Gibe Home
Annoy.com
Message Forum
Search
Log into your account
Create an Identity
Moments
Terms of Use
|
1 2 | Next >>
Single Page Format / View all Replies
|
| Author |
Topic: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash |
| Pii | Posted: 3/3/1997 8:31:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Nobody has ever walked into the Empire State Building and
proceeded to shoot up the place with a copy of "Catcher in
the Rye."
In the city of New York, nobody is allowed to carry a weapon
either concealed, or in the open. No guns at all among the
general law-abiding populace. If 1 person at the Empire
State building were carrying a weapon that day, just one
person, would the death toll have climbed like it did? If one
good citizen had been allowed to carry a concealed pistol,
wouldn't that person have been able to put an end to the
killing? Even better, had one good citizen had been able to
carry a weapon in the open, would the shooting have
even started?
| | piper | Posted: 3/3/1997 1:02:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Okay, let's deal with the constitution first. In so much as slavery was not considered a violation of the unwillingly imported African's right to liberty, I think it is safe to assume that ceteris paribus applies to the time in which our founding fathers spoke their piece. Let's not become wholly dependent upon a 200+year old document when trying to solve the complexities of our age.
Second, notice I use the word liberty, not freedom. Even Tom J. and the boys recognized the importance of due restraint. I have to register for a driver's license, I have to carry car insurance, I have to register to vote, and if my girlfriend has her way I'll have to sign legal documents to get married. The implicit dangers of these actions pale in comparison to those associated with gun ownership (although my girlfriend comes close when she gets in one of her moods). Why is it so difficult to register a gun and so easy to register a dog?
I admit I don't own any guns and, other than the mechanical beauty of weaponry, I don't understand their appeal. I can however read a newspaper, and I can't ignore what people do with guns. Maybe not you, maybe not your friends-hell, maybe not even that moron down the street wearing a NRA cap and "burn this flag, faggot" T-shirt, but there are alot of pre-postal maniacs out there and I just want a little piece of mind.
peace.
piper
| | Pii | Posted: 3/3/1997 2:03:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
>Okay, let's deal with the constitution first. In so much as
>slavery was not considered a violation of the unwillingly
>imported African's right to liberty, I think it is safe to assume
>that ceteris paribus applies to the time in which our founding
>fathers spoke their piece. Let's not become wholly dependent
>upon a 200+year old document when trying to solve the
>complexities of our age.
Don't underestimate the power of a 200+ year old document
in it's application to our modern age. While it was drafted
in a manner that allowed for flexibility should the need arise,
there are aspects that remain inviolate. The slavery issue
cannot be compared to the provisions of the Second Amendment.
The Framers valued the right to bear arms not merely
for collective defense against invaders but for individual
defense against both criminals and oppressive government.
It is the use of personal weapons against oppressive government
that was first, and foremost, on their minds. They had just
finished a war with such an oppressive government, and this
provision was important to them, as it should be to all of us.
>I admit I don't own any guns and, other than the mechanical
>beauty of weaponry, I don't understand their appeal.
Regarding your not seeing thier appeal, see my post about
books.
>I can however read a newspaper, and I can't ignore what
>people do with guns. Maybe not you, maybe not your
>friends-hell, maybe not even that moron down the
>street wearing a NRA cap and "burn this flag, faggot"
>T-shirt, but there are alot of pre-postal maniacs out
>there and I just want a little piece of mind.
How many of the violent acts committed with guns are
committed by the criminal element, and how many are committed
by home-owners, and self-defense advocates? Your peace
of mind is not more valuable than every American's liberty.
Would it interest you to know that the Police have no legal
obligation to protect you as an individual citizen?
Warren v. District of Columbia - Police have "no duty" to
protect. It does not say that won't or don't protect. It is a
statement of legal non-reliance. You can't rely on police
to protect you. That is what the whole Concealed Carry
movement is about for many people. If the police are not
to be relied upon to be there when needed than the average
citizen needs to provide for their own protection. It is not
a knock on police. It is kind-of-like a statement of physics.
