Doctordick Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Ok, with all this intelligent discussion, can someone explain the following rather askew facts to me? The number of firearms in the United States far exceeds the number of practicing medical doctors (by several orders of magnitude actually); however, the number of people annually killed (that is, death was officially attributed to malpractice by the courts) by medical doctors is roughly the same order of magnitude as the number killed by firearms. Medical doctors are thus much more dangerous than firearms and yet no one proposes we outlaw medical doctors. Why is that? :) Have fun -- Dick Knowledge is Power and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Point: if the camera/gun man were 'allowed' to open fire on the guy shooting, he would not go to jail as he is doing what he is allowed to do. If the gang member had friends around the corner, likely they'd think twice after seeing their homie plugged, and if not they're damned to his fate. And why is this different than another gang member doing the shooting? The first gunman is still dead. He lost. In this particular situation, it was highly likely that there *was* another gun nearby. The fact that its carried by a law abiding citizen instead of another gang member has no effect on the calculus, because either way, the guy is dead: he's making the same decision *even though* the odds are the same! If unrestricted(minus the finantial factor) weaponry access didn't work and bodycounts did escalate exponentially, I'm quite frankly surprised we have survived as a race.You're right! it is amazing, but as I keep pointing out here, I'm working from real examples: during the early part of the gold rush, people got plugged like crazy, and *everyone* had a gun! Good guys and bad! If the problem was solved by everyone having a gun, why were these laws to restrict them in town needed? Because it was the only way to keep them out of the hands of the hot heads and the greedy who because they had enough alcohol in their system, thought they could shoot faster than the guy they were mad at. Its not rational. But that's the way it seems to work *in real life* as opposed to theory of how people "should behave if they just see the consequences." Now nkt's argument has a bit of merit to it:I suspect you don't get many muggings in a concealed carry area where two guys simply walk up to someone and ask for money, and get it, because the victim doesn't want a beating or a kicking to death (called "shoeing" in London). Of course, we also have cases where people are mugged for mobile phones worth 50p at gunpoint, and, indeed, people who are shot in the head first, and have the phone or bike taken afterwards. In cases like those, it is impossible to argue that the situation would be escalated by others in the area, or indeed the victim, having arms (or others things) for self-defence. Yet apparently rational people do!This sort of thing *does* work, but *only* in areas where the criminals are a small minority, and that's why as I said above, it works in small towns or the nice part of cities. But you also point out the key weakness of your argument (which I also mentioned earlier), it just escalates what the criminals do: shoot first, steal later. And in the end, you're both still discounting the "unintended consequences" of bystanders being the most likely to be killed, the good folks losing control of their weapons and ending up being shot by their own defensive strategies, and so forth. The bottom line for me is:Like nemo said above, one of the biggest problems is the existing laws not being enforced. Its horrible and the police have to be both funded and goaded into doing the right thing.The places where this sort of a solution doesn't work--the inner city--are the ones we have to worry about. In another thread, I mentioned improvements in Oakland, and its coming through *social* change: the people *are* starting to care about their neighborhoods and are working *with* police to take care of the criminals. They are *not* trying to put more guns on the streets. Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Texas has one of the most pervasive and widely accepted concealed carrier laws. Dallas has the highest crime rate in the US as of '04 stats. More guns does not equal less crime. The same idea about more cops reduce crime. More force does not reduce the crime. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 More guns does not equal less crime. The same idea about more cops reduce crime. More force does not reduce the crime. Period.___Accepting this premise then, is it the distribution of force that reduces crime? For example, not knowing where the force (gun) is? Or perhaps the contrary, i.e. "knowing" who has the gun (presumable "good guy")? Or is it contrary to the data that humans have a rather consist crime rate throughout history?___I think the second ammendment recognizes crime is always extant & in all quarters & by distributing arms in the same way the seperation of powers distributes intellectual force, an imperfect but workable balance ensues.___Pulling the loop in through the hole is no protection against entry by a window. The price of Freedom is Vigilence. :eek_big: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 nemo and Ihad a great conversation about this with our neighbor last night. The guy, we'll call him "nome" (he actually has the same name as nemo, see?), is an avid hunter. He has many guns, and has hunted most of his life. He's the one taking nemo on the guys bonding week. He asked why the Second Amendment was written the way it was, and that really got me thinking. It says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Right? Looking at the situation of those writers, it would seem that they very much valued their 'arms', as arms were at least in part responsible for their newfound independance. They were being oppressed by England, to their way of thinking. They fought back, using guns, among other things. They won their freedom. It seems important to remember, as I was reminded, that they firmly believed that it was every citizen's right to keep a gun, not just for personal/family protection, but in the event that the government needed to be brought back in line in the future. These men were not a