That can be explained in other factors such as the wave of people we got from New Orleans is 2005. I doubt Minnesota has ever had that problem before :grin:
Crime rates were per capita higher in Texas prior to Katrina. Also crime in Texas showed a slight decline in 2005 from 2004 in Texas. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
That's a good point and I stand corrected on the per capita gun ownership but per total there are still more guns in Texas. Anyway if we look at other states with a bigger populations. NY has an 18% gun ownership and CA 21% compared to TX at 35% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html) but TX ranks higher on the crime index than both NY is 1,220 and CA is 1,755 while TX is 2,039 Also there is evidence that states with higher gun ownership have more gun related homicides. http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/n...between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
The first part doesn't factor out suicides. A lot of those deaths are suicides that are primarily used by a gun. You really think taking away a gun is gonna stop someone from killing themselves? They would just go jump off the golden gate bridge. As for saying "I think that that is a clear indication that the convenience of a gun nearby predicates lethal intent and lethal result", That is just ridiculous. You really think that the gun is the reason that people want to kill people? Like if someone is intent on killing someone, you REALLY think that not having the gun around will stop them? Do you understand how easy it is to kill someone with a knife/bat/car/poison/plastic bag/rope/wire/ect... The logic behind saying that having a gun around encourages people to kill when they wouldn't otherwise is absurd. It's baffling really.
Again, gun-related deaths don't factor out suicides, which are the vast majority of gun-related deaths. Also, this "crime index" is pretty irrelevant, Texas has a lower violent crime rate than California, with New York slightly behind the two, but small enough to where you can see all the guns in Texas clearly don't effect the violent crime rate. Just look at Chicago, where guns are illegal. How are those laws helping their murder rate? Shocking revelation: Gangs aren't not killing people just because a law states that guns are illegal. How is this so hard for people to understand? Criminals by definition don't follow the law. Making guns illegal does absolutely nothing to curb violence. It's foolish and lazy to believe it does.
Statistics aside, I'm kind of surprised at how many people who dismiss this idea fully. Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of possibly taking someone's life, regardless of situation, seems horrifying. I guess I'd be one of those people on TV with a gun shaking and can't pull the trigger. I don't know realistically how well a non-lethal(or less lethal) gun would work in practice, but theoretically I am all for it and may possibly buy one. Something I wouldn't even begin to think about with a real gun.
The big problem with this whole debate is the macho bull**** that seeps into the argument. Come get it and from my cold dead hands and this kind of stupid crap. There's a distinct lack of logic and statistical analysis in these guns are great arguments. Really the gun control debate needs to be re-framed as gun safety. As soon as these gun folks hear gun control the issue is dead on arrival. You re-frame it as gun safety, then it may well change the tenor of the debate. Right now, gun folks see any action at all on this as some infringement on their rights however the fact is that all rights have limits and this right should be no different. It is way, way too easy for someone who's potentially unstable to buy a gun and there is no training required at all. These types of things need to change. Restricting the magazines and the types of guns is just a losing battle. We need to emphasize safety, training, competency, and keeping mentally disturbed people from being able to buy guns.
I asked the deer, elk, antelope, hogs, coyotes, ducks, dove, quail, turkeys, rabbits, rattlesnakes, squirrels, sick cows, old horses, feral cats, stray dogs, and varmints around my ranches, they are all 100% in favor of me having non-lethal firearms.
Thats the thing, in theory it sounds like a good plan but if you understand basics about guns it's clearly a far fetched solution that relies on dismissing certain realities for it to work.
Completely agree with that. However, taking away guns from law abiding citizens isn't going to achieve that goal. It's going to take a much deeper and thoughtful analysis of our mental health treatment in our country rather than "guns are bad m'kay"
"Suicides" are not the same as "homicides". If you have evidence that they are lumping suicides with homicides I would like to see that. That is my point.This idea that you are actually safer with more people carrying guns isn't really supported. As you note NY with a much smaller percentage of gun owners has a lower rate of crime both violent and non. Actually Chicago's crime rate has been decreasing and was decreasing prior to IL's concealed and carry law this was discussed in this thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=252655&highlight=chicago Anyway my point isn't that we should make guns illegal but it is the idea that having more guns actually makes society safer. The evidence is hazy at best.
Just to follow up on this from my above post in Crossover's link there is a separate listing for suicides versus homicides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States [rquoter]In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[/rquoter] To answer the above point. Yes there are many other ways of killing people but guns make it far easier. Your argument is faulty that if it really was so easy to kill using other means then what is the point of having a gun for a lethal means of self-defense to begin with. I agree that guns don't kill people they make it much easier to kill people. Further suicides are often not well thought at and by nature are done at times of extreme emotional distress when people are least likely to be thinking clearly. That is the exact time when you don't want to have a tool that makes lethal force very easy. Jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, or poisoning yourself takes much more work to do and has a higher chance of survival than shooting yourself in the head.
Even if that situation ever occurred. do you imagine most thievers, rapers and murderers are going to stare down the barrel of a gun, and say "you know, my love of thieving and raping and murdering is so high, I'm going to go ahead and roll the dice and hope those are rubber bullets, so they'll just knock me down, I'll write around in pain, and then I'll get up and keep raping and murdering."
Absolutely not. The ONLY way you can convince me to give it up my weapons is to have all weapons of the world magically turn into non-lethals.
This assertion is ridiculous. If you were told you can give up your guns because you can defend your home with a knife or a rope, what would you say? You would say it's preposterous. Why? Because it's far, FAR easier to kill someone with a gun. Point and shoot. That's the whole damn point, and it's why you would laugh at the idea of giving up your own gun in favor of another 'lethal' device like a fork. I'm not sure what he meant by "predicate", by I can certainly say for myself I don't think that the gun is the reason why someone wants to kill. It just makes killing really, really convenient and easy to do. So easy that you could do it in fraction of a second, in a moment of irrational passion, from a distance. Are you joking?? Of COURSE it would stop tons of murders! I'm baffled that this has to be discussed at all. You want to kill someone, here are some choices for you: -You have a knife. Maybe you can sneak up on this person. If you are able to sneak up on this person, do you have the physical strength to drive the knife in to the killing point? If the first stab doesn't do it, you still have to stay in proximity for the killing blow, can you win a physical struggle with this now desperate person? Maybe you can't sneak up on them. Are you fast, strong, and coordinated enough to go right up to them and get the perfect hit on the first stab? -You have a rope. Maybe you can sneak up on this person. Do you have the coordination and strength to hold on for the period of time required to kill the target? What if you're a 100 pound woman and he's a 250 pound man? If you're of equal strength, what if it's someone you can't sneak up on? Bat Car Poison Bag (lol) OR -You have access to gun. You can drive somewhere near that person, open fire, drive off. If you can't get near them by car, get nearer on foot. Squeeze off some rounds, run/drive away. Seconds required. No proximity to the target required. No physical strength required. No sneaking required. No coordination other than aiming required. It doesn't matter if you're a 100 pound woman, a 14 year old kid. No need for access to the target's food for poison, no need for street access to hit them with a car. Get near, shoot. Easy peasy. Look, all of us have been in a verbal fight with someone and said something in the heat of the moment that we regret later. It happens to many of us. Lashing out with words is easy, it can happen in a moment. Having access to a gun gives options to a person to do something in a heightened moment of passion/fury that they wouldn't normally do. The number of people who have the physical or psychological capability of carrying out a murder with a knife or bat is lower than the number of people who would do it with a gun. Much lower. To propose they are even close is foolish. This is so obvious it shouldn't have to be discussed. It's not about encouragement. It's about convenience and ease of use, like any popular product, really. Let's ask two questions: - How many times have you felt like killing someone? - Out of those times, how many do you have access to a product that allows you the ultimate in convenience and ease of use for killing?
The OP started this with a hypothetical about non-lethal weapons. I'm going to take it in the opposite direction and go with a hypothetical about super lethal. A device is invented, the size of a ballpoint pen, and with a the click of a button, every person within 15 foot radius of you dies instantly (but not you.) It's portable, reliable, inexpensive, and incredibly easy to use. Questions: -Should a government regulate access to this device? Why or why not? -If a government does regulate access to this device aren't they infringing on the freedom of those who wish to have it? What if the device kills all within 100 feet? 10 miles?
That's a very intelligent way to invert the argument. Except I would probably change it so that the new super-lethal weapon doesn't kill everyone within a 15-ft radius, but rather the weapon is a big button with single click for targeting verification and double click to activate (ie. insta-kill or insta-maim someone). It's lethal, you can be trained to use it, you can threaten with it, you can protect someone at a distance. It could be given non-automatic features and features to alert nearby people that it's gone off. It can be distributed legally but obviously criminals can get their hands on it eventually. It's a good way to show gun advocates that they're pushing the issue in the wrong direction. The idea of regular citizens owning something more lethal should make a person feel alarmed and represents a fear-driven/violent society. How people in comparatively unarmed societies see armed societies is the same way a firearm advocate might see this ball point lethal pen. They see the distribution of a convenient destructive device into the hands of people as purely ridiculous. Citizens in unarmed societies just feel safer. I want to hear more arguments past "I love my guns, don't take them away" or "I need a lethal device to deal with potential criminals" <- this is fear and arms escalating; it adds to the problem, not take away. Americans don't need guns to deal with militant governments -this is the 21st century and the USA, not Cuba under Fidel Castro. I want to hear some kind of argument with statistics and not based on an individual's emotional rational.
