Defend the Second Amendment!

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I do look at what’s been said but that is the thing I can only work with what is given I’m not a mind reader I cannot comment on what someone thinks they have said.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]My view is that ease of access to very lethal weapons [guns] is likely to result in higher levels of fatality, through accident, self harm or murder. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Some seem to disagree with that view and argue for example that in the case of murder, the murders would still kill as many people but with other weapons like kitchen knives, spears or bows and arrows. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m skeptical of that argument because it doesn’t seem to fit with what goes on in other developed countries with less ease of access to guns and it seems to suggest that Americans are much more murderous than other people, which I just don’t believe. [/SIZE]

 

Right. My insane aunt swears she will shoot any unknown person that knocks on her door in cold blood. How does a lunatic like that get a gun? We are estranged (for obvious reasons). And we wonder why so many of our high school children are killing each other in school? Look to the parents...

 

[SIZE=12pt]What I actually pointed out to you is that knives have easier access than all other weapons combined, at least 100,000 to 1 gun and yet they are not used as often for murders. Thus your argument that easy access to guns equals increased gun murders falls apart because it does not follow in the case of easy access to other weapons.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As I pointed out there could be many different reasons for there being less knife murders than gun murders but ease of access would seem to have nothing to do with it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Now instead of assuming that I am saying what you want to be said so you can repeat over and over again your same thread worn cut and paste arguments, try addressing what is actually being said to you.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We have been through this – it is much easier to kill with a gun therefore the easier accessibility of guns is likely to result in higher homicide rates etc, and this seem to be the case when comparing the US with countries with less easy access. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Unless you are arguing that the homicide levels would be just as high without the ease of access to guns because you think Americans are more murderous than people in those other countries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As explained it is much harder to kill people with a knife and most knives are not brought as weapons that were designed to kill. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve said [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]I can only work with what is given I’m not a mind reader I cannot comment on what someone thinks they have said only on what they have said.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And as anyone can see from your reply it seems people have to repeat themselves because you so often ignore what’s been said to you. [/SIZE]

 

Addressing what you have said here. the point is that knives are more difficult to kill with and you can't kill with a knife at a distance thus protecting yourself from personal injury except in the form of spears but even then the capacity and ease of killing, of which part is not getting schmucked yourself, is much greater with a gun. Numbers is not the issue but conceiving the very existence of guns ,as a matter of protection is. The best protection in life is healthy relations.

 

The old bait and switch, I give you an agrument that adresses your statement; "[SIZE=11pt]My view is that ease of access to very lethal weapons [guns] is likely to result in higher levels of fatality, through accident, self harm or murder." [/SIZE]and instead of addressing it you switch to "[SIZE=11pt]it is much easier to kill with a gun". So what is it; is it ease of access, ease of use or both.[/SIZE]

And now you slip back into "ease of access". Please make up your mind.

What a knife is bought for does not change what it can be used for.

Interestingly these people didn't seem to find it harder to kill people with a knife:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/04/judge-condemns-needless-use-knifes-kai-steele-alex-scott
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/24/police-murder-inquiry-machete-attack-tuffley-gloucestershire
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/jan/23/victoria-adams-murder-andre-bright
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/14/teenage-girl-accused-plot-murder-jeremie-malenge-hackney
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/07/teenage-boy-killed-east-london-street-attack

I'm not asking you to be a mind reader, just a reader.

No, that's you .

 

And me.

 

So......If guns finally do get banned,,,will you have the balls to support enforcement and prosecution of offenders?

Or will it just be a feel good thing; and we will move on....... to Whales & Dams & Baby Seals ?

Look at how authority has caved when enforcing against thug culture?

This is the real question to ponder.

 

Old

[SIZE=11pt]This reply would seem to imply you have not been reading the posts in this thread [or other posts in other threads on the subject]. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The point has always been that since guns are very lethal weapons [much more so than say knives] that ease of access to them is likely to result in higher levels of fatality, through accident, self harm or murder[/SIZE]

All along you seem to have disagreed seeming to claim that other things like kitchen knives or bows and arrows are equally effective and that it is not ease of access to guns that accounts for the high level of homicides but the more murderous nature of Americans who’d inflict just as many deaths but with kitchen knives or bows and arrows.

But a set of kitchen knives are a set of kitchen knives their purpose and design is primarily for cooking and bought for that reason, guns were designed as weapons for the purpose of killing.

I don’t think anyone has said that a knife cannot kill someone it’s just that guns are much more efficient and effective at doing so.

 

Piney
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What do you mean by ‘banned’? A lot of people here are not calling for a blanket ban but for regulations that are designed to reduce harm.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For a start by reducing the number of legitimately purchased guns getting into criminal hands I mean according to the FBI most guns in criminal hands in the US were once purchased legally in the US and either passed on to criminals or stolen by them.

