Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 12)

davidk14: .

Ummm...return to the past? Really? Rasism of the 1900's? Seriously? How about womens rights? How far back you willing to go soul [...we the people wish for a return to the beautiful state of living it once was (long before my time...] or how about you ghost? You tried to go back to the past in which racism flourished unabated?

Perhaps I misunderstand your message.

The past holds good and bad and I would rather move forward.

.

ghostgeek: David, there was a time when I wished to return to the sun-dappled halcyon days of fond memory. To repeat the life I had already lived. It was a dream.

davidk14: .

To a specific memory. I agree. To a point of course. Would I change a second of my past? Absolutely not.

.

LiptonCambell: >>>Seems you keep ignoring that possibility, Lipton.

It's not that I'm ignoring it- it's that I think it's UTTERLY RIDICULOUS...I put it up there with ending all wars, or having politicians agree to be honest with people, or all racism coming to an end.

It's such idealistic unrealistic drivel of world peace that it might as well involve people holding hands in a giant peace symbol that can be seen from space

...leaving us open to an alien invasion....



What about past prohibitions are you not getting? They tried prohibiting booze- but people kept using booze, and dangerous gangsters supplied it, leading to many people dying from cheap, improperly made booze. They're trying to prohibit drugs, and have been doing so for nearly 70 years, with no success. People continued to want drugs, and there were dangerous people willing to provide it. Drugs are more powerful, cheaper, and once again, sold by powerful drug lords who use the funds for even further crimes and suffering.

What makes you think this time will be any different? Once again, I asked you earlier, and you clearly hold a different belief now- do you honestly think that dangerous people do not exist?

LiptonCambell: >>>We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s

Oh, I'm sorry ghost, but as you can clearly tell, my studies are more recent than the 1990's.

Going by your earlier criticisms, which you've yet to acknowledge as incorrect and illogical, since my studies used data in the 2000's, and yours in the 90's, clearly mine are superior.

In fact, all 3 of the sources you cited are older than my study. Clearly, if you were right to assert that newer is better and more accurate, than you must acknowledge that the 3 sources you cited are, in fact, presenting incorrect and out of date information, and we should reject their conclusions outright.

Or you can acknowledge you were wrong. Whatever.

>>>...The states with the most guns ....found that states with more guns also....

I've already pointed out- I've presented data on a global scale. You're looking at individual states. Why? Are you afraid of what the data says about your stances on a larger scale?

LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, you and SoulVIBE just want to snuggle up to your guns

Who said I owned a gun?

I don't. I've never fired one in my life. Hell, I've never fired a paintball. The closest thing I've fired is a pellet gun.

You seem to be making pretty brought assumptions about me and my life, although they don't seem to have much relevancy to the debate at hand.

I don't choose to own a gun. But that doesn't mean I don't think others should be denied them. If you don't like guns, don't own them. But don't project your hangups about firearms onto society.

LiptonCambell: >>> Trying to answer this question, I've referenced many American studies that come to the conclusion that guns do not protect but do exacerbate violence.

"Upon reflection, I've decided I've been right all along, and have no interest in challenging my beliefs, but rather only wish to assert my superiority over others who do not share my opinion"

>>>Honestly though, why give a shit about what academics think.

I agree. We can throw studies back and forth, but the fact remains that this is a contentious issue, and you'll find evidence for both arguments being made.

>>>If there are no guns, nobody can be shot.

There will NEVER be no guns.

Hell, lets take it one step further- if there were NO nuclear bombs, no one would be nuked.

I'm sure with that resounding realization, all nations everywhere will dismantle their nuclear weapons, and all agree to love one another.

Have you contacted the UN so you can make the nations of the world understand that one sentence idea, and help bring an end to nuclear war?

ghostgeek: It's interesting Lipton that both you and SoulVIBE do not own a gun. You both argue in favour of the protective nature of firearms yet you both forgo that protection. It makes me wonder why? If guns are so essential in a modern developed nation for the citizens' safety, as you claim, why aren't you owning a firearm? Why is your situation different to other peoples?

ghostgeek: If you can get along perfectly well without guns, why can't other people? America, and no doubt Canada as well, spends a considerable sum of taxpayers' money on protecting its citizens from those who would cause them harm. Citizens are not left to the mercy of wrong doers. What makes the job of U.S. law enforcement harder, and thus means ordinary people are less well protected, is that America is awash with guns. A sane approach would be to take measures that reduces the number of guns in circulation, not increase their availability. Other nations have benefited from this approach, so why can't North America?

LiptonCambell: >>> It makes me wonder why? If guns are so essential in a modern developed nation for the citizens' safety,

Again, to me its about ethics. It is immoral to put another human being in a dangerous situation because I have a personal hangup about guns. I believe in certain human rights, and choosing to have access to weapons for self-defense is one of them, and I find it completely abhorrent to force people into the role of murder victim because in the imaginary situation I've made, I know better than they do.

