Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
SuperWatto 
Registered: Sep '00
6870_Watto
Date Posted: 6/5/07 7:26am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Master_SweetPea, apologies - when I said 'you're not above the law', I meant 'you' as in 'one' (one is not above the law), not you personally.

Your Kennesaw example - any figures on gun crimes? Otherwise, the example is incomplete and doesn't tell us much.

Your 1996 research article only shows that the police doesn't function properly. That's a good reason to clean that up, not a reason (in my opinion) to provide the people with guns.

Perhaps you could look into foreign figures, as well, see if there's a good alternative?

 

-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK
http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com
frustrating you with sound
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 6/5/07 7:39am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People? - Date Edited: 6/5/07 7:40am (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
Perhaps you could look into foreign figures, as well, see if there's a good alternative?

Watto, it's a common trend that isn't unique to the US and is based on fundamental physical limitations.

If a crime occurs, the person has to dial an emergency contact number (911 in the US, 999 in England, etc..) describe the situation, the dispatch center then has to dispatch an officer, who then has to respond.

Quick response times have been brought down to 5 minutes or so, but even then, 5 minutes seems like an eternity to the victim. (Of course, in certain rural areas, where distances are great- or in congested heavy urban areas, this is going to increase) What SweetPea is describing isn't a matter of the police in the US "being broken," but rather basic physical limitations that apply everywhere.

However, it's a difference of perception in the role of the victim. Generally, in the US, people have a more individual mentality where they aren't going to wait. People in other countries have more of a reliance on waiting on the authorities.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 6/5/07 8:32am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
I only have a few minutes (getting ready for a business trip), but I will respond to a few of these points.
SuperWatto posted:
Everything was nice, peaceful and quiet on here. Mr44 posted an observation, saying that he found that using guns is an aspect of human nature that isn’t limited to one outlet. He then goes on to speculate if the same morals can be applied to other things like alcohol, butter, cars, lighters, etc.

Kimball Kinnison doesn’t respond. He’s nowhere to be seen.

Then I reiterate more or less the same thing, albeit noting that a lot of the threads here deal with these different aspects of human nature and how they’re dealt with in different countries. I list a similar set of conflict areas, and suddenly Kimball Kinnison is on his hind hooves. He has four questions for me, which I will answer here:

KK posted:
What on earth does sex or crime on TV have to do with WMDs? What do either of those things have to do with pollution?

Nothing. What does butter have to do with cars? The reason I listed these things – I think that it was clear to everyone, but apparently not for Kimball Kinnison – is that they’re things that are talked about on the board, with people’s opinions differing over to ban them or not. ‘Banning’ or ‘prohibiting’ being the common denominator here, which I’ve pointed out a number of times.
Well, why don't we start from here?

What Mr44 said was:
Mr44 posted:
It's a theme that keeps coming up in every reiteration of this thread. From a sheer numbers standpoint, firearms deaths are way down the mortality list. Wouldn't it make sense then, to place even more restrictions on alcohol, butter/cream, automobiles, lighters, etc... But even in countries that have full restrictions on firearms, the same level of reciprocity isn't seen. Of course, the actual issue is much more complicated, but by the same token, it's not fair to dismiss the firearm issue by simply claiming that they can be misused and so are bad.
Note carefully what I bolded there. Mr44's mention of alcohol, butter, cars and lights was specifically relating to things that have higher mortality rates than guns. He actually had a point to that.

You, on the other hand, said this:
SuperWatto posted:
Indeed, and perhaps even in most threads here in the Senate. What's good for people, and what is not, and if it's not - should it be banned?

And of the countries we live in, NONE of them have a well-thought out stance, comes to that. It just sorta grew the way it is. What have we got? Alcohol, drugs, guns, pollution, WMDs, sex on TV, crime on TV... The policies towards these different aspects of society just don't match up, so we're raising hypocrites all across the board.
Your list doesn't correlate with his point, that of things that cause more deaths are not banned, so why ban guns? Instead, you went off on a complete tangent becasue those things are sometimes discussed on the boards.

Specifically, you included items like WMDs, pollution, and sex and crime on TV. Of those last items, only pollution would really count as something that has any real impact on mortality rates. (The US's WMD policy has no impact on the domestic mortality rates.) You then went on to say that because the policies on those unrelated topics didn't match up "we're raising hypocrites all across the board." It was this last statement (as well as your list of policies) that I directly questioned.

