- Bo BobtheDog
- Olympia, WA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Standard gun owner belief: if all were armed with the potential of deadly force, the incident of gun violence would decrease.
If we all were armed, with the potential of deadly force; i.e. we all had guns and we knew how to safely employ and use them, there would be a downward pressure on those that would commit potentially deadly crimes with guns. Statistics would eventually prove this and society would be a safer place as a result.
Science should be able to be aplied to the issue to give some kind of factual spin.
Old West tales implicate that this is true. With the reality of lawlessnes the legend and history suggest existed as the US expanded west, there was always the element of fear as you encountered an unknown person(s).
Would we be better off with or without the potential of returning instaneous death upon those that intend to kill with impudency?
Would the incidence of occurance decrease or increase with the means available to all?
Are we talking about a static statistic? Has the rate of incidence been effectively the same throughout historical recordings, when has it risen, fell, why?
Given that TED challenges the best minds, mine being feeble by comparison, I am also a proud gun owner, plus a defender of my fellow man, where does the scientific community sit? Man seems to be man's greatest impedement to progress. The potential of one man, one small group, and one large group to inflict great harm upon others, even in massive numbers, seems to be the largest hurdle to progression of the human species. Other ideas seem to indicate that a form of population control is in order, disease, genocide, wars, etc. I disagree. But I am not a scientist, great thinker or even have appropriate facts. But as a person who believes in his right to defend himself against insanity, where does this fit into humanity's potential?
David Hamilton 50+
So... Pretty much, everywhere there are large numbers of guns for capita, there is very little crime. The other part of the problem with American gun law is the idea of national enforcement. Outlawing guns in Nebraska, is just stupid. There's no argument, I don't care how liberal you are, or how bleeding heart you are, outlawing guns in the middle of nowhere, is evil... Why? Police can't protect you in the middle of nowhere.
If you are more than 5 miles outside town, and someone wants to rape or murder you, you are your only line of defense. The police will never make it in time. Outlawing guns in Nebraska, or anywhere else where there is a low population density, would be like ringing the criminal dinner bell "Ding! Ding! Ding! Whole bunch of people who own land nowhere near police, just got disarmed"
This is, in general the problem with liberal governance in America. The states already have the rights to solve most of their problems on their own... If Los Angeles wants to outlaw handguns, it can... Why does anyone in Los Angeles want to outlaw guns in Nevada? Or, for that matter, rural Northern California... I have no freaking clue. It's just stupid. "We haven't tested our solution out yet, but we're going to force it on the whole country"... Why? Misery loves company?
One final problem is, no one is ever safe. The police don't protect anyone... They investigate crime after the fact. They can get you revenge, they can put people in jail, but the odds of them actually physically being there to protect you are 1 in a million. Why take away someones only tool for defense if you're not a tyrant?
Derek Young 30+
I felt that this TedTalk would help on your subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_hunter_on_the_world_peace_game.html
Enjoy! =)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://i.imgur.com/CmZKA.jpg
not an argument, just felt like sharing
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Linda Taylor 50+
Real world experience
Cultivated street smarts
Apriori rational thought
Intuition
Investigative analysis
Those are just a sample.
pat gilbert 100+
pat gilbert 100+
I don't think we agree on anything and this is another example.
My perspective is that no matter what the subject it all boils down to application. Real knowledge comes from application. This applies to everything technology that came from the space program came from landing a man on the moon, knowledge from a college education comes from being able to Do something, this creates an instant test of your knowledge which is can you Do it or not?
My complaint about the "know best or now your suppose to's or academia is that they have removed themselves from the application and put themselves in a position of authority which is typically not merited. This is a pathology typical of socialism.
Like I said I doubt we will ever agree on anything.
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 100+
I disagree with your disposition on this subject. It demonstrates a perfunctory ideology that does not work. Additionally I bristle when people infer or suggest (rarely is it plainly spoken) that they know better than the other fellow as it manifests an attitude of disrespect and arrogance.
Understand that I differentiate between you and your views. As I expect you to do the same for me, I have been using guns since I was a child and am an intelligent responsible individual.
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 100+
You addressed me, apparently I misunderstood your comment?
Ok, have a nice day
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
By the way if you start a new thread with each reply it is likely I will miss your post or is that your intention?
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
What I don't see is the correlation of crime increase with gun control being passed as with the just the facts site where they show a correlation between gun control and the murder rate going up. Because the Aussies instituted gun control in the late 90's? This conflicts with the reports from the Just the Facts site In analysis lingo this don't add up that can't both be right unless the Aussies are that much different.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20081009045324/http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti151.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20090417100922/http://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.html
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
The trends are that when gun control is introduced crime goes up that is clear the other is conjecture.
