Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's interesting. In any general discussion of gun control I think this is an important point about the violent crime going up, a side effect that might give people otherwise in favor of gun control some pause. But does it fit into guns save lives? I guess to answer that the question would be do you want to take some wide definition of "saves lives" or are we sticking strictly to alive vs dead? If the latter, then the violent crime stats actually do not matter for the sake of this debate.
Well, if we're are contemplating gun control, which is really what this thread is about, then the collateral effects must be considered. But, you are correct- I was not focused on the stated topic of saving lives.
There is nothing I can add that Lycos didn't show on pg. 4 except that there seems to be some conflicting data out there on this question. It is at least clear that in the anglo-saxon world, less access to guns is not the solution to the homicide problem.
It was linked earlier in the thread, maybe page 3.
"Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000, Vol 16, Issue 1
Sorry bout that. Yes, I see it in there now, not a link that I found but a cite to that journal. I have read all the thread a couple times, but it was buried in there with the charts.
There is nothing I can add that Lycos didn't show on pg. 4 except that there seems to be some conflicting data out there on this question. It is at least clear that in the anglo-saxon world, less access to guns is not the solution to the homicide problem.
That may be true. In fact, going through this thread, it seems a little more true to me than it did when I first started reading and posting to it. I'm sure several folks were rolling their eyes multiple times at me and will be surprised to see me state that.
I had/have two goals in posting to this thread. One is to point out that if you're going to make a very broad ranging statement such as "guns save lives", you need to back it up with more than a few anecdotes and the usual emotional pro-gun rhetoric. A few people tried to do this in here but many did not. The other is to dispel the notion that because I was pointing that out I am taking an anti-gun stance. I never was taking an anti-gun stance. I was merely taking "a not convinced by the usual arguments" stance.
I am generally pragmatic and in terms of guns don't really see that we in the US will be giving them up and quite possibly, as you say, that would not be productive even if it were possible. But it seems to me like there's a lot of jumping to more tenuous conclusions.
Yeah, they're descendants of criminals? But come on, their culture is "essentially alien"? Not really. A little different but not a lot. The key difference has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with the structure of our Bill of Rights. Their country was somewhat permissive gun-wise and became less permissive after some incidents. Sure it was more easily accepted there but mainly because they don't have an individual guaranteed right and a vehement lobby dedicated to making sure no bit of that is impinged. (Aside: can we please apply just a little of that 2nd Amendment vehemence to the 4th Amendment at the airport? Please? Thanks.) It's just an interesting data point in a country choosing to become more restrictive with guns.
Australia never had slaves, Jim Crow laws and do not have guaranteed rights. There some similarities between the USA and Australia, but whether we want to admit it or not slavery, Jim Crow laws, prohibition and gangs had a significant impact on American culture. Sure, Australia enacted discriminatory laws (white Australia policy), but not nearly to the same extent and they never had a black population to discriminate against as large as ours. For the most part they just restricted Africans from moving there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
There's no denying that the gun murder rates are lower in the countries where guns are far more restricted, so the idea that restricting them wouldn't make the rate go lower seems a bit of a stretch. But anyway this really isn't a straight gun control debate exactly; gun control makes up part of the argument as to whether or not the premise of guns save lives can be true.
Maybe in some utopian paradise somewhere, but here, in the real world, I can deny that gun restrictions make a society safer, I can also deny that lax gun restrictions make a society safer.
Look at Russia, Mexico, Brazil, or Venezuela and you will find higher murder rates and tighter gun restrictions. I know that some might say they aren't comparable countries, but if gun laws and availability are the only factors to consider these countries should be fine for comparison purposes.
Most people will argue that you have to compare countries with similar economies, government structure, and rule of law, I agree, precisely because I think economics is a stronger driver of crime than gun laws. I've seen many people try to compare the USA to Europe, Australia, and Canada, but most of those countries have strong safety nets and that isn't something the USA has. Canada is the closet country we can compare ourselves to, but they enforce their immigration laws, don't have the gang/mafia history we do, and value education so it isn't a perfect comparison either.
I think the best comparison to make is between Scandinavian countries as well as European countries because they have very similar cultures, histories, and systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
Self-defense might be an irrevocable right, but not necessarily with a gun. Using a gun for self-defense is a right that is in the US merely highly unlikely to be revoked. It can be revoked by amending the Constitution, which is very difficult but not impossible. An extreme change general political feeling on this matter would have to happen for it to get to that point, and we are not in any way close to such extreme changes despite what many gun advocates appear to think.
