Van Dam

**Inquartata** · 08-28-2002 11:31 PM

You guys are ganging up on me! ( I can't believe I've been typing replies for four hours!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
If you think that simplistic, then I'm sure you have another think coming. Just consider how often "momentary expediency" has been invoked to knock off someone. And sometimes, for the good of the local community and society, it was the right thing to do.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I hope that I will ALWAYS "have another think coming". The idea of intellectual stagnation does not attract me.

Anyway, yes, you're right, the brief definition I offered yesterday of what is wrong and what is right was very superficial. As I said to epeemike above somewhere, it is of course more complex than that, and there are any number of exceptions which do not invalidate the general premise. But unless we wish to open a thread on the secular philosophical foundations of morality, I am going to leave it in abeyance and just reassert that reason and morality are in no wise in conflict, and that in fact to choose a course which is generally accepted to be "good" is a quite logical thing. Moreover the decision as to what is good is logically determinable, else there would be no such thing as what sociologist call "universal taboos" or standards of rectitude which cross boundaries of race, culture, time and history. I direct you to the philosophy shelf of your local library if you need further proof of it, guys like Locke and Mills and way on back to Aristotle have written tomes on the subject...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When innocent Afghans are killed by US troops as "collateral damage" that's momentary expediency. <hr /></blockquote>What would you call it? Murder? It lacks deliberate intent. It is euphemism, wording designed to lessen the hard truth of a situation. One might better call it what it is, the killing of noncombatants by mistake---but calling it by a euphemism doesn't really make it immoral, I don't think. It is neither moral nor immoral---it just is. Human beings screw up, even those in B-52's...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A guilty person spared, only to do it again is an indication of that person's callous disregard for life. There's been many cases of drunk drivers who have killed, and then let back on the road to kill again. Too bad. That guy ought to do something about. But the government shouldn't be executing such lowlifes.<hr /></blockquote>Again, the difference is intent, both on the part of the drunk---who did not set out to kill anyone deliberately, and whose judgement was in any case impaired at the time---and on the part of the government, which has no way to foresee that a second death will result. With someone like Bob Vickers, intent was clear. He meant to kill again. He said so, and he demonstrated so. Twice.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So after the third victim, the state killed him. Had it not, there almost certainly would have been a fourth, and a fifth...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There's less draconian ways to remove the criminal permanently from society. His genes has nothing to do with it. Prior to his "alleged" killing of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, OJ Simpson's genes were highly prized. Should we now kill his son and daughter because YOU think that criminal violence is hereditary?<hr /></blockquote>This goes back to something I said yesterday: doubt, and mitigating circumstances.

OJ had no record of murderous violence. And there was some doubt that he did it at all ( admittedly, not much ). Had there been witnesses, a confession, etc. I would have said the death penalty was appropriate. Had he been convicted without such certainty, I would have said give him the full spectrum of appeals.

As to killing his children, the law is not prospective. It does not take preemptive actions. It punishes only what is done, not what might be done, by individuals in contravention of the law ( which itself reflects the morality of the society, hopefully ). It should however take any preventive action short of that---it should try for instance to prevent arsonists from teaching their skills. And it should prevent known murderers from teaching or otherwise passing on their tendencies as part of their punishment. Only death can do that unerringly.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Retribution is hardly a "benefit". More like a sad characterization of humanity.<hr /></blockquote>Please note the distinction between retribution and revenge. The distinction is a fine one, but it is there.

[ 08-29-2002, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

**edew** · 08-28-2002 11:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by It:
Wow, I never thought that this thread would have such a profound effect on some of you. When I started this thread it was because of the anger and the relief I felt of the day of the verdict of Westerfield. To rehash, Westerfield was found guilty of Kidnapping and Murdering Daniel Van Dam, a 7 year old girl. I thought that some of you who might've followed this case would like to express your feeliings about the case. Or if not this case maybe another case that you'd want to vent with. But ot my surprise ------> (ya Right) it went to a totally different place. Well here's another story and your opinion counts.

I don't remeber the names of the girls concerning this case. But it got nation wide attention. This happened about a month and a 1/2 ago. Two girls (16 + 17) were kidnapped and raped. By a man in a white Bronco. An Amber alert was issused and the car was found with the perp and the two girls. The perp was shoot on the spot. By a Los Angeles Sheriff deputy. He was shoot in self defense. The officers in the case said the the girls were only minutes away from being killed themselves if it were for the Amber alert and the quick response of Law Enforcement. Now for the catcher. The perp had a list of criminal records. At the perp's house in his backyard, they found two bodies, so far, of missing teens. Now if he was alive what would've happened? If he wasn't shoot to death what could've happened? And my question again would be what should or could've been done if he were alive?

Now dosen't this anger you?

By the way an Amber Alert (named after a child) is, when a person is kidnapped or lost, an all bulletin braodcast is issued on the radio, T.V., and on freeway cal-trans traffic signs.<hr /></blockquote>It doesn't anger me in the least in that I know it's part and parcel for the human race to have creepazoids like Westerfield and that Bronco rider. They're not the first, and they won't be the last. In another paper (NY Times, I believe), they say that the average (in the US or the world, not specified), about 115 such cases occur every year.

As such, I'd say young girls (and their parents) have much more other pressing issues to worry about, concerning death. Drugs, alcohol-related deaths, etc. And, frankly, according to that NY Times article, girls should worry more about their immediate relatives, dads, uncles, brothers, cousins, than some stranger.

So am I angered? Probably not. I'm jaded from all the reading, and after evaluating the probabilities, stranger abductions plus killing is a very low probability. Too low to worry about. If the probability is 1 in 1 million (per year), well, in a country with about 20 million girls, you might expect 20 such incidences a year. Ok, the odds may be greater than winning the power ball lotto, but in the grand scheme of things, it's noise of a miniscule degree.

Oh, and pet peeve #532 says the past tense for shoot is SHOT, not shoot. Shoot is the active verb. The past tense (which you supposedly tried to use) is shot. I guess in the grand scheme of things, that's also not too important, but hey, if you're trying to communicate with others, it helps to use language that most people accept.

**JEC** · 08-29-2002 06:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A friend of mine pointed out another interesting fact about Switzerland: They have amazing social programs which all citizens are entitled to. it is virtually impossible to be down and out in Switzerland. <hr /></blockquote>One problem. Becoming a citizen in Switzerland is much more difficult than in other european countries, Canada or USA. My brother is a diplomat and lives in Geneva. There are two classes of residents. That reminds me of another place, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where the citizens are few, and a large proportion of residents are not. The social programs cover citizens but what about the residents who also pay taxes for years and are not covered. The bastion of social democracy.

**fencing teen** · 08-29-2002 07:02 AM

Well, the truth about Swizerland is a bit more complicated than that. I happen to live here,close to Geneva,and as in every country you have different kind of citizens.
If you are a diplomat, well, you don't pay taxes at all. And then why should you have any kind of social benefits?
My father is also a diplomat here, and most children go to private schools, but they are welcome to join any kind of normal schools if they want to, we use all the infrastructure here, but we seldom contribute anything back.
It is true that it is difficult to become a swiss citizen, in some cases it can take up to ten years. But again why is that so wrong? In the meantime, if taxes etc is paid, one benefits as well.

Kaia

[ 08-29-2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: fencing teen ]

**JEC** · 08-29-2002 07:11 AM

fencing teen,
My brother has no intention of becoming a swiss citizen or receiving social benefits. However, because he has been living there (and travel to 80+ countries to compare) for several years, he is able to make social observations about double standards.

[ 08-29-2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**JEC** · 08-29-2002 07:17 AM

Regarding the main arguments, I tend to agree more with epeemike despite being a Texian.

**fencing teen** · 08-29-2002 08:15 AM

JEC

Double standards is something you find in every country in the whole world. Not least in the US. It is nothing particular to Switzerland.

Kaia

**edew** · 08-29-2002 08:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oiuyt:
Mike- you keep asking for numbers. So far Inq has povided some that came to hand and has promised to provide more. As he pointed out discussions like this frequently degenerate into complaints about the source of the numbers and then about their interpretation (that said, you merely complained about his interpretations which is reasonable). I think you need to put up some numbers as well, give him a shot at taking down YOUR interpretations....

Inq- drop the genetic angle from your arguments, you're much more convincing without it. So far nothing has come up to support the thesis that the genes of murderers are a primary cause. It's MUCH more likely that things such as upbringing, early experience, societal position etc. would overwhelm whatever influences genetics have on likelihood to commit murder.

We have epeemike and EDew both espousing anti-DP positions, EDew bringing in many more general libertarian issues, epeemike sticking (mostly) to the primary issues (in this thread) of the DP and gun control, most notably historical observations thereof.

We have Inquartata taking the pro-DP, pro-gun stance. Inq actually HAS cited numbers and has been bringing up various historical arguments.

Both sides on occasion are getting wound up in their arguments and, at times, fail to see well-reasoned points by the opposition. Epeemike and Inq, while supporting antithetical positions, are both doing a fairly good job of having a reasonable and interesting exchange.

EDew- how do you feel about gun control? I don't remember you weighing in on that portion of the discussion at all (I might have missed something, there's a LOT of text above here in the thread...

). Presumably you're with Inq in that the government shouldn't limit personal rights with regard to gun ownership?

-B

<hr /></blockquote>I personally will not use a gun. I personally do not feel I am capable of judiciously using a gun. Given that, I have no problems with others owning and using guns. This nation, currently, allows people the right to bear arms (however convoluted that claim may be). Either way, the cat's way out of the bag in regards to gun ownership in the US that for all intents and purposes, we might as well accept that private individuals have the right to own guns.

Guns do kill people. Now, others can claim that automobile deaths far exceed gun-related deaths. I think that may be the case, with 60K automobile deaths to 30K gun-related deaths per year. But we must realize that the primary use of an automobile is transportation: move objects from one location to another. That in the course of the movement, someone gets nailed is a sad commentary of the ability of the driver, the victim, and the regulations (and enforcement) regarding automobile usage.

The primary use of a gun (especially handguns) is to kill people, not put holes in targets or hunt for food. Let's be real, a person living in Chicago owning a S&W is not going to use it to hunt birds or practice for the modern pentathlon. That said, when a gun is discharged, the goal should be a dead person. Given that as a society, we would prefer to NOT have a dead person than to have a dead person, the proper use of a gun is antithetical to our social preference of people living than dying.

In other words, the primary use of a car is transportation. The primary use of a gun is killing. Using a car may result in death, but that's an unfortunate circumstance. Using a gun may result in death, and that's an intended consequence, although we would prefer it not occur.

Thus, guns are inherently dangerous. To not kill someone with a gun is to not use the gun, which invalidates its need (unless people feel that they should use a gun for hammering or paper weight). To not kill someone with a car does not diminish the utility of a car. Indeed, it may increase the utility of a car over other modes of transportation.

My feeling on gun control is that there should not be more laws. There should be better laws concerning gun control. I personally don't feel it's safer if everyone has a gun. Gun advocates often chant, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Unfortunately, it's often the case that most mass murders using guns are conducted by people who are gun owners, yes, but are not outlaws until after the fact. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (?) were not outlaws (other than some petty vandalism or shoplifting crime) prior to their killing of their fellow students. The kid in Paducah KY was not an outlaw. Indeed, he was a very nice church-going boy. The kid in Oregon wasn't an outlaw. The 101 California (SF, CA) killer was not an outlaw. And so on. Most outlaws kill just the person they need to kill, which for most of us, is just as well. We're not in that crowd and their killing doesn't directly affect us. The non-outlaws who go off the deep end and shoot up the post office or tech company are the ones we have to worry about because we live and work there.

A simple gun-control rule would be: no guns in the house. All guns in locked armories near shooting ranges. You buy it, you store it there.

Guns in households double the probability of someone in the household dying.

Remember, as pertaining to this original thread, the vast majority of those who molest and abuse kids are relatives (parents or siblings or uncles/aunts/cousins). The vast majority of all deaths, especially gun-related deaths are by the hands of a relative or acquaintance. When Nicole Simpson Brown and Ronald Goldman was found dead, the police rightfully did not go searching for some "Columbian drug lord assassin", and went for the high probability suspect: OJ.

Same with Robert Blake and his dead wife.

That said, being in the company of a person with a gun increases your probability of dying by a gun. That statistic is fairly well established. Saying that having a gun will protect you from some stranger stalking you misses the fact that you're more likely to have a self-inflicted gun death than being harmed by a stranger.

You have to play the probability card. The probability of a person being harmed by a stranger is millions to one. The probability of receiving a gun-related injury or death when in the constant presence of a gun is higher than that million to one odds. Given that a gun as no other useful purpose (as opposed to, say, the automobile, or even a kitchen knife), having a gun is just inviting danger.

Thus, I personally do not own, nor do I ever intend to own, a gun. Now, I can't require others to follow in my probabilitistic modeling, so if someone chooses to own a gun, or not wear seatbelts or smoke cigarettes, that's their problem. I would just as soon not be within range of that gun, not be a passenger of a seatbeltless driver, and not be within the second-hand smoke of a smoker.

