The right to bear arms

[SausageofPower]

I think that this rather proves my point. Fewer guns => fewer murders.

You misinterpreted the figures, as already stated, but here's my counter. Read the attachment. It's quite facinating, really.

-Corey



[attachment deleted by admin]

[odeon]

Again, Michael Moore's film is an opinion piece. I cannot stress this enough. It's based on facts but it's angled to give maximum leverage to the message. Thus, the Heston quotes are there for a reason, for maximum effect, for showing what kind of person he is, what kind of leadership the NRA had at the time of the Columbine tragedy.

Let's pick a few examples from the Hardy web page you linked to:

Heston quoted out of context? In the film, Moore pointed out that the NRA meeting was a planned one--if Hardy interprets that scene differently, it's to strengthen his equally biased argument. The fact remains, however, that to hold the NRA meeting right after the shooting, planned or not, was more than tasteless. It was disrespectful. And they held it, in spite of the protests.

The length of the Heston interview? To cut an interview from 23 minutes to a little more than five minutes bothers Mr Hardy. First, I have to wonder why it is that a transcript of that interview hasn't appeared, nor comments from Heston himself? Hardy suggests that Moore cut out three quarters of the interview. I suspect that little more than what was left in the film was actually said about the subject at hand.

When you cut an interview, you remove a lot of "um's", "ah's", interrupted sentences, etc, even when the interviewee is of sound body and mind. Which he, according to you, was not. (I've still not heard you explain why that is relevant, apart form destroying the last of Heston's credibility). This cutting is part of the process and a probable explanation.

Do you have another? If you do, and if there was more said, something that gave another version of the interview or something that actually gave a credible, but different, explanation of that 11,000 death toll, I'm all ears.

I could go on, but rather than making HG's posts pale in comparison with mine, let me refer you to Michael Moore and his article How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine".

The site you referred to earlier is http://www.hardylaw.net, the home page of David T. Hardy, a lawyer associated with the NRA. Hardy's just as biased as Moore, I'd say, it's just that he's on the other side of the fence. And yes, he's also a lawyer and royally pissed. "Columbine", after all, received a lot of attention and even won an Oscar.

Don't you think he, being a lawyer and all, would have sued Moore and the production company, if he could actually prove anything? He does accuse Moore of a lot of things, such as Moore knowingly producing falsifications. Don't you think that the NRA would have jumped at the chance?

This is what Moore says about it:

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. Thatquite's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

[Litigious]

Do you have another? If you do, and if there was more said, something that gave another version of the interview or something that actually gave a credible, but different, explanation of that 11,000 death toll, I'm all ears.

Every death through crimes with guns is a tragedy, but the US is a country with almost 300 million people. 11000 out of 300 millions is about 1/37000. That is like one person/year in a Swedish town of average size would be killed. Do you really think that that is so extremely much that guns should be banned or so extremely restricted that they are here in Sweden and most of Europe?

[odeon]

Do you have another? If you do, and if there was more said, something that gave another version of the interview or something that actually gave a credible, but different, explanation of that 11,000 death toll, I'm all ears.

Every death through crimes with guns is a tragedy, but the US is a country with almost 300 million people. 11000 out of 300 millions is about 1/37000. That is like one person/year in a Swedish town of average size would be killed. Do you really think that that is so extremely much that guns should be banned or so extremely restricted that they are here in Sweden and most of Europe?

Yes.

[SausageofPower]

Yes.

I take it then that you haven't read the report I posted as an attachment in my last post, I'll reply to your other points in a bit (I actually read the material people ask me to before running my mouth).

-Corey

[Litigious]

I have already read that report long ago. The conclusion from it is simple: In those states were the gun laws were loosened up in later years, the number of gun crimes decreased, right the opposite to what the anti-gunners state.

The reason might probably be that criminals are mostly cowards and become less trigger happy if "ordinary folks" aren't helpless slaughter sheeps but potential death machines themselves (in self-defense).

