And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[tomclarke]

In past application of law regarding abortion, the women did not go to jail. They were used as witnesses against the man who actually committed the murder. There were doctors sent to prison for performing abortions. For what it's worth, I will point out that Mengele made his living performing abortions. It seems to be an appropriate vocation for people who have always killed people for a living.

And therein also lies a salient philosophical point. It is usually someone else who is not the woman that does the actual killing. The woman just enables him.

Currently, women who spontaneously abort but have less then perfect lifestyles are being charged with murder. This is a gross and appalling abuse of the legislation by ideologues with whom I have zero sympathy. They should themselves be charged with abuse of women.

[Diogenes]

I would suggest that the exception does not disprove the rule. I believe MOST violence, or more importantly most POTENTIAL violence is indeed rational.

POTENTIAL violence which does not happen is dificult to quantify. We can say definitely from statistics that lack of gun availability does not make this POTENTIAL violence actualise.

And how many ships does a lighthouse protect?

Nobody attacks a grizzly bear, nor matter how angry they might get. Why? Because they know absolutely that they will get ripped to shreds.

The Fear/Flight response is part of human firmware. It is rare for someone to initiate violence against someone who they are certain will hurt them badly.

Humans are bad at judging risk, and in an argument tend to ignore possible risks. Which is why as a species we often fight. Fights with guns are more serious.

Not at all. They are bad at judging unknown risks, they are pretty good at judging known risks. Very few people pick a fist fight with a guy holding a gun.

Even animals know this. Creatures that attack stronger creatures are generally suffering from some sort of diseases such as rabies, in which case the violence is actually irrational.

What you may regard as "irrational" violence is nothing of the sort. That person initiating what to you seems irrational has already weighed the probability of success prior to initiating the violent act, and has deemed the risk worth the effort.

I could not disagree more. People are not like most other animals, and habitually indulge in violence which is not rational, wars, fights, etc.

They do this when they are unaware they are facing death. When they are aware of it, they exercise much better judgement.

Wars are perfectly rational. Someone thinks they can get an advantage for fighting one. Sometimes they are mistaken in their analysis, but don't think for a minute that they didn't make an analysis.

There are a very few people who go on mass killing sprees, with guns. they are universally caught, usually within a few hours. How is tis rtional behaviour?

The fact that they are using a gun demonstrates that they decided it would improve their ability to kill. That *IS* arriving at a conclusion based on weighing information. Pretty much the definition of rationality. It may be their overall goal that is not rational, but certainly the steps they take to achieve it exhibit rationality.

In an anarchy it is possible that killing others would be rational. Certainly enslaving others using force is a common human trait which is one reason for valuing lawful and law-enforcing governments.

With a law-enforcing government those who kill people get caught.

Unless they are part of the government.

Those who use violence get caught.

Unless they are part of the government. (Or part of a crime syndicate, but I repeat myself. )

All that is needed for a weak person to get redress is a phone call to the police.

Ha! That's the funniest thing i've heard this morning! I can assure you that I have NEVER gotten redress from contacting the police.

Most violence in UK is between people who know each other, not strangers. In this case violence is easily detected, and culprits punished. these facts are known. Therefore violence is not rational behaviour. In fact even if not caught violence between people who know eachother is clearly not rational. I don't think US different.

My reading is that violence in the UK has been escalating for years, and in many cases people there live in fear of their lives on a daily basis. I hear that in some places people are afraid to walk down the streets of their own community. Perhaps you live in a more posh part of town?

If your view were correct, in the UK there would be subjugation of defenseless citizens by others due to their lack of defense. There is none such, except in very small parts of the country where gangs rule and there is no law.

I have read in the past that there is. As a matter of fact, check out this blog. The original blog was taken down because the English Police officer who wrote it got into trouble for telling the truth.

It is fascinating reading.

It is well established that those who carry knives to school are more at risk of serious harm due to knives than those who do not. This is causative: carrying a knife means that quarrels with others who carry kives become more serious and lead to injury.

You may wish to argue that the children who do not carry knives are slaves of those who do. It is not true, generally the more confident children do not carry knives.

It is an ironic fact that the main reason given for children carrying knives to school is fear of knives, in spite of strong evidence that carrying a knife makes a knife attack much more likely.

Note that carrying of knives at school is a sign of law breaking down - it occurs only in a very few areas.

knives in the hands of children are not so much the problem here in the states as is guns. Just a week ago I saw an article about a child taking a gun to school to protect himself from bullies. Obviously the child thought the gun would give him an advantage over their numbers and possibly greater physical strength.

I doubt many bullies would bother anyone if they knew they had an even chance of coming off the worse for it.

Even in the case of someone run amuck, Such as the Virginia Tech shooter, he did not irrationally chose to attack people with his bare hands, he rationally chose to bring a gun because he knew that gave him an advantage over the people he sought to kill. Had he been certain he would meet people as well armed as himself, he would have either deferred or brought better equipment.

Even with better equipment, had he been facing an armed populace, his effort would have been short lived. (Literally.)