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
How on earth do you create a policy that "matches up" between topics that have nothing to do with each other?

Ah, see now, if I were to go into this – which I think is a very good starting point for having a good, deep, philosophical talk about bans and restrictions, as opposed to personal tales such as ‘my bike was stolen’ – you’d probably call me a troll and denounce it as being off-topic. You did, actually. While, at the same time, you don’t seem to want to consider a meta-discussion. As this topic is about gun laws and restrictions, any meta-discussion on laws and restrictions in general is valid. The only reasons anybody could call it trolling are because they don’t like the outcome, or that they’re just not bright enough to deal with the subject matter..
First of all, I'd be willing to bet you anything that I know the rules of the Senate far better than you do. I wrote them (except for the section about polls). I trained both of the current mods, and have a fairly firm grasp of how they are applied.

Your post, when taken in the context of your several previous "drive by" posts that ignored responses made to you and lacking in any form of substance whatsoever, came across as completely off topic. One or two posts like that can be excused usually, but when a pattern of that sort of post ("drive bys" and off topic posts) develops, 99% of the time the poster is either trolling or spamming.

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
Or by saying that they "don't match up" do you simply mean that they don't match up with what you want?

No – and you could have gathered that from reading my other posts. The fact that you’re asking this implies that you didn’t. So, you’re drawing the wrong conclusions and I point it out to you, but then you actually come out and state that the only reason for me listing these things can be that I don’t like them, which is of course extremely simplistic, thus showing that you are unable to grasp the bigger encompassing themes. You just ignore the fact that you misunderstood me and just go on misunderstanding in the very same vein. So I explain. Then you tell me that I’m not saying anything – again showing that you have no interest in this line of discussion. That’s fine by me, but I was trying to move the debate to a higher philosophical plane. You could say that you don’t care for that, that you’re more pragmatic, but NOT that I’m not saying anything. Why do you tell me that I’m not saying anything, while ignoring throwaway comments by Mr44 and Lowbacca – or your own. It’s obvious you’re out to get me. Just because I see things differently than you. Seems to me, then, that the person who doesn’t belong here is you, and not me.
Look, you've been posting in the Senate for about a month now. That is more than enough time to learn how things work here.

One of the key things about the Senate that makes it different from other forums (such as the JCC) is that it has a much higher standard for when you make a statement. If you argue something, it is expected that you be able to back it up. When you commit a fallacy in your argument, you are going to be called on it. When you post a response to someone that has nothing to do with the topic, you are going to get called on it. That's the way things work in this forum.

SuperWatto posted:
Then, just when I’m getting tired, you move in for the kill: you retread some old cows that were moved under the bridge pages earlier.


KK posted:
Of course, you completely neglected a few very simple points.

1) I specifically defined "responsible gun owner" as "law abiding". A person who simply blows the head off of a bike thief is in violation of the law. Lethal force is only allowed by the law when it is in self defense (or defense of someone else's life).

2) You specifically said that you have a problem with the responsible gun owner, but then when on to talk about the threat of irresponsible owners.

That’s the same point, not two. I said I had a problem with ‘responsible gun owner’, because if guns are easy to come by, there WILL be irresponsible ones. And you can’t defend such a situation by just talking about responsible people – you have to take the irresponsible ones in account as well. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. The same laws apply to the responsible people as to the irresponsible people.
No, it's two different points. Why? Because you completely ignored the definition of "responsible gun owner". If your problem is that there will be irresponsible gun owners, then it is by definition not the responsible owners that are the cause of the problem.

You set up a dichotomy and said that your problem is with A, but then you only talked about your problem with NOT A. That is a fallacy because a problem with NOT A does not logically constitute a problem with A. Additionally, what business is it of yours if someone owns a gun and handles it responsibly? It doesn't impact your life any more than if they own a knife, baseball bat, or any other potential weapon, as long as they handle those responsibly, too. That is one of the points that you have consistently failed to address.

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
Here's a little hint for you. If a gun owner isn't willing to obey the law, how will passing more laws restricting that gun owner going to make any difference?