Theres a reason why nearly all mass shootings take place in gun free zones- because outside of them, theres a chance people will be armed- and mass-shooters know this. Knowing someone might stop you, shoot you, or kill you is clearly enough of a deterrent that these kinds of people focus exclusively where people are defenseless...

>>>Why is your situation different to other peoples?

Well, unlike you, I don't know everyone, everyones situation, and everyones reasons. I accept this, and tolerate my fellow man by accepting that it's better off they have a choice to purchase a gun, or not, and accept that they will act in their own best interests.

Unlike you, who thinks people need to be protected from themselves, believe they are their own greatest enemy, and think they should be bill for the expense of you looking down your nose at them.

>>>If you can get along perfectly well without guns, why can't other people?

I've never stated that other people --must-- have guns. I've stated that they --must-- have the option. I don't think everyone needs to be armed.

You're projecting alot onto other people rather than reading what they actually wrote, and keep assuming that the opposite is true when no one stated it- if you don't want anyone to have guns, and people object, that doesn't automatically mean they want everyone to have guns.

You see, I can remove myself when i comes to creating laws. I don't think the laws should be my personal wants and whims, to force others to live how I would live. Society should permit people to live life as it makes sense to them, and empower them to do so.

Because you're never going to get every situation right, and your feel-good world peace laws will have violent unintended consequences that'll bring about peoples deaths. You may be chill with having that blood on your hands- i'm not. I think we should reduce peoples suffering- not legislate it.

>>>America, and no doubt Canada as well, spends a considerable sum of taxpayers' money on protecting its citizens from those who would cause them harm. Citizens are not left to the mercy of wrong doers.

Well, lets look at these mass murders you were going on about at the start of the thread- how many were killed before the police arrived?

You've already brought up how police are abusive, how the police are racist- have you no idea the climate today on how police are perceived in the states? The protests and riots?

>>> Other nations have benefited from this approach

What other nations? I've already pointed out the majority of nations have gun freedom and less crime than your prime example- UK

SoulVIBE: I find it interesting and very telling that, that is the time in the past you chose david...i was actually referring to the time before Europeans decided to settle here (in what is now known as America)...i would rather move forward as well, but in case you havent noticed we have all been living in the past for thousands of years...we have not moved forward as a species, we have only advanced technologically...and it is to the point now that people identify more with technology than they do with humanity...this is why i spoke of a return...im not saying it was paradise here before Europeans started settling, but it certainly was a MUCH better state of living/being than what we currently have...because the Natives ALL had a deep respect for the Earth (first), and less respect for foolish pride or a sense of entitlement and ownership...

ghostgeek: Lipton, you're Canadian so no doubt you've heard of Justin Bourque. On June 4, 2014, terrified residents in Moncton, N.B, called police when they spotted Bourque walking down the street wearing camouflage and combat boots, and armed with a rifle and a shotgun. Doubtless, you know what happened next. Three police officers were killed and two wounded.

I have but one question for you Lipton. If Canadian police can fare so badly when confronting an armed man, why should we think that armed members of the public would have had any better luck?

ghostgeek: There is something fishy about the argument that higher gun ownership deters crime. If this is true then criminals should be leading remarkably safe lives. Well, that doesn't seem to be the case in at least one Canadian city.

It seems that gun crime in Edmonton has reached American levels according to the head of the city's police association. Maurice Brodeur had this to say:

"The prolificness of guns in the city is higher than it's ever been, and it's not that it's protection from police, it's protection from each other -- the criminal element. The vast majority of these people live a high-risk lifestyle."

The criminals are arming themselves to get protection from other criminals, and yet gun crime has risen. Hardly suggests guns act as a deterrence to criminals.

ghostgeek: "Society should permit people to live life as it makes sense to them, and empower them to do so." Fine words Lipton, as I'm sure criminals the world over would agree. They are most definitely living life as it makes sense to them.

ghostgeek: There's just one fly in the ointment. Not everybody likes to be preyed upon by criminals. That's why some spoilsports passed some laws telling people what they can and cannot do. Life's a bugger, isn't it?

LiptonCambell: >>>I have but one question for you Lipton. If Canadian police can fare so badly when confronting an armed man, why should we think that armed members of the public would have had any better luck?

Thats not what I'm arguing. I'm not saying that, if you hear shots go off down the street you should grab your gun and race towards the noise.

I'm arguing that, if you get your back against a wall, and are forced into a life or death situation, and are armed, at least you have a fighting chance.

And that's what you don't seem to get- that I'm arguing for a chance. If a mass murderer comes strolling towards you, and you're armed? You might have a chance to survive, or even end the situation. But unarmed? You have no chance to protect your life.

I'm arguing for life. You're arguing for death.

>>>I have but one question for you Lipton

....And yet you have 3 more posts....

>>>There is something fishy about the argument that higher gun ownership deters crime.

I honestly don't care if the facts don't match your preconceived opinion. higher gun ownership deters crime is a FACT, seen over and over and over again.

>>>It seems that gun crime in Edmonton

And here we go again....I offer stats on a global scale....you've gone from focusing on individual states, to individual cities....I predict next week you'll be talking about the crime rate of York Street in Toronto....followed by the crime rate of the corner of Wharf and Yates street in Victoria BC....then the crime rate of one 7/11 in Hull.....

