oralloy wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:cjhsa wrote:How is that deceitful craven?
Because it is deceptive. Guns
do kill people, and no matter how many times you repeat the mantra it won't become true.
While it is true that the presence of guns causes homicide rates to rise slightly, the effect is only slight.
I said nothing about homicide rates rising. I spoke only of the clear lie that "Guns don't kill" is.
cjhsa, as if repeating his mantra more often would make it true, wrote:How many times do I have to tell you that guns don't kill people? Is the fur really that thick?
My answer was:
Probably until it becomes a truthful statement instead of a deceitful cliché.
It's an absurd lie, and cjhsa was acting like dlowan should simply start accepting it after the rhetorical bludgeon was used a few times.
I cannot figure out how you, craven, can see it as a lie. An inanimate object that kills people? And with intent?
cjhsa wrote:I cannot figure out how you, craven, can see it as a lie.
Because it is a lie.
Quote:An inanimate object that kills people?
Yes. The word "kill" comes with no prerequisite for animation.
I said nothing of intent, and the reason was that the rhetorical bludgeon you use is not "guns are inanimate and therefore are incapable of intent" but rather "guns don't kill".
D'artagnan wrote:Talk about a blanket statement. Is there any evidence for it? Or is this another mantra, like "Guns don't kill people (etc.)"?
This page compares various countries, and shows that there is no real trend connecting the presence of gun with high homicide rates:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Some countries manage to have widespread gun ownership without the homicides, and others manage to have lots of homicides without lots of guns.
In addition, there are countries like Australia who have dramatically cut back on gun ownership, and have seen only a small drop in their murder rate as a consequence (and that drop was offset by higher armed and unarmed robbery rates).
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/08238EF609C9178ECA256B35001967D0
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A
Craven de Kere wrote:oralloy wrote:While it is true that the presence of guns causes homicide rates to rise slightly, the effect is only slight.
I said nothing about homicide rates rising. I spoke only of the clear lie that "Guns don't kill" is.
cjhsa, as if repeating his mantra more often would make it true, wrote:How many times do I have to tell you that guns don't kill people? Is the fur really that thick?
My answer was:
Probably until it becomes a truthful statement instead of a deceitful cliché.
It's an absurd lie, and cjhsa was acting like dlowan should simply start accepting it after the rhetorical bludgeon was used a few times.
The reason the phrase was coined was because anti-gunners frequently pretend that lots of guns in society leads to a significant increase in killings. The point behind the phrase is the notion that "the killing is caused by the killer, the killing would happen with or without the presence of the gun, and the presence of guns do not bring about more deaths".
If you look at it from the perspective of whether guns are a tool that can be used to kill, then yes they do kill. But from that perspective baseball bats kill too.
yes - but the point is that baseball bats can kill considerably less easily and can kill far fewer people at a time.
Your defense is extremely disingenuous to say the least.
Shall you be advocating the US army change its weapon of choice to baseball bats - if the killing potential is the same, you ought to be, since I believe it would cost a great deal less.
You also neglect that the function of the gun is to kill or maim. It has no other use.
oralloy wrote:
The point behind the phrase is the notion that "the killing is caused by the killer, the killing would happen with or without the presence of the gun, and the presence of guns do not bring about more deaths".
The "point" is false as well then, and one you contradict yourself.
dlowan wrote:yes - but the point is that baseball bats can kill considerably less easily and can kill far fewer people at a time.
Your defense is extremely disingenuous to say the least.
Shall you be advocating the US army change its weapon of choice to baseball bats - if the killing potential is the same, you ought to be, since I believe it would cost a great deal less.
Most killings are small incidents where few people are killed. The gun does have greater "potential", but the baseball bat has enough potential to handle the vast majority of homicides that occur.
dlowan wrote:You also neglect that the function of the gun is to kill or maim. It has no other use.
Well, except for target shooting guns.
But anyway, I neglected it because I didn't see how it was relevant.
Craven de Kere wrote:oralloy wrote:
The point behind the phrase is the notion that "the killing is caused by the killer, the killing would happen with or without the presence of the gun, and the presence of guns do not bring about more deaths".
The "point" is false as well then, and one you contradict yourself.
It is not perfectly true, as there is a small impact in the level of homicides. But it is correct in the sense that there is not going to be a drastic change because of the presence or absence of guns.
oralloy wrote:dlowan wrote:yes - but the point is that baseball bats can kill considerably less easily and can kill far fewer people at a time.
Your defense is extremely disingenuous to say the least.
Shall you be advocating the US army change its weapon of choice to baseball bats - if the killing potential is the same, you ought to be, since I believe it would cost a great deal less.
Most killings are small incidents where few people are killed. The gun does have greater "potential", but the baseball bat has enough potential to handle the vast majority of homicides that occur.
dlowan wrote:You also neglect that the function of the gun is to kill or maim. It has no other use.
Well, except for target shooting guns.
But anyway, I neglected it because I didn't see how it was relevant.
Do you seriously contend that America would have the same number of homicides if you people had no guns?
dlowan wrote:Do you seriously contend that America would have the same number of homicides if you people had no guns?
The number of homicides would be slightly lower, but I do contend that the number would be similar in magnitude to what it is now.
(I'd also support the right to have guns even if it did make a significant difference.)
oralloy wrote:
(I'd also support the right to have guns even if it did make a significant difference.)
What for a view. Where do you live?
Thok wrote:oralloy wrote:
(I'd also support the right to have guns even if it did make a significant difference.)
What for a view. Where do you live?
I live in Michigan.
I don't understand what you mean by "What for a view." If you were asking why I would support the right even if it caused many deaths, it would be because I hold freedom as more important than life.
oralloy wrote:If you were asking why I would support the right even if it caused many deaths, it would be because I hold freedom as more important than life.
That have I indirectly asked, thanks for your view. Freedom is important, but you can't use it if you are not alive.
In fact, America's homicide rate - and gun homicide rate, is hugely above similar western english speaking democracies (and western democracies generally - but I wished to make the fairest comparison). Most especially, I understand, that Canada has a reelatively high gun ownership, but a much lower homicide and gun homicide rate???
What you therefore seem to believe is that weapons do not, in general (since all such countries have lots of bats and knives and fire-irons and such) in such countries kill people - but that AMERICANS kill people - evidence, I would have thought, in all rationality, to forbid all weapons to such a bloodthirsty nation?
Hmmm - I am minded of another A2ker, on another thread, speaking of America shepherding Iraq towards democracy - it makes me wonder, reading this thread, if the rest of the western world, ought, in similar vein, be invading you in an attempt to shepherd your country towards less blood-thirstiness?
dlowan wrote:In fact, America's homicide rate - and gun homicide rate, is hugely above similar western english speaking democracies (and western democracies generally - but I wished to make the fairest comparison). Most especially, I understand, that Canada has a reelatively high gun ownership, but a much lower homicide and gun homicide rate???
My understanding is that Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland all have relatively high gun ownership rates, without the high homicide rate.
dlowan wrote:What you therefore seem to believe is that weapons do not, in general (since all such countries have lots of bats and knives and fire-irons and such) in such countries kill people - but that AMERICANS kill people
I never thought of it that way, but yes.
dlowan wrote:evidence, I would have thought, in all rationality, to forbid all weapons to such a bloodthirsty nation?
Hmmm - I am minded of another A2ker, on another thread, speaking of America shepherding Iraq towards democracy - it makes me wonder, reading this thread, if the rest of the western world, ought, in similar vein, be invading you in an attempt to shepherd your country towards less blood-thirstiness?
I've no objection to being shepherded to less bloodthirstiness, but am willing to go to war to keep the guns themselves.
Thok wrote:That have I indirectly asked, thanks for your view. Freedom is important, but you can't use it if you are not alive.
You're welcome.
But if I'm given a choice between losing freedom or dying, I lose the freedom either way. Better to live a short life in freedom.
Well, I've heard that in some US states you don't have the freedom to smoke in (free air) beergardens. As far as I know, you are not allowed to travel with dogs in trains, drive faster than 70 mph, marry whom you want (e.g. someone of the same sex), can't (or only with severe restrictions) travel where you want (e.g. to Cuba) ...
Yes - but they aren't REAL freedoms - freedom is, it seems, a gun.
