Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 406 of 452 (522799)
09-05-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Modulous
09-04-2009 4:48 PM


Re: The facts
By making guns illegal you might be reducing the need for criminals to carry them in circumstances such as burglary. When you double the prison sentence of a crime if a firearm was carried by the perp' you also provide a deterrent.
But another gun against them is somehow not a deterrent, I suppose, which is why law enforcement and military are armed? "Maybe if we don't have guns, they won't either," is the gist of what you are saying. That is one of the more fanciful beliefs I've heard on this thread as it is not based on reality.
The argument isn't that items that can kill should be outlawed. It is items that have a certain level of killing ability should be regulated or outlawed. You agree that this is the case. You just disagree with what level is appropriate. Why must you ask such silly rhetorical questions? (irony intended)
Because this whole thread is not only silly, but also a self-defeating position for those against it.
Consider this: For as long as law enforcement existed in your home of the UK, the police did not carry arms, even when they had the ability to. Can you tell me why they started carrying firearms if the illegalisation of firearms nationwide was supposed to reduce gun crime?
The cars argument has been addressed - the positive effects outweighs the negative. Can the same argument clearly be made in favour of firearms?
The only reason certain countries don't invade either of our respective countries right now is because both countries have the capacity to defend itself with arms. Likewise, more burglaries occur in your nation with greater frequently than they do in the United States. What are some possible explanations for this? It certainly isn't that Americans are more moral, as America is not exactly a shining example of a low crime rate.
A possible, and dare I say probable reason is due to the fact that burglars in your country are aware that only the criminals and law enforcement are armed. In contrast, there is no telling who is or who isn't armed in the United States which prevents are greater risk.
Guns have a purpose, regardless of whether or not its context is generally negative. Violence and violence with guns is an ugly part of humanity. Because they exist, it then becomes a necessary evil that they also exist in righteous hands as a counterweight.
You said that your opponents believed that removing the ability for citizens to defend themselves makes society better. Which is not what your opponents have said is their belief.
Oh, that's NOT the implication here, to make society better??? Then by all means, please clarify what other purpose or reason.
Indeed, whose business if you have a minigun to protect your private property? Whose business that you have sarin gas? Dynamite, grenades, cluster bombs, nuclear weapons.
The authorities, as those are ILLEGAL. The weaponry that I am defending are LEGAL arms, as they are deemed reasonable.
What you can and cannot possess in your own home is society's business.
No, only what you cannot possess. And still the rights of the people exist against unreasonable search and seizure... Another cherished Bill of right.
No - you were making statements about my experience without knowing what my experience was and inferring my opinions on that from that guess about my experiences.
What statement was that?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 4:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2009 4:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 408 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 5:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 407 of 452 (522807)
09-05-2009 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 2:51 AM


