birth of liberty, 800 years ago in Britain.

[JimC]

That's a good thing.

Not when 10,000 Americans each year are killed by guns, and 100,000 are wounded each year by guns. Over the average lifetime, one in 50 Americans will receive a bullet through some part of their body. That is most definitely NOT a good thing.

It's a price they should be glad to pay to maintain their liberty!

[Seth]

That's a good thing.

Not when 10,000 Americans each year are killed by guns, and 100,000 are wounded each year by guns. Over the average lifetime, one in 50 Americans will receive a bullet through some part of their body. That is most definitely NOT a good thing.

Yes, it is because without those guns hundreds of thousands more people than that might be killed and victimized. Your statistoids and factoid about risk is, as usual, complete statistical bullshit.

[Seth]

That's a good thing.

Not when 10,000 Americans each year are killed by guns, and 100,000 are wounded each year by guns. Over the average lifetime, one in 50 Americans will receive a bullet through some part of their body. That is most definitely NOT a good thing.

It's a price they should be glad to pay to maintain their liberty!

Well, not glad, but we understand the horrific results of a disarmed citizenry and in the long run it is indeed worth it to preserve our liberty and lives, particularly given the fact that trying to eliminate guns is both impossible and does nothing to prevent criminal violence.

[JimC]

Hundreds and thousands more would be killed without private ownership of guns?

You have a very pessimistic view of your fellow citizens, but I suppose that is the unavoidable result of clinical paranoia. There are probably a range of medications for your condition...

[Seth]

Hundreds and thousands more would be killed without private ownership of guns?

Potentially, given that such weapons are used as many as 2.5 million times per year to thwart violent crime.

You have a very pessimistic view of your fellow citizens,

Not really. The facts show that an armed citizenry prevents crime, along with other benefits like thwarting tyranny. Sans arms, those 2.5 million people who weren't criminally victimized last year would have been, and some number of them would have been killed.

but I suppose that is the unavoidable result of clinical paranoia. There are probably a range of medications for your condition...

Clinical paranoia is demonstrated by you and your ilk who so fear their fellow citizens that you demand that everyone be left unarmed and helpless against crime merely because you are afraid.

[Blind groper]

Seth totally ignores the fact that most western nations have very few guns, and there are no nasty consequences. He keeps saying that terrible things will happen without guns. Well, Seth, three English speaking western nations, Australia, NZ, and Britain have very few guns, and we also have little crime, and a quarter to one fifth of the murders the USA suffers. Canada is the other English speaking country, and it has more guns that the others (except USA) due to its physical proximity to the USA, and it also has a much higher murder rate than any but the USA.

Real world data shows no downside to reducing gun ownership, but a big upside in the form of much fewer murders, and much fewer people getting bullets passing through parts of their bodies.

[Brian Peacock]

BG, while Seth can put up a good show to maintain that some imaginable harm will be, and can only ever be, prevented or redressed by a use of arms from the citizenry he seems to have a strong case for everyone having access to personal firearms. His view is, of course, more nuanced than that, but in the main the use of force against a citizen by any party justifies the necessity of preparations to meet it with a reciprocal and overwhelming force. In a social setting where everyone has access to firearms it seems reasonable therefore to grant everyone a right of access to firearms. That's the tautological trap he's in as relates to the US - denizens of a society with free and easy access to personal firearms will need free and easy access to personal firearms to defend themselves against those with free and easy access to personal firearms. That he generalises from the particular to assume (yes assume) that what applies to and for him in his culture is a moral and judicial normative to which all other 'rational' people and nations should aspire is a different matter, but at root the issue is a social-cultural one, about social violence, its levels and scope, and the willingness of individuals and groups to employ it against others. Removing guns from the US will do nothing to address the deeper social-cultural conditions which render people fearful of and vulnerable to the use of violence of others, and which in turn inspires them to adopt postures about their own willingness and abilities to be violent in return.

[JimC]

What he said...

[Blind groper]

Brian

To a large extent, I agree with your points. However, I also think that, in order to reduce the social problems caused by guns, a start needs to be done in controlling those guns. Laissez faire in this case means accepting enormous harm to an enormous lot of human beings.

[Brian Peacock]

I wouldn't disagree with you there BG, and I think that project to progressively tighten access to personal firearms is necessary, even as it is made more difficult than it should be by the vested interests of the guns and ammo industry's lobbying and influence in policy - an industry predicated on giving citizens the means to kill each other at a distance, whether defensively or otherwise. It is also clear that the greatest downward pressure on social violence is not stricture laws more rigorously enforced, or a deepening fear that a person will match violence and perhaps best it if-and-when its employed against them, but real and meaningful advancement in the social and economic welfare of citizens.

[Seth]

Seth totally ignores the fact that most western nations have very few guns, and there are no nasty consequences.

Say what? Can you say "Je suis Charlie?" What you totally ignore is that violent crime happens in every nation on earth, including some select pick therefrom you decide to cherry-pick. Even Switzerland.

He keeps saying that terrible things will happen without guns.

Er, that's because they do.

Well, Seth, three English speaking western nations, Australia, NZ, and Britain have very few guns, and we also have little crime,

Liar. All three have plenty of crime, and plenty of violent crime, and therefore plenty of victims of violent crime.

and a quarter to one fifth of the murders the USA suffers.

Cherry picking irrelevancy.

Canada is the other English speaking country, and it has more guns that the others (except USA) due to its physical proximity to the USA, and it also has a much higher murder rate than any but the USA.

And strict gun control and bans.

Real world data shows no downside to reducing gun ownership,

Except to those who are the victims of crimes that having a gun would have prevented, oh, and the hundred million or so people murdered by despotism and tyranny, mostly in Europe, that we armed Americans have to keep bringing our weapons over to defeat.

but a big upside in the form of much fewer murders, and much fewer people getting bullets passing through parts of their bodies.

Fallacy of composition.

[Seth]

BG, while Seth can put up a good show to maintain that some imaginable harm will be, and can only ever be, prevented or redressed by a use of arms from the citizenry he seems to have a strong case for everyone having access to personal firearms. His view is, of course, more nuanced than that, but in the main the use of force against a citizen by any party justifies the necessity of preparations to meet it with a reciprocal and overwhelming force. In a social setting where everyone has access to firearms it seems reasonable therefore to grant everyone a right of access to firearms. That's the tautological trap he's in as relates to the US - denizens of a society with free and easy access to personal firearms will need free and easy access to personal firearms to defend themselves against those with free and easy access to personal firearms. That he generalises from the particular to assume (yes assume) that what applies to and for him in his culture is a moral and judicial normative to which all other 'rational' people and nations should aspire is a different matter, but at root the issue is a social-cultural one, about social violence, its levels and scope, and the willingness of individuals and groups to employ it against others. Removing guns from the US will do nothing to address the deeper social-cultural conditions which render people fearful of and vulnerable to the use of violence of others, and which in turn inspires them to adopt postures about their own willingness and abilities to be violent in return.

The failure in your argument is the assumption that there is any culture on earth that does not suffer from criminal violence or where such criminals cannot arm themselves with deadly weapons. There isn't.

[Seth]

Brian

To a large extent, I agree with your points. However, I also think that, in order to reduce the social problems caused by guns, a start needs to be done in controlling those guns. Laissez faire in this case means accepting enormous harm to an enormous lot of human beings.

We're already doing that by allowing more law-abiding citizens to carry guns in public, which has proven to reduce crime, violence and deaths where it is allowed.

[Blind groper]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

Stanford University does not agree with you, Seth. Their research shows that more right to carry permits lead to an increase in violent crime, and particularly aggravated assault, which increases 8%.

[Hermit]

The failure in your argument is the assumption that there is any culture on earth that does not suffer from criminal violence or where such criminals cannot arm themselves with deadly weapons. There isn't.

Nobody says that there is any culture on earth that does not suffer from criminal violence or where such criminals cannot arm themselves with deadly weapons. There are, however, one quarter to one fifth of the murders and homicides in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France and Germany with arms restrictions compared to the USA, and that extends to criminals too.