Dan: much snipping: Yahoo is starting to truncate =)
sorry for the ridiculous length everybody.
>
> Okay, i was making a leap- ie, there is no reason
for
> guns in the hands of civilians, which is wrong imho.
Actually, I do not advocate confiscation of guns. I
advocate licensing
of
all gun ownership, including mandatory gun safety. I
have no problems
with
the gun owners like the hunters I knew when I grew up:
who have their
rifles
locked up in one place, and the bullets in another. I
am bothered by
the
folks I know who bought a gun, loaded it, put it in
their bedside
drawer,
and thought they were protecting themselves.
** Unfortunately it would seem that most anti-gun
advocates do. I'm quite certain that safety education
is of paramount importance, but forcing it on people
is something I don't believe it's the government's
place to do. In earlier times in America when guns in
the home were more socially accepted, knowing how to
use a gun safely always went right along with having
one- to do otherwise was unthinkable. I'm bothered by
those same folks who don't know how to use theirs
safely. But if they're not criminals, they have the
right to have it.
> Self defense is the reason.
Well, the number of times that this happens is very
small. In 1999,
there
were about 400,000 instances of robbery, but only 188
instances of
justifiable homicide. I'll grant you that most of the
time the perp is
not
killed when the victim uses a gun in self defense.
But, with two
people
with weapons out on the opposite sides of a robbery,
the chance of one
of
them getting shot is certainly better than 1 in 100.
I'd guess that, if
self
defense with a weapon were an investigated category,
roughly 25% of the
time
the robbery victim would die, roughly 10% the perp
would die, and
roughly
65%, they both would live. That is a guess based on
listening to
regular
news reports on armed robbery of stores.
**I'm still not buying it. Just rolling over and
allowing yourself to be victimized is not an
acceptable alternative. Would you allow this in other
facets of your life? Admittedly a situation such as
this is a rarity but life and death situations are
rare for your average civillian.
One does need to remember, that less than half a
percent of robberies
end up
with the victim dead.
Less than a twentieth of a percent ends with the perp
dead. These
numbers
are much worse than *** <<stupid yahoo truncated the
rest- what did you say here?>>
>The high murder rate is a symptom of the way
criminals do business in
the
US.
<snip>
But, a person will not go into the "killed by
a
family member" category without the family member
being identified.
So, it
would seem that using the same distribution is
conservative.
** Directly from the FBI report: of the 12,658
murders in the US in 99, 6,678 were other than felony.
This means that the FBI has made the reasonable
assumption that the remainder are related to a felony.
As for the 'unknown', do you really believe that the
FBI is so incompetent as to let such a huge number of
domestic murders get by them? "where's your wife?"
"i dunno, shopping I guess". come on. It seems by
the way the FBI orders their statistics that they
believe that the bulk of the unknown are related to
felonies. Even of the other than felonies, the bulk
of those are not with a family member.
> 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.
But, they are legal in other countries, they are just
regulated. We
are not
the only capitalistic country in the world. By
requiring registration
and
training of our citizens and controlling the sale of
guns, we can at
least
decrease the problem of the loaded pistol in the
drawer. There is a
large
fraction of our population with violent tendencies and
there is
physical
abuse in a significant fraction of our families.
IIRC, 10%-20%. These
violent people are typically not folks who make their
income through
crime.
Rather, they come from all walks of life. I'd argue
that these folks
are a
likely source for the people who kill in a middle of
an argument.
** I still maintain that fixing the people is the
solution. How can you fight a disease by just
treating the symptoms?
>There really isn't a happy medium unfortunately, but
it's a price that
we
must pay.
For what? What aspect of the US culture/lifestyle
that is advantageous
in
comparison to the rest of the world is dependant on
the saturation of
the
society with guns?
** obviously, comparing the US to the rest of the
world is tricky. America is very young and is
comprised of all of the other cultures on earth, with
few exceptions. I'd like to think that we have more
advantages from our youth than disadvantages. I love
the 50 foot tall golden retriever analogy. Personal
ownership of firearms ties in with the greater idea of
personal freedoms, which implies personal
responsibility. At the risk of sounding callous, of
the almost 300 million people in this country, there
were less than 13,000 murders in 99- not a lot in
comparison, and certainly dwarfed by traffic
accidents, cancer, and heart disease. I have no doubt
that the murder rate would drop if the US suddenly
became a "non-gun culture", but even if it was
feasible it would further the trend towards people
loading the responsibility for their safety and their
lives in general on the government, or simply on
someone else. A trend i'd rather see reversed, indeed
I don't see how in the long term our society and even
our race can survive if people simply take the easy
path everywhere in their lives.
<snip>
>
> I know, you can slice statistics any way you want.
I
> need to find an impartial source-
The FBI's uniform crime report doesn't sound like a
liberally rag to
me. :-)
** I wasn't talking about the FBI stats you presented,
I meant the stats that show the crime rates in
relation to the issuance of CCW's. The only ones I
can find are either from the NRA or HCI. Not
impartial by any stretch of the imagination. =)
>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.
Right, and Texas didn't drop in response.
** you snipped the whole part I said about Texas being
a border state with huge amounts of drug money running
through it, I think that can make it a special case.
> 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.
>
They are also going to have minimally trained
individuals making split
second life and death decisions. You know that a
significant fraction
of
these folks will pack heat while drinking....with the
number of
alcoholics
around.
** hey, i'm not arguing that there's a problem with
people having guns that don't know how to handle them
safely. I belive that if people who feel they need a
gun for protection but don't have a family background
and education with firearms would get training much
more readily if they weren't made to feel like social
pariahs by their peers. I love that we have a society
in which pacifists can exist, but they have no right
to look down upon people who are willing to use force
in defense of themselves and/or their family.
