This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I won't speak for others, but my position has always been that guns deter violent crime.

As I read it, this comment (from post # 44) was put forth as a subjective belief. That’s totally fair. We all have our opinions and a right to them. I respect that.

Quote

You can never assume that anyone will act rationally. Ever.

Assuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime is a bad idea.

As I read it, this assertion (from post #150, to which I replied) was put forward as more objective (rather than subjective opinion).

Bringing the two quotes together highlight something of a puzzle for me.

Deterrence requires some minimum level of rationality. If the argument is that “guns deter violent crime,” but “(a)ssuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime” is incorrect ... aren’t those two ideas contradicting or conflicting?

Or is the argument that an ambiguous threat of a certain level of reciprocal violence induces rationality, even in people who would otherwise commit crimes … i.e., the idea that armed societies are nicer? That still requires potential criminals or people who would otherwise not behave ‘nicely’ to make rational choices to behave in one way.

This is not the first time that I’ve observed the puzzle between the two arguments … even on here. This was just a concise example of the two within the same thread. Can anyone explain how the two ideas are reconciled?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Groundless claim: I have provided cites, links, and even copied some references.
Yet another lie: You have not.

Fixing your mistypes again. The evidence that I posted links to support my claims is for example here or here. Therefore your claim (which you present as a "fact") is plain straight LIE.

Quote

The evidence is here for all to see, you are only fooling yourself.

Yes, everyone can see that you post baseless claims, which are no facts.

And if you think everyone is going to read all your 12,000+ posts in attempt to find whether you indeed presented some facts as you claim here, you need a reality check.

Quote

Have you noticed NO ONE has supported your claims of you providing anything but rants?

The Earth was round even when everyone believed it was flat. Fact is something which is true no matter how many people believe it is not.
(and just for the record, your claim is not valid anymore :))

I, however, now understood why Brady behaves exactly the way they do. In part, why they do not have any dialogs with pro-gun lobby. The reason is that pro-gun lobby is not capable of any kind of dialog which does not match their agenda. So it seems to be the only way which would actually work.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

***Bringing the two quotes together highlight something of a puzzle for me.

Deterrence requires some minimum level of rationality. If the argument is that “guns deter violent crime,” but “(a)ssuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime” is incorrect ... aren’t those two ideas contradicting or conflicting?

Or is the argument that an ambiguous threat of a certain level of reciprocal violence induces rationality, even in people who would otherwise commit crimes … i.e., the idea that armed societies are nicer? That still requires potential criminals or people who would otherwise not behave ‘nicely’ to make rational choices to behave in one way.

This is not the first time that I’ve observed the puzzle between the two arguments … even on here. This was just a concise example of the two within the same thread. Can anyone explain how the two ideas are reconciled?

/Marg

Sure: it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I agree, as long as you agree that no gun has ever prevented a crime.

This is a brilliant point.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Guard killed, marshal injured in Las Vegas courthouse shooting

What makes it significant is that shooting started despite having around obviously armed law enforcement officers. Therefore the pro-gun claim that "if everyone would conceal carry, the criminals would not even think about committing a crime with a gun" yet again seem to be invalid.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Guard killed, marshal injured in Las Vegas courthouse shooting

What makes it significant is that shooting started despite having around obviously armed law enforcement officers. Therefore the pro-gun claim that "if everyone would conceal carry, the criminals would not even think about committing a crime with a gun" yet again seem to be invalid.

suicide by cop has been around for a long time.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

This is not the first time that I’ve observed the puzzle between the two arguments … even on here. This was just a concise example of the two within the same thread. Can anyone explain how the two ideas are reconciled?

/Marg

I can give you my take on it.

While you can never assume that anyone will act rationally, the truth is that most people, in a normal situation, possess rational thought and use it tom some extent. In a stressful situation like the midst of a crime, all rational thought goes out the window and reaction and preservation become the norm.

Keeping that in mind, my thought that guns (and carrying them) deterring violent crime, is based on pre-meditated crimes. Such that the criminal is looking for a victim, and he has to consider that his potential victim might carry a gun. With that in mind he might either pre-emptively escalate, choose another target less-likely to carry a weapon, or not do the crime at that time (postponement). The first is less likely, because criminals who are not completely random (those who choose their targets rather than just picking someone randomly) likely know that escalation of the crime escalates the punishment. I don't recall the show, but once saw an interview in a prison where a convict explained that he wouldn't use a gun because he would get more time because armed robbery was a different class of crime than agrivated robbery (or some such explaination... sorry for the lack of details).

So the nickel explanation I suppose is that guns may deter violent crime before it happens because that is when rational thought is more likely to happen in a criminal actor. During a crime, rational thought is less likely expected, and shouldn't be relied upon.

