Anyway, to business. After a bit of a hiatus, here's a disappointingly unalliterative Word-Search Friday, this time devoted to some indisputable facts on the subject of gun control, as revealed by the internet's only 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If only I'd known this stuff before I first got into the 'debate' with the American gun enthusiasts a couple of years ago - I'm quite sure I'd never have maintained my tragic allegiance to the forces of darkness for as long as I have...
(Click to enlarge)
And here (in bold) are the words you're looking for -
Genocide : What Conservapedia reveals has "only ever occurred" after the introduction of gun control. It appears Hitler's liberalisation of Germany's gun laws prior to the Holocaust was a mere figment of our imagination, as was the fact that Iraq was awash with legally-owned guns when Saddam Hussein carried out his genocidal atrocities against the Kurds and others.
Superficially appealing : How Conservapedia characterises the argument that gun control "somehow" leads to less crime. I do hope they paid Kevin Baker royalties before inserting the word "somehow" into that sentence.
Shift voters leftwards : What Conservapedia reveals is the inevitable political effect of introducing gun control. A great pity that Hitler did liberalise the gun laws, then - he could have saved the world an awful lot of hassle if he'd simply gone in the opposite direction.
Primarily defensive weapons : What Conservapedia reveals guns are. However, with 15 gun deaths per year for every 100,000 people in the US, we shouldn't entirely overlook the popularity of the "secondary" function of firearms.
Emotionally dependent on government : What Conservapedia reveals gun control makes people. Jeez, guys, for once will you put your trustworthiness and scrupulous encylopedic neutrality to one side and simply call a spade a spade - gun control is for girls.
Finland : a country that Conservapedia reveals has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, but a lower rate of crime. The fact that Finland also has by far the highest gun death rate in western Europe is, by contrast, merely an astonishing coincidence.
Pekka-Eric Auvinen : A Finnish mass-murderer who Conservapedia invites us to conclude would have been stopped by an "armed citizen" if only Finland had US-style gun laws. For the avoidance of doubt, there is absolutely no contradiction in the fact that Conservapedia has already praised Finland to the skies for having the laxest gun laws in western Europe, and we most certainly have no business entertaining the thought that Auvinen would never have attacked anyone with guns in the first place had the laws not been quite so lax.
Washington DC : A jurisdiction which Conservapedia points out has traditionally had strong gun control legislation, but also one of the highest crime rates in America. In case you're wondering, the fact that Washington DC borders jurisdictions in which legal guns have long been readily accessible, and the fact that there are no border controls preventing those guns from crossing into Washington DC, is of no relevance whatsoever.
The Crusades : A topic which Conservapedia reveals is no longer taught by some history teachers in English schools as a result of gun control. (Seriously - I'm not making this up. The article actually says that.) Others topics that the absence of guns has disgracefully erased from the English school curriculum include the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Holocaust.
"Cultural reasons" : Conservapedia's devastatingly convincing explanation for why the much lower gun death rate in "England" has nothing whatever to do with the UK's strict gun control legislation. Statistical evidence? Pah, who needs it, when you've got non-specific "cultural differences" to fall back on. Yet more royalties to Kevin Baker.
"Comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors" : Conservapedia's devastatingly convincing explanation for why we should pay no attention to the fact that other countries, such as Japan and Signapore, manage to have both strict gun control and low overall crime rates. Let me guess - would those factors be "cultural" in nature?
"Controversy" : What Conservapedia reveals there has been over the success of Australia's gun control laws of 1996 and 2002, before going on to note in passing that overall gun violence has decreased since they were passed.
"No doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country" : What Conservapedia reveals widespread gun ownership has done for Switzerland. Did Jimmy Carr learn his deadpan delivery from the Trustworthy Encyclopedia?
As ever, the solution will be here in a few days.
