Picking Fights? ...I hope not
In honor of all these last boxing related blog posts, I guess I'm winding up starting something, I probably didn't have to. But when you actually have an idea to blog about you should. This originally started as a comment-rebuttal of NuclearNicks post, but for what this was turning into I figured I should clearly organize my thoughts and make it into a clear rebuttal post. His was on "Gun Freedom" and I will try to counter that with my own thoughts. Maybe I'll even try to make this somewhat nuclear related. Here goes nothing...
I like your comparison to insurance. I like comparisons. However, my first problem is I don't think it's completely equal and substitutable. Have YOU ever killed someone? Across your X years of life, have you taken someone else's life? I hope you haven't, but you never know. Have you needed to take someone's life? I mean needed as there was no other way around it. Have you needed to take the government's life? Well that's X years of safety so far that you haven't needed it. How about your parents' Y and Z years? Compare those values to insurance needs and you'll see its very different. The need for a dental checkup and insurance is much different from that of a gun.
My problem with guns is that they have this tendency to cause people to undervalue another person's life. I mean guns give you the ability to feel the weight of their life in the palm of your hand. To feel it as you pull the trigger .... pow and then its gone. Simple. Easy. All the future possibilities this person had gone thanks to the purchase of this $600 dollar Glock-17 you bought a few months ago. Is that equitable? $600=One Life. Maybe if your conservative on your shots too you could make 600=2-3 lives. Thrifty, Simple and Easy. College students on a budget. Maybe that's partly it too. This world is pushing for simplicity and guns are one of the simplest "solutions" to violence and conflict. I am using the word "solution" liberally, however.
So.. continuing on..let me ramble on some specific problems I have with your post. Do you need Gunsurance? (lol catchy). Are they the same. One you pay over the course of your life possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars that hopefully if you get sick you will get monetary compensation in order to save your life or the people your death and bills will impact. Now with a gun you again pay $200 to a few thousand dollars and a few dollars in bullets to take the life anybody that you see fit. For the ability to kill someone either legally or illegally. Owning a gun provides that power, there's no necessary legality to the actions that follow. That's maybe a $500 dollar investment and then if you're a sharpshooter every single bullet could be someone's life. So insurance saves you money through money valuing, your life at maybe hundreds of thousands. The purchase of a gun allows you to kill freely valuing, life at maybe a few hundred. Do you see how this starts to become a questionable deal? Someone's getting financially screwed. Who? That would be the person dead at the pull of your trigger. Insurance is great and something everyone should have. However the fact that anyone doesn't see that insurance valuing lives in the $100,000s and guns value lives in the $100s doesn't lead to more deaths is questionable to me. Gun's tell you that lives are on sale. Take one now. Moral of the story there is a big ethical price tag that the low price of guns masks. It's not the same as insurance.
Not sure which point to choose next for rebuttal as I have already written a lot. "Taking away guns is not going to stop the murder or suicide". This is actually a powerful statement. In its truth lies most of the fight against gun-control. This is actually the type of statement that should be backed by statistical evidence truthfully. If you say this, I would like to see the evidence not mere conjecture. I will take the stance of the opposite and as this is a an important point in my argument, I will follow it with evidence:
Australia
In one of his first acts as leader, Prime Minister John Howard announced major reforms to Australia's gun control laws just 12 days after 35 people died at the hands of a lone gunman wielding a military-style semi-automatic rifle at a popular tourist spot in Tasmania on April 28, 1996.
In the wave of public revulsion against what became known as the Port Arthur massacre, the move for stricter gun controls was led by Howard, who had taken office just seven weeks earlier.
He took his anti-gun campaign around the country, at one stage addressing a hostile pro-gun rally wearing a bullet-proof vest. He also oversaw a successful gun "buy-back" scheme that took some 650,000 guns out of circulation.
High-caliber rifles and shotguns were banned, licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards -- an accomplishment regarded by many in the country as Howard's enduring legacy.
Australia has been compared to the United States for its "frontier mentality." But unlike the U.S., there is no constitutional right to bear arms and gun ownership is markedly lower.
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.