Here are some ideas that could alleviate that problem [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.[/SIZE]

 

Balbus,

you and I agree on firearms insurance, on trigger locks and many things, including validation and documentation at gun shows.

I am concerned with illegal handguns being carried about.

 

Piney

It comes down to political will and when you have well funded pro-gun lobbyists and individuals seemingly claiming that any minor regulations is somehow akin to a total ban, an attack on the sacred text of the US constitution, the very freedom of the American people and a vast left wing conspiracy to enslave the world – then that political will doesn’t seem to be there.

And there is also an elephant in the room in this discussion that is often hinted at but rarely if ever mentioned openly and that is the matter of race.

In my 14 years here I can remember only one pro-gun American saying it openly he said that white pro gun Americans would never embrace gun control as long as gun related homicide were mainly a black on black thing that took place in poor areas and not around where they lived.

Here is a the conservative Rod Dreher on the subject –

"Yesterday the Baton Rouge Advocate published a lengthy analysis of the 2012 murder stats in the city…Last year, 83 people died by homicide in Baton Rouge. Of that number, 87% were black, and 87% were male. Two-thirds had been in trouble with the law before, and one-third had been in trouble with the law for drugs. The median age of victims: 26.

Of the perpetrators, the median age was 22. Get this: 96% of them were black, and 90% were male. Almost two-thirds had previous arrests. One out of four had a drug record. Most of the murders took place in the poorest parts of the city.

What can we learn from these statistics? That murder in Baton Rouge is almost entirely about young black men from the poor part of town killing other young black men from the poor part of town. It's mostly a matter of thugs killing thugs."

The right wing Ann Coulter is even clearer claiming that the murder rate among white Americans is as low as the murder rate in Belgium. "So perhaps it's not a gun problem," she concluded. "Perhaps it's a demographic problem."

Which basically seems to imply that the ease of access to guns in the US only seems to be resulting in the premature deaths of large numbers of young black people so that’s all right then, so there is no real problem associated with having that ease of access to guns then.

Because in general right wing policies toward dealing with this ‘demographic problem’ seem aimed at making things worse rather than better.

Also I think some of the fear some Americans feel about their society is that one day the ‘problem’ will break out of the poor areas.


*

Anyway ideas toward this –


Get a better drugs policy one based in reality and on reducing harm and risk which is geared toward healthcare rather than criminalization.


A New Deal type of Public Works Administration to give people jobs and training.


Reforming the police and judicial system so it is less about containment and more about been proactive.

 

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns.

2012
pop = 314,100,000
deaths by firearms (murders?) = 8,855
8855/3141 = 2.819165871 per 100000

2010 (worst case)
#1 District of Columbia - 21.8 murders per 100K, 16.5 by gun - gun owners 3.6%
#2 Louisiana - 9.6 murders per 100K, 7.7 by gun - gun owners 44.1%
#3 Maryland - 7.3 murders per 100K, 5.1 by gun - gun owners 21.3%

2010 (best case)
#1 New Hampshire - 1.0 murders per 100K, 0.4 by gun - gun owners 30.0%
#2 Vermont - 1.1 murders per 100K, 0.3 by gun - gun owners 42.0%
#3 Iowa - 1.2 murders per 100K, 0.7 by gun - gun owners 42.9%

Least population owning guns
#1 District of Columbia - 3.6% own guns, 21.8 murders per 100K, 16.5 by gun
#2 Hawaii - 6.7% own guns, 1.8 murders per 100K, 0.5 by gun
#3 New Jersey - 12.3% own guns, 4.1 murders per 100K, 2.8 by gun

Most population owning guns
#1 Wyoming - 59.7% own guns, 1.4 murders per 100K, 0.9 by gun
#2 Alaska - 57.8% own guns, 4.4 murders per 100K, 2.7 by gun
#3 Montana - 57.7% own guns, 2.1 murders per 100K, 1.2 by gun

 

Indie

First I’d disagree with your worst case for murders per 100K the place in the US with the highest recorded count by a long stretch with 149 murders per 100,000 people is Cabot Cove, Maine.