bunch of sappy intellectuals. They weren't perfect, for sure, but they were fighting for an ideal that included a government that worked for the betterment of the people. Now without straying into whether or not they were good guys or bad, and what their deeper motives (financial, right?) may have been, they wanted to insure that the people had the ability to overthrow any government that went awry. At least that's another way to look at it.And they had murderers back then too, but they were dealt with swiftly and harshly. That seems to be the biggest problem now. It's not that we need to toughen the GC laws, they just need to be enforced. Just my 2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundasbro Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 People are killed daily in every city in America through automobile accidents, yet an SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon does not get villified like a handgunA gun is made to cause harm, and an SUV is made to transport people, i don't see the connection :eek_big: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 A gun is made to cause harm, and an SUV is made to transport people, i don't see the connection :eek_big:A gun is also useful as a defense against those same people that would use it to cause harm. Do you really think the criminal will surrender his weapon along with the law abiding citizen. If the government plans to take away the right to bear arms, it won't be the oulaw giving his weapon up. That leaves the common citizen at the short end in the balance of power. As long as the criminal suspects that the house he's getting ready to break into sports a weapon, he's not going to be so likely to pick that one out as his pray. He'll go where he feels the victim is more defenseless. Don't ask me to surrender my balance of power!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 He asked why the Second Amendment was written the way it was, and that really got me thinking. It says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Right? Looking at the situation of those writers, it would seem that they very much valued their 'arms', as arms were at least in part responsible for their newfound independance. This gets into an interesting issue that we've skipped here: the whole arguement that the opening phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means that they meant that this right was only within the context of using it for that "well regulated militia," *not* to justify anyone owning a gun. To set the historical context, at the time that the Constitution was written, a standing army was a *huge* luxury. Actually what got our butts whipped in the War of 1812 was this little army thinking they could invade Canada, and having the Brits come in with their gigantic professional army and it took them 1 week start-to-finish to land and over run Washington DC. The thinking on how this fledgling nation could afford to defend itself was based entirely on the notion of having a very small standing army, with the assumption that if we were attacked, everyone would come running with their guns: that is, a "militia" consisting of every able bodied man. Having now become the most powerful nation in the world, that notion of how to defend the country is no longer valid, and thus has been subject to diverse interpretations:The first is to say that "well-regulated militia" is a quaint affectation but needs to be ignored because the "original intent" was that "of course, everyone needs a gun to defend themselves." There have been numerous studies of ownership of guns that indicate that except on the frontier where there were Indian raids, asocial trappers and well, *French* people, the majority of people did not own guns. It was not widespread or something everyone did.The far right extreme interpretation of history though is that what was meant, kind of as Irish describes, as a mechanism for keeping the government honest, at the risk of the "people" overthrowing it if the government did not do what they want. That opening phrase though actually *discounts* this, by indicating as described above, that the intent was to have people come to the *assistance* of government. This whole idea of overthrowing the government, while usually coming from right-wing neo-nazis, in fact is just plain extremist: as Mao said "Power comes from the barrel of the gun." And of course we've had all kinds of fun movies based on this from the serious "Seven Days in May" to my favorite General Max D. ("precious bodily fluids") Ripper in "Dr. Strangelove". The idea that the constitution is designed to provide the means for its own destruction is very disturbing and I really doubt that was the "original intent."The other extreme is to say that the right to bear arms is *only* for members of the militia, and unless you're a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard you have no such right. Given the terminology and the facts of the day, there turns out to be a *very* strong argument that this is the way it should be interpreted. This is obviously *not* how it has been interpreted, and I think that has to do with the frontier history of the country (read "The Frontier in American History" by Fredrick Jackson Turner!), and the fact that through out the growth of the nation we lived by the gun, but it was always at the frontier, and like the folks in Washington today, the framers of the Constitution in Philidelphia were not on that frontier and did not think that way.My bottom line on this is that the truth is in there, but neither "original intent" nor "strict construction" nor biased "current interpretation" will serve us well. Discussions like these are the *only* way for our society to decide the role that guns should play and the rights that should be reserved for the people. The Bill of Rights sets the stage by saying: "there are rights here that are fundamental, but none are absolute" and I do believe that we need to be intelligent in our interpretation, allowing for both our current circumstances as well as responsible compromise to "provide for the common welfare." Patriotically,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 far-right-wing-neo-nazi-extremist???Is that what I am? geez, and all this time I thought I was just a ... never mind, I get the picture, you