I'm sure I could add more examples, but in hopes of keeping this short. Have you ever known someone who committed suicide? I hope you haven't. A better question is have you known someone who committed suicide by gun? I don't think its right to assume that if they can't get their hands on a gun they're going to kill themselves anyway with whatever they can find. I personally believe most suicides to not be dedicated actions. It's not "X is killing themself tomorrow in whichever way X can find". I would believe most of these to be a string of moments of weakness by troubled people with one instant that is a complete breaking point. Not having the simple answer (gun) easily available at this breaking point could save someone's life. But even if this wasn't the case and this person was searching for any way to kill themselves, if you really cared about them wouldn't you be willing to try anything even if it's not a certain bet to save your loved one's life. To put it another way, with a volatile troubled person you'll be mitigating risk. Bringing home a gun raises their likelihood of committing suicide some amount, thus gun control should lower it. Multiply that by thousands and randomness of chances, then it should save lives. Do responsible parents leave knives and small choking hazards on the ground if they have a baby in the house? In the same way that making a sharp object hard for a baby to reach, gun control can save lives of troubled people. Even though that's not the only thing that can kill a baby. It is an easy way for a baby to harm itself and something also easy for us to control with better habits.I could go on and on. Maybe I'll save some for another time and for comments, Very open to comments and I mean no harm by my words but where there is passion about a topic there is the potential for someone to get hurt. I'll end with a nuclear tie-in. In your world with these supposed reasons, what is the end point in mind? Where does it lead? With this reasoning, it would make sense that every single person be armed with guns. Hell, they should be armed to the teeth. I mean they need to be well-stocked in gunsurance just like everyone should have good medical insurance. I also need my new glock to protect myself from the big bad government. My handgun will surely protect me from a tank anyhow... After everyone is armed to the teeth, does this seem like a world in which there will be less violence and less death? Safety?? You instinctually know the truth. Let me liken it to this, why is there this big push for nuclear disarmament? It is very similar. A country, as it is a country, should have the right to make nukes as freely as it wants to. They are supposedly a great deterrent from another power "the government" coming into your life and doing whatever it wants. But why does each country or each individual person owning one of these not seem like a good idea? If they are just strictly a deterrent, proof of freedom, and "supposedly" could (using your reasons) be good insurance and lead to safety. Yet many people believe the opposite. Some may disagree, but I believe it to be very similar. There also are some good topics about guns and your rights, freedom, wars, ethical dilemmas and so on, but maybe later. Sorry about the long one but being thorough.
QUICK SIDE NOTE Too-- My views aren't exactly against guns but for knowledge. Maybe if people could rationalize the cost of a life they would then be fit for a gun. I don't hope for a gun free world. Gun Control not Gun Free. I'm not taking your guns away from you but I would make it harder to get one. Names IDs and Signatures, Intention, Background Checks, Gun-safes, are all things that I believe would be make the world better if enacted.
*** Edited to add video .... Wouldn't let me add the regular version here's regular one. Should watch the link. I think its pretty funny.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
ReplyDeleteThis is a great article on how effective concealed carry is. Shows citizens are more effective than police, with a lower "mistake" rate.
Obviously I disagree with you quite a bit. A person who is willing to shoot themselves, is willing to a do whatever it takes to end their lives. Rope and a high limb are a lot more common than guns. Also, if you take guns from the citizens, criminals will still have them. Chicago is a great example. Most strict gun laws in the US. One of the highest gun murder rates in the US.
54% suicide due to firearm. Higher than all other forms combined http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/basic-suicide-facts/how/
ReplyDeleteMost guns in Chicago were bought outside of chicago.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140528/chicago/majority-of-illegally-owned-guns-first-bought-out-of-state-cops-mayor
I agree that lives matter and that, in an ideal world, people wouldn't kill people. However, by the above "Glock logic"—comparing the cost of a gun to a human life—the cost of a human life could be $1, if I stabbed them with a pencil. Or it could be $0 if I killed them with my bare hands.
ReplyDeletePerhaps my post wasn't clear enough, but I was not advocating for the armament of every man, woman, and child, nor that we should all go to war with each other and kill everyone. If that occurred, then of course no one should have guns.
What my post was intended to convey is that the 30,000 people who die each year to guns is tragic, but that number could be 300,000 or 3,000,000 or more if an UNFORESEEN oppressive government/organization rose to power. The key word is "unforeseen," because we wouldn't see it coming. "Unforeseen" is the main reason I made the comparison to insurance in my post, because you buy insurance for unforeseen bad things.
Lastly, the comparison to nuclear disarmament would only apply if EVERYONE got rid of their guns, including government militaries. In that case—where we are completing disarming the entire world, and an oppressive government also doesn't have guns—then yes, gun restriction everywhere makes sense. Until then, I support REASONABLE gun ownership.
We should thusly be prepared for the UNFORESEEN oppressive government, and close our eyes to the easily seen people being murdered, suicide, and crime happening in front of you? When do you believe those numbers add up. By the same reasoning we should prepare for all drastic consequences no matter their likelihood. Prepare for the nuclear meltdown that will kill millions by barring nuclear energy as well. By your reasoning of guns being good insurance and preventing oppressive power it seems likely that more guns should provide more insurance for everyone. Insurance for everyone makes the world safer. Yet a gun in every American hand doesn't seem to make the world safer. Even a gun in the 90% of American's deemed medically safe for gun handling doesn't seem safe. In this sense a nuke in every country's inventory doesn't seem safe either. I support gun control with ample measure to make sure that those people with guns are background checked and etc to protect their environment, the society they take part of, and their possibly troubled family which could all be in trouble on their whims.
DeleteIf you buy a new gun or get a CCW you get a background check
DeleteEven if we took away guns, the ROOT of the problem would not be solved. People would continue to commit suicide and homicide, guns or not. We can argue until the end of time whether the numbers would stay the same or cut in half, but the fact is that unnecessary deaths would still occur.
