So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 . . . 43 NEXT
 

Tyler Perry:

Myrmecodon:
I'm not the one calling for the lynching of an innocent man who did his duty according to both the letter of the law and the incomplete tactical information available to him at the time.

Now it was his DUTY to stalk Trayvon Martin and accost him. Remind me again what Trayvon Martin was doing that was illegal?

Myrmecodon:
But yes, I'm happy that a teenager who idolized the thug lifestyle got popped before he could live it out by stealing from and occasionally murdering law-abiding citizens who actually work for their money. The world is a more peaceful, hopeful, and trusting place for the loss of its Trayvon Martin.

You strike me as someone who is trying really, really hard not to say the N-word.

Hey to his credit he has a point.

I seriously doubt that anytime soon Trayvon, even though I have absolutely no connection to anything that is an aspect of his life, would be the president or be critical to anyone's life (if any at all a very small, negligent number).

reonhato:

really, you're really going to try and claim that a rocket launchers are not arms?

rocket launcher - armament in the form of a device capable of launching a rocket

im sure military forces call a stash of explosives and RPGs an arms cache just for fun

An arm in the 18th century means a device that is used by a single soldier. Not all rocket launchers can be used by a single soldier and in fact most can't.

more made up fantasy

Really? So you are ready to state that guns are not the problem but instead that socioeconomic-cultural factors are to blame?

i really do not know why i bother to respond to you two. i guess its why i respond to religions people, its fun to see just how backwards and ignorant some people are.

You calling us backwards is the equivalent of an accusation of racism from David Duke.

i guess in a sense you are both religious, just the constitution is your bible and your gun your saviour

Actually I can be, at best, described as an agnostic. Although you certainly hold to your beliefs like they are a religion.

Xanthious:
George Zimmerman is claiming that he did indeed follow Treyvon Martin. However, after being told by the 911 dispatcher that he didn't have to continue following him he turned around and walked back to his vehicle

From the location of Martin's body is does not appear possible that Zimmerman was returning directly to his vehicle.

Xanthious:
at which point he was confronted who asked him "Do you have a problem?" to which Mr Zimmerman said no and then was told by Treyvon "Well you do now" at which point he was attacked by Treyvon Martin.

The accounts I have read detail Zimmernan's response as "What are you doing here?".

Not one account has Zimmerman identifing himself as neigbourhood watch patroling the area.

Xanthious:
All we have is George Zimmerman's account of what happened and he claims he was confronted and attacked by Treyvon Martin after returning to his vehicle as instructed by the 911 dispatcher.

It is impossible for Zimmerman to have actually returned to his vehicle, due to the location Martin's body was found (in a walkway between 2 rows of houses).

Xanthious:
However, with no way of proving otherwise the prosecution is going to have near impossible time of securing a conviction.

Under Florida's STY laws Martin was justified in using force against Zimmerman.

Martin had tried to run away (according to Zimmerman's 911 call).
Martin was scared for his safety (Martin's call to his girlfriend).
Martin had retreated almost to his front door and Zimmerman continued to follow him (location of Martin's body).

As Zimmerman did not identify himself at any time, Martin would appear justified in thinking the stranger chasing him down a dark laneway meant him no good.

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE:

Use of force in defense of person.
-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Of course Zimmerman is then justified in the use of deadly force (once Martin attacks him) as Florida's STY laws also state;

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

This case clearly shows that STY is a terrible law, as it allows the escalation of violence.

This case clearly demonstrates how both sides could use STY to justify their actions.

If Martin had been old enough to carry a firearm it would probably be Zimmerman who was dead. [though I think it is a stretch to claim Zimmerman's comments in the 911 call show he knew Martin was too young to be carring a firearm.]

TLDR: It does not matter if Martin instigated the violence, Martin was justified under STY to use force to protect himself.

farson135:

reonhato:

really, you're really going to try and claim that a rocket launchers are not arms?

rocket launcher - armament in the form of a device capable of launching a rocket

im sure military forces call a stash of explosives and RPGs an arms cache just for fun

An arm in the 18th century means a device that is used by a single soldier. Not all rocket launchers can be used by a single soldier and in fact most can't.

more made up fantasy

Really? So you are ready to state that guns are not the problem but instead that socioeconomic-cultural factors are to blame?

i really do not know why i bother to respond to you two. i guess its why i respond to religions people, its fun to see just how backwards and ignorant some people are.

You calling us backwards is the equivalent of an accusation of racism from David Duke.

i guess in a sense you are both religious, just the constitution is your bible and your gun your saviour

Actually I can be, at best, described as an agnostic. Although you certainly hold to your beliefs like they are a religion.

so you can use weapons that were not invented in the 18th century but when it comes to what an arm is we base it on 18th century weapons ? that makes no sense at all, you either only have the right to use arms as they were in the 18th century or you must update it to include all arms, which include rocket launchers.

a perfect example of you ignoring what people say and arguing against what you say they say. i have not seen a single person except you say that. no one here has never claimed there are not multiple reasons for crime. it however has been said time and time again that firearms make it worse, something pretty much all evidence mentioned over multiple threads points to.

i believe in the evidence. the evidence says guns are not good for society, the make violence lethal and so on. you believe in things that are simply false, that are routinely proven wrong and you never question it. i should add to the constitution is the bible part, i forgot that the NRA is your vatican, although to be fair to the vatican at least there leader is sane and grounded mostly in reality.

CM156:
Goddamn. People are still using the "rocket launcher argument"?

It is a valid response to 'my RIGHT to bear arms MUST not be infringed', as that statement ignores that your right to bear arms is ALREADY limited by US laws.

CM156:
A rocket launcher is not covered by the Second Amendment.

Why not? Because the US courts have decided that there are limits to the 2nd amendment.

DoC v Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

CM156:
The argument is akin to someone saying that "if you do not believe people should be permitted to ride horses on the freeway, then I'm sure you would be happy to ban cars from those same freeways." It's utterly nonsensical.

I see it more like;
"you allow automatic weapons made after 1986 to be banned but refuse to contemplate restrictions on any other types of firearms, why?

CM156:
And what we keep saying is that we want to deal with the other parts without infringing on people's rights.

Again you return to the 'it is my RIGHT, you can't take it away.'

It was once your RIGHT to own slaves, take any drug or own automatic firearms.

These rights have been removed / infringed, supposedly for the common good.

What about the RIGHT to life of the ~10,000 American's murdered with firearms each year?

Why is your RIGHT to bear arms more important than ALL the rights every firearm homicide victim loses when they are killed?

TechNoFear:
It is a valid response to 'my RIGHT to bear arms MUST not be infringed', as that statement ignores that your right to bear arms is ALREADY limited by US laws.?

I've said before: I'm not arguing for the unlimited rights to firearms. this is the third time I've said that.

Why not? Because the US courts have decided that there are limits to the 2nd amendment.

Never said that there weren't. EVER.

I see it more like;
"you allow automatic weapons made after 1986 to be banned but refuse to contemplate restrictions on any other types of firearms, why?

