OT: Safety is an Illusion

[Jazzman]

[quote=desmond][quote=Jazzman][quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]

I don’t believe this to be true in every instance. Piers Morgan stepped over the line as a foreigner telling the US how to run its country, but his reaction is a natural one coming from a country that does not have the same gun culture. Keeping the debate alive for as long as possible is tactical, not (just) theater. I personally laud anyone with the courage to ask the questions that so many are either fearful of asking, or don’t wish to become unpopular by asking, or worse, didn’t know they should ask.[/quote]

Laud all you want. The problem is what does somebody like PM actually know about guns? From what I hear from him-nothing. If needed changes are to be made, and they need to be, loud mouth know-it-alls need to change their approach, as I said above. btw, that is not “courage” and it demeans the real people with actual courage.[/quote]

What does someone like Morgan need to know other than guns are highly dangerous. However, I agree his initial outburst did not help, but he is keeping the debate alive and invites those with very opposite views to debate with him. But this is neither here nor there. The issue is not media personalities, it’s about making the US a safer place to live.

Michael Moore is more factual in his approach, but he’s made as many enemies. I believe these people have a genuine concern, not just for victims of gun violence, but for the frighteningly obdurate views, backed by special interests that don’t allow the debate to breath. It is sometimes difficult to equate, or reconcile a civilized society with the need to be having this debate at all. Does the right to bear arms over-ride the right to live in a peaceful, and safe environment? If you answer in the affirmative, it may be that you either lack a sympathetic imagination, have sociopathic tendencies, or are ignorant by virtue of not having direct experience with the consequences.

[Jazzman]

Alan, I hear you. You are “being penalized for the actions of others”, because you live in a society where many less socially responsible than you are forcing the issue? Society needs to act for the greater good. If the threat of violence is removed you don’t need to defend yourself, but if by defending yourself you form part of the chain of violence, you are stuck in a cycle. Something needs to give, and that means sacrifices, and those sacrifices sometimes need to be made by the people least likely to benefit directly. I know that all sounds very lofty, and easy to say, difficult to do, but standing from afar that’s what seems to make the most sense to me.

[FlyerInHi]

Whatever. Guns are good investments. Buy them, put them in a gun trust and see them appreciate.
My friend has a gun bought in 1983 for $100, now worth $15,000.
Better than buying iPhone and apple TV

[desmond]

“Does the right to bear arms over-ride the right to live in a peaceful, and safe environment? If you answer in the affirmative, it may be that you either lack a sympathetic imagination, have sociopathic tendencies, or are ignorant by virtue of not having direct experience with the consequences”

Yes, yes, you are the Jazzman. Pathetic.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: I have no problem with lofty, and I understand the greater good, especially as it relates to a social/civic compact. Where it breaks down is in the practical application. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US. How in the name of God do you see that number of weapons being seized, confiscated, etc?

Not trying to be intentionally difficult, but this would appear to be an insoluble problem.

[Jazzman]

[quote=desmond]”Does the right to bear arms over-ride the right to live in a peaceful, and safe environment? If you answer in the affirmative, it may be that you either lack a sympathetic imagination, have sociopathic tendencies, or are ignorant by virtue of not having direct experience with the consequences”

Yes, yes, you are the Jazzman. Pathetic.[/quote]

I see there is an ignore user button. Bye!

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: I have no problem with lofty, and I understand the greater good, especially as it relates to a social/civic compact. Where it breaks down is in the practical application. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US. How in the name of God do you see that number of weapons being seized, confiscated, etc?

Not trying to be intentionally difficult, but this would appear to be an insoluble problem.[/quote]

Yep, a major stumbling block, so would need to be done in phases over several years. Perhaps if all the guns are melted down you could build a high speed link rail from New York to LA.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jazzman: In all honesty, do you see a favorable outcome to the US Government attempting to seize 300 million firearms, even if done in phases?

As a nation, we’re confronting the reality that our government is all too willing to abridge our rights, and engage in all manner of conduct antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you feel that wholesale disarmament of the citizenry is a good thing?

I’d ask that you be objective and see how terribly wrong this could go. With various pieces of legislation either on the books or in the works (NDAA, AUMF, CISPA, etc), we’re now seeing the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments under assault as well.

I’m sorry, but pushing more power to the federal government just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: In all honesty, do you see a favorable outcome to the US Government attempting to seize 300 million firearms, even if done in phases?

As a nation, we’re confronting the reality that our government is all too willing to abridge our rights, and engage in all manner of conduct antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you feel that wholesale disarmament of the citizenry is a good thing?

I’d ask that you be objective and see how terribly wrong this could go. With various pieces of legislation either on the books or in the works (NDAA, AUMF, CISPA, etc), we’re now seeing the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments under assault as well.

I’m sorry, but pushing more power to the federal government just doesn’t seem like a good idea.[/quote]
I don’t think that seizing guns is a good idea.
Once they are that common they are.
I think guns should be just as easy to get and use as cars.
And just as easy to lose (or lose rights to) as cars.

[CA renter]

[quote=Jazzman]

So what is the above if not an emotional response? I don’t see much in the way of factual evidence from you either. And as to my rights to express my opinion, that will be equal to yours, yes? However, I do respect your personal situation and understand how you felt threatened. The gun may have made you feel safer, but would you have used it? Would you have been prepared to face the consequences and emotional ordeal of taking a life? In respect of war time, your argument is weak.

I pulled up some interesting data that may be of interest. They are the least biased I could find, but add weight to the anti-gun debate. Crucially, much factual evidence needs to be considered in the light of the severe restrictions placed on research in this area, which has been outlawed (see below).

Direct quote:

The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere near the mid-range. Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.

While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world’s highest gun homicide rate (roughly 68 gun murders per 100,000 people).

But America’s homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area…

The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.

Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).

Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).

Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).

Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).

Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.  

The sad reality is that many American cities have rates of gun homicides comparable to the some of the most violent nations in the world.

With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35-50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns…

U.S. gun violence has had several decades-long cycles over the past three centuries, but shows a long-term downward trend. Overall homicide rates were similar to Western Europe until the 1850s, but since then violence has declined more slowly in the U.S.

It’s tempting to plot the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence across countries, but recent research suggests that gun violence is shaped by “socio-historical and cultural context,” which varies regionally, meaning that it’s not always possible to make direct comparisons. However, it’s still reasonable to compare places with similar histories, and more guns still correlate with more homicides in Western nations. Meanwhile, in developing countries, cities with more guns have more homicides.

We lack some of the most basic information we need to have a sensible gun policy debate, partially because researchers have been prevented by law from collecting it …the Centers for Disease Control, the main U.S. agency that tracks and studies American injuries and death, has been effectively prevented from studying gun violence, due to a law passed by Congress in 1996.

NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. …other studies have suggested that reduced access to guns would result in less crime. These studies compared homicide rates with gun availability in various states and cities. The most comprehensive estimate is that a 10% reduction in U.S. households with guns would result in a 3% reduction in homicides.

Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.

In 1968, Franklin Zimring examined cases of knife assaults versus gun assaults in Chicago. The gun attacks were five times more deadly. …many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand. In that restricted sense, guns do kill people.

The U.S. has one of the highest rates of violent crime and homicide, per capita, of any developed country. According to 2008 figures compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. homicide rate for 2010 is 5.1 per 100,000 people. Only Estonia’s is higher, at 6.3. The next most violent country is Finland, which has a homicide rate of 2.5, half that of the U.S. The remaining 28 developed countries are even lower, with an average of 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people.

End direct quote.

The biggy here is the research issue, or lack thereof. I believe there are moves to reverse that law.

I read another very interesting report that highlights the partisan distinctions. Democrat gun-ownership has seen a marked drop over recent years, compared to Republican gun-owners. It makes you wonder how different the post Sandy Hook gun-debate would be shaping under a Republican watch.

IMO, a major obstacle is the very large number of guns already in circulation, but all things being equal I don’t see that as insurmountable.

Another very salient point I hear often is raised by spokesmen for the police who are unhappy about putting their lives on the line when facing the large number of armed criminals. I feel the police should have some input here.

If the US can dispatch its armed forces on a revenge mission to kill terrorist at a cost of 4-6 trillion dollars, for the deaths of 3,000 people, then why can’t it divert some of those resources to reducing the 10,000 annual gun-related deaths on its home turf?

I believe the gun-debate is as complex or as simple as you wish to make it. The more politicized the more complex. The more simple the approach, the more effective the outcome.[/quote]

Jazzman,

I think that Allan brought up the most salient points regarding the socio-economic and cultural issues that nobody is willing to discuss (but has a far greater effect on our safety than gun ownership, IMHO). Not going there for the same reasons nobody else is willing to.

Yes, we should have perfectly transparent information regarding guns and their use in self-defense (often not reported, BTW) and homicides, etc.

As for more guns resulting in more homicides…it’s just as reasonable to argue that in very violent cultures, people will arm themselves more often, so there will be more guns. We don’t know which came first — the guns or the crime.

Just curious, but have you personally ever been the target of a dangerous criminal? IMHO, unless you’ve walked in a victim’s shoes, you just can’t understand the importance of being able to arm and defend yourself because the one thing you can almost certainly count on is that the police will NOT be able to protect you when the SHTF.

And, yes, I would have had no problem at all with pulling the trigger if my stalker had physically attacked me. No problem at all. Again, you have to walk in a victim’s shoes to understand what goes on in these types of situations.

[desmond]

I don’t think the jazzmans/women really care that much about any real outcome on this issue. As long as they can put others down, show how much superior they are and get that final insult in they will just fade away and move to another issue.

[Jazzman]

CAR, in a violent culture, people will arm themselves. That’s only natural, and I would do the same. But are we living in a violent culture? This is the US, which has major problems, but it is stable politically and economically. Some urban areas have horrific crime, but you have a choice where to live. Owning a gun is a palliative, not a cure. Is the only, or best way to defend yourself with a gun? Should we wait for the more complex socio-economic causes to be righted, before we start to deal with gun proliferation and the disproportionately high loss of life it causes.

I understand where you are coming from, and yes I have been threatened by criminals, been burgled while at home, been to South Central and witnessed a shooting, walked and driven through some dangerous parts of South Africa, worked in a fortress type environment in Moscow, been lifted off my feet by my lapels, was born into a gun owning family, but have never contemplated carrying or using a gun. I would not want to go through the revenge process that usually follows the shooting of a criminal, and I would not want to go through the judicial process with the possibility of manslaughter charges if the defense was strong, or the emotional strain that is inevitable. Instead, I would do what I could to defend myself, and take preventative measures rather than take my chances with a shoot out. That for me is the rational and logical course to take.

Now let me ask you a question. Have any of your children been killed in a Sandy Hook type incident? Forgive me, it’s a rhetorical question, but we all know the answer is not to arm schools that could explode into war zones. Less guns and not more guns will reduce gun violence. Something has to give. There has to be a starting point for that process to begin, and responsible citizens would inevitably lead by example. Why should it be the good guys? That is the sacrifice (of feeling exposed) for the betterment of society.

Part of the problem is the ingrained culture of fear that has been instilled into everyone which is to an extent illusory. It is the result of carefully targeted actions of organizations like the NRA, who is in the business of selling guns, and they are overly influential both in a political sense and with inculcating this cultural mindset. It has been spectacularly successful with the 2nd Amendment argument.

I’m not an idealist, but a realist. I don’t believe the problem of gun related deaths will go away completely. When you consider the impasses over more benign legislation, it’s a wonder anything gets done in Washington. But I do think it is possible to reduce gun violence. Who knows, may be even to tolerable levels, and a very tangible way to do that is by a reduction in gun ownership, whether legitimate of otherwise. I also believe there needs to be a process before that. People are not going to give up their guns unless they know why, and that boils down to education and research into causes. Once the problem is better understood, and explained scientifically with irrefutable evidence, half that battle is over.

Many of the underlying causes of gun crime have their roots in socio-economic problems. Terrorism shares similar characteristics. These are societal issues, often with centuries of evolution going into their making, and are therefore highly complex in their formation. We simply don’t understand these things well enough. Mental illness can produce violent behavior, and many causes of those illnesses are environmental, which again are complex and research is still in its infancy. There is an argument that while we don’t understand everything, we understand enough to make things better, but the political will seems to be absent, or political structures, by their nature incapable of acting efficiently. That of course begs the question of why, and I’m sure a lot of research delves into those issues.

So what are we left with? The easiest, most practical solutions with tangible results? Or a protracted continuation of the status quo, in the hope an act of God will produce a beacon if light, and lead the way? For every argument that seeks to find an obstacle to this process, another life is lost pointlessly. We live in a society, and it is therefore for society to seek solutions to our problems. Individual initiatives have their place, but should act within reasonable confines that do not put others at risk, or be deemed selfish. Self defense is not selfish, but denying a truth is.

[FlyerInHi]

Isn’t it interesting that people who are most worried about their guns being confiscated are big supporters of a large powerful military that will eventually come knock on their doors to take their guns away?

That said, guns are good investments and manly man toys.

[CA renter]

Jazzman,

Yes, I would argue that we do live in a violent culture. We are not nearly as politically and economically stable as you seem to believe.

You seem to feel that disarming law-abiding citizens and victims would result in a safer and more secure society. I could not disagree more. There is no evidence that disarming the masses would result in a less violent, more peaceful society.

One person’s (erroneous, IMHO) beliefs about what makes a more peaceful society do not trump the rights of others to defend themselves. If you are asking others to give up their ability to defend themselves from violent criminals, you better have more than “feelings” to justify it.

The Second Amendment was written to preserve our ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. The government is pushing the anti-gun agenda because they are worried about a revolution. They are not trying to protect the Joe Sixpacks of this nation; they are defending those who own or control the majority of the world’s wealth and power…and who seek to own and control an ever-greater share of our global resources. Study the history of wealth/income/power inequality and how these inequalities have almost always led to revolutions, and it will all become clearer.

[KIBU]

CA renter,

When you say some revolution that will/may come, is it an arm revolution that you are talking about?

If yes, then there may be a real reason why some people need to pile up the firearms.

There are revolutions in the field of technology, biological sciences, chemistry, thoughts…..but in any society there will be always a small sector who dream about armed revolution. It’s a means for them to gain power with the power of the gun instead of using some grey matter.

Even when we want changes, we have better ways to push for change in our institutions rather than “revolution”.

Anyway, I don’t trust the guy down the street with revolutionary guns. I must say that I trust our government 100 times more.

[Author]

Posts