DeleteInstead—this was the topic of the "future post" I referred to—we should solve the root societal problems: mental illness, depression, poverty, etc.
By solving those root issues, we can keep our guns to prevent oppression, while saving lives that would otherwise be lost to homicide and suicide.
"What my post was intended to convey is that the 30,000 people who die each year to guns is tragic, but that number could be 300,000 or 3,000,000 or more if an UNFORESEEN oppressive government/organization rose to power."
DeleteOh and since we were talking about Glock logic and math. I don't feel that your math makes sense and shows a disregard for how big 30,000 really is. I would assume that you listed 300,000 deaths due to an oppresive government as a subconciously high amount even 3,000,000 as extremely high. However, it doesn't seem that you took into account that this is 30,000 per year. We haven't had a violent government induced genocide in the past 10 years, however, across 10 years... (10x30,000 deaths = 300,000) we've had 300,000 deaths. But its been longer than just 10 years since last government enacted genocide. Could we say that there hasn't been a genocide in hundreds of years since the birth of America? I wouldn't even consider most wars to be genocide. Either way 100 years of no genocide means that the suicide and murder rate (30,000/yr) is greater than that number that you considered to be a very high amount related to governmental genocide. Yes, this doesn't account for population growth across the 100 years but we've been genocide free for much longer. Math can make that number that seemed small turn out to be pretty big.
If you buy a new gun or get a CCW you get a background check
DeleteOh and Nuke Cow while I am for all the background checks and such I am also for limiting the items on guns that easily turn a murder into a mass murder. In some way limiting the overpowered sense of guns "assault rifles" yet I truly don't want to make it impossible to own one. That might mean limiting high-capacity magazine or stuff like that ...
Whoo well good little debate there guy.. hahah well I think I actually done with all my comments so early. Good job. Had a good time... Really made me think and fun hearing your thoughts...
Really enjoy the debate plus free comments. Anyone feel free to comment. So no problem with differing opinions. I'll agree that citizens may be more effective at killing criminals. Yet how many citizens are able to effectively get those criminals to jail. How many of those killed criminals will eventually stand trial? The police have a tough job and aiding rehabilitation is part of it. I don't think we can get rid of the police yet. If we were to account for the criminals that were shot and killed by the CC people whose crimes would have gotten them merely "time" not even life in prison I think their efficiency rating is a little bit different. Example: Jimmy robs store with a knife. Gets arrested by police and serves 5 years then lets say he is successfully rehabilitated. Jimmy2 robs store with knife. Store owner attempts to stop robber with his concealed. He "jumps the gun" a bit as he is not trained to disarm these situations. Jimmy2 dies never given rehab chances. Surely there is some error there, if only a half-mistake
ReplyDeleteThe people that were killed by CC owners were killed in self defense. For it to be considered self defense, their lives would have been in danger. That being said, it most likely would have been the CC owner killed instead of the criminal. So by your logic there, not saying its what you intend, its better for the criminal to kill a law abiding citizen and get time than for the CC owner to defend himself.
ReplyDeleteAs for the getting rid of police: my argument was not for getting rid of police. It was meant to show that the citizen can respond faster to their own situation and prevent their loss of life.
As for Jimmy, The statistics show that if criminals know that there are firearms present, they are less likely to try anything dumb. The people of chicago know that there arent citizens running around with concealed carries.
Also, agreed that this is an awesome topic to talk about and differing opinions are great. I love hearing all sides of all stories :)
DeleteI agree that having your own gun when someone is threatening your life is empowering if the police will not make it in time.
DeleteAlso, I have not seen the statistics, but I know that if I were thinking about robbing a store and I had to choose between a concealed-carry state and a non-CC state, I would choose the non-CC one.
Yeah I know. In no way did you mean that we should get rid of the police. I'm sure you have great respect for the police as do I. There are bad cops and there are good cops but I don't envy any cops job as it is a hard and necessary one. However, you stated that CC owners can be considerered "more effective than the police." With an emphasis on being more effective and an anti-gun control stance it could be implied that CC Owners are so good that they are better than the police. With more CC owners, it will be safer and less need for the police. Yet I think we should also include the error that results in death for lesser crimes that would have had the possibility of rehabilitation. Self-defense is sort of a funny topic, but what I was specifically talking about was your website where you said that CC owners kill more "criminals".
DeleteArmed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
I'm willing to bet that most of these criminals were not attempting to kill their victim. Does anyone have that many archnemeses who are out to kill them personally? Can you back up your reasoning behind, "That being said, it most likely would have been the CC owner killed instead of the criminal." That sounds like fear which leads to further armament, more guns, more nukes, and such. Does this lead to a safer world? These criminals want to steal their possessions. Rob them. Probably do as little harm to them as possible, steal without them knowing as that makes for the best getaways and if they do get caught the least punishment.
A home security system or a camera also deters crime... If everyone in Chicago had a gun do you really think Chicago would be safer?