That’s loop-thinking. My proposition would be that that person wouldn’t have a gun to begin with.
And that is, quite simply, unrealistic, and therefore nonsensical. It is a fact that guns are already available. You simply aren't going to be able to get rid of all of the guns, and the only people likely to voluntarily turn them in will be the ones who are already responsible (i.e. law abiding).

In other words, your suggestion would only increase the proportion of gun owners who are irresponsible. Moreover, you seem to at from the assumption that just because someone is a gun owner, they will be irresponsible (as is clear from your comments directed at Master_SweetPea about the bike theft).

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
3) When several people pointed out that you are using a very inaccurate stereotype, your response was your nonsensical "observation". In response to that I specifically questioned what it had to do with anything in this thread. You then gave a very hostile response that again said virtually nothing, let alone anything relating to the topic. All I asked was for you to clarify what you meant (as your post made no sense whatsoever). That's not an attack by any measure.


What are you referring to? And can you please, PLEASE ease up on your favorite word ‘nonsensical!‘? What I’m saying makes sense. Perhaps not to EVERYBODY, but that’s hardly my problem. I suggest you look around you, note that there’s more frames of mind in the world than just yours, and stop being so bloody arrogant. If stuff goes over your head, why not stop and think about it, or ask politely, instead of ranting 'nonsense!!! troll!!'
Your response was both off topic, and not logically connected with the points that preceded it. That is a textbook definition of nonsensical. If you want to prove otherwise, you need to demonstrate a logical chain of reasoning between them, which you did not do.

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
(Note: I could go on to point out that your nonsensical comment could easily be interpreted as being against all prohibitions, which would be directly in conflict with your prior comments advocating the prohibition of firearms. That's especially curious considering your talking in that post about hypocrisy. Were you then calling yourself a hypocrite? If that's the case, then why should be accept your viewpoint, as it is logically inconsistent?)


You’re still going on about that one post, here, aren’t you? You really don’t know how it it to be critical of the world INCLUDING yourself, do you? And you really haven’t read my other posts in this thread, HAVE YOU?

All in all, your whole attack was just downright childish and in no way a contribution to any discussion. So, can we actually start discussing now, or do you have more dirt to throw at me?
I'm not the one engaging in personal attacks, but your comments there are definitely close to the line.

I have read your posts. They have been heavy on assertions, but light on supporting statements. They have repeatedly ignored responses to them, especially those that pointed out when you were misrepresenting the arguments made to you. They have been full of wild stereotypes and severe logical fallacies. If you want, I'll go through and post several detailed examples of this. I can support every statement I've made with clear evidence.

Here are a few examples:
SuperWatto posted:
Question:
Lowbacca posted:
Well, if you take the stance that gun laws will prevent crime, who exactly are you expecting to obey them?


Answer:



Proof:
Decent nations with stricter gun laws DON'T HAVE mass school killings.
SuperWatto posted:
Ok, point for you Flyer.
No proof, then. Answer still stands, though...

What's that about bike theft you're posting in the gun thread, Master_SweetPea?
One of the key tenets of the Senate is PPOR: Post Proof or Retract. You made an assertion, and then admitted that you couldn't back it up when you were called on it, but you continued to assert it. That is well below the Senate's standards.

Similarly, relating to the bike thief example, you made comments like:
SuperWatto posted:
Really, folks.
It sounds as if you're still living in the Wild West. Still battling hardship and lawlessness, setting that new frontier.

When a person is in the process of stealing your bike, you call the cops. You have a really nifty phone number for that. You can actually have your bike registered. You don't go out and American-History-X them yourself. You're not Bruce Willis, you're not above the law.

If not enough bike thieves are caught by the police, then you try and improve the police force. You don't arm citizens. That's called: civilization.
Again, you don't really provide any support for your argument, only more assertions. In addition to that, many people pointed out two facts that you have completely ignored. First, that calling the police is not always possible. Second, no one advocated being "Bruce Willis" (making that a clear straw man fallacy).

On the first point, let me give you an example, using me. I live in the City of Fairfax, VA. If you go to the city website, you can read the police crime reports for the past month. It's a fairly quiet city. Well, let's consider what the minimum expected police response time would be if you need to report a crime to them.

