@ lovelanguages
Btw, a way you can express your views by action, if you are an austrian against the amount of guns in the world is to encourage your government to prohibit Glock from exporting arms for civilion purchase. .
I clearly have no self control when it comes to staying out of this discussion, I’ve accepted it.
Odiernod,
I have not read the Harvard articles cited in the link but if I read the short synopsis it seems they have in fact looked into all these factors like urbanization and socio economic differences and still find a clear corellation. If indeed crime increases with urbanization, one can compare two villages and two cities, where one of the pair has low and one has high gun ownership and I believe that is what they have done. Below I quote from the link:
“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”
"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. "
ad Robert:
I am not sure I am as gloomy regarding pollutants in our environment. I think it would be difficult to do something more harmful to your body in terms of exposure to poisons than smoking which is of course completely self inflicted. Another common problem is of course air pollution in countries without car emission regulation, mostly in Africa and some countries in South America, but these places are getting fewer and fewer. Regarding toxins in our food I have to admit that I don’t really know for sure but I feel those dangers are a bit overblown compared to other issues such as smoking and obesity.
Regarding cancer I always hear that prevalence is increasing because longevity increases. As I understand it we would eventually all get cancer at some late stage in our lives if we were to live long enough. Certain diseases are known to run in families unfortunately which shows that genetics plays a big part too.
Regarding the food industry the big problem is that the end consumer does not really know what they put into their products. And those substances could be there to increase shelf live or for process related aspects. But it could also be in there to make us eat more of it. Another issue is that sugar is often hidden in many foods where we would not expect it.
Dooo said:
“Calling my obvious sarcasm ( I even added the short skirts comment to underline it) “cynical” is proof of your and others’ challenges in processing that rather useful rhetorical device.”
That were all true if you really had support for your claim that there is no corellation between access to guns and gun related crimes but you have not offered that. Therefore equating calls for gun control to calls for banning schools and skirts strikes me as offensive and cynical.
You said you had wished for the teachers to have been armed and trained in using them. Do you really want to live an a world where we all are armed to the teeth and expect any person to be a potential killer which in almost all cases he will of course turn out not to be? How many unwanted killings would happen that way? This more guns = better protection mantra is a complete madness in my view and this arms race leads to nowhere.
One issue I always had with your posts is your stilted and overly formal language that can come across as arrogant and condescending.
Freidemann
“support for your claim that there is no corellation between access to guns and gun related crimes”
Can you show me where I claimed that? No you cannot.
"You said you had wished for the teachers to have been armed and trained in using them. "
Can you show me where I claimed that? No you cannot.
Give it up already.
lovelanguagesII,
Why are you against freedom? Why should I give some fat politician the right to regulate what I eat, while they travel and eat and drink whatever they want. It’s like Al Gore and global warming. He has his limo wait outside for him while the car is still running. His Nashville home cost $30,000 a year in utility bills. I can’t believe people want to be under the foot of government in this way. Look at the USA, England, Japan, and Hong Kong. Countries/territories that prospered in the 19th and early 20th century because government got out of the way. This lead to better living standards and improved food quality. Look at the pollution and quality of life in China. It was caused by the government retarding the society and industry. Now, Japan is exporting their technology to China so they can produce cleaner and Japanese citizens don’t have to inhale all the pollution caused by a China that is/was run by a bunch of dangerous people who in the past thought they were smart enough to solve all problems.
If people treat their car better than their body, so what! If it doesn’t bother you, don’t worry about it. If it’s someone you care about, let them know how you feel, but it’s their decision ultimately.
Also, we need better informed citizens? I think people understand the difference between a cupcake and a green bean. Exercise an hour a day…Given the choice between McDonalds and chicken breast with broccoli, I think most people understand which is healthier. I don’t assume people are not capable of figuring out which is better.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but no one really cares what you ate as a kid. That’s your families business. And that’s the point. I don’t worry about what you eat, you don’t worry about what I eat.
Your faith in government is dangerous. You need to understand people are living longer in spite of government, not because of it. Private business and individual initiative has driven innovation and progress. Government sometimes makes it more difficult to get cheaper products due to tariffs. If government does invest in research, the money was FORCIBLY taken from private sector. People seem to think government is so altruistic because they forcibly take from some and give to others. It’s always easier to do good with other peoples money. You should tell politicians to take a pay cut and give their own money to the poor. In fact, since most Europeans hate the American Government, you should be wary of governments, just look at your own history. Government has had the “I know better than you about everything” attitude for such a long time. Granted government has a role, but it should be minimized.
“While I agree with Steve that it is up to the invididual to decide what he or she ought to eat,” ------ no you don’t “All in all, we probably need better informed citizens on the one hand and stricter production regulations on the other hand.” With "stricter production regulations being a very broad way of saying it, and they government wouldn’t have the wording any other way. This will give them the wiggle room to do whatever they want, or as much as the government worshiping populace will allow.
@ Dooo:
Yes, I can! Okay, you said office staff members and not teachers specifically but it is still the same basic logic that more guns are needed for protection:
“If I were affected by this shooting, I imagine I would have wished the office staff had access to some kind weapon to quickly take a man out of commission, and were trained to use it, as this would have been the only way to safely stop this man. Level of access to weapons of any sort has not been a big impediment to this kind of rampage in the past.”
“Freidemann”
I cannot believe you are a grown up man when I see these pathetic antics of yours. Making fun of someone’s name, I did that, if at all back in elementary school. All you are doing is making a fool of yourself.
@Carlos:
The countries that rank consistently highest in human development and quality of living are the Nordic countries which all have strong governments, high taxes and high level of regulation. A weak government does not necessarily mean a flourishing society, look at Congo, Mexico or Afghanistan.
Government investment in research and education as well as government funded programs such as the Apollo program were instrumental in spawning innovation in the US.
On the food thing: We are much less guided by our rational mind and much more so by physiological triggers beyond our control. Less exercise is not the root cause of the obesity epidemic, but it is the change in our diet. Food has been manufactured and is being markeded today in order to exploit our unconscious triggers and stimuli and regulation of the food industry is therefore overdue IMHO.
Do you think a person as driven and successful as governor Chris Christie lacks discipine and willpower? No, it is much more complex than just blaming people for being mentally weak.
I think the way we eat is not our own private affair because the costs caused by this epidemic have to be borne be all of us. If you are concerned about the US budget deficit, addressing public health and obesity specifically would an be excellent starting point. Think about it, the food industry makes massive profits with unhealthy food that gets us hooked and the wider public has to pay in the form of insurance premiums and government health care programs.
Many conservatives always point to government wasteful spending but don’t seem to care about the influence of corporate interests on politics which is highly corrosive to the political system in the US.
We already have at least one school district in Texas that allows teachers with their CCW to carry because they live 30 minutes away from the nearest police station. They’ve been doing this since 2007 without incident.
I just want to hear you and the others who oppose this policy say you’d rather wait 30 minutes for other people (with guns) to arrive than to have one of those teachers respond if you were in that school and a shooting happened. Is that your position? The usually vocal proponents for infringing my rights have been pretty silent about this hypothetical situation. I can’t get any of you to admit you’d rather get executed by a nut than have the chance at defense.
What do you do when the government decides to regulate something out of your life for your own good? What if it’s something that actually affects you and not a gun which you obviously have no interest or desire in owning?
What other piece of my property and liberty should the government take away from me for my own good?
Vehicles and alcohol are both legal and highly regulated, yet we still have plenty of vehicle and alcohol related deaths. Combining the two, we have around 10,000 per year with 2011 being a low year at 9,878 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.madd.org/blog/2012/december/drunk-driving-fatalities-fall.html
Yet, there are less people who drink alcohol (about 50%) and less cars (about 254 million) in the US than there are guns (more than 300 million according to the National Rifle Association).
I really encourage anyone who thinks banning weapons is a good idea to listen to this testimony from someone who was actually in a position where this type of “assault rifle” was used:
At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not you believe that all humans are equal and all humans have the equal right to self-defense under the law or not. You and I both know the government isn’t disarming any time soon. Obama’s family will still be guarded by secret police with automatic weapons. I have no secret police force designated to protect my family with tax dollars. We have to defend ourselves. Why is Obama’s family better than mine? Why do you think some humans should have greater rights and means to self-defense than others?
ad dooo: (…) “I have to say that you struck me as the one with the more aggressive tone”
Your arguments generally strike me long-winded and mealy-mouthed, if you think is making such unsupported subjective statement is forum worthy.
" I apologize to you if you felt my comment was offending to you"
This sort of mealy-mouthed apology offends me more than anything else you have written. Apologise if YOU think you did something wrong. If not, do not. (…)
Oh, well, at least you saved me the time and effort to go through all your previous postings to find the kind of language I was referring to before. By the way, FYO opinions are always subjective.
If you feel my comments to be so long-winded and mealy-mouthed, why read them? And, yes, you are about the rudest person I have come across on this site. You love to dish out but are ever so sensitive when it comes to the way people respond to your outbursts of anger or arrogance. See, I can be just as aggressive as you are if that is the kind of discussion you want to have.
As for the use of condescending language, I’ll leave that to you since you undoubtedly are an expert in it.
I was trying to find a way to have a decent discussion with you but you don’t seem to have any interest in that.
Fortunately, there are many other people on this forum I enjoy talking to and I don’t necessarily share their views but they are mature enough to behave like adults.
The only thing I regret is that I even took the time to respond to any of your comments. But rest assured, this is the last time I have done this. So, please, keep your self-complacent and condescending language to yourself. If you can’t help it, don’t expect any reaction from me. I’m done with people like you.
I actually saw a report on CBS news about that Texas School District which has some armed teachers, the District supervisor said his phone has been ringing off the hook since the tragedy at Newton.
I don’t want to sound flippant but arming teachers reminded me of a story from India a few years back. The general gist was that to get rid of some vermin in the Indian parliament they introduced a breed of small monkey who ate them. The monkeys worked but too well, they took up position everywhere and the handlers could not get them out. They introduced then larger, more dangerous langur monkeys who were supposed to urinate everywhere to scare the smaller ones, which failed in the same way. They ended up with a building teeming with Vermin; teeming with dangerous animals that stank of monkey piss.
How long will we go with armed teachers, before one has a melt down; does the unthinkable and the inevitable outcry is, our children must be armed when going to school?
“How long will we go with armed teachers, before one has a melt down; does the unthinkable and the inevitable outcry is, our children must be armed when going to school?”
Why do you Constitutional abolitionists think every gun owner is just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off? Do you own a vehicle? How long before omad84 has a bad day and drives over a dozen kids at a bus stop? Do you own a kitchen knife? How long before you have a bad day and go on a stabbing spree? Do you believe in free speech? How long before you pull a Charles Manson and talk someone into killing someone? Do you not see how absurd this line of reasoning is?
Please tell me you’d rather wait to die than have a trained and legally licensed teacher respond. You won’t, because that’s not the truth. The truth is, you’d want someone there to protect you and that’s why you avoid the question. It’s this type of intellectual dishonesty that makes it hard to have a fruitful discussion about these things.
UR my post was meant to reflect that sometimes and with the best of intentions we escalate matters which confront us, rather than deal with the overriding problem. For the rats or whatever in the Indian Parliament we can substitute a violent society, that needs something else rather than more violence ( or the threat of more) to heal itself.
You can’t honestly wish for teachers to have guns in schools, hardly a dead poets society esque environment of pure learning!
Really though, what happens when one of these armed teachers loses it?
BTW the knife doesn’t really lend itself to the spree; too visceral close and real. The car yes but you have a fair chance of getting out of the way; if he doesn’t get out and shoot you after that is.
ad Carlos8430:
Wow, you sure are passionate about this topic. I don’t agree with hardly anything you say, but that’s OK, we don’t have to.
Your question “Why are you against freedom?” strikes me as a very generalizing response to my posts. I am not against freedom, unless you think freedom means everybody should be allowed to do anything they want. You sound as if regulations and rules were about the worst thing there can be in life. Government is not something from outer space which imposes dreadful rules upon the people, but - at least in Austria - it is composed of democratically elected representatives and I assume this is true of most other industrialized countries.
And when you quote all the bad things governments supposedly have done, you should not forget to talk about all the times private corporations totally messed up.
Your story about Al Gore certainly holds a lot of truth in it, I can’t and don’t want to deny that. Even though I cannot verify the accuracy of the figures you have given I assume that the dimensions are correct.
(…) Countries/territories that prospered in the 19th and early 20th century because government got out of the way. (…)
I don’t know which countries exactly you refer to. If you really think that workers in the UK for example lived a better life before governments allowed unions, passed laws to prevent child labour, provided for health care systems, then I simply will have to disagree with you.
I have seen many documentaries, read many books about what life was like for example in Vienna at about the time period you mentioned and - when I was younger (for a project at my university) - I also talked to people who had lived in Vienna then. There were a lot of private corporations operating then as well but hardly any of them had the well-being of the workers in mind. The plight of the working classes at that time was not only and exclusively a consequence of global recession or difficult economic times, it was mainly a homemade problem based on exploitation.
Yes, governments can do terrible things and some do. The same applies to corporations too, however.
I know for some Americans “socialism” in Europe equals “communism” the way it was forced upon the people in Eastern Europe. I strongly disagree with this view and I don’t see any evidence in the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans either.
China is a different matter and it would take weeks, months or even longer to discuss this issue thoroughly.
(…) Your faith in government is dangerous. You need to understand people are living longer in spite of government, not because of it. (…)
Dangerous to whom? To your opinions? Why DO I NEED to understand what YOU BELIEVE in?
(…) If government does invest in research, the money was FORCIBLY taken from private sector. (…)
Are you referring to taxes? Are you suggesting nobody should pay any taxes? If so, I don’t agree with you on that either.
(…) Don’t take this the wrong way, but no one really cares what you ate as a kid. That’s your families business. (…)
With all due respect, I don’t think you or anybody else for that matter is in a position to know if “no one really cares”. You seem to be very convinced that what you believe in is the one and only truth. While I appreciate that you are passionate about what you believe in, I disagree with the way you discard the idea that you might actually be wrong as well.
(…) In fact, since most Europeans hate the American Government, you should be wary of governments, just look at your own history. (…)
Where do you get the idea from that most Europeans hate the American Government?
What do you mean with “just look at your own history” when you suggest I ought to be wary of governments. I sure hope you are not trying to put the nazi regime in the 30ies and 40ies on the same level as our current governments. If you want to use history as an argument to tell me and others how bad government is, you might as well use it to think about what the private sector did wrong. You make it sound as if government was the devil and if the private sector held all the solutions to all the problems of this world in its hands.
If you believe that, fine, I just don’t share your view of things. But, please, don’t make it sound as if “I was against freedom”. I’m against the kind of freedom you depicted in your post, but given the fact that there obviously are different ideas about what freedom is supposed to be, I find that quite natural.
(…) I don’t assume people are not capable of figuring out which is better. (…)
Well, I assume most people still are not aware of the consquences their choices may have on their health. Both of us may be wrong in our assumptions.
(…) If people treat their car better than their body, so what! If it doesn’t bother you, don’t worry about it. If it’s someone you care about, let them know how you feel, but it’s their decision ultimately. (…)
I agree that at the end of the day it is up to the individual what they will decide. But I do believe that your decision also depends on the options you are given and I am convinced that giving all the power to the private sector alone which mostly is based on a profit-maximising ideology is not a wise thing to do.
Austria, just as one of many examples, is a country that has had a much higher degree of “government interference” than the US ever have had. If you were right in what you said, we should be one of the worst countries with some of the unhappiest people deprived of their basic rights. I invite you to come to Austria and see for yourself what life is like here. Our system is far from being perfect but I certainly prefer it to any neo-liberal system out there today.
Since we both live in democracies we are lucky enough to help decide with our votes what direction our countries should take. You will try and make sure there is less government control the way you want to have it and I will try to make sure that the shareholder value is not the only yardstick for decisions that concern the entire population and not just the members of some BOD.
ad unravelingmind (…) How long before you have a bad day and go on a stabbing spree? … Do you not see how absurd this line of reasoning is?(…)
There was a stabbing spree in China a few days ago. The sad result of this crime: several injured children who had to be hospitalized.
There was a mass shooting in the US a few days ago. The sad result of this crime: 27 people who lost their lives.
Do you not see the fault in your line of argumentation?
@loveslanguages:
I’m talking about the way some of you guys (not necessarily you) who want to ban guns talk like every person who owns a gun is just a ticking time bomb. It’s absurd and extremely offensive to suggest that firearm owners are dangerous just by virtue of owning a firearm. Do you agree with me on that?
I am not trying to say knives are more lethal than guns. If you mistook my argument as saying that, maybe I was too ambiguous. Let me clear it up here by saying that guns are more lethal than knives, but it is silly to claim that knife owners (or car owners) may go on a spree just for merely possessing property which is capable of killing. The same way it is silly to say that owning a gun makes you more likely to kill. There are millions of gun owners in this country and the vast majority of them (99%) live and die having never used their firearm to commit a crime, let alone go on a mass killing spree.
Teachers with guns UR, whats your assessment, yay or nay?
“Teachers with guns UR, whats your assessment, yay or nay?”
Let yourself get executed in a killing spree instead of responding, yea or nay?
Unfortunately most teachers are not the Rambo type though. Liberal, older, most probably pacifists mindful of education and childrens welfare. Not exactly the elite unit to deal with this kind of threat. I’m sure we could send them all to the range, at someones expense and they could become crack shots but when hardy came to hardy?
It isn’t really going to work, is it?
@lovelanguages,
I have been to Austria and saw an efficient, well run society. I have a bit of Austrian heritage in me and was proud of it.
However, I must stress, as I did in an earlier post, that the United States is very different from Europe. The entire population of Austria is only a little bit bigger than that of New York City. We have 300 million people in our country, with tons of different races, ethnicities, cultures, and values. What works in a smaller, more homogenous country like yours will not necessarily work here.
Case in point, while higher taxes and stricter regulation don’t seem to be detrimental to a lot of European societies (though they might be in certain ways), they are most certainly very destructive here. The cities and states in America that run on a more “European” model are absolute disasters. Cities like Detroit and New York and states like California have been plagued for years by many problems: unemployment and violent crime, crushing deficits, capital flight, brain drains, etc. No, I’m not an anarchist, and the choice isn’t, or shouldn’t be, between total free market anarchism and Kim Il Sung-style socialism. Everybody draws the line somewhere in the middle. I support both a free market and a good safety net, but that’s beside the point.
The real point is that whether a country “works” or not is dependent on much more than whether it has a 50% or 90% top marginal tax rate or whether it regulates utilities or not. Culture, tradition, and all sorts of variables no one knows anything about play huge roles. In America, this is becoming more evident than ever, as everything we do, whether regulate or deregulate, seems to make things worse.