Weapons Usefulness debate

[Bneterasedmynam]

One, I can spell bastards, and two, Jesus as reported was a liberal hippie bastard, though I'm not.

Not wanting something approaching preemptive vigilante justice isn't the same as not wanting effective policing, and LE.

Weapons enable some people's bad decisions to become lethal, and not necessarily just for their target. There is a valid concern for any society, as to the destructive power allowed for it's citizenry to possess individually.

Prisons do not allow weapons yet it doesn't stop the inmates from killing each other with weapons they make out of everthing from food products to paper. It's not like Zimmerman had an RPG. My point was Zimmerman could have used a steak knife to accomplish the same goal, so attacking the weapon is just a hippie liberal response.

Oh and I like the way I spell basterd, because it has the word terd in it so Pttthhhhhh.

[McChaos]

Prisons do not allow weapons yet it doesn't stop the inmates from killing each other with weapons they make out of everthing from food products to paper. It's not like Zimmerman had an RPG. My point was Zimmerman could have used a steak knife to accomplish the same goal, so attacking the weapon is just a hippie liberal response.

Not true. The US has similar rates of interpersonal violence when compared to several other western countries, but they are not the highest (for instance, Ireland has higher rates per 100,000 population). The US does have higher rates of homicide, though, because Americans are better at finishing people off than their counterparts in other countries. One of the main reasons they are better is the availability of firearms.

Your claim that people with steak knives produce the same levels of lethality is false. In countries with similar rates of interpersonal violence, but with fewer available firearms, the rates of homicide are much lower because the weapons used are less likely to be as lethal as a firearm. The weapon, and its availability, does matter. It's not the only factor (distance from a hospital is another important one), but it's a very important one.

I'm not a hippie BTW

[tgace]

Not true. The US has similar rates of interpersonal violence when compared to several other western countries, but they are not the highest (for instance, Ireland has higher rates per 100,000 population). The US does have higher rates of homicide, though, because Americans are better at finishing people off than their counterparts in other countries. One of the main reasons they are better is the availability of firearms.

Your claim that people with steak knives produce the same levels of lethality is false. In countries with similar rates of interpersonal violence, but with fewer available firearms, the rates of homicide are much lower because the weapons used are less likely to be as lethal as a firearm. The weapon, and its availability, does matter. It's not the only factor (distance from a hospital is another important one), but it's a very important one.

I'm not a hippie BTW

Convenient that suicide is counted as homicide in many studies though......

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[McChaos]

Convenient that suicide is counted as homicide in many studies though......

Indeed, you are absolute correct (in many studies and official stats), but not in the study to which I refer (or several other studies for that matter). This was an internationally translated crime victimization survey administered across the world. It is significant because it produces identical measures for each country, specifically so you don't have confusion over the results (i.e. countries that count suicides vs. those that don't, countries with different criteria for manslaughter, rape, etc).

America is not a particularly violent country, nor are Americans particularly victimized by crime (relative to other western nations). But they are better at killing people...

[tgace]

Source?

We take the freedom of our 2nd amendment as more important than the risk...for the LARGE majority of us death by gunfire is a minimal risk.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[McChaos]

Source?

We take the freedom of our 2nd amendment as more important than the risk...for the LARGE majority of us death by gunfire is a minimal risk.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

va Dijk et al (2008). Criminal victimization in international perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague, Netherlands: Boom Legal.

Sloan et al (1988). Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide: A tale of two cities. New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 1256-1262.

Zimring (2001). American youth violence. New York. Oxford University Press.

Zimring and Hawkins (1999). Crime in not the problem. Lethal violence in American. New York: Oxford University Press.

Can't argue with you there. Violent crime in general, let alone homicide by firearm, is something most people won't ever have to worry about. Nevertheless, homicide rates in the US are higher than any developed country in the world because of guns, contrary to the previous poster's assertion. Lethal weapons, and their availability, matter when it comes to lethal assault.

This isn't a political statement or liberal anti-gun diatribe. It's merely the consistent results of many years of research. Even though I'm from Canada, I don't exactly hate guns (my family is military, and I am former military).

[tgace]

Thanks ill look them up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[tgace]

Ill be politically incorrect and just say it...by and large, the lions share of gun violence victims are "in the game". Not that this means any of them deserved death by any means.

Much like how the whole "home invasion" fear drives a lot of self-defense discussion. Most home invasions are drug related. People looking to take dope and/or money from someone holding. Yes other instances do happen but they are exceedingly rare from a statistical standpoint.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[McChaos]

Ill be politically incorrect and just say it...by and large, the lions share of gun violence victims are "in the game". Not that this means any of them deserved death by any means.

Much like how the whole "home invasion" fear drives a lot of self-defense discussion. Most home invasions are drug related. People looking to take dope and/or money from someone holding. Yes other instances do happen but they are exceedingly rare from a statistical standpoint.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Is that considered politically incorrect?

What you said is quite consistent with the reality of crime and victimization. The most likely victims of violent crime are young male criminals - the people who expose themselves to crime, criminals, and risky behaviour (like trafficking narcotics, robbery, assault, etc). I guess people don't like to hear that, though.

[JohnnyCache]

Convenient that suicide is counted as homicide in many studies though......

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Suicide by gun is more lethal, as well - essentially the argument that available guns leads to more suicide is potentially valid so the inclusion of suicides doesn't taint these stats.