Oh, here comes Jimmeh again to ignore those facts that don't suit him, like the fact of the inner city criminal element being the reason why the US gun death rate is so high, and to acknowledge the harm gun control laws have caused people (the way he demands gun ownership supporters accept gun deaths mean that they should be 'victim disarmed'), and to explain to all of us why we should accept our lives being sacrificed if some utilitarian overlord decides it suits their concept of 'the greater good'
ReplyDeleteHows about having the answers to those questions 'in a few days', Jimmeh? After all, you never answered them before. (You said you did in that other thread. Not surprisingly, you lied. You certainly wouldn't still be blaming the legal US gun owners for the US gun death rate, if you acknowledged that it's actually the gangbangers and other assorted criminals that are largely responsible for it).
Or maybe you'll do what you always do and run away from inconvenient questions that threaten your belief in gun control. What form is your running away going to take this time, Jimmeh? Ignoring comments? Namecalling? Deleting comments? Closing this thread? Closing all comment threads? Banning people?
As I said before, if you truly believed gun control had any actual value, you'd be thinking about and answering these questions instead of doing what an intellectual weakling would do.
"You said you did in that other thread. Not surprisingly, you lied. You certainly wouldn't still be blaming the legal US gun owners for the US gun death rate, if you acknowledged that it's actually the gangbangers and other assorted criminals that are largely responsible for it."
ReplyDeleteI've read those sentences several times now, and I can't think of any way of making sense of them unless you somehow believe that "answering your questions" has precisely the same meaning as "agreeing that you are right". I think I'm starting to see where you're going astray here.
"What form is your running away going to take this time, Jimmeh? Ignoring comments? Namecalling? Deleting comments? Closing this thread? Closing all comment threads? Banning people?"
I set out the position to you in crystal-clear fashion a week or two ago - I will not ban you or delete your comments, but I reserve the right to close threads if it's just you talking to yourself for days on end in your customary venomous style.
Now do calm down, there's a good chap.
It's a pity you don't realise you're the one responsible for dragging these 'conversations' out, what with your general willfully ignorant behaviour. You certainly don't have to agree with me, it's just better if you have actual, good solid reasons for taking the opposite slant.
ReplyDeleteLike why you persist in believing that the US gun death rate has nothing to do with the criminals in the major cities. It's all the fault of the legal gun owners (the majority of whom have never shot anyone in their lives), they should be made to pay for it!
Or why you can't justify your utilitarian attitude that people's lives only matter if it suits you.
You don't justify that by calling me a cretin, James.
What I said was that you were behaving like a cretin. If you want to 'disprove' that, you might wish to change your approach to posting. A little self-awareness wouldn't go amiss for starters - the irony of calling me an "intellectual weakling" in the same post that you moan about "name-calling" seems to have eluded you.
ReplyDelete"You certainly don't have to agree with me, it's just better if you have actual, good solid reasons for taking the opposite slant.
Like why you persist in believing that the US gun death rate has nothing to do with the criminals in the major cities."
Translation : I don't have to agree with you, I just have to accept that you are right. But, as it happens, nobody is claiming that gun deaths have nothing to do with criminals who possess guns - what we are saying is that they would be far less likely to possess those guns if there were more legislative restrictions. As a quick comparison between the US and UK statistics will helpfully demonstrate.
As for the rest, read my lips - I am not interested in an ongoing discussion with you anymore, for the sole reason that you are acting like a buffoon and don't appear to be listening to anything other than the sound of your own voice. However, over the course of this long debate with Kevin and his Fan Club I have addressed all the points you have raised, so if by the remotest chance you are interested in hearing the answers, I would encourage you to consult the archives.
"What I said was that you were behaving like a cretin. If you want to 'disprove' that,"
ReplyDeleteSo the way to respond to immature namecalling is to 'disprove' it. Hahahahaha.
I think it's better to simply point out that people who really think gun control is the right thing to do DON'T call people 'cretins' or 'buffoons' or taking issue with them.
"what we are saying is that they would be far less likely to possess those guns if there were more legislative restrictions."
The US has enough 'legislative restrictions' that if they wanted to ENFORCE them against the gangs, they could take a huge chunk out of that gun death rate. Why don't you think they should? Why is the answer, for you, NOT to focus on tackling those gangs and disarming them?
"As a quick comparison between the US and UK statistics will helpfully demonstrate."
In other words, in the face of the fact that the US gun death rate is so inflated because of the criminal element, you're going to go right on blaming the wrong people.
