Armed America

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Thank heavens London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns. WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.

From here:

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

(1998-2000). Does not include accidental deaths by firearms.

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Good of you to pluck one incident to point out. But big picture facts indicate that the US has 27 times more firearm murders than the UK, where firearms are illegal. Coincidence? I think not.

Reduce the number of firearms in a society, and reduce the number of firearms deaths.

In fact, from here:

Murders (per capita) by country

(1998-2000). Total murders by all means.

#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

All those would-be gun-using killers did not convert to stabbers, beaters, stranglers, or whatever – the murder rate in the US is still 3 times UK’s murder rate.

WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.

The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Good of you to pluck one incident to point out. But big picture facts indicate that the US has 27 times more firearm murders than the UK, where firearms are illegal. Coincidence? I think not.

My point is outlawing guns in Britain didn't make them go away.

The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.

No.:p
I am not the problem or the solution.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.

You mean volunteer for genocide, and extra crime, the only results ever seen from this kind of thing. Spexx, even with your twisted values, it's not worth it even for you.

This idea we moral people reject forever and ever. If you wish to be a moral person, you must reject it forever also. Do it, man! No matter how much it scares you, I guarantee disarming yourself so you get killed without means of resisting it, retail as in crime or wholesale as in genocide, is much more terrifying, much more the pit of despair.

[monster]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Thank heavens London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns. WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.

But would those three people still be alive if there was more legal gun ownership?

Would they guy in bed have woken up in time to defend himself? He was attacked while he was asleep -clearly the attackers had already planned to get him when he was unable to fight back -with or without a gun.

And the guy at the icerink -if the gun used to shoot him were legal, the killers might have been able to argue self defence.....
....and imagine if some of those onlookers had been legally armed and decided to bring down the attackers. Could've been a whole lot more dead..... Would they still have shot him if there was a higher chance that he was armed? well they picked a crowded ice arena in the first place, so it doesn't seem like consequences for themselves were something they were considering.

An awful lot of speculation is required to arrive at the conclusion that these three deaths would have been prevented by legal gun ownership. But a little easier for me to imagine that more guns could have led to more deaths.

[Spexxvet]

Monster has a good point. In terms of the number of deaths, there would be a wash, at best. For instance, if Bruce was in a fender bender with Maggie, and got out of his car and approached Maggie, and she was the only one armed, she might feel threatened and shoot Bruce. Or if Bruce was the only one armed, he might shoot her. Either way, there's only one dead body. The shooter would have all the time in the world to shoot, and probably wouldn't miss. If both were armed, they could rush their shots, and shoot innocent bystanders, or they could both hit their targets and kill each other. It's much more likely to have a higher body count.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Monster has a good point. In terms of the number of deaths, there would be a wash, at best. For instance, if Bruce was in a fender bender with Maggie, and got out of his car and approached Maggie, and she was the only one armed, she might feel threatened and shoot Bruce. Or if Bruce was the only one armed, he might shoot her. Either way, there's only one dead body. The shooter would have all the time in the world to shoot, and probably wouldn't miss. If both were armed, they could rush their shots, and shoot innocent bystanders, or they could both hit their targets and kill each other. It's much more likely to have a higher body count.

This entire scenario has been utterly, completely debunked in all 38 states of the Union that have strongly liberalized concealed carry of weapons, Spexx. It simply does not happen, and is a hoplophobic fantasy of yours brought on by your unbalanced thinking on the subject -- as set forth in Raging Against Self Defense. I'll rely more on the experience of 38 states, with the body count and the economic loss count to crime going permanently down, than on the views of one hoplophobe. You should rely upon that yourself -- even if you're terrified of what this might open a trapdoor to, inside your forebrain.

We know the truth, and it has made us free. But if you can't know the truth, it shan't make you free. I think I'd want to be free of what afflicts you, though, if I stood in your shoes. You're really being creepy, Spexx.

Guess I'd better link to Raging Against Self Defense to show people what I'm on about.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.

With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.

As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.

As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, I know...that's why I mentioned trite and Cliché. I used it because it's a slogan everyone has seen and accepted or rejected.

Sure, it's like the old, the missing object is always found in the last place you look. Well duh, of course, why would you look in the next place if you've found it? But what I think it really says is, it'll be found far down the list of places you think it might be found.

Same with the original slogan in question. I think that it's a reminder the outlaws will still have them, so making a law depriving citizens doesn't do any good, rather than any one still having one is automatically a criminal.

Btw, anyone thinking I'm a rabid handgunner, no. What I'm rabid about is government, and other groups, restricting me. Telling me what I can do, can't do, own, can't own. Get out of my life!

[Ibby]

I don't think anyone could possibly disagree, though, that someone with NO guns is less likely to shoot me than someone with any.

Right?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I don't think anyone could possibly disagree, though, that someone with NO guns is less likely to shoot me than someone with any.

Right?

Think swords are any less lethal? They're just shorter range, is all, and no need to reload. Might even hurt worse than a bullet.

Sufficiently dead all smells the same.

[Undertoad]

Right but wholly irrelevant.

A) The world cannot be sterilized from danger, nor would you want to live in such a place. But more importantly,

B) I caution, resist the urge to solve politics with equations. It seems like it would work that way sometimes, but math is perfect and humans are imperfect.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Right but wholly irrelevant.

A) The world cannot be sterilized from danger, nor would you want to live in such a place. But more importantly,

B) I caution, resist the urge to solve politics with equations. It seems like it would work that way sometimes, but math is perfect and humans are imperfect.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.

Completely true, but my point right from the start, far from 'ban guns!', was...

Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do, the same way that corpses dont scare me but people who fuck them do. Anyone who is that downright religious about their guns just puts me on edge, makes me wary, the same way someone who raises pit bulls or carries chainsaws does. They may be perfectly sane, but if they turn out not to be, or flip out, or convince themselves that all 'communists' need to die...
Fuck.

Therefore, the statement that people with guns are more dangerous than those without them applies only to the extremes in politics, not to the criminals - which is exactly why I dont want to ban them in the first place.


Are you done arguing with me yet? I'm NOT anti-gun. I'm not for gun control.

[Clodfobble]

In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.

Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.

I was in just that situation 1 1/2 years ago and the story's here