deterrence and Kallipolis
But another gun against them is somehow not a deterrent, I suppose, which is why law enforcement and military are armed? "Maybe if we don't have guns, they won't either," is the gist of what you are saying. That is one of the more fanciful beliefs I've heard on this thread as it is not based on reality.
I have no idea what belief it is you heard.
I've not claimed that a person holding a firearm isn't a deterrent. In fact I have conceded that it is a deterrent.
However, if you reduce the need for someone to possess something while also increasing the risk for possessing I would suspect there is a possibility you will reduce possession. How is this 'fanciful' and 'not based in reality'? I can understand that you think it is empirically wrong, but that is a different matter.
For as long as law enforcement existed in your home of the UK, the police did not carry arms, even when they had the ability to. Can you tell me why they started carrying firearms if the illegalisation of firearms nationwide was supposed to reduce gun crime?
Most of them do not carry firearms, but specialist units do (those at airports or other terrorist targets and those that respond to firearms incidents), as well as a few patrols in certain areas.
There is certainly a lack of rage related fire arms death, most gun crime is intended to be gang on gang or large robbery operations (banks, post offices etc) and this is correlated with an increase in the number of firearms due to conversions and surplus weapons from recent wars in Europe becoming available on the black market. There are maybe some other factors.
The only reason certain countries don't invade either of our respective countries right now is because both countries have the capacity to defend itself with arms.
Indeed, this is true of all countries.
Likewise, more burglaries occur in your nation with greater frequently than they do in the United States.
Yes, I believe this is true.
What are some possible explanations for this?
Well, for a start there exists a greater possibility for burglars to encounter an armed trigger happy resident in the US and this is an obvious deterrent. I also think the prison sentences are harsher in the US than in the UK. I'm not sure about the success rate in solving burglaries in the US but that might be a factor.
abe: Another thought:- Holding up a bank, off licence, or other establishment using a gun is probably a more common way to make quick money in the US than in the UK so those who would be inclined to rob a house in the US may decide to forgo the hassle of finding a fence for stolen items and just go for a cash register. I haven't seen stats, but that might also be a factor.
Guns have a purpose, regardless of whether or not its context is generally negative. Violence and violence with guns is an ugly part of humanity. Because they exist, it then becomes a necessary evil that they also exist in righteous hands as a counterweight.
The same could be said of nuclear weapons and miniguns and grenades...
Oh, that's NOT the implication here, to make society better??? Then by all means, please clarify what other purpose or reason.
Are you having difficulty comprehending me? I have no idea how you managed to translate my words to mean anything of the sort. Maybe I'm being confusing or obfuscatory?
I said that your opponents have NOT said that they believe that making citizens defenseless makes society better. Your problem is that you think that not having a gun equals not defended, but your opponents do not necessarily think that. Your opponents may agree with you that being defended makes society better, they just don't think that all methods of defense necessarily make society better.
The authorities, as those are ILLEGAL. The weaponry that I am defending are LEGAL arms, as they are deemed reasonable.
This isn't a debate about legality of firearms ownership, since that is trivially obvious. They are legal in your country and not legal in mine. This has become debate about whether they should be made illegal (or more restricted) in yours or made legal in mine (or made less restricted). Or more generally, should Utopia, Freedonia or Kallipolis have widespread gun ownership.
You can't argue that something should be legal because it is. Otherwise I could just point out that handguns are not legal because they have been deemed unreasonable.
The argument you put forward as a reason as to why they should be legal applies equally to miniguns, that's all I was saying. The argument, in case you don't want to check back was
quote:
who's business is it that I should have a gun to protect my private property?
Which, as you observed, it is the authority's business (more specifically society's business) to decide what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable degrees of protection. And the debate here is which policy is better and why.
No, only what you cannot possess.
Which, by extension, means what you can possess too (everything that is not included in the set {that which you cannot possess})
What statement was that?
Why don't you go back and look at what I was responding to, if you aren't sure? I did quote it.
Here,
quote:
From your perspective, as an individual who has never been around guns, I understand your position or can at least empathize
To which I replied
quote:
I am not making an argument for or against gun control...Incidentally - I have been fired at by a small handgun...I have lost a work colleague after he was shot to death in my local Chinese takeaway... say this to point out that you not only assumed my opinions on gun control were contrary to yours, but that this must be because of complete inexperience with firearms. You did not have the information at your disposal to make this assessment.
to which you replied
quote:
I'm only arguing the positions you are making
to which I replied
quote:
No - you were making statements about my experience without knowing what my experience was and inferring my opinions on that from that guess about my experiences.
Does that make it clear?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 2:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 408 of 452 (522809)
09-05-2009 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 2:51 AM


Finally: an oasis of sanity
Hyroglyphx writes:
Likewise, more burglaries occur in your nation with greater frequently than they do in the United States. What are some possible explanations for this? It certainly isn't that Americans are more moral, as America is not exactly a shining example of a low crime rate. A possible, and dare I say probable reason is due to the fact that burglars in your country are aware that only the criminals and law enforcement are armed. In contrast, there is no telling who is or who isn't armed in the United States which prevents are greater risk.
My point exactly. Sure, there are other factors that affect burglary rates but pretending this one doesn't matter is plainly foolish.
Hyroglyphx writes:
It's "irrational" and "exaggerated" to defend yourself in your OWN home?!?! I can't even believe the absurdity of your logic. It's time to stop the tea party and put down the Barbie dolls, Mary, and let your testicles finally descend the way nature intended.
You gotta love the way that some people allow the morals of self-righteousness to transcend any reasoning, rationalising ability they may have!
quote:
Guns for "self-defense" just mean more people dead at the end of the day, not less.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Well, then let it be a lesson would-be criminals everywhere. Stay in your own fucking house and you won't run the risk of being shot! I'm scared to hear what your advice to rape victims would be. "Just let him finish what he came here to do!"
That's exactly what people like RAZD are suggesting!! You see, the sentence for rape doesn't involve hitting the rapist on the head with a hammer, so -if the victim had the chance to do so- that would be "Cowboy Vigilante Justice"! Better let the rapist finish their task undisturbed and let the police deal with it after.
I'm much more scared by people with this mentality than I am of any armed criminal!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 2:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2009 7:25 AM Legend has replied
 Message 416 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 12:45 PM Legend has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 409 of 452 (522811)
09-05-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Legend
09-05-2009 5:27 AM


