The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Did he paint the corporatist Bloomberg as some kind of saint? And seriously how is this newsman's reporting bias any different than those on Faux News?

@blankfist, the complaint I have about Faux News isn't that they're "biased", but that they're dishonest.

My general feeling on "bias" is that the word is waaaaay overused, and often misused by people who want to conflate having an opinion about things with being dishonest about things.

"Chuck Cunningham and his employer, the heartless, brainless National Rifle Association have chosen as their mission not guaranteeing the right to bear arms, because the Constitution already guarantees that, but the right to bear sorrow. Indeed they guarantee us the right to bear sorrow so enormous after events like the Tucson massacre... that the blood-soaked lobbyists refuse to allow us."

"Christina Taylor Green is not the last 9 year old girl who will give her life thanks to the work of Chuck Cunningham and NRA lobbyists."

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.

@blankfist well, that's what makes it opinion and not fact.

As for "fear-based politicking", are you saying all statements that evoke fear are bad in some way? For example, I know this guy who likes to post videos about how the Fed is going to destroy America with hyperinflation. Is he doing something wrong?

Setting that aside for a moment, I didn't come away feeling afraid about anything listening to this clip. Instead, I came away feeling sorrow about the thought that maybe something could have been done to at least lessen the scale of the damage that Loughtner did. I didn't hear a recounting of some dire and immediate threat to me in what he said, I heard a pretty scathing admonition that my own indifference on the topic might have contributed to the death of a nine year old girl. That stung a bit.

I haven't really felt like I cared about gun control as an issue since I was a teen. Even then, it was more about being contrarian with my right-wing friends at school than really giving a shit about it.

It's a topic I think is worth having a debate about again. I'm not thinking anything radical here, maybe just simply limiting the size of clips on semi-automatic weapons again.

Since you're something of an absolutist about these kinds of things, I'm happy to hash it out in terms of me simply supporting bans on private ownership of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons.

getting kairo news when i watch this...?

@NetRunner, when it's fear based and affects other people's rights? I'd say that's when fear is bad. It doesn't start with "let's get rid of all guns" which is what most of you really feel. It starts with, "Maybe we should revisit this whole gun control conversation again. Maybe we do little more this time to ensure our safety."

Sure, clips are limited this time around. Next, the caliber of bullet is limited. Those who can own guns are limited further. Where those guns can be located is limited further. Eventually what're we left with? Are the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books not enough? Of course they're not, because they still allow people to own them, and that's really the point isn't it? It's disingenuous and opportunistic (not to mention horrible) to wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation over Green's death and then use it further your political agenda.

@blankfist, we already took away people's rights to nuclear weapons and rocket launchers decades ago, surely nobody will be allowed to own knives soon.

Glib and trite. Nice combo you're working on there.

@blankfist, well, if the only thing you're going to say to what I'm proposing is to put words in my mouth (your favorite riposte!) and accuse me of wanting to ban all firearms, and then not even present an actual argument against your own straw man, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do but mock you.

What sort of major offense to liberty would it be to limit the size of clips? Do you deny that it could at least lessen the amount of damage one man with a gun could do? Is that not worth doing, even if it only saves a single life?

For that matter, do you contest the notion that there should be some limits on private ownership of weaponry? Is it a crime against liberty that private ownership of nuclear weapons is banned?

I want to ban all firearms. It's just common sense.

I have a feeling that if he ran over the crowd in an SUV while drunk then no legislation would be proposed to ban anything.

I wonder how many people die from those two things each year.

>> ^Psychologic:

I wonder how many people die from those two things each year.


If by "two things" you mean cars and alcohol, the answer I'd give is that those are both pretty regulated as it is, and neither one is a purpose-built weapon.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how many people die from those two things each year.

If by "two things" you mean cars and alcohol, the answer I'd give is that those are both pretty regulated as it is, and neither one is a purpose-built weapon.


True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.

Just like speeding limits will end up with cars being banned. Just like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. This is my problem with libertarianism as a whole, it's not an absolutist position in the slightest. It's drawing a line in the sand slightly to the right of the general societal consensus around you in terms of individual ownership rights and liberties.

As for guns in particular:

You have 89 guns per 100 people. The next country down, Switzerland, has half (46 per 100) and is in itself is an outlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

By a conservative estimate on total firearm deaths you are 8th in the world per capita.

On homicides per capita alone you are 10th in the world. The next, and first other developed country down in descending order is Italy with just 23% of the US. The next is Finland with 12%.

