The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Let's bring this back to the topic shall we?
I think a good point was made about what countries should be compared when looking at the stats.
Should we be focusing on 'civilized', developed nations only or is it more appropriate to have everyone thrown into the mix?
I think a good point was made about what countries should be compared when looking at the stats.
Should we be focusing on 'civilized', developed nations only or is it more appropriate to have everyone thrown into the mix?
Please. Listening to Shemanese discuss what they don't understand is dull.
I don't think so. I doubt anyone would argue that a (relatively) gun-free country will have a lower gun violence rate than a gun-permissive country. There are also too many demographic, historical, and cultural variables for a simple gun/no-gun (by which I mean fewer guns) dichotomy to explain much of anything.
Here's the question. When you add up the benefits, actual or perceived, of liberal gun ownership laws vs. the benefits of gun control, do you consider the benefits of liberal gun ownership (hunting, home defence, self defence, resistance to tyranny) worth the cost (perhaps 20,000 lives lost per year in the U.S. that would not have been lost were gun ownership restricted)?
Your answer is no. Mine is yes.
Further discussion?
Or we can discuss various reasonable restrictions to make guns safer. Your call.
It's a good point.
Assuming your 20k figure is correct (for the U.S.), that is a drop in the bucket.
The utilitarian in me wants to side with you but we do need to consider that there is a psychological cost to the families of those involved as well.
Assuming your 20k figure is correct (for the U.S.), that is a drop in the bucket.
The utilitarian in me wants to side with you but we do need to consider that there is a psychological cost to the families of those involved as well.
Now....explain to me why the deaths of those in less developed countries are not important enough to be considered........
Is it racism or elitism on your part?
Which, as I explained to you before, totally discredits the graph, because people are killed with other weapons, and GUN MURDER RATES do not indicate anything except GUN MURDER RATES awlone which completely fails to show the effect of high levels of gun ownership on levels of violence.
GUN MURDER RATES are a malicious attempt at manipulation of data.
Yeah that is right. In a graph that shows the United States has the worst GUN MURDER RATE it is of course perfectly legitimate to eliminate the nation with a worse GUN MURDER RATE because....well, because their GUN MURDER RATE is worse than that of the USA.
Excellent post.
That is hilarious!
Do you know how many gun stores there are in Mexico?
One. In Mexico City.
In the entire country, only one outlet.
Do you know who runs it?
The Mexican military.
In Mexico, only one gun store but no dearth of violence
Mexicans may have the right to keep arms, but they are NOT allowed to exercise it.
Yeah, that makes sense.
They have a right, but are not allowed to exercise it, so they should not have the right.
Brilliant.
Yeah.
Form them into local militias and arm them to the bloody teeth so they can drive the cartels out of their towns and villages.
Or at least allow them the ability to legally defend themselves.
As an aside, this is something that always amazes me about the Left.
They talk a lot about the "people", they consistently go on about the oppression or the subjugation, or the rights of the "people", they pretend to be all for the "people"...............but when push comes to shove, they distrust the people at a visceral level, and look to the elites to establish control.
For all their talk of the "people" the left typically:
does not trust the people with their own money
does not trust the "people" with freedom of expression
does not trust the "people" with power in the form of weapons.
The left, I propose, actually is disgusted by, and afraid of the people, despite their pretense otherwise.
Just an observation I have made many times....
The same could be said of the right (hence the desire of many right-wingers to invest in the police for example). I think it's a problem with ideologues. I've said it before and I'll say it again, both the dippers and the social conservatives want to control my life. They just want to do it for different reasons
Sorry, but vigilantism is not something the right or the left should ever endorse.
Not in Mexico, the states or anywhere else.
If the police can't do their job, then you need to just gtfo and go somewhere safer. Otherwise, you are just giving them an excuse to continue underperforming.
Not in Mexico, the states or anywhere else.
If the police can't do their job, then you need to just gtfo and go somewhere safer. Otherwise, you are just giving them an excuse to continue underperforming.
As an aside, this is something that always amazes me about the Left.
They talk a lot about the "people", they consistently go on about the oppression or the subjugation, or the rights of the "people", they pretend to be all for the "people"...............but when push comes to shove, they distrust the people at a visceral level, and look to the elites to establish control.
For all their talk of the "people" the left typically:
does not trust the people with their own money
does not trust the "people" with freedom of expression
does not trust the "people" with power in the form of weapons.
The left, I propose, actually is disgusted by, and afraid of the people, despite their pretense otherwise.
Just an observation I have made many times....
I trust people with my money and I'm likely a fool to continue to do so.
I'm all for freedom of expression, until your expression instigates harm to others and then your freedom ends.
I don't trust people with "power in the form of weapons" because first off, how do I know that said person will use it properly? How do I know they won't go mass murder anyone? How do I know they're not crazy? How do I know they won't make excuses to USE that power of weapons to further their power?