First of all, you assume I agree with that law. I find it arbitrary that someone with a Class III can own any gun made before 1986, but that same model made afterwords is banned.

Secondly, I'm not against gun laws. As I said, I'm a proponent of Florida's 10-20-Life law.

I, quite frankly, don't care what's done with violent criminals who refuse to reform their behavior. I'll entertain most any solution in that matter.

What about the RIGHT to life of the ~10,000 American's murdered with firearms each year?

As I said, go after the criminals. I'm willing to entertain any solution to what is to be done with them in order to deter and prevent crime.

Why is your RIGHT to bear arms more important than ALL the rights every firearm homicide victim loses when they are killed?

False dichotomy.

Look, you've been rather vague on what firearms laws you want, so let me propose a few I'm in favor of. I'm not against all gun laws.

1. Harsher sentences for people who break gun laws. Criminals do not get to plea serious weapon charges away. And rather than flooding prisons, we need to make a distinction between those who want to change their ways, and those that refuse to. The former are kept on a tight leash, but released after their time (with a tight leash still kept). If they want to reform their life, they have a chance, and that should be given to them. For the others, releasing them into society when they refuse to change isn't a smart move. They are kept behind bars. And we stop locking up non-violent drug offenders, turning them into serious criminals.

2. Give people at gun shows access to the NICS in order to conduct background checks better. You only need a FFL if you make a business out of selling guns. How about if you're doing a private sale, you can get short access to the NICS in order to make sure the seller is a permitted person. Or another solution to close the so called "gun-show loophole". This I'm open minded on this topic.

3. Mental health services are woeful in the states. Far to often, people who need help aren't getting it. First hand, I've seen insurance be a pain in order to get Fluoxetine. Also, states aren't submitting the appropriate record checks to the NICS often. This needs to be fixed, pronto.

4. Go after corrupted dealers. If people are selling guns to criminals off the books, they need to be arrested. I recall a statistic from the CSGV (them, no less) that said more than 95% of dealers have one or fewer guns that they've sold ever recovered on crime scenes, and that it's less than 1% of dealers that supply 50% of the guns. If that's true, there needs to be an investigation.

4.5 The same applies to straw purchasers. People who supply guns illegally to people are punished more harshly and diligently.

5. Investigate suspicious sales that FFL dealers submit voluntarily.

6. Education in poor areas is dreadful. I don't know if you've seen downtown Saint Louis, but it's not that good. Children grow up on the street, with no prospect of hope, who turn to gang life out of necessity, and become hardened criminals. We need to give them another chance at a better life before they turn to crime. I've heard many solutions to this issue, ranging from trying to reduce the number of children born in the inner cities (birth control provided for free) to better, stricter schools, to work programs that a person can take from a young age to learn a trade. This is something I'd like to have a dialogue on.

7. The war on drugs needs to be re-examined. Drugs are a huge source of money for criminals.

8. Safety around guns should be something taught from a young age. Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult. Guns are not toys. Toy guns are toys.

9. We need to stop glorifying gang culture. This is again, something I saw at my school. We bused in kids from the inner city. Some took the chance and made something of themselves. Several others dropped out and joined gangs. I lost a classmate this way at 16. And before you ask, he was stabbed by a rival gang member. This isn't something I'm proposing legal sanctions to you, mind.

There you have it. Those are laws I'm in favor of. So if you have anything you'd like to argue against, you know my view. Surely you can agree to at least a few of these, no? I'd rather focus on the criminal element. And for that, I'm willing to entertain a lot in terms of what's to be done. I believe we can address a crime issue without infringing on my rights. And quite frankly, isn't that for the better? We already live in a heavily armed society. Let's work on what can be done within the context, rather than wishing away the moon.

reonhato:
i should add to the constitution is the bible part, i forgot that the NRA is your vatican, although to be fair to the vatican at least there leader is sane and grounded mostly in reality.

"Have you accepted Samuel Colt as your personal lord and savior?"
"No?"
*Cocks revolver*
"How about now?"

"And now, a reading from Browning 2:24: "And so, Browning said to the masses 'I made the M1917, because really, who DOESN'T want a water cooled machine gun.'"

"May Glock be with you"
"And also with you"
"Let us aim"

EDIT: Wow, I spent a lot of time typing this up. :P

EDIT EDIT: To be honest, I amuses me that most people I see argue for stricter gun control in america aren't American citizens themselves. Not just here, but elsewhere. Something for me at least, to think about.

CM156:
I've said before: I'm not arguing for the unlimited rights to firearms. this is the third time I've said that.

I responded because you jumped into the middle of another discussion and ignored the context (which was that the right to bear arms should be unlimited).

CM156:
To be honest, I amuses me that most people I see argue for stricter gun control in america aren't American citizens themselves. Not just here, but elsewhere. Something for me at least, to think about.

Frankly I could care less about America, except when it effects my standard of living via lax US finacial controls.

I only respond when posters make the case that 'more guns means less violent crime', which has been thoughly debunked (by 7 scientific studies) in Australia.

I have been to the US a few times, but have no desire to return. If I had to live in the US I would be armed to the teeth (as it is simply not as safe as it is here).

Have you ever been to Australia or Europe (and so experienced first hand a culture without firearms)?

TechNoFear:

CM156:
I've said before: I'm not arguing for the unlimited rights to firearms. this is the third time I've said that.

I responded because you jumped into the middle of another discussion and ignored the context (which was that the right to bear arms should be unlimited).

CM156:
To be honest, I amuses me that most people I see argue for stricter gun control in america aren't American citizens themselves. Not just here, but elsewhere. Something for me at least, to think about.

Frankly I could care less about America, except when it effects my standard of living via lax US finacial controls.

I only respond when posters make the case that 'more guns means less violent crime', which has been thoughly debunked (by 7 scientific studies) in Australia.

I have been to the US a few times, but have no desire to return. If I had to live in the US I would be armed to the teeth (as it is simply not as safe as it is here).

Have you ever been to Australia or Europe (and so experienced first hand a culture without firearms)?

As for your first point, fair enough. I'm not a proponent of "more guns, less crime" as a proven idea

As for your second point, I've been to Mexico thrice and Costa Rica once. Never been to Europe. Don't know if I will, for several, unrelated reasons

Sorry if this is short, I'm writing on my iPhone before I sleep.

where does Martin get the right to turn around and attack a person? the right to slam a persons head in the pavement? where does it say that if you are followed for any length of time you can turn around and beat the shit out of somebody? we saw the picture of where the fight was. on a walk way in a Very wide open place. IF MARTIN WAS STILL TRYING TO FLEE HE HAD AMPLE ROOM TO DO SO. just becuse martin thought he was being followed doesn't mean he can turn around and attack that person.

point I'm trying to make is that it's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman stopped following martin, there is some support to that claim. it's also reasonable that Martin no longer saw him as a threat. It's also reasonable to think that Martin confronted Zimmerman at that point because he was no longer a perceived threat. for the length of time Martin was followed it"s not reasonable to think his life was in danger. and is Zimmerman did stop following Martin, then there is no reason martin should have had ANY contact with Zimmerman for contact to happen Martin would have needed to seek it out.