Well, first you would need to call 911. How long does it take from the time you call until they have enough information to send police to your location? I would estimate 1-2 minutes (they need to establish what is happening and get your address, and then they need to pass it on to the dispatcher). From there, assuming there is an available police officer nearby (say 1-2 miles away), you are looking at a minimum response of about another 2-3 minutes (estimate 1.5 miles, and you really can't do more than about 45 on a residential street here on a consistent basis). Right there, best case, you are looking at between 3 and 5 minutes response time.

How long does it take for a crime to turn violent and the criminal to escape? A lot less than 3 minutes.

Let's use the bike theft as an example, since we've already looked at it some. When you were asked what you would do if you came across someone in the process of stealing your bike, you responded with what you wouldn't do, but you never answered the actual question.

Wouldn't you confront them? (Remember, confrontation is the initial step, where you say something like "What are you doing with my bike?") If so, what would you do if they turned violent? If they pulled a knife? A gun? In a case like that, you could easily be dead in the 3-5 minutes it takes to call the police and have them show up. And that is assuming that you call them before you confront the person. (After all, if it's someone who mistook your bike for theirs, you don't want to file a false report or waste police resources, do you?)

I need to go, but I'll continue later, if you want.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SuperWatto 
Registered: Sep '00
6870_Watto
Date Posted: 6/5/07 9:19am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People? - Date Edited: 6/5/07 9:24am (1 edits total) Edited By: SuperWatto
I understand what you're saying, and thank you for the elaboration.
I can see how my posts would have offended you, seeing how you're coming from the PPOR standpoint. I'm sorry - that wasn't my intention.

It's because when people mention 'responsible gun owner' that I immediately think 'well, wherever there's responsible gun owners, there will be irresponsible ones, as well'. That's the position from which I started debating, and it's obvious I didn't make that distinction clear, so again, apologies. Looking back, I don't get why I typed 'have a problem with the responsible gun owner', and I think it's possible that I forgot to type 'don't'. tired

Anyway.
My stance is one of trying to look further. Further than what's known. Not facts, not speculation, just logic. Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings? I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my behind here. So. Be weird if there's no place on the board here for logic? And sure, if my logic is crap, keep tellin' me. I'm telling you! happy

So, back to the bike theft.
What I'm saying is call the cops when your bike is stolen. Hope the cops catch the thief. Later. Hope you find your bike back in the depot. Or not - getcha money back from the insurance. Putting lethal force at the hands of citizens is only going to make citizens (not the responsible ones!) interpret the law. Why would you want to have that? So, all I'm saying is, try my way. If it works over here, why wouldn't it work for you?

That's not that nonsensical, right?

EDIT: I was picturing something really Tarkinesque there with the "I WROTE THEM!" tongue

 

-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK
http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com
frustrating you with sound
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SuperWatto 
Registered: Sep '00
6870_Watto
Date Posted: 6/5/07 9:33am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Comes down to:
Regs on here all seem pretty decent fellows - explicit views, but decent altogether. What I keep trying to point out is that laws that prohibit stuff or ban stuff shouldn't be made just to suit you - but that will work for that untrustworthy guy who lives up your street, as well.

 

-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK
http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com
frustrating you with sound
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 6/5/07 9:47am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
What I'm saying is call the cops when your bike is stolen. Hope the cops catch the thief. Later. Hope you find your bike back in the depot. Or not - getcha money back from the insurance. Putting lethal force at the hands of citizens is only going to make citizens (not the responsible ones!) interpret the law. Why would you want to have that? So, all I'm saying is, try my way. If it works over here, why wouldn't it work for you?

That's not that nonsensical, right?

No of course not. But you also aren't differentiating between perceptions. I also think your post could also be linked to Ree's post above.

Neither set of assumptions is perfect, as both have their flaws. This example is focusing on a bike, which is a situation that is pretty easy to rationalize. But what if we were focusing on something more serious-sexual assault, home invasion, etc...?

Australia has been used as a comparison to the US before, and while we're not picking on Australia, as a country, it does have quite a few categories of crime that are much higher than the US.

Ree hit the nail on the head when he indicated that he simply doesn't perceive a gun to be a tool for self defense. Are there serious criminal incidents that could be prevented in Australia if this perception changed? I'd wager that there would be. But even so, I'd assume that most Australians simply wouldn't consider it, and accept a higher level of crime as a trade off for feeling institutionally secure..(ie... relying on the response of authorities.)

