Gun and gun control

[Winter wind]

That makes a case for the negative cost analysis of guns but completely ignores the positive cost analysis:

No, i didn't. You said guns save more people then kill. The stat proved that wrong. Plus, your getting your stats from a strongly bias source, mine is a police study.

Gang members aren't law-abiding citizens and don't adhere to gun control laws; making all guns illegal wouldn't deter thugs from accessing guns via black market, which they're currently using. It's wiser to focus on eliminating the appeal of gangs and reduce membership - which opens up a completely separate pandora's box of societal issues.

The black market is only there because of the ease to get guns in the united states. In China, there are close to zero gun homicides simply because they are so strict about it. And don't tell me China doesn't have gangs.

Sad tragedies, both. Teens are twice as likely to die in a car crash. Should we focus safety efforts on the leading cause or the 2nd leading cause - which would save more lives? It seems a valid argument that raising the legal driving age to 18 would save a multitude of lives, though I can't offer any comparative stats. I did find this, however

I strongly object to the sentiment that focusing on guns means we ignore drunk driving. I think teens shouldn't drive until they pass a test proving that amount testosterone in their vanes is no larger then the amount of blood (bad humor again)

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNY said: You quote the opening of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as though the Founding Fathers stumbled upon some universal truth.

They did. That universal truth is the enumeration of individual rights of man to sanction government, or to have the power to rebel against it.

That is a truth that was long ignored, not observed, and fought against by those authoritarian powers that USED TO HOLD THE REIGNS OF EVERY NATION ON EARTH.

What stopped that reign?

The recognition of a greater good, the recognition of man as a reasonable and logical being, and recognition of that in their right to defense, privacy, speech, and as the ultimate arbiters of what government they live under.

ZNY said: What about before those two documents? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and seen what items were left out of those documents?

I have. Do you have a point?

ZNY said: Just because it is in America's documents doesn't make it true.

Because it is in the documents, that were agreed on by the people, and signed into law, it makes them LAW.

I don't need help knowing what is fact, and what isn't, if information exists.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winter wind said: Had a single one of those students fired a gun, the government would have used it as an excuse to do more damage then they did.

All the more reason to overthrow those tyrannical bastards.

Winterwind said: The government would have mowed down any resistance with a tank brigade and armed forces and they could also they could justify it to the public.

Only a public deprived of information, and fed propaganda, as is the case in China.

Winterwind said: A deadly militia bent on undermining the government would have made it seem like a fair fight. But now the government was shooting up students that couldn't defend themselves, the Chinese government was suddenly the bad guy.

They were the bad guy long before the Tianamen incident. What about dictatorships and tyranny is not bad?

Winterwind said: A single incident cost China so much in foreign out look and relations and caused an internal coup in the party system.

Not nearly a large enough coup.... look at your situation regarding individual rights and the control of the press and information.

Winterwind said: The gun doesn't protect you against an armored devision. Your going to need to look for a better weapon against the government.

Nonsense. Tanks and armor vehicles need refueled, serviced and there are times when people get out of the tanks, just like there are times when corrupt officials leave their offices..... that is the time to strike.

Winterwind said: But a better response is because I'm in the group of people where the second leading cause of death is guns. The age group under 19 before they can develop heart problems, is being eaten alive by guns and drunk driving.

No, their being eaten alive by irresponsible choices made by individuals, who are subject to punishment for their irresponsibility.
That is the way justice works in a system of objective law with individual responsibility for your actions.

Winter wind said: No, i didn't. You said guns save more people then kill. The stat proved that wrong. Plus, your getting your stats from a strongly bias source, mine is a police study.

One bias against another bias.....

Winterwind said: The black market is only there because of the ease to get guns in the united states.

ROFLMAO!!! That is priceless.

There are black market gun suppliers in EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET. Take a tour of third world countries my friend.

Winterwind said: In China, there are close to zero gun homicides simply because they are so strict about it. And don't tell me China doesn't have gangs.

Chine rules its people like Stalin and Marx envisioned ruling their people.... with an iron boot, and abject use of force bound by no objective law.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Winter wind so citizens can have nuclear arms

Enriching uranium for any purpose - and maintaining it - is a very dangerous process. There are no reasonable measures for the owner of a nuclear arm to take to guarantee the safety of all within its range.

Quote by: HelioPrime To make it official then: Less Guns Equals Less Gun Related Deaths

And European data says differently. Clearly the correlation isn't a causual relationship.

Quote by: HelioPrime See above then. Fine MURDER is a crime. GUN POSSESSION should also be a crime.

Who's the victim?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Winter wind It is subjective, I was hoping you could see why on your own so i didn't look like I was flaming

Wrong. You are semantically and tragically confused.

The second amendment guarantees an individual right. It then validates that right. The fact that the validation doesn't hold true in all circumstances doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.

subjective, unnecessary and borderline flaming.

You'll only get more "borderline flaming" if you continue to respond to arbitrary segments of my words in piecemeal and consistently use the word "subjective" in a laughably unfitting context.

they said a regulated militia, who do you think was supposed to regulate it. They did not specify how much regulation.

THE AMENDMENT DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY CAN REGULATE THE MILITIA.

and since you give no stats or hard facts in your rather bizarre argument, i don't know how you can call your argument objective.

Clearly you don't know how this 'debate' thing works.

You are making a positive claim (that banning guns decreases gun related homicide).

You have to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it before you even properly support it.

And no, the European statistics don't hold water. The reason is because of the "apples and oranges" argument you list in your OP, and never even attempt to rebuke. Your only counter has thusfar been "But cmon, look at the numbers!!!"

[brien]

When the people are being killed by guns, it is the responsibility of the government to act to end this somehow

Look at this statement above. It says that "guns kill people" when nothing can be further from the truth. People kill people! I think someone is confused here.

The "somehow" is to prosecute people who commit crimes with firearms to the FULLEST extend of the law. And if the criminal commits a crime with a firearm a second time, he/she should be incarcerated for a period of not less than 20 years, but no more than 30 years. Third time, life, no parole.

You see, we need to punish the criminals, not law abiding folks who don't use firearms in the commission of a crime. You are targeting the wrong group of people.

[brien]

GUN POSSESSION should also be a crime.

We will see what the SC says about this in June. Otherwise, you better get rid of the 2nd Amendment. So, check your Constitution for the Constitutional Convention process for amending the document. And, if you can satisfy those requirements, then you can make the statement you made above, Otherwise, shoulda coulda woulda....

[Muser]

Quote by: Winter wind Eating bad food is your own fault and effects no one else (i argue against smoking, but thats for later). Plus your stat is misleading as everybody has heart problems when they get old enough. Your body deteriorates as it gets older, and I'm not aiming to cure old age today. its a natural course of action that can be stopped with proper eating. Something the government shouldn't enforce on the people for gene pool reasons. (my bad sense of humor)

Somewhat fair enough response; however...

But a better response is because I'm in the group of people where the second leading cause of death is guns. The age group under 19 before they can develop heart problems, is being eaten alive by guns and drunk driving.

Best I've been able to find, there are approximately 30,000,000 teenagers in the US; likely the strictly accurate number is higher. Using your CDC stats link, there are 10,757 deaths by motor vehicle, and 4,127 deaths by gun homicide. Saying teenagers are being "eaten alive" is rather hyperbolic. Not that I mean to minimize the tragedy inherent in the numbers, but rather to give some perspective.

GUNS=death
CARS=more death

You advocate banning guns. Why do you not advocate a ban on cars? They both have the potential: to be used in a healthy manner; to be misused with harmful effect; to harm others.

The argument of "guns were designed to kill people - cars weren't" is entirely irrelevant. Or is it? Cars weren't designed to kill people - yet kill more people than the item designed to kill people. Interesting irony, that?

And really, it's not the item itself that does the killing - it's the person's [mis]use of that item. The [mis]use is the problem that needs to be addressed.

[Muser]

Quote by: Winter wind No, i didn't. You said guns save more people then kill.

I never said that, actually, though it might've been implied with my bolded quote from a separate source. I'll concede this error - feel free to deduct a point.

My main thrust, however, was "positive cost analysis" of the defensive use of guns in the prevention of all crime (including violent).

The stat proved that wrong. Plus, your getting your stats from a strongly bias source, mine is a police study.

Your scenario deals with "justifiable homicides" where death occurred. And that's where it ends. It doesn't address the postive cost analysis of crimes that were deterred via self-defensive use of a gun with no death occurring.

Here is a very indepth analysis for you concerning guns and crime deterrence, using police studies and other official sources:

GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE

The black market is only there because of the ease to get guns in the united states. In China, there are close to zero gun homicides simply because they are so strict about it. And don't tell me China doesn't have gangs.

China's known for being secretive, yes? They're also known for being a bit strict with publication of crime stats, so it's rather difficult to know with certainty an accurate gun homicide rate - but I'll take your word for it.

I strongly object to the sentiment that focusing on guns means we ignore drunk driving. I think teens shouldn't drive until they pass a test proving that amount testosterone in their vanes is no larger then the amount of blood (bad humor again)

Isn't testosterone responsible for 99.5%[1] of the world's ills? Maybe you're looking at banning the wrong thing.

[1] 86.2% of statistics are made up on the spot

[brien]

The only statistic I care about is the one where I defend myself from a perp with my firearm when they are hell bent upon harming me or my family. The rest of them be damned.

[Winter wind]

China's known for being secretive, yes? They're also known for being a bit strict with publication of crime stats, so it's rather difficult to know with certainty an accurate gun homicide rate - but I'll take your word for it.

its a fair point. Hid the number of SARS victims by driving them around in vans when WHO members came to check the hospitals. but from a subjective point, I feel safer riding the MTR (subway) at one in the morning here in Hong Kong then in New York.

Your scenario deals with "justifiable homicides" where death occurred. And that's where it ends. It doesn't address the postive cost analysis of crimes that were deterred via self-defensive use of a gun with no death occurring.

Neither does it deal with gun crimes that did not end in homicide. It isn't complete but it was the least bias information I could find. They made all the possible errors up front rather then forcing me to wait to find out.

You advocate banning guns. Why do you not advocate a ban on cars? They both have the potential: to be used in a healthy manner; to be misused with harmful effect; to harm others.

I do think that teens should have to wait until they are around 18 or 21 until they can drive. Wait until they don't feel so invincible. Then anybody who drinks and drives after that...well you have to look out for the gene pool (please don't flame, I know it's a bad joke). Except they damage others when their drunk, so that's why I'm all for the new cars that check the driver's BA level.

I never said that, actually, though it might've been implied with my bolded quote from a separate source. I'll concede this error - feel free to deduct a point.

Winter wind: 1
Everyone else: 37

yay.

[Winter wind]

THE AMENDMENT DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY CAN REGULATE THE MILITIA.

Then who?
"A well regulated Militia"

And you need to put your head on your desk for a few seconds. This is a debate forum, not the Taiwanese legislature. None of this matters. Drink some water or something.

And no, the European statistics don't hold water. The reason is because of the "apples and oranges" argument you list in your OP, and never even attempt to rebuke. Your only counter has thusfar been "But cmon, look at the numbers!!!"

Only said that once and i didn't use that many "!" *pouts*

My argument was close enough in the sense is a way to avoid speculation is to compare the United States to other countries. Far too often I hear "but if there were more guns, the united states would be safer" which is speculative at best.

Clearly you don't know how this 'debate' thing works. You are making a positive claim (that banning guns decreases gun related homicide). You have to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it before you even properly support it.

Yes, but i did prove it. It is up to you to support your counters with evidence, rather then the argument its apples to oranges. In a debate, your rebuttals has to have substance behind it otherwise its just hearsay.

[Winter wind]

Enriching uranium for any purpose - and maintaining it - is a very dangerous process. There are no reasonable measures for the owner of a nuclear arm to take to guarantee the safety of all within its range.

Wait, so if it is potentially dangerous to the public at large, the government can regulate it?

[Muser]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Switzerland. For those who missed these (likely not Osborn and brien), here are a couple of excellent articles concerning Swiss gun laws and culture with comparisons to ours:

Swiss Gun Laws- and some rebuttal to HCI "spin"

US vs. Switzerland Gun Laws

The articles are somewhat dated, but most information is still current and relevant. Two things I find critical and necessary for the US today: change in our society's attitude about guns, and the requirements for training.

I think Switzerland shows that the US was set up the correct way, but that it's since been perverted beyond recognition, making us vulnerable to the tyranny at hand.

Switzerland was not invaded by Hitler; I've heard mention it was due to their armed citizenry. Can anyone confirm this for me?

[Osborn F Enready]

Muser said: I think Switzerland shows that the US was set up the correct way, but that it's since been perverted beyond recognition, making us vulnerable to the tyranny at hand.

Well said, and a point I have been trying to argue since coming to Volconvo. People simply don't want to use their mind and truly analyze the transgressions against the Constitution and BOR.

Also, thank you for bringing those points to the table.

Muser said: Switzerland was not invaded by Hitler; I've heard mention it was due to their armed citizenry. Can anyone confirm this for me?

I can't verify this, but I will be doing some digging. I will post anything I find over the course of the day.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: Wait, so if it is potentially dangerous to the public at large, the government can regulate it?

Far too vague.

If one accident, that arises from mishandling or material failure can cause the loss of life to hundreds, thousands, millions, yes, the government has the right to regulate.

No firearm, or individual arm has that capacity.

[brien]

Switzerland was not invaded by Hitler; I've heard mention it was due to their armed citizenry. Can anyone confirm this for me?

The three pronged defense of Switzerland did include its Army, from which an armed populace was fortified, and it is the accepted reasoning for sparing Switzerland. But it really only was a temporary reprieve as most historians recognize if Hitler has been successful, he would have eventually invaded and occupied Switzerland.

Switzerland's Role in World War II


Why did Hitler not attack Switzerland?

During World War II, Switzerland was not actually attacked. Occasional incidents were absolutely insignificant in view of the dimensions of the Second World War. Incidents proceeded more frequently from British and American bombers than from Germany or Italy. Nevertheless German troops were regarded as a really serious threat. Unlike for other nations (for example Sweden), this threat was real, insofar as Hitler did have plans to incorporate all German-speaking regions into his empire (including 70% of Switzerland) and to integrate the rest of Switzerland (french and italian speaking areas) into France and Italy respectively. (see Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 87) The plans for the attack were ready in the drawers of the German army. (final report, p. 84) German broadcast propaganda went "Die Schweiz, das kleine Stachelschwein, nehmen wir auf dem Rückweg ein" ["We'll take Switzerland, the small porcupine, on our way back home!"] (quoted after oral family tradition, consistent with lots of independent other oral sources published in the internet). - and this was taken quite seriously. Nevertheless the attack was never carried out. Why this? Antitank-Obstacle in Switzerland, World War II Switzerland demonstrated military readiness with the general mobilization in 1939 and border occupation by 430,000 troops (20 % of the employed persons). However, their equipment was not very up to date. Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, German edition, p. 92. Note that the english edition of the final report, p. 89f does not give the important adverb "easily") This assessment was shared (but not declared publicly) by a broad majority of leading Swiss Army officers. As a consequence Switzerland's commander in chief General Henri Guisan developped his famous "Reduit Concept" in summer 1940, according to which the Swiss Army would have retreated into the alps relatively soon if attacked, but would have kept up resistance based on some sort of guerilla tactics from there. Consequently the term "Grenzbesetzung" [occupation of the borders] was replaced by "Aktivdienst" [active (military) service, the term "active" was meant as a counterpoint to 3-week military repetition courses that Swiss soldiers have to attend annually.] After the (international) debate on Switzerland's refugee politics and looted jewish assets in the 1990's there is now a new (internal) debate about the Reduit Concept among members of the so-called Aktivdienstgeneration [generation of people that were called to active military service]. It seems, that they are becoming aware only today, how soon General Guisan would have retreated Swiss troops from the borders into the Reduit, trying to prevent useless bloodshed on terrain, where the aggressor could use his tanks and aircraft, but leaving the majority of the population under occupation. The main strategy, however, was deterrence rather than fighting - and this worked out better than a sober external observer would have estimated. Of course, General Guisan did not communicate his detailed plans publicly in 1940 ... Integrating the German speaking regions (74%) of Switzerland into the Third Reich - as Adolf Hitler did with Austria in 1938 and planned with Switzerland - would have led to civil disobedience and massive "internal" criticism within the Reich, thereby absorbing too many forces of secret police and armed forces and it might even have strengthened the internal resistance in Germany against the Nazi regime. The Swiss concept of Spiritual Defense also had a deterring effect insofar as due to this movement the Swiss population was not at all "demoralized and ready for capitulation", as Adolf Hitler tried to get his victims by massive propaganda. Switzerland's alpine railways were of central importance for transports between Germany and Italy . In case of an attack on Switzerland, the Swiss Army would have destroyed important bridges and tunnels, and would have paralyzed the connection for years. The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in sealed box cars without checking the contents - in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods. This obviously was more attractive to Germany than a destroyed railway line. On the other hand, exporting industry products (chemicals, pharmceutics, machinery and electrical equipment) was far more vital for Switzerland as a small country than importing was for Germany and Italy - big nations having together 25 times the Swiss population and being able to use industrial resources all over occupied Europe. Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor. The Independent Commission of Experts showed that the Chairman of the Swiss National Bank (SNB) did not use this argument during the Second World War. "It was only after the war ... that the SNB directors claimed that their gold transactions and positive relations with Germany had prevented Germany from seriously considering the option of military operations against Switzerland. ... One might just as well claim that with its «business as usual» approach, the SNB had effectively prevented Switzerland from using the convertibility of its currency as a trump card in the economic negotiations with Germany, thus neutralising the dissuasive potential." (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 247f) The defense of Switzerland was thus based only on three columns (army, Spiritual Defense and alpine transit), but all of them were quite weak. So it was ever more important to combine them in a most effective way. The international debate on Switzerland's role in World War II has split public opinion into two camps: Swiss traditionalists defend the glorious role of the Swiss Army while leftist critics point to anything that has been done wrong according to moral standards. A sober look at the real balance of power between Germany and Austria vs. tiny Switzerland and the fact that France and Great Britain were not able to prevent Germany from occupying France in 1940 shows that Switzerland's Army (even backed up by Spiritual Defense) had absolutely no chance to withstand an attack and defend its borders. Therefore an attempt to rely on military deterrence alone would inevitably have ended in being defeated - and thus practically all Swiss citizens of Jewish origin as well as some 100,000 military and some 60,000 civilian refugees admitted by Switzerland would have faced deportation to the concentration and death camps of the Nazis. I estimate that alpine transportation was the key "joker" of Switzerland. Jokers have no effect, however, if not played out. An alpine transit railway with severe restrictions for use would have been of limited interest for Nazi Germany just as a destroyed one, and it would not have served as an argument to prevent a Nazi attack on Switzerland. Under acute threat it was obviously very difficult to estimate, how many concessions would convince Adolf Hitler to renounce on an attack. Given the weak negotiating position thus no other choice remained for Switzerland than to permit rather too many of the often criticized transports than too few.

[Kamehameha34]

Then who? "A well regulated Militia"

The citizens.. Read the 10th amendment..

And you need to put your head on your desk for a few seconds. This is a debate forum, not the Taiwanese legislature. None of this matters. Drink some water or something.

Can't help myself when someone so grossly misinterprets the constitution.

My argument was close enough in the sense is a way to avoid speculation is to compare the United States to other countries

The comparison fails for stated reasons.

Maybe you also missed that graph I posted on the first or second page.

Yes, but i did prove it.

Wrong.. Correlation doesn't equate to causation..

It is up to you to support your counters with evidence, rather then the argument its apples to oranges. In a debate, your rebuttals has to have substance behind it otherwise its just hearsay.

First of all, I have no idea what you meant, but it definitely wasn't "hearsay."

Although I did already provide evidence of a gun ban having an opposite of the intended effect in the UK, all I'm required to do is deconstruct your point. I'm not making a positive claim, so I'm not required to bring evidence. You are, so you are, and that evidence is open for scrutiny - a test that it is failing.

[Winter wind]

Although I did already provide evidence of a gun ban having an opposite of the intended effect in the UK, all I'm required to do is deconstruct your point. I'm not making a positive claim, so I'm not required to bring evidence. You are, so you are, and that evidence is open for scrutiny - a test that it is failing.

But that has no relation to the fact that the UK has more gun control then America and also has less gun related deaths.

hearsay

hearsay is information you just heard from someone. Second hand evidence.

Maybe you also missed that graph I posted on the first or second page.

I did miss it. First off, considering you got your information from a strictly biased source, its validity is already in question. If this was a science experiment, all the information would have been thrown out because they were looking for answers. My data comes from police reports.

Second off, Since you are accusing me of post hoc, allow me to point out the flaws in yours. "increase" means off of last year? means off of the first year recorded? You only include robberies, how about if the criminal was caught? Other crimes other then gun robberies, IE gun homicides. Were their more or less.

The graph lacks a data bank therefore is just a bunch of pretty lines.

Also, when you look at the graph closely, you will see that before the guns were being restricted, crime was already on the rise according to the graph, bring up the question whether the lack of guns were responsible, or another mitigating factor.