So yes, you hit the nail on the head. I do espouse a libertarian ethics concerning the law and gun ownership. At the moment, the law (as it's interpreted) allows for gun ownership, and I for one, can't prevent that.

I also do not approve of the smoking ban laws that California and other states have passes, although I personally welcome the improvements to my dining and other enjoyments. I would wish people can stop on their own. I do not like the idea that the government has to step in and make that happen.

[ 08-29-2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: edew ]

**HilandDoug** · 08-29-2002 01:37 PM

Eric, given your discussions and opinions posted these last pages, your previous comment to me of:

"You sound just as sick as the guy himself. When do we get to run you through several times? As soon as possible, maybe, for preventive measures, of course."

--seems to be quite out of character. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take this with more than a grain of salt.

**edew** · 08-29-2002 03:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HilandDoug:
Eric, given your discussions and opinions posted these last pages, your previous comment to me of:

"You sound just as sick as the guy himself. When do we get to run you through several times? As soon as possible, maybe, for preventive measures, of course."

--seems to be quite out of character. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take this with more than a grain of salt.<hr /></blockquote>Of course, it was meant to be facetious and sarcastic. I have no intention of running people through, even those who espouse such actions.

I was merely illustrating how people who feel such lowlifes and criminals (Westerfield, et al) should be put through all sorts of morbid and sadistic torture don't seem to see the contradiction in their rhetoric.

**epeefencer74** · 08-29-2002 07:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
I ask again of death penalty supporters: what gives ANYBODY, least of all our bumbling government as guided by 12 people too dumb to avoid jury duty, the right to take anybody elses life??

I don't think anything can give them this right, which is why the vast majority of "civilized" nations in the world do NOT execute anybody.

Also, where is the logic in using a punishment from which one cannot get reprieve? All that does is require a long appeals proccess, whcih IS necessary since allowing appeals to 10 guilty men is worth it for the one innocent man who doesn't die. Thus, it costs us significantly more money, which is NOT, it seems to me, worth it.

-m<hr /></blockquote>I understand and sympatheize with your position epeemike. True only God has the right to take away life for it is He that giveth. But having said that living where I am, I've seen the death penalty used as a deterent very effectivly. One of the reasons that Singapore is relatively drug free, it because there is a death penalty for trafficking. Carrying 15 grams of crack or herion across immigration, almost ensures death by hanging. Posession and consumption results in caning, if you are a guy and less than 55 years old, and 10 yrs in prison. It is harsh, brutal, and efficient. There isn't a long delay between conviction and death. There is only one chance for appeal and after that it's a presidential pardon or the noose. Did you know that the penalty for kidnapping in Singapore is death?

Our prisons are also very spartan affairs. No TV in the cells only in common areas, no recliners nothing of the like. Just a bunk and a toilet. We have a prisoner education program that tries to give prisoners jailed for petty crimes some skills that they can use when they get out and the Govt is encouraging employers to give these guys another chance, but that's the extent of our humanitarian efforts towards criminals. Some of you might say that this is a very harsh treatment for a human being, and I agree, but it has kept Singapore fairly safe. As to how long this will last I don't know, I'll enjoy it while it does.

P.S. Illegal discharge of a firearm also risks the death penalty. Possesion of firearm and ammunition is seven years each.

**Inquartata** · 08-29-2002 08:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by It:
Wow, I never thought that this thread would have such a profound effect on some of you.<hr /></blockquote>I don't know about profound---I just love a good argument! Carpal tunnel be damned...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> it went to a totally different place. <hr /></blockquote>More the exception than the rule on the net! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
I don't remeber the names of the girls concerning this case. <hr /></blockquote>That's because it was learned after they were found that they had both been raped, and in California, as in other places, it's media SOP to withhold the names of rape victims. Their names had been all over the news, and suddenly they were anonymous victims. Still, no one seems to remember the sames, so it seems to have worked.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The perp had a list of criminal records. At the perp's house in his backyard, they found two bodies, so far, of missing teens. <hr /></blockquote>Really? I hadn't heard this. Are you sure you aren't conflating this case with the fellow in Oregon?

Anyway, I've been angry too often in the past at these to rouse much more than sad, weary exasperation anymore. Too jaded, I guess. And although the media dote on sensational cases like these, far more children drown in bathtubs every year than are killed by these psychopaths. We seldom hear much about those, somehow.

**Inquartata** · 08-29-2002 09:45 PM

I was reluctant even to open this thread tonight---still feeling the effects of yesterday! But the replies seem to have abated somewhat, so maybe I have a shot at catching up...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
no, we would not expect crime rates to be falling in societies with gun control and rising in those without it, but rather would expect crime rates to be lower in societies with gun control. Clearly, this IS the case.<hr /></blockquote>A common argument, mike, but logically flawed, I'm afraid. Let me illustrate.

Posit three countries which, unlike the US, have very strict gun control. We should assume that they will have homicide rates lower than those of the US, according to your equation. But they do not. In fact, their homicide rates are between 100% and 150% higher than that of the US. The countries exist: Russia, Taiwan and South Africa.

For example, the murder rate in the US in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000 citizens. Russia had a rate of 19.7 per 100,000 in the same year...

Moreover, if you compare violent crime in general, many of the countries with gun control also have rates lower than in the US, and have ALWAYS done, even BEFORE they adopted gun control. After gun control, their rates began to increase faster than in the US. I do not claim that gun control CAUSED crime to go up, but there is some factor at work in the rise that is not apparent---gun control could scarcely have caused lower crime before it existed.

Further, the incidence of homicide in other countries such as the UK is also much lower in all categories. That is to say, the number of per capita murders with knives, clubs, poisons, hands and feet, and so on are also much lower there than in the US. It rather stretches credulity to claim that gun control reduces homicides with other weapons, does it not? Much less that it reduces arson, burglarly, strongarm robbery, kidnapping, and so on. Yet these countries also have lower rates of those crimes, which are not even vestigially gun related...

This is a passage from a March 2000 article from Salon.com:

" In 1990, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in the US was 9.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about 2/3 of these killings. Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 3.1 murders for every 100,000 people---higher than the homicide rate in Canada ( 2.1 per 100,000 ), Sweden ( 1.4 ) or Japan (0.5 ). Obviously, something is going on here other than access to guns."

Are we to believe that the mere existence of guns in a country causes more criminals of every sort to arise?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />first of all, strict gun controls in cities don't work due to straw buying. For there to be a noticable effect, it must be enacted in a controlled environment (i.e. nationwide). <hr /></blockquote>Another common and flawed argument, I'm afraid.

The premise is that, for instance, the Sullivan law in New York is ineffective because New Yorkers need only take a leisurely drive across the state line and buy a gun in a more permissive jurisdiction, and take it back. Or buy one from someone else who does.

