Guns & Violence?

[Weevil]

The Number one cause of death for Black Men under 30 is Homicide. In the states, anyway.

Regardless WH is right to an extent. Yes a frame of reference is needed but I(WH too probably, most of you) know that the US stats are horrific. The fact that Pyp didn't post them is somewhat irrelevant.

 

[RisiaSkye]

I live in ruralish Kansas. In a place thats full of copperheads, water moccassins, cottonmouths, and overrun with coyotes. To you these are just words.

No, they're not. I said, I spent 11 long years in rural Arizona. I'm very familiar with desert creatures, which are every bit as bad.

I am not defenseless.

I am not a victim.

Neither am I.
Though I have been beaten and raped, I still don't let that make me into a violent person, one who needs to possess the means to kill. I don't think that makes me a victim.

If you're ever in a dark alley with a hulking brute intent on doing you bodily harm, you'll wish you had a handgun with you. Then the question arises, if you have the gun in that situation, would you use it?

Exactly. If you look back, it was one of my original questions. I am not willing to kill. I've been in a situation much like you describe, and I'm glad nobody had a gun, because then someone would likely be dead now. Whether me or him, a life ends because someone holds a gun.

The problem you have is that you've tied guns into the behavior of other humans. You want to legislate responsibility, by legislating weapons.

I think you severely underestimate me. I have NEVER pretended that I want any control over this. I just don't understand it. I also have never in this thread advocated gun control. I just do not understand the mentality that suggests firearms make the world a better place. That doesnt mean I'm trying to take your guns from you. And you're right, I have tied the weapons to the people who use them. If nobody touched them, they wouldn't be dangerous, now would they?

You see what the FBI and BATF have done to people who stockpile arms, but otherwise have done nothing. Waco and Ruby Ridge, just to name a few.

I also see what they haven't done. I've known plenty of people who stockpile...members of wacked out militia groups, bikers, truckers, cowboys, rural farmers, drug dealers, former victims of violence. You name it, I've seen it. Like I said, my father's a licensed gun dealer. The BATF is certainly no safeguard against violence. They just create war by confronting violent, armed people with more violent, armed people. As we've seen, that's no solutions. Everybody loses when everyone gets killed.

We could turn around and say the exact same thing about vehicles.

Not really. Guns serve no other purpose, not at all like vehicles.


I understand that you're prone to excessive bitterness, but really...I've never suggested taking anybody's guns away. I'm just trying to understand them, and encourage a debate. You can choose to dismiss it as blather (as you've done), make spurious comparisons and logically inconsistent connections (as many have done), or you can enter the debate with some relevant points. It's up to you. But it's not about you, promise.


[Edited by RisiaSkye on 05-21-2001 at 01:33 AM]

 

[Closet Desire]

for p p man

Gosh...did I spell that right? Apologies if I goofed.

I'm inclined to say it was incredibly bad luck because we actually live in what's considered a posh community inhabited mostly by commuters. However, at the same time we are in the business of providing mental health services and crisis support to men and women of all walks. What surprised me most was the extent of violence that goes on and is either unreported or not acted on by the police (domestic violence for example). The victims often end up with us as do the professionals who have treated them (PTSD).

Americans have an obsession with data and statistics so the records often show the situation being very, very bad while the English tend to under-report. My recent experience with my son, confirmed by my English wife, is that the English would often rather NOT say anything about it. When my son and his girlfriend were attacked, there were at least five witnesses, one who we knew. The parents of the young man we knew witnessed it denied he was there and his parents provided an alibi so he wouldn't have to be involved. The parents of my son's girlfriend told nobody about the attack and even refused to let her out of the house for a week until her bruises had healed. It turns out this gang of girls had previously attacked two others in the park that night as well as a number of elderly people in prior weeks, robbing them and beating them severely enough to require hospilization.