>>>The criminals are arming themselves to get protection from other criminals, and yet gun crime has risen. Hardly suggests guns act as a deterrence to criminals.

And lemme take a wild, crazy guess- these guns are illegal?

And these criminals- they're involved in the gun trade? And the drug trade?

Wow....it sounds like prohibition is empowering the criminal element....kinda what I've been saying...and what has happened in the past....and is what you're ignoring, because you refuse to reflect on the effectiveness of your beliefs.

Prohibition DOESN'T WORK. People will still want the object that's being prohibited(if they didn't want it in the first place, it wouldn't need to be prohibited), and they are forced to deal with people who don't give a shit about the law. Which then makes these kinds of people richer.

And if two different criminal elements want the same thing? They can't go to court, or the police- they have to deal with it themselves- through violence.

And just like that, prohibition creates increased violence.

>>>Not everybody likes to be preyed upon by criminals. That's why some spoilsports passed some laws telling people what they can and cannot do. Life's a bugger, isn't it?

Well, the fact that they're being called "criminals" means they are breaking the law, and don't care.

So why do you honestly think that, if we institute --more-- laws, suddenly, these type of people will give a shit?

I cannot make this any more clearly for you- for the kind of people who ignore the laws, additional laws are not a deterrent.

ghostgeek: Bugger York Street Lipton, let's go down south to sunny smiling Brazil. It seems football refs in that country can get a little emotional, which is when the guns come out.

ghostgeek: The worst of it is, the referee is a serving policeman. Face it Lipton, nobody's going to get hurt with a whistle, but when the ref's waving a gun around, who knows.

ghostgeek: Lipton, you keep going on about laws don't work when it comes to guns. You may have a point, so that's why I say it's time to target the guns themselves. Destroy the things rather than make more. People can't own what doesn't exist.

LiptonCambell: And I say it'll never happen. Even if the world peace situation takes place- every country in the world agrees to ban guns, and stop constructing guns, and dismantle their military's- guess what? Pandora's box has been opened, and people will still hoard guns, makes guns in secret, and use guns.

To suggest that making guns disappear as a solution to gun violence to me is along the same line as, if you want to cure cancer, you suggest we make people immortal.

Hell, why not suggest we make people immortal? It's just as ludicrous, and would solve the problem of gun violence...

ghostgeek: Lipton, you really are an old pessimist. The Japanese have got gun ownership down to virtually zero. Handguns are completely forbidden; indeed the only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

According to the National Police Agency’s 2012 White Paper on Crime, in 2011 there were 246,783 licensed firearms in Japan, and 122,515 licensed owners out of a population of more than 126 million. In the same year, 27 people were denied permission to own a weapon, and 95 others had their permits taken away. Compare these figures with 2009, when there were 299,939 licensed firearms and 142,294 licensed owners, and it’s clear these numbers are falling.

Even the criminals are wary of having a gun. Under current laws, if a low-level yakuza is caught with a gun and bullets that match, he’ll be charged with aggravated possession of firearms and will then face an average seven-year prison term. Simply firing a gun carries a penalty of three years to life.

The gun laws are so strict in Japan, a person can be charged with a crime even after death. A few years ago an officer on duty used his gun to kill himself. He was charged posthumously to publicly show that even the dead can’t get away with breaking the firearms laws, and to shame his family.

Of course, there is a downside to this policy. Almost nobody gets shot. Consider this statistic: the U.S. saw more than 12,000 firearm-related homicides in 2008, while Japan had only 11.

LiptonCambell: liptoncambell's Picture

racerjon: Here is something to think about. In the U.S. last year there were 12,174 people killed in homicides. Medical errors by doctors killed 98,000. There are 30,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. and 700,000 doctors. So, to all the tree hugging, gun haters out there, you are more likely to be killed by a doctor than being killed by a gun. Also, here in Tennessee there are 450,000 people certified to carry a concealed weapon. Knowing the person some criminal might rob could possibly end up putting a wad cutter in the middle their forehead, a lot of people think twice before trying to rob someone on the street here.

TheSouthernGent: Laissez Les bon Temps Roulez
I was reading all about the gun issues here. So let me interject where in other parts of the world there are whole towns being shot up all over in Europe so you small town violence is small in comparision to that which is happening to people such as this happening.>>May 25, 2015 – Taliban militants killed 19 policemen and six soldiers during a siege at a police compound in Nawzad District of Afghanistan. Or here on June 26, 2015 – 2015 Sousse attack - Attack in Tunisia against two tourist hotels, over 28 people died.
why are you people not getting upset with that kind of viloence. Oh and lets not forget that kind of violence in Britian and France and Spain and other parts of that area.
How come you are not getting all upset with those killings????
I just had to inject that small amount killings that is happening...

ghostgeek: Here's something interesting. Most gun owners in America are white males over the age of 55. What do you think chaps, could a gun be a penis substitute for old codgers who can't get it up any more?