My exchange on gun control with Roberta X has been continuing on a thread which is now several days old, so I thought I'd switch to a fresh post for my latest response. I had asked Roberta if she hadn't told me a couple of years ago that she'd been held up at gunpoint twice, and whether the greater likelihood of that happening in her country didn't lead her to a fairly obvious conclusion. This was her response -
"Yes, I have been held up twice at gunpoint -- but I have never been beaten up, which is far more likely in London or Glasgow than Indianapolis. Nor have I ever suffered a "hot" robbery, also much more common there than here.
I do worry about you; I know where murder is most likely to strike here and what the risk factors are (illegal drugs, dating men into drugs, living in certain neighborhoods -- I got robbed in areas I should have known better than to be in at the time of day I was in them). Your rate of violent crime is higher and it is more likely to strike outside of "high risk" zones."
You’re very carefully talking about robberies, violent crime, etc – but not murders. There’s a good reason why you’re avoiding that subject, namely the fact that the murder rate is three times higher in your own country, a statistic that can in no small part be attributed to the rate of gun ownership. I’m not in any way diminishing the terrible trauma caused by robberies, but life goes on after them. Life does not go on if you’ve just been murdered. Therefore, if gun control helps prevent murders, it’s fulfilling its primary objective, regardless of whether we give any credence to your deeply implausible suggestion that it's somehow increasing the rate at which lesser crimes are committed.
And as I’ve already pointed out, you and Kevin Baker are unwittingly harming your own case by harping on about Britain’s violent crime rate – if we’re such a violent society in comparison to the United States and yet have a much, much lower homicide rate, what can possibly explain that discrepancy other than obvious factors such as the extent of gun control? You simply don’t have a credible answer to that question, and Kevin ludicrously flaunts his own inability to answer – “Cultural differences! Oooh, la mystère!” Well, as I said on the previous thread, it must be a hell of a weird “cultural phenomenon” that makes British thugs more likely than their American counterparts to beat someone senseless, but simultaneously far more likely to refrain from actually killing anyone.
The mystery Kevin needs to solve for us is the mystery of the British noble savage. Alternatively he could just consider the obvious explanation – thugs in this country are much less likely to be armed with guns.
"As for riots, given that the States are far larger than Scotland and much more diverse, it is not at all surprising "we" have had riots more recently. Culturally, you've a lot more in common with England and they've had riots even more recently. (Indianapolis, the last riot per se was over a decade ago, smallish and actually resulted in some resolution of the specific issue)."
The point about cultural similarities with England is monumentally silly. We’re culturally closer to the Republic of Ireland than we are to the parts of England that suffered riots – when was the last serious riot in Dublin? We’re culturally closer to New Zealand than America – when was the last serious riot in Auckland? I’m sure we’re very grateful for your “Riot Forecast” service, but your time might be better spent explaining your extraordinary proposition that arming the rioters with guns will somehow assist matters in the unlikely event that we have such a major incident in the near future.
"As for ABB, he failed to obtain guns illegally *once.* He tried via legal means and succeeded. Do you really think if he had been stymied there, he would have folded his hands and said, "That's it for me, then"? I don't think just "any criminal" can lay hands of a gun in either of our countries (it helps to be a careerist instead of a whackjob); but I am sure that a determined one can. ABB had determination."
First point – you still haven’t answered the question of whether it would have been a good thing if, having failed in a serious attempt to obtain guns illegally, he had been prevented from doing so legally. Your implicit answer seems to be “it doesn’t matter”, which is frankly bizarre. However, you raise an interesting point about the determination of criminals to lay their hands on weapons, and this probably gets to the nub of why gun control is such a successful tool in suppressing the murder rate – as you openly conceded yourself, not all criminals will go to any lengths to obtain a gun illegally. Some may, but others will just commit crime opportunistically, and if they don’t happen to have a gun to hand at the time, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that they’re much less likely to kill anyone.
"You cannot get rid of guns. It's impossible; not even totalitarian states manage to do so. All you can do is reduce the law-abiding to a pool of helpless victims for any lunatic or predator.