A clarification
Likewise, more burglaries occur in your nation with greater frequently than they do in the United States. What are some possible explanations for this? It certainly isn't that Americans are more moral, as America is not exactly a shining example of a low crime rate. A possible, and dare I say probable reason is due to the fact that burglars in your country are aware that only the criminals and law enforcement are armed. In contrast, there is no telling who is or who isn't armed in the United States which prevents are greater risk.
My point exactly. Sure, there are other factors that affect burglary rates but pretending this one doesn't matter is plainly foolish.
I'm not overly keen on resuming a debate on the specifics of the case I am going to bring up, but I was curious about how you hold the opinions that you do since they appear to me to be contradictory.
It seems in this thread you are advocating that the mere possibility that a homeowner has a gun is a deterrent to burglars. I'm assuming you think that the higher the probability the bigger the deterrent effect.
Previously you justified Mr Martin's shooting/killing burglars in his home (one was crouched and the other climbing out of a window) based on the premise that merely firing a warning shot or calling out might cause the thieves to flee and return with weapons or to pull out their own weapons.
Do you see the problem I face in trying to reconcile these positions?
On the one hand a chance that a homeowner might own a gun deters thieves from robbing a homeowner.
On the other hand, a homeowner wielding a firearm who is clearly alert to thieves breaking into his property is forced to shoot to kill thieves who are attempting to flee because the risk of them engaging in a firefight (either immediately or after some period of time) is too great.
As I said, whether Mr Martin was justified is not something I care to debate - it just seems, on the face of it, that shooting someone in the back just in case they might return for a gunfight seems to be in tension with the position that a gun acts as a suitable deterrant.
I appreciate I repeated myself a number of times. I did so because I may have been unclear in my discussion in this thread previously and I seek to remove as much ambiguity over what I am saying as possible, just in case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 5:27 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 9:38 AM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 410 of 452 (522814)
09-05-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by LudoRephaim
09-05-2009 1:15 AM


Re: another reality check?
Hi LudoRephaim, thanks.
The Middle East crisis is pretty complicated, but here are a few of the nations that have been hostile to Israel;
The question was not hostile neighbors, but ones that "vowed to destroy it" as said in Message 372
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence.
Perhaps you can list who those "most" are and provide evidence of it.
So just being hostile is not enough, nor have you provided evidence of intent to destroy. This should be simple to do if Legends assertions are based on facts.
Iran (I'm not sure if they ever fought Israel, but they are not kissing cousins)
Not a neighbor.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by LudoRephaim, posted 09-05-2009 1:15 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 411 of 452 (522819)
09-05-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by RAZD
09-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
RAZD writes:
So we can still carry on debating statistics that can't be used as conclusive evidence either way until a multitude of contributing variables has been factored in.
RAZD writes:
Where we see that the devil can cite statistics to support his position, when you don't care about the validity of the statistics.
Curiously, despite saying this you continue to post statistics without taking all contributing factors into account.
RAZD writes:
Which also would mean ignoring the evidence that shows that poverty is a major cause of crime: poverty, disenfranchisement, marginalization, discrimination and exclusionary policies turn people into anti-social behavior because they are rejected by the society.
Agreed that all these are major causes of crime. Unemployment, drug use and unstable family environment are *also* major causes of crime. Now what? Are you just going to just investigate some contributing factors and ignore others?
RAZD writes:
Then the strong relationship of crime to poverty is what the evidence shows, and no real correlation with crime and "armed deterrence" exists.
There are no official statistics that show how many crimes are prevented because of armed deterrent,as far as I can see. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - it only means that there are enough people prejudiced against guns, like you, who refuse point-blank to even consider the possibility. That's what I'm asking that we do in this thread: put the blinkers down for a minute and consider how gun ownership would benefit the ordinary citizen.
RAZD writes:
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
This shows that the use of "armed deterrence" in the US has virtually no effect on the rate of assaults - for countries you agree are comparable on social grounds such that the effect of other factors (such as poverty) are minimized.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the victim's property? NO.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the knowledge that the victim was armed? NO
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured while the victim had the opportunity and legal authority to use their gun? NO
So what's the relevance of those stats in establishing the value of armed deterrent? NONE.
RAZD writes:
Curious, then that the proportion of murders - the assaults that result in death - is much higher in the US than in either Canada or the UK
Did you take into account the effect of other factors that are different between the two countries and affect murder rates such as gang prevalence or drug usage? NO you didn't.
Did you consider what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones? NO you didn't.
So what do these stats show, other than your anti-gun bias and your willingness to present stats out of context if they serve your argument? Nothing!
Didn't you say -only a few paragraphs back- that "...we see that the devil can cite statistics to support his position, when you don't care about the validity of the statistics". How very true indeed!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2009 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2009 11:52 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 412 of 452 (522822)
09-05-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Modulous
09-05-2009 7:25 AM