Cops can't be everywhere at all times. The residents of
this country have a long history of relying on themselves for
their own protection. The concept that police are here
to "protect" you is a recent occurance. Probably should
be tied to the idea that the government needs to "protect"
people from the cradle to the grave.
Would it surprise you that I don't own a gun either? It's true.
But I resent deeply that the annointed "protectors" have no
obligation to protect me, or my family, and that the government
seems all too happy to restict my options to do so myself. And
yes, I am leery about any government that seeks ways to
disarm it's citizenry.
You are familiar with the concept of "checks and balances"
I presume. An armed citizenry is the "people's" check against
the government.
| | piper | Posted: 3/3/1997 3:03:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Now I'm lost. Please redirect me toward the point of our contention:
· I have a great deal of respect for the constitution and I often marvel at the applicability of its discipline. However, I would be foolish to assume that the framers anticipated all of our problems.
· The slavery reference was added to illustrate the real time adjustments we must make when applying codes, and not as a slap toward your interpretation of the second amendment.
· At no time during this discussion have I suggested that guns or the legal right to possession be abolished. To the contrary, your right to own, display, fire, sell, trade or do whatever people do with guns should be protected and cherished.
So I'm confused. All I ask is for a "well-regulated" system, to quote our forefathers. 'kay?
buiochas,
piper
btw, can I assume from your posted legal finding that the fragment "To Serve and Protect" plastered on all of my hometown's police cars is nonsense?
| | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 7:17:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Our point of contention, assuming we have one (which,
I'm not sure we really do), is setting up the boundaries
for that "well-regulated" system.
I don't like grouping folks together, but it seems as though
neither you, nor Ven, are trying to prevent me from owning
as many guns as I like, of whatever type I choose. The
both of you just want to keep guns out of the hands of
violent, career criminals, or the mentally incompetant.
Believe me, I don't want to allow violent career criminals
to purchase weapons either. But no regulatory law has
been concieved, or will be concieved, that will do that.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. How can
you possibly legislate guns out of the hands of criminals?
Laws that prevent Criminals from obtaining weapons through
legal channels will surely result in Criminals obtaining weapons
through illegal channels. Legislation can only effectively
disarm the law-abiding. That is clearly not where the problems
of gun related violence originates.
A five day waiting period may cost a law-abiding citizen
his or her life. If someone is prevented from legally obtaining
a gun for purposes of self-defense at the instant that person
feels they need it, any harm that comes to that person during
the course of that waiting period is innocent blood on the
hands of the state.
I can get access to my bank account instantaneously from
nearly anywhere in the world through the use of an ATM
machine. Why can't a background investigation (which I
am not opposed to) be conducted within a relatively similair
time period? As Criminals are subject to forfieture of a number
of thier rights, wouldn't the best course of action, the best
compromise, be to maintain a national database of criminals
that have been convicted of crimes that would disallow the
purchase of legal firearms? Why wasn't this enacted instead
of a waiting period?
That, in my opinion, would be a far better solution than
anything the "opposition" has suggested so far. Every
piece of legislation thus far has been restrictive to the
wrong group of people. Punish the Criminals, not good
citizens.
| | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 8:56:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Piper asked:
>btw, can I assume from your posted legal finding that
>the fragment "To Serve and Protect" plastered on all
>of my hometown's police cars is nonsense?
It's not nonsense. That is clearly the purpose of Police.
What is nonsense is the assumption that alot of people
make, that being that the Police are held
responsible for protecting them, and thier families.
Basically, the outcome of Warren v. District of Columbia
was this: If you or your family are the victims of a crime,
you cannot sue the Police Department for allowing that
crime's occurrance. I'm not a lawyer, but that is my take.
And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. We can't
possibly hold the Police responsible if bad things happen
to us or our families. They have a tremendous job to do,
and for the most part, I think they do an admirable job.
