"Natural Rights" You know. Like you have a natural right to breathe. No document or government entity gives you permission to breathe. Just like nothing gives you permission to self defense. That's just a natural (God given) right. You don't need "permission".
> "Natural Rights" You know. Like you have a natural right to breathe. No document or > government entity gives you permission to breathe. Just like nothing gives you > permission to self defense. That's just a natural (God given) right. You don't need > "permission".
How do you decide which rights are "natural" and/or "God-given"? Just because it's easy, or it makes sense to you? What about opportunistic theft? That's easy and comes naturally to a lot of people, so how is it not a "natural right"? All "rights" come from ethics/philosophy/religion - they're a very human concept.
But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a violent, fucked-up society. Most of us don't want to live in a place where carrying a gun day-to-day is something that has to enter one's mind. I've got friends who moved from South Africa to Australia for that very reason - they want to live in a society where the thought of needing a gun doesn't even enter your mind. Yet you seem strangely insistent on maintaining a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself from all the bad guys with guns.
> > "Natural Rights" You know. Like you have a natural right to breathe. No document or > > government entity gives you permission to breathe. Just like nothing gives you > > permission to self defense. That's just a natural (God given) right. You don't need > > "permission". > > How do you decide which rights are "natural" and/or "God-given"? Just because it's > easy, or it makes sense to you? What about opportunistic theft? That's easy and comes > naturally to a lot of people, so how is it not a "natural right"? All "rights" come > from ethics/philosophy/religion - they're a very human concept. >
"Opportunistic theft" There's another saying; "Do as you will, as long as it hurts nobody else."
Well, if you are first accosted, then you also have a natural right to defend yourself (e.g. retaliate). It's the law of cause and effect. You don't initiate harm unto anyone else unless they first do it to you, your family, or your personal property.
I mean, it's "easy" for some thug to maybe mug or stab you, or perhaps rape your wife. I never said that just because something was easy or "natural" automatically made it a right. Breathing and Self Defense were merely basic examples. No single thing can take that away from you. Nothing can, nor should forbid it.
> But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a violent, > fucked-up society. Most of us don't want to live in a place where carrying a gun > day-to-day is something that has to enter one's mind. I've got friends who moved from > South Africa to Australia for that very reason - they want to live in a society where > the thought of needing a gun doesn't even enter your mind. Yet you seem strangely > insistent on maintaining a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself from > all the bad guys with guns.
Okay. Let's take guns out of the picture. What if they outlawed all forms of martial arts training? Or what if they made it illegal for you to harm a burglar that broke into your home? Would that, in any way, seem fair?
I had been wondering about something since you replied to another one of my posts the other day.
Who exactly has any guns there in Australia? I'm sure the police do. But given the argument you gave the other day of anyone even having a gun on their person greatly increases the chances that Armageddon will happen. I mean, someone taking the gun and using to shoot all the people. (sorry, can't help but to get sarcastic here). So absolutely nobody has any kind of gun what-so-ever, not even the cops? But seriously... It does seem like it was said that some farmers are allowed to have rifles, for the purposes of protecting their livestock, or maybe hunting.
> > > "Natural Rights" You know. Like you have a natural right to breathe. No document or > > > government entity gives you permission to breathe. Just like nothing gives you > > > permission to self defense. That's just a natural (God given) right. You don't need > > > "permission". > > > > How do you decide which rights are "natural" and/or "God-given"? Just because it's > > easy, or it makes sense to you? What about opportunistic theft? That's easy and comes > > naturally to a lot of people, so how is it not a "natural right"? All "rights" come > > from ethics/philosophy/religion - they're a very human concept. > > "Opportunistic theft" There's another saying; "Do as you will, as long as it hurts > nobody else." > > Well, if you are first accosted, then you also have a natural right to defend > yourself (e.g. retaliate). It's the law of cause and effect. You don't initiate harm > unto anyone else unless they first do it to you, your family, or your personal > property.
See you're applying a moral framework here. There are others whose moral frameworks don't permit violence, even when attacked. You're saying it's a "natural right", but that's only true in your own belief system. Christians with a "strict" interpretation of Luke 6:27-31 ("But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.") and the more orthodox Hindus and Buddhists would say that there's no "natural right" to violent self-defence. Why are you so sure your morals are right and "natural"?