When the police had made no headway after two weeks I did a very American thing...I posted a £500 reward (the police in this area have never had someone post a reward), contacted the press, and my son agreed to an interview. His girlfriend's parents were furious at the publicity. Within two weeks we had our witness, signed confessions from the attackers, and just last week they were sentenced. They were charged with attacking my son, but not his girlfriend. Why? Because the police knew they couldn't count on the girlfriend's parents for support. Their words not mine.

In spite of this I walk with comfort in London, Paris, Madrid, pretty much wherever I want to go. My wife travels back from London late on Friday nights and this doesn't make me uncomfortable. Of course, I used to do the same thing in the US, including some major cities.

I will say that in America there is always the risk that when you, as a perpetrator, attempt to levy violence on someone that person may turn around and cancel your ticket. While the law may frown on the use of a gun, it will generally allow a reasonable amount of force. The man who attacked me in a road rage accident did so because he didn't think a man driving a Mercedes posed much of a threat to his loutish escapades. What he got instead, as he stood in the middle of the road with all his friends watching was a 90kg American, black belt in judo, holding a steel steering wheel lock and ready as hell to knock his ass down. What he got later was police officers knocking on his door and taking him down to the station. (I was scolded for standing up to him...I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.)

It can be argued that fear of retribution creates manners where none existed before. This is what Sam Colt was talking about. Unfortunately, guns have become a caricature in the same way that other aspects of American society have. Now, many people, including kids as young as six or seven, think waving a gun will command instant respect.

Sadly, Sam Colt knew about another rule of the old west: "there's always someone quicker on the draw."

Sign me "walking peacefully in England and NOT looking for trouble."

 

[Closet Desire]

for p p man

Gosh...did I spell that right? Apologies if I goofed.

I'm inclined to say it was incredibly bad luck because we actually live in what's considered a posh community inhabited mostly by commuters. However, at the same time we are in the business of providing mental health services and crisis support to men and women of all walks. What surprised me most was the extent of violence that goes on and is either unreported or not acted on by the police (domestic violence for example). The victims often end up with us as do the professionals who have treated them (PTSD).

Americans have an obsession with data and statistics so the records often show the situation being very, very bad while the English tend to under-report. My recent experience with my son, confirmed by my English wife, is that the English would often rather NOT say anything about it. When my son and his girlfriend were attacked, there were at least five witnesses, one who we knew. The parents of the young man we knew witnessed it denied he was there and his parents provided an alibi so he wouldn't have to be involved. The parents of my son's girlfriend told nobody about the attack and even refused to let her out of the house for a week until her bruises had healed. It turns out this gang of girls had previously attacked two others in the park that night as well as a number of elderly people in prior weeks, robbing them and beating them severely enough to require hospilization.

When the police had made no headway after two weeks I did a very American thing...I posted a £500 reward (the police in this area have never had someone post a reward), contacted the press, and my son agreed to an interview. His girlfriend's parents were furious at the publicity. Within two weeks we had our witness, signed confessions from the attackers, and just last week they were sentenced. They were charged with attacking my son, but not his girlfriend. Why? Because the police knew they couldn't count on the girlfriend's parents for support. Their words not mine.

In spite of this I walk with comfort in London, Paris, Madrid, pretty much wherever I want to go. My wife travels back from London late on Friday nights and this doesn't make me uncomfortable. Of course, I used to do the same thing in the US, including some major cities.

I will say that in America there is always the risk that when you, as a perpetrator, attempt to levy violence on someone that person may turn around and cancel your ticket. While the law may frown on the use of a gun, it will generally allow a reasonable amount of force. The man who attacked me in a road rage accident did so because he didn't think a man driving a Mercedes posed much of a threat to his loutish escapades. What he got instead, as he stood in the middle of the road with all his friends watching was a 90kg American, black belt in judo, holding a steel steering wheel lock and ready as hell to knock his ass down. What he got later was police officers knocking on his door and taking him down to the station. (I was scolded for standing up to him...I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.)

It can be argued that fear of retribution creates manners where none existed before. This is what Sam Colt was talking about. Unfortunately, guns have become a caricature in the same way that other aspects of American society have. Now, many people, including kids as young as six or seven, think waving a gun will command instant respect.

