tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1077479533102458069..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Three problems with the American debate on gunsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81875869879511425892013-02-21T11:16:24.706-05:002013-02-21T11:16:24.706-05:00Here is more detail on my view: http://lifeordeath...Here is more detail on my view: http://lifeordeathpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/227/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6007077728142250122013-02-21T11:15:13.594-05:002013-02-21T11:15:13.594-05:00“More Americans are killed by guns each year than ...“More Americans are killed by guns each year than all other developed countries combined, spree killings appear to be on the rise, and unfortunately the Aurora shooting appears to be another among too many cases where mentally unstable people too easily acquire extraordinarily deadly weapons.” -- You<br /><br />I challenge your data as relevant. More Americans killed does not tell us the propensity for Americans to be killed versus other places. If our population is greater, and the percentage of occurrences is lower in America, then there still may be more Americans killed, but its means there is less of a “problem”.<br /><br />Spree killings appear to be on the rise because it’s being covered more; the criteria of evidence are changing which is moving the goalpost from an objective perspective on the gun “problem”.<br /><br />Mentally unstable is not a causal link; this is a great example of confirmation bias. Not all shooting involve mentally unstable people, and not all mentally unstable people with access to firearms go on shoot sprees. We are missing evidence necessary for an objective perspective on the gun “problem”.<br /><br /><br />“Of course, there is no reason to assume an armed movie attendee would have made the situation in Aurora any better. Indeed, it would have likely ended up raising the death count as a result of a gunfight...” -- You<br /><br />I agree that it may have not made the situation better, but to assume that it could have made it worse is asinine. The killer had no obstacles between him and his goal and to suggest that placing an obstacle between him and his goal would have made the achievement of his goal more complete is stupid.<br /><br /><br />“But we still have to interpret what “arms” really means.” -- You<br /><br />Yes we have to interpret the words we read, but you’re suggesting corrupting those words. Uncorrupted, those words do not specify a limitation so there is no limitation. Arms are simply a means of offense or defense; so it means all means of offence or defense as it is written. Also, the constitution is charging the federal government to act in certain ways and to limit actions in others; it does not target the actions of citizens. It cannot, therefore, target the citizens’ possession of arms. This particular area in the Constitution only limits government activity. If you don’t like the facts that no limitation exists on the citizenry, then change the Constitution the right way via the amendment process, not the debauchery of the English language.<br /><br /><br />“There are two reasons these types of arms are illegal. First, they are highly destructive and present a massive danger to society — the kind of danger not presented by hunting rifles and handguns.” -- You<br /><br />You falsely equate legality with justice. Laws can institutionalize injustice as easily as securing justice; so the fact that certain arms are now illegal is irrelevant. You also misplace the purpose of our right to arms. The purpose is a means of defense; I agree we have to right to destroy as such or no right to a means of offense as such except for the purposes of defense. The fact that some arms can be used for destruction is irrelevant because sometime neutralizing a threat requires the destruction of that threat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19647066010496715722013-02-04T19:31:41.066-05:002013-02-04T19:31:41.066-05:00It would be interesting to note that the Right to ...It would be interesting to note that the Right to bear Arms originally meant the ability to form a Militia-After all, that is why the battle of Lexington and Concord happened in the first place, they didn't actually keep their guns on their person, they stored them in the Armory, which was what the British were after, taken literally the Second Amendment would mean we shouldn't have a military.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11241240354474293768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77266834255528429452013-01-20T17:15:30.792-05:002013-01-20T17:15:30.792-05:00The bottom line in this argument is that human app...The bottom line in this argument is that human approaches to guns are based on logical fallacies and deep cognitive biases. Anyone short of special forces soldiers (who can presumably place every bullet they fire on a dynamic target ~50% of the time) is literally placing their own life at risk by possessing a firearm in an altercation. The average person can expect to be killed with their own weapon in half of all encounters.<br /><br />Scientists with an understanding of human cognition know that as systems, human beings are ill suited to reliably use lethal force when confronting an armed shooter.<br /><br />Consider a thought experiment. Think of four individuals. Three have guns. (1)Pulls a gun to shoot armed (2). Half of the time each will die. Either (1) or (2) remains afterward. If the original shooter (1) remains (3) reacts subsequently and pulls on (1). Each will die half the time. <br /><br />One against two does not guarantee that one will fail. In a crowd of sparsely armed individuals, action is delayed. This means that for a time, until the majority identify the original shooter, combat will be one on one. The advantage belongs to the original shooter who can maintain progress until he engages individuals who can fire simultaneously. In an open environment, (4) will likely survive more than half the time by escaping while others engage.<br /><br /><b>Therefore the benefit of such action is sacrificial. If pulling a gun delays the shooter, it can allow many others to survive.</b> <br /><br />One wonders if gun owners truly understand the logical implications of their actions. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08379779209271279723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87926397726947501602013-01-20T16:32:35.222-05:002013-01-20T16:32:35.222-05:00Getting shot while wearing body armor can result i...Getting shot while wearing body armor can result in broken ribs and bruised organs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08379779209271279723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70723707770634182002013-01-16T18:37:02.802-05:002013-01-16T18:37:02.802-05:00This exchange starts with Aurora in July, and cont...This exchange starts with Aurora in July, and continue with Newton.<br />Very unfortunately for all the lives cut too short, no statistics will bring an answer to this problem.<br />All countries have their episodes and their crazy individuals - there is no need for long discussions to know that if weapons are difficult to obtain, the probability of events like Aurora or Newton is reduced - it is never zero though.<br />Is this problem cultural, it certainly has its roots in the past.<br />But it is mainly a problem of money, and large amount of it leveraging on the cultural background to avoid change.<br /><br />Change will come, slowly, and at a cost of many more lives probably.<br />But it will come.<br /><br />discussions like this one contribute to the possibility of a change.ybkseraphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05421145293090763148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42577241489740322592013-01-06T16:52:35.764-05:002013-01-06T16:52:35.764-05:00"People have no fundamental rights"
Thi..."People have no fundamental rights"<br /><br />This is exactly the mentality behind gun control initiatives, and exactly why they must be resisted. Anybody who doesn't want to live in a country where they have no fundamental rights must necessarily oppose the present superficial hysteria - the real issue is between the unbridgable gulf between those who say that you have no fundamental rights and those who still want to live in a free country.<br /><br />I thank Mr. Keating for his honesty.jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14649905402946783306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26777076996511828722013-01-05T12:37:47.654-05:002013-01-05T12:37:47.654-05:00Assault rifles seems to hit a nerve, The N.R.A. an...Assault rifles seems to hit a nerve, The N.R.A. and People of the U.S.A. who own assault rifles now classed as W.M.M. have created a problem they wont admit too, So many large capacity round,s of ammo. able to MOW DOWN PEOPLE LIKE GRASS as they were designed for, These very folks approve of these people killers by allowing the laws to include them, so when any family members, or friend are killed in a barrage of bullets from a Tool of death Take the responsibility square on and and admit we approved them and allowed this action to take place, without the tools of murder major killings cannot take place Its no different than approving an attack of any form and the taking of lives of fellow citizens in any part of the world, change the rules and save lives you have the power to reverse bad trends but first admit the responsibility, Try passing the buck after someone you love is blown away can 50 rounds of BULLET HAIL solve the loss of loved ones ??? Rubenoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00377899539438415106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63704002226189377902012-12-27T01:31:37.145-05:002012-12-27T01:31:37.145-05:00People like me, who are proponents of stricter gun...People like me, who are proponents of stricter gun control measures, aren't against Americans' 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms," either for sport or self-defense. We are distressed by the incidence of mass shootings in the US and we believe, reasonably I think, that placing strict controls on what kind of guns private individuals can own, and where they can carry those guns, would diminish the probability of future mass shootings.<br /><br />I agree that our culture glorifies violence; one need only look at the movies and video games we produce. And I agree that our mental health system is sorely lacking -- our jails are used as holding pens for the mentally ill. These problems must also be addressed, but their existence is not a reason not to undertake stricter gun control measures. Rather it is all the more reason to do so.<br /><br />In addressing the arguments for and against gun control, let me repeat an old saying one of my stat professors was fond of quoting, "Liars figure and figures lie." People on both sides of the gun control argument like to quote statistics in defending their position, but you won't find a study of gun related injury/death in which any epidemiologist worth his/her salt can't find serious flaws. Why? Because you have no way of controlling for confounding variables (such as culture).<br /><br />In light of the above, we have to do the best we can with what we know to prevent as many of these tragic gun deaths as humanly possible. We certainly aren't doing that now. We know that more lethal weapons are capable of killing more people, more quickly than other more conventional hand guns, which we know are perfectly adequate for self defense. And we know that lethal guns, such as AR-15 type rifles, are too easy to obtain. Let's take the really lethal guns off the street, and do a better job of controlling who has access to guns in general.<br /><br />One other thought.<br /><br />When I was in the military, we didn't carry a sidearm all the time. We went to the armory and checked it out when we were required to be armed. This same idea could be employed for gun enthusiasts who enjoy shooting the AR-15 or similar weapons. Gun ranges could be licensed to maintain an armory of such weapons to check out to shooters for practice or competitive shooting at the range. The gun range armory would have to undergo periodic audits to ensure they maintained adequate security and inventory control over their weapons, just as we in the military did.