> I mean, it's "easy" for some thug to maybe mug or stab you, or perhaps rape your > wife. I never said that just because something was easy or "natural" automatically > made it a right. Breathing and Self Defense were merely basic examples. No single > thing can take that away from you. Nothing can, nor should forbid it.
Once again, you're asserting that your ethics are natural - that the things you consider immoral are immoral in the absolute, and the things you consider to be "natural rights" are also rights in the absolute. What grants you the moral authority to make these claims?
> > But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a violent, > > fucked-up society. Most of us don't want to live in a place where carrying a gun > > day-to-day is something that has to enter one's mind. I've got friends who moved from > > South Africa to Australia for that very reason - they want to live in a society where > > the thought of needing a gun doesn't even enter your mind. Yet you seem strangely > > insistent on maintaining a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself from > > all the bad guys with guns. > > Okay. Let's take guns out of the picture. What if they outlawed all forms of martial > arts training? Or what if they made it illegal for you to harm a burglar that broke > into your home? Would that, in any way, seem fair?
Well, that actually varies by state in Australia. In NSW, if someone attacks you, the law lets you beat them up pretty badly without being prosecuted. Now I can make a sport of this: I can walk through a rough neighbourhood trying to attract the attention of ne'er-do-wells in the hope that one will try to mug me, and then turn on them to beat the shit out of them.
However, in Victoria, the law puts a fair bit of emphasis on proportional response. Even if someone else starts it, you have to be damn careful not to fuck them up, or you're going to be prosecuted. Is it more fair? Obviously someone thought so, and it means you can't make sport of trying to lure disadvantaged people and beat them up.
Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness. "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on crime" rhetoric.
> I had been wondering about something since you replied to another one of my posts the > other day. > > Who exactly has any guns there in Australia? I'm sure the police do. But given the > argument you gave the other day of anyone even having a gun on their person greatly > increases the chances that Armageddon will happen. I mean, someone taking the gun and > using to shoot all the people. (sorry, can't help but to get sarcastic here). So > absolutely nobody has any kind of gun what-so-ever, not even the cops? But > seriously... It does seem like it was said that some farmers are allowed to have > rifles, for the purposes of protecting their livestock, or maybe hunting.
Obviously the majority of police carry firearms in Australian, generally 9mm automatic pistols. Military are also armed, which goes without saying. Security guards can carry handguns, but a significant proportion of them don't, simply because by having more guns around, things are more likely to escalate into gunfights. The security guards who ride armoured cars usually carry handguns, but e.g. shopping centre security and crowd control at concerts don't.
About one quarter to one third of Australians have licensed firearms. There are a significant number of unlicensed firearms as well. Farmers have rifles for shooting 'roos, feral dogs, and feral pigs, some people like to shoot at the range, etc. Very few people have a gun for "safety", it's just not something you need. We don't carry them around in public places, either - you're supposed to have your gun in a secure container when you're carrying it but not actually using it to hunt or shoot targets or whatever.
Most criminals don't carry guns either. There are occasional mob hits where they'll assassinate a particular person. For example Des "Tuppence" Moran got shot at a café having his morning coffee. Whether or not he had his own gun on him, he wouldn't have had a chance. Hit-men don't give the game away until it's too late. If there's a price on your head, you need to pay a full-time security guard to look out for you (cf Mick Gatto). Wannabe thugs occasionally shoot up each others' houses, too. Having your own gun doesn't help there, either. They drive up while you're sleeping, and by the time you're out of bed, they're gone and all that's left are the bullet holes.
The net result is that there's almost zero chance of being shot randomly. Things just don't escalate into gunfights without guns everywhere.
There are some neighbourhoods where break-ins are a problem (e.g. some of the southern suburbs of Perth where one in eighteen houses has been burgled). They'll generally case you out and make sure they break in when no-one's going to be home.
Sadly, most violent crime in Australia is domestic violence - husbands and wives assaulting each other - and most murders are domestic murders. Guns usually aren't involved, even when the people have access to them.
Australia has more violent crime than places like Japan and Hong Kong, but less violent crime than a significant proportion of Western democracies. Australia has 1.3 murders per year per 100,000 residents, compared to 5 murders per year per 100,000 residents, so significantly lower. The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's defined as sexual assault).
There are some useful stats on this site: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime Just be aware some of the comparisons are misleading because different countries have different legal definitions of crimes (e.g. in Canada, a lot of what would be called "rape" in the US is called "sexual assault", while Sweden defines a lot of what the US calls "sexual assault" as "rape" - Sweden's huge increase in rape is the result of changing the legal definition of rape to include more things, not an actual change in crime rate).
