Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I think the only legitimate difference is one of persuasive language. It's like the difference between the ministry of defence and the ministry of war... It's exactly the same ministry. If you go into a shop and buy a gun for "home defense", the implication is that you are preparing and willing to shoot someone, who you have determined is a threat. You are making yourself ready to meet that threat with deadly force. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of someone who is earnestly planning to avoid and retreat.

Duty to retreat as you put it does not exist in the same form as you understand it in every jurisdiction. As an aside if I am within my own home why should I be expected to retreat? The "ready to blow someone away" just read like hyperbole, and perhaps I misread your intentions as most people who oppose private gun ownership, and the use of guns for self-defense, often attempt to paint their opponents as itching for a chance to shoot someone.

I don't believe it is hyperbole, it's quite a common idiom in the English language for shooting someone. And I think I deliberately chose that turn of phrase, not to vilify gun owners, but to emphasis the lawlessness and violence in that situation. I do not believe violence should be in any way encouraged in a peaceful society. Which is why I think the duty to retreat sets the best example (whether it is employed or not). I do not believe people who own guns for self defense are "itching" to kill someone. I see no need to attack the character of gun owners. That's not something I would agree with.

As for why you should be expected to retreat. I would say the main reason is because staying and fighting is risky. It's true that perhaps you will fight off the criminal, and all will be right with the world, but you might also get yourself killed, or some other bystander hurt, or cause damage to property, or make a mistake and kill someone who isn't trying to hurt you, or maybe just kill a kid who is doing something wrong, but maybe doesn't deserve the death penalty. There are lots of things that can go wrong.

Far better if no one gets hurt, and the next day the police drag the perp out of bed, and give him his due process. I realize that won't always be what happens, but philosophically it seems like the more civilized approach that we should be aiming for.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Are you trying to compare the lawful exercising of the right to peaceably assemble with a criminal gang gun battle? We already have a system for gun ownership. It's the Second Amendment, and there are many restrictions on it already.

I was just highlighting the fact that guns can cause serious injuries to the general public. Refusing to acknowledge that, and claiming that it is exactly the same as freedom of religion, is just being obtuse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I actually really, really like my current state's "castle doctrine". I've talked to a number of folks in the know, and basically if a person here has a legal right to be where they are, they have the legal right to defend where they are. One of the best "cases" where judges upheld this view, a man was in Pioneer square in Seattle, a homeless/deranged man came sprinting across the square screaming "I'm going to kill you!! Im going to fething kill you!!" and tackled the first man, who happened to be legally carrying his pistol. In the ensuing ground scuffle, the first man was able to free an arm and shoot, and kill the deranged/homeless man. There did happen to be a Seattle PD officer just around the corner, who heard the guy screaming his "imma kill you!" thing, but by the time he got close enough, the shot had been fired.


Basically, the state upheld it's "don't back down" or "castle doctrine" or whatever name you want to give it, citing that the person who was concealed carrying, had a legal right to be in Pioneer Square and therefore was not obligated to retreat, leave, deescalate or anything.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong but that sounds like a legitimate self defense, regardless of the castle doctrine. A duty to retreat, is not the same as a duty to not defend yourself. In the UK if someone tackled me to the ground yelling "i'll kill you" and I happened to have a gun on me, and shot that person during a scuffle on the ground, and a policeman witnessed the whole thing. There's a very good chance I would not be prosecuted for that. Though I may face charges for having the gun, if it isn't being carried legally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Being legally compelled to retreat can be very disadvantageous to the victim of an attack as turning your back on an assailant significantly diminishes your ability to protect yourself.

A duty to retreat does not mean turning your back on an assailant. It means that if you have a chance to escape the situation without altercation then you should take it. If trying to escape would put you at greater risk of injury, then I would not class that as "a chance to escape", so there would be no duty to turn your back.

 sebster wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It also assumes a very black and white view of morality, where "law abiding" citizens never opportunistically break the law, and become criminals, which is pretty silly, and the opposite of what happens all the time. Criminals are not criminals because they are anyone's "antithesis", they are criminals because they broke the law, by definition. Before that, they are law abiding. How many times have we heard some kid, gunned down by police for knocking over a liquor store, described as "a good kid ... on his way to college" etc... I will agree that there are some people who are born or raised, so unhinged, they are almost destined for prison, but they do not necessarily reflect all (or even most) criminals.

You replied to me so I feel like I need to say something, but all I can say is good point, very well made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away. My problem with gun control people is that they seem to believe that the root cause of violence in the United States is the availability of firearms. While that may be a contributing factor it is short sighted to think that is the biggest factor. I would argue bigger factors to our high homicide rates are poverty and a failing mental health care system.

Poverty is certainly the major factor.

Mental health not so much. It isn't the major factor in mass shootings (only 23% off mass shooters in the US had any history of mental health problems), and so among all murders it's a tiny factor.