IMHO i think what happened was Zimmerman did stop following martin, and martin saw no threat, he was probably pissed off about being followed at all, and didn't want to look like a coward in front of his girlfriend ho he was still talking to. his twitter and youtube show that he may have liked to fight. so maybe once Zimmerman didn't seem threatening, martin confronted him. and then attacked Him. Is that an unreasonable possibility of a 17 year old NO_LIMIT_NIGGA?

dystopiaINC:
where does Martin get the right to turn around and attack a person? the right to slam a persons head in the pavement? where does it say that if you are followed for any length of time you can turn around and beat the shit out of somebody? we saw the picture of where the fight was. on a walk way in a Very wide open place. IF MARTIN WAS STILL TRYING TO FLEE HE HAD AMPLE ROOM TO DO SO. just becuse martin thought he was being followed doesn't mean he can turn around and attack that person.

Florida's Stand Your Ground laws give Martin the right to use non-lethal violence;

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE:

Use of force in defense of person.
-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Another man was aquitted under SYG after he saw someone steal his car sterio.

He armed himself with a knife and chased the theif for 2 blocks.

When the thief swung a bag at him he stabbed the thief to death.

The court decided that was self defense under SYG.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS416295476820120329

dystopiaINC:
point I'm trying to make is that it's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman stopped following martin, there is some support to that claim.

Only Zimmerman's accout, which must be questioned as Zimmerman COULD be attempting to cover his culpability for murder.

dystopiaINC:
it's also reasonable that Martin no longer saw him as a threat. It's also reasonable to think that Martin confronted Zimmerman at that point because he was no longer a perceived threat.

The phone call between MArtin and Martin's girlfriend does not support this version of events.

dystopiaINC:
for the length of time Martin was followed it"s not reasonable to think his life was in danger.

Martin does not have to think his life is in danger.

Martin only needs to think that Zimmernam is going to instigate violence (ie if I think you are going to punch me, I can legally hit you first under SYG, I can not shoot you however.)

Martin saw someone folowing him.
Martin ran away to a place a car could not follow, the stranger got out of his car and followed.
Martin was meters from his home where his parents were out.

Would you want some stranger who chased you home knowing exactly where YOU lived?

Chasing someone down an alley at night could get you charged with 'harassment' (unless it is the 3rd time or more, then it is covered under the stalking statues).

dystopiaINC:
and is Zimmerman did stop following Martin, then there is no reason martin should have had ANY contact with Zimmerman for contact to happen Martin would have needed to seek it out.

You ignore that Zimmerman created the situation, by getting out of his car and chasing Martin down a dark alley way.

I think anyone would consider a strange male chasing them at night to threaten their safety.

And Florida's law states Martin has the right to instigate violence if he feels his safety is threatened.

Why do you think Zimmerman should have that right, but not Martin?

dystopiaINC:
he was probably pissed off about being followed at all,

Wouldn't you be?

If someone followed my teenager (or myself) home at night I would not hesitate to ensure they never followed anyone again.

dystopiaINC:
and didn't want to look like a coward in front of his girlfriend ho he was still talking to. his twitter and youtube show that he may have liked to fight.

Just as Zimmerman's previous convictions for 'violent' crime are irrelevent, so is that argument.

dystopiaINC:
Is that an unreasonable possibility of a 17 year old NO_LIMIT_NIGGA?

It an equally reasonable possiblity that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and shot him for being black (as are endless other scenarios).

However without doubt if;
Zimmerman stays in his car
OR waits to see some actual evidence of illegal activity before going 'batman'
OR is not carring a firearm
THEN Martin does not get shot to death.

TechNoFear:
From the location of Martin's body is does not appear possible that Zimmerman was returning directly to his vehicle.

It is impossible for Zimmerman to have actually returned to his vehicle, due to the location Martin's body was found (in a walkway between 2 rows of houses).

How can you possibly know that without knowing what Zimmerman's original position was? The answer is that you can't yet that does not stop you from saying it multiple times.

The accounts I have read detail Zimmernan's response as "What are you doing here?".

He is quoting Zimmerman's account and you are quoting the girlfriends account.

Under Florida's STY laws Martin was justified in using force against Zimmerman.

NO HE IS NOT.

Martin had tried to run away (according to Zimmerman's 911 call).

He stopped and likely came back.

Martin was scared for his safety (Martin's call to his girlfriend).

Apparently not scared enough to run home or call 911.

Martin had retreated almost to his front door and Zimmerman continued to follow him (location of Martin's body).

Martin was not at his front door (he was in fact a few blocks away).

As Zimmerman did not identify himself at any time, Martin would appear justified in thinking the stranger chasing him down a dark laneway meant him no good.

But it is still not reasonable to attack him. No reasonable person attacks a person simply for following them.

This case clearly shows that STY is a terrible law, as it allows the escalation of violence.

This case clearly demonstrates how both sides could use STY to justify their actions.

They could use it that way and they would both be charged and convicted (assuming the prosecutor is not overzealous like this one appears to be).

If Martin had been old enough to carry a firearm it would probably be Zimmerman who was dead.

Illegally.

TLDR: It does not matter if Martin instigated the violence, Martin was justified under STY to use force to protect himself.

Prove it.

TechNoFear:
It is a valid response to 'my RIGHT to bear arms MUST not be infringed', as that statement ignores that your right to bear arms is ALREADY limited by US laws.

Considering not all rocket launchers are arms it is wrong.

BTW are you saying that if the government fucks up we should not try and change it?

Again you return to the 'it is my RIGHT, you can't take it away.'

Because it is.

What about the RIGHT to life of the ~10,000 American's murdered with firearms each year?

My right to keep and bear arms does not infringe on their rights in the slightest.

Why is your RIGHT to bear arms more important than ALL the rights every firearm homicide victim loses when they are killed?

My owning a gun does not lead to anyone else being killed.

TechNoFear:
I only respond when posters make the case that 'more guns means less violent crime', which has been thoughly debunked (by 7 scientific studies) in Australia.

And many more studies have completely debunked the idea that less guns equals less crime. In fact the general consensus is that guns are irrelevant to crime.

Have you ever been to Australia or Europe (and so experienced first hand a culture without firearms)?

I have been to Mexico, Canada, and Central/Eastern Europe.

Mexico- few guns- bad
Canada-lots of guns- good
Switzerland- lots of guns- very good
Lichtenstein- unknown- very very good
Austria/Germany/Croatia/Italy/Poland- some guns- good
Serbia- lots of guns- good

TechNoFear:
Florida's Stand Your Ground laws give Martin the right to use non-lethal violence;

I noticed you backed off lethal force. Progress.

dystopiaINC:
it's also reasonable that Martin no longer saw him as a threat. It's also reasonable to think that Martin confronted Zimmerman at that point because he was no longer a perceived threat.

The phone call between MArtin and Martin's girlfriend does not support this version of events.

Actually it does since Martin obviously stopped and probably came back.

Martin does not have to think his life is in danger.

