6/6/2002: PETA advertisement - Page 5

henry fitch · 06-08-2002, 08:41 PM

Heh. Guess my earlier point isn't worth much, then. Ah well.

Say, does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

Not saying I know what those numbers are, mind you.

MaggieL · 06-08-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by henry fitch
does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

This kind of thing is one reason there's so much controversy about statistics on this issue. The crime-increasing effect of handgun prohibition doesn't necessarily result in more *handgun* crime, or even in more murder. Disarmed citizens are more vulnerable to armed thugs, who can operate with the assurance that their victims won't be better armed than they are. If a mugger knows his knife won't be trumped by a legal handgun, there's a disincentive to pull an (illegal by definition; guns may not legally be owned by convicted felons here anywhere) gun.

Jag--read *all* the words: handgun *control* capital--handguns are illegal in DC unless you're a cop. That the murder rate is so high doesn't exactly support your point. :-)

Or a congressman, since they or their bodyguards can get FBI carry permits vaild anywhere in the country. Unfortunately the laws for DC are made by Congress, who dosen't actually *live* there.

juju · 06-08-2002, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
FBI statistics on murder rates. Washington D.C. ranks 41 in 2000.

That doesn't sound right... I live near Pine Bluff, AR, and I think it's pretty safe. They're ranking it the #2 murder capital of the world! Their population is only 55,000. Most of the other top ranking citys are other rinky-dink southern cities.

Of course, I probably shouldn't be questioning the FBI. Still.. this does not seem right.

jaguar · 06-09-2002, 01:37 AM

Quote:

If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

Its kinda easier to kill people with a gun thouhg. Im ena you shoot someone it doesn't even ahve to be ciritacal fo them to die of shock/blood loss/cardiac arrest pretty damn quickly and most thugs aren't actaully interested in killing people - it tends to generate a little too much police interest.

Quote:

citizens are more vulnerable to armed thugs, who can operate with the assurance that their victims won't be better armed than they are. If a mugger knows his knife won't be trumped by a legal handgun

So he gets a handgun, and since he'll probably have it out first, you're now more screwed becease he has more chance of shooting you if you try to pull it out.

MaggieL · 06-09-2002, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
So he gets a handgun, and since he'll probably have it out first, you're now more screwed becease he has more chance of shooting you if you try to pull it out.

I'd rather go up a against a thug (no matter how he's armed) with a gun of my own than without. I'm better off gun vs. gun than nothing vs. baseball bat or lead pipe or knife. ("He'll probably have it out first" is an assumption, too; tactics are more complicated than that.)

Thugs are cowards (otherwise they wouodn't be thugs); when the populace is armed there's a strong disincentive to attempt. As you point out, thungs aren't really interested in killing people; if a nice quiet mugging turns into a gun battle they're way behind the curve. It tends to create the sort of intense police interest here you mentioned is supposed to happen in AU when a gun crime goes down.

The idea that law-abiding citizens are somehow safer if they're disarmed is just plain bogus. It's an idea mostly championed by people who already have their own armed guards, like police chiefs and politicians.

jaguar · 06-09-2002, 06:20 AM

We have an interesting concept here called an effective polcie force. It eman i can wander around without having to worry about being mugged. I can walk though the centre of the city and take a train home @ 1am without being even vaguely worried about my safty. I don't need a gun to feel safe. As for 'you're safer with' you're starting ot sound liek the NRA and that blatnatly untrue series of adverts they put up about australia.

juju · 06-09-2002, 07:28 AM

We have an interesting concept here called freedom. It means that we don't need our government ordering us around and doing things that are "for our own good".

jaguar · 06-09-2002, 07:44 AM

We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....

henry fitch · 06-09-2002, 09:55 AM

I realize you're almost certainly using hyperbole, but could you please stop using "m16" as an example of a gun people carry around? It's stupid, and getting on my nerves.

MaggieL · 06-09-2002, 01:07 PM

It goes a bit beyond "hyperbole" when used in a sentence like that. This "high-school debate team" level of discourse does get old after a while.

Jag says (or tries to): "We have the same freedoms, we just can't wander around with an M-16".

But the truth is we *don't * have the same freedoms, and I think that's one reason we hear so much sour grapes about how there "must be something wrong" with people who exercize their right to be armed.

It would be *nominally* legal for me to open carry an AR-15 (I'm not about to pay the confiscatory tax we have here on full-auto M-16) and "wander around". (Of course, that's another of jag's favorite images on this issue: gun owners out looking for an excuse to shoot something, like one of those teenage fire brigade volunteers that eventually get caught starting fires just so they have something to put out).

But the actual fact is that "wandering around with an AR-15" anyplace but the state game lands would get me picked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" in the more populated areas of the state in fairly short order.

Where we *don't* have the same freedoms is when it comes down to the right to carry an effective personal defense weapon. I have that freedom and jag doesn't, so to resolve that dissonance he needs to paint gun owners as a trigger-happy lunatics.

I know *lots* of legal gun owners. As a group, they are polite, mature, restrained, careful, and tend very much to mind their own business. The kind of irresponsible personalities that one could characterize as "trigger happy" spent their youth out blowing up mailboxes (or over in NJ shooting cyclists with paintball guns), and by the time they reach adulthood have usually accumulated enough of a police record that they are no longer allowed to posess firearms legally.

juju · 06-09-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....

Well, that's kind of the point. We have the freedom to carry weapons, and some other countries don't. Whether you think it's a good freedom or not could be argued -- but it <b>is</b> our freedom.

jaguar · 06-09-2002, 06:05 PM

Okok I’ll stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).

My guess is that I’m arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I’m willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence.

The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I’d question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I’m wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again *thinks back* I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary.

Sorry couldn't help this one
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
by George Orwell

henry fitch · 06-09-2002, 06:17 PM

Quote:

(as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).

Am I slow, or does that sentence make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

jaguar · 06-09-2002, 06:19 PM

Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look.

I missed one point, on the whole i'm sure gun owners are a responsible group, and i'm sure paintball gun owners are, but there always will be a minority....

elSicomoro · 06-09-2002, 06:35 PM

Jag, while I respect what you have to say, and I am by no means calling you stupid, this may be a situation that is simply not quite understood by non-Americans. Even some Americans might not understand.

The second amendment of the US constitution is very precious to many people in this country.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now granted, this amendment is 211 years old. But even if interpreted in modern times, one could interpret it as "In order to keep our country free, people have the right to have guns, knives, etc."

I used to believe a lot of what you're saying, jag. In fact, if I were still a resident of the state of Missouri, I would probably vote to keep the ban against concealed weapons (one of only 7 states I believe to have this ban) b/c I find most Missourians beyond St. Louis to have the IQ of a sock.

But seriously, the second amendment is an unshakable belief that is as strong as our first amendment. The amendments are part of the foundation of our country, and are what make our society truly unique. The Constitution was created so that Americans would never have to suffer as they did under Union Jack rule. People bearing arms are what helped us become the United States of America.

As a whole, our police forces are rather effective, and it's a shame that a few bad apples fuck it up for everyone. While we have laws that govern us, and police that protect us, we are an individualistic society (for better or for worse). We control our destinies for the most part...and that includes the right to protect ourselves in a legal manner, with guns if we choose to do so.

Criminals are bad...they are selfish, and care for nobody but themselves. So, they will do whatever they desire to get over on you.

Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked."

I don't like guns. And maybe I'm risking my life by not carrying one, but that's my decision. I feel able to carry on my life in the city of Philadelphia by not carrying one. And maybe restrictive gun laws are helping us. But we still have people on the street, using semi-automatic weapons, killing each other. People using guns in robberies, assaults. And now, we have people getting creative...passing notes to tellers in bank windows, using no weapon whatsoever.

To me, it's about the criminal element. We have to find better ways to stop the criminal element before it starts. Education...man, that is so damned important. People need to get themselves schooled. Learn that they can succeed in life without having to resort to criminal activity. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds, but somehow, we have to find a way in this country to show that good always trumps bad. Throwing people in prison and restricting our freedoms doesn't seem to be helping that.

In conclusion, we are a unique country that has developed under unique circumstances. Many of our people believe in the right to bear arms, and for the most part, it has worked well over the past 226 years. And so long as law-abiding citizens are not using those arms to infringe upon my individual rights, why the fuck should I care?

06-09-2002, 06:20 AM	#66
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	We have an interesting concept here called an effective polcie force. It eman i can wander around without having to worry about being mugged. I can walk though the centre of the city and take a train home @ 1am without being even vaguely worried about my safty. I don't need a gun to feel safe. As for 'you're safer with' you're starting ot sound liek the NRA and that blatnatly untrue series of adverts they put up about australia. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-09-2002, 07:44 AM	#68
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this..... __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-09-2002, 01:07 PM	#70
MaggieL in the Hour of Scampering Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia) Posts: 4,060	It goes a bit beyond "hyperbole" when used in a sentence like that. This "high-school debate team" level of discourse does get old after a while. Jag says (or tries to): "We have the same freedoms, we just can't wander around with an M-16". But the truth is we don't have the same freedoms, and I think that's one reason we hear so much sour grapes about how there "must be something wrong" with people who exercize their right to be armed. It would be nominally legal for me to open carry an AR-15 (I'm not about to pay the confiscatory tax we have here on full-auto M-16) and "wander around". (Of course, that's another of jag's favorite images on this issue: gun owners out looking for an excuse to shoot something, like one of those teenage fire brigade volunteers that eventually get caught starting fires just so they have something to put out). But the actual fact is that "wandering around with an AR-15" anyplace but the state game lands would get me picked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" in the more populated areas of the state in fairly short order. Where we don't have the same freedoms is when it comes down to the right to carry an effective personal defense weapon. I have that freedom and jag doesn't, so to resolve that dissonance he needs to paint gun owners as a trigger-happy lunatics. I know lots of legal gun owners. As a group, they are polite, mature, restrained, careful, and tend very much to mind their own business. The kind of irresponsible personalities that one could characterize as "trigger happy" spent their youth out blowing up mailboxes (or over in NJ shooting cyclists with paintball guns), and by the time they reach adulthood have usually accumulated enough of a police record that they are no longer allowed to posess firearms legally. __________________ "Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

06-09-2002, 06:05 PM	#72
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Okok I’ll stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind). My guess is that I’m arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I’m willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence. The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I’d question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I’m wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again thinks back I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary. Sorry couldn't help this one We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. by George Orwell __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 06-09-2002 at 06:10 PM.

06-09-2002, 06:19 PM	#74
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look. I missed one point, on the whole i'm sure gun owners are a responsible group, and i'm sure paintball gun owners are, but there always will be a minority.... __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-08-2002, 08:41 PM	#61
henry fitch Dry Nurse Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23	Heh. Guess my earlier point isn't worth much, then. Ah well. Say, does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much. Not saying I know what those numbers are, mind you.

06-09-2002, 07:28 AM	#67
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	We have an interesting concept here called freedom. It means that we don't need our government ordering us around and doing things that are "for our own good".

06-09-2002, 09:55 AM	#69
henry fitch Dry Nurse Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23	I realize you're almost certainly using hyperbole, but could you please stop using "m16" as an example of a gun people carry around? It's stupid, and getting on my nerves.

06-09-2002, 06:35 PM	#75
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Jag, while I respect what you have to say, and I am by no means calling you stupid, this may be a situation that is simply not quite understood by non-Americans. Even some Americans might not understand. The second amendment of the US constitution is very precious to many people in this country. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now granted, this amendment is 211 years old. But even if interpreted in modern times, one could interpret it as "In order to keep our country free, people have the right to have guns, knives, etc." I used to believe a lot of what you're saying, jag. In fact, if I were still a resident of the state of Missouri, I would probably vote to keep the ban against concealed weapons (one of only 7 states I believe to have this ban) b/c I find most Missourians beyond St. Louis to have the IQ of a sock. But seriously, the second amendment is an unshakable belief that is as strong as our first amendment. The amendments are part of the foundation of our country, and are what make our society truly unique. The Constitution was created so that Americans would never have to suffer as they did under Union Jack rule. People bearing arms are what helped us become the United States of America. As a whole, our police forces are rather effective, and it's a shame that a few bad apples fuck it up for everyone. While we have laws that govern us, and police that protect us, we are an individualistic society (for better or for worse). We control our destinies for the most part...and that includes the right to protect ourselves in a legal manner, with guns if we choose to do so. Criminals are bad...they are selfish, and care for nobody but themselves. So, they will do whatever they desire to get over on you. Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked." I don't like guns. And maybe I'm risking my life by not carrying one, but that's my decision. I feel able to carry on my life in the city of Philadelphia by not carrying one. And maybe restrictive gun laws are helping us. But we still have people on the street, using semi-automatic weapons, killing each other. People using guns in robberies, assaults. And now, we have people getting creative...passing notes to tellers in bank windows, using no weapon whatsoever. To me, it's about the criminal element. We have to find better ways to stop the criminal element before it starts. Education...man, that is so damned important. People need to get themselves schooled. Learn that they can succeed in life without having to resort to criminal activity. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds, but somehow, we have to find a way in this country to show that good always trumps bad. Throwing people in prison and restricting our freedoms doesn't seem to be helping that. In conclusion, we are a unique country that has developed under unique circumstances. Many of our people believe in the right to bear arms, and for the most part, it has worked well over the past 226 years. And so long as law-abiding citizens are not using those arms to infringe upon my individual rights, why the fuck should I care?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)