But here's the thing - the rest of the developed world has poverty as well, and our mental health systems are just as underfunded. And yet we've all got murder rates around 1 per 100,000, and the US stands alone among developed countries with a rate 4 or 5 times that. The one thing the US has that stands out is the guns.

That doesn't mean that gun bans or restrictions are necessarily the answer. There's been a good argument that with the number of guns already out there, bans would be impractical and/or ineffective. And there's also a very good argument that lots of hobbies come with strong downsides - alcohol is believed to kill around 80,000 people a year, but banning that is obviously a terrible idea - to some extent you just have to accept there'll be negative consequences to the stuff we like to do.

But having that conversation first relies on accepting the reality that guns really are the reason the US has a much higher rate than the rest of the developed world.

Are you using statistics of total murders or just murder by firearms? If you're using total murder rate per capita then you can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

Poverty is certainly a big factor in the root cause of crime and the US is several times larger than the other western countries we get compared to. Australia has a population of approximately 23 million people while California alone has over 38 million people. New York City has over 8 million people. We have more people, more urban areas, more urban poverty and more people living in poverty than other western countries because we've got around 340 million people living here. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reports that as of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual food stamp recipients (22.7 million households) which is twice the population of Australia even though it's still less than 15% of our total population. While greater access to firearms will always result in more people being armed and being able to abuse their right to be armed and for criminals to obtain guns it doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything. Having tens of millions of people living in socio-economic conditions that are suboptimal and condone or promote criminal behavior and poor choices can and does influence people and their motivations and choices. In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down from 15.0 percent in 2012. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006. In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

The fact that poverty is a major factor in generating crime and that we have twice the population of your entire country living in poverty but only 4 times the murder rate just shows that crime isn't a big problem in our country. Violent crime has consistently declined in recent decades while income inequality and number of people living in poverty has increased. Of course some of the increase in poverty can be attributed to changing thresholds and definitions by the government making assistance available to more people but the govt statistics and definitions are the most comprehensive and consistent source of information on the subject.

Prestor Jon wrote:
we have twice the population of your entire country living in poverty but only 4 times the murder rate just shows that crime isn't a big problem in our country

That's not how "murder rate" works. The rate is the number of people murdered per 100,000 people. You're confusing it with the actual number of people murdered. America is roughly 15 times as populated as Australia, so the amount of people in poverty is irrelevant to the rate. It's better to look at the percentage of the total population in poverty, and compare that. Australia has around 13% of its population in poverty, whereas America has about 15%. That's not a significant difference when looking at murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants, and cannot possibly account for the discrepancy between 1.1 and 4.7.

 sebster wrote:

But having that conversation first relies on accepting the reality that guns really are the reason the US has a much higher rate than the rest of the developed world.

Do you have actual evidence that this is the case? Because as far as I have seen there is zero evidence that guns are the cause. Especially when gun ownership and crime are on opposite trends lately.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Are you using statistics of total murders or just murder by firearms? If you're using total murder rate per capita then you can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

The overall murder rate is four or five times higher than other developed countries. If you look just at firearm murders then it becomes a much worse ratio. Hell, if you want you can compare US firearm murders to murders of all kinds in other developed countries, and the US is still much higher.

Poverty is certainly a big factor in the root cause of crime and the US is several times larger than the other western countries we get compared to. Australia has a population of approximately 23 million people while California alone has over 38 million people. New York City has over 8 million people. We have more people, more urban areas, more urban poverty and more people living in poverty than other western countries because we've got around 340 million people living here.

It's measured per capita. So you take total murders, divide by total population, and multiply by 100,000. In the US that comes out around 4 to 4.5, depending on the year. In other developed countries you get rates from .8 to 1.2.

And yes, poverty is the biggest factor, but it's the biggest factor in all the other developed countries as well. Why would you think you're the only country with poor people? Go travel, I'll give you a list of places that are just as bad as the US. Hell, I can take you to rural communities that will make you genuinely angry at my country for letting people live like that.

We've all got poverty, but you're the only developed country with a murder rate that's so high.

While greater access to firearms will always result in more people being armed and being able to abuse their right to be armed and for criminals to obtain guns it doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything.

Of course, each person makes an individual choice. But it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when you make a choice much more convenient and immediate, then across a whole population they're going to make that choice more often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do you have actual evidence that this is the case? Because as far as I have seen there is zero evidence that guns are the cause.

People who don't want to see the evidence don't see it. Shocking, I know.

Especially when gun ownership and crime are on opposite trends lately.

Murder and other violent crime is on a long term decrease everywhere. Because the best way to reduce it is with education and prosperity, and those things are improving long term.

But while murder is going down everywhere, in the US its still vastly higher than other developed countries. People like to invent reasons in their head to satisfy themselves that it couldn't possibly be the guns everywhere that leads to loads of people getting shot, but their reasons are always very weak.

Again, we'll need actual evidence that having more guns causes more murders. Because trends are showing the exact opposite. As more guns get owned, we have less violence overall. (Note: I am not claiming they are related. In fact, the evidence shows there is no relationship)

Just saying "you have more guns, you have more murders. Ergo it must be cause and effect!" is very stupid. To believe that, you must also believe that Ice Cream consumption causes people to commit murder, when in actuality its just the heat level causing both to go up and down.

I think the reason some people are asking for a universal gun registry is not to take guns from lawful citizens, but to figure out where all the weapons criminals are using come from. There has to be a moment where a legal gun turns into an illegal one: if it can be traced, we can hopefully intercede.

But it is good to hear why some people are so against it.

 AdeptSister wrote:
I think the reason some people are asking for a universal gun registry is not to take guns from lawful citizens, but to figure out where all the weapons criminals are using come from. There has to be a moment where a legal gun turns into an illegal one: if it can be traced, we can hopefully intercede.

But it is good to hear why some people are so against it.

Thats how it begins. So innocently.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis

Prestor Jon wrote:
You can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it's all because of guns. Yet a lot of people seem to claim that it's definitely 100% not because of guns at all, even though I think they know deep down that it is a little bit because of guns.

It doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything.

This has been shown over and over again to be untrue. People frequently do bad/stupid things out of spontaneity, or when they are highly emotional, or high/drunk. Making things less convenient does deter people, it gives them time to cool down. It has been shown for example, that suicide barriers not only stop people from jumping at a particular site, but also decrease the overall suicide rate in the surrounding area. So you can't just say that people will find a way no matter what, because they don't. That takes determination, and not everyone can be bothered with hard stuff. On the other hand if your wife's nagging you, and being a bitch for the millionth time, maybe reaching for the old gun, and pulling the trigger a few times is just a bit too easy.

I feel a good example of this was Vester Lee Flanagan, who recently shot a reporter on live TV. Turns out they were former colleagues, and he had some kind of vendetta, which I guess was his motive. But what I find striking is that he also shot Vicki Gardner who was just there doing an interview, because why the hell not? He didn't have any vendetta against her, I doubt they'd ever even met, but he shot her anyway, because she was there and it was easy. Had he been forced to go to any effort to hurt Vicki Gardner, I doubt he would have bothered.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats how it begins. So innocently.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis.

Are we back on the slippery slop argument? Yes, it would be so much better to live under robber barrons, than register your firearm, and you're not at all overreacting.

Considering the average person is on about 200 databases, which probably know everything from your favorite colour to your porn habits, I don't see how keeping a record of lethal weapons, is going to be the most invasive, useless, or the database that is suddenly going to drop us into tyranny.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't see how keeping a record of lethal weapons, is the database that is going to suddenly drop us into tyranny.

Remember Canada has done this with a number of firearms, and when a certain "scary" type later on becomes illegal, well... Guess what?? The gov't. knows exactly where to go.


Which GT and probably some others have mentioned: the Govt should not be in the business of knowing everything that I own.

And here is the rub where the disagreement lies: Is the government knowing where all the guns are a violation of the 2nd amendment?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I think the reason some people are asking for a universal gun registry is not to take guns from lawful citizens, but to figure out where all the weapons criminals are using come from. There has to be a moment where a legal gun turns into an illegal one: if it can be traced, we can hopefully intercede.

But it is good to hear why some people are so against it.

Thats how it begins. So innocently.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis

We'll... just look at ISIS:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/isis-declares-guns-illegal-iraq-except-used-isis-soldiers/

 AdeptSister wrote:
And here is the rub where the disagreement lies: Is the government knowing where all the guns are a violation of the 2nd amendment?

I would think that it's not really a violation of the 2nd, but I think it would be a violation of the 4th, as it is often used in your right to privacy. This, in some way was argued in Olmstead (which I know wasn't really overturned until the 60s with the Katz case.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Are you using statistics of total murders or just murder by firearms? If you're using total murder rate per capita then you can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

The overall murder rate is four or five times higher than other developed countries. If you look just at firearm murders then it becomes a much worse ratio. Hell, if you want you can compare US firearm murders to murders of all kinds in other developed countries, and the US is still much higher.

Poverty is certainly a big factor in the root cause of crime and the US is several times larger than the other western countries we get compared to. Australia has a population of approximately 23 million people while California alone has over 38 million people. New York City has over 8 million people. We have more people, more urban areas, more urban poverty and more people living in poverty than other western countries because we've got around 340 million people living here.

It's measured per capita. So you take total murders, divide by total population, and multiply by 100,000. In the US that comes out around 4 to 4.5, depending on the year. In other developed countries you get rates from .8 to 1.2.