Sadly, Sam Colt knew about another rule of the old west: "there's always someone quicker on the draw."

Sign me "walking peacefully in England and NOT looking for trouble."

 

[Ally C]

It's very difficult to have a discussion on guns which can keep all of the issues focussed in a way that can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for all. That's because this is impossible anyway, given RisiaSkye's open and honest feelings on the subject, and those opinions from others who demand the right to bear arms.

I'm 'against guns', but I've modified my natural instincts after several similar discussions here, having since learned that others have entirely opposite feelings which I can never hope to change. Fortunately, I have never had to deal with the physical realities of 'the gun' in the way that RisiaSkye and others have described.

I wonder how unnecessary a distraction detailing 'non-gun related' attacks and criminal activities are? This seems to be a constant stumbling block in the dialogue, but I'm not too sure if it will ever be possible to deal with guns in isolation while criminals have access to them. Having said that, the potential for us all being victims of criminality exists, however remote. Whether or not the criminal has possession of a gun obviously makes some difference to the situation should it arise [and, of course, whether or not we choose to carry one]. At this point all arguments about knives, drunk drivers, baseball bats [take your pick - but don't hit me over the head with it], are pretty much redundant. Crime just is, and it's hardly an enabling position to draw comparisons between being stabbed or being run over or being shot.

There will always be those who don't like and don't want to own a gun, and rightly so. "Project Exile" seems like a firm and direct scheme which can offer some sort of assurance that the authorities can clamp down on misuse of guns, and restrain their criminal use. Weird Harold, although I appreciate your questioning of Pyper's statistics, I think that it is possible to look at them disinterestedly. I acknowledge that a frame of reference should be used when possible, but I think that most of us here can cut to the chase without recourse to emotive use of facts and figures. When I read them I didn't think "See, I told you so ..."; but I did think that this is far too high a figure to be ignored.

Why try to qualify a certain amount of deaths as "bad" [or good???]? Why is it necessary to have a figure (or figures) to relate those statistics to? Transferring those numbers to a per capita basis would show that they are rare occurences no doubt, but that just negates any ideas that the figures prove something "bad" in favour of proving that they are "not all that bad". An example was given in this thread anyway which doesn't exactly provide a 'fun' read:

For at least ten years, gun violence has plagued Richmond, Virginia, and the violence has grown each year, routinely placing Richmond among the five cities with the worst per capita murder rates

What have comparisons with other nations got to do with it? I know that there is and should be a discussion about this, but at the end of the day this is all too easily construed as a "we're better than you" argument, which does little to address actual criminal [f]acts. I think this reductive approach doesn't take away from the fact that several tens of thousands of incidents is in fact a very real problem which needs to be addressed. Why is it necessary to compare the figures offered with "other forms of violence"? This may be useful for government organisations when planning anti-criminal resources and the like, but for the sake of the points which RisiaSkye raised, I don't think that comparisons are necessary - they certainly aren't comforting. The example which WriterDom gave ("Project Exile") is one good way of tackling the problem, but I wonder how long before someone challenges this intiative.

Keep your guns by all means, but don't get all personal and defensive about them just because thousands get shot and killed each year. Get personal and defensive because of the criminals who use them. Beyond the fact of the crime (or the threat of crime) there is no argument for them which has much meaning for most real life situations.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Pyper, I must simply disagree with your premise.
These are not rural areas that the shootings occur in but thr suburbs where people have fled to escape the violence. But, because we are not allowed to stand up to this hip-hop hate whitey culture without being labeled as rascist, the youth think it is an appropriate culture to buy into and hence emulate it. I have listened to the music. The are not saying,
"There's something happening here..."

 

[KillerMuffin]

I wouldn't get defensive and angry, except that there is a group of people bound and determined to take away my right to own an object because someone else has exhibited bad behavior, criminal behavior, and murderous behavior with a similar object, or because sometime in the future someone might get hurt with the object I possess, because in the past other people have exhibited unsafe or ignorant behavior in regards to storage and safety with the object.