Re: A clarification
Modulous writes:
It seems in this thread you are advocating that the mere possibility that a homeowner has a gun is a deterrent to burglars. I'm assuming you think that the higher the probability the bigger the deterrent effect.
Yes, a sane and rationally-thinking burglar will be deterred indeed.
Modulous writes:
Previously you justified Mr Martin's shooting/killing burglars in his home (one was crouched and the other climbing out of a window) based on the premise that merely firing a warning shot or calling out might cause the thieves to flee and return with weapons or to pull out their own weapons.
That's right, I did.
Modulous writes:
Do you see the problem I face in trying to reconcile these positions?
I see why you think this is a problem but it's only a misunderstanding of the context in which those statements were made.
My position, as stated in this thread already, is that sane and rationally-thinking burglars would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance. Tony Martin, on that fateful night, had *no way of knowing* if the intruders were only sane and rationally-thinking burglars or drugged-up sadists or violent psychopaths or any other combination for that matter. They had already invaded his house so he did the sensible thing to minimize risk of injury to himself: he shot them. Which is why I fully support his actions on that night.
Modulous writes:
As I said, whether Mr Martin was justified is not something I care to debate - it just seems, on the face of it, that shooting someone in the back just in case they might return for a gunfight seems to be in tension with the position that a gun acts as a suitable deterrant.
The deterrent role stops at the doorstep. Once the intruders are in the house the deterrent has obviously failed. The homeowner has to then deal with the situation at a minimal risk to them. In Tony Martin's case he was a middle-aged farmer living alone in a remote farmhouse in the middle of the night, so the safest approach for him was to shoot them, regardless of the direction they were facing. Any other choice would invoke some risk for him, risk that he shouldn't have to be taking in a situation that he didn't cause or provoke.
To recap, one is a generic statement of principle, the other is my judgement on a specific scenario and circumstances which had moved beyond the point of simple deterrence.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Edited by Legend, : added last sentence

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2009 7:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2009 2:34 PM Legend has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 413 of 452 (522823)
09-05-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 1:47 AM


Re: A summation
How do you explain why gun violence decreased when the SCOTUS shot down the unconstitutional ban in Washington D.C. or why Australia's gun rate versus homicide increased when they disarmed their citizens?
Source and stats please. Since the SCOTUS decision just happened about a year ago, I think using any figures from that might not be a true picture, but I would like to see the figures.
You still are missing the gigantic elephant sitting in the room. To purchase a handgun, one must first pass a criminal backround check, the serial number is documented to the owner/purchaser of the weapon, etc. The barrels of handguns are so unique with their lands and grooves that the forensic evidence left behind on a bullet is as damning as any biophysical evidence (semen, fingerprints, blood, etc).
In most states all you need is to fill out the Federal form. The gun is not registered to the owner and the owner can turn around and sell it to any scumbag they want to. The lands and grooves can only be evidence if you access to both the shot bullet and the firearm. The police cannot take a bullet and just magically match it to the original gun.
In fact, ways to circumvent this is through shotguns (sawed-off shotguns in particular) which you seem to think is fine for sporting reasons. They leave no discernable way to trace the weapon of origin in a homicide quite the same way as with a handgun.
OK how often do you hear of a driveby shooting with a shotgun. Most of the crimes are crimes of opportunity. You make it sound like most of these incidents are perpetrated by criminal masterminds. They are not. It is the guy pissed at another for looking at his woman, somy young punks thinking they can make quick cash breaking into a house or business. You know what kind of guns they usually have? Small semi autos. .22's, .25's, .380's and 9MM's. They are not illegal to possess. But a sawed of shotgun? Very illegal, that is breaking of federal laws. You can always say you have a legitimate reason for a handgun, but you can never say you have a legitimate reason for a sawed off shotgun. Your argument does not work.
So what does that mean? That means the people who do purchase weapons used in homicides most often buy off the black market, which is exactly what the laws you promote don't do anything against.
Yes they do. Register all handguns. Transfer registrations when sold. Make the original owner responsible for that hand gun until a registrstion transfer is done.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 1:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 414 of 452 (522827)
09-05-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 1:47 AM