So, where are the guns behind the increases in gun crime in the UK coming from? The neighboring state of the North Sea? The nearby country of the Atlantic Ocean? France, which also has strict gun control?

This argument is typical of the general stance of gun control proponents, though. Pass a law, even if you know it will be ineffectual, because then you have established the precedent that such laws are good and proper things to do; the next one will work better. And then the next one after that. And so on. It's the same principle as cooking a frog by slowly heating the water in the pan so as not to alarm him unduly until it's too late...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Cities like Phoenix and Dallas are low crime, and thus would never discuss gun control. NYC enacted gun control as part of an attempt to curtail high crime rates.<hr /></blockquote>You've lost me. If gun control works, it should have made New York a low-crime city, yes? Conversely, the lack of gun control should make Dallas a HIGH crime city, according to your initial argument above: we "would expect crime rates to be lower in societies with gun control".

So if New York had high crime BEFORE it had gun control, and still has it now, gun control helped...how?

If Dallas had low crime before, and it's still low without gun control, gun control is needed...why?

In any event---which cities ( one with gun control, one without ) would you suggest constitute a fair comparison? I'll try to find that data, too.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have already suggested an apt comparison: the rate of change of England's crime rate v. the rate of change of the world's crime rate.<hr /></blockquote>Do you mean vs. the US' crime rate? I'm not sure how comparing England to the world helps, inasmuch as the world contains countries with and without gun control, and every point in between---an average would be useless from that standpoint.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Also, given that England has, as you note, a lower per capita crime rate than the US, we can draw the conclusion that England's system as a whole works better than ours. This does NOT prove, unfortunately, that gun control is responsible, which gets back to your point that we can argue about reasons indefinitely.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, exactly, alas. I am by no means arguing that England would be a better place with widespread gun ownership, nor am I suggesting that it's a more dangerous place to live than the US. Clearly that's not so.

I might go so far as to say that gun control is one of the factors keeping viloent crimes rates low in certain countries. But only one of the factors, I think, and every country is a different mix. I doubt that grafting England's gun control by itself onto American society would make US crime rates any lower, any more than putting military weapons into every home in America a la Switzerland would make it safer.

You can't make Coke by putting one ingredient---caramel coloring, say---into water. You need all the ingredients, and in the right proportions. And we don't even know what all the ingredients are...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A friend of mine pointed out another interesting fact about Switzerland: They have amazing social programs which all citizens are entitled to. it is virtually impossible to be down and out in Switzerland. I think that we should declare Switzerland as out of bounds in this discussion as it is in all other conflicts. <hr /></blockquote>LOL!

[/quote]what do you mean, how so? you acknowledged at each turn that your statistics concerning England, Thailand, Switzerland were NOT germaine to this argument. Thus, they fail to show your point.[/quote]

I didn't say they weren't germane. I merely asserted that from a cursory examination of them gun control didn't seem to be quelling crime in the three nations I cited, in every one of which it was rising rapidly. Which was the only premise I was trying to disprove. The statistics are as germane as those which gun control proponents adduce to support their argument that it reduces violent crime.

Yes, there are other factors at work in all of those countries. But that doesn't alter my basic position: if gun control can be forwarded as a reason for lowering crime in a country, it can be shown that that is not the case by either showing that crime is NOT lowered, or that other countries can achieve the same result without gun control...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />again, no it doesn't. the issue is the RATE OF CHANGE and how it compares to relatively similar nations RATES OF CHANGE over the same time period.<hr /></blockquote>That's what the statistics were showing: increases ( upward rate of change ) in relevant categories of crime in Britain, China and Japan, compared with decreases ( downward rate of change ) in the US.

**Inquartata** · 08-29-2002 10:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
 I personally will not use a gun. I personally do not feel I am capable of judiciously using a gun. Given that, I have no problems with others owning and using guns. This nation, currently, allows people the right to bear arms (however convoluted that claim may be). Either way, the cat's way out of the bag in regards to gun ownership in the US that for all intents and purposes, we might as well accept that private individuals have the right to own guns.<hr /></blockquote>So you're the guy! I've heard that there was one reasonable man somewhere in the country, who wasn't either pro or anti on this issue---never thought I'd run into him, though...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Guns do kill people. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, they don't. People USE guns to kill people. A gun lying on a table or in a closet will very rarely kill someone of its own accord... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />others can claim that automobile deaths far exceed gun-related deaths. I think that may be the case, with 60K automobile deaths to 30K gun-related deaths per year. But we must realize that the primary use of an automobile is transportation: move objects from one location to another. That in the course of the movement, someone gets nailed is a sad commentary of the ability of the driver, the victim, and the regulations (and enforcement) regarding automobile usage.<hr /></blockquote>A commonplace argument. This is the way it usually goes:

Anti: A gun's only purpose is to kill.

Pro: Less than half of one percent of guns are ever used in crime. They are used to hunt---killing, to be sure, but not criminal murder---for target practice, for reenactment such as Civil War battles and cowboy-action shooting, and so on. Most aren't used at all. they sit in drawers, mostly.

Anti: But their raison d'etre is to kill. It's no excuse that one isn't USED to kill---that's still why they exist.

Pro: The same can be said of swords. Would you like to ban fencing?

Anti: No, but---

Pro: And of bows and arrows. Would you advocate banning archery?

Anti: NO, but you know what I mean! Criminals, suicides and others actually KILL people with guns, LOTS of people! They don't with swords or arrows!

Pro: You just said that "it's no excuse that they aren't USED to kill---that's still why they exist".

Anti: But---

Pro: So which is it? They are intended to kill, or they are used to kill? Can't have it both ways.

Anti: You know what I mean....

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Given that as a society, we would prefer to NOT have a dead person than to have a dead person, the proper use of a gun is antithetical to our social preference of people living than dying.<hr /></blockquote>Unless, of course, that person is trying to kill you, or your wife, or kids, or neighbor, or a store owner, or a police officer, etc. In which case, there may be no alternative, and then a dead person is to be preferred. As long as it's the agressor.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> In other words, the primary use of a car is transportation. The primary use of a gun is killing. Using a car may result in death, but that's an unfortunate circumstance. Using a gun may result in death, and that's an intended consequence, although we would prefer it not occur.<hr /></blockquote>Again, the primary use of swords, too, is to kill. Would it be best to relegate fencing and kenjutsu to the dustbin of history? The primary use of the bow is to kill---should we eschew archery?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
My feeling on gun control is that there should not be more laws. There should be better laws concerning gun control. <hr /></blockquote>Eminently sensible, but alas people have been trying to figure out what those are for a long time. Just about every permutation has been tried without much success.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I personally don't feel it's safer if everyone has a gun. <hr /></blockquote>Spot on. Luckily, not everyone WANTS one. That's what choice is all about.