No one needs a weapon of any sort. It just angers me when someone tells me I can't do or have something because of someone else. I never did anything wrong, and I never will do anything wrong with it. I keep my objects locked in a vault and the keys are hidden.

One of my objects was purchased by my great-great-great-great grandfather and handed down through the generations. However, if objects are banned, this priceless antique and family heirloom will be destroyed because it's a gun.

It just boggles the mind that in a so-called free society, we feel the need to limit the freedoms and rights of others because they have things or do things that don't agree with our views.

And there is a purpose for guns outside of killing. Just like there is a purpose for 15,000,000 dollar basketball players, fishing reels/rods, and nun-chucks, and knives, and the grocery store. People shoot clay targets, competition shooting, and subsistence hunting.

 

[Weird Harold]

Statistics and their uses.

There will always be those who don't like and don't want to own a gun, and rightly so. "Project Exile" seems like a firm and direct scheme which can offer some sort of assurance that the authorities can clamp down on misuse of guns, and restrain their criminal use. Weird Harold, although I appreciate your questioning of Pyper's statistics, I think that it is possible to look at them disinterestedly. I acknowledge that a frame of reference should be used when possible, but I think that most of us here can cut to the chase without recourse to emotive use of facts and figures. When I read them I didn't think "See, I told you so ..."; but I did think that this is far too high a figure to be ignored.

I don't dispute that "this is far too high a figure to be ignored." There is definitely a problem that needs to be addressd when the leading cause of death for young black males is violence, gun-related or otherwise.

Project Exile seems to be closer to the right approach than making new laws is. It uses existing laws to remove the persons that commit violence from society rather than trying to limit the kinds of violence they commit.

Statistics are useful tools when used properly. When raw numbers are used in isolation to prove a point, statistics become half-truths and distortions of the facts. this is the point I want to make. Far too many people who oppose guns, porn, tunafish sandwiches, animal testing, or any other pet project they may have, use selected statistics in isolation to "prove" their point.

The numbers Pyper cited only lead to more question for me. They don't "prove" anything except a lot of people died from certain causes. They don't address why guns were used, who used the guns, or whether the problem is a local American problem or something that is wider spread. Without the rest of the data, Pyper's numbers don't do anything to help find a viable solution to the perceived problem.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about guns, drugs, porn, or anything else. My highest asperation is to inject some rational, logical, consideration of the issues without distorting the issue with meaningless or mis-represented statistics.

Take for example, that violence (or guns) is the leading cause of death in black males under thirty:

That simple statistic in isolation only shows us that ther IS a problem to be addressed, not exactly what the problem is, or what the best solution would be. More questions need to be asked.

What other factors are involved? What is putting young blacks in situations where guns are being used?

Is there a higher percentage of young blacks engaged in criminal activity?

Are a significant percentage of the deaths related to or caused by racist activity by whites?

Is there any link to age of the victims parents, or the number of parents?

What relationship does economic status have? Are more poor blacks involved proprtionately than middle-class or rich black youths?

Guns may be A common factor in this statistic, but they are not the only common factor.

American's have a "gun-culture" according to those who oppose guns, and that may well be true. Americans also have a government that is into banning things as well.

Prohibition of alchohol in the early years of this century caused a huge increase in gun related deaths, but guns weren't the reason for the increase, increased crime was. Our current "war on drugs" is having a similar effect. It is far more probable that our high numbers of gun deaths among young black men are a result of drug related crime than it is because of the "availability of guns" in America. The figure for young black men isn't because they're black, but because there are more young black men who are poor and see drugs as a way of getting rich. The death rate for young white or hispanic men who are in gangs or dealing drugs is probably comparable to that for young blacks in the same circumstances.

Pyper's statistics do show a problem, but I don't think they show a "gun problem." They show a societal problem that is far more complex than the issue of guns. I objeected not because the statisitcs were untrue, but because in this context they are a red herring intended to rouse emotions and deter thought.