[odeon]

I think that this rather proves my point. Fewer guns => fewer murders.

You misinterpreted the figures, as already stated, but here's my counter. Read the attachment. It's quite facinating, really.

-Corey

'kay. My bad--I should have checked the source PDF before posting. However, my main points stand anyway.

Let me instead point you to Tim Lambert's comments on Mauser's numbers. And here's one that discusses crime rates in the UK. And here's a comparison between "firearm crimes" in the US and Canada.

I think these are enough to show that Mauser's paper, while often quoted by the gun nuts, should be seriously questioned.

Have you heard of Prof. Arthur Kellerman? He's written studies where he's shown how "a firearm in the home represents a greater risk overall than the protection it may offer against intruders, either indirectly or by discouraging potential assaults" (from Wikipedia). Full articles are available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/314/24/1557 and http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084. You can get a limited subscription for free, with access to older articles.

Among other things, he shows that

* there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
* there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
* there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.

(from Wikipedia)

A 1988 article compared Vancouver and Seattle. I cannot locate the article itself, but here's an abstract, and here's Wikipedia's summary:

    * both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
    * in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
    * rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
    * the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
    * the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.

The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.

Fascinating...

[odeon]

I have already read that report long ago. The conclusion from it is simple: In those states were the gun laws were loosened up in later years, the number of gun crimes decreased, right the opposite to what the anti-gunners state.

The reason might probably be that criminals are mostly cowards and become less trigger happy if "ordinary folks" aren't helpless slaughter sheeps but potential death machines themselves (in self-defense).

I think you should read the other side of the argument as well.

[Litigious]

But in countries where firearms are less available, knives and blunt objects are used instead, when it comes to assault. It's only makes the victims more defenseless.

And comparing self-defense with homicide just gives the ratio homicide:selfdefense, not how often an incident with a gun ever occurred at all, or if homicides in countries with hard gun laws instead are committed with knives or blunt objects.

[Kiss_my_AS]

Sausage of Power -

Quote from: Kiss_my_AS on October 31, 2006, 03:37:21 PM
However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.

I could point to the War on Drugs and the increase in availability and potency of illicit narcotics such as heroin in the past 30 years to effectively counter your argument. Besides, since a great deal of guns are imported (Beretta is Italian, IMI is Israeli, and Springfield Armory uses parts from Brazil), the reality is that guns could still be smuggled into the U.S. or any other country. Besides, guns can be custom made by those with the right equipment. They're not the most complicated devices in the world.

Quote
Try to look at it with a bigger picture. People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it.

That's an ignorant statement, in my honest opinion. Having the facilities to perform an action doesn't necessarily mean one would do it. I own 5 guns, as previously mentioned, and have never shot any living thing. I don't plan on it, and never want to. Just as I won't rape my girlfriend when she's unconscious, or step on my cat's head to kill him in his sleep. Having the means to do something is only one part, the other being the motive. Motive, in all honesty, is the greater of the two. I could beat someone to death with my bare hands if so driven to that point, as could anyone else.

True (your first paragraph), but you're speaking of criminals here, while I was talking about every gun owner. I've already said that no gun policy can solve the problem of these criminals who'll always find a way to get a gun. However, I've also said that other people are prone to hurt someone - for reasons I said in my other post -, even for just a moment. And it has also been said that people who really want to kill someone, won't let the lack of a gun stop them. But many of those who aren't certain and are in a irrational moment might be encouraged to do so anyway, as they're still caught up in the moment. And with a gun it's not such a hassle, opposed to murder by hand or knife which gives the people who they want to hurt/kill more time to defend themselves and life through it.

It's not a black and white thing, it's about calculating the probability of an outcome of a specific type of situation. No guns doesn't equal no deaths, but the chances are greater that it will end up in less deaths. That's what I've been saying.

