Question for libertarians

[Matteo Martini]

There are 300 million people in the US
There are about 17,000 murder and non-negligent homicides per year.
If we accept your number of gun spree deaths thats 60.

Chance of homicide: 1 in 16,667 or 6 in 100,000
Chance of gun related homicide: 1 in 4,687,500 or .020 in 100,000
Chance of being struck by lightening 1 in 600,000.

Firearm-related deaths (in 2000)

United States: 30,419 (11.3 per 100,000)

England and Wales: 159 (0.3 per 100,000)

Germany: 1,201 (1.5 per 100 000)

France: 2,964 (5 per 100,000)

Gun ownership per 100 inhabitants

United States: 83-96

European Union: 17.4

United Kingdom: 10

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...how-europes-gun-culture-rivals-us-585441.html

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

Is it really? can you show any evidence for this? The data seem to say otherwise.

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/fl/melbourne.htm

The most recent data available in my town indicates that violent crime is up. So yes. And I plan to move to Atlanta in the near future.

As someone who has taken statistics, I can also tell you that the practice as a whole is fairly unreliable. The numbers can be manipulated to get the results you want simply by expanding or decreasing the sample group size.

Someone else asked the question "What if someone who carries a gun gets drunk and starts shooting people" <approximate quote>. Granted when dealing with hunters, that does happen. However, any responsible gun owner who carries a concealed weapon will tell you that it is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar. Therefor, unless someone is illegally carrying, (aka comitting a crime already), it is unlikely to happen.

Check out the concealed carry laws in your state. Become aware. Knowledge is power in ALL aspects of your life...not just in science and religion.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

And I quoted a card-carrying libertarian citing a way in which an atomic bomb can be "used" in a way that doesn't hurt anyone.

As an art object.

A MIRV is just as sexy without its fissile (or fusionable) material as it is with it.

Your own party theorists call you a liar.

Are you seriously declaring the authors of random internet pages "party theorists"?

Either way, libertarians, like any other political leaning, aren't some monolithic blcok. Anyone with an intelligence greater than that of a pencil should be capable of comprehending this. Are you smarter than a pencil?

The fact that the "thugs with guns" (i.e., the policy makers society has elected) are on my side should be a pretty good reason.

They're not coming to take my guns so they're not really on your side.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Because what I cite isn't my own blathering, but the blathering of certified libertarians.

None of which supports this contention: "Freedom to act as one pleases, regardless of the consequence of those actions to others, is a fundamental libertarian principle."

None of it.

I don't need to cite prevalence studies; I've got case studies instead.

Anecdotes beat evidence every time, does it?

Edited by jmercer: 

Removed

You have cited NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that shows libertarian ideology is identifiable with sociopathy. You haven't shown libertarians are sociopathic at any greater rate than any other political ideology. And as for your "case studies", perhaps you could identify for us which three of the diagnostic criteria libertarians meet to be labeled with antisocial personality disorder (the DSM-IV doesn't recognize a "sociopath" diagnosis, and that's the closest you get to it):
# Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
# Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
# Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
# Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
# Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
# Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
# Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

Yes, I'm qualified to make those determinations, although not licensed to prescribe for them.

You know, I dated for more than a year in college a girl who was a psych major. While I can't claim total knowledge of all her studies, I think I would remember something as outlandish and ridiculous as a section in Abnormal detailing personality disorder diagnosis based on the subject's view of the proper role of government.

Edited by jmercer: 

Removed

Attack the argument, and not the person making the argument. Gratuitous insults removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[drkitten]

Are you seriously declaring the authors of random internet pages "party theorists"?

Not at all.

Are you seriously declaring those internet pages to be "random"? I suppose to you, George W. Bush and John McCain are just "random Republicans," too.

Either way, libertarians, like any other political leaning, aren't some monolithic blcok.

No, but the high-ranking party members and political theorists -- whom I quoted -- are much more monolithic than their general supporters.

 

[drkitten]

Anecdotes beat evidence every time, does it?

Edited by jmercer: 

Removed for consistency with mod action

You have cited NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that shows libertarian ideology is identifiable with sociopathy.

You know, lying about the evidence won't make it go away.

And as for your "case studies", perhaps you could identify for us which three of the diagnostic criteria libertarians meet to be labeled with antisocial personality disorder

You're right, I could.

But you've obviously got the DSM in front of you (you're still using the -IV? How "quaint!"), so I'll let you do the legwork this time.