That is an unacceptable outcome."
Nobody is claiming we can “get rid of guns”. But people certainly are claiming that we can limit access to them, and as a result suppress both the gun death rate and the overall homicide rate. The statistical evidence from our two countries leaves you on very weak ground in attempting to dispute that.
"what can possibly explain that discrepancy other than obvious factors such as the extent of gun control?"
ReplyDeleteSimple. Inner city gangs/low-level criminals.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States:-
'During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged IN CITIES (my emphasis - THR) across the United States (see graphs at right). Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame. The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States (i.e. gang members - THR) , with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24. The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.'
'Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties. In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.'
"Therefore, if gun control helps prevent murders, it’s fulfilling its primary objective"
This is another highly charming trait (said the liar) of the gun control advocate, namely an insistence that gun control only saves lives, combined with a commensurate refusal to consider whether gun control preventing lives from being saved means that gun control is less desirable (very literally in the case of the Merced pitchfork murders - http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html). Like the old quote, 'if it saves one life, it's worth it!'. If it costs more lives then it saves, is it not worth it? Your typical, inhuman, gun control supporter would NOT say 'no'. Meaning, the lives that gun control costs are a price worth paying.
Oh yeah, while you're banging on about the questions that your opposite number won't answer, hows about you explain how 'reduc[ing] the law-abiding to a pool of helpless victims for any lunatic or predator' is an acceptable outcome TO YOU?
I think it highly unlikely that violent robberies would decrease if we suddenly gave every Tom, Dick and Jock, easy access to a gun.
ReplyDeleteThe robberies and violence would continue; most of them are reflect a need for money, for drugs, drink, for appropriate fashionable, but horrifically expensive sportswear (trainers cost around £100 here), for accessories like phones, blackberries, that most people have but an excluded underclass have not. (I'm not excusing them, just explaining them.)
The difference, as far as I can see, is that if you fought back in this robbery, your head might be blown off.
Of course, you too might have a gun, so you could be goaded into killer someone who was about to rob you; or you might not, particularly if you were an old lady, or a housewife with kids, or a child yourself...ie the most vulnerable.
So what would happen then? Robbers would concentrate their efforts on people least likely to have a gun. The most vulnerable.
I don't think that there is anything like the drink culture in America that there is in Scotland. Can you imagine a typical Saturday night: thousands of drunk teenagers out to show off to girlfriends, or indeed boyfriends (or potential girl/boyfriends), by packing pistols.
I agree with James. I don't want to be beaten and robbed, but given the choice I'd rather that than be killed and robbed.
tris
ReplyDeleteSo what do you have that a robber might want to risk being shot and killed by you over? Do you seriously think many criminals are going to want to risk getting themselves killed for the sake of stealing other people's stuff? Remember, them being able to shoot you instead of being shot themselves isn't guaranteed.
This bit's priceless too:-
"So what would happen then? Robbers would concentrate their efforts on people least likely to have a gun. The most vulnerable."
You say this like you think it's a bad thing (which it is), but that's at odds with you thinking it's a situation that should pertain over THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
You see, THR, they way I see it is, if no one has a gun then no one gets shot... yeah?
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your first question, how many drunks do you know that rationalise risks; how many drug addicts care about anything at all, except getting their next fix? They see no danger... all that matters is the MUST HAVE effect of their drug habit.
That is why they risk the stupidest of crimes in daylight, crimes which are bad enough as it is, but (and I live next door to druggies) would be terrifying if these people had the right to bear arms.
Yes. I do think it's a bad thing that the most vulnerable be targeted. The most vulnerable getting killed is definitely a bad thing, so that is why I 'say it like it is a bad thing'. You appear, after ridiculing my assertion, to agree with me.
You've lost me on the last part of your argument. I can only repeat that if no one had a gun then no one would be likely to get shot. This applies to the whole country from the islands in the north to the borders in the south.
If, as has been argued, you need a gun to fight back against robbers who carry guns, presumably so you can shoot first, then those who would have to search their handbags, look in their prams, sort through their school books...whatever, before finding their guns, would be at a disadvantage. Not to mention not having the strength to pull the trigger.