Re: A summation
To purchase a handgun, one must first pass a criminal backround check, the serial number is documented to the owner/purchaser of the weapon, etc.
First, you can't make this statement without providing a link that states this. Each state has their own laws for purchasing firearms., there is no universal rule/law/standard for purchasing a weapon in the US.
Some states only require the money to buy the gun, especially when it comes to rifles and shotguns.
Remember Sports Authority here in Miami? - Back when I enjoyed rabbit hunting out in the cane fields up Okeechobee, I went there to buy a 12guage. I walked in, saw the one I wanted, payed and walked out. No background check, no registration, no nothing...just a 21 year old dude with 200 dollars.
In Texas, Kentuckey, and Alabama (off the top of my head) you can do the same thing I did for handguns.
Here, for the 3rd time on this thread, US gun laws state by state.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 1:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 415 of 452 (522830)
09-05-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Legend
09-05-2009 8:52 AM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Sorry Legend, but you still just cannot see that your position is not supported by the evidence
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the victim's property? NO.
So? It includes assaults in and out of all different kinds of places. Places where people with gun permits can carry guns.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the knowledge that the victim was armed? NO
Which is unknowable until a gun is advertised. People with permits to carry concealed weapons don't advertise, so this is irrelevant - because we can safely assume that in such situations the assaults occurred in any event.
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured while the victim had the opportunity and legal authority to use their gun? NO
Again this silly complaint is irrelevant and a red herring. We can safely assume that the assaults still occurred (or they wouldn't be in the stats) and we can still note that the stats still show an INVERSE correlation to the ability to posses guns.
If what you claimed were true - that possession of guns prevents the owners from being assaulted - then this should show up in a reduction of assaults where guns are legal to carry.
No amount of massaging the data can bring one even close to that conclusion. All you have left for cognitive dissonance then is to deny that the statistics are irrelevant to the argument.
So what's the relevance of those stats in establishing the value of armed deterrent? NONE.
Well done. You can't counter the evidence, therefore you must decide that they are irrelevant.
Curiously, despite saying this you continue to post statistics without taking all contributing factors into account.
Using stats for the countries where YOU AGREED that they were comparable because of the similarity of the countries to reduce the effect of those other factors:
Message 377
I take your point about poverty and other factors that affect these stats. However, let it be known that I was the first one who insisted on comparing similar societies like the UK / US.
A position I concur with. The US, Canada and the UK are similar societies.
There are no official statistics that show how many crimes are prevented because of armed deterrent,as far as I can see. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - it only means that there are enough people prejudiced against guns, like you, who refuse point-blank to even consider the possibility. That's what I'm asking that we do in this thread: put the blinkers down for a minute and consider how gun ownership would benefit the ordinary citizen.
There are no stats in spite of a very active pro-gun lobby and proselytizing by the NRA ... and you put the absence of stats down to the gun-control side not considering it? Do you understand the term confirmation bias?
Confirmation Bias (Wikipedia, 2009)
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]
Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist because the effect is too small to be significant.
Did you consider what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones? NO you didn't.
Which is irrelevant for states next to states with lax gun laws and where there is absolutely no means to check traffic from one state to the next regarding the transportation of guns.
This is why the statistics for Hawaii were relevant, as noted in Message 212:
Meanwhile we continue to see statistics that show more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns:
Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/
quote:
FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a decision that, if upheld, could dismantle strong gun controls that have contributed to Hawaii's low number of deaths by firearms.
An analysis by the Violence Policy Center of 2005 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Hawaii is lowest in both household gun ownership -- 9.7 percent -- and gun deaths per 100,000 -- 2.2. The national per capita gun death rate was 10.3 per 100,000.
The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.
It still looks to me like the statistics support gun controls, rather than any personal benefit to having\carrying a gun.
So it looks like I've already considered "what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones" and STILL found that the statistics favor gun controls for the maximum benefit of the population.
So what do these stats show, other than your anti-gun bias and your willingness to present stats out of context if they serve your argument? Nothing!
They are not out of context and I have no anti-gun bias. I personally see no need to carry\have a gun, I do not see them as a panacea or a way to solve problems.
I have participated in non-violent protests for civil rights that have accomplished more to protect the rights and liberties of people, than any activity you can point to where a gun was used, and I did it for the benefit of others, not for my personal benefit.
I used to marvel that my grandfather grew up when the major transportation was horse and buggy, before cars were developed, and he died after man had walked on the moon. Now I can say that I grew up when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, and now we have a black man sitting in the whitehouse at the head of the country.
You talk about defending rights and liberties, I have done it, and I did not need guns to do it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 8:52 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 416 of 452 (522837)
09-05-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by Legend
09-05-2009 5:27 AM


