couldn't just shoot someone who's raping your daughter unless he was actually holding a gun to her head and was also going to kill her, though you don't have to just stand there and do nothing until the police arrive (in fact, you'd probably be in breach of a duty to protect your child if you just stood and watched).
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 13, 2005 9:05:25 GMT -5
Yes and it's quite stupid. The only reason probably being that most of them are males. If you agree--then maybe that is also what your problem is.
I was making my own point, and um, no I do not agree that I would be a fool. I would much rather die from the gunfire than have a crazed junkie (or whatever you would like to refer to the bad guys as) swinging a bat at me.
No, actually that is not nonsense. Notice I was referring to gun "deaths" in this country--the majority of which result from suicide.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 13, 2005 10:16:41 GMT -5
The other day I found an interesting article on the internet about how dumb feminist are for opposing guns as they are an equalizer between the sexes and that the conservatives were dumb for not making better use of women defending themselves as a major reason for people being armed. Anyhow while I did not find that article again I did find this website. ‘click if you dare’
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 13, 2005 10:31:12 GMT -5
teancum79: Yes that was a great site, thank you. I found this especially interesting: By contrast, in Great Britain as the number of legal firearms owners declined, crimes involving firearms increased 196 percent between 1981-1992. Following the Dunblane tragedy, the passage of the Firearms Act of 1997 made self-defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. (Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1992.) In defenseless Britain today, according to a letter to The Wall Street Journal on April 26, "Hot robberies -- break-ins with the residents at home -- make up 50 percent of all robberies in Britain, compared to 13 percent in the U.S.A." The London Times reported on January 16, 2000, "Killings Rise as 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain." Armed crime rose 10 percent in 1998 and the numbers for 1999 may be higher. (Dr. Michael Brown, "The Results are in on British Gun Laws," April, 2000.) I also enjoyed reading through these 2 sites: www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htmreason.com/cy/cy031802.shtml
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 13, 2005 12:32:31 GMT -5
Thanks those are some cool sites I loved this one
“FACT: There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns according to the 1998 FBI statistics and 207,754,000 automobiles according to the 1998 Federal Highway Administration registrations). Yet, you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council…despite cars having been registered and licensed for more than 100 years.”
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 14, 2005 9:41:17 GMT -5
ok, let's go over this one more time because i can't believe anyone could disagree with this ... if no-one in the country had any guns apart from the authorities then surely the country would be a safer place, no?
you two are bringing in too many irrelevant points and it's confusing the issue - i'm not concerned with suicides or how you'd rather be killed; yes, there is a problem with "hot robberies" (should really be termed "hot burglaries" but nevermind) in the UK but at least the homicide rate is 3 times lower than the USA; a car is not primarily used as a weapon, it is ridiculous to use that stat as justification for gun ownership.
as far as feminism is concerned, feminism is not a set philosophy, there are often feminist arguments for and against controversial issues and i'd be surprised if there are no feminist arguments in favour of gun control, but i can't be bothered checking at the moment.
what i want to find right now is a list of how many guns are owned in each country (like the the statistics i linked to before). there must be a list somewhere but i can't pin it down, if you find something like it then please post a link. since it's all very well comparing individual countries to make a point (eg. i'm comparing the USA to the UK to point out that we have a much lower homicide rate, but you'll point out that Switzerland has probably the most lenient gun laws in the world and is also one of the safest) but it's not getting us anywhere. with that list i will then compare where each country fits in to lists of violent crimes to see if we can establish a pattern one way or t'other ...
someone must have thought of this before, so i doubt it will shed any light on the discussion, but i want to see it for myself anyway.
one response to the switzerland point you make would be that switzerland is an exceptionally safe place to be with or without guns, but somewhere as dangerous as the USA definitely should not have guns in free circulation. Michael Moore practically makes this point in his documentary Bowling for Columbine - speaking of which, how do you respond to the points he brings up in that?
|
|