The fact remains though... They can't be everywhere at
all times. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of you
and your family lies with you. If you agree with that, then
you can also see that there is a justifiable need for you
to be able to have near immediate access to the tools
that will allow you to keep yourself, and your family, safe.
| | Ven | Posted: 3/4/1997 1:16:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
The presence of a gun in the home raises the likelihood of accidental death in that home by twelve times. A gun in the home is four times more likely to kill or injure a member of that household than an intruder.
The Center for Disease Control, Atlanta. (The CDC)
A Seattle based study concluded that for each example of a gun used in self-defense to kill an intruder, there were 42.9 other gun fatalities, including accidental gun death, criminal homocide and suicide.
The American Civil Liberties Union (The ACLU)
20% of all law enforcement personel who die in the line of duty are killed with their own guns.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (The FBI)
| | Pii | Posted: 3/5/1997 7:11:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, of the University of Chicago,
have concluded that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent
crimes, and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states
which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in
1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated
assaults would have been avoided yearly. . . . [T]he estimated annual gain from allowing
concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun
laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5%, and rapes and aggravated
assaults fell by 5% and 7%." ("Crime, Deterrence, And Right-To-Carry Concealed
Handguns," 1997)
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared
to states without right-to-carry laws. Total violent crime is 18% lower; homicide is
21% lower; robbery is 32% lower; and aggravated assault is 11% lower. (FBI)
Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of Florida carry licenses have been revoked
because of firearm crimes committed by licensees. (Florida Dept. of State)
Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5 million protective
uses of firearms each year in the U.S., more than four times the reported number of
violent crimes committed with firearms. Most protective uses do not involve discharge
of a firearm. In only about 0.1% of protective gun uses are criminals killed, and in only
1% are criminals wounded. A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose
not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted
being scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Armed
and Considered Dangerous, 1986)
I really liked the one about the 20% of Law Enforcement dying with thier
own weapons... So naturally, for thier own protection, we should in fact
disarm the Police.
Have you seen the Florida statistics?
Since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide, firearm homicide, and handgun
homicide rates have decreased 36%, 37%, and 41%, respectively, while the national
homicide rate decreased 0.4% and firearm and handgun homicide rates increased 15% and
24%, respectively. (FBI)
| | Ven | Posted: 3/9/1997 11:52:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Pii,
The first study you quoted above said:
If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly.
What that is saying is that the mere existence of right-to-carry laws puts an end to all violent crime. How totally fucking absurd. That's like trying to say that the mere existence of gun control regulation puts an end to all violent crime. More guns = less violence. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect fucking sense.
Stats comparing violent crime stats in right-to-carry states vs. the rest are also ridiculous, because the right-to-carry states are all much less densely populated than the others. More densely populated means more violent crime.
The rate of violent crimes have been dropping nationwide for five years.
A justice department survey of felons? Meaning what? They asked a bunch of jailbirds what makes them chicken out on a crime? Yeah, that seems like a good way to form opinions. Yikes.
This one is classic:
Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S....Most protective uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only about 0.1% of protective gun uses are criminals killed, and in only 1% are criminals wounded.
You realize of course that to come up with such stats, Mr. Kleck considers the simple legal ownership of a gun to be a 'protective use'. Whose payroll is that fucker on?
The stats about law enforcement being killed with their own guns are simply fact. I posted them not to suggest disarming the cops, please don't put words in my mouth. I posted them to illustrate that even the best trained gun owners can fail to successfully use their weapon for their own defense, and often due. Doesn't that say something to you about the millions of untrained gun owners and their false sense of security?
Yes I've seen the Florida stats. They are really interesting, but you can't prove that the right-to-carry law had anything at all to do with the drop in crime, and I can't prove that it didn't, so what does it have to do with anything in this argument?
