Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Bob Costas Right?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    OTOH, when Kennesaw, GA required by law that all heads of household (with some exceptions) own a gun, crimes against persons decreased by 74% the first year, and by another 45% the next year.

    I know it's a trite bumper sticker, but when you outlaw something, then only outlaws have it. People who want guns to do criminal behavior will always find them. So when you outlaw guns, you don't solve a thing, you simply keep law-abiding citizens from having them.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
      Regardless of my opinion here - if that's true then the US would have lower rates per capita for muggings and stranger rapes compared to countries where people are carrying less guns. Do they? Seriously.
      There are MANY differences between countries, rendering comparisons of that sort basically irrelevant. The US has greater social and ecconomic diversity than most countries. We have a different history and culture. We're a different people. Those differences matter.

      Switzerland has the 4th highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Much higher than New York City (which isn't an unreasonable comparison, size wise). In 2006 (most recent year I know) the whole country had about 34 homicides involving guns...fewer than involving edged weapons. What is different, besides Switzerland having fewer people and more guns?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
        I know it's a trite bumper sticker, but when you outlaw something, then only outlaws have it. People who want guns to do criminal behavior will always find them. So when you outlaw guns, you don't solve a thing, you simply keep law-abiding citizens from having them.
        i think this is true. outlawing guns wouldn't do a ton to stop violence. but, in spite of your other statistic, i don't think arming everyone else is the best route to ending gun violence. i think we just need to stop making handguns. legal or illegal doesn't matter if new weapons aren't available except in extremely controlled environments (police, military). hunting rifles and shotguns provide the same level of protection for a person's home, but don't create as many incidental deaths.
        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by primalrob View Post
          i think this is true. outlawing guns wouldn't do a ton to stop violence. but, in spite of your other statistic, i don't think arming everyone else is the best route to ending gun violence. i think we just need to stop making handguns. legal or illegal doesn't matter if new weapons aren't available except in extremely controlled environments (police, military). hunting rifles and shotguns provide the same level of protection for a person's home, but don't create as many incidental deaths.
          That doesn't work. Handguns are very simple mechanical devices. They can be made with hand tools. People do this today. Even if you totally disregard the problems with the idea of blaming a device (handgun) for a subset of the actions taken with the device, prohibition just doesn't work.

          Governments can't keep people from making liquor, or drugs, or fatty food... how could government possibly keep people from making guns?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Him View Post
            That doesn't work. Handguns are very simple mechanical devices. They can be made with hand tools. People do this today. Even if you totally disregard the problems with the idea of blaming a device (handgun) for a subset of the actions taken with the device, prohibition just doesn't work.

            Governments can't keep people from making liquor, or drugs, or fatty food... how could government possibly keep people from making guns?
            i'm sure a handgun is a fairly simple thing to make. the government can't, and shouldn't, do anything to prevent that. but, making a dozen handguns to sell in every walmart across the country is something that can be restricted.

            like i said before, i don't think there is an easy or obvious solution. if i had one that nobody thought of before, i'm pretty sure i would be president right now. but even if i was, i still think it's better to shift the mentality around handguns before shifting the policy. the problem is, that's an incredibly tall order. it starts with a dialogue. unfortunately, not everybody wants to contribute, and even fewer want to listen.
            http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

            Comment


            • #36
              Here's what it comes down to, from my perspective:

              People are dangerous.

              Some people are predisposed to be even more dangerous. This is a touchy topic but consider the MAO-A gene issue ... long story short: People with a variation on this gene AND exposure to violence as children are statistically significantly more likely to be convicted of (and by implication commit) violent crime. Children without both of those factors are MUCH less likely to be criminally violent. Monoamine oxidase A - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              Commercially, professionally, built Guns really aren't dangerous. A gun is just an object, and commercial guns are designed to be very safe objects all things considered. I would argue that a glass bowl is more dangerous than a gun.

              On the other hand, home-made guns are notoriously chancy devices. They blow up, injuring the owner. They fail to operate, getting the owner into trouble, they just aren't very good.

              So what's the right thing to do? Whose interests are most important?

              Personally, I think the interests of people who haven't done anything wrong are most important. That would be law-abiding gun owners AND people regardless of how their genes are expressed. As such, I think we have an obligation to take on some extra risk in order to ensure that we aren't harming those people unfairly. That risk mostly comes in the form of accepting that infelicitous MAO-A expression may lead to unfortunate results. That's just how it is, and I wouldn't participate in or countenance any solution to that problem (whether eugenic or gene-therapy based). At the same time, I wouldn't expose gun owners to lower quality guns (just as I wouldn't choose to expose recreational drinkers to unknown-quality moonshine) on the off chance that it might lower the odds of someone choosing a gun as the tool for their violent rampage. After all, you aren't going to stop the expression, just change its form (and cars are MUCH more capable of harm than guns).

              Comment


              • #37
                I think there's also the issue of what I call, "Daddy government." IOW, whenever a law has to be made that controls an object or substance, rather than behavior, we've suspended our rights as thinking adults and handed them over to (of all things) politicians.