Really, I think the number of guns is neither here nor there. The proportion of households with licensed guns in Australia is pretty similar to the US. I do think it's important to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, and not to drag society into a state where it's expected that there are guns everywhere. When you expect others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere, volatile situations escalate into gunfights.
> See you're applying a moral framework here. There are others whose moral frameworks > don't permit violence, even when attacked. You're saying it's a "natural right", but > that's only true in your own belief system. Christians with a "strict" interpretation > of Luke 6:27-31 ("But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who > hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes > you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not > withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who > takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do > to you, do so to them.") and the more orthodox Hindus and Buddhists would say that > there's no "natural right" to violent self-defence. Why are you so sure your morals > are right and "natural"? > > > I mean, it's "easy" for some thug to maybe mug or stab you, or perhaps rape your > > wife. I never said that just because something was easy or "natural" automatically > > made it a right. Breathing and Self Defense were merely basic examples. No single > > thing can take that away from you. Nothing can, nor should forbid it. > > Once again, you're asserting that your ethics are natural - that the things you > consider immoral are immoral in the absolute, and the things you consider to be > "natural rights" are also rights in the absolute. What grants you the moral authority > to make these claims? >
Pacifism. I get it. Sure. That is also a freewill choice of anyone that wants to li... er, die that way.
So. You're saying that since the very concept of pacifism exists, that no single free-willed entity should be allowed the opportunity of self preservation? What grants YOU the moral authority to make that claim?
Okay. No harm should come to anyone. Lets go with that concept for a moment. Lets say you're a bystander, enjoying a relaxing evening at the park. You see a number of punks gathered around and following (just putting the saddest scenario out there) an elderly lady. Then they start verbally harassing her. Before you know it, they're shoving her around, then she's on the ground, they're kicking her. You sit there like a (I don't know what, maybe chanting *your Buddhist mantras or whatever)... Then she dies of her injuries, and the punks walk away laughing about it.
Due to your (or whoever's) stance on non-violent intervention, would you say you're partially responsible for this woman's death since you didn't do jack-shit to help her?
Sure, you might've got your ass beat too, but the survival of the lady would've greatly increased.
> > > But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a > violent, > > > fucked-up society.
If you're a 105 lb (48 kilos) female, and a 280 lb rapist has you backed into a corner, I'm not sure asking nicely is going to persuade the rapist to leave you alone.
A gun allows a victim the chance of survival. Would she need to use it? Of course not. The threat of injury or death to the rapist (again, another example of self preservation) is a deterrent. So therefor, in this particular circumstance, having a gun is justified. I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't be.
> Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness. > "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone > for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on > crime" rhetoric. >
If you're going to go the Biblical route here, then do you think that Jesus wouldn't have allowed anyone to defend themselves?
Take the time Jesus was going to be arrested (before he was to be crucified). His disciples did carry weapons with them. Swords, as I'm sure you're aware.... Even back then, there were mortal threats. To not be armed for protection would be foolish.
I know it's not like that today... At least, not in a lot of places. That's not to say there aren't dangerous areas.... (I could say more here, but it'd just be rambling)
There's also the concept of Justice. If nobody should face the consequences of their actions, then those exercising their "free-will" to hurt others can get away with it, scot-free. Following a non-interventionist/pacifist philosophy would suck some serious Equus ferus caballus fallace. But, I guess that's okay if that's what anyone chooses to do. It's not MY funeral.
> The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher > than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered > rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's > defined as sexual assault). >
Digital Penetration?
> When you expect > others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere, > volatile situations escalate into gunfights.
Not necessarily... I'll have to disagree. Again, I refer you back to the idea of self preservation. Things would have to get highly volatile before reaching the level to warrant use of a firearm. That's more likely to happen in criminal elements, such as gangs or drug dealers. You're more likely to find the criminal elements in the very same areas where there are high rates of crimes (they're also gun-free zones... coincidence? Not at all). ....Not in circles where law-abiding citizens are the majority.
*Buddhist Mantras... That was only an example. I don't know if you actually are a Buddhist, if so, no offense was meant.