Speaking of irrelevent, here's an interesting mission for you. Research the racial breakdown of how right-to-carry permits are issued in each state which does so. You'll find blatantly racist percentages in who applied vs. who was granted a permit. Apparently these laws have an unwritten clause which says you have to be white to get a permit. Only people of color commit gun crimes so only white people should be legally allowed to conceal and carry guns? Might that be the illogic behind such a scenario? Naah, not in the right-to-carry states which are so known for their racial harmony.
| | Bastardo | Posted: 3/13/1997 8:51:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
>The first study you quoted above said:
>
>If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992,
>approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided
>yearly.
>
>What that is saying is that the mere existence of right-to-carry laws puts an end to all violent crime.
No, its saying that some crime victims would be alive if they had had access to the same weapons
their assailants had.
>totally fucking absurd. That's like trying to say that the mere existence of gun control regulation puts an end
>to all violent crime.
Its not at all. You are totally fucking comparing apples and oranges.
> More guns = less violence. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect fucking sense.
Do you think, ever? When does violence arise? Answer: when the aggressive party does not
fear retaliation, or doesn't care.
>Stats comparing violent crime stats in right-to-carry states vs. the rest are also ridiculous, because the
>right-to-carry states are all much less densely populated than the others. More densely populated means more
>violent crime.
That's not the comparison. The comparison is yearly, within the same state. Dumbass.
>The rate of violent crimes have been dropping nationwide for five years.
It has dropped a lot more in the right to carry states. Did you pay attention in
science class? This is how you analyze data.
>A justice department survey of felons? Meaning what? They asked a bunch of jailbirds what makes them
>chicken out on a crime? Yeah, that seems like a good way to form opinions. Yikes.
Yeah. Criminology is stupid. Why would they ever study criminals?
>This one is classic:
>
>Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each
>year in the U.S....Most protective uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only about 0.1% of
>protective gun uses are criminals killed, and in only 1% are criminals wounded.
>You realize of course that to come up with such stats, Mr. Kleck considers the simple legal ownership of a
>gun to be a 'protective use'. Whose payroll is that fucker on?
No, that would put the protective use figure = to the number of people who own firearms. Which I would
guess to closer to 90 million.
BTW, Klecker is on my payroll. So is the ACLU, though.
>The stats about law enforcement being killed with their own guns are simply fact. I posted them not to
>suggest disarming the cops, please don't put words in my mouth. I posted them to illustrate that even the
>best trained gun owners can fail to successfully use their weapon for their own defense, and often due. Doesn't
>that say something to you about the millions of untrained gun owners and their false sense of security?
How about your sense of security? Can the police protect you? What are you going to want by your
side, an effective weapon or a cell phone?
>Yes I've seen the Florida stats. They are really interesting, but you can't prove that the right-to-carry law had
>anything at all to do with the drop in crime, and I can't prove that it didn't, so what does it have to do with
>anything in this argument?
See the point above about how to analyze data. The astounding drops in crime correspond with the
adoption of the laws in question. This does not prove causation, but direct causation of anything is
rarely ever proved in sociological studies.
>Speaking of irrelevent, here's an interesting mission for you. Research the racial breakdown of how
>right-to-carry permits are issued in each state which does so. You'll find blatantly racist percentages in who
>applied vs. who was granted a permit. Apparently these laws have an unwritten clause which says you have
>to be white to get a permit. Only people of color commit gun crimes so only white people should be legally
>allowed to conceal and carry guns? Might that be the illogic behind such a scenario? Naah, not in the
>right-to-carry states which are so known for their racial harmony.
That is absurd, and you know it. If you meet the criteria, you get the permit. You can ask someone else
what the criteria are.
Bastardo: armed and living in a bad neighborhood
| | Ven | Posted: 4/18/1997 1:25:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide(The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7,August 13, 1992, pp. 467- 472. ) and 3 times more likely to experience a homicide(Vol. 329, No. 15, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1001. ) than residents of homes without guns.
A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.
(New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)
The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim s risk of injury and death.
(Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48. )
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the majority of these deaths (398) occurred in the home where the handgun was kept. Residents most often were shot by a relative or family member, their spouse, a roommate, or themselves not a criminal stranger. In fact, 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified.
