USA: Why So Much (Gun) Violence?

[lixy]

[quote]orion wrote:
I am not denying that some people use them to kill.

Some people use knives to kill, some poison, some legitimate drugs that are overdosed. [/quote]

For the last time, you guys, I’m not anti-guns. Stop trying to paint me as one! I think if everyone had a gun, crimes rates will go down drastically in certain regions. Shit, there were times where I wished I had a gun to defend myself.

Now, you claimed that guns were not designed to harm people, and that’s simply wrong. Don’t be so cramped up as to actually believe the first guy who invented a gun, did so for self-defense. It’s plain ludicrous.

[quote]However, you have been presented with statistics that clearly show that in over 90% of cases where guns prevent crimes they are NOT fired.

So, if in the majority of cases that guns are used they are not fired and nobody is harmed how can you argue that their reason of existence is to hurt people?
[/quote]

Just because the majority of jackasses in my gym do curls in the squat rack doesn’t mean it was initally designed for that.

[lixy]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Drugs and alcohol lead to far more problems than the medical issues of the users. [/quote]

I didn’t know you could quantify and compare the two. Live and learn…

Nicotine’s drug (and a highly addictive one). Let’s see you make that argument about cigarettes.

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Drugs and alcohol lead to far more problems than the medical issues of the users. Domestic violence, traffic accidents etc. It is often not the user that is the victim.

These are MASSIVE problems. You cannot sweep them under the rug quite so easily. [/quote]

I don`t.

But these problems exist anyway, if drugs are prohibited or not, there really is no need to add the problems of prohibition.

[orion]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Just because the majority of jackasses in my gym do curls in the squat rack doesn’t mean it was initally designed for that.[/quote]

So let`s make it real simple.

You said yourself that in some situations you had wished to have a gun.

In order to produce a blood bath or in order to convince your opponent that a minimum of civilized conduct is in order?

Now some guns, like hunting rifles are really built to kill.

Somehow exactly those guns are allowed allmost everywhere.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Drugs and alcohol lead to far more problems than the medical issues of the users.

I didn’t know you could quantify and compare the two. Live and learn…

Nicotine’s drug (and a highly addictive one). Let’s see you make that argument about cigarettes.

[/quote]

Far more problems than JUST the medical issues.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Drugs and alcohol lead to far more problems than the medical issues of the users. Domestic violence, traffic accidents etc. It is often not the user that is the victim.

These are MASSIVE problems. You cannot sweep them under the rug quite so easily.

I don`t.

But these problems exist anyway, if drugs are prohibited or not, there really is no need to add the problems of prohibition.[/quote]

These problems would exist in a larger scale if the prohibition was removed.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:

Just because the majority of jackasses in my gym do curls in the squat rack doesn’t mean it was initally designed for that.

So let`s make it real simple.

You said yourself that in some situations you had wished to have a gun.

In order to produce a blood bath or in order to convince your opponent that a minimum of civilized conduct is in order?

Now some guns, like hunting rifles are really built to kill.

Somehow exactly those guns are allowed allmost everywhere.

[/quote]

I can carry my handguns many places I cannot carry my deer rifle.

[lixy]

[quote]orion wrote:
…
[/quote]

You’re quite stubborn type.

What I would use the gun for and what it was originally designed for are two distinct things.

I’ll give you another analogy. How many atomic bombs do we have on Earth and how many have actually been used?

Nations that acquire nuclear weapons do so to deter others and not to use them. But, what do you think the device has been initially develloped for. I’ll give you a generally agreed upon definition: “A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, kill, or destroy, or in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy.” - Wiki -

Is it so hard for you to admit that guns were originally designed for harming others?

[orion]

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
…

You’re quite stubborn type.

What I would use the gun for and what it was originally designed for are two distinct things.

I’ll give you another analogy. How many atomic bombs do we have on Earth and how many have actually been used?

Nations that acquire nuclear weapons do so to deter others and not to use them. But, what do you think the device has been initially develloped for. I’ll give you a generally agreed upon definition: “A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, kill, or destroy, or in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy.” - Wiki -

Is it so hard for you to admit that guns were originally designed for harming others?[/quote]

Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool?

You claim that weapons are inherently evil because they are “designed to kill” and yet they rarely are used for that purpose.

As in the case of nuclear weapons the threat must be credible but that does not mean they were designed to be used, they were designed not to be used and the more efficient they got, the less likely was their use.

It is not really relevat what they were designed for anyway.

If they are used for crime prevention now, that is what they are used for now.

Objects have no inherent purpose.

(Sartre , finally…)

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Drugs and alcohol lead to far more problems than the medical issues of the users. Domestic violence, traffic accidents etc. It is often not the user that is the victim.

These are MASSIVE problems. You cannot sweep them under the rug quite so easily.

I don`t.

But these problems exist anyway, if drugs are prohibited or not, there really is no need to add the problems of prohibition.

These problems would exist in a larger scale if the prohibition was removed.[/quote]

Says you, but as far as I know the numbers of serious addicts were at the same percentage now than they were 100 years ago.

Drugs also tend to become less consentrated when they are legalized, heroin and cocaine are very pure for smuggling purposes , I would expect something like the original Coca Cola after legalization.

But even if you are right, it would undoubtedly still be cheaper to deal with them, most of them could hold a job and all the violent crime surrounding it would still be gone.

It is not a cure, it is a way to live with an inherent human flaw.

Putting people in cages is so incredibly 15th century…

[lixy]

[quote]orion wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool? [/quote]

The Colt .45? I’m not buying that.

You claim that weapons are inherently evil because they are “designed to kill” and yet they rarely are used for that purpose.

No! Where the f8ck did you see me say that they’re inherently evil.

All I said was that comparing them to cars is ridiculous.

Try to keep up.

It is not really relevat what they were designed for anyway.

I totally agree. Heroin and Bittorrent are perfect examples. Just don’t try to put guns and cars in the same category. That comparison is what pisses me off.

[orion]

[quote]lixy wrote:

I totally agree. Heroin and Bittorrent are perfect examples. Just don’t try to put guns and cars in the same category. That comparison is what pisses me off.[/quote]

I agree.

Cars are much more dangerous.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]lixy wrote:
I actually had no idea users were rarely prosecuted. Now the jail population figures are even scarier…
[/quote]
I will fill you in on what I left out of that statement. People with prior convictions or who are on probation are also commonly put back behind bars and are not necessarily involved with selling. I believe much drug use to be a sickness and needs to be treated like a sickness–though, not by government intervention.

I am a frequent pot smoker and I have never had the inclination to smoke crack or shoot heroine. I have done cocaine a few times and don’t view this as the threat to society that Nancy Regan would have us believe–I certainly don’t crave it the way I crave an ice-cold beer, for example. People are apt to abuse anything that puts them into an “escape” mindset. Food could be considered a drug in this respect.

We cannot judge the goodness or badness of a substance based on the behaviors of a few people who use it.

[Mikeyali]

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool?

The Colt .45? I’m not buying that.
[/quote]

Lixy, I’m totally with you on this. Pretending that guns have a different purpose than killing is just dishonest. Different guns have different purposes. Even the handgun which everyone says is for protection is a killing weapon. You protect yourself with it by KILLING the offender.

People that are anti-gun still cannot tell me why I should have to get a license for an enumerated RIGHT. They also fail to come up with a better way to overthrow a tyrannical government than through arms. That is what RKBA is all about.

mike

[orion]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool?

The Colt .45? I’m not buying that.

Lixy, I’m totally with you on this. Pretending that guns have a different purpose than killing is just dishonest. Different guns have different purposes. Even the handgun which everyone says is for protection is a killing weapon. You protect yourself with it by KILLING the offender.

[/quote]

It is just that according to US “pro-gun” statistics this is not true.

You “defend” yourself by demonstrating that you could kill, which is made plausible by the guns efficiency when it comes to killing.

Most of the time the guns does its job without being fired and yet it is used to serve a purpose.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool?

The Colt .45? I’m not buying that.

Lixy, I’m totally with you on this. Pretending that guns have a different purpose than killing is just dishonest. Different guns have different purposes. Even the handgun which everyone says is for protection is a killing weapon. You protect yourself with it by KILLING the offender.

It is just that according to US “pro-gun” statistics this is not true.

You “defend” yourself by demonstrating that you could kill, which is made plausible by the guns efficiency when it comes to killing.

Most of the time the guns does its job without being fired and yet it is used to serve a purpose.

[/quote]

That is for US and US conditions, lots of handguns. The reality and plausible strategies are very different in Europe.

[orion]

[quote]karva wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to see that the original purpose for weapons was to be a hunting tool?

The Colt .45? I’m not buying that.

Lixy, I’m totally with you on this. Pretending that guns have a different purpose than killing is just dishonest. Different guns have different purposes. Even the handgun which everyone says is for protection is a killing weapon. You protect yourself with it by KILLING the offender.

It is just that according to US “pro-gun” statistics this is not true.

You “defend” yourself by demonstrating that you could kill, which is made plausible by the guns efficiency when it comes to killing.

Most of the time the guns does its job without being fired and yet it is used to serve a purpose.

That is for US and US conditions, lots of handguns. The reality and plausible strategies are very different in Europe.[/quote]

Yup, we all feel save, like little sheep, until a government thinks it is time for the slaughter again.

Then we pay the price for liberty, with interest.

Sometimes we let the whole world paticipate, we are a sharing people.

[Misterhamper]

Hello again. Thanks for the discussion and such. It was quite interesting

I got a B, so I am quite satisfied.

This is how my speach looked like (or kinda, since I had no notes)

"…I will start out with the gun-violence, because it got so interesting the more research i did. I have done my fair bit of research, and I have concluded that one shouldn’t listen to Michael Moore. He is a big, fat lier.

When we see Houston talk in “Bowling for Columbine”, the scene have been altered alot. Moore edited alot of scenes with year-old speaches and combined them with newer speeches and clipped in them and such just to get the effect he wants. Like make Houston look bad and like a racist and one, that doesn’t care about other people.

In another scene in the documentary, he also took strange numbers, which doesn’t add up, in order to make it seem like there is 11000 homicides in the States, while there is only 300 in like England. He counted police-shootings and other things in the States, and I won’t even comment that there is alot more people in the States than in the other countries.

He could have compared England to Switzerland, where almost every guy has a gun but there is almost no gun-homicides compared to England. After the England government made it illegal for law-abiding people to own guns, the crime-rates have increased alot by every year, while in America the crime-rate is dropping rapidly.

You are six times more likely to be robbed in London than in New York, because the criminals do know that nobody wears a conceiled gun. In 95% of the cases, police can’t get to the spot fast enough, and that is indeed a good reason why one should have guns.

There is so very very few examples of where an innocent have been shot by a civil gun, and the police shoots alot more innocents every year. The guns normally won’t be used as a killing-tool, but as a way to protect yourself by raising a fear in the villian.

And a homicide is no worse if it was stabbing or clubbing compared to shooting.
In almost every case, the gun-homicide was because of drugs. A junkie, a dealer or the SWAT-team. Not because a civil had a gun.

And a good quote, I also found, was “If the guns was outlawed, only the outlaws would have guns.”
The Second Amendment is a good right, in my opinion."

[Mikeyali]

[quote]Misterhamper wrote:
Hello again. Thanks for the discussion and such. It was quite interesting

I got a B, so I am quite satisfied.

This is how my speach looked like (or kinda, since I had no notes)

"…I will start out with the gun-violence, because it got so interesting the more research i did. I have done my fair bit of research, and I have concluded that one shouldn’t listen to Michael Moore. He is a big, fat lier.

And a good quote, I also found, was “If the guns was outlawed, only the outlaws would have guns.”
The Second Amendment is a good right, in my opinion."[/quote]

Thanks for giving us an update on the paper and best of luck to you on future work.

mike

[Xylene]

Guns don’t kill people; dangerous minorities do.