                Open container laws, drug laws, prostitution laws - all laws that demonize things while diminishing our ability to think for ourselves and control our own behavior.
                "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                B*tch-lite

                Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Him View Post
                  There are MANY differences between countries, rendering comparisons of that sort basically irrelevant. The US has greater social and ecconomic diversity than most countries. We have a different history and culture. We're a different people. Those differences matter.

                  Switzerland has the 4th highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Much higher than New York City (which isn't an unreasonable comparison, size wise). In 2006 (most recent year I know) the whole country had about 34 homicides involving guns...fewer than involving edged weapons. What is different, besides Switzerland having fewer people and more guns?
                  That's a good point.
                  Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                  SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                  Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                  2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Him View Post
                    Personally, I think the interests of people who haven't done anything wrong are most important. That would be law-abiding gun owners AND people regardless of how their genes are expressed. As such, I think we have an obligation to take on some extra risk in order to ensure that we aren't harming those people unfairly.
                    that's a good point.

                    i imagine a lot of people can get behind the idea of access for those law-abiding citizens. it's the access that the law-breaking citizens have that causes most people trouble. or, maybe through better education, minds can change...get us little more like switzerland, from your earlier post.
                    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Here's my whole thing with this topic:

                      No matter how you feel about guns, the absolute bottom line is that they're not going away. It's logistically impossible. There's one way, and one way only to get rid of them, and that is via forced, door-to-door, totalitarian confiscation. And even that most likely wouldn't do it. And as soon as that starts, we're no longer America.

                      So we need education and personal responsibility. Period. There's absolutely no other way to deal with it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        it's the access that the law-breaking citizens have that causes most people trouble
                        This is now totally cliched and worn out, but it's also true:

                        The problem with aiming laws at criminals, is that criminals by definition don't obey laws. If you try to keep criminals from living in a certain neighborhood, or owning certain products, etc., you will find that they don't work. If you keep that mindset, that idea of controlling what criminals do, the natural path is to make those laws more and more stringent, then draconian, then crushingly facist, until EVERYONE is hurt. This has happened with alcohol, with drugs, with food (SWAT raids of farmers selling raw milk? It has happened.), with guns, with post-incarceration disenfranchisement, with EVERYTHING that has ever been approached with a goal of controlling what criminals do. That is the logical/inevitable result of such laws.

                        In order to avoid that spiral, laws need to be built to address specific acts that society truly agrees are wrong. E.g. instead of passing laws against guns, pass laws against murder. Not "murder with a gun" unless that is considered extraordinarily heinous (which it shouldn't be, IMO, but YMMV).

                        One important point about that is that it avoids creating an oppressed underclass (and therefore increasing socioeconomic disparity/driving people to crime). Frederick Douglass said, "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." Well, what do you think laws targeting criminals are, except the embodiment of exactly such an organized conspiracy? What else can be said when anyone who has been convicted of a crime and could have been sentenced to 1 or more years in prison - whether that crime was violent or not - is legally barred from even living in the same house as a gun owner, as just one example?

                        Criminalizing the potential (e.g. ownership of something that can be used during a murder) creates underclasses and diminishes justice. Criminalizing the behavior (e.g. murdering) provides justice...but has a higher risk. Personally, I'd rather accept a higher risk in return for living in a more just society. Unfortunately, most Americans are a bunch of f'ing cowards and control freaks...and arguably most other places are worse.
                        Last edited by Him; 12-05-2012, 01:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                          They won't. But we could fight back, and I really think just a few news stories about little old ladies offing muggers would start to deter the behavior. Also, any time you make something illegal, you open up a black market. People will buy what they want. They can either do it in the open, or they can deal with criminals.

                          But you're correct, people that feel they have some right to steal my stuff, or the right to hurt me physically will still feel that. No amount of legislation or lack thereof can change people's misguided (or right minded) thoughts.
                          Exactly.
                          -Ryan Mercer my blog and Genco Peptides my small biz

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I'm not one to push my views on others but this one just irritates me. Now while I'm sure we could all come up with select examples to support our views, I think this one supports mine very well. This could have ended very badly for the targeted family if someone was able to protect them from the boogeyman..

                            The Best Gun Story You've Heard In A Long While - TPNN | The Tea Party News Network
                            You'll never see the light if you're in someone else's shadow, or said another way, life is like a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The football player guy would've killed his gf/wife, whether or not he had a gun. Had he had no gun, he might have used his fists, a knife, an end table, or whatever. It would have been harder to off himself though, unless he was willing to slash his own throat.

                              I have heard the name "Bob Costas", but don't give a rat's booty about football, or his opinion.

                              I am a responsible gun owner, and fully embrace the 2nd Ammendment. I am not for "gun control" because it only affects law abiding citizens. Why the ultra libs think that criminals are going to give up their guns (which they got illegally) is just beyond me.

                              An armed society is a polite society.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Bob didn't talk about the dangers of drinking or cars this Sunday.

                                Sad what happened in Oregon tho

                                Several people shot as gunman opens fire at Oregon mall - CNN.com
                                Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                                Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                                Current Weight: 235 pounds
                                Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X