Martin only needs to think that Zimmernam is going to instigate violence (ie if I think you are going to punch me, I can legally hit you first under SYG, I can not shoot you however.)

No you can't. You are instigating violence without any proof that violence is forthcoming.

Martin saw someone folowing him.
Martin ran away to a place a car could not follow, the stranger got out of his car and followed.
Martin was meters from his home where his parents were out.

Would you want some stranger who chased you home knowing exactly where YOU lived?

Then hide, call 911, etc but DO NOT confront the person.

Chasing someone down an alley at night could get you charged with 'harassment' (unless it is the 3rd time or more, then it is covered under the stalking statues).

No it isn't.

You ignore that Zimmerman created the situation, by getting out of his car and chasing Martin down a dark alley way.

No, if Martin had deescalated the situation then nothing would have happened.

I think anyone would consider a strange male chasing them at night to threaten their safety.

And Florida's law states Martin has the right to instigate violence if he feels his safety is threatened.

Why do you think Zimmerman should have that right, but not Martin?

Because Martin had no reasonable suspicion that his life was in danger and you have no proof that it existed.

Wouldn't you be?

If someone followed my teenager (or myself) home at night I would not hesitate to ensure they never followed anyone again.

So you would instigate violence against a potentially innocent person. I thought you were a cop.

Just as Zimmerman's previous convictions for 'violent' crime are irrelevent, so is that argument.

Zimmerman was never convicted of a violent crime.

However without doubt if;
Zimmerman stays in his car
OR waits to see some actual evidence of illegal activity before going 'batman'
OR is not carring a firearm
THEN Martin does not get shot to death.

Unless of course Martin decides to confront Zimmerman in his car (it has happened before).

If Martin had just gone home then the scenario never would have occurred.

reonhato:
so you can use weapons that were not invented in the 18th century but when it comes to what an arm is we base it on 18th century weapons ?

Actually we base it on 18th century DEFINITIONS. Why? Because that is when it was written.

that makes no sense at all, you either only have the right to use arms as they were in the 18th century or you must update it to include all arms, which include rocket launchers.

Why don't you prove that all rocket launchers are considered arms in today's time.

a perfect example of you ignoring what people say and arguing against what you say they say. i have not seen a single person except you say that. no one here has never claimed there are not multiple reasons for crime.

You have categorically denied the FACT that socioeconomic-cultural factors trump the presence of an object (unless you are prepared to back off now).

it however has been said time and time again that firearms make it worse, something pretty much all evidence mentioned over multiple threads points to.

Actually the majority of evidence says YOU ARE WRONG. You just ignore it because it is inconvenient to you.

image

BTW I am quite aware that both liberals and conservatives may or may not support the 2nd Amendment but this was an apt cartoon for the situation.

i believe in the evidence. the evidence says guns are not good for society, the make violence lethal and so on. you believe in things that are simply false, that are routinely proven wrong and you never question it.

If you believed in the evidence then you would believe that the presence of guns is irrelevant. Lithuania has few guns but high crime and suicide. Obviously guns are not the cause of that societies problems. The most gun friendly states in the US also tend to have the lowest murder rates. Idaho has a murder rate on par with the UK despite having 10 times as many guns. Why? Because guns are irrelevant in comparison to socioeconomic-cultural factors.

i should add to the constitution is the bible part, i forgot that the NRA is your vatican, although to be fair to the vatican at least there leader is sane and grounded mostly in reality.

And you say you believe the evidence. I am as secular as they come and yet you choose to ignore the evidence in your quest to condemn me.

My guns are tools, I use them as such, and I believe them to be tools for the betterment of my life. You, on the other hand, are fervent in your convictions and you follow them blindly like a zealot. I am only waiting for your "holy" war to start. Make sure to start in Aussieland because if you start in the US you will not get far. Hell, in your country you could probably go from coast line to coast line without any problems.

reonhato:
It however has been said time and time again that firearms make it worse, something pretty much all evidence mentioned over multiple threads points to.

i believe in the evidence. the evidence says guns are not good for society, the make violence lethal and so on. you believe in things that are simply false, that are routinely proven wrong and you never question it.

Let's be honest, for every study you can point to that say guns are bad for society I can point to one that say that lax gun laws actually decrease crime. For every one you show that says gun owners are more likely to be shot I can point to one that claims otherwise as well as claiming that gun owners are less likely to be robbed or raped or victimized in general. The fact of the matter is there are plenty of studies to go around to support which ever side of the argument you want them to.

Ignoring that for a minute it baffles me that the anti gun crowd are so quick to want to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Because I promise you that's all that stricter gun laws will accomplish. Criminals aren't going to stop carrying guns because the law says so ya know with them being CRIMINALS and all. Why on Earth the anti gun crowd is so short sighted as to want to leave guns in the hands of criminals while disarming law abiding citizens is something I will never understand.

Going beyond even that I fail to see why the anti gun crowd are so quick to want to deny people the very basic right to defend themselves. Why are you so quick as to want to hand over your own protection damn near exclusively to the government agencies like the police? When the state wants to give me my own personal policeman that will accompany me everywhere I go 24/7 365 days a year then I will listen to anti gun arguments. Until that day though how dare anyone try and tell me I shouldn't have the right to defend myself, my property, and my family.

reonhato:
although to be fair to the vatican at least there leader is sane and grounded mostly in reality.

I'm sorry I just have to laugh at this.

The most gun friendly states in the US also tend to have the lowest murder rates.

Because of this, I went looking for statistics and damn lies. So far, I'm not really seeing much correlation between strict vs. lenient gun laws and firearm murders. It doesn't seem to matter, which is kind of a problem for the gun control proponents.

Thus far I've been using the table in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state (double-checked against the FBI's spreadsheet, it works) and comparing the CSMonitor's 10 states with the strictest gun laws. On the other side, according to NPR Arizona is "among the most lenient" in the nation.

I'll keep looking. (Well, there is also this which might be accurate but the Daily Beast is a heavily liberal-biased source, IIRC. Looks like the stats are completely different, not useful. Gun law ranking might suffice as a ballpark figure, which is what I was hoping for.)

Hmm, maybe we should have a whole other thread for the gun discussion...

TechNoFear:

Again you return to the 'it is my RIGHT, you can't take it away.'

It was once your RIGHT to own slaves, take any drug or own automatic firearms.

These rights have been removed / infringed, supposedly for the common good.

What about the RIGHT to life of the ~10,000 American's murdered with firearms each year?

Why is your RIGHT to bear arms more important than ALL the rights every firearm homicide victim loses when they are killed?

The 2nd amendment was never meant as a crime deterrent, so I don't quite get what saying that it doesn't do what it wasn't supposed to do accomplishes. Especially with vague evidence to back up a pointless claim.

As if that was not ignorant enough, you use the statistic for all gun crime, when those who go through the licensing process and legally obtain their firearms make up roughly 5% of that. At least I'm hoping that you just have no clue what you're talking about, because deliberately passing off false information to make people draw incorrect conclusions would call to question every one of your arguments.

