5 ms·

The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no

by kec 10y ago

The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no matter the manner in which it happened.

oldmanjay 10y ago
If that's a serious question you'll be pleased to know it has a very simple answer - to those with a political agenda, no technique is below exploitation to gain command of the emotions of the people.
- wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
  Most people/groups have some kind of political agenda. It doesn't imply hypocrisy or deceit.
wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
Because they're very different things. But even if they weren't, it's not really a useful question - assuming the desired result is to reduce gun violence. See above comment again: "Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss and analyze it."
mozumder 10y ago
Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
- kec 10y ago
  As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
  - capote 10y ago
    We do not assume that violence would cease without guns. We just know that there would be less violence. And since we're not gun enthusiasts, it's a bit less violence at no cost to us. And at not too much costs to gun enthusiasts. At least this is how I feel.
  - mozumder 10y ago
    No. They won't. When you take away their gun, you also take away their will. Remember that taking away guns reduces crime.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Pro-gun control people don't assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier to contain, for that reason. Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment. By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself. Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it's become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren't fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.
    - hga 10y ago
      You've largely got the lay of the land correct. I'd add: These two "religions" are irreconcilable; the pro-gun control group has, since at least the '70s when I started closely following this and being an anti-gun control activist, made it crystal clear that many of them will not be satisfied until they've taken all of our guns (or nearly so, e.g. the over and under shotgun class like Biden, what e.g. the U.K. has devolved to at the same time they've reversed the trend since the 13th Century of decreasing interpersonal violence). In return, we've made it clear that we know our 20th Century history, if they get very far in this, we'll kill them, wholesale and retail. No common ground possible there. Second, this is part of a larger cultural war. We need look no further than now President Obama saying in 2008: You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Third, there have been some major changes in gun owning demographics, purposes and the like, part of what some call Gun Culture 2.0, and it really started becoming a thing post-9/11, when the Federal government made it clear we were on our own. The other part is a rapidly graying society as the Baby Boomers reached middle age and now retirement age. For whatever reasons, a very large fraction of them are turning to guns for self-protection, e.g. the vast majority of people in my 2008 Missouri CCW class were obviously middle aged or older. There's also been some massive changes on the ground: starting in 1987, "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes have swept the nation, such that they hold in all but 7 states, and cover 72.6% of the population. Issued licences are now growing by more than a million per year, the numbers are astounding, and on a percentage basis have reached 5-10% of the population in shall issue states. In the same period, "Constitutional Carry", i.e. no permit required, went from 1 state, Vermont (which simply never restricted it post-Civil War) to 10, with 2 being added in the last month or so, and perhaps more to come this year. That's now 7.2% of the above percentage. See this with nice graphs here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/04/every-picture-tells-story-part-v.html http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/04/every-picture-t... (although I'd add that DC, MD, and NJ are de facto no issue states (for a demonstrated serious need, MD may issue for the duration of the threat), even if the law allows it; also, many local units of CA, MA and NY are de facto shall issue or thereabouts).
- rbcgerard 10y ago
  Yup - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victims-in-london-each-month-shocking-new-figures-show-8681511.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victim...

by kec 10y ago

oldmanjay 10y ago

If that's a serious question you'll be pleased to know it has a very simple answer - to those with a political agenda, no technique is below exploitation to gain command of the emotions of the people.

wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
Most people/groups have some kind of political agenda. It doesn't imply hypocrisy or deceit.

wrongc0ntinent 10y ago

Because they're very different things. But even if they weren't, it's not really a useful question - assuming the desired result is to reduce gun violence. See above comment again: "Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss and analyze it."

mozumder 10y ago

Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?

kec 10y ago
As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
- capote 10y ago
  We do not assume that violence would cease without guns. We just know that there would be less violence. And since we're not gun enthusiasts, it's a bit less violence at no cost to us. And at not too much costs to gun enthusiasts. At least this is how I feel.
- mozumder 10y ago
  No. They won't. When you take away their gun, you also take away their will. Remember that taking away guns reduces crime.
- krapp 10y ago
  Pro-gun control people don't assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier to contain, for that reason. Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment. By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself. Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it's become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren't fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.
  - hga 10y ago
    You've largely got the lay of the land correct. I'd add: These two "religions" are irreconcilable; the pro-gun control group has, since at least the '70s when I started closely following this and being an anti-gun control activist, made it crystal clear that many of them will not be satisfied until they've taken all of our guns (or nearly so, e.g. the over and under shotgun class like Biden, what e.g. the U.K. has devolved to at the same time they've reversed the trend since the 13th Century of decreasing interpersonal violence). In return, we've made it clear that we know our 20th Century history, if they get very far in this, we'll kill them, wholesale and retail. No common ground possible there. Second, this is part of a larger cultural war. We need look no further than now President Obama saying in 2008: You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Third, there have been some major changes in gun owning demographics, purposes and the like, part of what some call Gun Culture 2.0, and it really started becoming a thing post-9/11, when the Federal government made it clear we were on our own. The other part is a rapidly graying society as the Baby Boomers reached middle age and now retirement age. For whatever reasons, a very large fraction of them are turning to guns for self-protection, e.g. the vast majority of people in my 2008 Missouri CCW class were obviously middle aged or older. There's also been some massive changes on the ground: starting in 1987, "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes have swept the nation, such that they hold in all but 7 states, and cover 72.6% of the population. Issued licences are now growing by more than a million per year, the numbers are astounding, and on a percentage basis have reached 5-10% of the population in shall issue states. In the same period, "Constitutional Carry", i.e. no permit required, went from 1 state, Vermont (which simply never restricted it post-Civil War) to 10, with 2 being added in the last month or so, and perhaps more to come this year. That's now 7.2% of the above percentage. See this with nice graphs here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/04/every-picture-tells-story-part-v.html http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/04/every-picture-t... (although I'd add that DC, MD, and NJ are de facto no issue states (for a demonstrated serious need, MD may issue for the duration of the threat), even if the law allows it; also, many local units of CA, MA and NY are de facto shall issue or thereabouts).
rbcgerard 10y ago
Yup - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victims-in-london-each-month-shocking-new-figures-show-8681511.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victim...