Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:51:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
685 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> Although, I do think the world would be safer if more responsible citizens
> were packing heat. That guy who shot up that Jewish daycare center is a
> perfect example: he passed up a few other potential targets because there
> were armed personnel on the premises. If that particular site had had an
> armed person those kids would not have been shot (I admit that it's
> reprehensible that we even need to discuss having armed personnel at a
> daycare!). The presence of a legally and responsibly wielded weapon would
> have protected lives.
This is certainly a valid point, and close to home since a co-worker in the
next building over from mine had his son involved in this very incident
(thankfully unharmed). But it was the presense of armed guards, not Joe
Blow with a concealed handgun that affected the criminal's decision.
>
> >
> > Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun pointed at you
> > (Smith and Wesson, .38 with a six inch barrel). Or, like my wife, who had a
> > cousin shot and killed.
>
> My condolences to your wife regarding her cousin. However, personal
> experiences cannot cloud the issue. Each individual, subjective, anecdotal
> life story has no bearing on the discussion - otherwise each individual,
> subjective opinion would carry equal weight.
Again, there is a certain validity to this (just as I noted that the fellow
with the concealed gun and never felt the urge to shoot anyone was an
individual thing). My point is that it's a lot easier to dismiss something
as a trivial statistic until it happens to you. It doesn't seem so trivial.
>
> As to my experiences with firearms (I live in Miami, need I say more?): Yes,
> as a Marine in armed conflict on foreign soil and in law enforcement, I have
> been on both ends of a firearm. I happen to have a 1 inch hole under my
> right shoulder blade. Does that make my point any more or less valid? I
> happen not to think so. We must objectively consider the noumena and not the
> phenomena of firearms.
I don't think it quite the same thing to compare military activity, or even
law enforcement, to Joe Blow walking around with a handgun. Perhaps I'd
feel differently if Joe Blow had to go through a training course such as you
must have.
I'm not deadset against firearms being owned by the public - it seems quite
clear to me that the right to own arms is what the founding fathers
intended. I'm not convinced that they might have the same opinion about
easily concealable, always ready handguns (you just didn't walk around with
a loaded black powder weapon on a daily basis, nor was it easily concealable).
> >
> > Percentages are meaningless if there are 10 million handguns - 100,000 being
> > *reported* used illegally (think of all the morons firing live rounds on
> > July 4th) as a sizeable number.
>
> What urks me about the liberal mentality is the incessant desire to limit
> the freedom of law abiding citizens because of the actions of a very
> miniscule minority (inherent in that mindset is the presupposition that
> everyone is irresponsible). If people were firing weapons into the sky on
> the 4th then go after them and leave me and Charleton Heston alone. The
> point was made in the last campaign that the Clinton administration, for all
> its clamor on guns, did not even enforce existing laws. We have too much
> restriction already. Punish the law breakers under existing statutes and
> leave the law abiding alone.
I'd rather have a "you can own 'em if you are properly trained" policy.
Then we would take care of the wackos and Chuck could die of old age
clutching his rifle.
>
> >
> > >
> > > There are over 200 million guns in the hands of private citizens.
> >
> > Egads! You don't think a million-odd guns used illegally is a problem!?!
>
> Out of 200+ million, that's less than half a percent. No. I don't think
> that's a problem at all.
>
> The actual number of murders in 1996 involving firearms was 9,266 (CDC #'s)
> - granted, that's 9,266 TOO MANY, but hardly a problem warranting total
> confiscation. With 260 million people and even more guns, that's not even a
> blip.
We'll have to simply disagree on this one. I'd also be curious as to what
the true signifigant numbers are (number of gun owners, not guns).
> As I said, if there were more armed, responsible citizens, that number would
> greatly decrease.
The key word is "responsible". Since no training is required, increasing
the armed rate is merely increasing the number of irresponsible owners.
>
> Freedom comes with great responsibility, not everyone can handle it; that's
> why we build prisons. Law breakers are a given in a free society, that
> places even more responsibility on the law abiding to remain vigilant.
And the prisons are busting at the seams so we release killers to accomodate
a guy selling marijuana. I understand your point, but it doesn't seem to be
working very well.
>
> What I find alarming is the cavalier attitude toward life and death in this
> country.
I'm not sure how to resolve this statement given your 9,266 deaths not even
being a blip above. I understand you also said that's 9,266 too many, but
simultaneously writing them off as the cost of doing business seems cavalier.
> Many warned that legalized abortion would lead to just that. We
> have cheapened life and are reaping the benefits. My opinion. Not trying to
> stir up that debate.
Why else bring it up except to stir up that debate? That's a "where does
life begin" debate, not a handgun issue. Liberals could raise the death
penalty issue (or Texas' widespread handguns, opposition to abortion, death
penalty enforcement, and resultant high murder rate). Either simply muddies
the waters and I'd prefer to leave them out.
>
> >
> > > There are more than one million incidents of defensive uses of firearms to >>prevent violent crimes.
>
> This comment above is worth noting a second time. 9,266 taken - more than
> one million preserved. This cannot be ignored. The benefit far outweighs
> the loss. Take away guns and the death toll would rise (under the assumption
> that the bad guys would still be armed). Why do liberals ignore the lives
> that are saved by guns? Could it be that they have ulterior motives?
The statement is such a blank check that it becomes meaningless (perhaps the
source material is not, of course). How was this number come to? Was
"violence" present in the crime, or was there actually no violence but it
was presumed to be prevented? If there was actual violence, then violent
crime was not prevented, it was foiled in it's intent. Does this include
police incidents (we are talking about Joe Blow needing a handgun - if
900,000 of the incidents were by the police, it has a very big impact on the
debate)?