On unintentional deaths, you are ranked 3rd in the world. The next developed country down, Spain, has a rate per capita, 42% of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, let's put aside the whole argument over whether owning a gun is a right. Is there really any disputing that high gun ownership rates in the US lead to high death rates a a result of firearms?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, when it's fear based and affects other people's rights? I'd say that's when fear is bad. It doesn't start with "let's get rid of all guns" which is what most of you really feel. It starts with, "Maybe we should revisit this whole gun control conversation again. Maybe we do little more this time to ensure our safety."
Sure, clips are limited this time around. Next, the caliber of bullet is limited. Those who can own guns is limited further. Where those guns can be located is limited further. Eventually what're we left with? Are the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books not enough? Of course they're not, because they still allow people to own them, and that's really the point isn't it? It's disingenuous and opportunistic (not to mention horrible) to wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation over Green's death and then use it further your political agenda.

^Here's a statistic. The US also has the most people locked up in prison. You think that doesn't have anything to do with our growing police state? Maybe rich and big governments lead to more tyranny, and more people are locked up by police aggression? And maybe some of that is what leads to the "high death rates as a result of firearms"?

Is that a blatant straw man or are you trying to convince me that people murder other citizens and unintentionally kill themselves more because of tyranny and a growing police state?

Either way, you haven't answered my question. Are you disputing that high gun ownership rates in the US lead to high death rates a a result of firearms?>> ^blankfist:

^Here's a statistic. The US also has the most people locked up in prison. You think that doesn't have anything to do with our growing police state? Maybe rich and big governments lead to more tyranny, and more people are locked up by police aggression? And maybe some of that is what leads to the "high death rates as a result of firearms"?

@RedSky, I haven't answered your question because I'm not sure I know the answer. I'm not sure it's fair to assume its the result of firearms just because a gun was involved. There's motivation to consider. Some feel one-sided and one-size-fits-all government legislation and protectionism keep them poor, limit opportunity and ultimately disenfranchise them.

It's a loaded question, because it requires a lot of discussion that won't easily fit into a yes or no answer. I'll just say statism creates victims. It's a system that must steal to legitimize itself, and by majority vote polices morality (sin tax, prohibition on prostitution, drug laws, etc). We've seen the militarization of the police thanks to heavy funding from the Pentagon.

Maybe the police state is paranoid of its armed citizenry and uses excessive force more than necessary? Maybe incidents are quickly escalated by the police and there's a growing distrust from the less fortunate neighborhoods?

>> ^Psychologic:

True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I'm not so sure about that. You can hear a car coming, and get out of the way if you react fast enough. Getting inside a building pretty much immunizes you from random acts of vehicular homicide.

It's true that people intent on murder will not be deterred by laws, but it's also true that if you make them resort to lesser tools of killing, they will have a harder time doing the same amount of damage.

>> ^Psychologic:
I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.


I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.

As O'Donnell said on another night, eventually the police reports will give us the shot order, and allow us to do the grim accounting of finding out who would still be alive if Loughtner had been forced to settle for a 10-round clip instead of a 31-round one. At that point, we can debate about whether the freedom to have extended clips was really worth the lives of the people killed by the bottom twenty bullets Loughtner fired.

>> ^NetRunner:
I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.


And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.

>> ^NetRunner:

As O'Donnell said on another night, eventually the police reports will give us the shot order, and allow us to do the grim accounting of finding out who would still be alive if Loughtner had been forced to settle for a 10-round clip instead of a 31-round one. At that point, we can debate about whether the freedom to have extended clips was really worth the lives of the people killed by the bottom twenty bullets Loughtner fired.


Well, if nothing else I doubt the US will crumble if clip sizes are limited. I just have a hard time blaming the tool.

Support banning grenades.
Don't support banning pistols.
Clips size is somewhere between those... just don't start digging up my land mines. ;-)

>> ^blankfist:

And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.


I'm still waiting for you to answer me on private ownership of nuclear weapons. Do you want that, or do you think there are reasonable limits on the level of weaponry that should be in the hands of an individual?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And now imagine if he had no clip at all. That would be 100% fewer bullets. We'll just arm up our military and militarized police and get that under control. Heil Hitler! Godwined, bitches.

I'm still waiting for you to answer me on private ownership of nuclear weapons. Do you want that, or do you think there are reasonable limits on the level of weaponry that should be in the hands of an individual?