And yes, poverty is the biggest factor, but it's the biggest factor in all the other developed countries as well. Why would you think you're the only country with poor people? Go travel, I'll give you a list of places that are just as bad as the US. Hell, I can take you to rural communities that will make you genuinely angry at my country for letting people live like that.

We've all got poverty, but you're the only developed country with a murder rate that's so high.

While greater access to firearms will always result in more people being armed and being able to abuse their right to be armed and for criminals to obtain guns it doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything.

Of course, each person makes an individual choice. But it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when you make a choice much more convenient and immediate, then across a whole population they're going to make that choice more often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do you have actual evidence that this is the case? Because as far as I have seen there is zero evidence that guns are the cause.

People who don't want to see the evidence don't see it. Shocking, I know.

Especially when gun ownership and crime are on opposite trends lately.

Murder and other violent crime is on a long term decrease everywhere. Because the best way to reduce it is with education and prosperity, and those things are improving long term.

But while murder is going down everywhere, in the US its still vastly higher than other developed countries. People like to invent reasons in their head to satisfy themselves that it couldn't possibly be the guns everywhere that leads to loads of people getting shot, but their reasons are always very weak.

You claim that poverty is the major factor behind crime and I point out that the US has twice as many people living in "poverty" than you have in your entire country and somehow that gets construed as me claiming that the US is the only country with poor people? If poverty causes crime then the fact that we have 46.5 million people living in poverty is more of a factor in our crime rate than guns. More crimes are committed without gun than with guns.We have 88.8 guns per 100 people, Australia has 15 so that 6x more guns but we don't have 6x more gun crime. Considering the different state laws we have here there are many parts of the US where there are far more guns per 100 people than the national average of 88.8 and other areas with far less.

Chicago makes it extremely difficult for private citizens to get concealed carry permits yet certain low income neighborhoods in Chicago have an extremely high murder rate and a high volume of gun crime. Contrast that with my rural town in North Carolina where it is relatively easy to own a plethora of firearms and many citizens do, while there is less gun crime in the entire county I live in than there is in one bad weekend in Chicago. If high ratios of gun ownership caused high murder rates and incidences of crimes committed with guns then that should be reflected in the crime stats in the different states with different levels of gun ownership but it isn't. The difference in gun crimes/murder between the US and Australia should also be reflected in the crime stats of states like Oklahoma and New Jersey but it isn't.

 sebster wrote:


It's measured per capita. So you take total murders, divide by total population, and multiply by 100,000. In the US that comes out around 4 to 4.5, depending on the year. In other developed countries you get rates from .8 to 1.2.

And yes, poverty is the biggest factor, but it's the biggest factor in all the other developed countries as well. Why would you think you're the only country with poor people? Go travel, I'll give you a list of places that are just as bad as the US. Hell, I can take you to rural communities that will make you genuinely angry at my country for letting people live like that.

We've all got poverty, but you're the only developed country with a murder rate that's so high.

I think attributing the higher murder rate in the US vs places like Australia simply to guns is oversimplifying things. Looking at the data, the rate of non-firearm related homicides in the US (per 100,000) was nearly identical to the entire Australian homicide rate with all weapons, including firearms.

Now, for the sake of argument, we'll accept that using a firearm in an attempted murder is more likely to result in an actual homicide and may contribute to a higher homicide rate out of all attempted homicides. However, even if we assume this, it must also be realized that many of the firearm related homicides would have occurred even without firearms and simply been carried out with a different type of weapon.

With that knowledge, it's fairly easy to see that the US has a greater problem with violence in general, regardless of weapons. Even removing every firearm homicide and assume none of them would have occurred with a different type of weapon, The US homicide rate was about identical (a slightly higher or lower depending on source, but generally within 10%) to Australia's homicide rate even including guns.

So, even if we accept that firearms result in a larger number of deaths, I would posit that the issue of firearms is a symptom of a larger issue, in that homicide and attempted homicide is simply more prevalent on a nation-wide scale.

 AdeptSister wrote:
And here is the rub where the disagreement lies: Is the government knowing where all the guns are a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Many would consider it to be. Such registries have, in the past, been used to confiscate weapons by otherwise law abiding citizens and to act on additional restrictions. A great example was California's "assault weapons" ban, where people who owned weapons with certain characteristics or specifically named had to register them with the state. A certain type was added later (an SKS variant) and the people who owned them had to register them after initially being told that the ban did not apply to that particular weapon. Later it came down that, while yes the weapon was covered under the ban, re-opening the registry was not, and thus after attempting to comply with the law, had to surrender their weapons after being caught in a catch-22. Additionally, with this registry, it's proven basically impossible to get off of it, even after selling or destroying the weapons, which can cause a variety of legel issues.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it's all because of guns. Yet a lot of people seem to claim that it's definitely 100% not because of guns at all, even though I think they know deep down that it is a little bit because of guns.

It doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything.

This has been shown over and over again to be untrue. People frequently do bad/stupid things out of spontaneity, or when they are highly emotional, or high/drunk. Making things less convenient does deter people, it gives them time to cool down. It has been shown for example, that suicide barriers not only stop people from jumping at a particular site, but also decrease the overall suicide rate in the surrounding area. So you can't just say that people will find a way no matter what, because they don't. That takes determination, and not everyone can be bothered with hard stuff. On the other hand if your wife's nagging you, and being a bitch for the millionth time, maybe reaching for the old gun, and pulling the trigger a few times is just a bit too easy.

I feel a good example of this was Vester Lee Flanagan, who recently shot a reporter on live TV. Turns out they were former colleagues, and he had some kind of vendetta, which I guess was his motive. But what I find striking is that he also shot Vicki Gardner who was just there doing an interview, because why the hell not? He didn't have any vendetta against her, I doubt they'd ever even met, but he shot her anyway, because she was there and it was easy. Had he been forced to go to any effort to hurt Vicki Gardner, I doubt he would have bothered.

No, it's still literally impossible for inanimate objects, like guns, to incite people to commit crimes. People making bad decisions when they are emotional, drunk, high or whatever is still an act of free will by those people. Somebody chooses to murder somebody because they want to, for whatever reason, not just because they have a gun. Are you seriously arguing that Flanagan shot Gardner solely because he happened to be holding a gun and she was nearby? That literally having possession of a pistol made him want to shoot somebody? That's simply not possible. People make bad decisions all the time and it's not due to inanimate objects. If somebody becomes angry enough to commit domestic violence and proceeds to punch other people in the room besides his/her spouse/significant other it's not because he/she had already made a fist. Shooting somebody is a conscious deliberate act. Knives don't make anyone stab people, guns don't make anyone shoot anyone. True, guns are a tool that make it easier to hurt people, just like knives, chainsaws, hammers, baseball bats, rocks and millions of other things but none of them can cause anyone any harm until a person makes a deliberate conscious choice to pick them up and use them to inflict harm.

 Smacks wrote:
This seems to be where the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument falls flat on its face anyway. I certainly never heard of anyone getting "stabbed in the crossfire".

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You can't just blame the difference entirely on guns. Granted, the US is an armed society and that is inherently more dangerous but it's not simply because of the availability of firearm ownership.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it's all because of guns. Yet a lot of people seem to claim that it's definitely 100% not because of guns at all, even though I think they know deep down that it is a little bit because of guns.

It doesn't change the fact that guns are inanimate objects and can't force or motivate people to do anything.

This has been shown over and over again to be untrue. People frequently do bad/stupid things out of spontaneity, or when they are highly emotional, or high/drunk. Making things less convenient does deter people, it gives them time to cool down. It has been shown for example, that suicide barriers not only stop people from jumping at a particular site, but also decrease the overall suicide rate in the surrounding area. So you can't just say that people will find a way no matter what, because they don't. That takes determination, and not everyone can be bothered with hard stuff. On the other hand if your wife's nagging you, and being a bitch for the millionth time, maybe reaching for the old gun, and pulling the trigger a few times is just a bit too easy.

I feel a good example of this was Vester Lee Flanagan, who recently shot a reporter on live TV. Turns out they were former colleagues, and he had some kind of vendetta, which I guess was his motive. But what I find striking is that he also shot Vicki Gardner who was just there doing an interview, because why the hell not? He didn't have any vendetta against her, I doubt they'd ever even met, but he shot her anyway, because she was there and it was easy. Had he been forced to go to any effort to hurt Vicki Gardner, I doubt he would have bothered.

No, it's still literally impossible for inanimate objects, like guns, to incite people to commit crimes. People making bad decisions when they are emotional, drunk, high or whatever is still an act of free will by those people. Somebody chooses to murder somebody because they want to, for whatever reason, not just because they have a gun. Are you seriously arguing that Flanagan shot Gardner solely because he happened to be holding a gun and she was nearby? That literally having possession of a pistol made him want to shoot somebody? That's simply not possible. People make bad decisions all the time and it's not due to inanimate objects. If somebody becomes angry enough to commit domestic violence and proceeds to punch other people in the room besides his/her spouse/significant other it's not because he/she had already made a fist. Shooting somebody is a conscious deliberate act. Knives don't make anyone stab people, guns don't make anyone shoot anyone. True, guns are a tool that make it easier to hurt people, just like knives, chainsaws, hammers, baseball bats, rocks and millions of other things but none of them can cause anyone any harm until a person makes a deliberate conscious choice to pick them up and use them to inflict harm.