"As for the rest, read my lips - I am not interested in an ongoing discussion with you anymore"
Because you're frightened of acknowledging the many moral and ethical failings of gun control/victim disarmament. Which you claim to have addressed, but that's a lie. You've always done what you're doing now. Ignore and namecall.
If you had anything worthwhile to say regarding the (un)ethical side of victim disarmament, some sort of rebuttal, it'd be your pleasure to just come right out and state it. You wouldn't be saying, 'go read through my archives'! That's classic evasiveness. Like everything else you do.
I've never come across ANY victim disarmament supporter who acknowledged the seriousness of the 'victim disarmament' part, and you're no different.
"So the way to respond to immature namecalling is to 'disprove' it. Hahahahaha."
ReplyDeleteNo, the correct response to immature namecalling is the one Tris used the other day - ie. "for the love of God, put a sock in it, THR".
The one and only thing you've got spot-on in your latest rant is that I am, indeed, intent on ignoring you. Guilty as charged, your honour. Now will you please just blow yourself out as quickly as possible, and go off to delight the readers of some other blog with your inimitable charm. We've detained you for quite long enough.
I don't think I would accuse you of "running away," James. You do tend to try to shift threads to more recent posts, which is not at all unusual in the blogging world.
ReplyDelete--I was interested by your comparision of the raw numbers of deaths between the recent riots inthe UK and the ones in LA. Alas, it's missing the bits that would make is useful:
1. Actual estmates of the number of rioters so we could get a death rate estimate.
2. Demographics of the most basic sort: how many of the dead in each nation were victms of the rioters and how many were rioters killed by their prospective victims.
3. In LA, how many non-rioters were killed by firearms? How many rioters? (And ditto UK, though I suspect we'd've heard if that number was above zero).
(Side question: is it somehow morally superior if J. Random Shopowner is beaten to death by the mob, rather than him shooting one or two of them or simply frightening them off with a show of force?)
The States are, as my earlier comparisions between Scotland and (metro) Chicago illustrated, enormously more populous and culturally varied than the UK. This isn't a value judgement, it's data you can go look up. This makes raw-numbers comparisions inherently misleading.
Personally, I do not count the killing of someone who is in the act of initiating force agaist others to be a bad thing, especially if it happens at the hands of heir prospective victims. At worst it is neutral. Civilization depends on keeping the barbarians in check; it would be nice to start early and bring 'em up a clean and decent members of civil society but it's a bit late for that when they are kicking in one's door.
A TV interview featured a young UK rioter chorling afterward, "We showed them -- we showed them we can do just as we please."
James, you'd better move more quickly on that independence thing; you may want to do as Hadrian did, only facing the other direction.
We disagree on a fundamental point: I believe self-defense is an inherent human right. You do not.
That simply isn't true, Roberta - if someone is actually under attack, I believe they have every right to self-defence. If their life is under threat, I believe they have the right to kill the attacker.
ReplyDeleteYour side of the argument, by contrast, defines self-defence rather differently. You define all citizens as 'victims' at all times, and therefore regard arming millions with lethal weapons as an act of "self-defence", in spite of the fact that by doing so you create far more homicide victims of the authentic kind. I regard that as perverse.
On the LA riots, one of your points seems to be that they may not be directly comparable with the English riots, because it's possible there were more rioters. But hang on - if the defensive function of guns has the magical effect on rioters that you appear to think it does, shouldn't it have snuffed out those riots before they ever got to that scale? It seems to me your argument is severely undermined by the LA riots even if your hypothesis about numbers is correct.
"A TV interview featured a young UK rioter chorling afterward, "We showed them -- we showed them we can do just as we please.""
And for that he deserved to be shot dead? There we part company, Roberta.
Oh, and last but not least - I'm in favour of independence, not a new Berlin Wall.
"The one and only thing you've got spot-on in your latest rant is that I am, indeed, intent on ignoring you."
ReplyDeleteBecause no gun control supporter, anywhere, can give straight and satisfactory answers. Final and definitive proof. Thanks, James.
Until the next time,
Oooh, is that the sound of someone "running away"?
ReplyDeleteYou take the sunshine with you, THR.
James says, "...if someone is actually under attack, I believe they have every right to self-defence. If their life is under threat, I believe they have the right to kill the attacker." --But you would deny them access to the means to do so.
ReplyDeleteYou mischaracterize me when you claim, "Your side of the argument, by contrast, defines self-defence rather differently. You define all citizens as 'victims' at all times, and therefore regard arming millions with lethal weapons as an act of 'self-defence', in spite of the fact that by doing so you create far more homicide victims of the authentic kind. I regard that as perverse."
Unsupported assertion at the end. (And I do not believe that all homicides are bad.)
Please note I do not propose actively going out and arming law-abiding people, only that they not be prevented by law from arming themselves. Some will choose remain unarmed. It's their right.
In the case of the LA riots, you don't really have to run a control group to grasp that armed shopowners prevented a great deal of harm to persons and property - without, as nearly as I have been able to determine, actually killing anyone.
...And I certainly would not endorse killing the obnoxious young interviewee -- as long as she stuck with only words. It's the kicking-in of doors, theft and assault that may well rate stopping, by the prospective victims, in the most immediately effective manner. Her words, however, do suggest the trouble is not over; that is not the attitude of a member of civilization.
I am still waiting to learn how you account for mystery of new Zealand, a nation with a great many cultural and demographic similarities to Scotland (and some differences -- we can't quite equate Highlander and Maori; the latter got a better deal on real-estate), including the rate of murder and firearm crime, yet the Zedders have gun laws no more
restrictive (and in some areas less) than the U. S. state of Illinois, which runs a bit above the U.S. average in homicide and firearms crimes. Could it possibly be that culture is a greater determinant than law?
What do you think?
It's not just me that thinks that legislation (or the lack thereof) is a bigger determinant. You do. Your propose that the crime rate could be substantially depressed by fewer restrictions on gun ownership in this country. And yet you would have us believe that the only crime that gun legislation can have little or no effect on is homicide. That, once again, is magical thinking on an industrial scale - but it's nevertheless thinking you have little choice to indulge in, given that the disparity between the homicide rates in our two countries sticks out like a sore thumb.
ReplyDeleteYour side of the argument (ie. Kevin) also claims that Scotland is literally the most violent country in the western world - ie. certainly more violent than New Zealand. Given this supposedly profound cultural difference between the two countries, it would be surprising, would it not, to learn that the homicide rates in Scotland and New Zealand are roughly the same, as you claim. It would be even more surprising to learn the truth - that the Scottish homicide rate is at present markedly lower than that of New Zealand.
"It's the kicking-in of doors, theft and assault that may well rate stopping, by the prospective victims, in the most immediately effective manner."
No, we still part company there, I'm afraid. The "kicking in of doors" certainly requires a stiff punishment, but summary execution is somewhat excessive.
"And I do not believe that all homicides are bad."
I'm not sure that observation really progresses us very far. The vast majority of the excess homicides in your country that can be attributed to firearms are illegal, ie. deaths that even your side of the argument would have to concede are "bad".
"James says, "...if someone is actually under attack, I believe they have every right to self-defence. If their life is under threat, I believe they have the right to kill the attacker." --But you would deny them access to the means to do so."
Not at all. Your side of the argument is forever telling us that the weapon in the hand of a determined man is irrelevant - if you ban guns, criminals will just murder people with whatever else is to hand, whether it be baseball bats, rocks or church newsletters. So if any weapon is just as effective, why in heaven's name would anyone need a gun to exercise their right to self-defence?
James says: "Your side of the argument is forever telling us that the weapon in the hand of a determined man is irrelevant - if you ban guns, criminals will just murder people with whatever else is to hand, whether it be baseball bats, rocks or church newsletters. So if any weapon is just as effective, why in heaven's name would anyone need a gun to exercise their right to self-defence?"
ReplyDeleteWhy should a law-abiding individual be denied the simplest and most effective mean of self-defense, especially when denying it to them demonstrably fails to consistently deny it lawless persons?
--And why does Canada, a nation with looser gun laws and more guns per person than Scotland, have a lower murder rate?
Denying *me* access to guns because someone, somewhere did bad things with guns is nonsensical. I haven't killed anyone; I will not *initiate* force against anyone; but I will meet force with force, as it right and moral.
...And we disagree on "No, we still part company there, I'm afraid. The "kicking in of doors" certainly requires a stiff punishment, but summary execution is somewhat excessive." So, you think a stiff punishment afterward (if they are caught at all) is preferable to preventing a person making a violent entry into one's home or business from doing further violence to one's person or property? Yes, we disagree profoundly.
James, you think it is better that I am raped and strangled with my own socks than I should defend myself with a firearm. I, on the other hand -- and having a personal interest in the outcome -- would rather have a chance to defend myself.
"Your side of the argument is forever telling us that the weapon in the hand of a determined man is irrelevant - if you ban guns, criminals will just murder people with whatever else is to hand, whether it be baseball bats, rocks or church newsletters. So if any weapon is just as effective, why in heaven's name would anyone need a gun to exercise their right to self-defence?"
ReplyDeleteThis merits a little more of a rebuttal. A person intent on doing others harm (assualt or murder) has a number of advantages over his or her victim -- surprise, quite often physical strength/youth/agility and choice of weapon. Meanwhile -- at least under UK law as enforced -- the victim is limited only to what she may find to hand, none of which may be carried or possessed with the putative intent to defend oneself.
In places with a better grasp of the distinction between aggressive violence and defensive violence, persons can indeed carry implements suitable to self-defense, including firearms; those who would aggress against them still get the advantage of surprise and (usually) greater strength but the victim's got a slightly better chance. (Stats from the U.S. -- YMMV -- show the best outcome obtains when the prospective victim resists with force of arms, even if no shots are fired. Unarmed resistance and passive compliance score about even for damage-to-victim).
"Why should a law-abiding individual be denied the simplest and most effective mean of self-defense, especially when denying it to them demonstrably fails to consistently deny it lawless persons?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a very careful choice of words, Roberta. "Fails to consistently deny it lawless persons"? In other words, it does deny the means to kill to a great many "lawless persons" - and therefore is a far more effective means of collective self-defence than your side's crazy plan of "let's all put ourselves at far, far more danger, but then put our fingers in the dyke by having guns to fire back with".
Incidentally, if it's rational for your side of the argument to regard every citizen as a potential victim, it's equally rational to regard every citizen as a potential "lawless person". So I'm afraid you simply have to take responsibility for the fact that your approach is arming both groups - with the tragically inevitable results.
"And why does Canada, a nation with looser gun laws and more guns per person than Scotland, have a lower murder rate?"
Your friend Kevin can assist you with that - it's apparently because Scotland is the "most violent country" in the western world, and if we added more guns to the mix our homicide rate would be truly astronomical. His own words - by which he unwittingly conceded the entire argument.
"Denying *me* access to guns because someone, somewhere did bad things with guns is nonsensical"
It's scarcely nonsensical if it's keeping YOU safer, Roberta. The fact that you've been held up twice with guns in a jurisdiction where your approach holds sway really ought to give you some pause for thought, I feel.
"So, you think a stiff punishment afterward (if they are caught at all) is preferable to preventing a person making a violent entry into one's home or business from doing further violence to one's person or property?"
I can only infer from those words that you believe murdering someone is a legitimate means to prevent them damaging "property". We disagree profoundly on that? Too right.
"James, you think it is better that I am raped and strangled with my own socks than I should defend myself with a firearm."
No, I simply believe the effective protection of your life and the lives of others is far more important than the illusory sense of comfort your means of "self-defence" gives you.
"A person intent on doing others harm (assualt or murder) has a number of advantages over his or her victim"
And far more probably in your jurisdiction, the most important of those advantages will be that he or she has a gun. Let's do something about that.
"Stats from the U.S. -- YMMV -- show the best outcome obtains when the prospective victim resists with force of arms, even if no shots are fired."
And what do those stats show about the outcome when that prospective victim is mot attacked with a firearm in the first place? Better outcome, or worse outcome? I think I can hazard a guess...
And this will teach me to take your statistical assertions as read - I've just checked the figures for Canada, and the homicide rate is in fact higher than Scotland's. Now, why am I not surprised?
ReplyDelete