(Ibid.)
Almost 85% of all health-care expenses due to gunshot injuries and fatalities is charged to taxpayers.
(The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 260. November 25, 1988, p. 3048. )
Estimates of the total cost of gun violence vary. Researchers Max and Rice estimate that the 1990 costs of direct medical spending and lost productivity in the United States totaled $20.4 billion. Other researchers, Miller and Cohen, concluded that the total 1992 cost of firearm violence was $112 billion when taking into consideration direct medical costs, lost productivity, and lost quality of life. This study also reported that each of the estimated 4.91 billion bullets sold in 1992 represented $23 in costs due to firearm violence, including $0.60 in medical and emergency services, $7.20 in lost productivity, and $15.10 in pain, suffering, and lost quality of life. A study by Gannet, Inc., estimates that the average expense of each incidence of gun violence totals well over $300,000. This study estimates that the total cost of gun violence is $135 billion each year.
(Lori Sharn, Shootings, Killings, Cost the USA Untold Billions, USA Today, December 29, 1993, p. 4A.)
| | naturallyblonde | Posted: 4/18/1997 8:38:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Oh, Ven, you've outdone yourself.
Citing medical journals that purport to be expert in the probabilities of gun abuse (sure, they get some of their cases that way), a magazine written for the scientifically uneducated, and an article in which even the title is obviously biased, from a publication whose reputation is questionable does little to strengthen your case. Just thought you should know. I read your post because I hoped you'd send me to the library, but no.
The Miller and Cohen "findings" are particularly laughable. Exactly what criteria they use to equate quality of life to a dollar figure is immaterial; it can't be done. And "each bullet" did not do any such things as they claim. Far more bullets end up NOT hitting people than hitting them, so the claim that "each bullet" cost anything more than its purchase price is ludicrous. Oh, I know they got their numbers by simply dividing by the number of bullets sold (and how did they estimate the number of reclaimed shells reloaded in homes, anyway?), but the "findings" show how willing those "researchers" are to twist the language of statistics.
| | StraightNotNarrow | Posted: 4/18/1997 10:30:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
NaturallyBlonde:
The weakness of your reply clearly demonstrates how little sound evidence your arguments stand on.
< Citing medical journals that purport to be expert in the probabilities of gun abuse (sure, they get some of their cases that way) >
What's that supposed to imply? Are you suggesting that the JAMA is something less than a sound, rigorously peer-reviewed journal? How about some evidence? Yours is the typical critique of someone who can't dispute the facts: make a bunch of broad, hand-waving insinuations about the character and supposed motives of the researchers instead. Boy, am I convinced by that. Real scientific!
< a magazine written for the scientifically uneducated >
Huh? Scientific American? You must be thinking of Omni. Again, where's the evidence that SA publishes sloppy science?
< and an article in which even the title is obviously biased >
What "unbiased" title would you give to an article that concludes that gun violence costs the country $billions, and that cites evidence to back it up?
< from a publication whose reputation is questionable >
No matter which publication you mention, I can find someone who questions its reputation. So what? Totally meaningless observation.
< The Miller and Cohen "findings" are particularly laughable. Exactly what criteria they use to equate quality of life to a dollar figure is immaterial; it can't be done. >
What you mean is that it can't be done with a high degree of precision, therefore we should say that someone whose child is killed, or who is paralyzed from the neck down by a gunshot, has lost exactly $0 in quality of life. I beg to differ, and so would you if you were in that position. That's a lot more laughable than trying to make a reasonable, if imperfect, estimate. If you looked into it beyond the tip of your nose, you'd find that such estimates are considered ridiculous by people who are injured, because they don't begin to put a high enough dollar value on the actual experience of pain and suffering.
< And "each bullet" did not do any such things as they claim. Far more bullets end up NOT hitting people than hitting them, so the claim that "each bullet" cost anything more than its purchase price is ludicrous. >
Of course each bullet didn't cost the buyer any more than its sticker price, but do you seriously believe the bullets that DO hit people don't cost us taxpayers anything? Sounds like you think all those billions of dollars in police, hospital, lost work, destroyed families, etc., etc. are paid by the people who did the shooting. Dream the fuck on.
