The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

[ponderingturtle]

opps multi post

 

[Oystein]

Ok, it's because you can't think of any.

Not my burden. I did not claim that US criminals are a special sort of criminals. AJM would have to explain what makes them different such that they bring guns.

 

[TJM]

Thus, the need for stricter gun control.

I'd like some criminal control before the state starts creating the new class of criminals, thanks.

So you agree that the extra penalties associated with a criminal act that includes the showing/use of a gun have no deterrent effect? <--Genuine question, not meant to be hostile.

Answered pretty effectively by Bikewer - The laws are effective *when* they're enforced.

Are criminals in the USA a species completely different from criminals in Europe or Australia? Brains wired differently? No soul? Went to schools that teach guns are good?

Oh, the latter seems to make sense.

See below.

ETA: I cannot trust your judgement anyway after this example of blind, biased, obvious stupidity, which is so out of character for you:

Weird. Not sure why you'd lash out like that. What's your problem? How do you apply all those negative attributes to that post?

Not my burden. I did not claim that US criminals are a special sort of criminals.

Neither did I.

AJM would have to explain what makes them different such that they bring guns.

It's really quite simple Oystein: Armed criminals in the US don't have much to fear from law enforcement, the justice system or armed citizens. Their biggest worry is armed rivals. If caught with a concealed handgun, unless a serious felony has been committed, an armed criminal will not spend much time in jail. His gun will be confiscated, be arraigned, given a court date and will either post bail or if little or no criminal record, be released on his own recognizance. The cycle usually repeats until the criminal ceases activity or is arrested for something more serious, like homicide. Until that happens, criminals are in and out of jail through a revolving door.


Let's try an exercise. I'll list three actual gun crimes. You tell me how these crimes would have been dealt with if committed in Germany. Explain the police response and the legal response. How much time would they spend in prison? (anyone from other countries / states, please feel free to play along.*)

1. Man opens fire with a concealed firearm on a busy downtown Oakland street. He missed his intended victim but struck an innocent bystander. She lived. Subject is arrested.

2. Several young men, many of whom aren't allowed to legally possess handguns, open fire on another gang of young men, who return fire in a busy San Francisco shopping district. Two bystanders are wounded, one bystander is killed. Witnesses come forward and five men are arrested.

3. At a San Francisco shopping mall, in a dispute over roughly $200, a man kills two women then opens fire on responding police. No LEOS are hit. Surrenders when he runs out of ammo.

Those are just little snippets of life in the bay area, but don't take it from me - Here's a good example of the idiocy you get around these parts. This is not an anomaly - this is how things are around here.



After seeing that, some might understand why some cops are nervous these days..

*Yes, I know. These incidents a rarity in [country / state] because super-duper gun control. Humor me and pretend it happened despite that, m'kay?

 

[Hungry81]

I'd like some criminal control before the state starts creating the new class of criminals, thanks.



Answered pretty effectively by Bikewer - The laws are effective *when* they're enforced.



See below.



Weird. Not sure why you'd lash out like that. What's your problem? How do you apply all those negative attributes to that post?



Neither did I.



It's really quite simple Oystein: Armed criminals in the US don't have much to fear from law enforcement, the justice system or armed citizens. Their biggest worry is armed rivals. If caught with a concealed handgun, unless a serious felony has been committed, an armed criminal will not spend much time in jail. His gun will be confiscated, be arraigned, given a court date and will either post bail or if little or no criminal record, be released on his own recognizance. The cycle usually repeats until the criminal ceases activity or is arrested for something more serious, like homicide. Until that happens, criminals are in and out of jail through a revolving door.


Let's try an exercise. I'll list three actual gun crimes. You tell me how these crimes would have been dealt with if committed in Germany. Explain the police response and the legal response. How much time would they spend in prison? (anyone from other countries / states, please feel free to play along.*)

1. Man opens fire with a concealed firearm on a busy downtown Oakland street. He missed his intended victim but struck an innocent bystander. She lived. Subject is arrested.

