54 replies to this topic

[TTHQ Staff]

I choose not to have a swimming pool.

[OEXCHAOS]

I don't have time to engage in the fun of a knockdown drag out gun debate, and I have to say that I no longer care about the statistics. It's now an objective philosophical matter and all the various statistical arguments are merely handwaving, as far as I'm concerned.

BUT, since statistics seem to matter most to Mark in this discussion, I'll throw a couple out for further review

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and is rising, according to the BATF (“Annual Firearm Manufacturers and Export Reports” www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm), on the other hand violent crime has decreased 38% since 1991 and is now near a 30-year low according to the FBI (see Crime in the United States 2005 www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/ )

So, it would seem that MORE guns, statistically would be associated with fewer violent crimes.

Of course, it's much more complex than that, but clearly 4 million more weapons a year doesn't seem to be causing more violent crime. Accidents, too, seem to be falling. The last statistic I read was 0.2/100,000 and I suspect that it's even lower when mischaracterized suicides are included.

Anyway, chew on that, and I'll address this last point or two, and let you have the last word.

Please show me the statistics that prove the relationship between American wealth, and right to self defence with a gun, talk about a stretch.

I believe that you misunderstand. The PRINCIPLE of rights respecting freedom is closely related to wealth (the empiricle evidence is insurmountable), and the right to self defense is merely a fundamental aspect of such. Either you're consistent in your embrace of freedom or you're not.

You might wan't to check some of those African nations, some of them have wide access to guns, but little wealth.

The lack of rule of law and a rights respecting government/society is behind most global povery. Guns mostly in the hands of governments and thugs seems to be the problem, and THAT is a situation that I and others like me want to avoid.

So if 'guns don't kill', why don't we give everyone a personal nuke, presumably 'nukes don't kill', how long would that theory last you think?

Well, since we're talking about rights in this instance I'm going to have to explain why this is NOT a valid analogy. It misrepresents the notion of rights respecting freedom.

I have the objective (though not legal) right to own pretty much any firepower that I can use without violating the rights of others. No right can properly violate the rights of others. So, of course I can own a hand gun or a shot gun or an assault rifle and frankly a machine gun, because all can safely and effectively be used to defend one's rights. But a nuke, or a chemical weapon, or something similar all PRECLUDE the non-rights violating use of defensive force. You just can't use those things to defend yourself without harming innocents. It's virtually impossible.

Thus, it makes sense that we keep people from owning nukes and allow them to responsibly own firearms.

If you believe in self ownership, then you have to believe in the right to defend yourself and such a right cannot be properly limited by anything other than OTHER objective rights or the objective rights of others. The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter. Anything less is really just another spin on "might makes right".

And really, how can any moral person live with themselves knowing that their actions precluded a good person from defending themselves from an evil doer? See, that's what it all boils down to. Some of us are evil and otherwise dangerous. Some of us are bigger and/or meaner than others. Some of us are easy targets and easier prey if we can't defend ourselves. To knowingly sacrifice victims is morally reprehensible. It smacks of "you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette". Or similar ends justifies the means type stuff--far to reminiscent of other murderous totalitarians or perhaps merely the typical prelude to such.

Mark ( the other other white meat )

[TechSkeptic]

I also do not care to continue this debate, but I just want to say that the most plausible argument I've heard for the decrease in violent crime rate is simply the aging of the baby boomers. When people get older, they just mellow out.

[TechSkeptic]

The gun control debate is like religion. Neither side is going to convince the other by statistics, so there is no point in trying. Personally, I hate guns, and I wish they would go away. Yet that is not the reality, making them illegal now would only create opportunity for organized crime and black marketeers, just like prohibition of alcohol did in the 20's. I also hate cigarettes, another big killer. Yet I don't think they should be illegal, for similar reasons. Keeping them legal allows them to be regulated and taxed, to ensure maximum safety and quality control, while at least partially compensating society to help offset damage done, and still allowing people reasonable exercise of individual rights as long as they're willing to pay the cost burden. As Mark (OEX) has mentioned, the same argument can apply to most illegal drugs, though I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of unrestricted access to crack and methamphetamine.