How can you acknowledge the right of self defense, but not the right to the tool? I really don't of a better way to defend your life than with a gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
You can't ban accidents, but the deaths are part of the numbers. So are the self-defense ones. If the self-defense deaths are traded for victims instead, well, there's no gain in lives saved, but suggesting that the self-defense deaths don't count is just an emotional response because the "good" people are still living. I am thinking a lot of this "Guns save lives" argument hinges on emotions because a certain chunk of gun deaths are criminals who are maybe worse than the ones who murdered them, and who cares if these lowlifes die right?
There is a pretty big difference between a gas station clerk and a rival gang member, if a gang meber is killed it will be considered a homicide, but they aren't exactly innocent. Maybe we should clarify the question from "Do guns save lives" to "Do guns save innocent lives".
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
That is probably true in this country but it's not possible to determine very well because there are so many guns. Why does it work in other countries? You know, saying it's in the "culture" is really BS unless you think it's good that our culture is one of, erm, shooting people. We can't have extreme restriction here as I have readily admitted but the stats always make me go WTF? If they make you go "Who cares?" then your priorities are out of whack in my opinion. Although we can't have and many of us don't want laws that restrictive, we can and should wonder if that is why the gun murder rates are so much lower in those countries.
When you look at the crime data between the USA and the UK the USA has a higher homicide rate and that has always been true, even when the gun laws were similar; this doesn't mean we should simply accept it, rather we need to know where we started from. There is a small minority within the black community committing a little more than half of the homicide in the USA and black Americans were discriminated more so than anyone else in American history. Are AA just more violent or are we feeling the effects of past discrimination? I think most people would conclude that it is an economic issue and isn't a skin color issue.
Thanks again for your research Lycos. The US graphs are interesting as they once again underscore that there are bigger forces at work which effect the homicide rate. Most likely these forces include economics as you have pointed out, as well as education. I have referred to our "desperate class" elsewhere on CD, which is a phenomenon you don't really see (or at least not as widely spread) in the other countries that have been bench-marked in this thread.
So the answer to the OP's proposition might be that hardware (guns) save lives, but better software would save so many more.
Sorry bout that. Yes, I see it in there now, not a link that I found but a cite to that journal. I have read all the thread a couple times, but it was buried in there with the charts.
I just noticed the site I linked to earlier requires a purchase, here's a free site.
That's a rather interesting stat that hasn't been proposed before in this thread. But where is the source?
If you're proposing that guns save lives and using that stat to back it up (makes sense to me), the burden is on you to support your statements here, not on me or anyone else to take your word for it and go look it up.
That's a huge number, very good for a guns save lives argument. Shouldn't be any reason to neglect posting the source.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove or disprove. Just because someone posts a chart or graph with some numbers or a web link to a page, doesn't mean the data or the web site is accurate. anyone can create a web page and post bogus data to make some argument appear plausible. But this again goes back to the major problem with the direction this nation is heading, people like you are too lazy to actually do your own homework to discover the truth for yourself. You set your sights on an agenda and you will do everything you can to discredit the opposing view regardless of facts that clearly refute your view point.
There are several web sites that post news stories about armed citizens that subverted criminal acts with the use of their guns whether fired or just brandished. There are even stories where an armed citizen saved the lives of police officers that were either pinned down or getting the crap beat out of them. And to counter those there are also sites that are biased against guns and only post criminal act stories to support their view as well. And Since gun ownership is suddenly politically incorrect, you stand a much better chance of finding sites against the 2nd Amendment and right to private ownership of guns than you will find supporting sites.
It is up to you to read both points with an open mind and draw your own conclusion. If you continue going through life with your head up you rectum and letting others tell you how think then you will be so used to the smell of crap that will never know how to recognize it when you step in it. You were given a brain to think with, you should consider using it. That is unless you happen to live in a country that doesn't allow you to think freely, in which case you have no voice when discussing US Law, The US Constitution or the rights of American Citizens, as neither would apply to you.