I have no problem with guns as a tool to hunt with. I don't even have an issue with people who collect them or who range shoot just because. What my problem with guns is that they get in the hands of idiots who suddenly thing a gun IS power and they can do whatever they want. Perfect example: man in florida who shot a fellow movie goer because of his cell phone and that he threw popcorn on him. He actually left the theater to get his gun to shoot the person.
Or the guy who shot the teens for playing
loud music he didn't like and tried to say they had a gun aimed at him? I have a problem with - and this is US focused, mind you - people who are mentally unstable or should never have weapons, being able to get them. As I asked a person (a now ex-friend) - 1. what do you do with a person who has mental issues, is taking their meds and says they now have the "right" (which despite what Colpy has said, I don't see gun ownership as a right) to own a gun? If they're fine, why should they be denied their 'right'? 2. If said person stops taking their meds and now has access to a gun and they use it in volence against people, whose fault is it for their access to that weapon?
My ex-fiancee should never be allowed to possess a firearm, so I was told, because of her medical conditions. And yet she still had not only access to them, but possession of them.
You won't ever get control of all the guns in the US; it's part of their culture to need a gun to be able to face the world. A gun is a security blanket for the adult American Citizen.
All that said, I found it ironic that this Christmas
I had a friend who gave her son a child sized rifle for Christmas, and I was completelly fine with that. I think it's because it's not likely that boy is going to go out and shoot people, but rather he'll use it for hunting and protection against wild animals.And looking back at Colpy's long, "brief" history of why gun ownership is a "right", I think that had those in power at the time the granting of common protection would lead to this, they would likely shout loud and clear "Oh Eff That!" and kept that "power" to themselves (which good or bad I'm not sure).
To me, gun ownership is not a right, it's a privilege that should be and needs to be earned when the person PROVES that they not only understand guns, but how to use them properly and that they have the mental stability to not turn the use of those guns onto their fellows unless in dire need.
for "advanced... developed" countries, an OECD country comparison is the legitimate norm for a brazillion types of information/data. The only reason member Colpy is distracting/deflecting on the comparison is he apparently doesn't like the results that reinforce the impact of a U.S. gun culture society on U.S. related deaths associated with guns.
in terms of gun related murders, what's the point of comparing developed countries to a country undergoing a decade+ of drug cartel wars... like Mexico?... what's the point of comparing developed countries to 3rd world countries?... what's the point of comparing developed countries to countries actively engaged in wars or internal strife?
member Colpy ignorantly suggests I'm an elitist... a racist... for putting forward the OECD country data comparison. His desperation is glaringly evident in his following comment... the lengths he's prepared to take in the interests of his personal gun activism are highlighted through his "fake/leveraged concern" for gun related deaths in 3rd-world 'less developed' countries.
Yeah, like moving into a condo in downtown Toronto is an option for your average Mexican peasant.
You know, I'm learning more about you by the minute.
No, the OECD comparison is not legitimate. It is not legitimate for any numberr of reasons....but heck, I'll give you the Big Three:
1. It is a cherry pick. If you want to prove that high firearms ownership is a major cause of death, you need to include as many examples as are availible. When you start eliminating evidence, you are manipulating the data to fit a foregone conclusion. And man, are these guys ever eliminating evidence.
2. The use of "Gun Death" statistics instead of murder rates. If you want to prove that high firearms ownership is a major cause of death, you need to show that the perpetrators of mayhem would not, or could not resort to other methods if firearms were removed. If I want to kill someone, but you have taken away my gun......so I use a baseball bat, then no life was saved by the lack of a firearm, yet there was one less "Gun Death".
3. The removal of Mexico, an OECD member, from the graph. So absolutely transparent!! When you start eliminating evidence, you are manipulating the data to fit a foregone conclusion. Explain to me, please, how the existence of drug cartels (the excuse the UN uses for lying to us) is any different than the use of firearms by inner city gangs in the USA?
So, essentially, what the UN did was attempt to show that high rates of firearms ownership is determental to a societies in general, and to the USA in particular. Of course, the proper way to do that is use international murder rates compared to rates of firearms ownership.
But wait! That makes the USA look GOOD, as their murder rate is relatively low on the world scale.............so, a new graph is needed.
So, then they decide that the proper way to handle the situation, to fulfill their desire to make the USA's right to keep and bear arms look intolerable, it is necessary to dump the use of homicide statistics, and include voluntary deaths while eliminating the comparison with homicides using weapons other than guns..........more manipulation.
But OOPS, it still doesn't fit the mantra.
Okay, then let's dump 80% of the data, and include only OECD countries, which does finally make the USA look pretty bad.
But then they blew it, and exposed the whole game.........
Wait! The USA is NOT the worst nation, even after all that manipulation...........because Mexico is worse.
So just dump Mexico from the graph.
It is actually hilarious.....especially when you consider the stated reason.........Mexico was excluded because Mexican criminals kill so many people with guns.
And Waldo, you swallow this whole.
I now understand your GW alarmism.
You are simply intellectually incapable of thinking for yourself.