2. Several young men, many of whom aren't allowed to legally possess handguns, open fire on another gang of young men, who return fire in a busy San Francisco shopping district. Two bystanders are wounded, one bystander is killed. Witnesses come forward and five men are arrested.

3. At a San Francisco shopping mall, in a dispute over roughly $200, a man kills two women then opens fire on responding police. No LEOS are hit. Surrenders when he runs out of ammo.

Those are just little snippets of life in the bay area, but don't take it from me - Here's a good example of the idiocy you get around these parts. This is not an anomaly - this is how things are around here.



After seeing that, some might understand why some cops are nervous these days..

*Yes, I know. These incidents a rarity in [country / state] because super-duper gun control. Humor me and pretend it happened despite that, m'kay?

In Australia there would be an outcry, Gun laws would be back in the spotlight and many calls would be made to have them tightened and penalties increased. People would expect the source of the guns to be uncovered and shut down. Most people would not fetishasise guns and loudly proclaim that is not the guns fault.
Thats why those type of crimes are not every day occurrences here.

 

[The Norseman]

In Australia there would be an outcry, Gun laws would be back in the spotlight and many calls would be made to have them tightened and penalties increased. People would expect the source of the guns to be uncovered and shut down. Most people would not fetishasise guns and loudly proclaim that is not the guns fault.
Thats why those type of crimes are not every day occurrences here.

No, no, no, a million times no. Again and again you are and nearly every anti-gun person out there make the same fallacy: there is no correlation nor causation between gun ownership and violence/crime. If there were, we would be able to see it, no matter which country we measure. It would roughly be the same ratio all over the world.



But, to change the topic slightly, I don't understand why people don't get it; Australia was from the very foundations of the country, a prison — a prison of a country which already had fairly strict gun control. That's culture. That's a culture which admires few guns. That's a culture which admires personal strength to overcome adversity without a gun in their hand. Great! That's awesome if it works for your culture.

It's not America's culture. And when one starts saying "we're better than America because they have a lot of guns" then that person better not for one second think that they aren't practicing the same arrogant cultural superiority that is often derided as an American-only thing (calling stuff "American exceptionalism").

 

[3point14]

No, no, no, a million times no. Again and again you are and nearly every anti-gun person out there make the same fallacy: there is no correlation nor causation between gun ownership and violence/crime. If there were, we would be able to see it, no matter which country we measure. It would roughly be the same ratio all over the world.

I think the US is a perfect storm of miseducation by the media, availability of small arms and, crucially - and this last bit is the kicker - inequality of income.

I don't think the guns help. I don't think they're the root of the issue, this is:




https://thinkprogress.org/study-income-inequality-is-tied-to-increase-in-homicides-84076065498a/

"A World Bank sponsored study subsequently confirmed these results on income inequality concluding that, worldwide, homicide and the unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Proof of causation:

no bullet-wounds without guns.

QED

 

[arthwollipot]

No, no, no, a million times no. Again and again you are and nearly every anti-gun person out there make the same fallacy: there is no correlation nor causation between gun ownership and violence/crime. If there were, we would be able to see it, no matter which country we measure. It would roughly be the same ratio all over the world.

Right - Americans are just inherently more violent than everyone else. It's genetic, I guess. Guns have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that gun crime in America is orders of magnitude higher than every other developed country. Nothing at all.

But, to change the topic slightly, I don't understand why people don't get it; Australia was from the very foundations of the country, a prison

Edited by jsfisher: 

...snip... Edited to be respectful of Rule 0 of the Membership Agreement.

Australia moved on from its convict roots hundreds of years ago. The last penal colony in Australia closed up shop in 1877, after the policy of transportation ended in 1868. Furthermore, only a few places in the south-east of the continent and in Tasmania were ever used as penal colonies. If you compare the number of people who were transported with the number of people who voluntarily emigrated, you will see clearly that convicts formed a teeny tiny percentage of the whole. That Australia is a country built on a criminal past is a *********** myth. Learn some history before you make stupid claims like that.

— a prison of a country which already had fairly strict gun control. That's culture. That's a culture which admires few guns. That's a culture which admires personal strength to overcome adversity without a gun in their hand. Great! That's awesome if it works for your culture.

Australia has a long and storied gun culture. Guns have been a part of Australian culture from the very beginning. Who do you think was guarding all those convicts that you Americans so love to refer to? And how? Who do you think was massacring all those blackfellas, and how? Again, you need to learn some history or you'll just look like an ignorant fool.

It's not America's culture. And when one starts saying "we're better than America because they have a lot of guns" then that person better not for one second think that they aren't practicing the same arrogant cultural superiority that is often derided as an American-only thing (calling stuff "American exceptionalism").

And would you care to point out even one place where I argued that gun control makes Australia "better" than America? I mean we are, obviously, but has that ever formed a part of my argument?

What I am at pains to point out is that guns are used to kill and injure people less in Australia. And every other developed nation, I hasten to add. And not only less - much less. That is my argument.

But you're right, in a way. The statistics linking guns to crime are being deliberately obfuscated by people with political agendas - on both sides - so it's hard to say anything for sure. No-one can definitively link the fact that there are now more guns than people in America with the massively high gun injury and death rate. But only an idiot - or someone with a political bias - could look at that statistic and claim that there is no link.

 

[Hungry81]

No, no, no, a million times no. Again and again you are and nearly every anti-gun person out there make the same fallacy: there is no correlation nor causation between gun ownership and violence/crime. If there were, we would be able to see it, no matter which country we measure. It would roughly be the same ratio all over the world.



But, to change the topic slightly, I don't understand why people don't get it; Australia was from the very foundations of the country, a prison — a prison of a country which already had fairly strict gun control. That's culture. That's a culture which admires few guns. That's a culture which admires personal strength to overcome adversity without a gun in their hand. Great! That's awesome if it works for your culture.

It's not America's culture. And when one starts saying "we're better than America because they have a lot of guns" then that person better not for one second think that they aren't practicing the same arrogant cultural superiority that is often derided as an American-only thing (calling stuff "American exceptionalism").

Geeze, he asked a question I gave an approximate answer based on very loosely similar previous incidents. I'm sorry I don't find it likely that most Australians would have daily shootings convince them that more guns are a good thing, even if we do place celebrity status on select gun toting criminals from bush rangers like Ned Kelly to modern day asswipes like Chopper Reed.
But please, educate me on how if Americans gave up their guns all the power would then go to over muscled roid monkeys and knife wielding junkies, like in a Jackie Chan movie.

 

[The Norseman]

I think the US is a perfect storm of miseducation by the media, availability of small arms and, crucially - and this last bit is the kicker - inequality of income.

I don't think the guns help. I don't think they're the root of the issue, this is:




https://thinkprogress.org/study-income-inequality-is-tied-to-increase-in-homicides-84076065498a/

"A World Bank sponsored study subsequently confirmed these results on income inequality concluding that, worldwide, homicide and the unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied."

Thank you. It's culture, not mere ownership of guns.

Right - Americans are just inherently more violent than everyone else. It's genetic, I guess. Guns have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that gun crime in America is orders of magnitude higher than every other developed country. Nothing at all.

Not genetic. Cultural.

Oh **** off. Australia moved on from its convict roots hundreds of years ago. The last penal colony in Australia closed up shop in 1877, after the policy of transportation ended in 1868. Furthermore, only a few places in the south-east of the continent and in Tasmania were ever used as penal colonies. If you compare the number of people who were transported with the number of people who voluntarily emigrated, you will see clearly that convicts formed a teeny tiny percentage of the whole. That Australia is a country built on a criminal past is a *********** myth. Learn some history before you make stupid claims like that.

Figures you miss my point to go right on the attack.

Australia has a long and storied gun culture. Guns have been a part of Australian culture from the very beginning. Who do you think was guarding all those convicts that you Americans so love to refer to? And how? Who do you think was massacring all those blackfellas, and how? Again, you need to learn some history or you'll just look like an ignorant fool.