The homicide rate can be higher with a greater proliferation of firearms, because bystanders can be hurt in the crossfire. Kinda like the article in the OP. Yes, the gang members made a conscious decision to shoot at each other, but they (almost certainly) didn't intend to hit one of the people who later died.

Also, I feel I have to address this.

People making bad decisions when they are emotional, drunk, high or whatever is still an act of free will by those people.

Oh, boy. When you're drunk or high, you are no longer capable of rational thought, and free will is an interesting idea when you're in a suggestive and unstable state. If you want to go through with your statement above, and blame drunk people for committing murder, all of the time (which can't happen in some cases and states, intoxication removing the rational thought, therefore criminal intent which is often a prerequisite), try thinking about what other crimes could be affected by claiming intoxication has no bearing on free will, and you should accept the full consequences of your actions.

Drunk/high people can still be charged with murder if they kill someone. But the lack of direct intent does lessen the charge, thats why we have several levels of murder.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drunk/high people can still be charged with murder if they kill someone. But the lack of direct intent does lessen the charge, thats why we have several levels of murder.

Yeah, I know. It's really just the idea that intoxicated people have free will that irritated me. I'm sure rapists will rejoice to hear that!

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drunk/high people can still be charged with murder if they kill someone. But the lack of direct intent does lessen the charge, thats why we have several levels of murder.

Yeah, I know. It's really just the idea that intoxicated people have free will that irritated me. I'm sure rapists will rejoice to hear that!

You can look at it this way. If you voluntarily consumed the intoxicating material you are responsible for whatever you do afterwards.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drunk/high people can still be charged with murder if they kill someone. But the lack of direct intent does lessen the charge, thats why we have several levels of murder.

Yeah, I know. It's really just the idea that intoxicated people have free will that irritated me. I'm sure rapists will rejoice to hear that!

Intoxicated people are still responsible for their actions. It has nothing to do with intoxicated rape victims since the absence of consent still makes it rape regardless of the whether or not the victim is intoxicated. Drunk drivers are still responsible for people they kill in car accidents even though they probably would have acted/driven differently if they had been sober. And intoxicated people still have free will. People control their own actions, alcohol impairs judgement, yes, but it doesn't control people like a puppeteer.

Guns do not cause murder, they just make it a hell of a lot easier. It's still up to the individual.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't believe it is hyperbole, it's quite a common idiom in the English language for shooting someone. And I think I deliberately chose that turn of phrase, not to vilify gun owners, but to emphasis the lawlessness and violence in that situation. I do not believe violence should be in any way encouraged in a peaceful society. Which is why I think the duty to retreat sets the best example (whether it is employed or not). I do not believe people who own guns for self defense are "itching" to kill someone. I see no need to attack the character of gun owners. That's not something I would agree with.

Blowing someone away sounds like either;
- the gun owner is taking glee in what they do
- is minimizing the killing of another human being

 Smacks wrote:
As for why you should be expected to retreat. I would say the main reason is because staying and fighting is risky. It's true that perhaps you will fight off the criminal, and all will be right with the world, but you might also get yourself killed, or some other bystander hurt, or cause damage to property, or make a mistake and kill someone who isn't trying to hurt you, or maybe just kill a kid who is doing something wrong, but maybe doesn't deserve the death penalty. There are lots of things that can go wrong.

Staying and fighting is risky, but turning your back on an assailant or assailants so you cannot defend yourself is less risky? What if I am in my home? Should that duty to retreat include abandoning my property?
Suppose the victim is in a wheelchair, or otherwise physically impaired. What then?

 Smacks wrote:
Far better if no one gets hurt, and the next day the police drag the perp out of bed, and give him his due process. I realize that won't always be what happens, but philosophically it seems like the more civilized approach that we should be aiming for.

Running away, leaving yourself defenseless, and at the mercy of someone else is "civilized"? Yearning for a Utopian society is your prerogative. For people who have violent ex-partners, live in crime ridden neighbourhoods, etc. I'd prefer that they have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.

 Smacks wrote:
I was just highlighting the fact that guns can cause serious injuries to the general public. Refusing to acknowledge that, and claiming that it is exactly the same as freedom of religion, is just being obtuse.

Using criminal activity as a yardstick to measure law abiding citizens rights is disingenuous in the extreme.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Considering the average person is on about 200 databases, which probably know everything from your favorite colour to your porn habits, I don't see how keeping a record of lethal weapons, is going to be the most invasive, useless, or the database that is suddenly going to drop us into tyranny.

Given that many already object to being so closely monitored your argument makes little sense.