[Kiss_my_AS]

Scrapheap -

This statement ingnores much of what was already said about gun violence. Redicnig the number of guns in LEGAL circulation has'nt had an effect on crime anywhere that I've seen. Nor does it make sense that it would. Gunsa can always come from different sources especially here in America where we have a border with Mexico that you could  pass an entire Army through without getting caught.

Care to guess how many illegal guns will be smuggled in from Mexico if guns got outlawed in the US???

Actually it has had an effect on crime, for that same reason the gun homicide rates differ of both our countries differ. The problem with the situation you described is that a demand for guns was declared illegal, but the actual demand remained (though perhaps with other numbers) and so did the amount of criminals. They've found ways to get the guns. But again, I never said that it would have an effect crime as a whole, but the yearly average of gun victims is more likely than to go down or up. That's not a certainty, but a probability.

Quote from: Kiss_my_AS on October 31, 2006, 12:56:47 PM
I believe that killing someone (even if it is yourself) should be the zenith of ultimate resorts when trying to solve a problem. Most people will agree with that statement,


I for one, can't agree with this. You statement assumes that life is the very most precious thing there is. This is a flawed philosophy for the following reason. If you feel life is most important to you, this opens you up to bullying and other intimidation tactics. If you feel thatfreedom is more important than life, you are harder to bully because you would rather die than to submit to intimidation. Bullies respect this. TRUST me I learned this the hard way!!!

An interesting vision. However, do not misinterpret mine. Of course there will be moments when you'll reach that zenith, like when you're a soldier fighting against the enemy. If there's no other way to solve a problem other than to kill someone so be it. That's why I did not say that murder is never good, but I do see it as something that should be the last resort. Same goes for situations for when I have to sacrifice my life for the protection of others.

But owning a gun isn't a guarantee for freedom. Perhaps when you life in a hostile environment (with reasonably high crime rates), it's the best way to make it through. And of course you might be able to save yourself from risky situations of which you couldn't save yourself from otherwise. Keep in mind that I said that if everyone was trustworthy enough to deal with that posession, I would probably condone it. And that I said that if I lived in a country with a liberal gun policy, education would be the best way challenge the risks. In my vision the greatest risk is an unnecessesary loss of lives, a risk that will never disappear (though the likelihood of it can be diminished).
One could argue that the same amount of lives that were unnecessarily lost were saved, but that is very hard to calculate,  also taking into consideration that the probability on 'mistakes' also rises with the use of every single gun.[/quote]

Quote
This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun. But it's pretty obvious that it's mostly the opposite.

Can you prove this??

Think in relative numbers. As I said (I seem to be repeating myself a lot), I consider every murder to be one to many. Why do I say that? Because I think that in a perfect world nobody would commit a crime (the criminals) or encourage other people in such a way. Fact is, this isn't a perfect world and probably never will be. But for the sake of the safety and ourselves, we do see that as an ideal, hence the creation of laws prohibiting and punishing murder. While this is not sufficient to save every life, they are created and sometimes modified with the intention to lower the number of unnecessary murders, as according to that law each of those murders is wrong.

Those numbers vary, but they do not effectively minimize. In most cases those charts jump up and down, but usually not towards longterm trends that those laws are built to take care of. That indicates that no certainty can be given on the extrapolation of situation (when reviewing the change from a strict gun policy to a more liberal gun policy in the span of a couple of decades), other than similar percentages on a higher scale (coming from the greater probability on the risks of guns with a greater amount of them).

Note that this doesn't mean every society will get higher amounts of unnecessary gun victims when going through such a period. But the risks remain, and so far they weren't effectively challenged. If that would happen in the future of that society it would be good, but right now there no indications for such a change, which makes me believe that the chances are greater that it won't happen for at least a long time. Until then too much (which was what the 'mostly' was aimed) dangerous effects come from the gun owners, something that could be minimized. A good education, as was suggested by Sausageofpower, could aid to that.

Quote
For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.

What sort of slave mentality is this??  "legal human protectors"?? EVERY HUMAN HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES DUMBASS!!!