flaming libby! ;) The idea that the constitution is designed to provide the means for its own destruction is very disturbing and I really doubt that was the "original intent."Wow! I think I missed that one too. Maybe I've just lost it here. But I can't remember every reading that the Constitution is the government, or vice-versa. I'm not planning ion storming the Hill with my AK, but if things get crazy... well, who knows?? (just kidding, honey! don't hide the bullets!!) The other extreme is to say that the right to bear arms is *only* for members of the militia, and unless you're a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard you have no such right. Given the terminology and the facts of the day, there turns out to be a *very* strong argument that this is the way it should be interpreted. In your post above, you said that the standing army was the luxury, and that the founders were counting on every man to come to the aid of the country in an attack. Yet now, since we have the luxury of a standing army, the common man is no longer expected to defend the country, and should therefore not own guns. Is that correct? Do you mean 'any' gun, or just the ones that you think are 'bad'? Are there any exceptions? Should a person be able to 'check out' a gun for an animal hunt? What about an off-duty cop, should it be against the law for them to carry when not in uniform? Should we, as a country, get rid of target shooting as a sport? (What would the IOC say to that?) Would the banning of guns also apply to the entertainment industry? No more Dirty Harry movies?I'm not trying to be a PITA, just trying to find the line here. It's nice to know where the lines are... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 I just found these quotes, and they made me smile. Can anyone tell me who said them? Sex in these cases are the *weapon* *not* the cause. So don't ban guns just because people misuse them. Irresponsible gun use and sex use is somewhat similar: its the "irresponsible" part that gets people hurt or killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 far-right-wing-neo-nazi-extremist???Is that what I am? geez, and all this time I thought I was just a ... never mind, I get the picture, you flaming libby! ;) ;) In your post above, you said that the standing army was the luxury, and that the founders were counting on every man to come to the aid of the country in an attack. Yet now, since we have the luxury of a standing army, the common man is no longer expected to defend the country, and should therefore not own guns. Is that correct?That's the argument, but please note that its *not* my position. I like my .45.... Although its common for people who advocate gun ownership to knee jerk react to any restrictions whatsoever as if they were tanamount to confiscating all guns, this is *exactly* what gets in the way of an honest debate about what laws *should* be there. There are extremists on both sides, but should the extremists with the most guns (c.f. Mao quote above) make the laws? Hmmmmm..... I'm-a-girl-so-thats-a-.45-not-a-sign-I'm-happy-to-see-you,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 I just found these quotes, and they made me smile. Can anyone tell me who said them?*I* know who said them! ;) But three things:Yes, gun ownership requires responsibility, and showing lack of responsibility entails increased punishment: Hitting someone with your fist is "assault" hitting someone with your car is "assault with a deadly weapon" and so yes, murder with a gun should get "special circumstances"...Guns are slightly more dangerous than sex, but both require caution, responsibility and safeguards. Both can "go off accidently", can be "aimed in the wrong direction", and can cause long term consequences if "mishandled." So yes, blame the user, but really there's no equivalent of a surface-to-air missile in sex (oh, maybe nemo's got one, I don't know). Every analogy can be stretched from sublime to past absurd...Never underestimate Buffy's ability to argue all sides of a question. Read my sig line! Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted August 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 It appears that some slightly unbalanced people in Great Britan can still access weapons with the government's full approval . My favorite from the story:Police admitted they had shot the wrong man and apologized.nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 I'm-a-girl-so-thats-a-.45-not-a-sign-I'm-happy-to-see-you,Buffy___You crack me up Buffy! ;) I have to counter with I'm-a-boy-so-one-of-those-is-a-.45-and-you-better-hope-I'm-happy-to-see-you. ;) ___Back on topic, we haven't argued the nuances of "well" & "regulated", or "militia". All of the wherebys, whenceforths, to whits, etc.. Go ahead Buffy & take a stab at them; they armour the vampire's heart & neck. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share Posted August 20, 2005 Back on topic, we haven't argued the nuances of "well" & "regulated", or "militia". All of the wherebys, whenceforths, to whits, etc.. Go ahead Buffy & take a stab at them; they armour the vampire's heart & neck. ;)I said my peace in post #42 above. Irish misunderstood which bullet I advocated. Lots more whits and wherefores, but I'll demure for the moment until more voices shoot at me from both sides (hopefully not literally!). Keep both those guns holstered big boy... Oh but on nemo's last post, wouldn't it have been a much better result if the Brazilian dude had had a gun to defend himself (remember he was innocent) and had taken out a couple of those Scotland Yard yahoos? Much better outcome I'm sure... Coltishly (and I don't mean the equine kind),Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted August 21, 2005 Report Share Posted August 21, 2005 Coltishly (and I don't mean the equine kind),BuffyWow,.....now I know why I keep my dictionary by my side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted August 21, 2005 Report Share Posted August 21, 2005 I said my peace And I think you also stated your 'piece', didn't you?.45 eh? Nice. Nemo just ordered his big-boy gun for the trip today. I hope to invite you all over for elk steaks in November, after he's used at least one of his newly purchased 'arms'.:P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.