At least that's the way I think of it. No facts to reference. Just my ideas on the subject.

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

suicide by cop has been around for a long time.

Doesn't look like a "cop suicide" to me, he was obviously shooting to kill (and actually killed a guard).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

suicide by cop has been around for a long time.

Doesn't look like a "cop suicide" to me, he was obviously shooting to kill (and actually killed a guard).

He's dead, no?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

He's dead, no?

Why does it matter? Cho is dead too.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

has nothing to do if this was suicide by cop or not.

And Cho got to make two attacks.

[Ron 10]

He also used a SHOTGUN.... So your theory that handguns are dangerous is also shown to be wrong.

Don't blame me... I am just using logic just like yours here.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I agree, as long as you agree that no gun has ever prevented a crime.

Agree...

Now will you agree that individuals have both used a gun to both commit and to prevent crimes?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So your theory that handguns are dangerous is also shown to be wrong.

Making up more "facts", don't you?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

has nothing to do if this was suicide by cop or not.

Well, it was valid comparison as you said it was "suicide by cop". It was necessary to elaborate, as he had a gun so he could, for example, commit suicide himself (more options this way). So far your only explanation why do you think it was suicide was "he is dead". Which, of course, is absurd - if all he wanted was to be dead, he could just shot himself. That's why I brought Cho, who also shot a bunch of people, and would likely to be shot by cops if he didn't shot himself - was it also "suicide by cop"? Apparently not, so your logic seems to be flawed here.

And what about crime rate in Brazil with great gun ownership?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And what about crime rate in Brazil with great gun ownership?

Why talk about Brazil when we have Russia to compare (favorably) to?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why talk about Brazil when we have Russia to compare (favorably) to?

Because YOU compared murder rate in U.S. versus murder rate in Russia (even though your comparison was apples-versus-oranges because of the way statistics is collected) to argue my opinion that gun bans actually works (by saying that murder rate in Russia is higher than in U.S.) - but at the same time you failed to address another country introduced by your own reference - which was Brazil. The guns are not banned in Brazil, but apparently the murder rate there is much higher than in Russia, making your argument invalid.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Dodatt 0]

Wow – I like guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Wow – I like guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

If you're going to stir the pot, you need to learn to "make it clicky".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[pbwing 0]

And you need to figure how to draw rhys into this thread as the dude in that video is from Australia!!

I got a pretty good chuckle when I noticed that!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And you need to figure how to draw rhys into this thread as the dude in that video is from Australia!!

I got a pretty good chuckle when I noticed that!!

Hey as long as he brings the theme song along... its all good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIFMkmhDY0

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

And you need to figure how to draw rhys into this thread as the dude in that video is from Australia!!

I got a pretty good chuckle when I noticed that!!

Cool!

Here is his website: http://ilikeguns.com.au/

Anyone know a shipping address for rhys?
I think we need to order the album for him.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And you need to figure how to draw rhys into this thread as the dude in that video is from Australia!!

without a 9/11 reference, good luck.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Why talk about Brazil when we have Russia to compare (favorably) to?

Because YOU compared murder rate in U.S. versus murder rate in Russia (even though your comparison was apples-versus-oranges because of the way statistics is collected) to argue my opinion that gun bans actually works (by saying that murder rate in Russia is higher than in U.S.) - but at the same time you failed to address another country introduced by your own reference - which was Brazil. The guns are not banned in Brazil, but apparently the murder rate there is much higher than in Russia, making your argument invalid.

you claim, via a document written in Russian, that they include with homicides all attempts. Laughable, and rather hard for anyone to examine.

Brazil is a wild west. Significance? Little. But it's the only major country your homeland could beat out.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

you claim, via a document written in Russian, that they include with homicides all attempts. Laughable, and rather hard for anyone to examine.

Well, again it was YOUR claim that the murder rate in Russia is higher than in U.S. If you were going to prove your point, you should have expected that I or someone else would ask you to provide official document, not just Wikipedia page anyone can change. Unfortunately for you, the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Russia does not publish their statistics documents in English (which makes sense; I wonder whether FBI publishes statistics in Spanish?), so I even helped you in attempt to locate the needed document, and even pointed out the numbers. The fact that you implicitly suggest I am lying, even though you did not read the document (or just the simple Google translation check) yourself speaks pretty negatively about your own credibility as opponent.

Quote

Brazil is a wild west. Significance? Little. But it's the only major country your homeland could beat out.

There are 100+ countries; YOUR graph only covered 9 "selected countries", so again your claim is pretty groundless. Still even this selection was enough to make your argument invalid.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *