Michael Moore

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Crime stats are really a whole differant area.

Yes the US has a pretty high number of muders per year. Even when taken as per capita. But are the guns the reason for this? IF so then why do the Swiss have such extremely low numbers of murders? Many Swiss have their fully auto armed forces weapons in their homes, yet very low homicide rates. Britian has some of the most restrictive gun laws in all the world, but a higher murder rate than the Swiss, why?

Could it be it has more to do with the overall context of the society where the murders happen? The enviroment a person is in has a huge effect on a individual, and how he will react.

Sadly the US murder rate is high. But not just firearms murders. Murder with a knife, ball bat, pipe, auto, poisons .......... or guns are all criminal acts. And where premeditated murders are concerned the killer would just use a differant method if unable to get a gun. Murders commited in the heat of the moment, or acts of rage, might be reduced if a gun were not in the home. But on the other had a butcher knife is also deadly.

I really got into this subject some time back, and was surprised at some of the stats I found. In the end what I have come to beleive is that the enviroment in which a person is living and was raised in has more to due with tendencies toward violence than any other factor.

I do agree with you that you can't say that firearms alone is the dark evil that leads to all deaths. When it comes having military weapons at home, I don't think that there are a large % that have them at home. And it's peoples view on firearms and how they choose to respect them that may play a large role. Since most people in Europe have never even seen a real firearm in their whole life and never been at a shooting range. I know about 50 people and none of them owns or have in anyway access to a firearm. If they would like a firearm they would need a license which cost 40$ and requires 6 months of training with the specific firearm at a shooting range with a teacher. Someone posted a reply that my idea of using baseballbats as means of defending yourself wasn't a good idea. I wasn't all to serious, all I mean was that if you stand eye to eye with an armed thief and you have firearm the chance of getting injured is quite large. But if you don't have one he might leave you after threaten to kill you. Also you could use the 670$ a pistol cost to buy a high tech alarm system and if you have two firearms you could have spent the other 670$ on a secure door so you can have a "light panic room". I believe in the end that the more firearms there are they larger the risk of wrong people or people in a bad mood gets their hands on them use them. So limiting access and use of firearms to a level where they are only owned and used by people in real need of them and why not storing firearms at the shooting range, which is the only legal place that you may use them, not counting hunting.... Also finding out how to change people arrogant view on killings and changing peoples attitude
on violence, firearms etc to make us all more friendly, would be the dream. Though that is not possible, at lest I don't think so.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
...
I believe in the end that the more firearms there are they larger the risk of wrong people or people in a bad mood gets their hands on them use them.

Such "untidyness" is part of the cost of freedom. Just as men are free to be all they can be, they are free to be assholes as well. Totalitarian dictatorships are very orderly!

Originally posted by PlawsWorth

So limiting access and use of firearms to a level where they are only owned and used by people in real need of them ...

Need determined by whom?

Originally posted by PlawsWorth

...and why not storing firearms at the shooting range, which is the only legal place that you may use them, not counting hunting....

It is also legal to defend one's life and property. Unless you are the owner of the shooting range.... You get the idea.

Originally posted by PlawsWorth

Also finding out how to change people arrogant view on killings and changing peoples attitude
on violence, firearms etc to make us all more friendly, would be the dream. Though that is not possible, at lest I don't think so.

This, of course, is the Holy Grail of (nearly) all ethical systems. It is possible with a rational philosophical framework. The problem lies in the lack of such in the dominant ethical "authorities" now extant.

Bob

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
Such "untidyness" is part of the cost of freedom. Just as men are free to be all they can be, they are free to be assholes as well. Totalitarian dictatorships are very orderly!



Need determined by whom?



It is also legal to defend one's life and property. Unless you are the owner of the shooting range.... You get the idea.



This, of course, is the Holy Grail of (nearly) all ethical systems. It is possible with a rational philosophical framework. The problem lies in the lack of such in the dominant ethical "authorities" now extant.

Bob

On the part about defending your life...I do agree that you have the right to defend life, but the problem is that there are more innocent people dying by children playing with firearms, adults misstaking someone in the family for a thief etc. So I believe that using firearms isn't the best way. You can save and protect life by using security system, not having firearms at home, etc... I haven't told you from where my way of life is, since where I live, in my city, there are about 250 000 people, not counting the suburbs. And no one in my whole neighbourhood locks their door, I don't know of a single person who has a firearm at home or even owns one. The latest crime that happend around here was some punks spraying their tags at some buildings and some junkies that stole some trash from our basement. I'm not saying it's paradise over here, far from. But I believe we can all agree that we everyone want's less crimes, violence and killings and they ideas on how to achive the goal are diffrent. But finding out how to work against the problem is important.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
On the part about defending your life...I do agree that you have the right to defend life, but the problem is that there are more innocent people dying by children playing with firearms, adults misstaking someone in the family for a thief etc.

Exactly what data are you basing this assertion on?

Originally posted by PlawsWorth

So I believe that using firearms isn't the best way. You can save and protect life by using security system, not having firearms at home, etc... I haven't told you from where my way of life is, since where I live, in my city, there are about 250 000 people, not counting the suburbs. And no one in my whole neighbourhood locks their door, I don't know of a single person who has a firearm at home or even owns one. The latest crime that happend around here was some punks spraying their tags at some buildings and some junkies that stole some trash from our basement. I'm not saying it's paradise over here, far from. But I believe we can all agree that we everyone want's less crimes, violence and killings and they ideas on how to achive the goal are diffrent. But finding out how to work against the problem is important.

This is an "apples and oranges" analogy. It is unrealistic to compare a (relatively) homogeneous, isolated society such as Sweden to a diverse, pluralistic, and cosmopolitan society such as exists in the US.

This diversity has its downside to be sure, but the advantage lies in the great "mixing bowl" of ideas that it breeds. There are a lot of problems, but it is in the solving of those problems that progress lies.

Bob

[cybrsamurai]

I don't own any fire arms. I just don't see the need to own a fire arm. I feel; and this is just the way I feel, that I would put my family in more danger by having the weapon in my house. I don't know anyone that has been the victim of a burglary/homicide however I lost my brother to a gun accident. I don't know if my experiences are indicative of the nature of firearms, but it seems a study could be made to quantify the number of firearm misshaps with the number of actual uses (in home or public defense each use could be counted as a saved life or save family depending on the situation) Of course military figures would have to left out of this study as I think that would skew the results. This study of course wouldnt change any laws however I think it may change some peoples ideas on firearm education and ownership.

In response to people saying that people such as Nader wouldn't be taken seriously in this country due to his lack of charisma. I think we are missing the boat here. I think that people such as Nader don't have the financial backing to be exposed to the popular culture (masses) of America. It takes huge amounts of money to run a campaign like Bush or Gore. Bush had to run the most expensive primary campaign in history in order to beat the more qualified John McKain. If all campaign funds were equal we would see a whole different ball of wax come election time. Candidates would have to rely on their political record and they would have to campaign instead of relying on their dads cash and soft money from big corps.

[bigben2k]

Political contributions in the US bring bick buck$ to the politicians.

I remember that in Canada, the rules are much different, where a contribution cap has been imposed. There is talk of doing this in the US, but for now, it's strictly on a voluntary basis.

It certainly would be nice if our politicians showed the same integrity as journalists (the good ones) try to have.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, CyberSamurai. I too will refuse to have a gun in my house, and in fact, I insist that my stepchildren don't play with toy guns either (may be overboard, but that's me!)

My stepson wanted a dartgun (CO2 cartridge) for christmas last year, and I had no problem saying no.

I also lost a friend at the Montreal University shooting, some 10 years ago, at the hand of a gun wielding maniac.

[airspirit]

Nader wouldn't have been elected no matter how much money he had behind him. His ideas are too radical and impractical for the majority of Americans to buy into. The day someone like him gets elected is the day I retire to a start thinking about whether or not I want to be an American. Seriously. I will NOT allow the money I make be stripped from me wholesale to feed the selfish and lazy malingerers who feed off of socialist systems. Besides, the US would be an easy target if the the lefties have their way and start chainsawing the defense budget so they can pay more people not to work. It would be a sad day for the US and the world.

I do agree, however, that there should be limits on spending. There are too many rich know-nothings in the government who are there because of their pocketbooks and sponsors. If we blocked campaign donations and paid for campaigns out of government funds after the candidate received significant support via petition for candidacy, we would probably find a much more honest government would result, and that our corruption issues would quickly lessen.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
Exactly what data are you basing this assertion on?



This is an "apples and oranges" analogy. It is unrealistic to compare a (relatively) homogeneous, isolated society such as Sweden to a diverse, pluralistic, and cosmopolitan society such as exists in the US.

This diversity has its downside to be sure, but the advantage lies in the great "mixing bowl" of ideas that it breeds. There are a lot of problems, but it is in the solving of those problems that progress lies.

Bob

I wouldn't count Sweden as ahomogeneous society when there lives about 8,5million people, 500 000 people are registred muslims and the number of people from former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Italians, Greeks, Turkish etc a quite large part of the population so I would count that we aren't so isolated. We are one of the countries in Europe with the who has allowed large numbers of foreigners to move in during the 90's (in % to the total population). In my city we have people from over 190 diffrent nations. In my class during elementary school over 50% was first generation or second generation immigrants. So we have have the advantage of a great mixing bowl of ideas and the problems does exist. And they are getting worse and we are solving them.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
Exactly what data are you basing this assertion on?



This is an "apples and oranges" analogy. It is unrealistic to compare a (relatively) homogeneous, isolated society such as Sweden to a diverse, pluralistic, and cosmopolitan society such as exists in the US.

This diversity has its downside to be sure, but the advantage lies in the great "mixing bowl" of ideas that it breeds. There are a lot of problems, but it is in the solving of those problems that progress lies.

Bob

What fact is it that you are wondering about?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
What fact is it that you are wondering about?

well...

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
...there are more innocent people dying by children playing with firearms, adults misstaking someone in the family for a thief etc. ...

That one.

[bigben2k]

Googling sure helps a lot.

There's a lot of exagerated/misinterpreted statistics, Googling will clear that right up.

You'll have a hard time finding stats on accidental shooting of one's own child, because the numbers are so low!

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Googling sure helps a lot.

There's a lot of exagerated/misinterpreted statistics, Googling will clear that right up.

You'll have a hard time finding stats on accidental shooting of one's own child, because the numbers are so low!

I wrote a long message. But in a moment of tradegy, the true world of weapons and crimes, the real world says it all:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/04/....ap/index.html

"They have guards in there. They're supposed to have security."

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
I wrote a long message. But in a moment of tradegy, the true world of weapons and crimes, the real world says it all:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/04/....ap/index.html

"They have guards in there. They're supposed to have security."

I knew this was coming

Freedom is sometimes untidy. But the urge to restrict everyone's freedom because of the actions of a miniscule minority would be a greater tragedy.

We must look at the bigger picture.

Bob

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
I knew this was coming

Freedom is sometimes untidy. But the urge to restrict everyone's freedom because of the actions of a miniscule minority would be a greater tragedy.

We must look at the bigger picture.

Bob

I knew this was coming

Well what if you are that minority? Thoose who happend to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone who should be getting help for his/her issues are going postal and you stand point blank with a firearm pointed at your head, would you rather die knowing that you had your freedom and your firearms are in your safety locker at home or would you rather have the chance of living a whole life without that firearm or maybe with that firearm at the shooting range.....what freedom can you use when you dead?

Where do you place the freedom of life?

Every person only live once and damn if someone is going to destroy the creation of god, life. It's the greatest gift we'll ever get and without life no freedoms, no dreams, no work etc has a meaning.

[Blackeagle]

A bit surprised to see this one got going again after such a long pause.

Plawsworth,

As you seem to be real interested in this topic I'll try to dig up the stats on the numbers of shootings involving young childeren in the US.

Note: I said young children, not minors in their teens involved in gangs or other planned criminal activitys. Outlaw street gangs often in the country use underage teens as "runners" for their illegal activitys. If caught they most often don't go to jail as a adult would for the same criminal activitys, and if they do the time handed down by the courts is a fraction of what a adult would get.

True accidants are extremely rare, such as a child shooting a playmate with daddys revolver that the child thought was a toy, or a wife shooting a child or husband thinking them to be a intruder. Far more people are killed by lightning than in those types of gun accidants. But as I said I'll see what real facts I can come up with.

This may take some time.

BE

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
A bit surprised to see this one got going again after such a long pause.

Plawsworth,

As you seem to be real interested in this topic I'll try to dig up the stats on the numbers of shootings involving young childeren in the US.

Note: I said young children, not minors in their teens involved in gangs or other planned criminal activitys. Outlaw street gangs often in the country use underage teens as "runners" for their illegal activitys. If caught they most often don't go to jail as a adult would for the same criminal activitys, and if they do the time handed down by the courts is a fraction of what a adult would get.

True accidants are extremely rare, such as a child shooting a playmate with daddys revolver that the child thought was a toy, or a wife shooting a child or husband thinking them to be a intruder. Far more people are killed by lightning than in those types of gun accidants. But as I said I'll see what real facts I can come up with.

This may take some time.

BE

The reason for the pause is that i'm quite busy in my life, since i'm going last year in high school and because it's very strenuous writing all the replies since I have to think trough all my thoughts in the head, when I then have answer I have to write it here in english and then I have to read it through and see so that the translation is good enough for you guys. And since I always have have pair off diffrent answers I sometimes delete the answer since it might be very clear in my mind but very difficult to unserstand for other people and the translation may have became a bit odd. But I try my best. When it comes to fact I have watched about 30 documentaries alone that have been about firearms, violence etc but not much books so I don't really want to refer to documentaries since they are always wrong at some facts. But there is a thin red line through that all point one direction so any sane person can see where it's leading. Stats can always been used to show whatever the person whants. If you are good you can compare and show with diffrent diagrams and number diffrent things.

"Far more people are killed by lightning than in those types of gun accidants." That is to me not very useful to know, unless I know % or nr of people. Since if 1million people dies from lightning and 500 000 people would die from guns, guns would still be a very big problem, but if only 50 people are killed by guns and 100 000 by lightning then it would be more intresting. Then I would try finding out why so many people get's killed by lightning.

When it comes to European stats I can acess the swedish stats authorities and check muder stats between 1969-1996 online for free at www.scb.se and get exact stats. Sweden doesn't represent the whole of EU, but most countries are the same, with minor diffrences.