> Pacifism. I get it. Sure. That is also a freewill choice of anyone that wants to > li... er, die that way. > > So. You're saying that since the very concept of pacifism exists, that no single > free-willed entity should be allowed the opportunity of self preservation? What > grants YOU the moral authority to make that claim?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're making assertions that rights are "natural" and "God-given" without giving any backing for it besides the assertion. Others would claim that God grants no such right.
> If you're a 105 lb (48 kilos) female, and a 280 lb rapist has you backed into a > corner, I'm not sure asking nicely is going to persuade the rapist to leave you > alone. > > A gun allows a victim the chance of survival. Would she need to use it? Of course > not. The threat of injury or death to the rapist (again, another example of self > preservation) is a deterrent. So therefor, in this particular circumstance, having a > gun is justified. I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't be.
You're making up a situation that's very rare. People like to imagine these scary rapists out there stalking vulnerable women, but it doesn't work like that. Most victims know their rapists. Often they're friends or family members. The situations where rape happens aren't for the most part situations where you can pull a gun.
In the comparatively rare case of the scary rapist stalking his victims, if he's in a society where guns are pervasive like the US, he'll more than likely be carrying a gun himself. He'll pick an isolated victim and get his gun trained on her before she has a chance to reach for her weapon. If she reaches for her weapon, he just shoots her - he's already in deep with this, there's not much to lose. He's not going to do attempt the crime in a situation where there are other people around who could do something because he's a coward.
Now in a culture where guns aren't pervasive, the scary rapist doesn't bother to carry a gun - it's a liability most of the time. Once again, he'll choose a situation where his intended victim is unlikely to get help. But the woman doesn't have a gun pulled on her, and has some chance of getting away or screaming for help without getting shot.
> > Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness. > > "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone > > for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on > > crime" rhetoric. > > If you're going to go the Biblical route here, then do you think that Jesus wouldn't > have allowed anyone to defend themselves? > > Take the time Jesus was going to be arrested (before he was to be crucified). His > disciples did carry weapons with them. Swords, as I'm sure you're aware.... Even back > then, there were mortal threats. To not be armed for protection would be foolish. > > I know it's not like that today... At least, not in a lot of places. That's not to > say there aren't dangerous areas.... (I could say more here, but it'd just be > rambling)
Well, Jesus was a pacifist - look at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). It's the meek, merciful, peacemakers, and those who are poor in spirit who get the cred. Also, in verses 11-12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." The other line occurs in verses 38-39: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." He's pretty explicit - there's no space for vindictiveness there.
The Old Testament also prophesies a non-violent future, e.g. Isaiah 2:3-4: "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Yes, the world is fallen, and we can't actually achieve this ideal. Biblically, it's the original sin that lurks in the hearts of all sons/daughters of Adam. But trying to argue that the Bible advocates a society where you have to proverbially carry a big stick doesn't hold water..
> There's also the concept of Justice. If nobody should face the consequences of their > actions, then those exercising their "free-will" to hurt others can get away with it, > scot-free. Following a non-interventionist/pacifist philosophy would suck some > serious Equus ferus caballus fallace. But, I guess that's okay if that's what anyone > chooses to do. It's not MY funeral.
There's a difference between justice and vindictiveness. The Old Testament law emphasises proportionality of punishments. Also, if just Jesus' opinion isn't enough for you, you can find St Paul's admonition against vindictiveness in Romans 12:17-21:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
The citations in the passage come from Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22. There's definitely a strong element of leaving people to suffer divine retribution there. This isn't unique to Christianity - some forms of Buddhism teach that enough negative actions lead to you being demoted to a lower, hell-like realm on reincarnation.
There's a reason we don't support "mob justice" - we don't recognise it as actual justice. There's definitely an argument for keeping unreformed violent criminals out of society for the safety of everyone else, but ultimately, what does vindictiveness achieve? Whatever you do to a murderer doesn't bring back the murder victim. And considering the number of death row inmates who have their sentences overturned, it seems modern legal systems are more wired for producing convictions than getting the right person.
> > The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher > > than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered > > rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's > > defined as sexual assault). > > Digital Penetration?
Do I really have to spell it out to you? Fingering someone in the pussy/arsehole without their consent. Arserape is also defined as rape in Australia. In the US, only penis-in-vagina rape is defined as rape )in the US, as a man, by definition you can't be raped, you should feel privileged). This means that the Australian total per capita rate of vaginal rape, arserape, digital rape is 5% higher than the US per capita rate of penis-in-vagina rape alone.