Your fighting a loosing battle there. It will only be a matter of time before doomsday level technology is smaller than a briefcase, and simple enough to make over the weekend, and sophisticated enough to erradicate entire populations. The problem about who gets what will be moot, as it already is...people have guns even where they are illegal. The real question is how do you keep humanity around and alive when a broken hearted teen can end all life in the solar system with a press of a button. That doesn't have an easy answer, and both lines of reason here fail to even cope with that, what I see as, inevitable eventuality. Weapons are only the symptom of a deep seeded violence in man, there is the problem, and only in addressing that problem will you find any true answers. Everything else is addressing leaves that blow in the wind.

@GeeSussFreeK I don't really see how that's me fighting a losing battle, so much as you declaring surrender to the idea that mankind will inevitably destroy itself.

I think that's eminently preventable. We just need to grow up, and not really by a whole lot. Just enough not to commit genocide on ourselves.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK I don't really see how that's me fighting a losing battle, so much as you declaring surrender to the idea that mankind will inevitably destroy itself.
I think that's eminently preventable. We just need to grow up, and not really by a whole lot. Just enough not to commit genocide on ourselves.


Weapons have only a part to do with genocide...we were killing each other with sticks long before bullets, and will upgrade to ray guns in time. I am not surrendering, I am saying you're fighting a battle that is not on the same battlefield. And preventing what exactly? Death by knife isn't any more humane than death by gun...and shoot, I would take death by nuke over death by knife any day of the week...except Saturday, that's beer day.

I have been around guns for a long time. When you are in the country and you got a rattlesnake or copper head that you need to get rid of, sometimes it's a little too dangerous for the snake pole. You have no right to say that I can't go get my revolver out and dispatch him with the weapon of my choosing, in so much as your rights are violated. Creating criminals for people who only posses things that can be dangerous is just the liberal version of the drug war. Manufacturing moral crimes where no wrong has taken place. You want tuffer punishments on people who commit crimes, fine, let's talk. No need to punish people whom haven't wronged, akin to the pot head buying nachos.

@blankfist

The question is simple, I'm asking you to explain to me, what in your eyes explains the astronomical rate of death where firearms are involved in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I have provided quantitative data showing that you both have the highest death from firearms rate in the developed world, and the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

As far as I'm concerned, I think there's a blatant link between the two. You seem to not.

Where is you proof? You suggest motives play a part. Of course they do. All that's left is for you to demonstrate how they explains the gargantuan difference in gun murder rates between the US and any other developed country. Do you think that Americans are egregiously more violent than people in any other developed country?

Let's be honest here, you certainly haven't convinced me (or for that matter provided any actual evidence to support your claim) that the stupendous gun murder rates in the US are caused exclusively by a police state using excessive force or neighbourhood insecurity. I doubt that you really believe that yourself.

If you want to have a genuine conversation about this I'm up for it, but otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.

@GeeSussFreeK

I'm curious what your answer to the question above is too.

@RedSky, I'm glad you're able to uncritically infer correlation proves causation, because the rest of us find it to be a logical fallacy. And who said anything about gun murder rates being "exclusively" caused by the police state? You're extrapolating what you want to hear and grasping at straws, friend.

Indeed, check on murder rates for other countries and you get an interesting picture. Turns out, you can still commit murder without a gun. Or even suicide rates , self directed violence. Death by gun is a red herring in larger human condition of pain and misery. There are high levels of death and crime in many states that have complete gun control, which should come as no surprise. Turns out, humans are basically viscous apes, give him a stick or a gun and he will make an attempt to take what isn't his. I propose to ban pointy sticks, they have been a problem for much longer than guns.

The real question is why would you treat someone who has committed no crime against his fellow man as a criminal. It is the EXACT same question as the drug war. Sure the crack head MIGHT do something bad, but as long as he hasn't leave him the fuck alone.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You have no right to say that I can't go get my revolver out and dispatch him with the weapon of my choosing, in so much as your rights are violated.

Do I also have no right to stop you from using a solar-system destroying device to kill the snake?

You seem to think there's some absolute right for people to be able to take risks with other people's lives.

Granted, a revolver isn't all that dangerous in the grand scheme of things, but it's more dangerous than a knife. And unlike a knife, it's not meant to be used as a tool, it's clearly designed as a weapon.

One man with a knife can't really kill 20 unarmed people. One man with an Uzi could do so before people even knew what was happening. With a nuke, it could be millions.

