South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 08, 2019, 00:46:21 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Gun control

 (Read 11385 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2012, 07:37:59 AM »

(If nothing else, the above flight of fancy suggests that, once again, technology may hold the key.)
007 just had a Walter PPK that was attuned to his DNA which saved his life when an assailant tried to use his own gun against him. Perhaps that is a start?
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2012, 08:01:03 AM »

(If nothing else, the above flight of fancy suggests that, once again, technology may hold the key.)
007 just had a Walter PPK that was attuned to his DNA which saved his life when an assailant tried to use his own gun against him. Perhaps that is a start?
Is this a spoiler?
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2012, 08:39:50 AM »

Who decides?  And what gives them the right to so decide?

Well considering they are a democratic country, the people elect who they give the right to.

Quote
BM is entirely correct about the US’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms:  It’s an insurance policy against tyranny by the government, big business or other vested interests.  In a strong sense, the right to bear arms is at the very core of the Declaration of Independence, itself done to shrug off (British) oppression.  To introduce arms controls in the US would be seriously to undermine their Bill of Rights and Constitution.

There seems to be this fallacy that the founding fathers where the all knowing wise sages and there ideas will last for a thousand years.
They certainly did not envision some crazy guy walking into a school and killing 20 children. As for there reason it was probably less to do the "insurance policy against tyranny by the government, big business or other vested interests" and rather having a ready army for when they would have to defend themselves against the English.

I highlighted big business because I'm imagining a bunch of red necks storming McDonald's demanding they also get a toy with there super size meal.   
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2012, 09:39:36 AM »

Is this a spoiler?
About as much as a preview?
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2012, 10:19:01 AM »

As for the "If guns are outlawed only criminals would have guns" argument: Where do the criminals get their guns? This is one of the reasons why SA have such a high gun violence rate. People buy guns legally, can't look after them properly, the guns get stolen or they are forced to hand them over and sometimes the owner get shot with his own gun to boot. I was held up at gun point once and I only became aware of him when the gun was pressed against my head. The first question was where's my gun, and upon my answer that I did't have one, he searched me to make sure. If I had a gun it would be now in criminal hands. Believe me, with a gun pressed against you head you do as you are told. That 9mm hole was big!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2012, 10:55:09 AM »

There seems to be this fallacy that the founding fathers where the all knowing wise sages and there ideas will last for a thousand years.
They certainly did not envision some crazy guy walking into a school and killing 20 children.
I didn’t mean to imply anything of the sort.  At the same time, it would be simply naïve to suggest that those founding fathers were concerned only with threats to the people’s liberty and prosperity emanating from across the Atlantic.  Having taken their cue from recent European happenings, they thought it wiser that the people should be armed than to have a standing military because the latter could also easily become an instrument of oppression.

As for there reason it was probably less to do the "insurance policy against tyranny by the government, big business or other vested interests" and rather having a ready army for when they would have to defend themselves against the English.
Again I didn’t mean to imply that the founding fathers’ main impetus was anything other than British (and to an extent, French) domination; however, over time those threats have disappeared and the focus has shifted to other potential ones.  And make no mistake about big business in the US and the pressures to which it continuously subjects the federal government, Congress and the judiciary, thereby menacing individuals’ wellbeing and in some cases even gradually eroding their civil liberties.  The great number of class action suits filed (and won!) against large corporates is symptomatic of a little bit more than the ultra-litigious US psyche, and a courtroom is just a more civilised and controlled battlefield without firearms.  Should it ever come to a point where the judiciary starts consistently favouring big business over the people, you can be sure that many of those people will not tolerate it for very long.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2012, 17:29:24 PM »

Quote from: brianvds
such a shooting will turn into an even greater massacre because everyone will start shooting at everyone else.


[citation needed]

Here's one for me.

Quote from: Tweefo
Where do the criminals get their guns?


As I said, it's illegal to buy an automatic AK-47 in SA, but criminals still get them from accross the border. How do your proposed controls address this?

Quote
This is one of the reasons why SA have such a high gun violence rate.


I've shown evidence in this thread refuting that statement and I would very much like some EVIDENCE to support all these musings. Gimme some research supporting that position, since I seem to be the only person here favouring proof over wild speculation. Prove me wrong and make this debate worthwhile.

Quote
People buy guns legally, can't look after them properly, the guns get stolen or they are forced to hand them over and sometimes the owner get shot with his own gun to boot


At the same time a very good argument for why regulation does not work. You simply cannot regulate robbers, the only people you'll be regulating are the law-abiding citizens. For instance: Your thief has just acquired a new gun in a matter seconds, how long is it now gonna take joe-b-robbed to get a new weapon? Doesn't this create an unequal position in society of the armed vs the non-armed?

See also note about cross border trafficking in guns, I'm getting really tired of saying this, which are already illegal in SA, how's that going for us? Is that working out just fine? Has it reduced gun violence in SA? How about compared to the USA where those weapons ARE legal?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2012, 18:15:03 PM »

But such “evidence” as you demand can never, by the nature of the problem, be unequivocal for the very simple and sufficient reason that it’s not feasible to execute an experimental design where you can adequately manage the controlling factors.

Perhaps the best you’ll be able to do is to show a bunch of category-based correlations, or a lack thereof.  And drawing reliable conclusions or erecting explanatory hypotheses therefrom is about as tricky as it gets.  Ask any researcher in the field of sociology, psychology or epidemiology.

It’s the largest part of why this issue is so darn contentious.