> > When you expect > > others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere, > > volatile situations escalate into gunfights. > > Not necessarily... I'll have to disagree. Again, I refer you back to the idea of self > preservation. Things would have to get highly volatile before reaching the level to > warrant use of a firearm. That's more likely to happen in criminal elements, such as > gangs or drug dealers. You're more likely to find the criminal elements in the very > same areas where there are high rates of crimes (they're also gun-free zones... > coincidence? Not at all). ....Not in circles where law-abiding citizens are the > majority.
Well the proof's in the pudding. The US has a far higher homicide rate than Australia. The Philippines, another place where people carry handguns everywhere, regularly has bar fights escalating into gunfights in major cities. It's all very well for you to talk about it in the abstract like this, but you haven't given a single data point that actually supports your position.
> > Digital Penetration? > > Do I really have to spell it out to you? Fingering.... Oh, I see. LOL. I was thinking electronic or over the internet, and was like "What?!"
Now I'll never listen to this song the same way ever again.
> No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're making assertions that rights are > "natural" and "God-given" without giving any backing for it besides the assertion. > Others would claim that God grants no such right. >
Well isn't that itself an assertion? I guess it is since it is a "claim". What about 'Free Will'? Do we have an agreement that everyone has free-will? Or is that also debatable?
> Well, Jesus was a pacifist...
There was also the time he overturned the tables in the temple and chased out the money changers for cheating people buying doves for sacrifices. Although, it says he 'drove' them out, and it could be said that he flogged them, using a rod.
I'm not saying this invalidates Jesus being a pacifist. This was in a house of worship and it was being desecrated by those doing wrong to others. Maybe this was a form of 'Justice'? I await your response Reverend Crabb.
> Yes, the world is fallen, and we can't actually achieve this ideal. Biblically, it's > the original sin that lurks in the hearts of all sons/daughters of Adam. But trying > to argue that the Bible advocates a society where you have to proverbially carry a > big stick doesn't hold water..
There are offensive and defensive measures. I do wholeheartedly believe that self defense is a natural right. Be it in physical confrontations, or online debates on emulator forums. Right? How one chooses to protect themselves is a choice in and of itself.
Which of the following statement can you agree with?
There are times when lethal force may be required to stop an attacker.
It is never appropriate to use any lethal method to stop an attacker.
The idea is that when someone intends to put your life in danger, they are then forfeiting their own right to live. Or live freely... Which would mean going to prison, etc.
If I may share an anecdote... A cousin's ex-husbands younger brother... I'll use his 1st name, Paul. Paul's mother was dating a man... Long story short, whatever happened to the guy, one night he had called Pual's mother, saying he was going come over and kill her and Paul (this was left on their answering machine). Sure enough, he came out to her house, either drunk or on drugs... He tried to attack her, but Paul was there with a gun. He shot and killed the guy. He did go to jail or prison for a while. When he finally went to a trial for murder he was found not guilty because it was justified and in self-defense. They even had the evidence where he said he was going to hurt/kill them. So it was no contest.
Yes. The Bibles says to turn the other cheek to those that do you wrong.... But I'm sure that's referring to those that are just generally assholes. Not people trying to spill your blood. There's a big difference, I would think. ......Maybe not.
> > There's a difference between justice and vindictiveness. The Old Testament law > emphasises proportionality of punishments. Also, if just Jesus' opinion isn't enough > for you, you can find St Paul's admonition against vindictiveness in Romans 12:17-21: > > Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of > everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with > everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for > it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: > “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In > doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but > overcome evil with good. > > The citations in the passage come from Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22. > There's definitely a strong element of leaving people to suffer divine retribution > there. This isn't unique to Christianity - some forms of Buddhism teach that enough > negative actions lead to you being demoted to a lower, hell-like realm on > reincarnation. > > There's a reason we don't support "mob justice" - we don't recognise it as actual > justice. There's definitely an argument for keeping unreformed violent criminals out > of society for the safety of everyone else, but ultimately, what does vindictiveness > achieve? Whatever you do to a murderer doesn't bring back the murder victim. And > considering the number of death row inmates who have their sentences overturned, it > seems modern legal systems are more wired for producing convictions than getting the > right person. >
Another verse that comes to mind... It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
That seems like a pretty extreme response to me. A quick death would be far more merciful. Is that vindictive, or justified? Or maybe it's irrelevant.
