I would suggest that the solution to the kind of gun violence that we have could be lessened with a better sense of community and cultural changes.Con_Alma;1384559 wrote:It has been my position all along that the desire to furventy fight for the right to maintain arms is deeply cultural.
You are reminding me of something that is incorrect based upon the very SCOTUS case you claim supports it.Con_Alma;1384558 wrote:I'm not making the claim nor have I that you did. I did, however, follow some of your posts with a reminder that the Court has ruled that citizens are protected in maintaining arms for any lawful purpose.
Anyone with human feelings would, just like a family member would beg and plead with the government to negotiate with terrorists to free their loved one. Doesn't mean that not negotiating with terrorists is the wrong policy. It's not.BoatShoes;1384572 wrote:If I had a child or a loved one die at the hands of a gun...I think I would feel differently...than if they died of cancer, or a stroke or something.
| Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) | 49-78,000,000 |
| Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) | 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die) |
| Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) | 8,000,000 |
| Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) | 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine) |
| Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) | 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII) |
| Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) | 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20) |
| Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) | 1,700,000 |
| Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) | 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps) |
| Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) | 1,500,000 |
| Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) | 1,000,000 |
| Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) | 900,000 |
| Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) | 800,000 |
| Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) | 600,000 |
| Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) | 570,000 |
| Suharto (Communists 1965-66) | 500,000 |
| Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) | 500,000? (Chinese civilians) |
| Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) | 400,000 |
| Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) | 400,000 |
| Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) | 300,000 |
| Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) | 300,000 (Bangladesh) |
| Ante Pavelic (Croatia, 1941-45) | 359,000 (30,000 Jews, 29,000 Gipsies, 300,000 Serbs) |
| Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) | 300,000 |
| Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) | ? |
| Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) | 220,000 |
| Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) | 200,000 |
| Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) | 200,000 |
| Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) | 200,000 |
| Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) | 150,000 |
| Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) | 100,000 |
| Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) | 100,000 |
| Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) | ? |
| Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) | 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians) |
| Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) | 70,000 |
| Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) | 60,000 |
| Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) | 50,000 |
| Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) | 40,000 |
| Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) | 30,000 (popular uprising) |
| Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) | 30,000 (dissidents executed) |
| Francisco Franco (Spain) | 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war) |
| Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) | 30,000 |
| Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) | 30,000 |
| Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) | 30,000 |
| Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) | 25,000 |
| Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) | 20,000 |
| Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) | 20,000 |
| Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012) | 14,000 |
| Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) | 13,000 |
| Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) | 10,000 (war in Algeria) |
| Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) | 10,000 |
| Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) | 6,000 |
| Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) | 3,500 |
| Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) | 3,000 |
| Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) | 2,000 |
| Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) | 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians) |
I think you and QCB raise a good issue. I think the answer is that it's a death of unnatural causes. With cancer and other diseases, they are horrible, but there is no sentient villain. With a shooting, there is, so there is the additional emotional relationship with that person.BoatShoes;1384572 wrote:This is a good point. Why do we care so much more about gun deaths when there are much larger causes of death like heart disease etc.
I'm not sure what the answer is to that.
If I were to guess, there does seem to be something different about randomly dying at the hands of a gun. If I had a child or a loved one die at the hands of a gun...I think I would feel differently...than if they died of cancer, or a stroke or something.
There's some kind of feeling that these deaths are "needless" or that they "don't have to happen" and maybe even in the minds of a lot of people, that they have no kind of divine lesson to derive.
I'm not sure.
It's a cute cartoon and it sounds intuitive....If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns...If I had no access to evidence from around the world I'd be inclined to believe that. However, when you enact strict gun control on a national level, rich, industrialized countries with people that play violent video games, watch rated R movies, have abortion on demand....and even some who had a large affinity for guns...not as much as us but enough to make it significant....have provided evidence that the heuristic "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" is false.WebFire;1384588 wrote:
They have? So there is no gun violence in those countries? Please provide a link.BoatShoes;1384625 wrote:have provided evidence that the heuristic "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" is false.
Why is the violent crime rate in the UK so much higher that the violent crime rate in the US? Could it be that criminals know that their victim does not have a gun (even if the criminal doesn't have one either) thus making it much "safer" to attack with whatever weapon they choose? Our violent crime rate ranks somewhere around #100 in the world, I believe. How can that be when we have so many guns floating around?BoatShoes;1384625 wrote:It's a cute cartoon and it sounds intuitive....If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns...If I had no access to evidence from around the world I'd be inclined to believe that. However, when you enact strict gun control on a national level, rich, industrialized countries with people that play violent video games, watch rated R movies, have abortion on demand....and even some who had a large affinity for guns...not as much as us but enough to make it significant....have provided evidence that the heuristic "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" is false.
There is close to zero gun violence in Japan. Links at the beginning of the thread.Cleveland Buck;1384632 wrote:They have? So there is no gun violence in those countries? Please provide a link.
I don't think you can say it's so much higher that Britain is tangibly worse off considering that their homicide rate is lower...They also have looser classifications of violent crime. In any event, although their crime rate is worse, are they ultimately that much worse off since they have less homicides or even worse off at all? It's certainly not that mad carnage of rape and robbery that firearm aficionados would have you believe will occur when "only outlaws have guns". Are slightly for more assaults and robberies worse outweighed by less gun deaths and gun violence? That is the UK's experience.justincredible;1384685 wrote:Why is the violent crime rate in the UK so much higher that the violent crime rate in the US? Could it be that criminals know that their victim does not have a gun (even if the criminal doesn't have one either) thus making it much "safer" to attack with whatever weapon they choose? Our violent crime rate ranks somewhere around #100 in the world, I believe. How can that be when we have so many guns floating around?
I couldn't agree any more.O-Trap;1384577 wrote:I would suggest that the solution to the kind of gun violence that we have could be lessened with a better sense of community and cultural changes.
Honestly, I think that's the ONLY solution.
I have no interest in being or doing anything like Japan.BoatShoes;1384699 wrote:There is close to zero gun violence in Japan. Links at the beginning of the thread.
And, the meme implies that it would be rampant and yet it is substantially less than ours per capita in other countries.
You dont think some possible world wherein the united states only had the amount of gun homicides That he japanese have ould e desirable?WebFire;1384811 wrote:I have no interest in being or doing anything like Japan.
How many more people did the government kill with guns this past year than did private individuals? Come on now, are you really concerned about gun deaths?BoatShoes;1384830 wrote:You dont think some possible world wherein the united states only had the amount of gun homicides That he japanese have ould e desirable?
Do u not think that reducing gun deaths is desirable? If we had fewer gun deaths we would be more like Japan in at least a small way.
There would be a trade off in giving up a part of who the U.S. is culturally stemming from individual practices that is not desired by the people collectively in mass.BoatShoes;1384830 wrote:You dont think some possible world wherein the united states only had the amount of gun homicides That he japanese have ould e desirable?
Do u not think that reducing gun deaths is desirable? If we had fewer gun deaths we would be more like Japan in at least a small way.
Yes I find it a worthwhile goal to reduce domestic gun deaths and to reduce deaths needlessly caused by our reckless foreign dventuresCleveland Buck;1384844 wrote:How many more people did the government kill with guns this past year than did private individuals? Come on now, are you really concerned about gun deaths?
Brother, I knew we had some common ground somewhere.BoatShoes;1384922 wrote:... and to reduce deaths needlessly caused by our reckless foreign dventures
The disagreement lies in the fact that it is not deemed to be needlessly caused.BoatShoes;1384922 wrote:...needlessly caused by our reckless foreign dventures
They have looser classifications of violent crime, yes. Ben Swann did a Reality Check segment on it and with an apples to apples comparison their violent crime rate is still twice ours. That's significant.BoatShoes;1384704 wrote:I don't think you can say it's so much higher that Britain is tangibly worse off considering that their homicide rate is lower...They also have looser classifications of violent crime. In any event, although their crime rate is worse, are they ultimately that much worse off since they have less homicides or even worse off at all? It's certainly not that mad carnage of rape and robbery that firearm aficionados would have you believe will occur when "only outlaws have guns". Are slightly for more assaults and robberies worse outweighed by less gun deaths and gun violence? That is the UK's experience.
I am not discounting the innocent lives our government kills in foreign adventures for which there is little evidence we are safer as a whole...Cleveland Buck;1384844 wrote:How many more people did the government kill with guns this past year than did private individuals? Come on now, are you really concerned about gun deaths?
You're suggesting that Guns might be related to the overall decrease in violent crime but that is giving the Rooster credit for the dawn. In the aggregate, violent crime rates have been dropping in all industrialized nations. However, even considering that, the United States still has homicide rates on par with some 3rd developing countries like India and staggering amounts of gun related injuries and homicides.justincredible;1385039 wrote:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Since 1992 essentially all rates of crime have decreased year over year. This includes violent crime, murder/manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, etc. At the same time gun sales have increased year over year. How is crime going down with more guns being sold? I don't understand it.