 

[brodski]

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/fl/melbourne.htm

The most recent data available in my town indicates that violent crime is up. So yes. And I plan to move to Atlanta in the near future.

which is a rather different claim than the fact that "the world" is getting more dangerous all the time.

As someone who has taken statistics, I can also tell you that the practice as a whole is fairly unreliable. The numbers can be manipulated to get the results you want simply by expanding or decreasing the sample group size.

Have you any evidence that the data which you produced are flawed or have been manipulated in this way? It is fairly easy to point out that the general trend using consistently gathered data is for less crime, and less violent crime, in the US, Europe and much of the world- though obviously the trend is not even across all areas, and some will be heading in the opposite direction.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Not at all.

Are you seriously declaring those internet pages to be "random"? I suppose to you, George W. Bush and John McCain are just "random Republicans," too.

Given your demonstrated bigotry concerning libertarians, I have no reason whatsoever to take your word for it.

No, but the high-ranking party members and political theorists -- whom I quoted -- are much more monolithic than their general supporters.

Lying about things won't change their true nature.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

You know, lying about the evidence won't make it go away.

And saying BS like this won't prove your point.

You're right, I could.

But you've obviously got the DSM in front of you (you're still using the -IV? How "quaint!"), so I'll let you do the legwork this time.

How about you support your claims with evidence? Oh wait, we know why you don't: because you're a lying <pre-censored because some mod will think it's a "gratuitous insult" even though it's apparently perfectly fine to make a "professional" diagnosis of a severe personality disorder based on nothing more than someone's idea of the proper role of government. What a ****ing joke.>

 

[drkitten]

Given your demonstrated bigotry concerning libertarians, I have no reason whatsoever to take your word for it.

So check out the sources -- which was why they were cited in the first place.

That's the big difference. My "bigotry" is based on actual quotations from named people, which you can confirm for yourself. You call it "bigotry," I call it "expertise gathered from actual evidence."

But reading comprehension, along with psychopathy, has also been a traditional problem for Libertarians, which is why they don't understand what the constitution says.

 

[LibraryLady]

The tone in this thread needs to calm down and become civil, not to mention stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Chaos]

Someone else asked the question "What if someone who carries a gun gets drunk and starts shooting people" <approximate quote>. Granted when dealing with hunters, that does happen. However, any responsible gun owner who carries a concealed weapon will tell you that it is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar. Therefor, unless someone is illegally carrying, (aka comitting a crime already), it is unlikely to happen.

As pretty much anybody who does not have their head up their ass can tell you, "is illegal" is not the same as "won´t happen". Nor are bars the only place to get drunk. And let´s not get started on assuming that gun owners are responsible people by default.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Back on topic, guns are good. My guns are good. They've never hurt anyone.

 

[RandFan]

There are 300 million people in the US
There are about 17,000 murder and non-negligent homicides per year.
If we accept your number of gun spree deaths thats 60.

Chance of homicide: 1 in 16,667 or 6 in 100,000
Chance of gun related homicide: 1 in 4,687,500 or .020 in 100,000
Chance of being struck by lightening 1 in 600,000.

BTW, I can't find any statistics for gun spree homicides on any crime related site. That doesn't mean that they are not there I just can't find them. However, it would seem that if these numbers were significant more sites would track them, right?

Oy Vey.

Chance of homicide: 1 in 16,667 or 6 in 100,000
Chance of gun spree homicides: 1 in 4,687,500 or .020 in 100,000
Chance of being struck by lightening 1 in 600,000 or .167 in 100,000

 

[brodski]

Michael Gilson De Lemos
a Libertarian activist who is co-founder of the Libertarian International Organization in its current form. He is identified as a key promulgator of Libertarianism in articles of the JuanDeMariana Institute. He co-founded the Libertarian Radio Show FreedomWorks!in Clearwater, Florida, whose public affairs format features guests such as Congressman Bob Barr, Journalist John Stossel, actor Michael Moriarty.

http://www.123exp-biographies.com/t/00031174120/

Well Michael Gilson De Lemos' just this guy, you know?

 

[drkitten]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility - don't play back.

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

which is a rather different claim than the fact that "the world" is getting more dangerous all the time.

Point conceded on the "world". Perhaps I should have said "MY world"


Have you any evidence that the data which you produced are flawed or have been manipulated in this way? It is fairly easy to point out that the general trend using consistently gathered data is for less crime, and less violent crime, in the US, Europe and much of the world- though obviously the trend is not even across all areas, and some will be heading in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately none that I can quote directly. However several years ago in Atlanta a local talk show host, Neal Boortz, was discussing how a recent (for the time) study had been manipulated. The sample size of children killed in gun related incidents by including 18-21 year olds.

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

As pretty much anybody who does not have their head up their ass can tell you, "is illegal" is not the same as "won´t happen". Nor are bars the only place to get drunk. And let´s not get started on assuming that gun owners are responsible people by default.

Let's not be pissy, eh?

I grew up in Wyoming around responsible people who owned guns. They taught their children how to be responsible with guns. Yes hunting season had the very rare alcohol-related incident but that was sheer carelessness not done out of malice. This is my experience with guns.

I've also shot pistols on a shooting range more times than I can count. So I have experience with both handguns and rifles.

What I infer from your comments is that you have never used a weapon and have no firearms training so you are coming from a place of fear and inexperience. This is not meant as criticism or judgment. Simply observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I just think it's illogical to base a theory that gun owners are are irresponsible and are out to shoot someone based on something that you haven't experienced yourself.

 

[drkitten]

I just think it's illogical to base a theory that gun owners are are irresponsible and are out to shoot someone based on something that you haven't experienced yourself.

Just because you're from Wyoming doesn't mean you HAVE to be stupid. (I spent a lot of time in Colorado.)

How about basing a theory that gun owners are irresponsible on the observed facts that people are irresponsible and gun owners are people? Aristotle would have had no problem with that one, and he didn't even know what a gun was.

Or to put it another way -- what about owning a gun is supposed to make a person magically more responsible than the rest of humanity?

And, yes, I have had firearms training, and I have spent time at both rifle and pistol ranges. Which doesn't mean that I don't recognize that some of my fellow students are and were idiots.

 

[tyr_13]

Just because you're from Wyoming doesn't mean you HAVE to be stupid. (I spent a lot of time in Colorado.)

How about basing a theory that gun owners are irresponsible on the observed facts that people are irresponsible and gun owners are people? Aristotle would have had no problem with that one, and he didn't even know what a gun was.

Or to put it another way -- what about owning a gun is supposed to make a person magically more responsible than the rest of humanity?

And, yes, I have had firearms training, and I have spent time at both rifle and pistol ranges. Which doesn't mean that I don't recognize that some of my fellow students are and were idiots.

This is a problem of perspective. People are irresponsible. So what? That's always been true. That means they shouldn't be allowed to have things that they can hurt themselves and others with?

Alcohol is dangerous, people shouldn't have that. Drugs are dangerous, people shouldn't have those. Guns are dangerous, people shouldn't have those. Cars are dangerous, people shouldn't have those. Knives/swords/axes are dangerous, people shouldn't have those.

Does that follow? No, of course not. It's silly, and a 'straw man'. But it is the heart of the argument is it not?

How about we look at it another way. Someone said that cars are needed, but they are not. If everyone paid the government what they now pay for their own cars, we could have a massive public transportation system with buses, rail, and professional drivers. This would be far safer than our current system as professionals are safer, and drinking would obviously be a reduced problem. Cars are more dangerous than guns, so shouldn't we do this before we start on guns? Hell, even just increasing our standards for licensing and requiring re-testing every ten years would have a marked increase in safety. Why aren't people campaigning for this? They drive cars. Sure, it is easy to ask other people to give up a right they enjoy in the name of safety, but not something you personally enjoy.

How about another thing, swords are illegal here. I'm a martial artist, practicing kendo. Technically, I shouldn't own the swords that I do, because people are scared of them, and someone thinks that they are 'unneeded'. Well an ax takes far less training to kill someone easily with, yet they aren't illegal. Why? More people use axes.

Some more perspective? As I said, I'm a martial artist (not a professional one), and my kick has a force of almost one ton. I'm a big, strong guy, and could in all likelihood kill several people with my bare hands before being stopped if I were so inclined. Does that mean we make every guy with sufficient strength wear restraints in public? Another straw man? Hell yes, but one that is almost as reasonable based on the 'dangerous' line of reasoning.

All this fear of guns is just silly. Ask the people in Iraq what is more dangerous, a gun, a bomb, or a car?

Now I'm all for reasonable gun laws such as required safety and training courses, but there is so much gun law based on nothing but fear (like banning guns that 'look' like assault rifles) that it sickens me. And it is hard for fairly reasonable gun owners because they have gun bans on one side, and the NRA on the other. I can't join the NRA because, frankly, they're fairly insane.