> Well the proof's in the pudding. The US has a far higher homicide rate than > Australia. The Philippines, another place where people carry handguns everywhere, > regularly has bar fights escalating into gunfights in major cities. It's all very > well for you to talk about it in the abstract like this, but you haven't given a > single data point that actually supports your position.
It seems that the rate for gun ownership is the highest in the U.S compared to the rest of the world. But the rates for homicides are below countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Russia.
> > Well the proof's in the pudding. The US has a far higher homicide rate than > > Australia. The Philippines, another place where people carry handguns everywhere, > > regularly has bar fights escalating into gunfights in major cities. It's all very > > well for you to talk about it in the abstract like this, but you haven't given a > > single data point that actually supports your position. > > https://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-charts-that-put-obamas-gun-violence-town-hall-in-perspective/ > > It seems that the rate for gun ownership is the highest in the U.S compared to the > rest of the world. But the rates for homicides are below countries such as Brazil, > Mexico, and Russia.
The graph is misleading:
Guns per person is pointless statistic, because it's skewed by a small number of people with large numbers of guns. A better statistic is the percentage of the population with access to a firearm, which is about the same across Australia, Sweden and the US.
The graph shows gun homicides, not total homicides, which isn't particularly helpful.
It also intentionally chooses a year where there was a spike in gun homicides as the starting point to make it look better.
I've attached a graph of total US homicide rate per year per 100,000 people from 1950 to 2014 (data sourced from here). You had a massive increase in homicides from the 1960s, with a bit of a reprieve in the 1980s, and then since the 1990s it's gone down to roughly where it started. Now it's nice that the doubling of homicide rate has been reversed, but what caused it in the first place?
Don't you think comparing to Brazil, Mexico and Russia is a little disingenuous? Brazil has had politically instability for decades, Mexico has crippling poverty, and Russia is still dealing the fallout of the fall of an ideology followed by the oligarchy installed by (CIA-backed) Yeltsin.
Besides, I'm not saying gun ownership leads to more shootouts, I'm saying that a significant proportion of the population carrying guns around with them leads to increased chance of heated situations escalating into gunfights. Even after brining the homicide rate down from the high rates of the '80s and '90s, the US still has three times the homicide rate of Australia. The proportion of people with access to licensed guns is pretty similar across the two countries. The big difference is that Australians don't carry their guns around with them in general.
>I'm not saying gun ownership leads to more shootouts, I'm saying that a significant >proportion of the population carrying guns around with them leads to increased chance of >heated situations escalating into gunfights.
I'd be more comfortable with two idiots spraying each other with pepper spray if they have to have some duel/shootout compared to actual firearms. I'd like to not have to worry about being an unintended target due to someone having bad aim. And so would other sane Americans that would also like to go to businesses without being hit by bullets because some dumbshit with a gun wanted to shoot at someone else.
>The big difference is that Australians don't carry their guns around with them in general.
The US citizens back in 1890s to 1910s finally got their act together and had enough and with laws written at the time then banned the feel-good notion of everyone being allowed to go around carrying around guns in holsters mentality.
Guns in houses or businesses are okay (if stored there and handled properly....wishful thinking). As for being allowed to carry in public, it should only be depending upon specific job descriptions (security/courier/bail bondsman etc) as I posted earlier that might have higher risk compared to other jobs. If anyone else has needs to wear a holster with a weapon, let it be mace or pepper spray only....no guns.
Duel: Walk ten paces, turn around towards each other and spray away.
Maybe we'll have better aiming fragrance sprayers in the department store shopping malls when next holiday season comes around.
I think we need to move a lot more into state governments making a bigger percentage of the rules and rip out a lot of the national laws because let's face it, we're not ever going to "come back together". The mere thought of that is repulsive to today's left and the right. We're not going to agree or find common ground on enough things. We're just pissing each other off.
I wonder how many trillions we spend on moving the country one way then 4-8 years later moving it back the other way and so on. Total waste. It no longer makes sense.
Index 
Threaded 
Gun Protest Walk-outs
Reply
[Re: 
I mean, someone taking the gun and using to shoot all the people. (sorry, can't help but to get sarcastic here). So absolutely nobody has any kind of gun what-so-ever, not even the cops? But seriously... It does seem like it was said that some farmers are allowed to have rifles, for the purposes of protecting their livestock, or maybe hunting. 