As I somewhat simplistically summed up before "more rapes, but less gun violence" and vice versa.

I also think it was in a previous gun thread where someone summed up the typical British response to violence as "grabbing a cricket bat and running to a neighbors house to wait for the police." This seems to be the position you are advocating.

In the US, there is more of an individual focus, and more people perceive that they are in charge of their own well being. I think the majority of people in the US aren't content to wait for a police response, and instead would act in their own behalf, if possible.

As much as it is a foreign concept to you that someone would use a gun to defend themselves, I think it's just as foreign of concept in the US to abandon one's home/well being to an intruder. Of course I'm using generalities, but as I said, both assumptions have positives and negatives.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 6/5/07 10:04am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
SuperWatto posted:
I understand what you're saying, and thank you for the elaboration.
I can see how my posts would have offended you, seeing how you're coming from the PPOR standpoint. I'm sorry - that wasn't my intention.

It's because when people mention 'responsible gun owner' that I immediately think 'well, wherever there's responsible gun owners, there will be irresponsible ones, as well'. That's the position from which I started debating, and it's obvious I didn't make that distinction clear, so again, apologies. Looking back, I don't get why I typed 'have a problem with the responsible gun owner', and I think it's possible that I forgot to type 'don't'. tired
[voice=Vader]Apology accepted, SuperWatto.[/voice] tongue

SuperWatto posted:
Anyway.
My stance is one of trying to look further. Further than what's known. Not facts, not speculation, just logic. Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings? I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my behind here. So. Be weird if there's no place on the board here for logic? And sure, if my logic is crap, keep tellin' me. I'm telling you! happy
Actually, no it isn't logical, because you are misunderstanding what logic is.

Logic is a process, nothing more. You can't separate logic from facts, because logic by itself is meaningless. Logic is only a useful tool when you either start from a set of facts or from a set of assumptions and then apply logical reasoning to that set of facts/assumptions.

In your example, it would only be logical if you make one assumption (an assumption that does not hold as true in the real world). You have to assume that by prohibiting guns you would be able to completely remove them from society. That doesn't hold, because the only viable means to prohibit guns is through criminalizing them, and the criminals have no incentive to surrender them.

Yes, there is a place here for logic, but you need to provide the basis for that logic first, outlining the assumptions and facts upon which it is based, for it to be valid logic.

SuperWatto posted:
So, back to the bike theft.
What I'm saying is call the cops when your bike is stolen. Hope the cops catch the thief. Later. Hope you find your bike back in the depot. Or not - getcha money back from the insurance. Putting lethal force at the hands of citizens is only going to make citizens (not the responsible ones!) interpret the law. Why would you want to have that? So, all I'm saying is, try my way. If it works over here, why wouldn't it work for you?
There are several problems with this approach, though.

First of all, as I recall (Mr44 might have the actual statistics) most stolen property isn't recovered by the police, especially not in a timely fashion. That is a very inefficient way to prevent such crimes.

Second, taking the attitude of "getcha money back from the insurance" ignores the fact that this ultimately increases insurance costs for everyone. That's not even taking into consideration the deductible on the insurance (in my case, $500) that the individual has to pay out of pocket. The money to pay the insurance claim has to come from somewhere, and if insurance companies are not able to make a profit off of their investments because of increased claims rates, they will pass on the cost of those increased rates in the form of higher premiums. That's just basic economics.

Third, are you honestly saying that if you came across someone who was trying to steal your bike, you would not say a word to them, but would instead just call the police? You wouldn't even ask them (even from a distance) what they were doing with your bike? I find that hard to believe as it is counter to basic human nature.

Finally, you forget that lethal force is already in the hands of citizens and criminals. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will still have them, and both the citizens and criminals will still have knives, clubs (bats, pipes, etc), chains, and so forth. In one self defense class a friend of mine took, they recommended carrying a roll of coins (as you would get from the bank) when you need to walk in dangerous areas, as they can be used as an impromptu set of brass knuckles. Most people, with very little training, could even kill someone with their bare hands (it's not that hard, as there are many vulnerable spots on the human body). That's not even counting objects just lying around like rocks, sticks, and so forth.

You are also working from the faulty assumption that just because someone has lethal force at their disposal means that they will use lethal force. The one does not logically follow from the other.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DeathStar1977 
Registered: Jan '03
7850_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 6/5/07 10:13am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Right to bear arms?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-c3IuhWf0

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 6/5/07 10:23am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings? I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my behind here. So. Be weird if there's no place on the board here for logic? And sure, if my logic is crap, keep tellin' me. I'm telling you!

I'd respond that sometimes, human behavior runs contrary to logic.. No really! tongue

In the US, the period which saw the greatest number of school shootings occurred in the 90's, and they have been declining to pre90's levels since reaching that peak. Perhaps paradoxically, perhaps not (depending on one's point of view) this is also the same time the US had in place the federal "assault weapons ban."

So in this specific example, the most school shootings occurred during the same period as the most restrictive gun laws, at least in the US.

What changed? Schools instituted more comprehensive mental health programs and increased the availability of counselling. In short, small problems were targeted before they became big problems, and school violence, even the type where guns weren't used, dropped. Obviously, there are exceptions like Cho, whose picture you supplied, but the overall trend holds.

I'm not claiming that school violence increased because of the strict gun laws, or vice versa, but simply put- the problem of school violence isn't a gun issue, it's a health issue.

This is where I think we disagree. To me, when you point at the gun and "say look! evil!" it seems shortsighted, almost the easy way out. Of course, I guess that's the nature of debate wink

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SuperWatto 
Registered: Sep '00
6870_Watto
Date Posted: 6/5/07 11:36am Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Meh.
Good, thoughtful posts at last, and you guys sure got me thinking.

KK posted:
You have to assume that by prohibiting guns you would be able to completely remove them from society. That doesn't hold, because the only viable means to prohibit guns is through criminalizing them, and the criminals have no incentive to surrender them.


I never said completely, just: less. So it might still hold.

KK posted:
First of all, as I recall (Mr44 might have the actual statistics) most stolen property isn't recovered by the police, especially not in a timely fashion. That is a very inefficient way to prevent such crimes.

True. On the other hand you prevent unneccesary violence and escalation.

KK posted:
Second, taking the attitude of "getcha money back from the insurance" ignores the fact that this ultimately increases insurance costs for everyone. That's not even taking into consideration the deductible on the insurance (in my case, $500) that the individual has to pay out of pocket. The money to pay the insurance claim has to come from somewhere, and if insurance companies are not able to make a profit off of their investments because of increased claims rates, they will pass on the cost of those increased rates in the form of higher premiums. That's just basic economics.

Then an insurance on a bike still is not a lot of money. Take it from me.

KK posted:
Third, are you honestly saying that if you came across someone who was trying to steal your bike, you would not say a word to them, but would instead just call the police? You wouldn't even ask them (even from a distance) what they were doing with your bike? I find that hard to believe as it is counter to basic human nature.

I'd fight. Sure. I'd go mad. In which case, I should hope the thief isn't carrying a gun (which would be more likely in a scenario where guns were more freely available). So this works both ways. Smart thing would be to call the cops and claim your insurance...

KK posted:
Finally, you forget that lethal force is already in the hands of citizens and criminals. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will still have them, and both the citizens and criminals will still have knives, clubs (bats, pipes, etc), chains, and so forth. In one self defense class a friend of mine took, they recommended carrying a roll of coins (as you would get from the bank) when you need to walk in dangerous areas, as they can be used as an impromptu set of brass knuckles. Most people, with very little training, could even kill someone with their bare hands (it's not that hard, as there are many vulnerable spots on the human body). That's not even counting objects just lying around like rocks, sticks, and so forth.

I'm not forgetting that. Don't think I'm preaching some kind of Utopia here or anything. All I'm saying is: less. Less guns availability means less gun violence.

KK posted:
You are also working from the faulty assumption that just because someone has lethal force at their disposal means that they will use lethal force. The one does not logically follow from the other.

Again, I never said 'everybody'... The guy down your street, remember.


Mr44 posted:
I'm not claiming that school violence increased because of the strict gun laws, or vice versa, but simply put- the problem of school violence isn't a gun issue, it's a health issue.

Well, I agree for the most part: I'd say it's both a gun and a health issue. I wouldn't discard other cultural or social influences. But I think guns are part of the health issue. I don't think looking upon guns as cool things is particularly healthy.

Mr44 posted:
This is where I think we disagree. To me, when you point at the gun and "say look! evil!" it seems shortsighted, almost the easy way out. Of course, I guess that's the nature of debate.

Well, I'd point at the gun and I'd say: 'look! POTENTIAL for evil!' I know a human being is already potential for evil, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm just drawing the line there because this is a tool, representative of the lethal power it contains. It's just... disproportionate power, in my eyes.

 

-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK
http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com
frustrating you with sound
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 6/5/07 12:28pm Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
You have to assume that by prohibiting guns you would be able to completely remove them from society. That doesn't hold, because the only viable means to prohibit guns is through criminalizing them, and the criminals have no incentive to surrender them.


I never said completely, just: less. So it might still hold.
This sounds a lot like unsupported opinion. Would you care to back it up? tongue

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
Second, taking the attitude of "getcha money back from the insurance" ignores the fact that this ultimately increases insurance costs for everyone. That's not even taking into consideration the deductible on the insurance (in my case, $500) that the individual has to pay out of pocket. The money to pay the insurance claim has to come from somewhere, and if insurance companies are not able to make a profit off of their investments because of increased claims rates, they will pass on the cost of those increased rates in the form of higher premiums. That's just basic economics.

Then an insurance on a bike still is not a lot of money. Take it from me.
In the US at least, I haven't seen any bike insurance policies. Usually you have to cover it under your homeowner's or renter's policy. At that point, you are still looking at a deductible of several hundred dollars, which is a significant percentage (if not the entire cost) of a new bike (and is often more than the cost of a decent used bike). Under such a system, each bike owner is essentially self-insuring their bike, so your approach of "get your insurance company to pay" doesn't really work. (You can reduce the deductible on the homeowner's policy or renter's policy, but that usually requires higher premiums.)

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
Third, are you honestly saying that if you came across someone who was trying to steal your bike, you would not say a word to them, but would instead just call the police? You wouldn't even ask them (even from a distance) what they were doing with your bike? I find that hard to believe as it is counter to basic human nature.

I'd fight. Sure. I'd go mad. In which case, I should hope the thief isn't carrying a gun (which would be more likely in a scenario where guns were more freely available). So this works both ways. Smart thing would be to call the cops and claim your insurance...
Well, as I pointed out above, the insurance doesn't really work out (at least not in the US). Because of that, your "smart thing" answer here reduces down to "suck it up and deal."

But, since you admit that you would likely fight, then could you answer this: What is the functional difference between my martial arts training and someone carrying a gun for defense? Both can be used in an offensive or defensive manner, and both can be lethal or non-lethal. Both can be used to obey the law, or to break it.

So, what is the difference?

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
Finally, you forget that lethal force is already in the hands of citizens and criminals. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will still have them, and both the citizens and criminals will still have knives, clubs (bats, pipes, etc), chains, and so forth. In one self defense class a friend of mine took, they recommended carrying a roll of coins (as you would get from the bank) when you need to walk in dangerous areas, as they can be used as an impromptu set of brass knuckles. Most people, with very little training, could even kill someone with their bare hands (it's not that hard, as there are many vulnerable spots on the human body). That's not even counting objects just lying around like rocks, sticks, and so forth.

I'm not forgetting that. Don't think I'm preaching some kind of Utopia here or anything. All I'm saying is: less. Less guns availability means less gun violence.
Except, that doesn't logically follow. You are treating it as if it were a single-variable deterministic function.

Consider the Cold War for a bit. One of the key things that kept the US and USSR from entering into open conflict was the principle of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. Basically, the US wouldn't attack the USSR because the USSR had enough weapons to fully retaliate against the US, and vice versa. That fear of retaliation/destruction is one of the key things that made both sides behave in a somewhat civil manner.

What would have happened if the USSR could have neutralized all of the US's arsenal? Wouldn't they be more likely to actually use their weapons, because they no longer fear the dangers of a reprisal?

Well, apply the same principle to gun ownership. You can't eliminate all guns from everyone (as criminals won't turn them in). Like during the Cold War, when a criminal doesn't know if a potential victim is armed, they have a certain amount of fear about the possibility of being shot if they attack someone. If you guarantee to the criminal that the potential victims are unarmed, then you are introducing a disparity that reduces their fear, and can make it more likely to have them commit violent acts.