Re: Finally: an oasis of sanity
You gotta love the way that some people allow the morals of self-righteousness to transcend any reasoning, rationalising ability they may have!
I can deal with people opposing and debating me with reason and logic, but this guy is beyond the pale, suggesting absolute absurdities.
I'm much more scared by people with this mentality than I am of any armed criminal!
Some people with an ultra-liberal mentality often see the victimizers as the victims. Anyone who advocates the owning of a gun then becomes a "vigilante."
Everyone is now starting to repeat themselves with no headway made on either side. Not much point in continuing.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 5:27 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2009 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 417 of 452 (522845)
09-05-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Legend
09-05-2009 9:38 AM


burglary and murder
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Yes but it does lead me to another avenue, which ties it into to a few hints and ideas that have come up previously. As you say:
Yes, a sane and rationally-thinking burglar will be deterred indeed.
So we have definitely deterred at least some of those that seek profit or thrill from burglary. At the very least, they will be more careful about ensuring the property is absent before making the attempt.
So who else, other than rationally thinking profit motivated or adrenaline junkies commit burglary. Excuse me while I speculate.
First up are substance addicts. Some of them are so far gone that threats to their life while known about, are secondary to getting the money together for their next fix. Some of them are not so far gone, and are rational enough to be deterred. There is probably a spectrum as well as those that are given targets by their dealers. Some will be deterred, others won't and will take their chances, and others won't be deterred and will attempt to equalise the playing field by using weapons of their own and the element of surprise.
Those that are deterred will probably still turn to criminal ends to acquire their money - but use risky ones.
So far we have deterred the least harmful thieves, the ones that are the most likely to run away at the sign of trouble who might commit a little violence to guarantee their escape but whose primary concern is ending the situation rather than making it worse.
We have pushed some crimes elsewhere, made some burglaries more dangerous to everybody and made some burglaries more dangerous to substance addicts.
This, to me, doesn't strike me as a simple gain for society.
But there are others:
Madmen, psychos, and the like. A more complicated lot - for the most part we can probably agree that deterrence isn't a significant factor here, though it probably some effect. Some of them might be simple kleptomaniac types, essentially harmless but requiring professional help. Naturally gun ownership makes the world more dangerous for them. Others will 'up the ante' and bring their own guns. Some would have brought guns anyway.
Now, the kind of person who breaks into a house with a gun in order to commit a violent attack or violent robbery in the UK is a rare one, though not non-existent. They generally use the shock and awe tactics and gain control of the occupants before the occupants have had the time to assess and comprehend the situation. Gun ownership for this type of crime is only sometimes of use for those exact reasons.
I mean, looking at just burglary or other home invasion type crimes, it seems that there are very few situations in which widespread gun ownership is a benefit. There are a large number of 'adrenaline junky' type thefts which will probably be cut - but they are not generally the kind of thefts that require lethal defensive capability to defend against.
From a game theory perspective it seems that if two opposing 'players' have a firearm, the chances of somebody getting injured or killed is vastly higher than if only one has or if both parties have knives or the like.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for policies that reduce crime. It seems to me, from a general look at things, that the only crimes you would deter are the ones which are the least harmful and the ones that remain become more likely to result in a death or serious injury. I suppose there is some positive game theory outcome in that more burglaries will be committed while the residents are absent.