His attack was profoundly irrational, since the results for him were bad. (Assuming he was caught, as nearly all such are).

You are weighing his results by your standards. There are people who find life with humiliation to be more painful than the probability of death. He just chose an outcome which *YOU* regard as less desirable.

Look at the statistics in the essay I linked above. Most gun violence is between people who know each other, as a result of an escalating argument, and therefore perpetrators are caught and punished. It is therefore profoundly irrational.

By your standards which you mistakenly regard as objective. Depending on how you look at it, Humans do irrational things 10 times before breakfast. A lot of people simply regard the entire behavior of others as "irrational" rather than differently reasoned.

I have a friend who has recently acquainted me with the phrase "Can't Understand Normal Thinking" when it comes to women. (C.U.N.T.) He laments that their methodology is completely irrational, and if they didn't have their uses, they would be slung over fence posts like coyotes.

I point out that there *IS* a methodology to their madness, it just doesn't stem from the same motivational source as that for men, and as such is generally incomprehensible to us.

They do think and they do reason, they just have different weighting factors than men are accustomed to using.


Same thing with "irrational people" who become violent. They are rational enough not to go into a fight with the certain knowledge that they will lose. Trayvon Martin thought he could beat up on George Zimmerman because he was unaware that Zimmerman had a gun.

I very much doubt he would have attacked Zimmerman had he been aware of the peril he was in.

[Diogenes]

I always carried a knife to school. A good sharp pocket knife is a very useful tool, and on a number of occasions I let the teacher borrow it to open stuff.

Of course, that was ~30 years ago when the US wasn't such a nanny-state where everyone must be protected from themselves. Now days, if I was in highschool, I know for sure I would get in trouble by sitting quietly at my desk with a blank look on my face. When asked why I was doing that, I would reply, "I've left my brain at home. We aren't allowed weapons in school."

It is illegal to teach morality in school, and our government goes out of the way to discourage it at home. Now schools are trying to figure out ways to cope with the fact that people haven't been taught right from wrong before they get to school.

[Diogenes]

Ghandi did pretty well in India.

I think this argument is a bit theoretical. Are you saying that if every Libyan had a handgun Ghaddaffi would not have been able to rule? I doubt that. Handguns don't work against tanks.

In the UK anyone in the police who wanted to kill citizens (even criminals) would be quickly removed. The only allowance is where it is genuinely thought killing is the only way to prevent immediate harm to self or others others.

Ghandi did well against the British...doubt if he would have done as well against Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. They would have had no compunction against arresting torturing and executing him before he became famous. I believe at one point Ghandi was asked if he thought it would have worked against Hitler, his answer as I recall was something to the effect well eventually but only after many more lives lost. I also believe that Ghandi said: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. In the case of Libya believe it was the small arms(not just pistols) in the hands of the rebels (with some air support from NATO) that enabled them to topple Quadaffi. No small arms don't work against tanks...but they do work against boots on the ground nicely the bulk of any army. After all the US has been in Iraq since 2003 and Afghanistan since 2001. As recently as a couple of years back our commanding general in Afghanistan pleaded with Obama for reinforcements, saying we were on the verge of losing the whole thing. The rebels don't have tanks, no air force, no navy, no weapons of mass destruction yet have managed to fight the US military for a decade. Just with small arms IED's, and rocket propelled grenades and the will to fight. And yet somehow I have heard our gun control folks in the US claim it is "silly" to think 90 million gun owners in the US could possibly fight the US military if push comes to shove and we became a dictotorship. Things like Joe average vs a navy seal..ridiculous etc. Yeah 2000 navy seals vs 90 million gun owner sure they would clean our clocks.

For us in the UK it is very strange to hear that people in a democracy feel the need to have weapons to stage a coup just in case the government turns bad.

It is part of our Nation's birthright. We started out staging a coup because we thought the government had gone bad. (No taxation without representation! )

The First Battle at Lexington and Concord was the result of British soldiers having been sent to seize the Arsenal there.

The founders were VERY CONCERNED about the possibility of someone acquiring tyrannical powers, and felt the best way to prevent it is to insure the people would always have the means to fight back.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe."

James Madison, Father of the US Constitution.


Here's a few more.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87

"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

Our governments and politicians can so easily be removed when they are no longer popular. And the trend is towards greater transparency - we know what they spend, what they say, our judges can review decisions if it is thought they are inconsistent with stated policies.

And if people dislike a policy enough massive nonviolent protests will sway any government, without elections. It has happened.

In the US there is a very strong feeling that every family must be armed against aggressors, together with a deep suspicion of ferderal government, that does not exist here.

Perhaps you were trying to spell "Folderol Government"? That is as apt of a description as I have heard lately.

Yes, we've distrusted our government since the beginning, and it has done little to encourage our trust since then. It is bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and the darling of many vested interests who's sole goal is to funnel money through it to themselves.

This is the world I swim in. I know countless people who regard it with great suspicion as to it's intentions and capabilities, all the more so since it is currently being steered by the stupidest man to ever occupy the office. A windup toy monkey would make a more intelligent leader.


Yes, we do distrust our government, and worry that we may someday have to deal with it in an unpleasant fashion.

[tomclarke]

Well over the "guns deter violence" argument I will just summarise:

Branas et al, with exemplary methodology, has strong emprical evidence that at an individual level any deterrance is more than counteraced by other effects so that gun possesion reduces safety overall. He controls for all the obvious gotchas here. See the long quotes above.

Humans do not always behave rationally. Specifically when they get into heated arguments they often say or do things they afterwards regret. The availability of lethal weapons does not change this behaviour. I am sure everyone here will have some experience of this and while most are controlled enough not to use guns in the heat of the moment some are not.

The statistics are telling. The US has a much higher death rate than other countries with gun less gun availability. In fat the correlation between gun control and death rates is precise and inverse. Furthermore, the rates for non-gun murder are very similar in most countries, it is just that guns, if not controlled, increase deaths rates by about 5X.

[tomclarke]

Over, "gunes are needed to keep US people free from bad government".

I understand this view, and that it is deeply embedded in US culture. It explains a lot. I would just point out that most other countries don't share it, amd manage to get rid of governments they don't like in other ways.

[Diogenes]

The Fear/Flight response is part of human firmware. It is rare for someone to initiate violence against someone who they are certain will hurt them badly.

This is one reason I don't particularly like "concealed carry" laws. Seems to me it voids the deterance but not the potential consequences for failing to be detered.

Yes, the general uncertainty is a positive for deterance, but I'm not sure it balances.

Just saying.

There are efforts to get "open carry" laws onto the books. Other people have noticed this problem as well.

Along this line, I've suggested the idea of creating a badge or medallion for licensed carry holders to identify them as such should their gun ever become noticed by the general public or law enforcement. It would be worn next to the gun so as to be easily seen by anyone observing the gun.

It would of course have to be easily distinguished from a law enforcement badge. I proposed using an "X" or "0" shaped badge.

[CKay]

My reading is that violence in the UK has been escalating for years, and in many cases people there live in fear of their lives on a daily basis.

Violent crime has been falling, or more or less falling since the early 90's - same with most crime rates in the UK.

And we'd have to go a long way to get close to the kind of rates seen in the US.

2011 annual homicide rate per 100,000

UK 1.3
US 4.8

And your Trayvon Martin comment/reaction-bait just proves what a truly nasty troll you are ("nuts" really is far too polite a term).

[krenshala]

I wish I could remember the (US) city that implemented a "we assume everyone that isn't otherwise prohibited has a concealed firearm" law. It apparently did wonders to reduce the crime rate in a very short time when it was suddenly assumed that everyone around you was carrying.

[williatw]

My reading is that violence in the UK has been escalating for years, and in many cases people there live in fear of their lives on a daily basis.

Violent crime has been falling, or more or less falling since the early 90's - same with most crime rates in the UK.

And we'd have to go a long way to get close to the kind of rates seen in the US.

2011 annual homicide rate per 100,000

UK 1.3
US 4.8

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

Yes I know the homicide rate is much lower than US, but little else is. The homicide rate in Britian was always lower than in the US even before Britian passed any laws at all restricting firearms ownership.

[CKay]

First off, it's the flippin Daily Mail.

Secondly, from that very article:

"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime. 'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995."

[tomclarke]

First off, it's the flippin Daily Mail.

Secondly, from that very article:

"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime. 'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995."

Homicide rates are almost 100% reported everywhere and can be compared. US comes out 5X worse than UK, and the inverse correlation across many different coutries between %age of population carrying guns and homicide is indisputable and very very strong.

Violent crim is much more difficult to compare, because reporting is highly variable as is definition. For example strong campaigns in UK to encourage reporting of rape (for eample altering treatment of victims by police and in courts) have made reported rate stats increase over last 10 yaers, but people do not think rapes have increased.

On this one issue - guns make you personally safer - the anti-gun-control lobby has not an intellectual leg to stand on. But that will not change hearts and minds.

[tomclarke]

I wish I could remember the (US) city that implemented a "we assume everyone that isn't otherwise prohibited has a concealed firearm" law. It apparently did wonders to reduce the crime rate in a very short time when it was suddenly assumed that everyone around you was carrying.

I wish I could see the science for such anecdotal rumours.

It is a common idea that fear makes people less likely to be violent. In fact the reverse is usually true.

[williatw]

First off, it's the flippin Daily Mail.

Secondly, from that very article:

"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime. 'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995."

Oh well if the politician in chief disagrees then thats the end of that I stand corrected. You are right we don't trust our politicians/gov as much as you brits/europeans seem to. I thinking maybe disarming the police has something to do with it. Disarmed police are probably far less likely to engage in fighting crimes in progress, reducing the liklihood of their being injured perhaps, probably not so good for the public depending on them for their protection.

[CKay]

Homicide rates are almost 100% reported everywhere and can be compared. US comes out 5X worse than UK

Going on the last available figures it's 4x - see my response a few posts back.

(Note: my post was in response to williatw's quoting from the Daily Mail.)