Can America Survive Without a Strong Uniform National Gun Control Law?
The answer for me is simple. No, not if by "surviving" you mean growing and flourishing once again and reversing the trends of self-destruction that have made us the laughing stock of the world.
What's your opinion? Are those some shocking and disgraceful stats, or what?Statistically Speaking…
American soldiers killed (yearly average) in the Viet Nam war: 5,820American soldiers killed in the Iraq war to date: 4,700American soldiers killed in the Afghanistan war to date: 1,398People killed in the three terrorist attacks on America, 9/11/01: 3,497Americans killed by guns in 2007 (latest statistic from the CDC): 31,224*
Please leave a comment.
I agree. We need strong uniform gun laws. We need the Federal government to enforce our right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The Supreme Court has found the Second Amendment as a right of individuals and has incorporated that right against the states. We need the Federal government to compel states like California and New Jersey to respect our rights and especially the rights of their own residents. Somehow, I doubt that's what you or Sunny Jane meant.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't see is how our survival is dependent on passing the kind of laws that your side favors. Our nation currently is in economic difficulties. We have nine percent unemployment. We have large numbers of Americans who don't have reliable health care. We have a broken public educational system. Gun violence is far down on the list of our problems.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't see is how our survival is dependent on passing the kind of laws that your side favors. Our nation currently is in economic difficulties. We have nine percent unemployment. We have large numbers of Americans who don't have reliable health care. We have a broken public educational system. Gun violence is far down on the list of our problems.
What you term 'our side' which is an overwhelming majority of the population favors taxing the upper 1-2% more equitably. T?HAT would help our economic difficulties enormously. The term job creators is a euphemism by the right for taking payoffs to grossly disproportionately favor the flow of more wealth to the already wealthy.
Gun violence is interwoven, not separate from our other problems, including education. You should familiarize yourself better with the social learning theory of crime.
Wikiepdia has an article on it, if you want the 'with training wheels' version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
If you are up for more rigorous reading, you might try this:
Scholarly articles for social learning theory and crime
Social learning and social structure: A general theory of … - Akers - Cited by 620
Deviant behavior: A social learning approach - Akers - Cited by 1331
A social learning theory analysis of computer crime … - Skinner - Cited by 110
Search Results
[PDF]
1 Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance ...
sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/.../...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by RL Akers - Cited by 57 - Related articles
validity of social learning theory as an explanation of criminal and deviant behavior. This is a topic about which we have written extensively, both separately and ...
You visited this page on 11/3/11.
as regards our 'broken' education system.
And of course you badly misunderstand our rights.
So long as crooks like Boehner are in the pocket of big pharm and big insurance, we won't have quality health care in this country. The right would prefer to simply let large numbers of people die rather than spend a dime on them. Countries with better, cheaper, more available health care also tend to have stronger economies than ours.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, we agree on this point. You didn't list anything that I don't already know. I do wonder why you aren't focusing on just what you named in your comment, since those are the real problems in our society.
I also wonder if you're just determined to find a difference between us. I'm telling you that I want to see a more rational tax structure, a functional public option in health care, and an educational system that actually teaches our students, rather than lumping them into pre-prison warehouses.
By the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has its flaws, although not as many as its harsher critics would like us to believe, but it's a common knowledge source. I don't allow encyclopedias to be used as sources in the essays of my students.
GC wrote:"I also wonder if you're just determined to find a difference between us. I'm telling you that I want to see a more rational tax structure, a functional public option in health care, and an educational system that actually teaches our students, rather than lumping them into pre-prison warehouses.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, GC, you routinely use reasoning that would not have been tolerated as valid in my K-12 education, much less my post secondary education. So, I have to wonder how much you are part of the problem with out poor educational outcome. I had the choice of any private school I wanted to attend; I was fortunate that my parents were sufficiently affluent. I chose public school, which at that time actually had the resources for the education of gifted kids. Even a few years later that had begun to change for the worse.
GC then wrote:
By the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has its flaws, although not as many as its harsher critics would like us to believe, but it's a common knowledge source. I don't allow encyclopedias to be used as sources in the essays of my students.
I'm not one of your students, and I'm not writing essays for you. When I use Wikipedia it is because it provides a good entry piece on a topic, and in particular there are frequently excellent footnotes that make good reading to familiarize oneself with a new or otherwise unfamiliar topic, as distinct from 'real' reading on it in better depth of breath.
That is why I also periodically include other reading sources, most frequently scholarly and academic research.
GC wrote:"I also wonder if you're just determined to find a difference between us. I'm telling you that I want to see a more rational tax structure, a functional public option in health care, and an educational system that actually teaches our students, rather than lumping them into pre-prison warehouses.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, GC, you routinely use reasoning that would not have been tolerated as valid in my K-12 education, much less my post secondary education. So, I have to wonder how much you are part of the problem with out poor educational outcome. I had the choice of any private school I wanted to attend; I was fortunate that my parents were sufficiently affluent. I chose public school, which at that time actually had the resources for the education of gifted kids. Even a few years later that had begun to change for the worse.
GC then wrote:
By the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has its flaws, although not as many as its harsher critics would like us to believe, but it's a common knowledge source. I don't allow encyclopedias to be used as sources in the essays of my students.
I'm not one of your students, and I'm not writing essays for you. When I use Wikipedia it is because it provides a good entry piece on a topic, and in particular there are frequently excellent footnotes that make good reading to familiarize oneself with a new or otherwise unfamiliar topic, as distinct from 'real' reading on it in better depth of breath.
That is why I also periodically include other reading sources, most frequently scholarly and academic research.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhen I accuse one of you of using faulty reasoning, I explain what I mean. I outline the error. You just toss out the claim and offer nothing to support it. You said that I routinely use reasoning that wouldn't have been tolerated in your primary and secondary education. Fine, show me specifically what you see as an error.
I do argue that the facts about gun violence are not, by themselves, proof that we should abandon our freedoms. You believe that they are. That's a key point of difference between us, but neither of those two positions is a logical fallacy.
I have to wonder what the source of your animosity toward me is. I do not attack you personally, while you resort to ad hominem arguments often. You strike me as someone who is as bitter and full of rage as is Democommie. I knew someone a while ago who was against guns because she knew what she might do to herself if one was around. Perhaps you're the same?
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhen I accuse one of you of using faulty reasoning, I explain what I mean. I outline the error.
Sorry, but I don't believe you have correctly pointed out ANY error made by either Laci or myself.
You just toss out the claim and offer nothing to support it.
No, actually, I include the statement which is wrong or inaccurate, and then I critique it. I also regularly offer the facts which disprove it and which support that criticism. Perhaps you are too dismissive of what you characterize as 'data dumps', and are failing to look closely enough at the information.
You said that I routinely use reasoning that wouldn't have been tolerated in your primary and secondary education. Fine, show me specifically what you see as an error.
I briefly scanned back through the comments for your quote mentioning keeping arms with a person at all times, referencing Odin.
If you could relocate the quotation and source, please, and post it again in a comment I would appreciate it.
The very quotation you made, in the body of the quotation, made it clear that this was about being prepared for war. NOT about individual self defense against crime. So, unless you are expecting the imminent invasion of some unidentified military force, your quote did not support what you were claiming. Quite the opposite, it supported Laci's contention of being armed for military service.
I do argue that the facts about gun violence are not, by themselves, proof that we should abandon our freedoms.
Having many times over the number of deaths from firearms of any other industrialized country is a good reason to believe we are doing something wrong,something that is a failure, as our public policy. Our current pro-gun laws are NOT a success by that metric. Our rate of incarceration of criminals demonstrates that the prevalence of firearms is not sufficiently a deterrent of crime - or a solution to stopping it either. There is no factual, objective measure which is a valid justification for behavior in your arguments. You are advocating entirely on the basis of emotion. Responsible adults don't do that; they adjust their behavior and their thinking to a foundation of objective fact. You aren't; and you only offer emotional justifications for not being rational. Further, on the basis of statistics, what you insist on makes ALL of us less safe, and more likely to be the victim of gun violence.
You believe that they are. That's a key point of difference between us, but neither of those two positions is a logical fallacy. No, this is not about 'belief', this is entirely about the difference between rational objectivity in contrast to emotional denial of the significance of fact. What you are arguing is purely a denial of any fact that doesn't fit what you want. It is the utter intellectual dishonesty of that cherry picking and outright denial of facts you don't like which I find frustrating. THAT is the basis for my repeated criticism.
I have to wonder what the source of your animosity toward me is. I have no personal animosity towards you; in fact you are a very likable person. But just as the man who shot himself while at the stadium, taking his gun out to put it in his vehicle did not, presumably, believe he was a danger to anyone else - much less himself - I don't have to trust your assurances, and I do not. Given the number of bullets fired by trained police officers which do NOT hit their target, routinely, as an example, in the course of dealing with crime, WHY should I believe you are somehow a better judge of when to shoot, or a safer shooter? The answer is, I shouldn't believe that; it is not rational to believe that. But it does fit with a less than objective, less than fact-based pattern of thinking that you have demonstrated.
I do not attack you personally, while you resort to ad hominem arguments often. You strike me as someone who is as bitter and full of rage as is Democommie. I knew someone a while ago who was against guns because she knew what she might do to herself if one was around. Perhaps you're the same?
ReplyDeleteYou don't consider that last ad hominem?
No, I'm not full of rage; in fact as Laci can attest from our phone conversations in the course of blogging, here and elsewhere, we are frequently laughing. As to a fear of having a firearm around? No, I'm not afraid of that at all; but I am equally unafraid without a firearm. I have a much greater confidence in my ability to deal with whatever situation I encounter without a weapon as a crutch. I am a resourceful woman, and I think on my feet well and quickly, and have demonstrated that not only in a variety of situations here in different parts of the U.S., but while traveling world wide -- and not by avoiding danger or risk.
And in case it isn't clear, even though I disagree with you nearly always, I want you to know your contribution to the discussion here is appreciated.
I think what Sunny Jane was talking about was the disgraceful statistics which put the American gun deaths in stark perspective. Federal gun control laws are necessary to get a handle on this.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe quotation is from the Havamal, saying #38. The Havamal is a collection of wise sayings, something like Proverbs in the Bible. The term given is "weapons of war," but #38 is in the sayings about travellers and guests. The implication is that a man who is travelling alone never knows when he may need a weapon when trouble comes.
I used that quotation since our culture from England was similar to and influenced by Norse culture. In Norse society, a free man had the right and responsibility to be armed. We Americans made the decision to make everyone free (yes, it took us a while to figure out what that means), and arms are part of that freedom.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou have criticized me on several occasions for basing my argument on emotion. Let's consider what we actually can base any argument on:
Take the Black Plague. As Bertrand Russell once observed, some people during the period gathered in churches to pray for survival, allowing the infection to spread more rapidly. Today, we would isolate those with the bacteria and administer antibiotics, presuming that we have any that still work. Medical science gives us a logical path to our desired end, curing the disease.
But why do we want to cure the disease? Give me a factual and logical answer to that question. The real answer is that we want to do so.
Any logical system has to start with a set of axioms. When it comes to social policy, those are our desires, wants, and feelings. Call this a broad usage of the term, fideism. What we want is justification enough, especially since there is no other justification.
Now, any society is a compromise of individual liberty, but to me, individual liberty must be the fundamental value. I take it that you value social order primarily. But I do wish that you would see the roots of our disagreement. It's not over the facts and logic. Those are tools that get us to what we value.
If I may explain my personal criticism of you, I do see an arrogant attitude in your comments. You have been quick to dismiss any position that doesn't agree with yours. I recognize that there are plenty of idiots on any side, particularly on the Internet, but you might benefit from presuming good sense on the part of some who disagree with you. A person can reach a different conclusion and can get there through equally logical means by having started from a different set of axioms.
I love how extremists like GC wholly dismiss alarming death statistics in favor of rights talk.
ReplyDeleteGreg, just curious: how many people need to die a year before you feel more limits should be placed on gun rights? 100,000 clearly isn't enough for you. 200K? 500K? Is there a limit at all?
Baldr Odinson,
ReplyDeleteAnnual deaths:
Medical errors: 195,000
Car crashes: 31,000
Tobacco: 443,000
Alcohol (diseases, not accidents): 35,000
Firearms (all causes): 31,000
In theory, every one of those deaths is preventable. I doubt that such is the case in practice, but regardless, can you see that your priorities are off? That's especially the case when we consider that accidental death due to firearms is lower now than it has been in decades.
By the way, you do like to label me an extremist, but you call anyone who disagrees with you that, so I'll take the label for what it's worth.
Wow, Greg keeps alive the false analogy.
ReplyDeleteWhy not add crossing the street as well Greg--how many people die from that?
There is something called "Risk Factor".
But, you can make risky things seem less risky by following safety rules.
Additionally, there is better treatment for gunshot wounds which means more people are surviving them.
But, how much does gun violence cost.
And, as I keep saying, I support your right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 16), where you have a drill instructor drilling the fact that you are ignorant into your head.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYes, if everyone followed safety rules, none of those deaths would occur. We disagree on how to get there. I favor education and letting people make their own choices. You want regulation.
I've addressed your militia argument before and again elsewhere.