There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Liberals
and conservatives both exploit the Third Lie. Both often have ulterior
motives. Demonizing the other side is an ulterior motive. I prefer to be
wary of all (conservatives, liberals, demonizers, and statistics).
>
> > > 30,000 deaths, while regrettable, is hardly carnage -
> > > considering the largest percentage of those deaths are self inflicted. How
> > > many suicides are committed without guns? As I noted elsewhere, the "under
> > > 21" figure includes police shootings of juvenile offenders. So,
> > > realistically, the actual number is more like 15,000 gun deaths. 200 million
> > > guns and only 15,000 deaths - c'mon?!
> >
> >
> > Like I said, you missed the discussion thread, so none of the above applies
> > to my comments.
>
> It applies to the use of the word "carnage" generically.
I'll note that I understand your use was refering to something I wasn't and
move on.
>
> >
> > >
> > > January 1997 "Journal of Legal Studies" showed that concealed-carry weapons
> > > permits reduced crime rates.
>
> No comment on this one?
It's a vague claim. I'd have to see more info to even address it. What
does it actually claim? Who was behind the study? Are they trying to
interpret information, or shoehorn what is convenient into a preconceived
conclusion? It might be legit, but I'm generally wary of statistics mixed
with political axe-grinding groups of any persuasion.
>
> There are numerous other studies done in localities where firearm ownership
> is encouraged and/or facilitated all showing remarkable drops in crime.
Drops in crime, or a continuing low-crime rate? The nature of the locality
may be far more important than the gun ownership (a heavily Mormon
community, for example). And "encouaged" and "actual increase in gun
ownership" are two different things. See what I mean about statistics? You
may well be right, I just don't have enough to go on.
>
> > >
> > > Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates
> > > and low crime rates.
> >
> > Isreal has a low crime rate!?! The body count hits the front page on a
> > daily basis.
>
> The Palestinian/Israeli violence is not considered crime by most. Terrorism
> is an act of war. That type of violence is handled primarily by the military
> not the police. Robberies, muggings, murders, etc. are quite low.
High gun rate, high death rate, but I won't argue the rest (though I'll note
that the "murder" rate being low may fall under The Third Lie).
>
> It is interesting to note the similarities between Palestinian/Israeli
> violence and Irish/British violence in kind, yet the stark difference that
> Britian is said to have so little gun violence due to their gun ban. Both
> models have the same kind of violence, one with a gun ban and the other
> without, yet the one with the ban is always touted as the model we should
> follow - and the outcomes are identical! - high terrorism, low crime!! Go
> figure.
Imperialism enforced by guns. Oooo, sorry, showing the Irish side of my
ancestry. :-)
>
> >
> > The purpose of these is not for anti-crime (well, not sure about New
> > Zealand) but for invasion preparation. All are small population countries
> > that turn out a large proportion for military duty, with the rather large
> > difference that they are trained and these are military weapons, not
> > handguns, and they are not walking about with them.
>
> Regardless, the presence of weapons wielded by responsible individuals is a
> deterrent to crimes of violence. Predators prey on the weak.
They are all trained, which is what I advocate. Want a gun? Get some training.
The weapons usually aren't carried about in those countries, so the
"wielded" is debatable. It does not directly relate to Joe Blow, untrained,
and constantly packing a concealed handgun in this country.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The banning of guns in the UK was a direct reaction to the tragedy of
> > > Dunblane, the act of a deranged person, not a cool, calculating criminal.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with what you are refering to - handguns in
> > the UK have been rare for a very long time.
>
> Laws restricting the possession of guns in Britain date back to 1820, but
> were not comprehensive until after the 1996 school shooting in Scotland.
> Small bore handguns were still legal until then. The point was that the perp
> in Dunblane was nutz, you can't make laws to predict/prevent such acts. Gun
> bans restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves in
> the absence of law enforcement officers.
I don't think this has a significant impact on the historic lack of handgun
ownership in Britain. The latter incident is not really germane to the point.
>
> But, the British had the same debate we have: take the guns from the law
> abiding and the only ones left with guns are the bad guys. Can you say "Open
> season"?!
They had very, very few handguns before and were better off than us when it
came to violent crime (in effect, it was *always* "Open Season"), so I'm not
sure where you are going with this.
>
> >
> > > You don't need guns to kill lots of people anyway, take a look at Rwanda,
> > > 800,000 people hacked to death in 100 days, a figure unmatched even by the
> > > Nazis.
> >
> > This misses the point entirely - you can't walk around with a sword as it
> > is, and in fact illustrates the opposite point (a deadly weapon is a deadly
> > weapon is a deadly weapon....).
>
> Actually, it makes the point squarely. The problem is not the inanimate
> weapons - it is the human beings that raise them with malice in their hearts!
No, its malice AND the means. People will murder with swords, and you
*can't* walk around with those. People will murder with guns, but you *can*
walk around with those? The purpose of swords and handguns is the same:
they are there to kill people (you can use them for sport, but that's not
why either came into existence).
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| I'm going to address a few selective points here, please excuse me - tonight is my 9th wedding anniversary - goin out for a nice dinner. (...) That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his decision, but I would contend (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) You're right, I did miss most of the thread. A thousand pardons Sahib! But I did see that comment by Chris. I was reacting to the word carnage in my comments above. Although, I do think the world would be safer if more responsible citizens (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