< (and how did they estimate the number of reclaimed shells reloaded in homes, anyway?) >
Who the hell cares? Are you saying just as many cartridges are reloads as are sold complete? I doubt that, but if so, all it does is change the average societal cost per bullet to $12 instead of $23. The total bill stays the same, and I for one resent having to pay my piece of it.
If this were a rational country, we'd _begin_ by making a sound estimate of the average cost per bullet, and then tax cartridges (or gunpowder) accordingly. I'm not saying the "real" number is $113B or $134B or whatever, or that a perfect estimate can be obtained, but I don't doubt that taxpayers are shelling out tens of billions one way or another. A good guess is a lot better than an inane assumption like $0. If you're so smart, what's your estimate of the cost of gun violence to this country? And who do you think should pay for it?
| | naturallyblonde | Posted: 4/20/1997 7:39:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Gee, SNN, no use arguing with you: you know everything!
Perhaps you misunderstood my post: I merely told Ven that his “authorities” did not compel *me* to run and check it out, as I had anticipated when I saw that he had posted.
Pot? Or Kettle? How many “broad, hand-waving insinuations” in your post? You used more words to say that you disagree about the dollar cost of loss of life, but again, nothing scientifically compelling. So I was terse. Sue me.
“Who cares” how researchers come up with their numbers? Do you really just soak up articles that concur with your opinions, or do you judge the credence of the writer by the way he presents the material?
“I'm not saying the ‘real’ number is $113B or $134B or whatever” yet you are asking me to do just that, SNN. Think about it. I already said that the “quality of life” component could not be esitmated. Does that help you figure out my answer? (Assuming I would trust much of their other data.)
Then compare apples and oranges. I do not dispute that there is a dollar cost associated with each gun death, as there is with many other types of death (other accidents, drug overdoses, natural diseases). But you want to mix apples (cost of death) with oranges (quality of life portion) to try and put me on the spot. “A good guess is a lot better than an inane assumption like $0,” while any other inane guess is just as inane as 0.
And who should pay for it is the person or persons responsible for the gun death, duhhhhh. Just as drivers in car crashes are responsible for accidental deaths by that vehicle. In neither case is it always possible to collect; in neither case is it acceptable to shift the responsibility to those not involved.
| | Ven | Posted: 4/20/1997 7:45:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
What the fuck are you babbling about NB? You used alot of text and said absolutely nothing to refute SNN's previous post.
Guns are costly to society. Very costly. That's the point you were originally arguing against. That's the point SNN was arguing.
Now...semantics, research methods and number crunching aside, do you or don't you agree that guns are very costly, in many ways, to our society?
| | naturallyblonde | Posted: 4/21/1997 5:59:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Duhhh, Ven. You'd like that wouldn't you? To play the game by YOUR rules and just come out and say guns are costly to society. Well I won't. I'll play by my own rules, thank you.
In considering any issue, one needs to weigh the costs AND the benefits to determine where one stands. So the answer to your question is, I think the benefits of having guns far outweigh the costs. It's a subjective matter as many benefits are intangible, and unlike SNN, I think it ludicrous to try and place a dollar value on them.
| | Ven | Posted: 4/21/1997 7:48:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Oh I think I see what you're saying, lemme see if I've got it about right:
The cost of the destruction caused by guns cannot be accurately measured in economic terms, therefore it is wrong to say that guns cause destruction? Isn't that just about what you're saying?
If so, then please tell us how you measured things to help you come to your thought that "the benefits of having guns far outweigh the costs." Or are you saying that the benefits can be measured but the destruction can't?
| | naturallyblonde | Posted: 4/22/1997 1:33:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
No ven, that is not even close to what I said. Although you may wish I had, stop putting your stupid words in my mouth.
I DID tell you how I weighed the parts of the issue, but you prefer to call me inept. I said it's a subjective matter, so, obviously, the issues weighed are subjective and so is the opinion. I think you are largely motivated by your brother's death...subjective. Why not just admit that it has nothing to do with dollar values and stop trying to "scientifically prove" an emotional issue.
To paraphrase a much earlier post of yours, your job is to try and refute arguments from people like me and back up your refutation with fact. My job, according to me, is to state my opinion and debunk the myths that you call fact.
| | BigMan | Posted: 4/22/1997 6:29:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and Hollywood wannabes) will have guns
| | Ven | Posted: 4/23/1997 12:20:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
NB,
I don't care to have a discussion about this discussion, or a debate about this debate, or an argument about this argument. If you want to do that, take it to the off topic boards.
Now, in an attempt to rerail this derailed topic, we were last discussing the costs of gun violence to our society. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that you believe that guns save more money for society than they cost. SNN and I were begging to differ. A main problem you seemed to have with our arguments was due to your belief that 'emotional damage' and 'damage to quality of life' are not measurable.
Well, semantically I agree with you, but until courts and juries stop awarding victims with money for emotional trauma, loss to quality of life and other 'immeasurable' effects, these things are, and will remain, a part of the economic costs of gun violence.
| | beelzebub | Posted: 4/24/1997 2:51:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Ven,
I agree 100% that guns are costly to society, But
so are a lot of other things. Besides, what do
propose to do? outlaw them? Part of the reason for
so many accidental killings is that people are so
paranoid about crime, they shoot first, and ask
questions later. Until non-lethal methods of disabling
an assailant from a distance become available, and
affordable, guns are the only option.
| | Ven | Posted: 4/24/1997 11:42:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Beelz,
As I've said many times in these threads, I do not advocate the total outlawing of firearms, but reasonable legislation for waiting periods, background checks, licensing, registration and other reasonable regulation.
As for methods other than guns, well, there is always that crazy concept of non-violent conflict resolution.
Remember the days when there were fistfights at bars? More and more, violent conflicts in public (and private) end in gunfire and death instead of hand to hand combat easily broken up by a gathered crowd. Things have gotten way out of hand and I believe that certain forms of gun control can cut down on some of the insanity. The U.S. is way ahead of the rest of the industrialized nations in it's gratuitous gun violence.
| | beelzebub | Posted: 4/24/1997 12:15:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I agree with you once again 100%. But i also disagree with
you at the same time. Yes, we should require all those things you
mentioned, in fact if i had my way, i would require anyone
who wanted to purchase a gun to attend a mandatory education
and safety course. Unfortunately, that will not stop someone
from reaching for a firearm during a heated discussion, it
won't stop that twelve year old from killing his friend while
showing off dad's spiffy new gun, and it won't stop someone from
blowing their loved one away after mistaking him or her for an
intruder. There HAS to be a non-lethal alternative to guns that
can be used for self protection. Unfortunately, guns are so cheap,
relatively speaking, that no one seems willing to R&D these
alternative self defense weapons.
| | Ven | Posted: 4/24/1997 1:11:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Agreed that more regulation won't stop all those things, but it will cut down on the circulation of guns simply by virtue of the fact that the more hassle it takes to get a gun means fewer people buying guns with less frequency.
Which means: fewer twelve year olds killing their friends while showing off dad's spiffy new gun, and fewer folks blowing their loved ones away after mistaking him or her for an intruder, fewer people getting shot during domestic squabbles that get out of hand, fewer bar fights turned gun fights, fewer neighbors getting killed over disputes, fewer people putting a gun in their mouth instead of prozac.
More regulation = more responsibility in ownership = less circulation = less tragic death.
| | hawk | Posted: 4/26/1997 1:42:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
ven
" but reasonable legislation"
who is to determine what reasonable legislation is? by your standards or mine.
|
|
Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a Reply
Black and White Version
Full color Version
Copyright © 2006 Innoventions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gibe and Gibe.com are trademarks of Innoventions, Inc.
|