The right that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting is worth as many lives lost by gun crime and a hundredfold more.

evilneko:
Because of this, I went looking for statistics and damn lies. So far, I'm not really seeing much correlation between strict vs. lenient gun laws and firearm murders. It doesn't seem to matter, which is kind of a problem for the gun control proponents.

Because there really isn't. Areas with a high number of guns tend to be rural and rural areas tend to have low murder rates. The higher the level of urbanization the higher the murder rate and the lower the gun ownership rate. My overall point was that if you can say that correlation equal causation (US has lots of guns and lots of crime (not really true) and SOME countries in Europe have few guns and low crime, therefore guns are the cause) then my side has plenty of evidence. Both sides use the correlation equals causation arguments and they are both wrong to do so. I am simply trying to show the logic gap. Unfortunately, trying to show Reon the gap in his logic makes me a shill for the NRA. Got to love that logic.

Personally I believe that the evidence shows that guns are irrelevant. Socioeconomic-cultural factors trump the presence of an object.

BTW that article you are using shows GUN crime. Sorry but gun crime is not more special than regular crime. You can use these to see my numbers-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

I took all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, deleted all the ones with gun ownership rates between 30 and 50 (also Florida because there were 11 under 30 and 10 over 50 and Florida was had the highest gun ownership rate amongst the under 30s). Then I ordered all of them by murder rate. Let us see what we have (it is state name followed by gun ownership rate followed by murder rate.-

Idaho 55.3 1.5
Hawaii 8.7 1.8
Wyoming 59.7 2.0
North Dakota 50.7 2.0
Massachusetts 12.6 2.7
Connecticut 16.7 3.0
Rhode Island 12.8 3.0
Alaska 57.8 3.2
Montana 57.7 3.2
South Dakota 56.6 3.6
New Jersey 12.3 3.7
New York 18.0 4.0
West Virginia 55.4 4.9
California 21.3 5.4
Arkansas 55.3 6.3
Mississippi 55.3 6.9
Alabama 51.7 7.1
Maryland 21.3 7.7
Illinois 20.2 8.4
The District 3.8 24.2

BTW NPR is wrong. Arizona got a 0 from the Brady Campaign but there are other states that are far more gun friendly. And that CSM article is rather screwy because Pennsylvania is rather gun friendly and Hawaii is problematic because it is not part of the continent (it is hard to get guns and ammo shipped in).

Also please do not start another gun control topic. Give it a few months before we have start all over again.

farson135:
-snip-

Isn't that table just overall murder, not limited to firearms murder which would probably be a better argument? And while the Guardian article includes other crimes, I'm considering only the firearms murder per 100k pop column.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're going for: lower murder rate + high gun ownership = firearms arguably prevent murders.

Hmm.

evilneko:
Isn't that table just overall murder, not limited to firearms murder which would probably be a better argument? And while the Guardian article includes other crimes, I'm considering only the firearms murder per 100k pop column.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're going for: lower murder rate + high gun ownership = firearms arguably prevent murders.

Hmm.

You could go that way but that is not my point. Think about it this way, why do women in the US typically not commit suicide with firearms? The gun ownership rates between men and women are not that different and both have equal access to guns. The reason is basically cultural.

In areas with large numbers of guns it is too be expected that guns are used in crime because it is part of society and culture but for people less used to guns they less likely to use them. So the presence of absence of gun crime is not as relevant because people are simply using what they have around them.

The fact that there are fewer overall murders shows that the society/culture that has all those guns is not overly violent. However some societies/cultures are very violent and have guns (although typically not a lot of them since the elites want to maintain power). So, the logical conclusion is that guns are not important to the discussion of the presence of crime but instead it is the culture around them that is important.

evilneko:

farson135:
-snip-

Isn't that table just overall murder, not limited to firearms murder which would probably be a better argument? And while the Guardian article includes other crimes, I'm considering only the firearms murder per 100k pop column.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're going for: lower murder rate + high gun ownership = firearms arguably prevent murders.

Hmm.

No, because then you'd have to split gun ownership rate into areas as well. For example, SoCal has a much higher per capita gun ownership rate than LA, yet LA has a much higher murder rate. Making one side of the table more granular without also doing the same to the other makes no sense. Not to mention only counting firearm homicides assumes no substitution effect.

farson135:
So, the logical conclusion is that guns are not important to the discussion of the presence of crime but instead it is the culture around them that is important.

A reasonable enough conclusion. After playing with the numbers for a while I decided that you can't draw a line between gun ownership and gun crime. Too many confounding factors. Heck, I even threw in population density just for fun. Didn't really see what I'd call a strong correlation between any of the variables I added. Then again, I got a C in Statistics.

Oh well, I'm done with this subject for a while. Gonna get something to eat and then burninate some Stormcloaks.

evilneko:

farson135:
-snip-

Isn't that table just overall murder, not limited to firearms murder which would probably be a better argument? And while the Guardian article includes other crimes, I'm considering only the firearms murder per 100k pop column.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're going for: lower murder rate + high gun ownership = firearms arguably prevent murders.

Hmm.

That's part of it. A state with plenty of guns on hand is almost inevitably going to have more gun related crimes than they would otherwise, its a matter of how easy the things are to access. If however crimes with all other forms of weaponry fall by a greater amount at the same time...

Also, think about it this way, if a person has murder on their mind, does them having a gun make a difference? Arguably it is easier, true, but they're more likely to actually get away with a kill if they were to use something as simple as a kitchen knife, a gun is far easier to track.

Then again, there are people out there who do behave irresponsibly with guns, are more likely to be violent when one is on hand, etc. While such people are heavily in the minority in terms of legal gun owners, the same can't be said for their counterparts.

Frankly, neither side of the gun control debate has any presentable argument that is both simple and accurate. There are too many variables, and too many different ways to twist the same facts around to mean different things, especially if you "forget" to mention a few details, like 50% of your reported gun deaths being suicides for the "antis", or the fact that nearly all guns used in New York's extreme crime rate came from out of state for the "pros"

So far as I can determine, if there is any one factor between gun ownership and reduced crime rates, it is not ease of access, but usage, whether or not the typical gun owner in the state is trained to use a gun properly and to know when their usage is appropriate. Done right, a gun doesn't have to ever fire a bullet off of the target range to do its job.

UPDATE: Benjamin Crump is a liar(SHOCK!) and I am quite vindicated for not trusting him or Trayvon's "girlfriend":

A couple of things are certain:

DeeDee and Trayvon did not talk for 400 minutes on 2/26 the day he was shot.

DeeDee did not go to the hospital on 3/2 and 3/3 and that was NOT the reason for not attending the viewing or memorial.

DeeDee and Trayvon were not Boyfriend/Girlfriend. They were close, platonic best friends.

DeeDee was not devastated, destroyed, or an emotional wreck. She was sad that her best friend was shot. She notified others, including her cousin who is also a prolific tweeter, but did not know immediately who Trayvon was.

DeeDee did not miss school.

DeeDee did not contact anyone because there was no reason to.

