|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 20:16:26 GMT -4
If you exclude the USA. To quote your link: More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.Yes, and the point is that means the conclusions were dependant on a single data point. The study does not establish that in general, humans are more violent when guns are available. That section references other studies that show a lack of correlation as well. If you follow some of the links, you see from Gary Kleck: All true, but that does not establish gun ownership as the cause of the greater number of violent deaths (meaning that if we didn't have the guns, there would be less violence). "Within the United Kingdom, areas of high legal firearms ownership have a low incidence of firearms homicide and attempted murder." ( Dunblane Misled?) The Founders saw gun ownership as a means for the states to keep the central government in check and as a means for the central government to keep the states in check. An example of the latter is the American Civil War where northern states fought the southern states over the issue of slavery. Many of the troops from each state were drawn from the local militias. So, here is a case where private gun ownership helped free an entire race of people in a country.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 11, 2011 20:25:24 GMT -4
And when a crazy person does start shooting, it just stigmatizes mental health issues even more. And maybe that makes people more reluctant to seek help for their mental problems because they don't want to be stigmatized. And then you have more people with untreated mental health issues out there presenting a risk to themselves and others. This seems like a depressing vicious circle and I have no idea what can be done about it. I don't talk about it much, but I am a repository for the mental health issues on BAUT. I truly believe I have helped save a couple of lives, honestly, by saying, "Yes, you should go see a doctor. You shouldn't wait for the suicidal ideation to go away." No one ever tells people that, because everyone knows things get better. Everybody gets depressed sometimes, right?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 21:11:49 GMT -4
Unless Sarah Palin actually paid the guy (I am not suggesting Sarah Palin actually paid the guy), it assuredly isn't Sarah Palin's fault. That doesn't mean she doesn't bear at least some responsibility for setting the current climate. What climate did Sarah Palin help set that is relevant to the shootings? Don't we usually get stuff like this from her? On the other hand, look at what the left dishes out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 12, 2011 0:42:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 1:05:27 GMT -4
I think those websites are being pretty selective with their choice of images. A Tea Partier: But my complaint is with the violent rhetoric coming from politicians and the media, not the general public. One is the cause of the problem, the other is the symptom. Leaders are supposed to be more responsible.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 2:29:22 GMT -4
Another:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2011 3:24:54 GMT -4
Honestly I think that it is reprehensible of both sides.
Gifford's opponent in the election held a fund raiser where he invited people to come and shoot her picture with an M-16! The fact that is sort of thing is considered acceptable in a civilized country is disgusting.
Both sides have contributed to the current climate where police offers are stating that politicians are nuts to go out in public without serious security. Both sides have done everything that they can to demonize their opponents, portray them as Un-American and evil, and when you do that, the nut cases in the country tend to respond.
The reality is that there isn't a lot of difference between the two major parties and as far as the rest of us are concerned, they are both far right wing. One is just a tad further over than the other.
It's time that Americans took a long hard look at themselves because over the last ten years or more, they have gone from the land of the free to the land of the downright ugly.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 12, 2011 6:14:45 GMT -4
If you exclude the USA. To quote your link: More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.Yes, and the point is that means the conclusions were dependant on a single data point. If you exclude the USA, it's difficult to find another western democracy where guns are so freely available, you've got nothing to compare with more rational societies. Having a gun to hand makes it a lot easier for anyone who gets angry to cause a violent death. Other countries with high gun ownership have regulations about keeping them locked up or only available at gun clubs. But you were arguing the former, and that example shows that it doesn't work. It wasn't the slaves who freed themselves from central government with guns. It was the central government taking away the southerners' perceived right to have slaves in spite of the southerners' gun ownership.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 12, 2011 8:08:37 GMT -4
Joe Durnavich quoted: For this last statement to hold, surely victims must have their firearms on open display, otherwise there's no deterrent effect.
Then, if arming the populace is considered the method of deterring violence against people, surely there need to be strict measures to ensure people are properly trained in the use, maintenance and storage of their weapons. That sounds like a huge industry for governments to regulate, suggesting an increase in government involvement in an industry which seems to trade a lot on wariness of the government.
Only zero if you equate injury and death. The top quote above talks about an increase in death to balance the decrease in injury. Frankly, if someone was going to assault me, I'd much prefer to be beaten up and left alive than shot dead.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 12, 2011 10:57:08 GMT -4
I think those websites are being pretty selective with their choice of images. The picture comparison of the two rallies is for two events that happened over the same weekend. The Tea Party videos on the other site do show there is always at least one or a few folks with the Obama and Hitler-mustache signs, a few gun nuts, etc.. These are peaceful rallies, though. When asked, police have said that they prefer the Tea Party rallies because people behave themselves better and clean up after themselves. The left tries to make it sound like discourse of those who do not agree with them is a cauldron of violent rhetoric where people are whipped up into a psychotic frenzy. What "violent rhetoric" is that? Do you have isolated quotes, or do you have something in mind that characterizes a general attitude?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2011 11:06:55 GMT -4
Reason.com gave an interesting view of the situation. Politics apparently plays very little role in most attacks and would-be attacks against public officials. The researchers found that “fewer than a tenth of subjects who acted alone were involved with militant or radical organizations at the time of their attack or near-lethal approach.” Instead, they seek notoriety, revenge for perceived wrongs, death at the hands of law enforcement, to bring attention to a perceived problem, to save the country or the world, to achieve a special relationship with the target, to make money, or to bring about political change. Less than a quarter of the attackers developed escape plans. In fact, more than a third wished or expected to die during their attack. The article goes on to say In light of these findings, Jared Loughner, perpetrator of the horrific Tucson massacre and would-be assassin of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), is pretty much the usual suspect when it comes to attacks on public officials. He is an unmarried, childless, unemployed white male with no readily discernible political motivations who just experienced a major life failure when he was kicked out of community college. This just brings the ignorance and bigotry of attempts by some Democratic public officials to blame Tea Party activist or talk radio listeners into light. Those attempts to place the blame for this on political opponents are as uncivil as the acts that the same officials are complain about. The typical pot and kettle situation of politics. Republicans did not "get off lucky" in any realistic since because there is no reason they should be tied to any attack in the first place.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 13:30:59 GMT -4
Tea Partier[/i]. "Tea Bagger" is a slang sexual reference and should be rightly viewed as a pejorative.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 13:33:46 GMT -4
If you exclude the USA, it's difficult to find another western democracy where guns are so freely available, you've got nothing to compare with more rational societies. Pre-supposes that gun ownership in the US is irrational. Wheras in other countries victims of violence are just more likely to be crippled for life when people get angry rather than outright killed? And this is better?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 13:36:43 GMT -4
For this last statement to hold, surely victims must have their firearms on open display, otherwise there's no deterrent effect. Not true. If criminals are aware that their victims are more likely to be armed then there is a deterrent effect. Public display of the weapons is not necesasry. There are gun safety programs offered everywhere in America, but requiring such courses would be an unreasonable restriction on the right to own a firearm.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 14:32:33 GMT -4
[/i]. "Tea Bagger" is a slang sexual reference and should be rightly viewed as a pejorative. [/quote] Whoops.
|
|