Is It Time To Regulate Clubs And Hammers?

[bobevenson]

Walter Williams' last paragraph says it all: "Many customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns." It's not guns, my friends, it's socialism gone wild!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem?
By Free-market Economist Walter Williams

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and '50s — one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus..

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

He's an economist, that says it all, or rather that what he says doesn't say much, anyone can, and are often bought and sold. Does he have stock in one of the top ten arms manufacturers? His title certainly leans that way, to one extent or another.

It's true that guns don't kill people, and that in fact people kill people, but still...

Shouldn't we be asking why people are killing people in the first place? Could it be that education and corruption is such that they find it easier to see that they are being bamboozled, and are getting tired of it? That they simply snap in the face of futility? That's what needs addressing, not whether guns should or should not exist. Let's address the causal, of their feeling the need, to kill someone. Let's unmask the, so called, elites for the shits that they are, negate their power, and watch being civil, return to what it once was, so we can breath deep, leaving our doors open at night, so as to catch the cool breeze.

Is mankind's legacy coming to a head?

Throughout history man has always sought to kill another for his selfish betterment, was it that, then, it was out of ignorance and stupidity, while now, it's out of knowledge and intelligence? What has the mutually assured destruction (MAD) of our ultimate weapon shown us, of our selfish need to find a bigger more powerful weapon, to assure only the destruction of another, that we've deemed unworthy to live, as if our life is all that matters, in this infinite universe, where absolutely no human knows of it's actuality, in truth?

No, I say that the real question these recent events begs, is why kill that which you are, surely, as if to advocate your death, at the hands of one like you, as if you believe that's the solution of the universe, because I'm here to tell you, that when the universe says so, It's going to definitely be MAD, and that there shall be none, that have advantage. And to those that can't beat them, and find joining them distasteful, I say, yours is the only one, with which, you have dominion. Why be a coward like the others? Only those of voluntary seppuku are truly brave and to be revered, as only they stand on their own, facing the ultimate fear of men.

I see that only those, with eyes truly open, see the MADness in mans killing.

One more thing, I forgot, what are guns for again?...

[Ginkgo]

"Read my post" went unheeded.

Yes, well I lived in the bush as well. Most farmers and young people go pigging and roo shooting. Many own guns, as do most people who are involved with the land. But the vast majority of Australian live in cities and large towns on the coast. The bush population is only a small fraction of the total population.

"A large majority of people did not surrender their guns and these are probably not registered. Don't be naive and believe in the "figures".

Lets be realistic. I can read you have never owned a gun. Can you see people who own and love their guns, surrendering them to the Government, because some crazy kid went on a rampage. Not their problem.

With gun ownership, I would never trust............

Every source I have looked up give the same figure about, 5 percent. You can show me a different figure from a different source?

A different source? we are talking about guns.

Well, no you can't read that I never owned a gun because I have not put that into print for anyone to read.

I did read your posts. Can you outline your arguments as to why I should believe you when you say that the majority of Australians are law breakers in respect to complying with the legislation? In other words, I am after evidence for your claims.


Yes, a different source. Can you show me a source that shows that gun ownership in Australia is above the figure I have quoted. Again, I am interested in your evidence.

P.S.

The reason I say this is because all you have provided is appeals to the probability fallacy.

Something must be the case because, It can't be another way; It is not possible to believe it could be any other way; Don't be so naive, everyone know that wouldn't happen; It is within my experience, etc etc.

[chaz wyman]

Just 2 reflections on matters of fact. Australians do have a Bill of Rights.Law is based on precedent. Australian law is based on the Lex Britannica, and as such you have the original Bill of Rights upon which the US was copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
A second point is that the US do not have the right to bear arms due to the US Bill of Rights, but by an amendment (2nd.) to the Constitution.

To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?

G'day Chaz ( just to show I am Australian)

Yes, precedent and tradition do play an important part in our democratic system. A formal Bill of Rights was discussed many times during our history,but was rejected each time.

This may help clarify.

http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/2010/Futu ... Rights.pdf

You missed the main bit...
To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?

[Ginkgo]

Just 2 reflections on matters of fact. Australians do have a Bill of Rights.Law is based on precedent. Australian law is based on the Lex Britannica, and as such you have the original Bill of Rights upon which the US was copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
A second point is that the US do not have the right to bear arms due to the US Bill of Rights, but by an amendment (2nd.) to the Constitution.

To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?

G'day Chaz ( just to show I am Australian)

Yes, precedent and tradition do play an important part in our democratic system. A formal Bill of Rights was discussed many times during our history,but was rejected each time.

This may help clarify.

http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/2010/Futu ... Rights.pdf

You missed the main bit...
To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?

I don't really know. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that gun ownership in Australia is traditionally low. Prior and post Port Arthur would still on represent a small percentage of the population. In other words, it wasn't the case that 50% or 60% or whatever percentage of the population were suddenly disarmed. The majority of Australian were not armed in the first place.

So All I can suggest is that the percentages were always small so an increase in gun ownership is still only a small percentage. These percentages were not enough to, 'work against' other types of 'non-gun ownership legislation' designed to reduce the problem.

Other than that I don't know. There must be some research on this somewhere. I'll have a look.



P.S

you can help me look if you like.

[Ginkgo]

Chaz, I found a newspaper article. It says that prior to Port Arthur about 15 percent of Australians had a gun. With the gun buy back it went down very quickly to about 8 percent. I am not sure if this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent. Nonetheless, it is still a low percentage. We are not talking 40%, 50%, 60% or anything like that.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, I found a newspaper article. It says that prior to Port Arthur about 15 percent of Australians had a gun. With the gun buy back it went down very quickly to about 8 percent. I am not sure if this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent. Nonetheless, it is still a low percentage. We are not talking 40%, 50%, 60% or anything like that.

Thanks - apparently there are more guns that people in the US - no wonder it is so easy to slaughter people.

[bobevenson]

Apparently there are more guns than people in the US - no wonder it is so easy to slaughter people.

You still don't get it, do you? What does Walter Williams have to do, pistol-whip your ass???

[chaz wyman]

Apparently there are more guns than people in the US - no wonder it is so easy to slaughter people.

You still don't get it, do you? What does Walter Williams have to do, pistol-whip your ass???

I get what he is saying, which is more than you. If you had to subtlety to understand him you might not agree with him either.

[bobevenson]

Apparently there are more guns than people in the US - no wonder it is so easy to slaughter people.

You still don't get it, do you? What does Walter Williams have to do, pistol-whip your ass???

I get what he is saying, which is more than you. If you had to subtlety to understand him you might not agree with him either.

I understand every word of his article, and I endorse it 100% without reservation. The problem is a breakdown of our social system due to the growing menace of left-wing, know-it-all, liberal socialism that unfortunately controls our school system and transforms young children into punks and criminals.

[chaz wyman]

[
You still don't get it, do you? What does Walter Williams have to do, pistol-whip your ass???

I get what he is saying, which is more than you. If you had to subtlety to understand him you might not agree with him either.

I understand every word of his article, and I endorse it 100% without reservation. The problem is a breakdown of our social system due to the growing menace of left-wing, know-it-all, liberal socialism that unfortunately controls our school system and transforms young children into punks and criminals.

I know I am wasting my time on you as you are such a dolt. But every thought in his article is based on a species of fallacy know as Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Not only that but the decline in moral values he hints at is as a result of exactly his sort of libertarian ideology. The liberalisation that would occur if his sort were to control the state would increase the criminal classes beyond imaginable levels.

[bobevenson]

Chaz, you have absolutely no understanding of the subject. Professor Williams is one of the few people in this country who understands political economics. You couldn't shine this guy's shoes, and he wouldn't let you since you don't know shit from Shinola.

[reasonvemotion]

Ginkgo:

Only 5.2 percent of the population own firearms.

Well there goes your argument. Three times more. I should have asked where you got your figures.

this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo:

Only 5.2 percent of the population own firearms.

Well there goes your argument. Three times more. I should have asked where you got your figures.

this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent

No, my full quote was, "I am not sure if this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent".

I didn't say, "this means that the percentage of gun own Australians is again approaching 15 percent."

This is another fallacy. It is called quoting out of context, or 'quote mining'.

[reasonvemotion]

Fact.

World wide.

Out of 178 countries, Australia ranks 25, for the number of privately owned firearms.

Estimated total number of guns held by civilians is between 3,050,000 to 3,500,000 as at 19/1/2013.

Referenced from Guns in Australia, Facts, Figures and Firearm Law, University of Sydney,