Round round we go.
Same ole thing
Same ole stats used
Same point; counter point but with some variation
I remember when the MAC10 hit the streets. Took on the same scary tune as the M4 today (assault rifles)
Then Teflon bullets
Reagan getting shot
Then the 9mm Berreta went main stream which idiots attempt to shoot side ways.....no idea where they got that idea from
Then Hollow Points became a issue being its small entry huge exit
Then those two hardcore bank robbers with body armor and automatic AK's
Bill Clinton gun ban going into effect (10 years I think limit)

But the show

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I don't believe it is hyperbole, it's quite a common idiom in the English language for shooting someone. And I think I deliberately chose that turn of phrase, not to vilify gun owners, but to emphasis the lawlessness and violence in that situation. I do not believe violence should be in any way encouraged in a peaceful society. Which is why I think the duty to retreat sets the best example (whether it is employed or not). I do not believe people who own guns for self defense are "itching" to kill someone. I see no need to attack the character of gun owners. That's not something I would agree with.

Blowing someone away sounds like either;
- the gun owner is taking glee in what they do
- is minimizing the killing of another human being

Or neither of the above. What you subjectively choose to read into it is your own concern. I have stated numerous times, in clear language (which you even seem to have quoted, but not read) that I have no wish, or need, or intention of attacking the character of gun owners. Yet you continually attack my character by insisting that I am one of the people who thinks all gun owners are secretly psychos, despite the fact that I have never claimed that, I flatly disagree with that, and think such a claim about gun owners is nonsense. When you tar me with the same brush as the people who do make those claims, you are no better than them, tarring all gun owners with the same brush as murderers.

If you wanted to argue honestly, then you would accept that when I tell you "this is my opinion", that I know my own opinion better than you. Instead of insisting, like a dog with a bone, that I think something which I do not. Despite the absolute world authority on my opinions (me) telling you that you are wrong.

Putting your own words in my mouth, just so you can attack them is the very definition of a strawman.

Staying and fighting is risky, but turning your back on an assailant or assailants so you cannot defend yourself is less risky? What if I am in my home? Should that duty to retreat include abandoning my property?
Suppose the victim is in a wheelchair, or otherwise physically impaired. What then?

As I have already said (which you ignored) a duty to retreat has nothing to do with turning your back on an assailant. If there is no opportunity to retreat then self defense is justified. That's how it works in the UK. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between actively trying to avoid conflict, and self sacrifice. One does not imply the other.

As for property. If your life is in danger and you need to evacuate (such as a fire, or other emergency) stopping to rescue property is not advised, and can lead to you or others being killed. If you value property over your life then you might need to do some serious reevaluation. Also there are loads of good ways to protect property, you can get a safe, get a safety deposit box, get home insurance, get a security door. Arguing that the only way to protect property is with a gun, and that's why you really really need a gun, is so much BS.

On the subject of people who can't defend themselves. What if someone is under 21, and too young for concealed carry? Males between 13 and 21 are the most likely to be victims of violent crime, and yet your system offers them nothing. Are you going to allow 13 year olds to go around armed too?

Yearning for a Utopian society is your prerogative. For people who have violent ex-partners, live in crime ridden neighbourhoods, etc. I'd prefer that they have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.

You would see the people who threaten them armed, without impediment, and you advocate making the weak responsible for their own defense, rather than working towards a safer environment for them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Again, we'll need actual evidence that having more guns causes more murders. Because trends are showing the exact opposite.

In any complex relationship you'll never get a nice, direct cause and effect. Demanding clear evidence of that relationship and accepting nothing else is just setting up an impossible standard, because you don't like where all the existing evidence is pointing.

It's the con the cigarette companies pulled for a generation.

As more guns get owned, we have less violence overall. (Note: I am not claiming they are related. In fact, the evidence shows there is no relationship)

By your suggested relationship only the total number of guns matter, so it means if one household buys 30 guns then it would have the same reduction in murder as 30 households buying a gun each. Which is obviously silly, and so instead we should look at the number of households with guns against the murder rate. And looking at that will tell you that while the number of guns is increasing, the number of households with guns is falling. At which point your narrative about 'more guns and less murders therefore...' falls apart entirely.

Just saying "you have more guns, you have more murders. Ergo it must be cause and effect!" is very stupid

Only if we have no comparison cases. But we have lots of comparison cases of countries with very similar other factors (education, wealth, quality of policing etc) and they have murder rates 4 or 5 times lower than the US.

Again, it's like smoking. Long before we had any clear understanding of how smoking causes cancer, we knew from basic population studies that while lots of things increase the chance of cancer, if you control for those other factors and compare smokers to non-smokers, the smoking group got cancer way more often than the non-smoking group. That doesn't meet your standard, obviously, but it's far stronger than the evidence we have for many things we assume as obviously proven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You claim that poverty is the major factor behind crime and I point out that the US has twice as many people living in "poverty" than you have in your entire country and somehow that gets construed as me claiming that the US is the only country with poor people?

No. Stop this. I refuse to believe that you cannot understand how per capita works, and why it is used in place of total population counts.

If poverty causes crime then the fact that we have 46.5 million people living in poverty is more of a factor in our crime rate than guns.

