Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Geaux4it]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux

 

[BlackSand]

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

Does the Homicide Map from the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence in conjunction with the UN Office on Drug and Crime Help you understand it any better?

Let me find the one where it compares gun ownership to firearm murders.
You will be more surprised to find out that the less guns there are per capita in most places ... The more firearm murders there are (because it is only the bad people that own the guns in those places).

.

 

[kaz]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux

He also doesn't know what the word "extrapolation" means.

 

[freedombecki]

if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals. that's right liberals. liberal hollywood. movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light. Its good to be the bad boy. the liberal music industry. just listen to todays music. again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away. liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts. THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it. for their own profit of course

You're quite right about Hollyweird, television, and you didn't mention the gaming "industry". Music, well that more or less reflects what's already there; it's not a visual medium, which is a crucial distinction.

But none of those industries are even political, let alone "liberal". That's just simple capitalism, making money on the LCD. And what's in that LCD depends on the cultural values already there, and voilà, we're back to the gun fetishism.

Nice try at trying to make a cultural aspect into a political one, but it's a non-starter.

Nice try at Doublethink too, mentioning the NRA and then trying to claim it's somebody else that's in it for profit.

I wish that were completely true, Pogo. Unfortunately, a lot of rationalization goes on between the two aisles of Congress, and there are people on both sides who want to limit guns to prevent American citizens from fending off greater guns owned by the government.

Take one very vocal Democrat from a liberal district, Mrs. Barbara Boxer. Granted, she is a good American and may represent constituents who re-elect her on a perpetual basis. But in the long run, Mrs. Boxer doesn't see death of the defenseless human beings as she sees the death of adult human beings who are defenseless against people toting weaponry that would stop an Abrams' tank, not to mention a person. She omitted in one of her speeches the horrors of the Gosnell killing of live infants by snipping their necks (which would render an adult being a quadriplegic for life), nor the 1,350,000 dead beings created by reported abortions in America annually. She did, however, campaign on gun control over 31,000 Americans getting shot by people who are armed. Much of this occurs in areas in which locals have banned guns for the people who obey their laws, who are sitting ducks for armed criminals. While that may be neither here or there, I can't ignore the math of okaying the killing of over a million Americans a year against 30,000 killings, many of which could be avoided if they were concerned an armed person would stop them by shooting back at them if they killed another person in the same all-night convenience store.

Nobody likes killing of any kind. But justifying over a million killings to support something like ten thousand real threats to a mother's life while taking away another civil right over arming oneself could lead to as many unwanted murders by criminals who disobey the law as abortion does, one of these days.

Theory does not match actuality in Ms. Boxer's corner. I'm sorry, it just doesn't the way I see it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is a little more dear than we know. Life is dear. Let's make sure we act in ways to protect it from predators seeking gain from ending another's life. Free adults should own guns to protect their family. Free adults should not procreate life only to extinguish it when they realize their fun will be penalized by having a child. They need to grow up and accept responsibility, not use an abortion clinic's need for more customers to escape reality that they have created--iow, a precious human life. We can deal with their mental problems. We can't deal with a precious child laying in its grave in a landfill somewhere.

Only good regards,

freedombecki

 

[freedombecki]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.

 

[kaz]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.

It is amusing, isn't it becki? The liberals are arguing that removing guns will reduce gun violence, then when presented with Statistics contradicting that, they say there could be other "causal factors" and that the "rate of use of these firearms" is not always constant.

Well, so then why are they arguing that reducing guns will reduce gun crimes? Maybe the constant causal factor is the criminal, not the weapon? Would one not think?

Though in Pogo's case he won't clarify what he's actually arguing, he just argues against every argument presented, and not in a consistent way. Which is why he won't clarify what he's actually arguing. It would remove his ability to do that.

 

[Spoonman]

they don't have a gun culture. Q.e.d.

but they fought the same wars we fought. So it can't be the wars that created the gun culture

they were fought them where we live, not where they do.

wwi, wwii?