If you argue that everyone carrying a gun would reduce robbery...all you're arguing is for the same balance as no one carrying a gun, but with greater risk.
None of any of your argument gets past the fact that a gun is a lethal weapon and quite simply no one should have one in a relatively civilised country.
Unfortunately our own government does not have the power to deal with this matter and we are obliged to depend upon the London government.
Were this a matter for the Scottish people, I suspect that the gun laws would be even tighter.
"In answer to your first question, how many drunks do you know that rationalise risks; how many drug addicts care about anything at all, except getting their next fix? They see no danger... all that matters is the MUST HAVE effect of their drug habit."
ReplyDeleteSo in those US states that don't infringe on people's carrying guns for defensive purposes, there are no instances of criminals backing off when their intended victim points a gun at them. Never happens.
"Yes. I do think it's a bad thing that the most vulnerable be targeted. "
So why do you think more of a bad thing is desirable?
"If, as has been argued, you need a gun to fight back against robbers who carry guns, presumably so you can shoot first, then those who would have to search their handbags, look in their prams, sort through their school books"
Or, they could use holsters. As people do.
"Not to mention not having the strength to pull the trigger."
Or, they could practice using their weapon. As people do.
"and quite simply no one should have one in a relatively civilised country."
A country that allows its most brutal members the advantage of physical strength over other people isn't remotely civilized.
James, you continue asserting something I have not said: "your extraordinary proposition that arming the rioters with guns guns will somehow assist matters..."
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all in favor of arming the rioters -- I want their potential-victim pool armed. I want the homeowner and shopowner to be able to say No and to be able to back it up. It worked for Korean shopowners in LA; its worked in a lot of places, often without a shot fired. --And if a person offering to break a window or a clerk's skull is shot in the act, I count that a vote for civilization. If the brute mob wins, civil society loses.
Rioters here in the US are rarely armed. This, on the face of it, looks as remarkable as your proposition that British thugs are somehow more noble than their US counterparts, based on respective homocide rates. (You are including all homocides regardless of weapon used, yes?). Could it be that a riot -- especially a flash-mob riot -- is a bit too spur-of-the-moment? Could it be that firearms are not all that suitable for the smashing, grabbing and running in the streets that characterize rioters?
Funny you compare Scotland to New Zealand, pointing out the latter country has murder rates comparable to Scotland. Enzedds have no pistol ban, no semiautomatic rifle ban; with the proper paperwork, they may even own and use so-called Military-Style Semi-Automatics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand) Other than limitations on carrying firearms, their gun laws are a bit less restrictive than U.S. states like Massachusetts and California and very similar to the laws in Illinois, the only state with a total ban on carrying loaded handguns. In that state, you will find Chicago, which has a very high murder rate; so you tell me, is it the gun law that makes the difference or is there another factor at work? (If you want to argue that U. S.-Americans are, on average, more violent than most of the rest of the English-speaking* world, I may have to concede that point).
Tris writes: "Can you imagine a typical Saturday night: thousands of drunk teenagers out to show off to girlfriends, or indeed boyfriends (or potential girl/boyfriends), by packing pistols." Nope. In the US, while one may own (and possibly carry; it varies) a gun (in most states) by age 18, the purchase of firewater and firearms are limited to persons over 21. A "drunk teenager with a gun" is as much a lawbreaker here as there.
__________________________
* We claim it is english. Others have been known to disagree.
(An aside to onlookers: I'm pretty sure James is as aware as I am that we are not going to alter one another's notions. I'm certainly not suggesting Scotland should have some version of the U.S. Second Amendment imposed on it; you have ballot-boxes and you must like what you've got or you'd've voted in a different bunch of representatives to change it. I do know that self-defense is an inherent right of every creature; and I know that humans are unique in using our clever minds and clever hands to level the power imbalance between the strong and the weak, between the lame and the hale. Therefore, I conclude that disarming the law-abiding removes that balance. James starts with different axioms and reaches different conclusions -- and if readers come away from our mutual hollering-down-wells with anything, I hope would be that they ought to look into matters for themselves and make up their own minds).
ReplyDeleteTHR:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. That last post just leaves me speechless.
I don't know where you come from but I do I know that the vast majority of Scots would be horrified if people were allowed to tote guns in holsters like we see on cowboy films.
The idea of OAPs with guns and holsters, spending their days practising a quick draw and with bottles lined up for shooting is beyond imagination.
And the thought of anyone (except police) being allowed to point a gun at anyone in Scotland for anything, ever is just laughable.
It may suit Texas; it won't suit us... and furthermore we don't want it.
Ms X
ReplyDeleteApologies, I forgot that drunken teenagers was unknown in the States, where of course, you cannot legally drink until you are 21.
Tris, you mean like, "the thought of anyone (except police) being allowed to point a gun at anyone in Scotland for anything, ever is just laughable."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that never happens in Scotland, I'm sure. Except when it does in the UK, it's damn-sure to be done by malefactors at decent (or at least less-aggressive) folk.
In the 'States, there's at least a chance it's Granny pointing a gun at a thug who was intending to rob her and/or hurt her.
...Jeepers, whatever happened to the "Nae Laird, Nae Master" Scots of legend? Never existed outside a Pratchett storybook, or did you kick 'em all over here less they disturb the zen-like tranquility?
In re drink, we tried banning that once here. A thrilling success it was...at turning everyone who tippled into a criminal and creating a rising tide of violence. One might think there'd be a lesson in it. I'm sure you'll tell me what it is.
What THR said, "A country that allows its most brutal members the advantage of physical strength over other people isn't remotely civilized," goes for me, too.
Tris: "You've lost me on the last part of your argument. I can only repeat that if no one had a gun then no one would be likely to get shot. This applies to the whole country from the islands in the north to the borders in the south."
ReplyDeleteHasn't happened. You've a ban on handguns -- and they still show up. For every one the police get, how many more do you suppose are out there? And what will you endure to reach your goal of no guns in private hands? Weekly house-to-house searches? Random body searches? Airport-syle metal detectors at every building?
It'll be good for employment -- half the UK can work as police and guards. Gee, I sure hope none of them are corrupt and sneak guns home; maybe you'd better hire even more to watch the watchers....
You end up with an entire nation, no, all the UK, turned into a prison in the name of safety.
Tris
ReplyDelete"The idea of OAPs with guns and holsters, spending their days practising a quick draw and with bottles lined up for shooting is beyond imagination."
What's wrong with that? Who would they be hurting?
Why is it beyond imagination exactly...oh right, because there's no rationality behind your beliefs, just mindless fear.
Ms X:
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent words are "being" and "allowed".
I don't mean "like" it; I mean it. Because it is true. Most Scots would just find that quite ridiculous.
Yes, it does happen illegally, but so very rarely that it would make the headlines in a national newspaper.
As for our social status vis-Ã -vis our "masters", we are forever tainted by association to the class system of our past and of our neighbour, England. But it is less pronounced than it was, and less sustained here. (True, we share their queen, but we have Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, not Queen Elizabeth of Scotland; that may be a small distinction in terms of words, but it is a large one in terms of the relationship between the people and the state.) And we are making progress pas-Ã -pas, with, for example, a form of proportional representation in parliament, towards and more democratic and egalitarian society.
Part of that process, however, would not be to allow our citizens the right to point guns at each other. It's just not our way and we would consider it un-egalitarian.
I seem to be unable to get over to you that the notion of widespread legal gun ownership and use, which you find so utterly normal, strikes most Scots as preposterous.
A chaque son gout, as the French say. You are welcome to your laws; us to ours. And surely we should be entitled to legislate against firearms as befits our society and our nature, without interference from abroad.
And now, Ms X, you are becoming silly.
ReplyDeleteWe have unemployment in Scotland but we have no need for any of the ridiculous job creation steps you suggest.
Of course guns turn up. Rather like most peoples Scots are not all law abiding. There are criminals and some, particularly in the cities, will find ways of buying illegal guns, as they do illegal drugs and, I'm sure, many other illegal items. Alas, the imperfections of society!