Now, statistically the most likely person to murder you is someone you know (about 2 in 3 chance that your murderer, if there is one, will be known to you. It is even more likely,if you are a woman, you will know your murderer). And the biggest single motive for murder is 'argument' as far as I am aware. So while we are deterring some property crime, making some property crime more dangerous and merely displacing the rest...we are making it easier for your most probable murderer to do the deed before their blood has cooled.
This is the reason I don't tend to stake out a definitive position in gun debates. There are valid reasons for possession of firearms, and there are some associated benefits to society. But there are downsides too. I find it astonishing that people find it within themselves to definitively state that their country would be better one way or another with or without firearms. I am inclined to think the UK is better without them and the kind of reasoning above is the basic thought behind my opinion.
What do you make of these kinds of issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 9:38 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Legend, posted 09-08-2009 6:50 AM Modulous has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 418 of 452 (522846)
09-05-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Finally: an oasis of sanity
I can deal with people opposing and debating me with reason and logic, but this guy is beyond the pale, suggesting absolute absurdities.
Some people with an ultra-liberal mentality often see the victimizers as the victims. Anyone who advocates the owning of a gun then becomes a "vigilante."
Are you talking about Modulous? I have nor seen him or anyone make any of these claims. "victimizers as victims"? What is that shit. Who said that? People have made statements that they do not believe it is right to kill an intruder if there is no imminent threat(in many states it is not legal), but what you imply is a GROSS distortion of the arguments presented.
Absurdities? Please enlighten us on these absurdities?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 12:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 419 of 452 (522852)
09-05-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by RAZD
09-05-2009 11:52 AM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
RAZD writes:
Sorry Legend, but you still just cannot see that your position is not supported by the evidence
Which evidence? The irrelevant one or the one presented out of context?
Legend writes:
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the victim's property? NO.
RAZD writes:
So? It includes assaults in and out of all different kinds of places. Places where people with gun permits can carry guns.
If the victim is assaulted in public in a state which prohibits carrying concealed weapons then the attacker would have good reason to believe that the victim is unarmed. Yes, the assault will take place but it *bears no relevance to the argument of whether guns cause violence or prevent it*.
Legend writes:
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured in the knowledge that the victim was armed? NO
RAZD writes:
Which is unknowable until a gun is advertised. People with permits to carry concealed weapons don't advertise, s this is irrelevant - because we can safely assume that in such situations the assaults occurred in any event.
So you don't know how many assaults occured despite the victim being armed yet you still continue to support the idea that guns cause more violence not reduce it. Bizzare!
Legend writes:
Do the stats show how many of the assaults occured while the victim had the opportunity and legal authority to use their gun? NO
RAZD writes:
Again this silly complaint is irrelevant and a red herring. We can safely assume that the assaults still occurred (or they wouldn't be in the stats) and we can still note that the stats still show an INVERSE correlation to the ability to posses guns.
If the victim is assaulted in public in a state which prohibits carrying concealed weapons then the attacker would have had good reason to believe that the victim is unarmed. Yes, the assault will take place but it *bears no relevance to the argument of whether guns cause violence or prevent it*. The ability to possess guns is of no value without the ability to USE them.
RAZD writes:
If what you claimed were true - that possession of guns prevents the owners from being assaulted - then this should show up in a reduction of assaults where guns are legal to carry.
First, I claimed that possession of guns would reduce the number of owners assaulted in their own home not assaulted in general. That's just one of the reasons why your assault statistics are pretty much irrelevant.
Second, possession of guns is meaningless unless the owners have the authority to fire them in defense. Did you factor that in before you drew your conclusion? No you didn't! How many assaults occured in publlic in states which prohibit carrying a weapon? You have no idea! Yet you're happily wallowing in the self-righteous glee gained by providing some irrelevant statistics, out of context and ignoring a number of variables, which -in your mind- show that your belief about guns is the 'right' one.
RAZD writes:
No amount of massaging the data can bring one even close to that conclusion
You said it.
RAZD writes:
Well done. You can't counter the evidence, therefore you must decide that they are irrelevant.
Or could it just be that I decide it's irrelevant because it is....you know....irrelevant?
RAZD writes:
Using stats for the countries where YOU AGREED that they were comparable because of the similarity of the countries to reduce the effect of those other factors:
Just because I agreed that we should be comparing similar countries doesn't mean that you can go ahead and present irrelevant and out-of-context data for those countries!
Legend writes:
There are no official statistics that show how many crimes are prevented because of armed deterrent,as far as I can see.
RAZD writes:
There are no stats in spite of a very active pro-gun lobby and proselytizing by the NRA ... and you put the absence of stats down to the gun-control side not considering it? Do you understand the term confirmation bias?
Tnere are no stats in spite of a very active anti-gun lobby and proselytizing by the liberal left: If armed deterrent didn't work they would have published the stats so this absence *must mean* that armed deterrent does work!
Now THAT's confirmation bias! If you're going to use the term at least do it properly.
RAZD writes:
Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist because the effect is too small to be significant.
Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist because it's so damn difficult to find out how many crimes are prevented because of armed citizens.
Legend writes:
Did you consider what proportion of US murders take place in states with more restrictive gun laws as opposed to more lax ones? NO you didn't.
RAZD writes:
The organization, which supports gun controls, points out that Southern and Western states with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates. The top five states had household gun ownership rates ranging from 46.4 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.2 percent to 19 percent.
So you did consider proportion of murders correlated to state gun laws. But not quite: those figures above are for overall firearm death rates *not* specifically murder fy firearms. How many of those deaths were accidental? how many were the result of violent assault? How many were the result of succesful self-defence? How many were gangland killings? You have no idea yet continue to support the notion that guns increase violence just because the US has more gun-related deaths. In other words guns are 'bad' because "guns kill people".
In an earlier post I asked:
quote:
So we can still carry on debating statistics that can't be used as conclusive evidence either way until a multitude of contributing variables has been factored in. Or we can focus on the simple, easily-demonstrable things like the value of armed deterrence and the shape of the state-citizen relationship. Which one's it going to be?
I see that you chose the former.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2009 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2009 8:10 AM Legend has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 420 of 452 (522896)
09-06-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Legend
09-05-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
Hi Legend, still having trouble I see.
I see that you chose the former.
Actually I chose both. Without evidence your position is just your assertions, whining about how much better you would be protected if you only had a gun. Without evidence it is just one opinion against another.
Tnere are no stats in spite of a very active anti-gun lobby and proselytizing by the liberal left: If armed deterrent didn't work they would have published the stats so this absence *must mean* that armed deterrent does work!
Now THAT's confirmation bias! If you're going to use the term at least do it properly.
Except that there are statistics that show that there is no benefit ot society as a whole. Let me quote Hawaii again, as it seems you missed it:
Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/
quote:
:FIGURES showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer.
This is what all the compared statistics for the US, Canada and the UK show as well. Gun control advocates do not need to show the kind of statistics you can't find, because their concern is the benefit to society as a whole, not your personal selfish self. The statistics show increased danger to people IN GENERAL if guns are more readily available.
Which evidence? The irrelevant one or the one presented out of context?
The evidence that shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
If the victim is assaulted in public in a state which prohibits carrying concealed weapons then the attacker would have good reason to believe that the victim is unarmed. Yes, the assault will take place but it *bears no relevance to the argument of whether guns cause violence or prevent it*.
And as I have pointed out several times, but you have ignored, in a state where guns are allowed, the assaulter is likely to have a gun and use it in the assault. This isn't just "what-if" though, this position is borne out by the statistics comparing the US to Canada and the UK. Overall there are the same number of assaults but more assaults that involve guns and the death of the victim.
So you don't know how many assaults occured despite the victim being armed yet you still continue to support the idea that guns cause more violence not reduce it. Bizzare!
Because OVERALL violence is reduced and there is greater benefit to society as a whole with gun controls -- a position that IS supported by the evidence.
First, I claimed that possession of guns would reduce the number of owners assaulted in their own home not assaulted in general. That's just one of the reasons why your assault statistics are pretty much irrelevant.
Second, possession of guns is meaningless unless the owners have the authority to fire them in defense. Did you factor that in before you drew your conclusion? No you didn't! How many assaults occured in publlic in states which prohibit carrying a weapon? You have no idea! Yet you're happily wallowing in the self-righteous glee gained by providing some irrelevant statistics, out of context and ignoring a number of variables, which -in your mind- show that your belief about guns is the 'right' one.
What I see is that the statistics show an OVERALL increase in gun deaths during assaults, because more assaults are made with guns. I look at the total picture, the benefit to society as a whole, and the evidence shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
Just because I agreed that we should be comparing similar countries doesn't mean that you can go ahead and present irrelevant and out-of-context data for those countries!
So you keep whining, yet you haven't pointed out what is out of context.
|ABE|
Overall benefit shown to society as a whole is NOT irrelevant nor is it out of context. Why? because it shows that for every instance where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun, another was enabled by an assaulter having a gun. Trying to use only one side of the statistics - as you want to do, or imply that gun control advocates should do - is using confirmation bias to ignore the other side of the statistics. By using the statistics for society as a whole this confirmation bias is avoided. Let's review again:
Message 57
Crime Statistics > Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country
quote:
# 6 United States:      7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
The US is the highest of these three, but they are essentially equal, and thus the only logical conclusion is that if gun possession has averted any assaults, it has enabled an equal or slightly greater number of assaults to be made by gun bearing perps, assaults that would not be committed if guns were not available. For gun control advocates it does not matter whether the demographics of assault shifts, but whether there is an overall benefit to society to having gun controls.
From just the number of assaults being compared we do not see a benefit to gun controls: the numbers of assaults doesn't change. However, that is not the full picture:
Back to Message 57
Crime Statistics > Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
quote:
# 24 United States:  	0.042802  per 1,000 people
# 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