Did DeeDee actually hear anything that night? Who knows. However, the mere fact that Benjamin Crump can be proven to have falsely constructed more than 80% of his press conference in order to plant false misleading misinformation in the media sure brings the entire narrative into question.

You can also go back to Sunday March 18th, the date that Tracy Martin supposedly "found" DeeDee via computer search of Trayvon's phone records; and follow DeeDee through the time Tuesday morning 2/20 of Benjamin Crumps big press conference where he proclaimed the "sworn affidavit". NOTHING THERE EITHER. Went to school 3/19 regular day... blah, blah, blah.

Also Evilneko do you like Malcolm McDowell? If you do, shame on you.

Xanthious:

reonhato:
It however has been said time and time again that firearms make it worse, something pretty much all evidence mentioned over multiple threads points to.

i believe in the evidence. the evidence says guns are not good for society, the make violence lethal and so on. you believe in things that are simply false, that are routinely proven wrong and you never question it.

Let's be honest, for every study you can point to that say guns are bad for society I can point to one that say that lax gun laws actually decrease crime. For every one you show that says gun owners are more likely to be shot I can point to one that claims otherwise as well as claiming that gun owners are less likely to be robbed or raped or victimized in general. The fact of the matter is there are plenty of studies to go around to support which ever side of the argument you want them to.

Ignoring that for a minute it baffles me that the anti gun crowd are so quick to want to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Because I promise you that's all that stricter gun laws will accomplish. Criminals aren't going to stop carrying guns because the law says so ya know with them being CRIMINALS and all. Why on Earth the anti gun crowd is so short sighted as to want to leave guns in the hands of criminals while disarming law abiding citizens is something I will never understand.

Going beyond even that I fail to see why the anti gun crowd are so quick to want to deny people the very basic right to defend themselves. Why are you so quick as to want to hand over your own protection damn near exclusively to the government agencies like the police? When the state wants to give me my own personal policeman that will accompany me everywhere I go 24/7 365 days a year then I will listen to anti gun arguments. Until that day though how dare anyone try and tell me I shouldn't have the right to defend myself, my property, and my family.

id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

the argument that stricter gun laws only takes guns from law abiding citizens is an old one that is easily countered. criminals use guns because there victims can use guns. australia is a great example of this. we had a massive gun buy back, did everything fall into chaos with criminals going on a rampage with their guns and no one to defend against them.... no they used knives and syringes as weapons because it was easier, just as effective and has less jail time if they get caught. if someone is going to rob a servo or deli they do so with a easy yet safe and effective method as possible to them. in america that is using a gun, in other places it involves a knife.

robbery at gunpoint is rare in the UK, australia, japan and so on. by making guns harder to obtain and by taking away guns from shops and private property while increasing the penalty for using a gun in crime results in criminals using less guns

reonhato:

id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

the argument that stricter gun laws only takes guns from law abiding citizens is an old one that is easily countered. criminals use guns because there victims can use guns. australia is a great example of this. we had a massive gun buy back, did everything fall into chaos with criminals going on a rampage with their guns and no one to defend against them.... no they used knives and syringes as weapons because it was easier, just as effective and has less jail time if they get caught. if someone is going to rob a servo or deli they do so with a easy yet safe and effective method as possible to them. in america that is using a gun, in other places it involves a knife.

robbery at gunpoint is rare in the UK, australia, japan and so on. by making guns harder to obtain and by taking away guns from shops and private property while increasing the penalty for using a gun in crime results in criminals using less guns

So basically, removing guns from everyone means that the crimes are the same, they're just made using different weapons that require physical strength and prowess to wield. So if you're a strapping young manly shopowner with a baseball bat or knife close at hand, that's fine, but if you're old or sick or female, you're probably SOL unless exceedingly well-trained.

Why do I find your scenario reminiscent of barbarism, rather than civilization? In what way does banning guns enable anything other than the tyranny of the young, impulsive, stupid, nay, Trayvonish people?

You've only proven one thing: Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

(Yes, I do include teenagers among those 'dangerous minorities.')

reonhato:
id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

Actually I have provided many studies. You have not. You have provided a handful and I have shown that all of them are inconclusive. YOU have proven inadequate to the task of defending those studies (and those studies desperately need defending).

None of my studies were funded by the NRA (although some of the ones you mentioned are by notorious anti-gunners). You know, you have been saying that my studies are from the NRA for months now. Can you prove that? Of course not because none of them are.

the argument that stricter gun laws only takes guns from law abiding citizens is an old one that is easily countered. criminals use guns because there victims can use guns.

Then explain away Jamaica where civilians are generally barred from gun ownership but the number of illegal guns is absurdly high. Same in Mexico and other nations.

australia is a great example of this. we had a massive gun buy back, did everything fall into chaos with criminals going on a rampage with their guns and no one to defend against them.... no they used knives and syringes as weapons because it was easier, just as effective and has less jail time if they get caught. if someone is going to rob a servo or deli they do so with a easy yet safe and effective method as possible to them. in america that is using a gun, in other places it involves a knife.

Actually most robberies either involve a knife, a blunt object, or nothing in the US. In the US you are generally required to have a CHL in order to carry a gun or face a hefty sentence. In other words most people don't bother because if they get stopped by the police while skulking around a neighborhood they can just claim they were going for a walk. With a firearm and no permit on their person that changes the game. Plus robberies tend to happen when the people are not home so they still do not carry guns. The big occasion when guns are present is in drug deals, gun deals, etc. In other words, when there is a lot of money on the line and they have to worry about cops but more importantly other gangs.

robbery at gunpoint is rare in the UK, australia, japan and so on. by making guns harder to obtain and by taking away guns from shops and private property while increasing the penalty for using a gun in crime results in criminals using less guns

Given the fact that Jamaica at one time had some of the strictest penalties on earth for gun crime and yet still maintained one of the highest murder rates on earth you are wrong.

You say these are facts but the actual statistics say you are wrong. Try using some studies, some facts to actually prove your point. I doubt you will. After all I have been asking for months but you have yet to give an actual answer.

reonhato:
id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

University of Chicago economists John Lott and David Mustard published comprehensive data which showed that as more and more states enact laws requiring police to license all sane and non-criminal applicants to carry concealed weapons (CCW laws) violent crime sharply falls in those states as a result.

Mr Lott and Mustard looked a over a decade worth of data beginning around 1997 and moving forward and found one consistent thing: more guns for law abiding responsible people do not bring more violence! The more than 40 states which now allow law abiding responsible adults to carry guns have not experienced more homicide and/or violent crime but less.

One such example of this is in 2009, the first full year Washington DC repealed it's ban on guns. During that year homicide fell by 25% to their lowest point in over 45 years. On top of that sexual assault fell by 16% while car theft fell by 10%.

The fact of the matter is that while more and more states loosen the reigns on gun laws violent crime drops as a result. This isn't even taking into account the countless number of robberies, rapes, assaults and the like that are prevented as a result of the would be victim simply brandishing their firearm. Guns are simply tools. They are as good or evil as the person using them and studies have shown that when put in the hands of responsible citizens they are tools that help in the prevention of crime.