Even everyone who wants one shouldn't have one, probably. But how do you decide who is and is not "deserving"? Again, just about every criteria you can think of has been tried, sometimes with no beneficial effect, sometimes with pernicious effect...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Gun advocates often chant, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Unfortunately, it's often the case that most mass murders using guns are conducted by people who are gun owners, yes, but are not outlaws until after the fact. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (?) were not outlaws (other than some petty vandalism or shoplifting crime) prior to their killing of their fellow students. <hr /></blockquote>They also weren't gun owners. Not legally, anyway. Thus when they acquired their guns, they BECAME "outlaws". Before their rampage.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
The kid in Paducah KY was not an outlaw. Indeed, he was a very nice church-going boy. The kid in Oregon wasn't an outlaw. The 101 California (SF, CA) killer was not an outlaw. And so on. <hr /></blockquote>Same thing. None were legally able to obtain guns. When they did so, they became criminals, well before the first triggers were pulled.

And meanwhile, more than a dozen studies between 1976 and 1994 estimate that between 770,000 and 3.6 million civilians use guns in self-defense every year. The vast majority result in no one's death or injury, either. They are the sound of the shotgun being racked in a dark house that makes the home invader flee, or the cocking and pointing of the pistol that makes the rapist or the robber reconsider.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
A simple gun-control rule would be: no guns in the house. All guns in locked armories near shooting ranges. You buy it, you store it there.<hr /></blockquote>The police, too?

And then those self-defense uses go away with the murders.

Of course, we haven't even touched on the Second Amendment issue yet---the presence of guns in civilian hands to deter government attempts at tyranny. Convenient to have them all in centralized locked buildings if the government ever decided it would be for our own good if they just confiscated them all. At three a.m. on a Wednesday, no doubt.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Guns in households double the probability of someone in the household dying.<hr /></blockquote>What is the source of this figure?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

The vast majority of all deaths, especially gun-related deaths are by the hands of a relative or acquaintance. <hr /></blockquote>Again---source?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
When Nicole Simpson Brown and Ronald Goldman was found dead, the police rightfully did not go searching for some "Columbian drug lord assassin", and went for the high probability suspect: OJ. <hr /></blockquote>No offense, but they were killed with a knife, weren't they? How does this say anything about the likelihood of being killed with a gun in the home?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Same with Robert Blake and his dead wife.<hr /></blockquote>There's no question, guns make killing simpler. But is there any evidence that Blake would not have killed his wife if he had had no gun? That he wouldn't have used some other method instead?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

That said, being in the company of a person with a gun increases your probability of dying by a gun. That statistic is fairly well established. <hr /></blockquote>At the risk of sounding like epeemike

...what is the source of this "well established" statistic? In my experience things that "everyone knows" often turn out to be exaggerations, or worse still, inventions. Best to have the figures at hand in order to be sure...

Also---well established by whom? An objective fact-gathering group? The FBI? The CDC? Or advocacy groups such as Handgun Control Inc. or the NRA? Somehow the figures seem to change depending upon who has "discovered" them.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Saying that having a gun will protect you from some stranger stalking you misses the fact that you're more likely to have a self-inflicted gun death than being harmed by a stranger.<hr /></blockquote>I know I'm harping, but again, how do you know this? What is your source? There have been as many studies debunking this view as supporting it. And if it were true, then police officers ought to be dying at very high rates, far outpacing civilian deaths...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The probability of a person being harmed by a stranger is millions to one. The probability of receiving a gun-related injury or death when in the constant presence of a gun is higher than that million to one odds. <hr /></blockquote>Can you prove these numbers? ( Polly wanna cracker! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
So yes, you hit the nail on the head. I do espouse a libertarian ethics concerning the law and gun ownership. At the moment, the law (as it's interpreted) allows for gun ownership, and I for one, can't prevent that.<hr /></blockquote>But you would if you could?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]
I also do not approve of the smoking ban laws that California and other states have passes, although I personally welcome the improvements to my dining and other enjoyments. I would wish people can stop on their own. I do not like the idea that the government has to step in and make that happen.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I agree completely.

**edew** · 08-29-2002 11:34 PM

Basically, I take any "fact" the NRA offers as complete BS. Other than that, the claims are from the CDC and the statistical abstracts of the US (from the census and such). Go right ahead and delve into them. That claim of 700,000 to 3.6 million crimes averted by guns is completely bogus. Just do the numbers. Are there crimes occurring every 9 seconds around the country? Look in your neighborhood. Crimes every nine seconds? Even in a place like San Francisco...every nine seconds?

And is it the case that that many crimes occur that just by the waving of a gun warded off the criminal activity? Ever heard of any such cases?

Guns do kill people. There are many instances when a gun is accidentally dropped and bang, off goes the head. How about Bob Barr, NRA poster boy? Handed a gun and it went off. That makes everyone in the room feel real swell.

A sword that can easily penetrate and kill people are rightfully not carried about. I have several such swords (as prizes in fencing tournaments). How far do you think I can go walking in San Francisco or New York before being stopped by cops (or shot by them)? They are, rightfully, not to be carried about. Fencing swords are not, in general, a killing weapon. They are sporting equipment, and that's not just niggling definitions. Their intent and purpose is for sporting use, not for killing.

Again, the primary use of a fencing sword is for the sport. The primary use of a Walther PPK or a S&W .357 is to kill people. Don't give me that BS that it's primarily for hunting (sporting). Give me a break. The only thing being hunted with a .357 or a Walther PPK is another human, or maybe a rabid dog, but mostly human.

Let's look at a typical newspaper story. Chances are, there are more stories of some kid who was accidentally shot by a loaded gun left under the bed, or in a drawer, than stories of some homeowner who managed to shoot and kill an intruder. There are far more stories of the former than the latter. Given the spectacular nature of both, both would be equally (and gleefully) covered by the press, so it's not a case of the press not reporting on typical instances. Killing an intruder or burglar is just not that frequent.

Now, suppose intruders were scared away with a gun, then my thesis is that the gun is not properly used. A baseball bat, a (real) sword, a kitchen knife, a door-slam might do the same thing. We could probably say that that $49.95 ginzu knife have prevented nine million possible home invasion robberies. Such a "fact" is about as reliable as the claim with guns. Until you see a dead body with a bullet-hole, the claim is irrelevant.

As for OJ, yes, Nicole and Ronald were killed with a knife. The point I was making was that most people are killed by someone they know. Most women are raped by acquaintances, and so on. There's a reason why. People do these things because they know the victim and have measured out the possibility of success. Rarely (except for the movies) will some criminal go after a completely foreign territory.

First off, aside from the psychopaths, people don't generally kill another person just for the heck of it. It usually would be in the commission of a crime. They kill because it's a last resort based on them being stuck in the wrong place. The victim (and the criminal) are equally surprised of the situation. In that case, what exactly is the chances of the victim having enough composure to hit the criminal with a gun? Chances are, the shot would be errant and possibly hit someone else.

As for the police, the quicker we remove guns from them, the better. As you might guess, I am no fan of the police. I have never met a police officer where I did not feel nothing by contempt for the person. Firefighters, great heroes. Police officers. Suck eggs, 9/11 notwithstanding.

I don't want to continue more on gun laws. As for your last question, if I have the power to stop people from using guns, no, I would not exercise that power. People must WANT to do something for it to be effective. I might try (as on this forum) to persuade some. I'm hardly a great persuader, so I know my probability of success is low. Oh well. As I have mentioned above, people die, and people die of all sorts of weird ways. Oh well. I wear seatbelts to try to drop the probability of that a bit (according to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio today, auto-related deaths per year in the US is around 40K; all of them are avoidable, with the miniscule few that were caused by, say, a heart attack behind the wheel). I don't smoke. That kills about several hundred thousand a year. And I don't own guns, because that kills about 20K a year, where the vast majority of those who die are somewhat related to the gun owner.

All gun deaths are preventable deaths. If we would like to decrease that number, what makes more sense? Add more guns to the mix, or remove guns from the mix? In the west during the "cowboys" era of the late 1800s, people did carry guns all over the place. I think, from reading various books about that era, there might be one death a week due to guns. That's one death per week in a town of perhaps 10,000. That's when there were guns all over the place. Compare that to Oakland CA with 73 deaths (I believe all by guns, but if not, a good majority of them), but in a city of 500,000 or so. And note, in the vast majority of those homicides, the victim was tangentially related to the killers: gangsters and people related to them. Folks in Piedmont or East Oakland or Berkeley weren't being shot. (It's tangential in that the victim may be a complete stranger, but was shot because the shooter missed the intended target and hit a person nearby. Oh well. That stranger wasn't some stranger as an intended victim, just an unfortunate soul in the wrong place and wrong time.)

**Inquartata** · 08-29-2002 11:43 PM

Drat, I missed one from yesterday...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
which is preferrable is not the issue on this board.<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps it should be?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So, your new argument is that we should kill them quickly lest they be proven innocent and be jaded and pissed off?<hr /></blockquote>Yes---let's say that...

Sorry for the flippancy, I am contrite...

The point to both of those statements was that to say that killing an innocent man for a crime which he did not commit is more unjust, cruel or unusual than to imprison him in vicious conditions for half of his life for a crime he did not commit seems to me highly dubious. Just as it would be to say that imprisoning him for half his life would be more just than imprisoning him for just one year of constant torture...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />that when you have a systematic bias it makes it far too simple for the system to be misused. <hr /></blockquote>Which is why I think we ought to be concentrating on eliminating the systemic bias, instead of just trying to make the deleterious effects of the bias a little less onerous.

Similarly, better to work to eliminate slavery altogether than to temporize by just trying to improve working conditions for the slaves. Or to reduce poverty, not just to give the poor free houses. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We recently threatened to cut off aid to Egypt because they imprisoned somebody we didn't think they should. clearly, this sis less serious than executing somebody. So, as you can see, we DO diplomatically nickel and dime other nations. many people in this country HAVE seen that as "Admirable".<hr /></blockquote>Not me. I think it's just as reprehensible for us to do it as for Mexico. Moreover, our sin is worse, because we are actually threatening sanctions if we don't get our way, not merely complaining...

So the argument may apply to proponents of capital punishment---or the use of "niggling details" of international law for a country to put the arm on another to act as it wants it to do---but not to me...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />can you say Vietnam? how did they provoke us? how about the countless governments we replaced around the world, but especially in Latin America? <hr /></blockquote>True, indeed. Although the reasoning behind Vietnam---and we were brought into it by the skulduggery of our own government---was couched in terms of the grand struggle against Communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. The Domino Theory and all that. Come to think of it, the same can be said of our Latin American ventures...

Now, of course, they give us the excuse of the War on Drugs. Small difference.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> we interferred in their internal politics and installed dictators who committed MUCH more heinous human rights violations than anything Hussein has even considered.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, now, don't exaggerate! I don't recall any of our creatures mustard gassing their own peoples in an attempt to eliminate an entire ethnic minority, or invading neighboring countries to rape them. Much less attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So did he. you may not agree with how successful that due process is at determining guilt, but then again, one of my major objections to executions in this country is the fallibility of the system.<hr /></blockquote>Except that the "due process" in his case is usually nonexistant, unless he needs a show trial for propaganda purposes. The usual procedure is arrest followed by immediate execution. And execution of families as well.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Murdered them in their homes? Ruby Ridge. And their extended families? Waco. using weapons of war? At waco we used tanks, at Kent state, the national guard fired on a crowd of demonstrators.<hr /></blockquote>The difference being---I'm sure you know this---that we tried to arrest them and give them their day in court. They responded by armed resistance...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
btw, it should be noted that WE originally backed Hussein. just like we originally backed the Taliban and Manuel Noriega (sp??). In fact, I'm not sure we have fought an enemy we didn't create since Vietnam....<hr /></blockquote>Farah Adid in Sudan? Whoever it was in Grenada? Milosevic in the Balkans?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Bosnia, for one. Frequently, massacres were justified by trumped up charges. In Somalia, the "courts" were biased against tribes other than the ruling tribe.<hr /></blockquote>I forgot why I asked that.

What was it supposed to demonstrate?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]Remember: My statements were in response to your suggestion that we "streamline" the appeals proccess. to lessen the number of appeals in a proccess which already has systematic bias is taking one more step down that slippery slope.

-m[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ah, the slippery slope. Often classified in logic as a fallacy. It implies that at some point, stopping becomes impossible and the end result is inevitably the worst possible outcome. Which is seldom the case in the real world. If it were, then our execution practices in WWII and at Nuremburg would have brought us to genocide already. Instead, we actually backtracked...

**edew** · 08-30-2002 08:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />we interferred in their internal politics and installed dictators who committed MUCH more heinous human rights violations than anything Hussein has even considered.
<hr /></blockquote>Ah, now, don't exaggerate! I don't recall any of our creatures mustard gassing their own peoples in an attempt to eliminate an entire ethnic minority, or invading neighboring countries to rape them. Much less attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons...[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>If you are referring to Hussein, well guess what, Hussein was one of US's supplied "leaders" like Noreiga, Pinochet, Somoza, etc. Those folks might not have used Mustard gas, or developed nuclear weapons (probably because of cost: Iraq has a fairly good revenue stream from oil whereas Chile or Nicaragua or Columbia don't have such a good revenue stream). But, they did a pretty good job with guns and bullets.

**edew** · 08-30-2002 04:42 PM

Since Inquartata asked, here is some citations from Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org/studies/wher2dv.htm), checked it out via Google:

Quotes:

Key Fact:

* Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

Key Fact:

* With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.

Key Fact:

* Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.

Key Facts:

* More than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,689 victims) than were killed by male strangers (137 victims).
* Almost a thousand female victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
* More female homicides were committed with firearms (52%) than with all other weapons combined. Of these, three quarters were committed with handguns.

Now, can we have a rational discussion on gun control? Would guns be safer locked at on off-site (outside the home) than at home? Key facts #2 and #3 would suggest having a gun at home increases the risks for women in the home.

Note also that there are more gun-related deaths in men than in women.

Protection or peril? Another section of the above-noted website notes:

Key Fact:

* For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.

I could post more, but why not just read the stats yourself. All what I've written in previous posts are backed up by the conclusions offered in the abovementioned website. If you feel that the website (or it's creators) is bogus, please offer a rational explanation.

**Inquartata** · 08-30-2002 10:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
Basically, I take any "fact" the NRA offers as complete BS. Other than that, the claims are from the CDC and the statistical abstracts of the US (from the census and such).<hr /></blockquote>A sensible attitude. I take you regard the statistics that periodically come out of groups like Hangun Control Inc. and the Violence Prevention Center with the same ruthless skepticism?

In all candor, I have even come to look askance at the studies that come out of the CDC and the AMA, which seem to have adopted a position on the issue which I fear may color their interpretation of the data. In fact I have very little trust for anything but the raw numbers, from the UCR and the like---and even those have biases, such as the fact that some jurisdictions report things differently than others ( counting police shootings as "homicides" in some and not in others, etc. )...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Go right ahead and delve into them. That claim of 700,000 to 3.6 million crimes averted by guns is completely bogus. Just do the numbers. <hr /></blockquote>Quite probably it is. OTOH, there are similar BS klaxons blaring from studies affecting to "prove" that defensive use of firearms is extremely low---as for instance refusing to count any incident which does not result in a corpse. Alas, both sides indulge in statistical trickery of this sort, which is why they are all best taken with a shaker of salt.

But one fights fire with fire, since few are convinced by reason anymore on this issue. If a person says "X happens Y times a year, proving Z", well, vim vire pellere lecit, and one may cite opposing propaganda in return. It comes down to whose song and dance you believe; but to let someone dazzle with statistics and quote nothing in return is to fight with one hand tied behind ones back. It leaves one able only to say "Those stats are wrong"...which doesn't go far to convince.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[/b] Are there crimes occurring every 9 seconds around the country? Look in your neighborhood. Crimes every nine seconds? Even in a place like San Francisco...every nine seconds?[/b]<hr /></blockquote>On average---perhaps. I'm not a statistician, so I don't know how improbable that is. If we count all crimes, probable there are more than that in progress; if serious, violent ones, probably less. I'm sure the figures use some dubious assumptions, though---a lot of these incidents are certainly never reported, so the writers have to extrapolate. Thus the enormous range between 700,000 and 3.6 million...

Perhaps the 65,000 to 80,000 figure for defensive gun use given by the National Crime Victimization Survey for the years 1979-1990 would be more palatable. They still far outdistance the gun homicides for the same period. The NCVS was conducted by the Census Bureau for the Justice Department.

However, I must ask how you arrived at the 9 second figure. 365 ( days in a year ) times 24 ( hours per day ) times 60 ( minutes per hour ) yields 525,600 minutes; dividing that into even the larger 3.6 million incident number comes to an incident every 6.8 minutes by my calculations...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And is it the case that that many crimes occur that just by the waving of a gun warded off the criminal activity? Ever heard of any such cases?<hr /></blockquote>Several personally, actually, and numerous others by hearsay ( "my brother's friend..." ), and innumerable accounts in the media. If you think about it awhile, you'll probably discover that you remember a few yourself, at least from the news if not from acquaintances.

One example.

When I was in high school, an aunt worked in an insurance agency. The owner had found an old dragoon pistol in the desert, rusted into uselessness of course, but he had cleaned up the outside and put on new grips and so forth and used it as a paperweight. One day an irate customer came in. Irate escalated to screaming threats and kicking of desks. And from there we don't know, because the owner opened the door to his office, pointed this monstrous pistol at the guy, and cocked the hammer. Which made a very impressive "cla-clack", even though it would then have taken hours of tinkering to get it to drop, as the insides were all rusted out and the springs long since dust. ( Nor was it loaded. ) The effect: dead silence, and an end to the incident. The guy managed some weak sputtering as he left the office, but the violence had gone right out of him.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[/b]
Guns do kill people. There are many instances when a gun is accidentally dropped and bang, off goes the head. How about Bob Barr, NRA poster boy? Handed a gun and it went off. That makes everyone in the room feel real swell.[/b]<hr /></blockquote>I guarantee you that gun didn't "just go off". The moron pulled the trigger unintentionally. Most people are too cavalier with weapons, they don't observe even the most basic safety rules, like keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you want to shoot something.

And the only sort of guns which go off when dropped anymore are antiques and replicas of antiques. Most modern weapons are lousy with safeties, such as a block between hammer and firing pin which retracts only when the safety is off and the trigger is pulled. That sort of stuff is pretty much folklore these days.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
A sword that can easily penetrate and kill people are rightfully not carried about. I have several such swords (as prizes in fencing tournaments). How far do you think I can go walking in San Francisco or New York before being stopped by cops (or shot by them)? <hr /></blockquote>Ah, but you have them at home? What happened to the "locked in an armory at the fencing salle" idea?

At any rate, I assure you there are places where swords are carried without incident, even in paranoid California. Go to an SCA "war" sometime.

And in other jurisdictions, it isn't even punishable. The police may look askance at it, but are not empowered to interfere.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Again, the primary use of a fencing sword is for the sport. The primary use of a Walther PPK or a S&W .357 is to kill people. <hr /></blockquote>Yep. Mostly because some people need killing. If they didn't, there would be no need for the millions of handguns in police and military hands. When that happy day arrives, I'll be glad to see them all consigned to the furnace. And they'll probably be carried thither by flying pigs, too.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Let's look at a typical newspaper story. Chances are, there are more stories of some kid who was accidentally shot by a loaded gun left under the bed, or in a drawer, than stories of some homeowner who managed to shoot and kill an intruder. There are far more stories of the former than the latter. <hr /></blockquote>You quite rightly reject data from the NRA as useless because of its source---and then suggest news stories as a reliable indicator?!?

