Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 3)
LiptonCambell: >>>But people with guns kill a lot more quickly and readily than someone with a knife.
Why is the speed the issue being focused on here? Shouldn't the overall threat be the issue thats focused on?
Geoff: As in, they can kill before anyone else is able to do anything about it - or even without really thinking about it.
Geoff: It was a direct comparison with knives.
The car is a different case - there are controls over who can operate one of those. Yes, you couldn't stop someone deliberately causing a vehicular accident - but I'd suggest it was as rare as murder-suicides, since the driver who deliberately crashed has (on average) as much chance of not surviving.
dennygringo56: If all the guns in the world were destroyed today, tomorrow we'd be killing each other some other way. The "haves" who travel in polite circles sing a different song from the "have-nots" who struggle to survive from day to day. I live in Honduras. I see this duality. Ask yourselves the questions:
How long have guns been around?
Was there less violence in the world before guns?
Was there ever a time in human history when the world was at peace?
Man's fundamental impetus is the will to power: mastery, strength, control, conquest.........
We are the human animal subject to the same laws of nature as the lesser creatures, but worse, we have an ego. Until we evolve to where we can transcend our ego and understand all perspectives simultaneously, there will be contentions.
Outbackjack: You ask some interesting questions denny.
But maybe things could have been so much different.
It is widely accepted that civilisation descends from Mesopotamia or modern day Iraq. The Summerians were a war like patriarchal people who dominated the region.
But what about an alternative that existed around the same time.?
The Minoan civilization on Crete which lasted about 600 years following 2000 BC, took a course quite different from other civilizations, prompting speculations that their culture was more like a culture of peace than a culture of war. According to the section on The Aegean World in the UNESCO history, there were no fortifications and no glorification of war :
"In the second millennium BC there were no fortifications in Crete, and the Minoan iconography depicts neither scenes of war nor even warriors [Note added by editor: extensive fortifications have been found in more recent excavations.] What is more, neither the graves nor the other Cretan environments of the time have yielded any weapons. However, the recollection of a Minoan thalassocracy [empire of the sea] was perpetuated in the traditions handed down to the Greeks by the Cretans. It is consequently assumed that an understanding prevailed among the Minoan states and that they were afforded protection against any seaborne attack by their fleet or that of their allies. This situation has been termed the pax minoica."
As mentioned earlier, there is a strong causal relation between the culture of war and the status of women. In this regard, it seems appropriate that the status of women in ancient Crete was more equal than that of women in other ancient civilizations. For example, it is remarkable that it is a woman who is leaping over the bull in the wall painting illustrated in Plate 49 in the UNESCO volume. According to the preceding source, women played important social roles:
"Cretan women took part in social and religious events and, furthermore, played an important part in society. It would, however, be rash to conclude from this that Cretan society was matriarchal . . "
Similarly, the state appears to have been less authoritarian than in other ancient civilizations. The role of the king was unlike that on the Greek mainland where "the Mycenean king, or annex, was required to be a great warrior" . .
"In the Minoan states, the king is thought to have performed the functions of priest and judge but did not wield power of any note in other matters."
In general, according to the UNESCO history, the Cretan civilization was peaceful compared to that on the mainland of Greece which, like other empires in the ancient world, was a culture of war.
"The rich repertoire of the wall paintings is an inexhaustible source of information on the flora, the fauna and the environment of the period, the dress, hairstyles, and various - economic, social, religious - activities of the inhabitants of the Aegean. Through these wall paintings the different nature of the worlds, the Minoan and the Mycenaean, emerges: that of Crete and the islands is peaceful and happy, that of the Greek mainland martial and harsh."
What if the Minoans had not suffered repeated volcano eruptions that eventually wiped them out?
History might have been different.We might have looked to the Minoans.If they had prevailed then we could only speculate on what influence they might have had on the Greeks and Romans.
The gun used by a Mexican illegal immigrant when he allegedly shot dead a 32-year-old woman at a San Francisco pier belonged to a federal agent.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported sources told the paper the gun had been stolen during a car burglary in June.