With 'legal human protectors' I meant the army and bodyguards, etc. English is not my first language and I will not always be able to find the right words to express myself, hence the misunderstanding. Btw, I don't how insults and typing in caps are of contribution to this discussion, not to mention that it shows that you've apparently misunderstood my post, as I do not assume that to be a strict given. Just that I think it's a more effective way to avoid unnecessary deaths in the situation, though not the best, and I'm always open to suggestions that do bring us closer to the ideal situation.

What I do assume is that we're probably so much apart that neither of us is going to give in - and I'm already growing tired of making long posts. I could go on with you forever, but what's the point of that if both are attempts of 'convertion' are fruitless? It would rather makes us more stuck in our stance towards eachother's visions.
Of course there are others to continue this thead with, but I'm backing out - I've typed more than enough on this.

With those last two paragraphs I'm making myself vulnerable to a verbal bullying, but I assume that we are all adults here - in body and mind. By that logic, I hope I can count on a mature response to my last post in this thread.

[odeon]

Infinite karma for your replies, Kiss_my_AS.

[odeon]

But in countries where firearms are less available, knives and blunt objects are used instead, when it comes to assault. It's only makes the victims more defenseless.

The victims actually have a better chance to survive. Or are you saying that knives and blunt objects are as lethal as firearms?

And comparing self-defense with homicide just gives the ratio homicide:selfdefense, not how often an incident with a gun ever occurred at all, or if homicides in countries with hard gun laws instead are committed with knives or blunt objects.

If what you are saying was true, we'd have a lot more knife/blunt object violence than we do here in Sweden. The fact of the matter is that the non-gun homicide rate, to take one example, is lower in Sweden than in the US. (source: GunCite)

[Litigious]

The victims actually have a better chance to survive. Or are you saying that knives and blunt objects are as lethal as firearms?

It actually depends on who's using them. I know a guy who is both a marksman himself as well as an expert on knives. According to him, most criminals are lousy at using both firearms and knives, since they don't practice other than "practising" on their victims, and additionally often are influenced by drugs when committing their crimes.

If the victim has a firearm (or a knife that s/he can handle really good for that matter), his/her chances to survive is better, beacuse the probability that the bad guys will be killed or seriously wounded by their supposed victim will increase tremendously.

If what you are saying was true, we'd have a lot more knife/blunt object violence than we do here in Sweden. The fact of the matter is that the non-gun homicide rate, to take one example, is lower in Sweden than in the US. (source: GunCite)

But how much greater is the rate of homicides committed with knives/blunt objects in Sweden compared to the gun violence in Sweden? Probably much greater. Criminals will use what means they can get.

And of course the violence of any kind is higher in percentage in the US. It's a much more heterogenous country, which Scrapheap and I already have stated. A heterogenous country always has more violence than a homogenous one. It's just cheap political correctnness or naïveté to state something else.

[Litigious]

With 'legal human protectors' I meant the army and bodyguards, etc. English is not my first language and I will not always be able to find the right words to express myself, hence the misunderstanding. Btw, I don't how insults and typing in caps are of contribution to this discussion, not to mention that it shows that you've apparently misunderstood my post, as I do not assume that to be a strict given. Just that I think it's a more effective way to avoid unnecessary deaths in the situation, though not the best, and I'm always open to suggestions that do bring us closer to the ideal situation.

You won't trust "ordinary folks" to have a gun but you will trust cops and soldiers unconditionally or as good as unconditionally? You never had the idea that some cops and soldiers became cops and soldiers not to fight for justice or protect their country but merely to take their shit out on others, legally, actually being their duty, and make their living out of it? Wouldn't that be a dream job for a sadist? What if the percentage of sadists and psychopaths are much higher among cops and soldiers than by "ordinary folks", which a lot of their behavior actually often indicates? But you faithfully put your trust in them being your nanny and ultimate and justful protector...