 

[kaz]

but they fought the same wars we fought. So it can't be the wars that created the gun culture

they were fought them where we live, not where they do.

wwi, wwii?

OK, valid point.

Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains. I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground. But European culture was already pretty established by then.

I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it. Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns. But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it. They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics. The collectivism is pathetic. My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.

 

[Pogo]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux

I can't tell; there's no link. All you said was "international homicide rates". That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.

 

[Pogo]

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.

I would remind Her Honor that Geaux is the one making the case here, and if it please this honourable Court, counsel has failed to make that case. Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence...

 

[Pogo]

if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals. that's right liberals. liberal hollywood. movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light. Its good to be the bad boy. the liberal music industry. just listen to todays music. again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away. liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts. THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it. for their own profit of course

You're quite right about Hollyweird, television, and you didn't mention the gaming "industry". Music, well that more or less reflects what's already there; it's not a visual medium, which is a crucial distinction.

But none of those industries are even political, let alone "liberal". That's just simple capitalism, making money on the LCD. And what's in that LCD depends on the cultural values already there, and voilà, we're back to the gun fetishism.

Nice try at trying to make a cultural aspect into a political one, but it's a non-starter.

Nice try at Doublethink too, mentioning the NRA and then trying to claim it's somebody else that's in it for profit.

I wish that were completely true, Pogo. Unfortunately, a lot of rationalization goes on between the two aisles of Congress, and there are people on both sides who want to limit guns to prevent American citizens from fending off greater guns owned by the government.

Take one very vocal Democrat from a liberal district, Mrs. Barbara Boxer. Granted, she is a good American and may represent constituents who re-elect her on a perpetual basis. But in the long run, Mrs. Boxer doesn't see death of the defenseless human beings as she sees the death of adult human beings who are defenseless against people toting weaponry that would stop an Abrams' tank, not to mention a person. She omitted in one of her speeches the horrors of the Gosnell killing of live infants by snipping their necks (which would render an adult being a quadriplegic for life), nor the 1,350,000 dead beings created by reported abortions in America annually. She did, however, campaign on gun control over 31,000 Americans getting shot by people who are armed. Much of this occurs in areas in which locals have banned guns for the people who obey their laws, who are sitting ducks for armed criminals. While that may be neither here or there, I can't ignore the math of okaying the killing of over a million Americans a year against 30,000 killings, many of which could be avoided if they were concerned an armed person would stop them by shooting back at them if they killed another person in the same all-night convenience store.

Nobody likes killing of any kind. But justifying over a million killings to support something like ten thousand real threats to a mother's life while taking away another civil right over arming oneself could lead to as many unwanted murders by criminals who disobey the law as abortion does, one of these days.

Theory does not match actuality in Ms. Boxer's corner. I'm sorry, it just doesn't the way I see it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is a little more dear than we know. Life is dear. Let's make sure we act in ways to protect it from predators seeking gain from ending another's life. Free adults should own guns to protect their family. Free adults should not procreate life only to extinguish it when they realize their fun will be penalized by having a child. They need to grow up and accept responsibility, not use an abortion clinic's need for more customers to escape reality that they have created--iow, a precious human life. We can deal with their mental problems. We can't deal with a precious child laying in its grave in a landfill somewhere.

Only good regards,

freedombecki

I'm trying to connect this post in some way with the post quoted. I'm not seeing a connection.

 

[kaz]

I would remind Her Honor that Geaux is the one making the case here, and if it please this honourable Court, counsel has failed to make that case. Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence...

That's true, you're the one running away from having a coherent point, you're just transactionally refuting...

 

[Spoonman]

they were fought them where we live, not where they do.

wwi, wwii?

OK, valid point.

Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains. I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground. But European culture was already pretty established by then.

I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it. Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns. But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it. They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics. The collectivism is pathetic. My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.

but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people. there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here. the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage. and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.

 

[Pogo]

wwi, wwii?

OK, valid point.

Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains. I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground. But European culture was already pretty established by then.

I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it. Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns. But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it. They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics. The collectivism is pathetic. My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.

but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people. there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here. the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage. and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.

You keep going back to the music industry but I see (read: hear) that as a reflective (reactive) medium. Again, since music is aural it can't introduce visions into one's head like TV can, like movies can, like video games can and do. Those, particularly TV, are propaganda vehicles that force the viewer to "sit down, shut up and ingest these graphics I'm about to download into your mind". And of course those visions include mandatory gunplay and regular desensitization to its consequences. Music really cannot do that.

Small detail maybe but I agree with your main point, although I submit these two different cultures are really two sides of the same one, in that whether your goal is committing crimes or just protecting your property, in both cases our cultural values assume the use of firearms as a matter of course. And there's the rub.

 

[kaz]

wwi, wwii?

OK, valid point.

Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains. I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground. But European culture was already pretty established by then.

I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it. Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns. But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it. They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics. The collectivism is pathetic. My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.

but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people. there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here. the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage. and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.

I agree that's part of the gun culture, but I think there are multiple segments. There are hunters, people who want to defend themselves, sports enthusiasts, collectors (like me)... And those groups overlap. I think all of those, including your example of hollywood are legitimately part of our "gun culture."

They don't have any of those in Europe, their view of guns is completely different. When I worked in Europe, that was a frequently asked (politely) dinner question. Why does America have so many guns? The other thing that always came up was the death penalty.

They did find my answer reasonable, I said it's part of our culture. They asked why? I pointed out how we expanded west with guns, hunted, fought the French (the English like that one), overthrew the English (the French like that one) and it's ingrained. They don't totally get it, but they thought it made sense. The death penalty they never got. Though in fairness since I'm against it I probably wasn't the best to try to explain that one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sanford Police Chief Walks Back “No Guns on Neighborhood Watch” Policy

Posted by Andrew Branca Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 8:44am

Readers may recall ”Citizens on Patrol” from early in the Zimmerman trial. One of the first of the Prosecution’s witnesses was Wendy Dorival, a civilian employee of the Sanford PD who acted as their liaison with local neighborhood watch programs. She testified about her interactions with George Zimmerman in that context, describing him in glowing terms. Indeed, so impressed was she with Zimmerman that she tried to recruit him for the more substantive “Citizens on Patrol” program. In that program Zimmerman would have been provided with a patrol car, a uniform of sorts, and generally been as close to being a “real” policeman as he had ever hoped to become.

Zimmerman declined the opportunity — one might speculate because even then the position would have required that Zimmerman disarm himself.

So, if it was always the policy that “Citizens on Patrol” were required to be unarmed, but that the “standard” Neighborhood Watch volunteers could lawfully arm themselves, why the past few days news about these issues?

I expect that the only real “miscommunication” from the Sanford Police Department has been in misunderstanding how severely negative the response would be to the notion that Neighborhood Watch volunteers would be required to leave themselves fatally vulnerable to criminal aggressors preying on their neighborhood.

Sanford Neighborhood Watch | George Zimmerman | Guns

 

[andrewbranca]

Sanford Police Chief Walks Back “No Guns on Neighborhood Watch” Policy

Posted by Andrew Branca Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 8:44am

Thanks for the mention, Jon!

--Andrew, [MENTION=45956]LawSelfDefense[/MENTION]

 

[Geaux4it]

Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.

So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux

I can't tell; there's no link. All you said was "international homicide rates". That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.

Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux

I can't tell; there's no link. All you said was "international homicide rates". That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.

Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?

-Geaux

Wtf part of this is not clear??

It matters because you cannot make a point about guns by citing homicide stats. To do that you need gun stats. Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.

 

[Geaux4it]

I can't tell; there's no link. All you said was "international homicide rates". That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.

Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?

-Geaux

Wtf part of this is not clear??

It matters because you cannot make a point about guns by citing homicide stats. To do that you need gun stats. Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.

WTF do you not understand?

What part of that guns do not cause high rates of homicide but other factors do?



-Geaux