Your silly suggestions are starting to be tiresome.
I've explained to you that we don't want guns. We've no particular desire to tell you how to live (that's an English/UK fault, not a Scottish one); why must you persist in the desire to see our country turned into something like Afghanistan?
In Scotland during the ten years from 1996/7 to 2006/7, there were only three occasions where "conventional firearms [were] discharged at persons" by the police, all of them non-fatal. It's likely that they've been much less restrained - forty to fifty times less based on the year I looked at - when it comes to firing tasers, but they haven't killed anyone with them yet. My not terribly scientific analysis of the use the police make of firearms suggested to me that less than 25% of the occasions when they were issued relate to suspected gun crimes, most of which don't involve real guns. The majority of issues will be to do with security patrols at airports - something that probably also explains the huge variation in the proportion of firearms trained officers, from 1 in 50 in Strathclyde to 1 in 12 in Northern - and the remainder mainly close protection duties.
ReplyDeleteIn the same period no police officers were murdered on duty. It seems that the last police officers to have been fatally shot were Constables MacKenzie and Barnett in an incident on 30 December 1969. Finally, the number of murders by shooting between 2000-1 and 2009-10 was 45.
Anybody who is worried about gun crime in Scotland is worrying for no good reason.
THR
ReplyDelete"What's wrong with that? Who would they be hurting?"
Erm, very possibly a good number of people, not to mention animals and inanimate objects.
"Why is it beyond imagination exactly...oh right, because there's no rationality behind your beliefs, just mindless fear."
It is culturally beyond imagination. I'm not sure about the "mindless" part, but fear there very definitely is; you have me there! I would most surely be afraid of guns in the hands of most of the population, me included.
As I keep repeating (ad nauseum) to you and your co-protagonist...let's see if you get it this time:
We don't want our population to have guns. If we had a referendum tomorrow there is not even the tiniest, most minute, chance of our people voting to give Tom, Dick and Jock a gun.
I see no point in further discussion on this issue. You are forcing me to repeat what I have said before, not once but several times. I'm not a quitter (as a recent prominent English politician was wont to say), but I see no point in revisiting the same arguments over and over.
And James has already pointed out (again on innumerable occasions)the statistics which show the good sense of this policy.
For me the subject is closed.
Tris: "I've explained to you that we don't want guns. We've no particular desire to tell you how to live (that's an English/UK fault, not a Scottish one); why must you persist in the desire to see our country turned into something like Afghanistan?"
ReplyDeleteAh, you mean the way New Zealand or the US is "something like Afghanistan." Right.
What's this "we?" Are you -- OMG -- Elizebeth herself? (This appears to be supported by "We don't want our population to have guns." Y'own those people in fee simple or is it more complex?) And of course no true Scot would vote to give guns to every Tom, Dick or Harriet. Ahem.
Possibly you missed my writing, "I'm certainly not suggesting Scotland should have some version of the U.S. Second Amendment imposed on it; you have ballot-boxes and you must like what you've got or you'd've voted in a different bunch of representatives to change it."
The metro Chicago, IL area has (if I can trust the results of a hasty websearch) about twice the population of Scotland. Until very recently, most of that population lived under a gun-ban more strict than Scotland's; the 2.8M in Chicago had nearly no way to legally own a firearm and all of IL strictly controls who may purchase or possess them. The Chicago Police have a special department to control gun crime.
Please explain to me why the stricter laws of Chicago failed ensure the same degree of tranquility to be found in Scotland.
As for urban violence, you have yourself alluded to a problem with the careless carousing of inebriated young people; do they, then, never fight, never stomp an occasional stranger or friend? Truly, a wonder!
Oh, I just checked -- 49 gun shops in Scotland. On a rough count, and including stores in Indiana (I shouldn't, there are restrictions on out-of-state sales), you are about even with greater Chicago. Tris, you may be mistaken about your fellows; some of them appear to be purchasing firearms and related supplies in sufficient volume to support a good many businesses.
ReplyDelete"Erm, very possibly a good number of people, not to mention animals and inanimate objects."
ReplyDeleteYour statements get ever more ridiculous. They're hurting people by 'practicing quick draws' and going for target practice at gun ranges? And oh, think of the poor inanimate objects!
It just goes to show how opposed to rationality fear makes you.
I've no intention of getting sucked into another THR drivel-fest, but one point is crying out for a response -
ReplyDelete"a commensurate refusal to consider whether gun control preventing lives from being saved means that gun control is less desirable"
Red herring. Gun control doesn't "prevent lives being saved", or at least not in a way that even begins to offset the extra lives that would be lost without gun control. If it did, the UK would not have a murder rate three times lower than the US.
Thankyou also for citing the evidence showing "Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993".
Roberta X : "I'm not at all in favor of arming the rioters -- I want their potential-victim pool armed."
And how the hell do you propose to arm one group without arming the other? A belief that a gun free-for-all will only arm the 'good guys' is known as magical thinking, Roberta.
"Funny you compare Scotland to New Zealand, pointing out the latter country has murder rates comparable to Scotland."
I did no such thing. If you believe that I did, I suggest you read what I wrote again.
'Roberta X : "I'm not at all in favor of arming the rioters -- I want their potential-victim pool armed."'
ReplyDelete'James K: "And how the hell do you propose to arm one group without arming the other? A belief that a gun free-for-all will only arm the 'good guys' is known as magical thinking, Roberta."'
Oh, I think the LA (and other) riots in the US are a pretty good example of my thinking being generally correct, at least in the U.S. And it is easier to shoot accurately from a stationary position than running with the mob. Advantage goes to the defender.
James K., on my saying he compared Scotland to New Zealand: "I did no such thing. If you believe that I did, I suggest you read what I wrote again."
I did and I quote you: "We’re culturally closer to New Zealand than America." I then pointed out the Zedders have gun laws very similar to the ones in the U.S. state of Illinois and not similar to those in Scotland. --So, please, tell me, is it still your opinion the laws rather than the culture/demographics that makes for the difference in homicide rate between NZ and IL?
The U.S. is moving towards fewer restrictions on firearm possession and lawful carry. Our murder rate and gun-homicide rates continue to fall.
Maybe the Scots would go murder-mad if they had easier access to firearms than the existing law and 49 gunshops presently allow; I do not know and it's unlikely to be tested. But I do know your assertion that the difference in gun laws accounts for the difference in murder rates is merely an assertion. You can't provide an example of it -- and I have given one that shows looser gun laws do not create a higher murder rate when two demographically-similar populations are compared.
You will, I am certain, be unmoved.
"Oh, I think the LA (and other) riots in the US are a pretty good example of my thinking being generally correct"
ReplyDeleteOh, do you? From Wikipedia on the LA riots -
"In all, 53 people died during the riots"
From Wikipedia on the English riots of last week -
"Five men have died"
Perhaps you'd better come up with a better example if you really want us to put all our faith in American magical thinking.
"I did and I quote you: "We’re culturally closer to New Zealand than America.""
Thankyou for quoting me. Now perhaps you'll explain how that quote bears any resemblance to what you claim I said.
The U.S. is moving towards fewer restrictions on firearm possession and lawful carry. Our murder rate and gun-homicide rates continue to fall.
Aye, well get back to us when it's no longer three times higher than ours. That might take rather a long time, given that Scotland has just recorded its lowest murder rate in 31 years "in spite" of gun control.
"Maybe the Scots would go murder-mad if they had easier access to firearms than the existing law and 49 gunshops presently allow"
Given that one of the basic propositions of the Kevin Baker Fan Club is that Scotland is a more violent society than the US, I'd have thought you should be more confident in that prediction.
"You can't provide an example of it"
Oh, I provided chapter and verse of academic research last year, but Kevin airily waved it all away. The researchers were all "biased", apparently.
"You will, I am certain, be unmoved."
Your comic timing is impeccable (as is your impersonation of Kevin). Perhaps instead of observing the blindingly obvious, you should examine the reasons why I and others are totally unmoved by your arguments?
"Red herring. Gun control doesn't "prevent lives being saved","
ReplyDeleteOh, it most certainly does, that was exactly what happened in the case of the Merced pitchfork murders that I posted about before. You know, where a specific law in California enforcing guns kept for home defence to be unloaded and kept out of easy reach lead to a pitchfork-wielding nutter opportunity to kill two of the children living in that house, without being stopped.
Do you think you can explain how gun control laws didn't contribute hugely to that particular atrocity?
I don't think so. See, that would require you to take responsibility for the failings of gun control i.e. preventing people from saving lives...as happened in the case described, and as happens in every case of murder that isn't criminal-on-criminal that takes place in any locale that has laws impeding the use of guns in self-defence.
Now a normal person, who had a conscience, would react to the idea that gun control might cost some people their lives by thinking, 'that's isn't what I wanted. What can be done to ensure gun control doesn't lead to such an outcome?'
They would not (as you have done) react by rejecting out of hand the necessity to ensure that gun control doesn't have any serious drawbacks, or to refuse to think about how said drawbacks can be reduced.
No gun control advocate anywhere takes responsibility for the bad effects gun control has. After all, taking responsibility is for the other guy, right?
"or at least not in a way that even begins to offset the extra lives that would be lost without gun control."
So what makes the lives lost due to gun control less important than the lives lost due to criminals using guns on people?
(Which is, by the way, not a question you can turn around on me. See, I'm not a utilitarian, I don't believe that a higher authority can rightfully decide that the lives of X aren't worth as much as the lives of Y)
"If it did, the UK would not have a murder rate three times lower than the US."
The US has a murder rate three times higher because of its inner city gang/criminal element, most of whom own and use guns illegally. I told you that, but you ignored me (because you so love your ignorance). It's because of the gun control movement in the US being dominated by ignoramuses just like you, that the US gun death rate will continue to be three times as high as the UK.
However, we in the UK don't have the US's massive problem with inner city criminal gangs, so tell us again why you think allowing gun ownership is going to result in the UK's gun death rate matching the US's gun death rate?
And if the inner city gangs that we do have cause this rate to increase, whyever would you NOT focus on tackling those gangs?
(I mean, I understand why it's not done in the US. For one thing, the gun control movement wouldn't have the 20,000 or whatever gun murders committed by their criminal element, to blame the law-abiding, non-murderous gun owners for.)
"Thankyou also for citing evidence indicating the real reason why the US gun death rate is as high as it is, so that I can ignore it. I love being ignorant, me."
Duly noted.
"you should examine the reasons why I and others are totally unmoved by your arguments?"
Those reasons being that your type of gun control supporter doesn't actually give a damn about lives, and certainly doesn't care about lives that are inconvenient to them? As you have shown practically every time you've blogged or commented about gun control.
What I actually said was this -
ReplyDelete"Gun control doesn't "prevent lives being saved", or at least not in a way that even begins to offset the extra lives that would be lost without gun control"
Rather conveniently, you appear to have only noticed the first seven words.
I'm going to follow Tris' fine example, and stop encouraging your verbal diarrhoea now.
"Gun control doesn't "prevent lives being saved"
ReplyDeleteExcept when it does.
Yes, by all means, run away. Let everyone observe what happens when you're invited to actually consider whether gun control carries any ethical weight.
"Rather conveniently, you appear to have only noticed the first seven words."
ReplyDelete(A) I dealt with the rest of your statement too. Rather conveniently, you chose not to elucidate on why you consider some lives worth less than others.
(B) When you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones. Remember those blog posts you wrote about how the Norway shooting victims were being 'blamed', based on cherry-picking PART of what was actually being said? Which makes you the only guilty of what you accuse me of.
"Yes, by all means, run away."
ReplyDeleteNice try, but there's a difference between "running away" and realising that there's very little point in continuing to engage with someone who's acting like a cretin. I've spent countless hours over the last two-and-a-half years debating with assorted members of the Kevin Baker Fan Club, so my threshold really isn't that high - but both you and Mike W fall beneath it.
Cretin = someone who expects you to be able to demonstrate some actual reasoning and honest thought behind your statements. Right. Got it.
