june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 13:13
How 'bout neither. Smoking is potentially harmful to everyone around you as well as yourself. And being obese doesn't help anyone, either.
Thirith on 20/2/2008 at 13:18
Quote Posted by dethtoll
How 'bout neither. Smoking is potentially harmful to everyone around you as well as yourself. And being obese doesn't help anyone, either.
Okay, now you're just being silly - "being obese doesn't help anyone, either," indeed...
And as far as smoking is concerned: I'd be interested in hearing where you're from, because most western countries I know of have perhaps not banned smoking outright, but they've made it pretty illegal to smoke in public buildings, reducing the risk of passive smoking considerably. So your comparison is still facile and fallacious.
june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 13:53
Sooner or later cigarettes will be banned entirely and Kentucky will implode. Parts of California already have entire residential blocks with smoking bans via landlord policy, which is quite controversial as one might suspect.
(disclaimer: I support some smoking regulation)
My initial point was that for some reason there's a tendancy to want to ban anything that might cause harm or even just offense to someone.
Seeing as my initial reply was to ercles, I'll just conclude here with: nobody said anything about forgoing God-given rights to secure safety from terrorism- I sure as hell don't! The problem with violence here in the United States can't just be blamed on guns. If you want to stop violence you're going to have to change American society altogether, and frankly that's just impossible. Okay, let's think hypothetically: Ban guns? Sure, okay, all guns in the United States are taken away. Now everyone's knifing each other. Whatcha gonna do? Ban knives? Okay, so we're all cutting our steaks with spoons now, and people are killing each other with, shit I dunno, toasters or something. Silly, I know, but it illustrates my point: people are going to kill each other with whatever they can get their hands on. It's just human nature. Do you think nobody died violently before guns were invented?
Thirith on 20/2/2008 at 13:59
Okay - going on a killing spree is simply less likely if access to guns is more difficult. You're not going to go on a killing spree with a frigging knife.
Same with impulse killings and suicides. It simply takes more of an effort to kill anyone, let alone several people, if you've got a gun.
Your assertion that everyone in the USA will start kniving each other simply doesn't hold water.
Also, a gun assault is definitely more likely to result in a lethal wound than a knife assault.
Pretending that all of these are equivalent simply hurts your argument.
june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 14:08
Do you seriously not comprehend what you read, or are you just being dense on purpouse? When I said "everyone", do you seriously think I meant every last man, woman and child? I'm saying anyone who would willingly kill someone with a gun would likely find some other way to do it in the absence of guns. Yes, crime may go down some, but
then what? What about the
rest of violent crime? What are you going to do about
that? Banning guns may make crime go down, but an environment where
everyone competent enough is armed would make crime go down much more.
And, by the way, (
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/06/44393) killing sprees with a knife do happen.
Thirith on 20/2/2008 at 14:17
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Do you seriously not comprehend what you read, or are you just being dense on purpouse? I never said EVERYONE in the USA would start kniving each other.
Okay, you didn't say it, you just wrote "Sure, okay, all guns in the United States are taken away. Now everyone's knifing each other." But anyway, we're quibbling about snarky polemics here. That's not where the argument lies.
Quote:
I'm saying anyone who would kill someone with a gun in anger would likely find some other way to do it in the absence of guns. Yes, crime may go down some, but
then what? What about the
rest of violent crime? What are you going to do about
that? Banning guns may make crime go down, but an environment where
everyone competent enough is armed would make crime go down much more.
So, what are you saying? That no attempt to make things better is valid until it solves the problem completely? That's about the cheapest argument against anything ever. You can say that the probable reduction in violent crime doesn't outweigh the loss of liberty, and that's a point that can be argued... but saying "Let's not do this because it doesn't solve the problem completely?" Now that's just silly. No social problem has ever been solved entirely, there are just ways of tackling it better or worse.
Yes, it happens. No, it doesn't happen nearly as often as with guns, and there are probably reasons for that.
june gloom on 20/2/2008 at 14:40
Quote Posted by Thirith
Okay, you didn't say it, you just wrote "Sure, okay, all guns in the United States are taken away. Now everyone's knifing each other."
Yes, yes, I saw that before you posted and fixed my mistake. Give me a break, I didn't sleep well.
Quote Posted by Thirith
So, what are you saying? That no attempt to make things better is valid until it solves the problem completely? That's about the cheapest argument against anything ever. You can say that the probable reduction in violent crime doesn't outweigh the loss of liberty, and that's a point that can be argued... but saying "Let's not do this because it doesn't solve the problem completely?" Now that's just silly. No social problem has ever been solved entirely, there are just ways of tackling it better or worse.
sigh
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about the invalidity of any one solution. I have
already stated that it is
impossible to end violent crime entirely precisely because people are still going to be horrible to each other. Thusly, you have to consider the options on how to
reduce said violent crime: arm
everybody or arm
nobody, and then consider the outcome of each. I am arguing that if everyone competent (and willing) to carry a gun were permitted to do so, crime would go down more than if nobody were permitted to carry a gun. Gun bans occasionally reduce crime, yes, but more often than not crime goes up. In 1976 the city of Washington D.C. enacted a virtual gun ban; the crime rate went up 200%. Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. So on and so forth.
I don't even want to get into the civil rights thing because some people seem to think that since they gave up all their civil liberties years ago it entitles them to be snobs. So I prefer to just stick with facts.
Thirith on 20/2/2008 at 14:51
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about the invalidity of any one solution. I have
already stated that it is
impossible to end violent crime entirely precisely because people are still going to be horrible to each other. Thusly, you have to consider the options on how to
reduce said violent crime: arm
everybody or arm
nobody, and then consider the outcome of each. I am arguing that if everyone competent (and willing) to carry a gun were permitted to do so, crime would go down more than if nobody were permitted to carry a gun. Gun bans occasionally reduce crime, yes, but more often than not crime goes up. In 1976 the city of Washington D.C. enacted a virtual gun ban; the crime rate went up 200%. Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. So on and so forth.
Okay, that's more of an actual argument. Personally, I don't think it's feasible to arm everyone competent and willing to carry a gun. Has that sort of thing ever been attempted on a larger scale?
As far as the outright ban is concerned: I think that its success - or lack thereof - has a lot to do with what came before it. It's ridiculous of gun opponents to think that anything would get much better if guns were banned from one day to the next. If anything, a gradual move towards tighter gun control might work... but let's face it, that would never happen because it would take years and years. It wouldn't have popular support, and no one who wants to be elected would put much work into it.
I must say that I find American gun culture almost incomprehensible. I don't get the attitude that sees bearing arms as a right. But however surreal I might find it, it has to be taken into consideration if anything wants to be done about violent gun crime. Taking a solution that might work in, say, Switzerland and believing it would work in the States is completely naive.
SubJeff on 20/2/2008 at 16:48
dethtoll - no one is suggesting that tougher gun restictions will end violence. But it will lower the amount of gun violence and that is the issue. Guns make it very easy to cause a lot of damage very quickly - there is almost nothing else like them.
And what do yo mean by "virtual gun ban"? And by crime going up 200% do you mean double or triple rate? I can stomach crime going up if violent gun crime goes down provided the rise is in petty crimes. 10 handbags stolen != 1 gun shot wound to the face.
The_Raven on 20/2/2008 at 17:29
Quote:
Okay, that's more of an actual argument. Personally, I don't think it's feasible to arm everyone competent and willing to carry a gun. Has that sort of thing ever been attempted on a larger scale?
I don't think an effective outright ban is actually feasible either. I'm sure you guys are aware that, most of the time, public shootings are hardly a spur of the moment crime. Most of the stories of schools shootings that I've read about have the perpetrators planning the whole thing weeks, if not months, in advance. Guns may be the preferred weapon of choice for such things -mostly due to the fact that they're quick, easy, and threatening- but there are a hell of a lot more things that are just as bad. If you ban guns, I'm pretty sure you'll see a rise in homemade explosives, knives, and other elements that are just as destructive; if not worse. Unless you're going to band all flammable or explosives elements from homes, I don't see how you're going to stop people from falling back on bombs.
EDIT: You also have to keep in mind that society already has methods of training and licensing everyone competent and willing to operate a motor vehicle; however, given how many terrible drivers there are on the road, this is actually a very debatable example.