Can't even trust a Federal Agent with being highly trained with his government issued weapon. He got it stolen.
....she was murdered by a illegal alien who had been deported 5 times and this time...he murdered a young lady in front of her father.
Sad...very, very sad.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had turned Sanchez over to authorities in San Francisco on March 26 on an outstanding drug warrant.
The Sheriff's Department released Sanchez on April 15 after the San Francisco district attorney's office declined to prosecute him for what authorities said was a decade-old marijuana possession case.
ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the agency had issued a retainer for Sanchez, requesting notification of his release and that he stays in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. The retainer was not honored, she said.
Pvt Potato: Only tyrannical nanny states ban guns. Governments who don't trust or are too afraid of giving power to the people.
dennygringo56: The U.S. Government today is not the one that was intended by the forefathers. It grows and grows and as it grows and grows it wants to control more and more. IT IS MUCH EASIER TO CONTROL PEOPLE WHO ARE UNARMED. The U.S. Government of today hates the Constitution. Read: The Committee of 300 by Dr. Joseph Coleman.
Metaverseguy: Vehicles cause accidents and kill people. The majority of those cases are by drunk-drivers and people falling asleep at the wheel, not some psycho in a monster truck driving over cars and people in the shopping mall like some twisted zombie videogame.
It's probably not likely anyone will ever see anyone starting a rampage in their hometown, but the fact that this happens all the time and is preventable is pretty absurd. I think I have a better chance of escaping or defending myself if someone was on a rampage with a sword or knife than with an automatic weapon. I don't think it's a good argument to say 'well people will still kill each other without guns so let them have them.' then that argument would allow anyone to own nuclear weapons and clearly that's a bad idea.
Metaverseguy: Well that's certainly very rare, but at the end the newscaster said "no citizens are harmed"
LiptonCambell: >>>Vehicles cause accidents and kill people. The majority of those cases are by drunk-drivers and people falling asleep at the wheel, not some psycho in a monster truck driving over cars and people in the shopping mall like some twisted zombie videogame.
I don't.....I don't understand what you're trying to say....
Are you honestly, legitimately suggesting that the majority of gun related deaths are caused by gun-crazed maniacs who go around mowing down civilians in an utter disregard for human life?
You realize that the complete opposite is true, right? That the vast majority of gun related deaths are because of accidents, or suicide, not intent. Not unlike vehicle related deaths.
I love how you reject the comparison of guns to cars, without even UNDERSTANDING the facts of the matter, instead clinging to sensationalism and the headlines.
Lets take the worst of the worst- the Viriginia Tech massacre. It was the single worst example of a sole gunman massacre, with 33 fatalities(including the gunman). How did that stack up to 2007 overall though? it accounts for 0.02% of the gun related deaths that year. Thats how uninformed you are. You are looking at less than 1% of the issue, and yet feel it is your place to criticize other people opinions. There was over 15 times as many accidental deaths as what had happened in Virgina Tech....
>>>this happens all the time and is preventable is pretty absurd.
I'm sorry....you think massacres happen --all the time--? You cannot be serious...
>>>I think I have a better chance of escaping or defending myself if someone was on a rampage with a sword or knife than with an automatic weapon.
And I think you'd have an even better chance of defending yourself if you were armed. You know, make them think twice about their actions. Why do you think so many massacres occur in gun-free zones?
Because they know the people there are helpless.
How many massacres have happened in a gun show?
>>> 'well people will still kill each other without guns so let them have them.'
Thats incredibly naive and an utter misrepresentation of the arguments being made here....this isn't about 'letting them' have guns. Its about disarming be an entirely impossible achievement. It's about how the only people disarming would be law abiding citizens, with criminals still having no issues breaking the law(obviously)- you're reducing a complex issue to "omg they won't let us ban guns"- no, a ban will not work, and in the process of banning them, PEOPLE WILL DIE.
You seem to have no problem turning people into victims and gun fodder. I however oppose such ideological nonsense.
(Edited by LiptonCambell)
Outbackjack: The Many Ironies Of The NRA's Warning About Australia
Among other things, the pro-gun group failed to mention that American guns are making it harder for other nations to cut down on violence, writes Max Chalmers.
Father of communism Karl Marx, socialist author George Orwell, fiercely conservative American gun-lobby the National Rifle Association. Pick the odd one out.
That’s a trick question, according to the NRA, which late last week fired off the following piece criticising Australia’s tight gun laws after US President Barack Obama praised the country’s response to the Port Arthur massacre. In dumping on the President, the piece evoked Orwellian government overreach and no less than the Communist Manifesto. (“A spectre is haunting America—the spectre of gun confiscation,” the article begins).
The piece said Australia’s laws had “empowered criminals”, failed to reduce violent crime, and quoted a former gun-owner talking about having their lethal toys taken away to imply the issue had been divisive in the country.
But the bolshy (in both senses) piece of writing was undermined by a few unfortunate ironies, and not just the evocation of Marx.
Firstly, for context, here are some 2013 statistics on firearm homicide rates, which means it’s time for another game of “pick the odd one out”.
You would think charts like that would give those praising the US system something to think about, but obviously the NRA is too busy lobbying congress and knocking down modest gun reforms to notice.
Seems they didn’t get around to reading the findings that went with that chart either, in this 2013 article on The Conversation by Professor of Criminology and Public Policy Peter Squires.
“Evidence from the US itself shows a strong relationship between individual states with lax gun laws and higher than average rates of gun violence but despite apparent public support for sensible gun control, progress at the US Federal level currently seems unlikely,” he noted.
Looking at the evidence from gun control measures in the UK, Canada, and Australia, Squires observed: “These brief case studies demonstrate conclusively that gun control can work, but it needs to be intelligently designed, effectively implemented and responsive to ongoing changes in criminal activity.”
So gun control can help stop gun violence. No great surprises there.
But the NRA also made out that gun violence in Australia was “becoming a huge concern” in 2013, pointing to a “feature” in conservative news outlet Breitbart (which actually turns out to be a 230 word long).
The claim that gun violence, or that restrictions on gun ownership, is a major issue of concern in Australia will also sound a little surprising to anyone who lives here.
It’s true, as the NRA pointed out, that a couple of thousand people protested the post Part Arthur laws at the time.
But there’s nothing to suggest mainstream dissatisfaction. Polling company Essential Research told New Matilda they were not aware of having ever asked the public about gun control because it simply does not rate as an issue. Almost two decades after the reforms they are not a matter of public controversy or debate.
While high-profile shootings did capture the public imagination in NSW last year, they weren’t actually linked to an increase in the number of incidents so much the concentration of media attention.
Philip Alpers, an associate of public health at the University of Sydney and founding director of gunpolicy.org, told New Matilda he wasn’t aware of any recent polling on the issue having taken place, but that the Howard-era reforms had been extremely popular at the time.
“Although the Australian initiative was most often described as a "buyback" in which gun owners received cash compensation, of all the weapons handed in for destruction since 1988, nearly one in four yielded no financial return to its owner,” he notes on the website.
“Such was the swing in public opinion that large numbers of gun owners sent lawfully held firearms to the smelter, even when there was no obligation to do so.”
In fact, on gunpolicy.org Alpers draws attention to another irony of an US anti gun-regulation group lecturing Australia.
“Smuggled guns comprise a much smaller proportion of recovered illicit firearms in this island nation than do legally imported firearms that were subsequently diverted or lost to the black market by lawful owners,” he says.
And where are these guns coming from, you ask?
“Australia no longer has a firearm manufacturing industry. Gun dealers source their stock from overseas – mainly from the United States,” according to Alpers.
The US isn’t just making things harder for Australia either.
“Canada’s efforts are rather undermined by the lax gun laws of its neighbour to the south,” according to Squires.
Gun violence was declining before Port Arthur and there is some debate about the precise impact of the buybacks, which took up to 1 million weapons out of Australian hands. But since the laws have been passed the trend has remained down. Suicides by gun have dropped dramatically as well, without a corresponding rise in suicide by other methods, according to one study.