> >
>
> Some are like that, the young and stupid. most are
> career who *do* make risk assesments.
There are more murders committed by people 21 and
under than 30 and
older.
The median age for a murderer appears to be a young
25.
** Career criminals are either in charge, dead, or
serving a life sentence by the time they hit their
late 20's.
>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?
Well, I have a wife who use to work in incest and
abuse and has had
contact
with the rape prevention professionals.
** well, don't hold out on me, i want to hear from
her!
> 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.
Could you please provide a source on that?
** I'd like to, but I can't find in the FBI stats
where murder is related to a prior record.
>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.
But, as I said, I quoted the numbers of know
situations. You do appear
to
assume that unknowns fit in the felony category. Why?
Doesn't the
empty
cash register at a store put it in the felony
category, even if the
murderer
wasn't found.
>And over 25% are unknown- this fbi report has a lot
of unknown and
> other, which annoys me.
Well, a lot of murders aren't solved. What are they
supposed to do in
those
cases?
>74% of the murders by these statistics are by
non-family, meaning that
it's
> *absolutely* not domestic violence.
But, a number of these are acquaintances and friends.
** I responded to this above, re: fbi stats.
The real
question is
why do Americans murder at a far higher rate than
Europeans...when the
robbery and rape rates are much closer. IIRC, the
overall violent
crime
rate in London is higher than New York, but the New
York murder rate is
much
higher.
** again, US vs. the rest of the world is an apples to
oranges comparison. I don't belive that mainstream
Americans are more violent per se (though our
criminals certainly are), we just don't have a culture
that stretches back for a millenium or more to
constrain people, in both good and bad ways. We need
to learn (relearn?) greater wisdom and restraint to go
along with our youthful advantages. BTW, New York has
entirely outlawed guns in civillian hands.
Prohibition had similar distastrous results on a
larger scale.
> correct me if i'm wrong, but you are saying that the
> people at large aren't responsible enough to have a
> gun around?
I'm saying that guns increase the probability of
murder while having a
minimal effect on the violent crime. In particular,
handguns have
little
use but to kill people. The proliferation of handguns
is associated
with
the high murder rate, IMHO.
** Once again, treating the symptoms is not an
effective long term solution.
>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.
Are all the countries with tougher gun laws full of
mewling morons?
I'm
advocating a cost-benefit analysis and gun control.
Personally, I
think
there is a correlation between daddy owning a handgun
that he
carelessly
leaves in his bedside drawer and junior taking a
handgun to school for
protection. My daughter's jr. high in an upscale
neighborhood had 3
handguns found in a partial locker search a few years
ago.
** hey, don't try and bait me into saying something
stupid that will get me dogpiled. =) I'm saying that
is the ultimate end to the shirking of personal
responsibility, as I said before. I don't know
intimately about life in other countries, I haven't
lived there. I'm talking about the US. Apples.
On the other hand, a kid who's dad has a hunting
rifle, that he locks
up
when not in use and who lets him hunt with dad after
taking gun safety
and
after getting more lectures from dad after is not
likely to take the
rifle
to school for protection. Hunters that I know have
only offered
minimal
arguments when I pushed requiring gun safety as a
prerequisite for
ownership. Few really believe that we'll have a
totalitarian
government
imposed on us, with only our guns to save us.
** Horrendous irresponsibility with guns still does
not justify their confiscation or governmental
regulation. The solution is, say it with me.. taking
personal responsibility. Making it a societal norm.
re: hunting, my father feels the same way, though
paranoia seems to be creeping in on him in his dotage.
Many people only fight for their narrow little causes
and leave the rest alone. I wish I saved that quote I
saw awhile ago on here.
<snip>
I saw it, and I strongly differ with your assumptions.
I hate to get
on my
high horse about it, but I used standard techniques of
statistical
analysis.
:-)
> 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.
and about 3500 were just unknown. I'd argue that a
murder in the
middle of
a felony is easier to attribute to a source than any
other type of
murder
where the murderer is unknown. So, my assumption that
the breakdown of
unknown causes is the same as the known causes is
probably generous
towards
murders while committing a felon. I cannot see how
you justify lumping
all
of them in that category. I'd honestly be interested
in a reason for
this.
> of those, 695 were gang killings. 3,391 were
> 'other' arguments- I seriously doubt these were
> average citizens who just didn't get along.
>
Included in those arguments, remember, are arguments
between relatives.
You
seriously doubt that they were average citizens.
Well, in some ways
you are
right. The average citizen will not commit murder.
But, people who
appear
to be average citizens before they do it will. I'm
sure that people
with
drinking problems, abusive spouses, etc. are much more
likely to commit
murder.
** again, I believe I addressed this re: the FBI
stats.
One more point here. You seemed to indicate that an
abusive spouse is
probably a convicted criminal. Most aren't. My wife
did her master's
thesis on the correlation between the financial
resources available to
a
woman victim and her returning to her spouse, so I
know a bit about
this.
** I'd love to hear about it. though the argument was
about murder- i'm too familiar with domestic violence,
which is why i'm such a firm advocate of people
dealing with their issues instead of taking away all
of the sharp things laying around.
> 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.
It is very hard to fix all people. It is much easier
to decrease the
damage
they can do.
** but detracting from or taking away entirely a
guaranteed freedom as a citizen of the US is not
acceptable. You're certainly not going to fix
everyone, but making a nice safe little womb for
everyone is even less feasible.
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.
>
Are Americans inherently more violent, or do they have
a situation
where it
is easier for a person's violent nature to spiral out
of control?
** woops, i hit that one above. jeez, i feel like i'm
taking a combined composition class and debate. sorry
if i came off a bit scatterbrained, i wanted to
address every point. and if i came off like a jerk, i
don't mean it as disrespect to you.
Dean Forster
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