I will agree to disagree.
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
if you are for disarming the government, i'm all for it.
Verble Gherulous 20+
The difference between them and us is only in that they knew what their guns were for. Protcting property. While we claim the same reasons today, reslly we crave gun ownershhip as a way to assert a feeling of personal power.
However, since we live in the country whose military far surpasses every other military in the world, the potential for turning that army against the civilian population is a valid point, and really is the only reason why I am generally for gun ownership. I just wish we knew how to use our guns.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Linda Taylor 50+
We have open carry as well as CCW laws. Our 'careless masses' have not degraded into anarchy yet even though the Walker recall elections are over :)
Yes, we also use guns to protect property, from bears, predators etc. It is part of the way of life. We do not 'crave gun ownership as a way to assert a feeling of personal power.'
Verble Gherulous 20+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
do you also have a number about what would happen if there was no gun control? i guess your reply would be "surely more". it is pure naked belief, backed up by arbitrary numbers to numb the audience's heads.
scott lee
Violence, like most crime is more closely linked to poverty and desperation than it is to law enforcement and regulation. A knife in the hands of a man who is desperate is more dangerous than a gun in hands of a man who is comfortable and well fed.
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
peter lindsay 30+
I can also see the possibility that if you make it a little bit harder to get a gun that will advantage the criminal, but in AUS its virtually impossible to get a hand gun without breaking into a police station. There is no such thing as a gun store here.
I also suspect that for you no amount of data would justify governmental interference in your life which is a stance that I can respect if not agree with.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
pranoy sundar 20+
It doesnt make a big impact on crime rate, even if we try making guns available to every one or if we controls its availability to the public.
if some one intends to commit a crime he will find a way to do it, no matter whether every one else posses a gun or not. if all are armed with the potential of deadly force that only helps to change a criminals plan to commit the crime.
but, it might help to prevent some isolated incidents...like those massacres where one mad guy shoots everyone arround and finally kills himself without any reason...at the same time if we are making guns available to every one, i'm not sure if such incidents will be of isolated type anymore.
Verble Gherulous 20+
I've spent a lot of years around guns. A lot of years selling them. The only way that violence will decrease is when we change our attitude, which very simply is: We view guns (and any weapon) as a way to resolve conflict.
Until we ditch that fallacy, and grow up, then is doesn't matter how much we restrict or allow gun ownershihp. The fault is not in the guns, it is in ourselves.
Now, go ahead, take some shots at me. (yes, that is a humorous ending line, but it does illustrate how ithis affects our language.)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
ugh. maybe everybody is armed because they have the highest crime rates?
yet another correlation that does not tell us anything.
Linda Taylor 50+
It's like saying you can't prove tobacco causes lung cancer cause all we got is a high correlation of lung cancer in smokers.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Verble Gherulous 20+
To focus on the GUNS, i agree with you that rational thinking is the best we got. Gun ownership often is not rational thinking. It is trying to purchase a sense of security or a feeling of power, but here's a corrrelation for you: increased gun ownership will not correlate to decreased violence. That belief is a fantasy.
What will decrease gun violence is a mature culture that does not view guns as a way to resolve conflict.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i claim that whether one owns a gun or not should be a personal decision. of course, anyone can limit guns on his own property, say, a school or a transit company can ban guns from their premises.
if you believe that people make wrong decisions, and they would be safer without guns, you have to convince them. but that won't work with such weak arguments like "in this area people have guns, and crime is high. see? see?". this is not good enough. the people living there probably knows their situation well enough to reject that reasoning, and laugh on it. they know exactly that having a gun, all other things unchanged, makes them safer.
Verble Gherulous 20+
The problem is that we as a culture view guns as a way to solve our problems. If a guy breaks into my house, I kill him. If those encroach into "our" area that "we" control, we shoot them. If the levee breaks and NOLAs in chaos, we shoot black people coming into our neighborhood. If some kid late at night walking home from the store doesn't respond to my commands, as a neighborhood watchman, I shoot him. Heck, back in the eighties therewas a guy who shot another man to death over a PacMan game. If those kids laugh at me in school, I go in there with a gun and shoot them all down. If I am in college and don't get that grant, I go in there and gun everybody down.
This is not an argument. These are illustrative points to support the argument that higher gun ownership does not promote less violence. I do not even claim that lower gun ownership will change the violence. The only thing i believe that will stop the violence is when we as a culture grow up and stop using guns to resolve our conflict. Period.