Regardless this is still the internet and it is full of both truths and lies and you must make your own discovery in order to determine what is true and what is not. If I post a link that supports my argument then what guarantee is there that the information on that page is true? If I post a link to another pro gun biased site then you would just complain to that effect. So better that we not post links and give you the opportunity to learn for yourself. Most internet browsers have a search feature which is relatively easy to use although some of them such as google or aol are biased towards their advertisers demands or the owners personal agenda. I typically use Dogpile.com and stay away from proprietary search engines like aol, google and bing. Allowing you to make your own discovery removes any doubt as to it's validity.
As long as you continue to let others do all the work for you, you are not likely to ever learn anything. Taking someone elses word for granted will only make you a follower and lead you astray all your life.
I clicked on 2 links in another thread that someone posted to support their argument but after reading the info they referenced I realized it was incomplete and did a deeper search to find the actual congressional Acts the poster was referring to. upon reading the Acts and the 2 pages the person listed, I concluded either the person failed to read the information about the Acts or the Acts themselves or the person has the comprehension level of a 4 year old. But my point is, if I trusted the poster and failed to do my own research, I wouldn't be any wiser that the people posting bogus data.
This isn't a court of law so the evidence does not have to be presented and there is no jury to make a final ruling at the end of a forum debate.
Blah blah blah. YOu freakin' gun nuts need to get your head out of the sand: We need stricter gun control laws. There's no reason on God's Green Earth that someone like you or I should be able to buy an assault rifle.
Ask any cop--our keepers of law and order--how they feel about our gun control laws.
it is a post like this that shows why we are constantly having this debate in the first place: people refuse to do even a modicum of homework on the issue before forming their opinions, which are usually force-fed to them by their favorite fanatic liberal or conservative pundit. lickety proves here that he/she knows next to nothing about the debate, but is adamantly sure that he/she is right.
assault rifles are not even remotely the issue here, but lickety's ignorance as to the difference between assault rifles and "assault weapons" is precisely why so many people are afraid of assault weapons––they think that they are machine guns. and the media certainly isn't going to set the record straight, because the record goes against their agenda.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove or disprove.
If someone else is stating something is a FACT in a discussion/debate, and the only backup is "go look it up", then I'm not going to give it the same weight as otherwise. Ultimately the burden of proof for my own purposes is on me, sure; whether there's a source or not it is on me if I really want to know what someone posted as a "fact" on a message board is actually true. But in the middle of a thread, throwing that out without any source, that doesn't add much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
Just because someone posts a chart or graph with some numbers or a web link to a page, doesn't mean the data or the web site is accurate. anyone can create a web page and post bogus data to make some argument appear plausible.
I don't disagree with this at all. But I can draw my own conclusions about that source and its veracity. If there's no source at all given for a "fact", then it's just someone on the web running his mouth. It's true that it may still be that even with a source. But that's okay. I can figure that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
But this again goes back to the major problem with the direction this nation is heading, people like you are too lazy to actually do your own homework to discover the truth for yourself. You set your sights on an agenda and you will do everything you can to discredit the opposing view regardless of facts that clearly refute your view point.
No, the problem is "people like you" (dontcha just love that stuff, "you people" and "people like you") who make too many assumptions and are quick to pigeonhole someone into one of two possible thought processes, because in your mind there can't be more than two opposing views. If I'm not agreeing with you outright, then I'm opposed to you. Bee. Ess. I didn't set my sights on any agenda, apart from wondering out loud how we get to the conclusion posed in the title of this thread. I didn't do anything that would particularly discredit an "opposing" view because it is not an opposing view to me. It's just a view. I was skeptical of the proclamation in the title but wondered, since this is the Great Debates forum, what the discussion might be like. Clearly it's a mixed bag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
And Since gun ownership is suddenly politically incorrect, you stand a much better chance of finding sites against the 2nd Amendment and right to private ownership of guns than you will find supporting sites.
Quite frankly the entirety of that sentence is delusional. There's nothing overall politically incorrect about gun ownership in the US (Overall! I'm sure you can find some pockets where there are a majority who are anti-gun.) And there's nothing difficult about finding pro-2nd Amendment sites, news stories, etc, etc. There's a little extra noise about gun control in the larger public eye right at this moment, but that does not at all equate to a general climate against gun ownership. Again only two possible sides, a little talk about gun control apparently equals "OMG they're all against me". Note: in case it isn't clear, I am not making a statement in support of the talk about gun control. I am just stating that the talk exists. I do not believe this talk means gun ownership is suddenly politically incorrect in any significant new way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
It is up to you to read both points with an open mind and draw your own conclusion.