Of course. Poverty is the biggest factor, alongside education (and those two are very closely related). But for it to be the explanation for the higher rate of murder in the US, then the US would have to have a uniquely higher rate of poverty than other developed countries. To explain a murder rate that's four times higher, it would need to have a poverty rate that's four times higher.

But lets look at some figures. The percentage of people in the US living below the poverty line is 15.1%. So to explain a murder rate that's four times higher than other developed countries, you'd need other developed countries to have poverty rates around 4%. So... Germany is 15.5%, the UK is 14%, Japan is 16%, Denmark is 14%. France is much lower, at 6%, and Canada is 10%, but those are the only ones on the list with lower poverty rates. But to look at that and conclude US poverty drives their four times higher murder rate is just completely and totally wrong.

Chicago makes it extremely difficult for private citizens to get concealed carry permits yet certain low income neighborhoods in Chicago have an extremely high murder rate and a high volume of gun crime. Contrast that with my rural town in North Carolina where it is relatively easy to own a plethora of firearms and many citizens do, while there is less gun crime in the entire county I live in than there is in one bad weekend in Chicago. If high ratios of gun ownership caused high murder rates and incidences of crimes committed with guns then that should be reflected in the crime stats in the different states with different levels of gun ownership but it isn't. The difference in gun crimes/murder between the US and Australia should also be reflected in the crime stats of states like Oklahoma and New Jersey but it isn't.

No, because local bans on firearms are meaningless when you've got open borders. Australia banned guns and while you can still smuggle weapons in, you do have to get them past customs, which requires skill, connections, and a willingness to risk a reasonable chance of getting caught and going to jail. But Chicago is a state within a union with completely open borders - monitoring of goods across state lines are minimal at best, let alone across city lines. And so whatever ban is put in place, it doesn't stop guns flowing in to the city. At best it means there's risk for carrying once you're in the city, but bringing the guns in is both easy and very safe.

The only effective ban in the US has to be on a national level.

 sebster wrote:
The only effective ban in the US has to be on a national level.

Which is all the more reason why it's a bad idea and shouldn't happen.

 Hordini wrote:
Which is all the more reason why it's a bad idea and shouldn't happen.

I didn't say whether I think it should happen. I've written a whole lot about that elsewhere, and my feelings on the merits of any kind of gun ban are somewhere between dubious and ambivalent.

But I am curious as to what you're saying. Are you saying that because state bans would be ineffective, then any ban would be bad because it would have to be at the federal level? Is it basically a state's rights thing?

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Which is all the more reason why it's a bad idea and shouldn't happen.

I didn't say whether I think it should happen. I've written a whole lot about that elsewhere, and my feelings on the merits of any kind of gun ban are somewhere between dubious and ambivalent.

But I am curious as to what you're saying. Are you saying that because state bans would be ineffective, then any ban would be bad because it would have to be at the federal level? Is it basically a state's rights thing?

Oh, I know, and I know you have written on it else where, as have I. I didn't intend for my post to sound accusatory.

I don't really want to invoke the term state's rights and bring up all the baggage that comes with it, and I don't necessarily think that all federal regulations are bad, but I do think that a blanket federal ban on something like firearms would, by it's very nature, be unjust. Primarily because the situations in different states vary so widely. The reasoning and potential need of someone living in rural Alaska, for example, or even just in certain areas in the Midwest, to be able to acquire firearms with relatively minimal hassle has the potential to be much different than someone in New York, Chicago, or LA. Note that I am generally pro-second amendment and do not think that someone living in New York, Chicago, or LA should have their second amendment rights stripped from them. But I do have an even bigger problem with some sort of federal gun ban that would restrict the rights of people all over the country based on the fact that we have several large urban centers such as the previously mentioned cities that have serious problems with violent crime. A federal gun ban of some sort, would seem to me to be something that was focused on symptoms rather than causes, and I don't think that people who live in areas in which they have to deal with large and potentially dangerous wildlife, and/or extremely long police response times need to have any more limits placed on their ability to own and purchase firearms.

 Hordini wrote:
Oh, I know, and I know you have written on it else where, as have I. I didn't intend for my post to sound accusatory.

Cool, and I didn't want to sound accusatory either, as I realise my use of 'state's rights' might have sounded.

And you make a very good point. I guess part of it if federal bans focused on pistols, which are frequently used used in crime, and useless for hunting and sub-optimal for home defence. But that wouldn't remove the issue entirely, and given the recent focus of gun control efforts it's pretty optimistic to think they'd focus there.

And to expand on your point about different circumstances in different states, it isn't just an issue for any potential bans, it's also a factor for any potential control measures. So a registration and recording system might seem quite viable in Chicago and New York, but be really impractical for people living in rural areas, where government services are a lot more scarce.