--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Science has a new Martyr (and a newbie)
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm Dean Forster,
>
> Welcome. Since you've been here a while, you should
> know what happens when
> you post. <grin>
heheh, thanks.
> > on to the thread-
> >
> > I find it really disturbing that people take it
> for
> > granted that it's wrong to defend yourself in
> general,
> > and especially so if you're using a gun.
>
> That's not really the argument. I would consider,
> for example, a policeman
> who returned fire and killed someone firing at him
> fully justified in his
> actions. The question at hand is not whether using
> force in self defense is
> wrong, its whether the proliferation of guns
> contributes to the murder rate.
Okay, i was making a leap- ie, there is no reason for
guns in the hands of civilians, which is wrong imho.
Self defense is the reason. The high murder rate is a
symptom of the way criminals do business in the US.
Proliferation is to blame in small part, but it's all
about the 'nut behind the wheel', as my old boss used
to say. The proliferation of guns is unavoidable in a
capitalist country where they are legal- they are very
durable goods, so the old ones don't get worn out-
they stay. There really isn't a happy medium
unfortunately, but it's a price that we must pay.
trade in progs are good imho, btw. =)
>
> > That you would somehow promote the safety and
> welfare of others
> > by allowing an aggressor to accomplish whatever
> end
> > they have in mind instead of standing up for what
> is
> > right.
>
> There are indeed pacifists. Many are pacifists due
> to religious reasons As a
> Christian, I'm not a pacifist, but I am a bit
> troubled by the inconsistency
> between my non-pacifistic nature and the literal
> interpretations of the
> teachings of Jesus. Since I'm not a literalist, I'm
> not that troubled, but
> I do admit that I worry about justifying of the use
> of lethal force.
>
I surely don't ever want to have the blood of another
human being on my hands, i'm not sure i could
continue. but as a society and a country, i think it
would be a mistake to legislate away the option to
defend yourself with adequate force.
>
> > When a concealed carry law is passed in the States
> violent crime *drops*
> there.
>
> Right, and they also drop in neighboring states that
> don't pass the law.
> Violent crime rates have been dropping across the
> board during the last
> decade, so one cannot attribute the drop in a state
> that passed the law to
> the law. One needs to show that, in areas that do
> pass the law, that the
> rates drop faster and that the rates go below those
> of states that don't
> pass the law. For example, Minnesota doesn't allow
> concealed handguns and
> doesn't have the death penalty. Texas allows
> concealed handguns and executes
> more people than the rest of the US combined, IIRC.
> Yet, Texas's murder rate
> is more than twice that of Minnesota. The causality
> just isn't shown, IMHO.
I know, you can slice statistics any way you want. I
need to find an impartial source- though as far as The
Big Gun Debate, i doubt there are any. =( Minnesota
is so sleepy and rural, you'll find that the related
figures on crime were lower in relation already as
compared to Texas before it got it's ccw laws on the
books. Texas has a great deal of money flowing
through it, legal and not- the latter because of it's
long border with Mexico which has huge amounts of
drugs flowing through it. (don't get me started on
legalization!) CCW laws are only going to give the
law abiding populace more options to protect
themselves, they're not going to slow down the general
crime rate that abruptly in the rather extreme case of
Texas.
>
> >Criminals (someone who breaks the law, be it with a
> gun or otherwise) know
> that they take a big >chance when they go after a
> member of the general
> populace, knowing that they might actually meet
> >opposition.
>
> Then its best for them to shoot first and ask
> questions later, right?
> Everything that I know about people who rob and
> burglarize houses indicates
> that they do not do a mature risk/reward assessment
> before committing a
> crime.
>
Some are like that, the young and stupid. most are
career who *do* make risk assesments. I just can't
swallow that rolling over and giving up is the way to
go. that's what generations of Japanese and other
Asian cultures have told their women when they are
being raped, just let it happen. What do we tell
women in western society?
we can agree to disagree on that, unless we have
someone in the law enforcement community here?
> >And the very high murder rates here are
> attributable to criminals preying
> on each other.
>
> Well, that can only be true if you have a very broad
> view of criminals.
> According to:
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/99cius.htm
>
> 24% of murders in which the circumstances are known
> are due to felonious
> assaults. 26% are murders of family members or a
> boyfriend or girlfriend.
> That category alone is greater than the total
> British murder rate, using WT
> Goodalls numbers for the British rate. Only about
> 8% are gang related
> (including youth and adult gangs).
>
> Now, it is probable that you can go and look at the
> family arguments and see
> that many of the perps. had broken the law before.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of the family
murders were by prior criminals for whom it's illegal
to have a gun in the first place. Of that 26%, i'd be
surprised if as much as half was a straight out
domestic dispute and didn't already involve criminal
activity. I see that only slightly over 50% are other
than felony, meaning that there wasn't already a
felony going on when the murder occured. And over 25%
are unknown- this fbi report has a lot of unknown and
other, which annoys me. 74% of the murders by these
statistics are by non-family, meaning that it's
*absolutely* not domestic violence.
> But, if you consider
> them all criminals because they broke the law, then
> we have a criminal
> president.
"you get 3 per term. if you don't use them, they're
gone." =)
I don't feel that way, thought I do
> think DWI is very serious.
>
> One other thing worth noting here: about 40% of
> murders are the result of an
> argument. The easy access to guns in the heat of an
> argument would seem to
> be a significant factor in the murder rate. Its much
> harder to defend
> oneself or run away when one's wife, husband, etc.
> gets the gun in the
> drawer than if they get the knife in the drawer.
> Plus, more people survive
> stabbings than shootings.
>
correct me if i'm wrong, but you are saying that the
people at large aren't responsible enough to have a
gun around? how about something slightly less
dangerous? or one step less dangerous than that? We
can't go down that path, we'll all end up mewling
morons sealed in hypo-allergenic bubbles before long.
People have to take personal responsibility and
improve themselves. Rob made an excellent point about
men's anger management courses - though i cringe at
the fact that so many people have to take a class in
behaving themselves. it seems so fundamental to me.
No offense, Rob.
>
> >The dramatically higher rate is what happens when
> you mix capitalism with
> those with a predilection >towards violence.
> Criminals in the US are
> generally businesspeople whose
> > business is illegal. Or they're addicted to
> something and they're
> stealing for their next fix.
>
> But, the rate of stealing in Britain is as high or
> higher than the US. If
> it is the direct result of stealing,
I only included theft as a caveat, junkies generally
are not violent afaik.
> then why is the
> ratio of
> murder/theft-robbery-etc. so much higher in the US
> than in Britain. Why are
> only 24% of murders that we can categorize
> associated with felonies?
they're more, see above
(About
> 27% of murders are classified as unknown...most of
> these are unsolved.)
>
I made the original argument that the majority of
murders in the US are due to organized criminal
activity. This is true by these statistics. of the
12,658 murders in the US in 99, 6,678 were other than
felony. of those, 695 were gang killings. 3,391 were
'other' arguements- I seriously doubt these were
average citizens who just didn't get along.
All of this isn't that important in the larger scheme
of things in any case. We have to fix the people
instead of taking away their toys. You can't just
close your eyes and will away the violent side of
human nature. You have to face it and deal with it.
> >
> > I don't have the bandwidth to keep up with the
> rate of
> > replies i'm likely to get, but i'll give it a
> shot. =)
> >
> OK, go for it. :-)
>
> Dan M.
>
whew. bedtime.
Dean Forster
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