At some point, it's legitimate for law enforcement to be controlling and monitoring the sale of weapons. In this case, I'm just talking about clip sizes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You have no right to say that I can't go get my revolver out and dispatch him with the weapon of my choosing, in so much as your rights are violated.
Do I also have no right to stop you from using a solar-system destroying device to kill the snake?
You seem to think there's some absolute right for people to be able to take risks with other people's lives.
Granted, a revolver isn't all that dangerous in the grand scheme of things, but it's more dangerous than a knife. And unlike a knife, it's not meant to be used as a tool, it's clearly designed as a weapon.
One man with a knife can't really kill 20 unarmed people. One man with an Uzi could do so before people even knew what was happening. With a nuke, it could be millions.
At some point, it's legitimate for law enforcement to be controlling and monitoring the sale of weapons. In this case, I'm just talking about clip sizes.


You ignored the last part of the sentence, it clearly answers this rant. Granted a car isn't that dangerous in the grand scheme of things, but it is more dangerous than a knife. And besides, criminals don't follow laws like this, so your only enforcing laws on the law abiding. The guys who robbed that bank in Cali had military issue clips, which aren't legal to possess, but they had them nonetheless.

Edit, and once again I go back to the drug user analogy. A small time drugy might only ruin his life, but a true addict might ruin the lives of all those around him via theft, and heart ache. I don't see where the ability to kill lots of people vs just one is a moral argument supporting a position against another. I assure you that cow shit has the ability to kill more people than guns, by a lot. If numbers are truly the concern, then get to regulating cow shit, and fast.

@blankfist

Neither of us here is attempting to do a rigorous statistical analysis.

The question still stands though.

What explains your incredibly high gun homicide rates, and for that matter your incredibly high homicide rates overall? If it's not gun ownership as I say, what is it?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Frankly, all I see is you dodging the question here.

@GeeSussFreeK

Yes you can still commit murder without a gun, and if you look at what you've linked to, you'll find that the US is 24th in the world by murder rate per capita alone. The next developed country down is Finland with 66% of your murder rate. That country in itself is an exception though, the next country with anywhere near your GDP per capita is France with just 40%.

So, what makes Americans more violent?

Could it just be possibly be that a gun empowers would-be criminals to commit a crime? Because basic logic tells me that guns stack situations in favor of the criminal.

In your average crime, say the armed robbery of a convenience store, the assailant clearly has the upper hand. He is mentally prepared, presumably somewhat desperate and has the gun out ready to fire. The victim, say, the counter attendant, who is being paid minimum wage has not the slightest interest or need to risk his or her life. At best he or she has a firearm stowed away under the desk, but in what position are they to use it? Would you really dispute that this is far more a typical situation than the reverse?

Is the shooting in Tuscon not the perfect example? Here was a congresswoman and her staff, some of which including her I would presume were pro-gun. Had they been carrying guns with them, do you think that they would have anticipated and prevented Loughner taking the first shot? Do you think any of them would have been mentally capable in that scenario (had they been carrying a gun) to use it to valiantly defend themselves before Loughner had emptied his clip? Because I kind of doubt it.

Now you could say that criminals will find a way to acquire guns on the black market. This is probably true. In a country like America with 89 per 100 guns, no legislation will magically change this reality. That's why my point is high levels of gun ownership among countries cause crime.

This is also why looking at slightly different gun restrictions in states is nonsense, no doubt message multiplied by the NRA. Do you really think with comparable ownership rates, and with ultimately porous borders between states as a whole that it matters two hoots whether one state has been tougher than another for a few years?

Analogies suck because they're not usually comparable. Replace drugs with private nuclear weapons like NetRunner mentioned. Do you still think it's a fair comparison?

The very reason that guns are entirely different to drugs is they are prone to impact a wider group of people. Soft drugs are generally innocuous. Hard drugs are largely self destructive but often have impacts on the individual's wider family. Guns are efficient, purpose designed, killing machines designed, and often enough used in mass violence. By that alone, the analogy is flat.

Oh, and if you're taking a libertarian position here with that analogy by the way, you first have to show me guns don't violate the individual rights of others, since as far as I'm concerned the numbers suggest they clearly do.

So again I ask, why are Americans twice, 3 times, or 4 times more violent than others in comparable developed countries?

Riposte?

^I guess in your world it's dodging if I refuse to speculate. Touché.

That's because it is dodging.

And you have speculated already.

When I called you out for your claimed reasons obviously nowhere near explaining the disparity in numbers, you claimed that they weren't 'exclusively' to blame.