Bo BobtheDog
Bo BobtheDog
Where so many great minds in (American) history felt so staunchly in support of the individual citizen possessing the right and the means to oppose tyranny, with few of the architects of the US Constitution actually opposing the 2nd Ammendment, there is one particular current event news story that seems to be something that could be a case study, if only eventually. Being that it is an Arab country, data will probably not ever adequately surface, but boy if only it could.
Syria.
Granted, there are many ways to affect change. Force is always the least desirable, by general human consensus.
I see great points in correlation by numbers (Peter). But there are things that are unaccounted for that make comparison difficult. Some were pointed out. I think there are many other countries with near homogenous societies that have strict gun controls that would support all of the AUS correlations. But homogenous and at the very least, politically unified societies seem to get along better without personal weapons. They exhibit no traits that would indicate they are slipping towards disunity. This I think somewhat sidestepps the simplistic version of the question(s) I proposed.
I see great philosophical points from Stossel, but no cited information (Pat). His article hit both main issues on gun ownership that seem to be the center of the debate, that being a society vs. a tyranical government, and the invidual agains those committing unlawful acts, and thus threatening personal safety.
I brought up abortion, but I think the studies and the facts are clear on that issue, it is a benefit to society, but it has it's moral limitations (thus making it divisive).
If only this could be more objective.
peter lindsay 30+
Bo BobtheDog
I am of the mind that the 2nd Ammendment still makes sense. But this is my personal belief, though it be shared by many.
We sometimes assume that because we live in a society that is generally more stable than many, that what happens 'there' can't happen here. It could be a safe assumption, however, assuming all things in society progress towards the common ideal. But just becuase we assume a thing won't happen, does not make it so that it cannot happen.
Both you and I are essentially engaging in a philosophical debate. Each of us is convinced of the position we hold and use the very loose numbers available on the internet to support our position. While each of us might think that we are right, neither of us has proven a thing, empirically.
I guess that was what I was after from the beginning, knowing the near impossibility of it, currently. There are well articulated, logical argements on both sides of the issue, but there are too many variables it seems, to rule out all other possibilities to a statistic or fact.
Intuition has often been correct prior to experimentation. This can't be experimented on. instead massive amounts of data would have to be collected and analyzed. It's all speculation until people smarter than me applies the human genome project effort on it. This may never be scientifically important enough to do so, perhaps just a curiousity at best.
peter lindsay 30+
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
Look at the graphs at this link:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
peter lindsay 30+
When you collect data in an experiment the first thing you do is isolate the experimental group from as many variables as possible,including influences from outside the experiment. You can't collect data and draw conclusions on the data as though your experimental group are isolated if you don't isolate them.
pat gilbert 100+
Abortion does not have anything to do with gun control other than you are trying to use ad hominem on these facts.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
btw it is strange that you pull a single number, and declare victory. but when other data is presented, suddenly the analysis becomes important. double standard at its best.
pat gilbert 100+
arthur mitsias
Obey No1kinobe 50+
When it goes off we go balliastic.
Better not to have guns around people who lose it.
A knife is bad enough.
I'm not sure what the data is, but guess less guns in society the better, but attitudes also need to be worked on.
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html
Typically the "facts" are anything but... and don't follow logic
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but in addition to meaningless numbers, this article offers reasoning as well. and that is what we need in this debate.
pat gilbert 100+
I once asked Neil Ferguson if gun ownership is a 7th app. He said history does not indicate that it is. In my mind guns are an extension of the ability to have private property which is one of the 6 killer apps.
The problem is that people think with their emotions when it comes to guns. I know when I show people my guns, some become very uncomfortable admittedly anecdotal it does indicate lower level thinking on the subject.
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
and that is the quintessence of the issue. do we trust people to make decisions about their own life or not? do we want to safeguard them? why do we allow knives, cars, openable windows on higher floors? do we want to eliminate personal responsibility? do we want a risk-free life or a free life? do we want the safety and security of sheep in a flock?
peter lindsay 30+
pat gilbert 100+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
The important point to look at is simply that criminals do not want to rob some one who has a gun.
Statistically guns do reduce crime if this is not enough data for you it is not hard to find more.
robert richards
Krisztián Pintér 200+
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
(and the extra funny thing is that it does not matter. my point is not that gun ownership does not increase murders. without data, i can't claim that either. my point was to make the debate about principles and rights, not data. my plea fell on deaf ears.)
robert richards
Allan Macdougall 50+
The Police are not psychologists, and neither are gunsmiths (who presumably are able to sell weapons to anyone who walks into their shop, wanting to buy a weapon).
Scaled up a bit - it's like arming all nations in the world with nuclear weapons. Who do you trust then? Would the weapons act as a deterrent or an encouragement?
Linda Taylor 50+
Oh and like they say at my house. He who has the most toys wins.
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
just as with many other human issues, we will need to use common sense, logic and ethics to get to a verdict.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Personnally, I doubt this would decrease violence within the group. Fighting is part of how problems are solved.
Men are evolved for fistfighting. We have inborn knowledge to tell us when to punch someone in the face, when the tension is unbearable. Unfortunately, we did not evolved allongside gunpowder technology, so we don't have instincts of when and how to pull the trigger.
"his right to defend himself against insanity"
... By voting laws against gun ownership?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Gerald O'brian 50+
Helen Hupe 30+
Bo BobtheDog
Krisztian, I believe that your assesment of it being an impossible question to answer based on empirical data is probably correct. Too many variables. I really wasn't advocating gun control, in the traditional sense, nor was this a case to discuss the morality associated with gun control by law, and those who make laws.
I guess I am really more interested in the opposite: what if we were REQUIRED to carry weapons, or at least be trained to defend ourselves? Post September 11, 2001, there are a couple of instances where airplanes were threatened mid flight and the citizens of the world said collectively "not this flight". And fought those would be attackers, and won. I think this same principle would apply in other situations. "Man walks into a crowded cafe to shoot others and gets killed by off duty police officer." Why does it have to be an off duty cop? Why not me? I'm trained, rational thinking, and mean to protect myself and the innocent.
There have many recent cases of a single lunatic walking onto a campus, or into a crowded building to shoot others, why is not important to the argument. If one like minded citizen, like minded to me that is, was nearby and armed, the effect would have been limited, due to the attacker being killed.
There are all kinds of social issues that touch this at the core. I'm thinking more of simple math. I also assume that most of the human population thinks rationally, as that has been my experience.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what good is a law that makes law abiding citizens weaker?
peter lindsay 30+
David Hamilton 50+
In general, it's your right, your person, your property... but, and this is an important point, it's the airlines plane, not yours, or the governments. So, while in general, I think proper training, and responsible use of a firearm is a right, that I wish more people took seriously... I'm not sure about carrying them on an airlines plane, they have a right to stop you, if they feel it's dangerous, in my opinion.
In general, however, I agree with your sentiment, a well educated, responsible, gun owning populace, is the best defense against tyranny that exists. It makes occupation, martial law, and land war incredibly expensive, if not downright impossible.
robert richards
I tend to think that everybody armed does not equate to everybody being willing to use a weapon in those situations. A person can love animals but still his job may include destroying animals, in the case of too many roosters in the hen house. But that act of violence doesn't necessarily make that individual any more likely to take the life of another human being in a high tension situation. That is what you set yourself up for if you pull a deadly weapon...you must be prepared to use it.
I am certain that there has been studies done that explore the subjugative phenomenon. Some people will fight to the bitter end...some will give up way before that. You hear of people being taken by sharks, then you hear of people fighting back and escaping the shark...certainly not because we are equal in the sharks environment.
I beleive that most of us need the security and boundarys that social norms dictate, it's like a requirement for the continuation of a productive group construct...this construct seems the end purpose to humanities existence...because we are ever forming larger groupings of humanity...it seems ridiculous but the observation is compelling.
Yes, these moral constructs can be broken down in the case of war where people live and die violently but most people are damaged emotionally from that experience. Perhaps it's more a cultural phenomenon, where culture breeds subjugative tendencies? The Larger the grouping the more passive the culture and less likely that violence is ripe in that social construct ( but a belief system can radically change that profile...hmmm, not sure what I am trying to say).
So, if everybody had guns would it lesson the chances of violent acts? To a small degree in certain situations possibly but I repeat a previous posted statement...those that want to kill will do so.
peter lindsay 30+
robert richards
Bo BobtheDog
But if you did, you would blame someone else? Children do that. I am not a proponent of arming children and sending them off to mingle with society. That never ends well.
Verble Gherulous 20+
This certainly would foment an attitude of respect for the weapon, and let the people see it more of a cultural responsibility rather than just something to make them feel powerful. For me, the problem is not the gun, but us. Anything that would help change our attitude is worth exploring. And the idea of making everyone armed does also take care of the other point of fulfilling the second amendment, which advocates gun control only in a well- regulated militia.
Stewart Gault 30+