|
Authored by: Charles888 on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 08:24 PM EST |
1) I never mentioned Japan, you did. But, even though, your
argument is that some how Japan is less prone for violence
REGARDLESS of the laws they institute. Why not give them
some credit that they may have instituted laws that RESULTED
in less violence.
If you don't think Japan is a good proxy, how about Canada,
Australia, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, etc.? They
all have less gun violence by multiple folds.
2) No. The study about gun owners vs. non-gun owners,
whether they live in drug houses or not.
You might argue that there is some self selection going on
by who would need to buy guns, but I suspect it has also
something to do with the amount of self inflicted harm.
3) Suicidal people making long term plans to commit suicide
will always figure out to do it. However, the majority of
gun suicides are somebody snapping and shooting himself in a
rage (many time after shooting somebody else during that
same rage)
4) I don't think you can point to any study about 98%, but I
understand your point about it. These cases of gun use as a
threat without shots being fired are impossible to fully
measure.
Howveer, I don't think it happens as often as you think:
("A criminal suddenly remembering urgent business on the
other side of town when seeing the business end of a barrel
almost never makes the news, because it happens so often as
to be completely unsurprising.")
If indeed the positive so outweigh the negative as you
state, wouldn't that be shown in some macro data. The US
has the highest number of guns per capita. If your argument
holds, we should have the lowest rate of gun violence, not
the highest.
5) Of course, these mass killing make the news, but our
problem with gun violence goes a lot farther than that.
There are about 10000 deaths by guns every year. Most of
these guns showed up on the market somehow. They were not
smuggled. They made it to the hands of criminal through
legal means from lax jurisdictions.
You are going to believe what you believe. I suggest you re-
examine your dogma. I used to believe the same thing. It
seems logical to me that if some good guy had been armed,
they would shoot that bad guy. But, I had to finally come to
grips with the overall numbers and realize that the harm is
much larger than any potential advantage to society.
I don't buy the 2nd amendment argument either (I never
really did so, even when I was for easier gun ownership).
The militia context in the 18th century is our National
Guards. This is your "well regulated militia". Besides, the
Constitution does not disallow limits and regulations. You
cannot legally own a Tomahawk missile, can you? You cannot
legally own a Howitzer or a RPG, can you? (at least I think
you can't). If we can put limit on owning those, what makes
anybody think that ownership of M4, M16, any otehr military
style weapon, large clips, armor piercing bullets, etc.
should be constitutionally protected? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|