Now that I've asked you 'what else', and you've run out arguments and have decided instead that you don't want to speculate.
>> ^blankfist:

^I guess in your world it's dodging if I refuse to speculate. Touché.

>> ^RedSky:

That's because it is dodging.
And you have speculated already.
When I called you out for your claimed reasons obviously nowhere near explaining the disparity in numbers, you claimed that they weren't 'exclusively' to blame.
Now that I've asked you 'what else', and you've run out arguments and have decided instead that you don't want to speculate.
>> ^blankfist:
^I guess in your world it's dodging if I refuse to speculate. Touché.



You're trying to prove causation by correlation.

That's a logical fallacy.

If there's a "correlation" between number of deaths and number of guns, that doesn't demonstrate "causation". Answering "I don't know" does not mean I'm dodging. It means I don't know and refuse to speculate.

Sorry that doesn't satisfy you.

Brilliant. If science took your attitude of being unwilling (or as I suspect, incapable) of even making a hypothesis we would have never made it past the stone age.

Just admit the fact that there is simply nothing idiosynchratic enough about the US besides its gun ownership rate compared to other developed countries, will ya?

Everyone outside of the US gun industry and NRA distortion field, outside the self-destructive American gun-obsessed culture has known this for decades.>> ^blankfist:

>> ^RedSky:
That's because it is dodging.
And you have speculated already.
When I called you out for your claimed reasons obviously nowhere near explaining the disparity in numbers, you claimed that they weren't 'exclusively' to blame.
Now that I've asked you 'what else', and you've run out arguments and have decided instead that you don't want to speculate.
>> ^blankfist:
^I guess in your world it's dodging if I refuse to speculate. Touché.


You're trying to prove causation by correlation.
That's a logical fallacy.
If there's a "correlation" between number of deaths and number of guns, that doesn't demonstrate "causation". Answering "I don't know" does not mean I'm dodging. It means I don't know and refuse to speculate.
Sorry that doesn't satisfy you.

>> ^RedSky:

Brilliant. If science took your attitude of being unwilling (or as I suspect, incapable) of even making a hypothesis we would have never made it past the stone age.
Just admit the fact that there is simply nothing idiosynchratic enough about the US besides its gun ownership rate compared to other developed countries, will ya?
Everyone outside of the US gun industry and NRA distortion field, outside the self-destructive American gun-obsessed culture has known this for decades.


Ad hominem attacks against my capacity for intelligence. Check.

And apparently I live in a country of gun-toting dullards and every other country in the world is brilliant beyond comparison.

Anything else you'd like to add before I end this tired banter? I don't want you to leave feeling like you had more to say, because it would be a tragedy if you were robbed of that sense of indignant supremacy you'll undoubtedly have as you go back to your remarkable life as a 22 year old, navel-gazing intellectual telling "Americans" on the internet how they're doing it wrong and secretly wishing those around you interpret your arrogance and elitism as intelligence.

It's also 39'th for suicide, below Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada; and France by nearly x2. Your fabled Finland is over twice as high. And WTH does GDP have to do with anything? And frankly, no single nation comes even remotely close to our GDP, like by a factor of 3x, not that it is even relevant. Plus, murder rates doesn't even tell the whole story, we haven't even included violent crimes, or the distinction in the ways different countries report crimes. Looking at may different statistics, it is easy to show that America is the first in gun crimes, but average/above average in violent crime in general. We sure like to lock people up though, as we do have a majority of prisoner per capital vrs the world.

Crime was around LONG before guns, like from the start. America stands on about the high/average mark for total crime per capital which is actually pretty impressively low considering how much moral legislation we have (it's illegal to buy beer on a Sunday in most places).

Here in Texas, we have the highest rate of accidence related gun deaths in the union. We also have considerably lower murder rates than other states, currently 12th. California is 8th, they have much tighter bans on guns, it has not had a positive affect vs Texas as to murder rates.

Fact of the matter is, the nuclear option is an inevitable. There will be a time when going down the local hardware store will net you with world smashing possibilities. No matter of laws will protect you. Most assuredly, the Oklahoma city bombers bomb was illegal...and to little effect. The nature of technology is to become more lethal, and more pervasive. Controls will only subdue those who do not have criminal intent.

You may be fine with punishing non-criminals. I, for one, think this is the highest offence. The foundation of the most immoral of acts. Analogies are proper, and all cases of punishing people whom have done no wrong to their fellow man are applicable.