ReplyDeleteAlas, no.
ReplyDelete"cre·tin (krtn)
n.
1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
2. Slang : An idiot."
"1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
ReplyDelete2. Slang : An idiot."
And neither of those apply to someone pointing out the REAL reason behind the sky-high US gun murder phenomenon, nor does it apply to someone asking you to account for you to explain how exactly some lives aren't worth as much as others.
If you've descended into out-and-out namecalling (for the second time now) you can't be all that secure in your beliefs, can you? Not that you SHOULD be secure in feeling that it's OK to sacrifice lives for the sake of gun control/victim disarmament.
"If you've descended into out-and-out namecalling"
ReplyDeleteRearrange the following words into an appropriate sentence - black kettle the pot calling.
These quotes from your good self on this very thread might assist you...
"typical, inhuman, gun control supporter"
"Now a normal person, who had a conscience..."
"ignoramuses just like you"
Off you run now, there's a good name-caller.
"typical, inhuman, gun control supporter"..."Now a normal person, who had a conscience..."
ReplyDeleteYou yourself have passed up several of the chances I've given you to prove this wrong. See, you won't acknowledge that gun control has any faults at all, no matter how many lives are lost because of those flaws. I look forward to you NOT explaining why a refusal to give a damn about lives lost for the sake of your pet cause SHOULDN'T be considered as 'inhuman' and lacking conscience.
Contrast this with your use of the word 'cretin', which you use to describe someone asking you questions. Now that wouldn't be most people's understanding of what 'cretinous' is, would it. I dare say asking questions of people shows more intelligence than ignoring them and calling them 'cretin'.
"ignoramuses just like you"
Yes? After having ignored virtually everything your detractors have said, you have a problem with being described as an ignoramus why exactly?
Do you think ignoring people is NOT the behaviour of an ignoramus? Please don't give an affirmative answer. My sides won't be able to take it.
For God's sake THR
ReplyDeleteBecause you are boring the arse off us by going over the same ground again and again.
The pertinent facts were laid out.
America has more gun deaths per capita than Scotland;
I've never heard one person in Scotland say that they want the freedom to carry arms. That is to say, we don't want guns in Scotland. If there were a referendum tomorrow I'd bet my pension that no more that 2 or 3% of the population would want the right to carry arms.
So what you seem to be doing is trying to push your agenda on us.
WE DON'T WANT GUNS. THEY SUIT YOU; THEY DON'T SUIT US.
I hate the expression, but it's appropriate here... End of Story!
Now having laid down the facts, and argued your points back at you, there is nothing else to say. The salient facts haven't changed and won't change.
We disagree. Why not agree to disagree.
As for either James or me walking away from an argument? Well of course I can't speak for James, but I never do if there is something left to discuss; if the discussion is going somewhere.
All I can say about James, is that in all the time I have read his blog I've never seen him put forward a point of view that he couldn't back with well thought out and well expressed reason. I seriously doubt he would run from any argument.
But this whole thing goes round in circles and gets no where and it's become ennui inducing!
Life's too short for that. So having said all there is to say, and with every further answer a repeat of the previous answer....we walk away.
Now for the love of God, put a sock in it.
"You yourself have passed up several of the chances I've given you to prove this wrong."
ReplyDeleteDelusional. I'm not interested in your 'chances'. Every single one of the debating points you have tediously trotted out during this thread have been fully addressed over and over again during the course of my on-and-off two-and-a-half year exchange with Kevin and his disciples - you're not half as original as you evidently think you are. If you're remotely interested in knowing my answers, I would encourage you to consult the archives of both this blog and Kevin's blog (unfortunately the original thread at Rachel Lucas' blog has since been deleted).
However, you're not interested in knowing my answers - you're interested in behaving like a cretin (and if your last comment is supposed to 'disprove' that, I can only despair). I've left this thread open because I thought Roberta might want to respond again. However, she hasn't been here for almost 48 hours, and I've warned you before that I'm not prepared to leave threads open simply as an outlet for your venomous drivel.
End of the road, I'm afraid.