There are a lot more than "both" points in most discussions, and it is up to me to draw my own conclusion, definitely. If something is a fact though, it has a source, it has some underlying backing process that determined it to be a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
If you continue going through life with your head up you rectum and letting others tell you how think then you will be so used to the smell of crap that will never know how to recognize it when you step in it. You were given a brain to think with, you should consider using it. That is unless you happen to live in a country that doesn't allow you to think freely, in which case you have no voice when discussing US Law, The US Constitution or the rights of American Citizens, as neither would apply to you.
We are really not allowed to think freely here in the Democratic People's Republic of the USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
Regardless this is still the internet and it is full of both truths and lies and you must make your own discovery in order to determine what is true and what is not.
Sure. Isn't that part of the point of reading and posting something in Great Debates? I think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
If I post a link that supports my argument then what guarantee is there that the information on that page is true?
None. But I can use my judgment, impaired as you think it may be. If you post a declarative statement like "Guns save lives" or "Fact: xyz number of saved lives", with no supporting info, then you're just some jackass on the web making a statement. The point of hashing this out in a discussion forum is to discuss and learn and see what others' points of view are and how they arrive at them. If you don't bring supporting sources of data into the discussion, then it isn't much of one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
If I post a link to another pro gun biased site then you would just complain to that effect.
Still boxing me into that anti-gun camp. All or nothing, one or the other. No middle, no gray areas, no new possibilities. For the record, in seriously considering such a matter I would take a link from a pro-gun site with its bias just as much as I would take a link to an anti-gun site with its bias. The bias must be taken into account. It doesn't automatically mean that it's useless to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
So better that we not post links and give you the opportunity to learn for yourself.
Links hardly rob one of the ability to learn for oneself. With that position you might as well say better we not post anything at all on a message board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
Allowing you to make your own discovery removes any doubt as to it's validity.
LOL That is absolutely false. Plenty of people can make their own discovery of a demonstrably wrong conclusion. And they won't even necessarily let go of it either once it has been demonstrated. I'm not talking about stuff like gun control where it's reasonable to have differing opinions. I'm talking about factually wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
As long as you continue to let others do all the work for you, you are not likely to ever learn anything. Taking someone elses word for granted will only make you a follower and lead you astray all your life.
Who said anything about taking someone else's word for granted, besides you? The point of links would be to understand what sort of reading and other processes underly the remarks or conclusions of a given poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
I clicked on 2 links in another thread that someone posted to support their argument but after reading the info they referenced I realized it was incomplete and did a deeper search to find the actual congressional Acts the poster was referring to. upon reading the Acts and the 2 pages the person listed, I concluded either the person failed to read the information about the Acts or the Acts themselves or the person has the comprehension level of a 4 year old. But my point is, if I trusted the poster and failed to do my own research, I wouldn't be any wiser that the people posting bogus data.
The point isn't that a link makes you trust the poster. You post a link to bolster your point. If you're just posting some pure opinion, e.g. "I believe there should be less gun control", then I suppose there isn't much to add. You believe it. Fine, but it's a forum and I say "Why?" and you say "Because it makes us safer" and I say "How do you know that?" And you say "Look it up asshat." That's a real productive and intelligent discussion, yes indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
This isn't a court of law so the evidence does not have to be presented and there is no jury to make a final ruling at the end of a forum debate.
That is true. But if you don't present evidence, then what is the point? Instead of backing up your statement of "fact", you posted an insult. So I doubt you can actually explain to me how exactly that means I should take your original remark seriously and bother to check its veracity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But come on, their culture is "essentially alien"? Not really. A little different but not a lot. The key difference has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with the structure of our Bill of Rights. Their country was somewhat permissive gun-wise and became less permissive after some incidents. Sure it was more easily accepted there but mainly because they don't have an individual guaranteed right and a vehement lobby dedicated to making sure no bit of that is impinged. (Aside: can we please apply just a little of that 2nd Amendment vehemence to the 4th Amendment at the airport? Please? Thanks.) It's just an interesting data point in a country choosing to become more restrictive with guns.
