Because achieving that lower rate has an associated cost.
If we got rid of all guns in America, it's reasonable to assume the violent crime rate overall would go down to some degree. How much is debatable because some of the violent crimes committed with guns now would still be committed just with a different instrument. But it would go down, that seems fair.
But, what of the people who now do not have a gun to defend themselves? Quite a few defensive gun uses occur daily in America... exactly how many is difficult to know because they're frequently not reported (because simply pulling out a gun will sometimes end a violent confrontation and people tend not to report those cases). I wouldn't go so far as to say the number of people saved by there not being a gun involved is equal to the number saved by there BEING a gun involved, but clearly SOME number cancel out.
If number of violent crimes (or just number of deaths caused by violent crimes) goes down (as you assume in first sentence), then DEFINITELY more people are saved than killed due to lack of gun.
Here's the big question: is a life saved because we got rid of guns somehow more valuable than one saved because we didn't? Do you want to tell the family of a gun who was killed because he wasn't allowed to have a gun anymore that it's okay because someone else was saved due to guns being removed from society? I'd bet not.
So, that's a cost. Whether the benefits outweigh that cost is what's debatable. A lot of people take the Spock approach: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. It's a great-sounding platitude, but when it gets down to actual people it doesn't stand up so well. See my above scenario.
This is not a platitude, but the only reasonable way of judging if given measure saves lives or not - assume that every life is equal and see if number of deaths is gets lower. Otherwise you could sink ANY idea as long as you prove that it caused even one death (no matter if it saved 100 000 or not). "If even one life is saved then we should spare no expense" is populism of worst kind (and ironically often used by gun control advocates).
A potentially MUCH bigger cost is the deterrent effect guns have against a corrupt government. We can argue all day and night about without an armed American population could overthrow a corrupt government with the might of the military on its side, but what CAN'T be debated is that if you remove guns from society you've given up just about the ONLY thing that gives us ANY chance whatsoever.
It can't be debated? I present you exhibit A: Ukraine. Completely non-violent protests were enough to overthrow government.
I mean, if you believe the military would crush us WITH guns than you can't logically think it wouldn't be MUCH worse it we didn't have them!
Actually no. If uprising is doomed to fail, then the quicker it gets put down, the less people die. Surely you are not going to argue that prolonged (and lost) civil war is better than quickly crushed revolt?
So, that's a (potential) cost too... but that one is very important because the potential cost is MASSIVE. Is there really ANY benefit worth that cost? I for one argue no. It's exceedingly tragic any time someone dies... whether a gun is involved or not hardly matters... a suicide is a suicide, gun or not. A homicide is a homicide, gun or not.
I don't agree, but since this point is argued to death in *every* thread related to gun control, I am going to leave it.
The only one that's a little different is accidental shootings because it's not like someone is going to accidentally kill you as easily with a baseball bat. But, statistically-speaking, accidental shootings in America isn't, to put it coldly, all that significant a number. It's certainly a much smaller number than car accidents, or even
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
USA! USA! USA!
If you live in a big city then that may be true, but most towns only have a few cameras covering the high street and it's unlikely you'll find them in villages.
That's why I mentioned 'especially in London'. Do you stop reading comment after 10 words?
You can keep your guns and we will "settle" for lower crime rates.
If you don't see police, you are on camera as well, especially in London. But yes, automatic face recognition is coming so you will be almost fully tracked from the moment you leave your house.
You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars.
I don't want one with disabled main cannon. We are talking about weapons here, not fancy transportation.
You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license.
Fully armed?
SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase.
Exactly. So my right to bear arms IS being infringed upon.
You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.
Does international treaty come before constitutional amendments?
You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.
Are you saying that everybody who wants fully-functional tank is a murdered? Ha, so you are just anti (big) gun leftist in disguise!
I just want to organize a shooting competition. With 120mm tank guns it would be a lot of fun.
The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
Times change - untrained militia cannot replace jet pilots, tankers, submarine crew, etc. What made sense 200 years ago is quite obsolete now.
The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?
Fox news of course. It will tell you all about those pinko commies who want to take your guns away. Protect you precious!
It talks about Well regulated milita , which implies some kind of organization and leadership, not bunch of rednecks waving their guns around as they please.
Firearm? Give them tank, canister of sarin and some shoulder-fired SAMs. As long as they do not commit felony, so what? After all 2nd amendment does not restrict people being 'armed' to any specific type of weapon, so why are you not protesting this horrid restriction of you freedom?
So the opposite is posting addresses of employees of company manufacturing various types of gun safety? Yes, absolutely logical if you go by gun nut logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I do. They are completely ineffective anyway and setting their underwear at least provides some entertainment during boring flight.
It means: remember about 'parallel reconstruction' next time.
Sure it will help. If they are *actually* observed 24/7 then they are not really paranoid anymore, just rational. See? Instant cure.
Don't worry, you will be using .ru soon enough.
Caveman style: club female over head, drag her to your lair.
Disturbing thing is that it would be reason enough for cops visit.
I use a DNS (hosts file) based ad blocker.
Don't even use these words. They attract crazy posts from insane troll.
Like where? There is no other habitable planet around and pouring bazilion dollars just to get dozen people living in a dome does not make much sense.