<br /><br />Come on. We can do better.Richard Badalamentehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008785529404172402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62526966749259287652012-12-16T17:31:00.270-05:002012-12-16T17:31:00.270-05:00I am pro-gun, being a fat old 57 year old SAHM, wi...I am pro-gun, being a fat old 57 year old SAHM, with five adult children now living and contributing to society. I guess I am "MISSING" something in my life. The fact is, I not only own one handgun but several and have used them and know how to shoot them. But to the general liberals I am a nutz,lol. Of course the federal government also calls me a criminal because I once gave my adult child one of my pain meds for his tooth ache while he was here visiting me! I could be "JAILED" for this under the laws that restrict some meds to us citizens. In fact I would wager to say there are MANY NUTZ out here and CRIMINALS like me who break these so called laws. The PLAIN fact is the politicians dont give a hoot about the so called "GUN" deaths anymore then they care about the "DRUG" problem here in the US. We really need to put the nutz and "REAL" criminals in jail,people like me;) At 57 I have never smoked a ciggi,have gotten intoxicated all of 6 times times in my whole life,never been arrested and in the past 30 years have gotten one speeding ticket.I have never taken any illegally purchased drugs nor have I ever taken many so called illegal drugs including,weed,LSD,meth,speed,coke,etc. In my 57 years I have been a SAHM who home schooled her five children and married to the same man for over 20 years.I am debt free,and own my own home and two vehicles. I pay my taxes on time and dont owe the government a dime either.I have lived a very calm life and my family has been my major interest along with cooking,and the NET. I am one of the "NUTZ" who own a gun(s).BTW I am NOT voting either one of the two major parties this next election.I will continue to own my weapons under the constitution of the US and reinforce the idea of "freedom" for all!nldel55https://www.blogger.com/profile/11283594284614612831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78144819468093910472012-12-09T11:25:56.467-05:002012-12-09T11:25:56.467-05:00"In "US culture" gun violence corre..."In "US culture" gun violence correlates to a higher incidence of socio-economic immiseration, not to the stringency of gun laws. That is the only positive correlation."<br /><br />Baloney.<br /><br />"gun control" doesn't work in the U.S. because there is NO meaningful control of most firearms at the federal level, the several National Firearms Act of the 20th century notwithstanding.<br /><br />When you have states like NY and NJ with relatively stringent "gun control"* abutted by states like PA and VT it is practically impossible to stop illegally obtained firearms from being introduced into those states and used for criminal purposes. Add to that the prevalence of "gun shows" which are, in many cases, effectively unregulated firearms supermarkets where there is little, if any, diligence done on the part of sellers to determine whether the buyer is, in fact, eligible to purchase firearms. When this situation obtains, the "gun control" that you people spend so much time complaining about is virtually non-existent. In most cases a crime has to be committed, beyond the illegal purchase of a firearm, before the authorities know about it. <br /><br />I understand your obssessive need for your gunz, they replace something else that's missing in your life. I would be much less critical of you people if you simply admitted that you're lying about "gun control" being a failed initiative, since you know as well as I do, it's never been implemented in any sensible, coherent and cohesive manner.<br /><br /><br />* Although those "controls" fall miles short of the "confiscation" and "banning" scenario envisioned by the lying profiteers of the NRA and other pro-gun orgs.<br /><br />democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69768306323063160942012-08-30T07:52:13.210-04:002012-08-30T07:52:13.210-04:00And what those links fail to account for is the fa...And what those links fail to account for is the fact that those less-violent areas were often even LESS violent when guns were legally available:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html<br /><br />And take a look at what happened to crime in DC when guns became available there again:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ<br /><br />And on a side note, fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the 30's, so I hardly see how those are relevant in your generalizations. <br /><br />In fact, Switzerland has a surplus of automatic weapons ownership with far less crime than many developed countries:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stmUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04566389345582341531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42665610043254891612012-08-30T05:49:45.316-04:002012-08-30T05:49:45.316-04:00This video offers an excellent neutral viewpoint: ...This video offers an excellent neutral viewpoint: http://youtu.be/HyPnIG0_MGsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39478074557201855562012-08-28T10:05:12.335-04:002012-08-28T10:05:12.335-04:00I disagree with you Michael, Guns are not ONLY cre...I disagree with you Michael, Guns are not ONLY created to kill or hurt. Yes as a result that does happen. However I believe it is a mater of perspective. A wise man once said, God made man, Colt made man equal. Guns have been used for good to. regardless how you look at it, it is a necessary evil. Without guns I as an American citizen may not have the freedoms that I enjoy today. I can understand your argument, and I respect it. However I believe that you need to look beyond your own understanding of it, look out side your sphere. Hitler said if you want to control a nation disarm them.News As We Know Ithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14065027704687651874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43202228237541145412012-08-20T11:04:49.399-04:002012-08-20T11:04:49.399-04:00So, say you have cancer. And say I walk up and inj...So, say you have cancer. And say I walk up and inject you with a formula which causes your cancer to grow and spread faster. By your argument, since the cancer was already malign, what I've done doesn't matter.<br /><br />Making things worse is making them worse, no matter how bad they were to begin with. I know if I got to choose between my neighborhood being infested with gangs armed with switchblades and gangs armed with assault weapons, I would have no problem choosing the former.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78954104528333087022012-08-20T11:01:25.431-04:002012-08-20T11:01:25.431-04:00Benign or not, they don't shoot people without...Benign or not, they don't shoot people without guns. <br /><br />Imagine you had cancer. If someone injected your cancer with a growth hormone which vastly increased the rate at which it grows and spreads, you would be an idiot to say "Well, the cancer was always malignant, so the injection doesn't matter." Making things worse is still making them worse, no matter how bad they are to start with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48552919147006268452012-08-09T22:42:07.830-04:002012-08-09T22:42:07.830-04:00In "US culture" gun violence correlates ...In "US culture" gun violence correlates to a higher incidence of socio-economic immiseration, not to the stringency of gun laws. That is the only positive correlation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68994757272059168682012-08-09T18:58:37.017-04:002012-08-09T18:58:37.017-04:00The Academy of Sciences study is cited in Kates-Ma...The Academy of Sciences study is cited in Kates-Mauser: "In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46773581647085027132012-08-09T01:10:38.427-04:002012-08-09T01:10:38.427-04:00Re the so-called evidence that more guns is correl...Re the so-called evidence that more guns is correlated with increased incidences of gun violence, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has determined that as of 2004 the data is inconclusive and that more research is needed.<br /><br />The synopsis may be read here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881<br /><br />The full report here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18242259366805560412012-08-07T20:31:20.797-04:002012-08-07T20:31:20.797-04:00If the links were accurate the authors would be ab...If the links were accurate the authors would be able to show that a significant number of "high-income nations" with more guns have more deaths and that nations that have enacted stringent gun laws have achieved significant drops in gun deaths. Not only are these correlations not observed when broad sets of countries are compared, one can see from the statistics that there is actually a negative correlation between gun control (or lack thereof) and gun deaths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46805767609875073432012-08-06T17:00:27.106-04:002012-08-06T17:00:27.106-04:00No, the answer is - as shown by the links posted a...No, the answer is - as shown by the links posted above - that more gun availability does increase incidence of violence. Are you going to be sufficiently intellectually honest to admit it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86740694341956854952012-08-06T15:54:47.711-04:002012-08-06T15:54:47.711-04:00Surely - but does the mere availability of guns in...Surely - but does the mere availability of guns incite people to violence? Does more guns mean more crime? Intellectual honesty compels us to answer: "no".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11422394496794542972012-08-05T17:01:52.782-04:002012-08-05T17:01:52.782-04:00Once more, guns don't kill people, right?
htt...Once more, guns don't kill people, right?<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/shooting-reported-at-temple-in-wisconsin.html?_r=1&hpAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9700402389530755402012-08-05T13:11:31.795-04:002012-08-05T13:11:31.795-04:00I haven't read through all the comments, so so...I haven't read through all the comments, so someone else might have addressed this, but the term "Arms" does have a formal, legal, definition - and it isn't limited to weapons. It's any personal means of offense or defense. Guns, knives, etc. certainly qualify, but so do: safety glasses, steel-toed boots, "bullet proof" vests, riot or other shields, and so on. Think of a knight wearing armor with his weapons on a horse - that's where the definition began. His armor and other equipment, including his horse, were his "arms". And for those who want to talk about the "militia" clause - ALL U.S. citizens are theoretically "militia" (loosest application of the term here) - it's a red herring. Also it's not just a Second Amendment right, but a Fourth and Fifth Amendment one too (protections of the right to acquire, keep, or own property). Any rational gun-control must be legal as well. That means before denying the right to any person it must be applied on a case-by-case basis and not a blanket statute directed at a class or classes of persons (unless they are non-citizens). That's due process - just as vital to community safety as rational gun control - probably even more so. A community without justice is not a safe one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876155053961978995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38027304018984260522012-08-04T18:36:22.921-04:002012-08-04T18:36:22.921-04:00I would support the Australian approach and findin...I would support the Australian approach and findings against the various studies cited because they are directly on point and a clear case study. Very strict gun laws began in 1996 and nearly halved the gun death rate within 7 years. The downside for the USA, as for Australia, is the cost of standard compensation when people surrender guns. Any hunter can have a gun or guns, with police check and approved application. No automatic weapons at all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10010508932327837220noreply@blogger.com