Myrmecodon:

reonhato:

id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

the argument that stricter gun laws only takes guns from law abiding citizens is an old one that is easily countered. criminals use guns because there victims can use guns. australia is a great example of this. we had a massive gun buy back, did everything fall into chaos with criminals going on a rampage with their guns and no one to defend against them.... no they used knives and syringes as weapons because it was easier, just as effective and has less jail time if they get caught. if someone is going to rob a servo or deli they do so with a easy yet safe and effective method as possible to them. in america that is using a gun, in other places it involves a knife.

robbery at gunpoint is rare in the UK, australia, japan and so on. by making guns harder to obtain and by taking away guns from shops and private property while increasing the penalty for using a gun in crime results in criminals using less guns

So basically, removing guns from everyone means that the crimes are the same, they're just made using different weapons that require physical strength and prowess to wield. So if you're a strapping young manly shopowner with a baseball bat or knife close at hand, that's fine, but if you're old or sick or female, you're probably SOL unless exceedingly well-trained.

Why do I find your scenario reminiscent of barbarism, rather than civilization? In what way does banning guns enable anything other than the tyranny of the young, impulsive, stupid, nay, Trayvonish people?

You've only proven one thing: Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

(Yes, I do include teenagers among those 'dangerous minorities.')

guns do kill people. guns turn violence lethal. a gun is much more likely to kill a person if used over a knife. i have used the example before that in the UK a bar fight starts and 2 guys punch each other until exhausted, they go home and wake up the next day bruised. in america a bar fight starts they punch each other a few times, one pulls a gun shoots and only 1 wakes up the next day.

violence in america is no more common then a lot of other modern countries, however violence in america is much more lethal, guns are pretty much the cause of this.

Xanthious:

reonhato:
id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

University of Chicago economists John Lott and David Mustard published comprehensive data which showed that as more and more states enact laws requiring police to license all sane and non-criminal applicants to carry concealed weapons (CCW laws) violent crime sharply falls in those states as a result.

Mr Lott and Mustard looked a over a decade worth of data beginning around 1997 and moving forward and found one consistent thing: more guns for law abiding responsible people do not bring more violence! The more than 40 states which now allow law abiding responsible adults to carry guns have not experienced more homicide and/or violent crime but less.

One such example of this is in 2009, the first full year Washington DC repealed it's ban on guns. During that year homicide fell by 25% to their lowest point in over 45 years. On top of that sexual assault fell by 16% while car theft fell by 10%.

The fact of the matter is that while more and more states loosen the reigns on gun laws violent crime drops as a result. This isn't even taking into account the countless number of robberies, rapes, assaults and the like that are prevented as a result of the would be victim simply brandishing their firearm. Guns are simply tools. They are as good or evil as the person using them and studies have shown that when put in the hands of responsible citizens they are tools that help in the prevention of crime.

lott, wasnt he the guy who when asked to show details of his survey in 1997 couldnt come up with proof he actually bothered to do it. wasnt he also the guy who had one study conclude that more people had used a gun do defend against a home robbery then actual home robberies. (maybe that was a different guy i cannot remember, they are all pretty nuts)

anyway if lott is your most reliable source you have some serious issues.

as for the often called on washington dc stats. a couple of issues. crime as been falling consistently since the mid 90s, it is a common argument from pro-gunners that crime is falling with guns therfore guns prevent crime.... but crime is falling pretty much everywhere, guns or no guns. it is not guns that are preventing crimes, it is better technology allowing for more efficient policing as well as numerous other influences, it is not crime is dropping because of guns, it is crime is dropping despite guns. for an example you say car theft fell 10% (actually the stats show it closer to 15%). thats great introducing guns somehow lowered car theft by 15%..... until you look at the previous year and find that it fell slightly more in the year before guns were reintroduced. lets look at rape, in 2007 it was 192, in 2008 it was 186, in 2009 they had a good year it was just 150, but in 2010 it was back up to 187. what about aggravated assault. from 2006 to 2008 it fell almost 20%, from 2008 to 2010 it fell 10%, again it was falling before guns were introduce. what about robbery. this has actually gone up since the late 90s early 20s, which is not unexpected during economic stuggle. there was almost no difference between 2008 and 2009.

should i keep going or have you seen enough? the way the pro-gunners use these statistics is technically correct, they are falling. however the conclusion they come to is simply wrong, in many areas of crime it was falling faster before. as i said it is not that crime is falling because of more guns, it is falling despite more guns.

another issue is that during the gun ban it was found that most firearms involved in a crime were bought on the street of from neighbouring states. this is why gun control has to be done on a federal level. there is no point banning guns of someone can drive a couple hours and get one next door.

reonhato:

Myrmecodon:

reonhato:

id love for you to point to those studies, so far all farson has been able to point to is a couple of NRA reports the do not compared to the countless studies by people with dr and professor in their name.

the argument that stricter gun laws only takes guns from law abiding citizens is an old one that is easily countered. criminals use guns because there victims can use guns. australia is a great example of this. we had a massive gun buy back, did everything fall into chaos with criminals going on a rampage with their guns and no one to defend against them.... no they used knives and syringes as weapons because it was easier, just as effective and has less jail time if they get caught. if someone is going to rob a servo or deli they do so with a easy yet safe and effective method as possible to them. in america that is using a gun, in other places it involves a knife.

robbery at gunpoint is rare in the UK, australia, japan and so on. by making guns harder to obtain and by taking away guns from shops and private property while increasing the penalty for using a gun in crime results in criminals using less guns

So basically, removing guns from everyone means that the crimes are the same, they're just made using different weapons that require physical strength and prowess to wield. So if you're a strapping young manly shopowner with a baseball bat or knife close at hand, that's fine, but if you're old or sick or female, you're probably SOL unless exceedingly well-trained.

Why do I find your scenario reminiscent of barbarism, rather than civilization? In what way does banning guns enable anything other than the tyranny of the young, impulsive, stupid, nay, Trayvonish people?

You've only proven one thing: Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

(Yes, I do include teenagers among those 'dangerous minorities.')

guns do kill people. guns turn violence lethal. a gun is much more likely to kill a person if used over a knife. i have used the example before that in the UK a bar fight starts and 2 guys punch each other until exhausted, they go home and wake up the next day bruised. in america a bar fight starts they punch each other a few times, one pulls a gun shoots and only 1 wakes up the next day.

Would you please stop using the UK as an example? The US and the UK are VERY differences in the reality of the nation. The UK shares one small land border with a nation that has pretty much the same economic conditions (if a bit less) for each average person, and you still need to cross a channel to get to the "majority" of the nation. We are bordered by Mexico, that is having an almost literal drug war right now. We have different kinds of crime, different percentage of ethnic groups in our population, different religions, different tempatures, different job situation, so on. Their are more differences between the UK and the US than we have more guns, so blaming an increase in overall crime rate on just one factor by using examples (Ad hoc, might I remind you) isn't an argument.

