We have a right to be free from fear of gun violence. We have a right in order to reasonably bring that about, to have fewer guns with more restrictive ownership and transfer regulation.
We do not have life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness when we have to worry about people with guns shooting us. This is true of domestic violence, this is true of crime, this is true of people who are otherwise law abiding but go off their nut committing crimes of passion, like the many - MANY - murder suicides we have seen, or just plain dumb-ass careless accidents, like the school children in Texas who were shot, or the woman walking her dogs, or the the couple of cases of hunters shot BY their dogs.
In contrast to the bad result of people having firearms, we see relatively few constructive uses of firearms for the primary reason cited of self-defense, and many of those defensive uses could equally be accomplished with non-lethal means like pepper spray, or tasers and stun guns.
Our law enforcement officers should be safer in pursuit of their duty than they are. As I noted earlier, in all of 2011, there were NO fatal shootings of law enforcement officers in the entire UK, with a total population of 63 million people. The entire country had a handful of murder suicides, and only one that I could find that involved firearms in all of 2011, compared to multiple occurrences every week here in the U.S., mostly involving firearms. The number of suicides in the UK, in comparison is approximately half that of the suicide rate of the U.S,, where more than half of all suicides involve firearms. Per the National Institute of Mental Health just having firearms in the home is a risk factor for suicides. The use of firearms in crimes are relatively rare in comparison to the U.S., proving the argument that criminals will continue to have lots of guns is false.
Our gun culture is part of our violence problem. Our gun culture is not making us safer or more free; it is making our country more dangerous, and in doing that it is making us less free, it is making us less civil and less civilized.
Or, we could continue to have more of this, with or without grenades (From the New Orleans Times Picayune:
Gunmen shoot 5 inside home in eastern New Orleans; kill 3
Published: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 10:18 AM Updated: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 8:30 PM
Chaos broke out in eastern New Orleans today when gunmen killed three people and injured two others inside a red-brick ranch house in a quiet residential neighborhood. The violence continued when a gunfight broke out between police and the suspects after a car chase. Cops killed one of the suspects and shot two others.
Police were called to 7427 Devine Ave. about 9:30 a.m., where they found a man and a woman dead inside the home, and two other women and a man with gunshot wounds, according to Officer Garry Flot, a department spokesman.
Enlarge Moments after being shot by police, a murder suspect is checked for signs of life by a paramedic with New Orleans EMS as a female suspect lies on the ground at Press Drive and Chef Menteur Highway on Thursday, January 12, 2012. The trio are suspects in the shooting on Devine Avenue that left five people shot, three fatally. 3 killed, 2 injured in eastern New Orleans gallery (16 photos)
The three survivors were transported to a hospital, where one man later died, according to the Orleans Parish coroner's office.
A description of the gunmen, who allegedly escaped in a red Pontiac, was broadcast immediately, Flot said.
Police spotted the vehicle and a chase ensued. It ended when the car crashed into a sign in front of a Goodyear tire shop at the intersection of Chef Menteur Highway and Press Drive, according to Deputy Superintendent Kirk Bouyelas.
After the crash, a man got out of the vehicle and fired at the officers. The officers returned fire, killing him and injuring a man and woman who were also in the car.
The injured occupants of the car were taken to a hospital, Bouyelas said. They will be booked with the attempted murder of a policeman and the murders in the east, Bouyelas said. One policeman was also taken to a hospital suffering from what Bouyelas described as a "graze wound" to his leg.
Bouyelas could not say how many shots were fired. However, nearly three dozen evidence cones were placed at the scene. One couple, who did not want to be identified, were in a Walgreens across the street from the tire shop when they heard "a bunch of pops outside." They came outside and saw the dead suspect and police.5 shot, 3 fatally in eastern New Orleans; 1 suspect dies in police shootout Chaos broke out in eastern New Orleans today when gunmen killed three people and injured two others. A gunfight broke out between police and the suspects after a car chase. Cops killed one of the suspects and shot two others. Watch video
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
ReplyDeleteOfficial crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1jYKVP4UW
Anonymous, the Daily Mail is full of crap. That was the same source that recently tried to claim that it was illegal to buy more than two limes at a time - totally false.
ReplyDeleteThey are not a credible source, they write crap on a par with sighting Elvis working in a Detroit Burger King.
So, do your homework. Don't cite the Daily Mail here, EVER. And try something intelligent, like not only looking at credible sources, but multisourcing credible sources.
Are you saying that the story is untrue?
ReplyDeletewww.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf
Anonymous:
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/12/from-john-lotts-website-lime-story.html
and Laci's hilarious video contribution:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-many-limes-can-limey-buy-at-timey.html
I'm telling you that anything you quote from the Daily Mail is unreliable and will get you laughed off the page.
ReplyDeleteAs to what you quoted, did you note this on the headline, or that the report starts out by differing with a lot of other stats?
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of the funding organization(s) or of
CEPR, which takes no institutional policy positions.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail
and
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~wcjlen/WCJ/stats/europe_stats_body.html
Let me guess, The Telegraph is not a "real" newspaper either.
ReplyDeleteUK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.
The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Dog gone,
ReplyDeleteAre you not interested in facts? You harp over and over and over how people can use pepper spray and tasers to stop most attacks. I have already told you that some states do not allow their citizens to carry tasers or stun guns -- thus ruling out that option for millions of citizens. And pepper spray is a joke. While pepper spray may hurt, I have watched (or read about from credible sources) lots of people that keep on doing whatever they were doing before someone sprayed them. I recently even posted a link to a story of a man who attacked a 58 year old woman with pepper spray -- yes, the man used pepper spray to attack the woman. She managed to wrestle free of the man, go to her bedroom, retrieve her gun, and shoot at the man when he approached. If pepper spray isn't effective on a 58 year old woman, how do you expect it to be even more effective on a young male attacker?
Finally pepper spray, tasers, and stun guns allow attackers to get dangerously close. You do not ever, EVER, EVER want an attacker to get close to you. When an attacker is that close, they can stab you with a knife or deliver a devastating blow with a club or even their fists.
And what the hell good is pepper spray or a taser when you face two or more attackers? Oh, and you are convinced that people shooting pistols in self defense are highly likely to miss and injure a bystander. Why would citizens be any more accurate with a taser? And the best part: tasers are a single shot device. Miss with that first shot and you are out of options. Why would citizens be more accurate with pepper spray? With a pistol, all I have to do is hit their large torso or pretty much anywhere in the head. With pepper spray, you have to hit the attacker's eyes. Heaven forbid you are outside on a windy day when someone attacks.
And how about defending my family? What if I spray the attacker with pepper spray and the attacker keeps coming? How do I evacuate all of my children when I cannot carry them all?
When will you face the fact that your "solution" has extremely dangerous consequences?
"We have a right to be free from fear of gun violence. We have a right in order to reasonably bring that about, to have fewer guns with more restrictive ownership and transfer regulation."
ReplyDeleteOne what legal grounds do you base this claim of rights? At least the people that claim the right of gun ownership can point to a disputed 2nd Amendment that actually has the words "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
We say that we have the right to our property and our self defense. What makes our claim of right invalid, while yours is correct? So far, the American consensus is on our side
ReplyDeleteMr. Anonymous is just repeating what he's heard other gun guys say. So many of them do that, that the ridiculous notion that England is worse off with gun control begins to take on credibility, at least for those whose agenda is served by such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, my posts have been about violent crime, not only gun crime. Is it only gun crime you are concerned about and to hell with violent crime not involving guns?
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is repeating what he heard others say? Yup, it's a shame to repeat the words of Madison, et al.
It's all violent crime. If you think removing guns from dangerous and unfit makes no difference in the overall violent crime rate, then you are nuts. If, you know it does, but cherry pick stats to "prove" your point, then you're a liar.
ReplyDeleteTry using a little common sense and honesty.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, falling under the spell of Dog Gone and Democommie. Take it easy with the unsupported assertions.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you were directing your comment at me ... I am all in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and mentally ill people.
That's why I have discussed certain measures regarding registration (if appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent mass confiscations) and revocation of dealer licenses tied not only to the person but also the location. And of course I favor background checks.
I also favor training ... assuming that the training is affordable for just about every citizen (say on the order of $50 to $100) and that the training is not designed to preclude the masses. I like training that involves something like six hours of class time and then two hours of range time.
Where I have a problem is when people advocate virtually wholesale disarmament -- whether through outright bans or onerous restrictions that have the effect of wholesale disarmament.
By the way, where do grenades fit into this story? It's not mentioned in your writing, nor did I see it in the news articles that I read.
ReplyDelete"We have a right to be free from fear"
ReplyDelete-----
Nope. You have the right to be safe, not the right to feel safe. Small, but exceedingly important, distinction.
Capn Crunch, No one I know is advocating wholesale disarmament.
ReplyDeleteMoonshine, The point is we are not safe, it's not just a feeling. The reason is guys like you want your fetish toys to have and to hold.
Nope. You have the right to be safe, not the right to feel safe. Small, but exceedingly important, distinction.
ReplyDeleteI have a reasonable concern for gun violence as a problem.
Gun violence makes us less safe - not just crimes with guns, where someone is intending to commit a crime to profit or benefit tangibly. But also all those crimes where some guy goes off his nut, with or without the influence of alcohol, and offs a lot of other people in murder/suicides where the shootist isn't the person we usally think of as a criminal.
When we no longer have a disproportionately high gun violence rate, we will be objectively safer.
So long as guns are so frequently abused they need to be more strictly regulated.
Actually, you do not have a right to be safe either. There is no possible way the government could gaurantee such a right.
ReplyDeleteSo it is all about feelings, after all. . .
ReplyDeleteWhen your side can show me how bad people can be denied guns without denying guns to good people at the same time, I'll listen. Nothing that you have proposed meets that requirement.
Greg, The gun control restrictions we suggest would do exactly that, they would deny guns to the worst of the mental cases and unfit maniacs without denying them to the responsible and truly qualified.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI don't trust your definition of "responsible and truly qualified." You don't trust my definition of "good people." That's the point. Until we resolve that disagreement, there can be no compromise.
I don't anticipate compromise on this anymore than we had compromise on slavery, where some slavery would be ok.
ReplyDeleteThere is no basis for compromise over the life and death of innocent people.
"Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, falling under the spell of Dog Gone and Democommie. Take it easy with the unsupported assertions.
January 16, 2012 4:58 PM"
This is typed by a known FUCKING LIAR. A FUCKING LIAR who when challenged on his FUCKING LIES moves the goal posts, tries to reframe the debate or simply runs away.
Greg Camp, yeah, I'm talkin' bout you, sonny. When you have actualy y'know, like, vetted stats to compare, c'mon back and join the debate. Or, just continue to flap your piehole and look like more an idiot with each comment.