Okay, you can't discuss anything calmly, rationally, or politely on this subject.

Geeze, he asked a question I gave an approximate answer based on very loosely similar previous incidents. I'm sorry I don't find it likely that most Australians would have daily shootings convince them that more guns are a good thing, even if we do place celebrity status on select gun toting criminals from bush rangers like Ned Kelly to modern day asswipes like Chopper Reed.
But please, educate me on how if Americans gave up their guns all the power would then go to over muscled roid monkeys and knife wielding junkies, like in a Jackie Chan movie.

Wait, what? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. I'd be interested in finding out if you think I insulted you or something as long as it's polite, because I certainly have no intention of insulting or berating you or making disrespectful comments.

 

[3point14]

Thank you. It's culture, not mere ownership of guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm dead against any sort of universal right to firearms, I think they tend to exaggerate the results of other regressive social policies, but I don't think it's a the universal right to a firearm that causes the issues in the US. They do, however, greatly exaggerate the effect of the underlying issue.


The underlying problem is wealth inequality. Antisocial behaviors are extremely well correlated with wealth inequality and the USA (and to a slightly lesser extent, the UK) are both very good at keeping the rich rich and making the poor poorer.

The trouble is, all the major media outlets, all the politicians, all those who should be railing against the massive inequalities in the US (the narrowing of which, I would bet my last pound, would reduce firearm deaths) are owned by the extremely rich, who have a vested interest in the status quo.

I'm ranting off topic. I'll leave you with this very excellent Ted talk on the topic:

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

 

[The Norseman]

Don't get me wrong, I'm dead against any sort of universal right to firearms, I think they tend to exaggerate the results of other regressive social policies, but I don't think it's a the universal right to a firearm that causes the issues in the US. They do, however, greatly exaggerate the effect of the underlying issue.

And that's cool; I've never had a problem with people who don't want firearms to be as ubiquitous as they are, or people who don't want the ownership to be considered as a civil right.

But I do think you're probably right in that the fact that guns are so saturated in our society that it makes it easier to utilize a gun for a crime than not; though that in no way means that a gun "causes" the crime, or that the criminal would not do the criminal thing if a gun were not available.

My point is that crime will happen; crime does happen. It's a cultural problem which drives the reasons why more people commit crimes and not merely gun ownership. Guns also prevent lots of crime, a fact that gun opponents will either downplay or ignore in order to heighten the FUD surrounding this contentious issue. And idiots like the NRA do the same thing, trying to convince people that their civic right is in danger (which it is not).

The underlying problem is wealth inequality. Antisocial behaviors are extremely well correlated with wealth inequality and the USA (and to a slightly lesser extent, the UK) are both very good at keeping the rich rich and making the poor poorer.

Yes, yes, yes; a million times yes. Wealth inequality to the extent that it is in the US drives fear of people, mistrust of neighbors, a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, a sense of shame for "not being able to support myself/my family", no sense of stability, of job stability or corporate loyalty and/or reciprocity, realization that "the American Dream" is not real and unobtainable, that many successful people are in essence, lottery winners, and so on.

I'm interested only in crime reduction. I fail to comprehend why some people wish to focus on a single subset of crime and call it "gun crime" and decry that as if it's worse than every other crime known. I feel that by focusing on "gun crime," it ignores all the other victims of every other non-gun crime as if their pain and suffering isn't as bad.

I dunno. But this is one reason why I tend to stay away from these kinds of discussions. I think that it's a complicated issue and I'm not as nuanced as I wish to be and I end up perhaps saying the wrong thing, or coming across as something I'm not or don't believe.

The trouble is, all the major media outlets, all the politicians, all those who should be railing against the massive inequalities in the US (the narrowing of which, I would bet my last pound, would reduce firearm deaths) are owned by the extremely rich, who have a vested interest in the status quo.

I'm ranting off topic. I'll leave you with this very excellent Ted talk on the topic:

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

I don't think you're ranting; I appreciate sharing a similar point of view on this subject from someone other than another American. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the idea that hyper-focusing on guns isn't really ultimately going to solve any problems whatsoever; it's tackling the stuff like income inequality which goes against the oligarchy and threatens their power.



ETA: The video is from Richard Wilkinson and I have and have read his book, "The Spirit Level" as a matter of fact and I get a lot of my facts and figures from that book! Thumbs up!

 

[Cainkane1]

The Police have guns and they are good guys. Law abiding citizens have guns and they are the good guys.

 

[TJM]

In Australia there would be an outcry, Gun laws would be back in the spotlight and many calls would be made to have them tightened and penalties increased. People would expect the source of the guns to be uncovered and shut down. Most people would not fetishasise guns and loudly proclaim that is not the guns fault.
Thats why those type of crimes are not every day occurrences here.

Thanks but that's not quite what I'm after here. Of course people are going to get their undies in a bunch and Americans are no exception. That's how our legislators sell their ineffective gun control measures to the uninformed.

What I'm trying to get a feel for is how other countries deal with gun crime. Trafficking for instance is dealt with severely in some countries. You might even be executed for it in some places. Is there negotiating or plea bargaining? That's what I'm looking for.

 

[TJM]

Don't get me wrong, I'm dead against any sort of universal right to firearms, I think they tend to exaggerate the results of other regressive social policies, but I don't think it's a the universal right to a firearm that causes the issues in the US. They do, however, greatly exaggerate the effect of the underlying issue.


The underlying problem is wealth inequality. Antisocial behaviors are extremely well correlated with wealth inequality and the USA (and to a slightly lesser extent, the UK) are both very good at keeping the rich rich and making the poor poorer.

The trouble is, all the major media outlets, all the politicians, all those who should be railing against the massive inequalities in the US (the narrowing of which, I would bet my last pound, would reduce firearm deaths) are owned by the extremely rich, who have a vested interest in the status quo.

I'm ranting off topic. I'll leave you with this very excellent Ted talk on the topic:

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

BINGO.

 

[arthwollipot]

Figures you miss my point to go right on the attack.

Well, if you will go on repeating lies about my country, I'm going to get a tad offended by that. Transportation of convicts ended decades before Australia even existed.

Okay, you can't discuss anything calmly, rationally, or politely on this subject.

Again, don't lie about my country and we'll be fine. I'll forgive you if you are genuinely ignorant about Australian history - though I'll point out that the average educated Australian can name more American presidents than the average educated American can name Australian prime ministers - but if you don't acknowledge your error then you are just being dishonest.

 

[Giz]

though I'll point out that the average educated Australian can name more American presidents than the average educated American can name Australian prime ministers .

firstly, that's a question of scale. I'd bet that you could name more french politicians than Luxembourg politicians.

Secondly, crocodile dundee didn't even know what a bidet was, so whose population is ignorant now?

 

[novaphile]

firstly, that's a question of scale. I'd bet that you could name more french politicians than Luxembourg politicians.

Secondly, crocodile dundee didn't even know what a bidet was, so whose population is ignorant now?

Interesting...

I'll top your movie quote with one from my experience.

I was stopped by a group of American tourists in Sydney, who were quite disappointed when I explained that the Vienna boys choir were not based in Sydney, Australia.

I get it, Vienna, Austria is so similar to Sydney, Australia, anyone could make that mistake.

 

[novaphile]

Oh, and while we are talking about problems of "scale", I had a very amusing conversation with a Texan at a computer conference in Sydney.

He was utterly certain that Texas is larger than Australia.

Hint: South Australia is larger than Texas...

 

[Giz]

Oh, and while we are talking about problems of "scale", I had a very amusing conversation with a Texan at a computer conference in Sydney.

He was utterly certain that Texas is larger than Australia.

Hint: South Australia is larger than Texas...

By scale, I meant "of international importance". Siberia is big in land area, but who knows the mayor of Siberia?

In terms of real importance (2016 GDP):
Australia: 1.2 trillion USD
Texas: 1.6 trillion USD

Texas - it is always bigger!