If you wish, we can open another thread on the failings of the news media, media dysfunctions such as the focus on sensational or
heart-wrenching stories to the exclusion of "boring" ones, and media bias---I've got studies on that subject, too. But that's another argument.

Of COURSE the media is going to play up the few accidental killings of kids--it's the "for the children" obsession of our society, exacerbated by the search for "juicy" stories---the same reason we hear so much about stranger abductions but little about custodial abductions. Relying upon news stories would give a very unbalanced picture of just about anything in this society.

Luckily, we don't need to do so. Tthere are betternumbers available.

According to the FBI, in 1997 ( the latest year for which data is available ), 142 children under 15 died in accidents involving guns. Meanwhile between 1987 and 1991 there were 1,412 killings in the US classified as justifiable. Dividing by five, one gets an average of 282, almost twice the number of child accidental deaths by firearm.

Moreover, the justifiable homicide figures only count felons killed during commission of a felony. They do not include self-defense shootings which result in charges filed. In other words, only cases so obvious that the police don't even bother filing charges are counted. Cases adjudicated by having charges dismissed or in aquittals aren't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Given the spectacular nature of both, both would be equally (and gleefully) covered by the press, so it's not a case of the press not reporting on typical instances.<hr /></blockquote>Obviously not, given the above numbers. the only way you could have more stories about accidental child deaths than justifiable killings of felons during crimes would be for the media to report each of the former twice...or not to report the latter at all.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Killing an intruder or burglar is just not that frequent.

Based on what evidence? See the above figures.

Moreover, I said earlier that the vast majority of defensive gun uses occurs without a shot being fired, much less someone being killed. Of these, we are bound to hear less than actually occur, because many will simply not be reported. After all, if you are the possessor of one of the estimated 2 million illegal handguns in New York City, and you chase a burglar out of your house at 2 am with it, are you going to inform the police and risk arrest for unlawful possession of a firearm? The same applies to possessors in the many other jurisdictions with strict gun control laws which have forced citizens willy-nilly into technical violations of those laws.

[quote]Now, suppose intruders were scared away with a gun, then my thesis is that the gun is not properly used.<hr /></blockquote>So only a corpse satisfies your criteria for self-defense? That's harsh, man...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A baseball bat, a (real) sword, a kitchen knife, a door-slam might do the same thing. <hr /></blockquote>Try telling that to the 100 pound woman, the elderly man, the slight youngster, when the 200 pound felon comes crawling through the window...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
As for OJ, yes, Nicole and Ronald were killed with a knife. The point I was making was that most people are killed by someone they know. Most women are raped by acquaintances, and so on. There's a reason why. People do these things because they know the victim and have measured out the possibility of success. Rarely (except for the movies) will some criminal go after a completely foreign territory.<hr /></blockquote>I'm just curious, Eric---how do you know all this? Do you work in the criminal justice system? Or are you a criminal yourself? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> You sure seem to "know" a lot about how criminals think and act.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />First off, aside from the psychopaths, people don't generally kill another person just for the heck of it. <hr /></blockquote>The existence of said psychopaths would seem to me to justify the availability of a defense against them, by itself alone.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It usually would be in the commission of a crime. They kill because it's a last resort based on them being stuck in the wrong place. The victim (and the criminal) are equally surprised of the situation. In that case, what exactly is the chances of the victim having enough composure to hit the criminal with a gun? Chances are, the shot would be errant and possibly hit someone else.<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps. You argue then that in that situation it would be preferable to give only the criminal the chance to find out? That it's better he get to complete his rape or robbery than for the victim to be able to defend themself?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As for the police, the quicker we remove guns from them, the better. As you might guess, I am no fan of the police. I have never met a police officer where I did not feel nothing by contempt for the person. <hr /></blockquote>Wow. Well, I gues that says a lot....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't want to continue more on gun laws. <hr /></blockquote>OK, then I should just declare "victory" now?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And I don't own guns, because that kills about 20K a year, where the vast majority of those who die are somewhat related to the gun owner.<hr /></blockquote>And those figures are from...?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />All gun deaths are preventable deaths. If we would like to decrease that number, what makes more sense? Add more guns to the mix, or remove guns from the mix? <hr /></blockquote>And yet, it's the latter that seems to be the more effective in real-world trials. At the same time that the national overall homicide rate, the gun homicide rate, the rates of robbery and robbery using a gun, and the percentages of guns used in aggravated assaults were falling, the number of guns in this country has risen dramatically, some 75% between 1874 and 1994. there are around 236 known guns in the country. The percentage of voters owning---or at least admitting to owning---guns in 2000 is nearly 40%, compared with 27.6% in 1988...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In the west during the "cowboys" era of the late 1800s, people did carry guns all over the place. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, this is another myth. Guns were widely available, but seldom carried "all over the place". ( If one believes the results of Bellesiles' study of probate records and the like, they may not even have been as widespread in ownership as we have been led to believe. )

**Inquartata** · 08-30-2002 10:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
Since Inquartata asked, here is some citations from Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org/studies/wher2dv.htm), checked it out via Google:

Quotes:

Key Fact:

* Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

Key Fact:

* With one or more guns in the home the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.

Key Fact:

* Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.

Key Facts:

* More than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,689 victims) than were killed by male strangers (137 victims).
* Almost a thousand female victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
* More female homicides were committed with firearms (52%) than with all other weapons combined. Of these, three quarters were committed with handguns.

Now, can we have a rational discussion on gun control? Would guns be safer locked at on off-site (outside the home) than at home? Key facts #2 and #3 would suggest having a gun at home increases the risks for women in the home.

Note also that there are more gun-related deaths in men than in women.

Protection or peril? Another section of the above-noted website notes:

Key Fact:

* For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.

I could post more, but why not just read the stats yourself. All what I've written in previous posts are backed up by the conclusions offered in the abovementioned website. If you feel that the website (or it's creators) is bogus, please offer a rational explanation.<hr /></blockquote>Uh, Eric...if stats from the NRA, an advocacy group, are "BS", so are those from the other side. The VPC is just as likely to select and shuffle the data to "prove" its viewpoint as is the NRA.

I have not cited anything from ANY advocacy group, only from the FBI, Justice Department and US Census. Please, lets try to keep things on an equal footing bias wise, hmm?

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: Van Dam

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions