Are Guns the Problem?

[uwot]

what is the % of Swiss citizens with guns? the Israelis are right up there as well...

-Imp

You tell me.
What is your point?

[Ginkgo]

what is the % of Swiss citizens with guns? the Israelis are right up there as well...

-Imp

You tell me.
What is your point?

There probably isn't much anyone can draw from such data. If we look at the data of guns per head of population then we probably couldn't even draw a correlation let alone a 1 to 1 causal relationship. No doubt other factors would come into play such as history, cultural beliefs, perceptions of personal morality and ethos of each particular nation.

[marjoramblues]

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.or ... _arguments

Pro-gun arguments with replies.

[bobevenson]

Well, my friend, if that's not a political statement, I don't know what is!

I think you are being very liberal with your understanding of 'political statement'. The point I am making is that arguments typically put by conservatives in support of unregulated gun ownership are at best based on ignorance, or more likely, wilful disregard for the evidence. That, I think, is a more overtly political point.
Walter Williams point, that it is the collapse of morality that is responsible for the rates of gun crime rates, isn't supported by evidence from the rest of the western world, which has undergone much the same social and economic changes. Key to these were the availability of effective contraception from the 60's onwards, allowing women control of their bodies, a good thing, and the liberalisation of economic regulation in the 80's, allowing the USA to run up debts which if there were any prospect of them being repaid would take several generations of Americans to do so. Probably not a good thing. Again, Walter Williams is either ignorant or a liar. What's your excuse?

(a) Walter Williams is probably one of the smartest guys on the planet, and (b) he supports all of his contentions with facts, so (c) what is your excuse!

[uwot]

(a) Walter Williams is probably one of the smartest guys on the planet, and (b) he supports all of his contentions with facts, so (c) what is your excuse!

I'm not one of the smartest guys on the planet. I have tried to support my contentions with facts; which ones do you disagree with?

[bobevenson]

(a) Walter Williams is probably one of the smartest guys on the planet, and (b) he supports all of his contentions with facts, so (c) what is your excuse!

I'm not one of the smartest guys on the planet. I have tried to support my contentions with facts; which ones do you disagree with?

(a) That Walter Williams is either ignorant or a liar, (b) that I'm being very liberal with my understanding of a political statement, and (c) that conservatives in support of unregulated gun ownership are at best based on ignorance, or more likely, willful disregard for the evidence.

[bobevenson]

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.or ... _arguments

Pro-gun arguments with replies.

Left-wing crap.

[uwot]

I'm not one of the smartest guys on the planet. I have tried to support my contentions with facts; which ones do you disagree with?

(a) That Walter Williams is either ignorant or a liar, (b) that I'm being very liberal with my understanding of a political statement, and (c) that conservatives in support of unregulated gun ownership are at best based on ignorance, or more likely, willful disregard for the evidence.

These aren't facts, Bob, these are my contentions which I believe follow from the facts. You can argue your case or as here:

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.or ... _arguments

Pro-gun arguments with replies.

Left-wing crap.

You can dismiss it as Left-wing crap. I'm guessing that's what makes Walter Williams so smart.

[bobevenson]

I'm not one of the smartest guys on the planet. I have tried to support my contentions with facts; which ones do you disagree with?

(a) That Walter Williams is either ignorant or a liar, (b) that I'm being very liberal with my understanding of a political statement, and (c) that conservatives in support of unregulated gun ownership are at best based on ignorance, or more likely, willful disregard for the evidence.

These aren't facts, Bob, these are my contentions which I believe follow from the facts. You can argue your case or as here:

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.or ... _arguments

Pro-gun arguments with replies.

Left-wing crap.

You can dismiss it as Left-wing crap. I'm guessing that's what makes Walter Williams so smart.

The problem is that you and your leftist friends can't find anything to attack in Williams' article, so you just play your little ring-around-the-rosey game.

[Ginkgo]

The problem is that you and your leftist friends can't find anything to attack in Williams' article, so you just play your little ring-around-the-rosey game.

I have posted at least a half dozen quotes that have gone unanswered by you. At least four of them say that guns are an important part of the problem. Would you like to discuss the continuum fallacy and work our way through?

[marjoramblues]

The problem is that you and your leftist friends can't find anything to attack in Williams' article, so you just play your little ring-around-the-rosey game.

I don't think that the labels of 'leftist' or 'rightist' are particularly helpful; makes it more political ping-pongism...

I agree with Gingko: [previously]

Yes, people use "things" to kill, but the fallacy is to say that all of these "things" occupy the same place on a continuum of potential harm.

Yes, instruments of destruction do nothing. That is, until they are placed in the hands of an individual who are bent on doing something. The potential to do something is dependent on the availability, the destructive power and the relevant circumstances. This is why you have legislation that attempts to match the continuum I have been talking about.

[bobevenson]

Do any of you left-wing, gun-hating liberals have anything to say about Walter Williams' article?

[Ginkgo]

Do any of you left-wing, gun-hating liberals have anything to say about Walter Williams' article?

Ok then I would like to focus on Williams' article.

I think he is mostly correct. Except perhaps the last paragraph.

[bobevenson]

Do any of you left-wing, gun-hating liberals have anything to say about Walter Williams' article?

Ok then I would like to focus on Williams' article.

I think he is mostly correct. Except perhaps the last paragraph.

You mean you think kids should be thrown out of school for biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart?

[uwot]

The problem is that you and your leftist friends can't find anything to attack in Williams' article, so you just play your little ring-around-the-rosey game.

The problem with reactionary right-wingers is that they make up a story, provide no evidence for it, but nonetheless assail people who challenge it. That is what religious fundamentalists of all 'faiths' do and that is what Walter Williams has done in his article.

With so many guns in the hands of youngsters, did we see today's level of youth violence?

Probably not, but what are the facts? How many guns were actually in the hands of youngsters and how do the levels of youth violence actually compare?

What about gun availability? Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, '50s and '60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents.

Were crime rates stable during this period?

For example, "What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun" was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements.

You cannot use a catalogue from 1902 to support a claim about the 40's' 50's and 60's

People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun.

Is there any evidence that the 'virtually anywhere' you could buy guns easily were safer than places you couldn't?

Few states bothered to have even age restrictions on buying guns.

Those and other historical facts should force us to ask ourselves: Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted?

It's because policies put in place by conservative administrations, that have allowed personal debt to spiral, jobs to be shipped overseas, working people to be disenfranchised and the gap between rich and poor to escalate have placed an extraordinary stress on people who are struggling to make the best of their lives.

Guns are guns. If they were capable of behavior, as some people seem to suggest, they should have been doing then what they're doing now.

Can Williams or you provide examples of what you mean by people suggesting that guns are capable of behaviour?

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. 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.

If as he says the wisdom is distilled through trial and error and looking at what works, then any particular point we should return to is completely arbitrary.

The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching.

Exactly what are these customs, traditions and moral values and who exactly doesn't have them? What evidence is there that such people are responsible for a disproportionate level of crime?

In other words, it's morality that is society's first line of defense against uncivilized behavior.

How are you going to make someone behave as you would wish if they are pointing a gun at you?

Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century.

Punishment for criminal behaviours has never been stricter or swifter which is why the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.

Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle.

What moral absolutes? Who has abandoned them?

We've been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another.

What sort of lifestyle? What evidence is there that people living such lifestyles are disproportionately responsible for gun related crimes?

More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives.

What is the evidence for this claim? What moral standards? What has the education establishment done to attack them?

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 are needed to regulate behavior.

So to civilise society, you give everyone a gun?

What's worse is that instead of trying to return to what worked, progressives want to replace what worked with what sounds good or what seems plausible, such as more gun locks, longer waiting periods and stricter gun possession laws.

Does he recommend that we should try things that don't sound plausible?

Then there's progressive mindlessness "cures," such as "zero tolerance" for schoolyard recess games such as cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians, shouting "bang bang," drawing a picture of a pistol, making a gun out of Lego pieces, and biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart.

What are the regulations with regard to the above?

This kind of unadulterated lunacy — which focuses on an inanimate object such as a gun instead of on morality, self-discipline and character — will continue to produce disappointing results.

Is there any evidence that playing cops and robbers or making a gun out of a Pop-Tart improves morality, self-discipline and character?
The reason sane people can't find anything to attack is that it is a facile piece of tripe, because the author lacks the balls, the knowledge or the intellect to make any substantive claims.