[calmcookie]

Someone commented that the real cause of the VT killings was "mental illness" ... "probably schizophrenia" or psychosis ... or whatever label you want to put on it. Yes, the shooter was obviously "mentally ill" but the question remains .... what CAUSED this? Babies are not just born psychotic or "mentally ill" (except in Down's syndrome or in cases of other specific genetic anomolies ... but these people do not tend to be violent). There are all kinds of contributing factors to "mental illness." And I suggest that the typical sugar loaded, nutrient depleted, caffeinated, trans fat fried, MSG tainted, coke guzzling and white flour glued American diet is merely ONE of the contributing factors. What's the use of labelling human health conditions without asking WHY they occur and HOW we can prevent them? C.C.

Edited by calmcookie, 24 April 2007 - 01:52 PM.

[TechSkeptic]

Cookie, I also am of the belief that chemicals in our food, water, and air which humans were never meant to ingest, are responsible for a multitude of physical, psychological, and neurological ailments that are prevalent today. On the other hand, making a direct connection between a particular substance and an ailment requires time and research. Which I'm all in favor of. However, until such research has shown its results in a way that we can determine specific causes and prioritize which of the many ubiquitous toxins and pollutants that we need to eliminate, we must also look to treatment and intervention as a way to help mitigate these diseases. Mental illness is a complex issue with many causes, and thus requires a multi-pronged approach. In principle, I am completely with you on reducing the amount of junk food we all eat, and I believe your point is good "food for thought" (and research).

[colion]

The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter.



Mark ( the other other white meat )

One would think so, but then the fairly recent Kelo ruling by the Supreme Court kicked that in the head.

[maineman]

"Yes, the shooter was obviously "mentally ill" but the question remains .... what CAUSED this? Babies are not just born psychotic or "mentally ill" (except in Down's syndrome or in cases of other specific genetic anomolies ... but these people do not tend to be violent)." said Cookie

Well, once again we have science and clinical research to look to for our answers. In fact, yes, people are born with some of these disorders. Schizophrenia is mostly genetic, and the gene defects have been well outlined. In addition, many cases can be traced to maternal virus exposure (measles, for instance) as well as toxoplasmosis exposure. The defect manifests not at birth, but later, usually in adolescence or teen years.

Bipolar disorder is also part genetic, and there is overlap with schizophrenia. This, too, is well documented (scientific research, not hearsay). Several viruses have been implicated recently and Maternal HSV exposure is also documented.

Please feel free to share your clinical research relevant to your french fry hypothesis linking diet to a broad array of "mental" illness.

mm

[TTHQ Staff]

"Yes, the shooter was obviously "mentally ill" but the question remains .... what CAUSED this? Babies are not just born psychotic or "mentally ill" (except in Down's syndrome or in cases of other specific genetic anomolies ... but these people do not tend to be violent)." said Cookie

Well, once again we have science and clinical research to look to for our answers. In fact, yes, people are born with some of these disorders. Schizophrenia is mostly genetic, and the gene defects have been well outlined. In addition, many cases can be traced to maternal virus exposure (measles, for instance) as well as toxoplasmosis exposure. The defect manifests not at birth, but later, usually in adolescence or teen years.

Bipolar disorder is also part genetic, and there is overlap with schizophrenia. This, too, is well documented (scientific research, not hearsay). Several viruses have been implicated recently and Maternal HSV exposure is also documented.

mm

darn. Beat me to the punch again, mm.

Babies ARE born with predispositions to all types of illnesses and behavioural disorders.
It just usually doesn't become apparent until adolescence.

Why are people so emphatic about physical illnesses/characteristics being passed from one generation to another -- alcoholism, diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer, blonde hair and blue eyes!!! But when it comes to OCD, manic-depression, schizophrenia, and yes a predisposition to violence-- oh nooooooo, can't be genetic. Fools.

[TechSkeptic]

Pre-disposition to mental illness is often genetic, I agree. As someone with a mentally ill relative (who is not the least bit violent, by the way), I know that environment, while it may not prevent the onset of the disease, can make a significant difference in the net result in terms of behaviors and actions. Just because someone is born with a schizophrenia gene doesn't mean they're pre-destined to shoot up a school. As far as pre-disposition to violence being genetic, I'd be curious to see the research, the connection sounds pretty tenuous to me. But even if such cases exist, I would doubt if that is the only factor, and that environment wouldn't play an important role in whether they did actually commit violent acts.

Edited by TechSkeptic, 25 April 2007 - 11:07 AM.