Can you please show me evidence that a gun escalates a fight? Why would people fight harder when an object that can end their lives in an instant is pointing at them?

Not G. Ivingname:

Can you please show me evidence that a gun escalates a fight? Why would people fight harder when an object that can end their lives in an instant is pointing at them?

you do know what thread we are in right?

reonhato:
lott, wasnt he the guy who when asked to show details of his survey in 1997 couldnt come up with proof he actually bothered to do it. wasnt he also the guy who had one study conclude that more people had used a gun do defend against a home robbery then actual home robberies. (maybe that was a different guy i cannot remember, they are all pretty nuts)

anyway if lott is your most reliable source you have some serious issues.

as for the often called on washington dc stats. a couple of issues. crime as been falling consistently since the mid 90s, it is a common argument from pro-gunners that crime is falling with guns therfore guns prevent crime.... but crime is falling pretty much everywhere, guns or no guns. it is not guns that are preventing crimes, it is better technology allowing for more efficient policing as well as numerous other influences, it is not crime is dropping because of guns, it is crime is dropping despite guns. for an example you say car theft fell 10% (actually the stats show it closer to 15%). thats great introducing guns somehow lowered car theft by 15%..... until you look at the previous year and find that it fell slightly more in the year before guns were reintroduced. lets look at rape, in 2007 it was 192, in 2008 it was 186, in 2009 they had a good year it was just 150, but in 2010 it was back up to 187. what about aggravated assault. from 2006 to 2008 it fell almost 20%, from 2008 to 2010 it fell 10%, again it was falling before guns were introduce. what about robbery. this has actually gone up since the late 90s early 20s, which is not unexpected during economic stuggle. there was almost no difference between 2008 and 2009.

should i keep going or have you seen enough? the way the pro-gunners use these statistics is technically correct, they are falling. however the conclusion they come to is simply wrong, in many areas of crime it was falling faster before. as i said it is not that crime is falling because of more guns, it is falling despite more guns.

another issue is that during the gun ban it was found that most firearms involved in a crime were bought on the street of from neighbouring states. this is why gun control has to be done on a federal level. there is no point banning guns of someone can drive a couple hours and get one next door.

So even if we accept what you've said as true then it still shows that crime is falling. It seems to me that if there was a direct correlation between guns and crime then if anything crime should be rising as more and more law abiding citizens purchase firearms each and every day. It's not though, it's falling. Whether it's falling because of the rise in gun ownership or not is irrelevant as it seems to me that best you can hope to argue at this point is that guns really don't have an impact on crime one way or another.

Look, if you want to talk harsher penalties for crimes committed with a gun I'll listen. However to take them away from law abiding citizens simply isn't the answer to anything. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell someone they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

subtlefuge:
The 2nd amendment was never meant as a crime deterrent, so I don't quite get what saying that it doesn't do what it wasn't supposed to do accomplishes.

You are ignoring the context of what I was saying. I did not mention what the intent 2nd amendment was/is.

subtlefuge:
Especially with vague evidence to back up a pointless claim.

Again context. I am quite happy to back my opinion that Australia's stricter firearm laws have saved lives.

The latest (by Leigh & Neill) says:

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data:
We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with
no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm
homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of
specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

And if you think other weapons are as deadly as firearms, please read this;

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/knives-00000.php

subtlefuge:
As if that was not ignorant enough, you use the statistic for all gun crime,

I clearly marked the big round number as approximate.

I did not think it was required, given the context, to quote the actual numbers available from the FBI UCR.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

As I was refered to 'Americans murdered by firearm' using the firearm homicide numbers for America appeared to be correct.

Which number should I have used?

subtlefuge:
when those who go through the licensing process and legally obtain their firearms make up roughly 5% of that.

5% is big round number with no supporting evidence, what did you tell me I was for doing that?

Actually surveys of prison inmates state that 14% legally bought their 'last' firearm, 40% obtained it from family or friends.

Only 40% admitted to obtaining the firearm illegally.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

I am very interested in your source of 5%, please post a link (as my data is a bit old).

subtlefuge:
because deliberately passing off false information to make people draw incorrect conclusions would call to question every one of your arguments.

I agree.

subtlefuge:
The right that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting is worth as many lives lost by gun crime and a hundredfold more.

You mean the ability of the people to over throw a tyranical government?

You really believe that is a possibility, given that nearly half of Americans can't be bothered to vote?

How fragile is US democracy that it requires citizens to be armed at all times?

reonhato:

Not G. Ivingname:

Can you please show me evidence that a gun escalates a fight? Why would people fight harder when an object that can end their lives in an instant is pointing at them?

you do know what thread we are in right?

Prove that Zimmerman not only lied about what happened, but that he was belligerent and itching for a fight, and we'll talk about whether or not him having a gun made a difference. You'll have a tough time, people owning a concealed carry license have already been shown to, at least on the whole, be significantly more passive and coolheaded when it comes to a fight than most. Can't claim the same thing for owners of a standard gun license, but that population is far more varied.

If however his story was at least relatively accurate, and that possibility is looking more and more likely in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the unarmed individual in this case was the only aggressor and had no reason to believe the man he was assaulting had a gun. Frankly, if the latter situation was true, Zimmerman revealing that he had a gun earlier would almost certainly have ended the fight without bloodshed, or more accurately, prevented the conflict entirely.

TechNoFear:
Again context. I am quite happy to back my opinion that Australia's stricter firearm laws have saved lives.

The latest (by Leigh & Neill) says:

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data:
We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with
no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm
homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of
specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Y'know, it's funny. The only studies that show reduction in guns reduces overall violence seem to be coming from Australia, using australian data sets. You would think those same people would be able to take data from anywhere else and come to the same conclusion, but they can't. Why is that?

TechNoFear:
snip

This thread has really derailed, and I know I've played a small part in that, so I'm just going to hit up the big points.

1. Obtaining a firearm from a friend or family member is illegally obtaining one. So is "stealing" a gun from someone who has a proper license (a major problem is a lack of penalty for leaving guns unsecured where they can be stolen). By your math, that ads up to at least 80 percent right there.

2. I mistyped or got jumbled up or something, I meant to include those who were illegally carrying a firearm that was legally obtained. It amounts to the same thing, but the government site that the article I got that figure from linked to is 404ing, so I can't actually confirm that it covers the full 15 percent difference, and given the pro-gun bias of the site, it likely inflated the number a little bit.

3. Still, even though gun control would make it harder for people to illegally obtain firearms, it would not make as noticeable of a dent in the 100k people as many would like to think.

4. I'll admit it's a Catch-22, because we need guns if the government tries to oppress us, but the very act of moving against our right to posses weapons is an act of an oppressive government.

5. When you think about it, it has been less than 200 years since we were last invaded by a foreign nation, less than 150 years since we were last invaded by our own country, and less than 100 seconds since we were last invaded by barbarians (which caused the fall of Rome).

6. Sorry if I came off confrontational in my last post, strangely enough I was passionate about it a few hours ago, but I've just lost all drive now.

Edit: do they really not have more recent gun statistics than 10 years ago?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked