The Official Gun Control Debate thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommyvee

If you think the list is limited, why not add your own (data instead of BS)?
Google is free.

The countries on that list are the developed countries most similar to the US, in economics, culture, history. Plus they are developed enough to keep statistics.

---

Ok I'll play for a bit.

Form here.

"TOP TEN COUNTRIES FOR HOMICIDE, 2003
COUNTRY

PER 100,000
(1) Colombia 63
(2) South Africa 51
(3) Jamaica 32
(4) Venezuela 32
(5) Russia 19
(6) Mexico 13
(7) Lithuania 10
(8) Estonia 10
(9) Latvia 10
(10) Belarus 9

Both of these sources of statistics give as least as much evidence for the difficulty of getting accurate homicide data as they do of homicide rates. Among the top ten countries in the Interpol list, only Jamaica appears on the "Nationmaster" list. Neither list includes Brazil, which THE ECONOMIST (19-June-1999) cited as having a murder rate of about 23, with the highest percentage (88%) of murders being committed by firearms in the world.

Even in 2002 the statistics gathering for world-wide homicide rates shows huge gaps. The 2002 WORLD REPORT ON VIOLENCE AND HEALTH published by the World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva) lists murder rates for 75 countries. Eight of the ten countries included in the 1970s Interpol list do not appear in the WHO list. Such huge countries as India, Pakistan and Indonesia are omitted -- as are all African countries. Jamaica appears in the list reporting a dubious 2 murders for 1991. Trinidad & Tobago are shown as having 11.4 murders per 100,000. I have extracted the ten worst countries for murder from the 75 listed by the WHO report:

SELECTED WORST CITIES
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA
CITY

MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9"

DC? Thats not a ez place to get a carry permit is it?

"TEN SAFEST STATES FOR MURDER, 2003
STATE

PER 100,000
(1) Maine 1.2
(2) South Dakota 1.3
(3) New Hampshire 1.4
(4) Iowa 1.6
(5) Hawaii 1.7
(6) Idaho 1.8
(7) North Dakota 1.9
(8) Oregon 1.9
(9) Massachusetts 2.2
(10) Rhode Island 2.3"

Well I know it's ez to get a carry permit here in NH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Funnily they did make the headlines on this side of the pond...

---

yes, and i'm on the west coast of the u.s. and i heard plenty about the new york case.

i also heard about the puerto rico case, but using it to support that thesis is amazingly weak given the relationship of p.r. to the u.s. and the fact that virtually NOTHING there gets covered in the national news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Ok I'll play for a bit.

Form here.

"TOP TEN COUNTRIES FOR HOMICIDE, 2003
COUNTRY

PER 100,000
(1) Colombia 63
(2) South Africa 51
(3) Jamaica 32
(4) Venezuela 32
(5) Russia 19
(6) Mexico 13
(7) Lithuania 10
(8) Estonia 10
(9) Latvia 10
(10) Belarus 9

: "

---

Actually, this list provides some support for the argument that income inequality correlates with violence.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality
Colombia,South Africe, Venezuela,Mexico,Jamaica are all among the countries with greatest income inequality (the page offers 4 different metrics).
However, Belarus,Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are towards the more equal end of the spectrum, showing that cultural and other variables have an impact also (assuming the FSR country data is trustworthy and current, given the huge economic/demographic transitions, shaky governments and corruption).
Most of the places listed are so lawless, that whatever gun law is on the books has no practical impact.
When I rode my bicycle through Colombia many years ago, a wealthy businessman invited me to stay in his house for a while, and recreational shooting with his impressive collection of automatic weapons was a favorite pastime. Don't think gun regulations were a major concern, although I do remember wondering about stray rounds falling out of the sky. Celebrations involved firing off "rafagas", bursts into the air, probably descending at a lower velocity, but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodaottis

Gun laws apply only to those that choose to follow the law.
The Muzzle loading solution is....lacking. (Notice my restraint in not using the word "retarded.")
Maybe a good start would be actually enforcing the laws we currently have in place and seeing if that reduces crime?

Random thoughts:
The second amendment is not in place to protect our right to hunt.
An angry, unstable husband will stab his wife in the absence of a gun, have we solved the social issue with gun control?
There aren't many people being mugged in Texas, can you figure out why?
Would a person walk into a classroom and begin shooting students if they knew multiple people nearby are likely armed?

Do you want to measure and load powder, jam ball and patch an inch down the barrel with one tool, switch to a ram rod and push it the rest of the way with sometimes considerable effort, insert a primer cap, move through your house with a 30 inch barrel, aim and shoot without any assurance that the rifle will actually fire........while someone is raping your wife or doing harm to your children?
Good solution.

---

First of all, you keep your musket ready to fire if your using it for home protection....Duh! And you weren't going to use the word retarded huh?

Social Revolution is the only way to address these problems. America is addicted to violence, plain and simple. I call for an all out boycott of tv, movie, music, and video game violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kya

First of all, you keep your musket ready to fire if your using it for home protection....Duh!

---

Kya, I respect your intent, but you are reaching here. Keeping a musket ready to fire for any period longer than a day or so will likely render thet gun powder useless due to attracting moisture.

edit: not to mention having a loaded firearm with no safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kya

First of all, you keep your musket ready to fire if your using it for home protection....Duh! And you weren't going to use the word retarded huh?

Social Revolution is the only way to address these problems. America is addicted to violence, plain and simple. I call for an all out boycott of tv, movie, music, and video game violence.

---

how do you explain the random violence that happened previous to tv, movie, and video game violence?

because the worst mass killing on a school property in US history was a bombing in 1927.

despite what our fine national news media is trying to imply. these shootings are not increasing in frequency.

So after a day of thinking about my position on handguns, and after some rather interesting positions and thoughts on the issue shared here on TGR I think my position has changed.
I used to be in the "ban all handguns" camp, however I have realized three facts that change my position.
1. Banning handguns will not do a damn thing to reduce the number of gun related homicides. It's not like the killings in Philly (my hometown where murders are skyhigh) are done with guns bought in wal-mart. It's not like if a husband killed a wife with a knife it would be less terrible than if he killed her with a gun. The fact is sadly that gun-violence is just evidence of deeper problems and it is easier to blame the tool than the user.
2. I can't punish responsible owners because of irresponsible owners. Some of the people here have handguns and seem to understand how, when and where to use them. Why should they lose that right because a grad student goes nuts. It’s not reasonable.
3. I favor a view of the constitution and government that allows people freedoms. Freedoms to have abortions, freedoms to marry another guy...etc...and so accordingly I should allow the freedoms to safely own a weapon.
All in all guns don’t make sense to me and people who love their guns scare me but I’m not going to stand in their way from enjoying that pleasure.
(especially if they are armed at the time)

good talk-
see you out there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

A reminder: if someone commits mass murder with a weapon other than a gun, the national news media usually ignore it. For example, Hector Escudero started a fire at a casino in Puerto Rico in December 1987 as part of labor union activism, and killed 96 people. Julio Gonzalez threw $1 worth of gasoline into an illegal night club in New York City in April 1990 to get back at his girlfriend, and killed 87 people. These stories received almost no national news coverage at the time--while mass murders that were substantially smaller received vastly more coverage. Why? Gonzalez and Escudero's crimes didn't advance the cause of gun control. You can read my paper that was published by the Journal of Mass Media Ethics here for an examination of the role that excessive media coverage played in causing at least one of the mass murders of that era.

---

Hmm, the media is conspiring to outlaw guns....wow thanks for the insight. I would assume that killings with a gun are a little more personal in nature and therefore more sensationalistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

how do you explain the random violence that happened previous to tv, movie, and video game violence?

because the worst mass killing on a school property in US history was a bombing in 1927.

despite what our fine national news media is trying to imply. these shootings are not increasing in frequency.

---

I'd explain previous episodes of violence by pointing at violent, unstable people and tense situations that drive these and other people to, and past, the brink.

I'd also propose that that our intensifying culture of violence does not help that previous existing condition.

Yeah, there were kooks in 1927.

Its not just the shootings, its the "Bum Fights", the youtube/myspace postings of schoolyard brawls, the passionate following of "Ultimate Fighting", the scores of violent video games that all try to capture and portray more and more realistic violence, sadistic horror movie realism, etc.
Its like the Colosseum in Rome. We're fascinated by portrayals of brutal violence, while other issues fall by the wayside, and our compassion and value of human life shrinks.

So are we to understand that you are a fan of our culture of violence and can see no impact, short or long term, on our society?
I'm trying to de-polarize the gun/violence debate here and inject some other variables that may help us understand the situation. Its obviously not all about the number of weapons and gun deaths per capita, thats just silly-tistics.
Your contempt for mass media (or is "drive-by media" your cup of tea, perhaps?) and its vast left-wing conspiracy might be clouding your vision of the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonder_River

Hmm, the media is conspiring to outlaw guns....wow thanks for the insight. I would assume that killings with a gun are a little more personal in nature and therefore more sensationalistic.

---

ummh...that's the point. but if you're ok with that, keep tuning in.


flowtron, how do you stop human nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spook

perhaps you should examine why you are so preoccupied with having to protect your family in such an "advanced" and "peaceful" industrialized nation.

loading up with guns does nothing to resolve the underlying causes. you seem to confuse what you perceive to be my ethics with an actual attempt to address the causes of the problem.

even a twit can see that our growing police state, highly targeted and prejudiced judicial and prison systems and highly armed citizenry has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation (although it has made capitalists involved in those endeavors insanely rich). our extension of this culture of violence overseas is just another facet of the problem.

families need protection from indoctrination at least as often as they need protection from the boogie man.

for instance, blaming ethnic/racial minorities for the crime problem. blaming ethical/moral failings for the crime problem. these are common examples of excuses made by people who have a highly propagandized understanding of what is actually happening.

---

Spook you are a fucking kook!:nonono2: How old are you spook? I sincerely want to know. Let me guess, your a psuedo-intellectual anarchist into punk? Maybe I'm wrong but I used to be and used to think like you long ago, probably between 16-25 years of age. It was quite a dilema deciding whether to go to college and become something I was against.

I'm not even going to get into drugs here cause you and I both know what an addict has to do on a daily basis to support a $500/day herion or meth habit.

Despite the fact that there may be desperate reasons people tend to commit violent crime it is no excuse for it. That's where the moral fiber of an individual goes off the deep end. There is no excuse. There is no excusable reason. We may be able to understand the way they were thinking but it still does not justify their actions.

Violent crime happens and people have every reason to be able to defend themselves. When is the last time you had someone hold a gun to your head? Well I've had it happen to me at least a few times and have had a gun in plain site used to threaten me at least a few other times. Was I in a bad place? -- probably. But I've met the boogie-man you speak of quite a few times. To be honest... guns scare me and I wouldn't want one in my home. But if given the chance to break the neck of an intruder I would ask questions later -- my son deserves to grow to a ripe old age.

There are always going to be economic desparities in life as there are in every culture. If someone didn't make money what would be their reason to risk starting a business and losing everything. You benefit because they give you a job. People have the chance to go to college and better themselves -- they either choose to go or not to go. I paid my whole way through college -- nobody else paid a dime. But there are enough grants, etc out there for the poor to go to school to get any of them through college. They make the decision as to the direction their life heads. So cry me a river... the big mean capitalist engulfs the lives and souls of everybody for the express benefit of themselves.

And as for the police state and judicial system... there are good eggs and bad eggs in every workplace or segment of society. I used to hate the police because they harassed and victimized me without legal provocation. I even had an officer tell me "The next time I see you I'm going to slash your eyeballs out right," right in front of 5 of his buddies. But you know what... I'm glad that they have the nuts to take out the bad apples of society -- it's certainly a thankless job. We don't live in a police state. I can do pretty much anything I want and not have anybody bother me. Shit I have parties and blare punk on my stereo outside until 4AM. I never have any problems. The police typically have better things to do than screw with you unless you are young kids -- they are likely trying to get you on track.

All the ethical problems and moral dilemas you speak of would be great to solve but it's not realistic. We don't live in a socialist society where everything is handed to you. Because of that there are going to be people who commit crime because they would rather not work or strive to make a go of it in "normal" society. Given that there will always be a need to protect yourself with a gun. You may choose not to as I do but that's your choice. People deserve the right to defend themselves.

Split kook:fuckyou:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

how do you explain the random violence that happened previous to tv, movie, and video game violence?

because the worst mass killing on a school property in US history was a bombing in 1927.

despite what our fine national news media is trying to imply. these shootings are not increasing in frequency.

---

Good point, but three school shootings in a single school year? That isn't more frequent?

I guess I would say this. Some dude invented a video game based on the Columbine shooting. When you play the video game, you the player, become the shooters.

Fine, it's America, freedom of speech, he has the right to make this game.

But what scares me, is that people buy the game. Society should kick these peoples' asses.

I 'm not saying that these forces (tv, movie, video games) and banning all guns are the roots and the solution to this problem, but how can we continue to argue AGAINST taking action? We need to start somewhere. I think our founding fathers would be pissed. They would not be pissed about these fucked up events, they would be pissed that the American culture has done nothing about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

ummh...that's the point. but if you're ok with that, keep tuning in.

---

Ok, you can believe in your little conspiracy theories if you want. Sorry to butt in on your little circle jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruckeeLocal

The document he draws the 1.5m number from goes on to say that this is an "absurd" conclusion based on a sanity check. Go figure :eek:

---

No, it doesn't. Read more carefully. They are very surprised by the number and express disbelief that it's so high, but they can't refute it because it's their own survey using their own methodology.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

"Each of the respondents in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative were followed with "How many different times did you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or property in the past 12 months?" Negative answers to the first DGU question were followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).

Each respondent who answered yes to either of these DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional questions concerning the most recent defensive gun use in which the respondent was involved, including the respondent's actions with the gun, the location and other circumstances of the incident, and the respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator."

This is pretty airtight.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people who own guns will not be willing to disclose their existence to random strangers on the telephone, nor disclose details of their defensive use which could lead to being charged with a crime -- especially during the early years of the Clinton administration, when this survey was conducted. So it's entirely possible that this survey strongly underestimates defensive gun use.

The reason the authors have trouble believing the results isn't the total number of defensive uses, but the breakdown by crime (too many DGUs against rape). This is because they used too small a survey to break down by crime and still get useful numbers (2,568 adults, of which 45, or 1.6 percent, met their criteria for DGU). The authors should know better. I suspect this is their politics talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruckeeLocal

Some comparitive statistics showing that the US does, in fact, have a firearm problem Firearm Stats

---

I refuted those numbers in my first post to this thread:
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=59

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowtron

Its like the Colosseum in Rome. We're fascinated by portrayals of brutal violence, while other issues fall by the wayside, and our compassion and value of human life shrinks.

---

See.

Violence has been an issue for thiusands of years. Could it be part of ingrained human nature? Who knows.

All I do know is that it isn't guns that are causing the murders and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

flowtron, how do you stop human nature?

---

Quality deflection.

Yeah, I guess its hopeless. Might as well head down to Dragon Man, fill my car with guns and squeal off into the sunset. No hope at all, its just human nature, we best arm ourselves.

Thats fucking sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigAirSkier1580

See.

Violence has been an issue for thiusands of years. Could it be part of ingrained human nature? Who knows.

All I do know is that it isn't guns that are causing the murders and violence.

---

Errrr, The Colosseum is not exactly something we should aspire to, chief. Its generally associated with the downfall of the Roman empire.

The human nature=violent argument is a double edged sword.
If we are wired to be violent, what sense is there in enabling free and easy access to firearms?
Protection, yes. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Its not like criminals are buying their guns from international arms smugglers who roll in private jets. Many of the guns used in crimes in the US were once legit, but were stolen out of homes and cars. Serial numbers filed off and put into criminal rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

I refuted those numbers in my first post to this thread:
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=59

---

Is your position that the US does not have a firearm mortality problem and that 12,000 firearm related deaths are an acceptable 'run-rate' in our culture ?
Is your position that yesterday's events were an anomoly and hence not a problem ?
Is your position that a woman claiming to have pulled her firearm 52 times in a year doesn't demonstrate a problem (what problem is debateable) ?

Oh, and thanks for linking to the DoJ document. It was fascinating and it's much easier to debate based on documented facts than some of the made up stuff we've seen posted here. And thanks for not pumping up the number to the 2.5m or even the 3.1m in the study.

Incidentally in the conclusions on Defensive Gun Use (DGU) your referenced article says Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Split kook:fuckyou:

---

hey, bud, relax. i'm not going anywhere. i know you're rock solid in your delusion. i won't disturb it further by sharing my age (which i've already done), my lack of political affiliations or how many times or under what circumstances i have had weapons aimed at my head. or relative access to education. or the violent origins of this nation that according to your standard must therefore reflect incomprehensible moral failure.

but just to clarify, i'm not talking about good and bad eggs, i'm talking about systems. you really shouldn't assume that the law reflects anything remotely close to a benevolent moral fiber. it appears that examining things like our socioeconomic, political, legal, judicial, prison, etc., etc., etc., systems is a little over your head. there's plenty of information out there if you ever decide not to be paranoid and terrified by all those horrible drug addicts and boogie men.

carry on with the all-encompassing fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Spook you are a fucking kook!:nonono2: How old are you spook? I sincerely want to know. Let me guess, your a psuedo-intellectual anarchist into punk? Maybe I'm wrong but I used to be and used to think like you long ago, probably between 16-25 years of age. It was quite a dilema deciding whether to go to college and become something I was against.

---

That's my guess. Except I would've said "pretensious pseudo-intellectual anarchist punk-rock narcissist".

You might want to look into the "ignore" option. I think it's great. Spook isn't providing any valid arguement here or anywhere else for that matter. He's just looking for attention. He didn't have a father-figure growing up.

spoojer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

That's my guess. Except I would've said "pretensious pseudo-intellectual anarchist punk-rock narcissist".

You might want to look into the "ignore" option. I think it's great. Spook isn't providing any valid arguement here or anywhere else for that matter. He's just looking for attention. He didn't have a father-figure growing up.

---

I think I'm gonna take your advice. He will only be the second after Rascal King.

Bottom Line...

We need the government to protect us all from each other by giving us all plastic bubbles to live in, wrapped in plastic wrap. There can be no sharp objects ever made again and anything manufactured cannot move at a speed faster than 5 mph or else it could cause damage.

Bottom Line...

STFU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigAirSkier1580

Bottom Line...

We need the government to protect us all from each other by giving us all plastic bubbles to live in, wrapped in plastic wrap. There can be no sharp objects ever made again and anything manufactured cannot move at a speed faster than 5 mph or else it could cause damage.

---

Thats gonna be tough being limited to 5mph on skis but for the good of humanity it might be our only option.