But as you also rightly point out, it’s just not possible to legislate away habitual loonies, so it would seem prudent to prevent them from having any access at all to firearms and ammunition.  More importantly, otherwise sane people can find themselves in stressful situations where they become irrational and where the last thing they should have at their command is a loaded firearm.

A complicated mathematical model could probably be built that stochastically evaluates the overall cost/damage to a society by firearms, as dependent on the nature, level and stringency of gun control as well as the effectiveness and cost/effort for its enforcement.  Such a model could conceivably be used to determine a “sweet spot” for gun control where overall cost/damage is minimised.
 
'Luthon64
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2012, 09:24:06 AM »

You can't really compare US with SA, But if you compare US with Britain and Australia.
Where Britain and Australia had both there own spree killings, but they both had a gun ban after that and the stats show
there was a reduction in gun related crime, and most important no repeat of this type of shootings.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2012, 12:01:22 PM »

I don't think we are always talking about the same thing here. I agree with cr1t here that you can't compare SA and the US too closely (higher unemployment, lower or no education, a culture of violence, not good policing of the law and so on). Here in SA I agree that we do not need more laws. About the AK's on our streets: I think a lot of those are still left overs from the "struggle", maybe I'm wrong, but I do not see a need to smuggle a lot in.
Back to America: To walk into a shop, money change hands and you walk out 15 minutes later with an assault rifle? I still think that is wrong. 
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2012, 14:13:47 PM »

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/12/17/ctw-how-worldwide-firearms-stackup.cnn

Sigh. "I have this hard evidence for why I'm wrong, but I stand by my statement".

I've shown evidence in this thread refuting that statement and I would very much like some EVIDENCE to support all these musings. Gimme some research supporting that position, since I seem to be the only person here favouring proof over wild speculation. Prove me wrong and make this debate worthwhile.

As Mefiante has pointed out, the type of evidence that you are seeking cannot be produced and the best one could hope for at present, is some correlation based evidence.  Regarding the "hard evidence" (as you call it) in the video, it should be pointed out that five countries were selected for the comparison: The US, Colombia, South Africa, Finland and Australia.  On what basis were these five countries selected and how are they representative of anything?  Surely we are all aware of it that statistics can very easily be distorted by cherry picking.

The debate here was in essence about gun control in a developed democracy with effective law enforcement.  I am not claiming that the G8 countries fully comply with these criteria, but at least they constitute a predefined group of countries that cannot deliberate be cherry picked to distort statistics.  In those countries the density of gun ownership as percentage of the population compares to annual gun related deaths per 100 000 as follows:

US - 88.8% - 10.2
France - 31.2% - 3.0
Canada - 30.8% - 4.8
Germany - 30.3% - 1.1
Italy - 11.9% - 1.3
Russia - 8.9% - ?
UK - 6.0% - 0.25
Japan - 0.6% - 0.07

The figure for gun ownership in the UK is not reliable and I could not find a comparable figure for gun related deaths in Russia.  Some of the other data may also be questionable.  The contrast between the US and Japan is nevertheless particularly striking.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2012, 15:00:49 PM »

I'd very much like to respond right now but I'm very drunk. (at 3 in the afternoon already).

Awesome holiday though. Tongue
Logged
Majin
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2012, 22:33:32 PM »

The thing is. You can never completely control guns. With control there is always one side of the population that gets affected negatively. It is always a give and take scenario. Would you prefer that the criminals who have gotten the guns illegally have all the guns?

I would like to defend myself from harm. When push comes to shove - wouldn't you feel the same way? Besides if every criminal knew that there is a loaded gun in any house, would they still risk their life to rob you? There would be less crime. In the end survival is more important to criminals and normal society.

Yes, as someone mentioned the risk is great if a loony were to attack a bunch of people, and someone defended those people with another gun then that person may accidentally kill other people. But, don't you think the people would stand a better chance of surviving if the loony gets killed sooner. I like those odds better then someone just killing people and there is nothing anyone else can do.

Can you really take away the choice for someone to defend their family and themselves from harm – then you are taking away freedom.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2012, 22:40:48 PM »

But such “evidence” as you demand can never, by the nature of the problem, be unequivocal for the very simple and sufficient reason that it’s not feasible to execute an experimental design where you can adequately manage the controlling factors.

Can you for any kind of sociological experiment?

You can't really compare US with SA, But if you compare US with Britain and Australia.

Bingo, it's all about the countries you choose isn't it? Starting to see Mefiante's point though, just browsing around the net it's clear all sides are mad cherry-picking stats. Like what I'm about to do.. hehe. Smiley

FWIW: Britain and Australia are also extremely paranoid nanny states in which I would never want to live on a variety of principles, mostly to do with personal liberty... But that's a discussion for another thread...

Quote from: Hermes
The contrast between the US and Japan is nevertheless particularly striking.

The correlation seems a bit weak, especially when compared to counter examples I could find glaring at me on cursory inspection: If I could cherry pick some countries(as I said, cursory inspection) it would be Qatar with figures of 19.2% for ownership and 0.19 death rate (it's only a smidge above Japan on the list). And Chile (dead last on the list): 10.7% ownership vs 0.06 death rate. To me, that is striking compared to Japan.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2012, 22:47:49 PM »

Where Britain and Australia had both there own spree killings, but they both had a gun ban after that and the stats show
there was a reduction in gun related crime, and most important no repeat of this type of shootings.


For what it's worth, I found the following quote in this paper studying the australian case a moment ago:

The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.


So what you're saying is actually not true, at least in the case of Australia. They had a very low gun-related death rate to begin with.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.939 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:39:05 AM
Privacy Policy