Guns are less devastating than drugs can be on a country. Drugs can cause countries to use guns in self defense, ask the Chinese about the opium wars.

Cars also fail the fake test you propose, cars kill magnitudes more people than guns, every year without fail. Guns aren't even fractionally comparative. Really, cars should be outlawed by all the logic you have laid out.

And in spite of all that, it still begs the question...who has the right to punish those guilty of no crimes other than possessing something. Next up, thought police, you possessed the idea of crime, guilty as charged.

EDIT: After all, death isn't the highest order of what the government is in charge of protecting, it's liberty. North Korea and Saudi Arabia might have low murder rates...but are hardly models of government to follow. If you want perfect safety, go the the moon...not many people there. If you are around other humans, you are inherently not safe...thems the rules.

Double edit: Also, I have not know anyone directly to ever of been killed by a gun...in my whole life. That is completely anecdotal...but you talk about it likes it rampant. Out of the 4 people on vent now, only 1 has known people to have been killed by a gun.

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

*promote the discussion.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, January 28th, 2011 2:27pm PST - promote requested by RedSky.

@GeeSussFreeK we're kinda talking past each other. I'm asking you how far your conception of this moral absolute goes. If I have no right to tell you that you can't own a revolver to defend yourself from random snake attacks, do I also have no right to tell you that you can't own a solar-system destroying device, or a mere nuclear weapon?

Should the NRA be fighting for Iran, North Korea, and Al Qaeda's right to bear nuclear arms?

>> ^blankfist:

You're trying to prove causation by correlation.
That's a logical fallacy.
If there's a "correlation" between number of deaths and number of guns, that doesn't demonstrate "causation". Answering "I don't know" does not mean I'm dodging. It means I don't know and refuse to speculate.
Sorry that doesn't satisfy you.


Just want to point out that you're committing the Argument from Fallacy fallacy.

RedSky says "I think the US's uniquely high gun ownership rate is the reason the US has a uniquely high homicide rate". You say correlation doesn't prove causation. Fair enough, but it doesn't disprove it either. To pretend it does is another argument from fallacy fallacy.

I do think it's worth saying that if you want to argue that the two aren't related, you need to come up with a plausible alternate hypothesis for the high homicide rates. RedSky suggested one: maybe Americans are just an inherently murderous people.

Certainly this is what the NRA is suggesting when they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". After all, those people in countries with draconian firearm laws couldn't possibly be deterred from using lethal force simply because guns aren't easily obtainable, they'd always just be able to get black market guns, or use a knife, right?

Therefore, a country's homicide rate is just the rate at which it produces citizens that choose to murder, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd actually go so far as to say that's not really a hypothesis, it's the only logical conclusion of the assertions the NRA makes about gun violence. Either they're wrong with their assertions, or Americans are just inherently more murderous than the people in other countries.

@NetRunner, I think you need to reread that link. "Analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false" is not the same thing as me pointing out an attempt to prove causation by correlation.

I never said he was false, thanks for the words in my mouth. I said I didn't know the causation but I'd assume it could be a number of factors, not just the number of guns in the US. It's his narrow viewpoint that assumes the number of guns owned in the US must absolutely and irrevocably prove the number of deaths by guns are associated.

His hypothesis, even if it rings true to your sensibilities, is pure speculation and therefore baseless until proven. Period. Don't frame me as calling him false over a hypothesis he refused to prove. It's like you're asking me to accept the existence of a Christian God because I say I don't know how we got here. That's fiercely moronic.

Again.

His viewpoint: the number of guns owned in the US must absolutely and irrevocably prove the number of deaths by guns are associated.

My viewpoint: I don't know what causes the deaths and could only speculate, but I assume there are other factors outside just the sheer number of guns.

NetRunner's viewpoint: Whoever presents a hypothesis that isn't challenged by a new hypothesis (and as long as it supports my political leanings) then it must be the inerrant gospel.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I think you need to reread that link. "Analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false" is not the same thing as me pointing out an attempt to prove causation by correlation.
I never said he was false, thanks for the words in my mouth.

Then you agree that his hypothesis is plausible, and a completely reasonable inference to draw from the available facts?

Reasonable yes, but that doesn't make it probable.

Ah yes, MS-DNC, another tentacle of taxocrats' State-Run Media(tm), no better than soviet propagandists. Why are all the other channels besides FOX not forming one big conglomerate? They all blare the same pro-big-government, anti-liberty Groupthink.