quote:

# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
We see that there are more murders (as a sub-category of assaults) and that there are more murders accomplished with guns in the US.
Thus, even though the number of assaults is the same, the violence of the assaults is increased overall, and the number of deaths of citizens is increased, both in general and in specific due to the availability of guns to the population as a whole - assaulter and victim. This is not a good trend for society as a whole, and thus good gun controls are a better solution than making guns available to both victims and perps.
|/ABE|
You want to protect yourself? Quit your whining and learn self defense, so that you won't have your nose broken.
You want to protect you home? Quit your whining and get a security system - and get the added benefit of protection while you are out of the house. Curiously, installing security systems shows HAS been shown to reduce burglary.
The statistics show that the rights and liberties of people are better protected by proper gun controls, that more citizens are able to walk the streets without needing to carry a gun when gun controls are in place.
I notice you have no argument about Gandhi, Dr MLK, and the restoration of rights and liberties to millions of Indian and American citizens through non-violent means. I take this as confirmation that defense of rights and liberties does not need to involve firearms, and thus that your argument of using firearms to defend rights and liberties is refuted, as has your position that allowing citizens to carry guns results in an overall benefit to society.
Your argument is reduced to denial of evidence.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added abe section, clarity

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Legend, posted 09-05-2009 4:49 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Legend, posted 09-09-2009 6:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024