Which kept allied soldiers from prosecution for simply killing people, but allowed to sentence the leading german heads for industrial mass-killing.
(To be fair: the allied forces concentrated on hanging the head honchos and turned a blind eye to the common grunts)
... was simple fact that allies won and Germany lost.
More guns is solution to everything including too many guns.
Quite well. It did not take them long to understand basic message - 'we want loot all your riches and kill you all'.
Because achieving that lower rate has an associated cost.
If we got rid of all guns in America, it's reasonable to assume the violent crime rate overall would go down to some degree. How much is debatable because some of the violent crimes committed with guns now would still be committed just with a different instrument. But it would go down, that seems fair.
But, what of the people who now do not have a gun to defend themselves? Quite a few defensive gun uses occur daily in America... exactly how many is difficult to know because they're frequently not reported (because simply pulling out a gun will sometimes end a violent confrontation and people tend not to report those cases). I wouldn't go so far as to say the number of people saved by there not being a gun involved is equal to the number saved by there BEING a gun involved, but clearly SOME number cancel out.
If number of violent crimes (or just number of deaths caused by violent crimes) goes down (as you assume in first sentence), then DEFINITELY more people are saved than killed due to lack of gun.
Here's the big question: is a life saved because we got rid of guns somehow more valuable than one saved because we didn't? Do you want to tell the family of a gun who was killed because he wasn't allowed to have a gun anymore that it's okay because someone else was saved due to guns being removed from society? I'd bet not.
So, that's a cost. Whether the benefits outweigh that cost is what's debatable. A lot of people take the Spock approach: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. It's a great-sounding platitude, but when it gets down to actual people it doesn't stand up so well. See my above scenario.
This is not a platitude, but the only reasonable way of judging if given measure saves lives or not - assume that every life is equal and see if number of deaths is gets lower. Otherwise you could sink ANY idea as long as you prove that it caused even one death (no matter if it saved 100 000 or not). "If even one life is saved then we should spare no expense" is populism of worst kind (and ironically often used by gun control advocates).
A potentially MUCH bigger cost is the deterrent effect guns have against a corrupt government. We can argue all day and night about without an armed American population could overthrow a corrupt government with the might of the military on its side, but what CAN'T be debated is that if you remove guns from society you've given up just about the ONLY thing that gives us ANY chance whatsoever.
It can't be debated? I present you exhibit A: Ukraine. Completely non-violent protests were enough to overthrow government.
I mean, if you believe the military would crush us WITH guns than you can't logically think it wouldn't be MUCH worse it we didn't have them!
Actually no. If uprising is doomed to fail, then the quicker it gets put down, the less people die. Surely you are not going to argue that prolonged (and lost) civil war is better than quickly crushed revolt?
So, that's a (potential) cost too... but that one is very important because the potential cost is MASSIVE. Is there really ANY benefit worth that cost? I for one argue no. It's exceedingly tragic any time someone dies... whether a gun is involved or not hardly matters... a suicide is a suicide, gun or not. A homicide is a homicide, gun or not.
I don't agree, but since this point is argued to death in *every* thread related to gun control, I am going to leave it.
The only one that's a little different is accidental shootings because it's not like someone is going to accidentally kill you as easily with a baseball bat. But, statistically-speaking, accidental shootings in America isn't, to put it coldly, all that significant a number. It's certainly a much smaller number than car accidents, or even
>
I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.
Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
USA! USA! USA!
If you live in a big city then that may be true, but most towns only have a few cameras covering the high street and it's unlikely you'll find them in villages.
That's why I mentioned 'especially in London'. Do you stop reading comment after 10 words?
You can keep your guns and we will "settle" for lower crime rates.
Dude, you are preaching to converted.
If you don't see police, you are on camera as well, especially in London. But yes, automatic face recognition is coming so you will be almost fully tracked from the moment you leave your house.
Reality is overwhelmingly liberal.
It really does not matter. Car manufacturer will get sued anyway by family of whoever got hit.
Thank you for proving that typical gun nut is a raving lunatic.
You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars.
I don't want one with disabled main cannon. We are talking about weapons here, not fancy transportation.
You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license.
Fully armed?
SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase.
Exactly. So my right to bear arms IS being infringed upon.
You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.
Does international treaty come before constitutional amendments?
You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.
Are you saying that everybody who wants fully-functional tank is a murdered? Ha, so you are just anti (big) gun leftist in disguise!
I just want to organize a shooting competition. With 120mm tank guns it would be a lot of fun.
The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
Times change - untrained militia cannot replace jet pilots, tankers, submarine crew, etc. What made sense 200 years ago is quite obsolete now.
The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?
Fox news of course. It will tell you all about those pinko commies who want to take your guns away. Protect you precious!
How about you go back to polishing your ... gun?
It talks about Well regulated milita , which implies some kind of organization and leadership, not bunch of rednecks waving their guns around as they please.
Firearm? Give them tank, canister of sarin and some shoulder-fired SAMs. As long as they do not commit felony, so what? After all 2nd amendment does not restrict people being 'armed' to any specific type of weapon, so why are you not protesting this horrid restriction of you freedom?
So the opposite is posting addresses of employees of company manufacturing various types of gun safety? Yes, absolutely logical if you go by gun nut logic.
... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.