But anyway –

(worst case)

#1 District of Columbia –

21.8 murders per 100K, 16.5 by gun - gun owners 3.6%

Unemployment rate 7.3 (worst unemployment rate in US)

Poverty rate by household income 20.7% (Worst rate in US)

Population 658,893

Population density 9,316 people per square mile

Largest city (it basically is the city of Washington DC)

#2 Louisiana –

9.6 murders per 100K, 7.7 by gun - gun owners 44.1%

Unemployment rate 6.7

Poverty rate by household income 18.3%

Population 4,649,676

Population density 107.1

Largest city New Orleans homicide rate 57.6 per 100,000 (pop 378,715)

#3 Maryland –

7.3 murders per 100K, 5.1 by gun - gun owners 21.3%
Population 5,976,407

Population density 610.8

Unemployment rate 5.5

Poverty rate by household income 9.7%

Largest city Baltimore 37.4 per 100,000 (pop 620,961)

#1 New Hampshire - 1.0 murders per 100K, 0.4 by gun - gun owners 30.0%

Largest city Manchester homicide rate 0.9 (pop 109,565)

unemployment rate 4.0

Poverty rate by household income 5.6% (lowest in US)

Population 1,326,813

Population density 147 people per square mile
#2 Vermont - 1.1 murders per 100K, 0.3 by gun - gun owners 42.0%

Largest city Burlington homicide rate 0 ((pop 42,417)

Unemployment rate 4.2

Poverty rate by household income 7.6%

Population density 68

Pop 626,562

#3 Iowa –

1.2 murders per 100K, 0.7 by gun - gun owners 42.9%

Unemployment rate 4.1

Poverty rate by household income 11.3%

Pop 3,107,126

Population density 55.3

Des Moines homicide rate 0.05 pop 203,433

*

 

Indie

So the thing that hit me first was that I’d heard of Washington DC, New Orleans and Baltimore and knew of their problems (not least from The Wire set in Baltimore) as it is until I looked them up I didn’t know that Manchester was in New Hampshire, Des Moines was in Iowa and had never heard of Burlington let alone that it was the largest city in Vermont.

As many have mentioned there can be many factors involved when it comes to crime rates, some of the best known are population density, unemployment and poverty rates. A rule of being that the higher those rate the more likelihood the rate of crime will be higher.

But lest compare with

England and Wales

0.97 murders per 100K 0.06 by gun - rate of gun ownership 6.2 per 100 people

Population 5.4 million

Population density 371 /sq mi

Unemployment rate 5.8%.

Poverty rate (very differently calculated than US) 23%

Largest city – London homicide rate 1.6 (pop 8.3 million)

So take New Hampshire much lower unemployment rates seemingly much less poverty, far, far less population density and very little in the shape of urban areas – yet its murder rate is on a par with England and Wales

 

I agree, guns are much more efficient than knives, blunt objects, etc. to commit murder, as well as prevent being murdered by someone wielding a knife, or blunt object, etc. which I've had need to do, without firing my weapon in the past, but would have if simply displaying my gun had proved inadequate.

I would be satisfied if our laws mandated very stiff sentences with no time reduction allowed whenever a crime was committed including the use of a weapon, with extra time if someone is injured, and a mandatory life/death sentence if someone is killed. From what I've read, there are more suicides using guns than murders in the U.S. while countries with strict gun laws achieve as many or more suicides by other means, such as hanging, poison or something else. When someone really wants to kill someone they will find a way, if not by a gun then something else, and perhaps with greater collateral damage as well.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Indie [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is that same attitude I’ve highlighted a number of times expressed by a number of Americans that seems to accept the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and have pointed out that this mindset seems to get in the way of those people actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It’s about tackling the symptoms of underlying socio-economic problems but seemingly ignoring the reasons for those social and economic problems (or even wanting to exacerbate them). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]For example the US has some very tough drugs laws and what has it achieved - very full prisons and a continuing and huge illicit drugs market. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]That’s because suicide is usually a personal thing (sui – oneself + cide – to slay) not interactive like killing someone else (slaying another human - homicide). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Without a gun available there can be other methods as mentioned like hanging or putting your head in a gas oven, but such things are harder methods to use in killing another when compared to shooting, and less easy to do in the spur of the moment. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]There is the idea of suicide by police but that is so small in comparisons to most suicides that it is statistically insignificant. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This again seems to be a reinstatement of the deeply flawed ‘Natural born Killers’ argument discussed many times that it is not the easy accessibility of guns that account for the high levels of gun related killings because even without the ease of access to such lethal weapons American killers would still kill as many people but just with other things. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m skeptical of that argument because it doesn’t seem to fit with what goes on in other developed countries with less ease of access to guns and it seems to suggest that Americans are much more murderous than other people, which I just don’t believe. [/SIZE]

 

Reading through this once more it seems to me that the pro gun lobby don’t seem to have any rationally based arguments it all seems to come down to some emotional tug – fear - patriotism (in defence of the US constitution) – all the talk of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’

Given the weakness of pro-gun arguments, I’m surprised they are not confronted more often within the US.

 

^^^My Friend, I was truly shocked that Our President could not pull some kind of deal, in the wake of the Sandy Hook School, Connecticut shootings by Adam Lanza.

I thought that America was on the threshold of some kind of firearms compromise.