As you can see, it doesn't necessarily follow that less guns means less gun violence.

SuperWatto posted:
KK posted:
You are also working from the faulty assumption that just because someone has lethal force at their disposal means that they will use lethal force. The one does not logically follow from the other.

Again, I never said 'everybody'... The guy down your street, remember.
So what about the guy down the street? Do I have any reason to believe that he is going to start shooting up the neighborhood? No. So why should I live my life in paranoia about my neighbors and which one(s) could be a psychopathic killer?

SuperWatto posted:
Mr44 posted:
This is where I think we disagree. To me, when you point at the gun and "say look! evil!" it seems shortsighted, almost the easy way out. Of course, I guess that's the nature of debate.

Well, I'd point at the gun and I'd say: 'look! POTENTIAL for evil!' I know a human being is already potential for evil, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm just drawing the line there because this is a tool, representative of the lethal power it contains. It's just... disproportionate power, in my eyes.
This right here is at the core of your views. You look at the gun and see "disproportionate power". For many people, especially those who are not very strong or physically capable, they look at it and see "equalizing power".

A 100 lb woman attacked by a 180 lb man with a knife is already on the short end of "disproportionate power". For someone in that sort of circumstance, they need the "disproportionate power" that a gun offers them to level the field, or even give them an advantage so they can survive. The same principle applies for an 80-year-old dealing with a 20-year-old burglar, or a single person set upon by a gang of people. In each of those cases, the "disproportionate power" of a gun can be essential to the victim's survival.

Yes, it can work both ways, because it can also give the criminal "disproportionate power". However, the odds are that they are going to get that "disproportionate power" in one form or another anyways, regardless of whether guns are available or not. What good, then, does it do to deprive law-abiding people of "disproportionate power" (in any form) when doing so will not reduce the "disproportionate power" of the criminals?

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 6/5/07 1:17pm Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
I'm not forgetting that. Don't think I'm preaching some kind of Utopia here or anything. All I'm saying is: less. Less guns availability means less gun violence.

It just hasn't ever worked out in the real world that I know of.

I think before you joined the thread, we discussed the phenomenon that when strict gun controls were placed in London, gun smuggling related crime/violence went up. In fact, in London, an entirely new category of criminal offense was created because smugglers started converting previously legal devices (starter and flare pistols) into weapons that fired real bullets and were selling them. Making something illegal didn't decrease the demand, it just shifted the burden. The result? Overall crime in London both increased and decreased independently of the gun laws.

Perhaps another loose analogy would be the Prohibition period in the US.

So I guess it could make sense to say "less guns=less gun violence," but that doesn't equate to less violence overall.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anidanami124 
Registered: Aug '02
40096_Duel
Date Posted: 6/5/07 4:12pm Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
My stance is one of trying to look further. Further than what's known. Not facts, not speculation, just logic. Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings?

That's just putting a band aid on the problem? Why put a band aid on a problem that goes much deeper then kids getting guns in there hands. You might want to look at these kids pasts. The root problem is that they have emtionlly and mentally problems and taking guns away won't help them.

If they don't have a gun they will just use some other type of weapon.

 

-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Fire_Ice_Death 
Registered: Feb '01
41184_Borsk
Date Posted: 6/5/07 4:20pm Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
My stance is one of trying to look further. Further than what's known. Not facts, not speculation, just logic. Isn't it logical that if you prohibit guns, you'll have less school shootings?

Not one damn bit. Ever heard of the expression, 'There's a million ways to die?' Well, that's true. And whether kids got their guns from their parents or not or if they used some other methods it wouldn't stop it. Maybe on a large scale it'd be prevented, but there'd always be that one case where one got through. Besides, school shootings are rarer than our news media makes them out to be.

 

-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anidanami124 
Registered: Aug '02
40096_Duel
Date Posted: 6/5/07 4:53pm Subject: RE: Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?
Fire_Ice_Death posted:
Besides, school shootings are rarer than our news media makes them out to be.


Well know your just making things up there. not_talking tongue

 

-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 - Previous | Next | Reload
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
© 2008 IGN Entertainment, Inc (6.08.17.2300, ASPNET3) 0.422