Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:19:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
617 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his
decision, but I would contend that once the violence had started, Joe Blow
could have intervened and prevented further violence (and legal fees, if you
get my drift).
> >
> > >
> >
> > 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.
You make this point a few more times below and I whole-heartedly agree. With
something as grave as a firearm, ideally I would hope people would take it
upon themselves to do the right thing and get proper training - regrettably,
we both know that ain't gonna happen. I could live with mandated
safety/training courses - but again, some would take the course the same way
they take driver improvement courses - just because they must. Nevertheless,
it is a good idea and would have very likely have tremendous impact.
>
> 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).
Agreed.
>
> > 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.
I like this wording, better than the above. I can deal with such a policy.
> > > >
> > 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).
In the neighborhood of 50-60 million.
>
> > 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.
Agreed, but we exist under a framework that gives the benefit of the doubt
until you remove it. Freedom has its quirks.
>
> >
> > 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.
That's a whole 'nother can of worms: judges, lawyers, politicians, etc.
>
> >
> > 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.
I meant it in the sense that it doesn't warrant radical changes. Other
aspects of modern life account for higher loss of life than do firearms.
I get your point tho'. Sometimes I'm a bit pragmatic in this regard - c'mon,
I was a Jar-head.
>
> > 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.
You're right and I almost deleted those remarks, but didn't...obviously.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
I normally don't like to post links to such info - it's too easy. I'm a firm
believer in finding things out for one's self. If someone really wanted to
know they could find it quite easily. Just my own philosophy.
Here's an excerpt:
CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUNS
JOHN R. LOTT, JR., and DAVID B. MUSTARD*
Abstract
Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we
find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent
crimes, with-out increasing accidental deaths. If those states without
right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county-
and state-level data indicate that ap-proximately 1,500 murders would have
been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by
over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggra-vated assaults by over 60,000.
We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth,
where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is
minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce
crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these
laws was
at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional
con-cealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.
>
> >
> > 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.
Unfortunately I don't have time to search for any right now.
>
> >
> > 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. :-)
It was bound to happen.
> >
> > >
> > > > 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).
Granted it makes the malice more easily implemented into actions, but the
same people would find any means available to accomplish their grim task.
Still, a weapon in the right hands is invaluable, but then that takes us
back to human nature and good vs. evil. Don't even want to go there.
Bill
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Or shot more innocents. If the number of handguns were thinned out, it would be less likely Joe Blow would need his handgun. There is also the increased number of wackos carrying handguns to contend with ("Hey, you cut me off, well I'll show (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