Thanks to the work of groups like the NRA, these reforms remain elusive in the United States, despite strong support for particular measures to help curb the violence.
- See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/13/many-ironies-nras-warning-about-australia#sthash.wP8HYETu.dpuf
Metaverseguy: The irony is that many best-selling video games are extremely violent, selling millions of copies. Yet, you only hear of 1 shoot-out per 100,000 people or less. Most people keep their sick, demented killing sprees in trophy form online, in the PSN or xbox accounts. I betchu most rarely hunt, if ever. In fact, I admit I'm a hypocrite. I was pwning up GTA5 while 2 or 3 more massacres occurred in the USA yet still had the nerve to post this forum thread. I have not been in a fight in over 5 years and the most violent thing I've done is an argument, where I nearly fell asleep in the middle.
Many games have zombies and aliens as the enemies, rather than soldiers or humans to "tone it down".
Wild__: The US Didn't have a gun problem until crack cocaine swept our streets and suddenly the gang members all had enough money to buy firearms. We have a gang violence problem being disguised as a gun violence problem. What the US media fails to report is that the vast majority of child deaths by firearms are tragically children that are innocent bystanders to a gang related shooting.
In and prior to 1980, the number one reason why US citizens owned firearms was for hunting. Today the number one reason for owning a firearm is personal protection.
All recent attempts at gun legislation in the US were aimed at restricting the rights of those whom have no intent on harming others while ignoring the gangs and psychopaths, and that is why they failed.
Firearms don't cause violence, poverty does.
(Edited by Wild__)
Wild__: No, absolutely not. Acts of violence can't be attributed to a single cause. However, most murders happen in the ghetto and sadly the US media ignores that and blames the gun.
LiptonCambell: Well, the man WAS lashing out because he lost his job....theres more to it than that, but I imagine employment had played a role...
lori100: the anchor shooting is a hoax....fake acting, no crying , needing to be on every channel reading their scripts , talking about gun control, telling the same stories over and over and over..... asking for money for memorial fund, the fiancé posting his undying love on facebook as soon as he heard it....yeah...that's normal.... ----
lori100: anchor shooting comments from others-----I found it very odd that the boyfriend could carry on a 15 minute talk on MSNBC this AM with NOT ONE TEAR.. making sure the STORY of their relationship... REALLY??????
... no tears not even one... something did not seem right to me.
----------------------And he's carrying around a photo album supposedly full of all kinds of photos of the happy couple BUT the relationship was supposedly 'SECRET'?!!! He's got that same giggly, smirking demeanor that 'Robbie Parker' displayed in the Sandy Hook CNN interview. And what kind of parent and/or fiancé would go on national TV the SAME DAY of the alleged murder to promote the WH's anti-gun agenda?!!!FAKE. FRAUD. FAIL.-----------------------. As soon as I saw this video I knew it was all rubbish. The 'shooter' steps within 4 feet of the alleged victims pointing a gun and they don't notice?!! How is the 'shooter' able to film all this from his Smartphone whilst gripping the gun with his 2 (WHITE) hands??!! If there were real bullets in that gun, the lady reporter would have recoiled tremendously with each shot fired at such close range, yet there she is running away with NO bullet holes or blood. BTW hollow point bullets from a Glock would have left HUGE exit wounds with blood spraying everywhere. It's also very convenient how the camera goes black after the first 3 shots are fired - if it were simply dropped on the ground it would still have footage - someone deliberately removed the footage.
lori100: the 'fiance' of the victim actually said he posted his 'undying love' on facebook as soon as he heard the news...what guy talks like that and needs to be on facebook and tell it to the world??.......it is the same story as the mass shootings hoaxes....the relatives need to give non-stop interviews for days showing no emotion or tears, now at least they have them immediately talk about gun control--good idea.....and carry your prop--the photo book of the happy couple to prove you knew her.....that's normal....as fast as possible set up a memorial fund and be sure to ask for money in your interviews,, give the same stories of the future life together that has now been destroyed (so sad) while showing no emotion in each interview.....oh yes, he has a meeting with the governor of course...very normal..
(Edited by lori100)