How To Argue For Gun Control.

That would be your opinion. Public policy must never be based upon opinion.

 

Again, this is your opinion.

 

It makes no sense to you. To those who've worked in the criminal justice system and know US DOJ stats, it makes perfect sense.

 

Let's take a look at stats of black Americans:

[SIZE=14pt]The amount of people in poverty would drop - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]34%,[/SIZE]




























[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]The prison population would go down by -[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]37%,[/SIZE]





[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]








[SIZE=14pt]Welfare recipients would go down by - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]42%,[/SIZE]








[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]








[SIZE=14pt]Gang members would go down by - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]53%,[/SIZE]








[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]





[SIZE=14pt]Chlamydia cases would go down - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]54%,[/SIZE]






[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]






[SIZE=14pt]Homelessness would go down - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]57%,[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]Syphilis would go down - - - - - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]58%,[/SIZE]






[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]






[SIZE=14pt]AIDS & HIV would go down by - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]65%[/SIZE][SIZE=18pt],[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]






[SIZE=14pt]Gonorrhea would go down - - - - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]69%[/SIZE][SIZE=18pt],[/SIZE]






[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]Average ACT scores would go UP - - - - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]5.5 points,[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]Average IQ would go UP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]7.4 points, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]putting us 3rd in the world tied with Japan, [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]Average SAT scores would go UP almost - - - - - [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]100 points[/SIZE][SIZE=18pt],[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

 

Here's an excellent source of crime in American that's derived from US DOJ stats:

http://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/

Before posting emotional gobbledygook, it would behove you to gain actual knowledge. Peruse US DOJ crime stats. FBI crime stats: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appendices/appendix_02.html

If we were to factor out crimes committed by minorities, we'd have one of the lowest if not the lowest crime rate in the world.

Posters here want to obliterate Madison's Second Amendment, which was influenced by John Locke, because minorities commit vastly disproportionate crimes. That's like taking away all cars because some people drive drunk. Cars do not cause drunk driving, and guns do not cause crime. In fact, as John Lott, an Ivy League professor, proved in More Guns, Less Crime, guns actually reduce crime rates.

It seems as though no one here knows why Madison memorialized our natural right to keep and bear arms. However, they're willing, based upon emotion, to destroy Madison's Second Amendment.

 

If they were to legalize drugs, there would be less criminals and less gun crime.
Let's forget about gun control and reduce crime as a whole.

And if you want to reduce STDs, sell antibiotics over the counter and at cost price.
The medical profession and big pharma put profit before people.

Prison stats, America imprisons the poor, then makes money from the prisoners.
Most of the prison population shouldn't be there in a liberal society.
The only reason poor coloured people are in prison, is because rich white folk want them there.

 

This is devious deceit. Oh yeah, aren't you racist?

 

This is fallacy. Legalizing drugs would not eliminate black market drugs.

 

It worked for alcohol!
I don't see organized crime selling much moonshine these days.

 

Facts are not racist. They are knowledge.

 

That depends upon where you live.

Black market alcohol is more difficult to move than black market drugs. And there's far more money in black market drugs, including illegal transfer of prescription opioids.

 

Legalize all drugs. Recreational and medical. Charge a reasonable price and the black market is gone.
I live in a country where medical drug prices are controlled by the government, big pharma wants a silly price, the government makes and sells the drug themselves at a reasonable price.

For example
Viagra, $1 a pill, government manufactured.
All the super expensive HIV drugs, manufactured by the government and given away free of charge.

 

Do not think for a second that America is like your country. We're Americans. We will do what's right for Americans. We want no part of globalism.

 

Mac

Not sure what you are getting at – are you saying you think the US not like the other developed countries and closer to the undeveloped Mexico?

I mean of the list Mexico stands out as a developing country rather than as an established developed country, some reasons holding it back are the economy, corruption and (related) the problem of crime especially organized crime (accounting for its high murder rate of 6.34 per 100,000 pop - wiki)

Of the developed states gun related homicide rates it is the US that stands out –

US – 3.43
Canada – 0.38
UK – 0.06
France – 0.21
Germany 0.07
Switzerland – 0.23
I could go on….

We have been through this many times your stance seems to be to do nothing that might inconvenience gun owners and that you seem happy to allow the deaths and injuries to continue, I mean that comes across very clearly from what you have said in this thread.

The thing is that you don’t seem that interested in trying to improve your society for everyone in it.

 

Laguna

And to repeat again - what do you think are the reasons behind such crime statistics and how would you tackle them?

And I really would wish that people read a thread before posting so that we don’t have to keep going over the same old stuff that been covered before –

John Lott’s theories have been thoroughly debunked since he first proposed them (see above).

As to the cars thing it’s been covered at length – basically developed countries spend a lot of time and effort trying to reduce the harm that comes from car ownership, if you look at the myriad regulation surrounding it that becomes obvious many gun control advocates would be happy to have similar rules allied to trying to reduce hard from gun ownership (it’s all there above if you want to read it).

 

Old

I’m all for a holistic approach and reform of drug policy would be high on the list, but gun control would have to be part of that approach.

BIG BAD IDEA – its would make the problem worse by creating antibiotic resistant bugs. Better to have a free at source health service run as a public service rather than as a business.

I agree and will post an extract from something I’ve posted before about what I see as the reasons for that, to me it seems to be about using intimidation as a means of social control.

 

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Against Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

Against Crime

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

 

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is mainly caused by farmers using them on their animals. It's all about making money.
There are also antibiotic resistant bacteria appearing in hospitals, a problem caused by the hospital and their staff.

The claim home users are causing the problem is entirely bogus!

 

I'm not saying it is the only factor but it is a big factor -


Factors impacting on the problem of antibiotic resistance

“In some parts of the world, antibiotics are available over the counter in pharmacies, like other commodities. In some countries, vendors sell antibiotics on the street. This means of distribution provides the worst scenario for emergence of resistance”
http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/1/25.long

What is the origin of resistance to antibiotics?
[SIZE=12pt]The main origin of resistance to antibiotics[/SIZE]1 is their misuse. As underlined by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) they are three main types of misuse:

1. [SIZE=12pt]The unnecessary prescription of antibiotics for viral infections, against which they have no effect; [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=12pt]The too frequent prescription of “broad-spectrum antibiotics”, in place of a better targeted antibiotic, through more precise diagnosis;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The inadequate use by the patient, not respecting either dosage or duration of the treatment[/SIZE]