Guns (and Gender Equality)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

What are guns? In modern America the only answer, outside the military and police, is that they're toys. And tools of self-destruction. They account for a lot of suicide.

I grew up with guns - for sport and for hunting. There are other legitimate reasons to own guns. They're not toys, they're tools. I don't own any now because I'm no longer interested and my wife wouldn't like it.

Quoting tim wood

And enshrined in our Constitution is our 2d amendment, grossly misunderstood now as a justification to possess and play with toys. But the underlying purpose of the 2d amendment is to my mind serious and not to be dismissed. It guarantees an armed citizenry to oppose tyranny - understood in late 18th-century terms. It presupposed a citizenry that understood that a gun is not a toy, nor to be played with. It also noted the importance of training and control, "A well regulated militia...".

The Supreme Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual gun ownership. The Constitution means what the SC says it means. You may not like it, but that's the way it works.

Quoting tim wood

Gun ownership and use should be only for those willing to be trained in their use, perhaps with a psych profile included. And guns licensed and the owners responsible for them at all times.

I know conservative gun owners for whom gun rights are important who wouldn't disagree with what you have written. Problem is, gun control is one of those issues that are so emotional and emblematic that finding a reasonable middle ground is probably impossible.

Reply to tim wood

I fully agree that not everyone should be allowed a gun. And it seems prudent for those who do carry them to keep them concealed in public (I thought people had to by law anyway). But here’s something else quoted by Hitchens from Lott’s book:

Violent crimes are 81 percent higher in states without non-discretionary laws. For murder, states that ban the concealed carrying of guns have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with the most liberal concealed-carry laws.

And this:

In the period 1987 to 1996, Florida issued 380,000 concealed-carry licenses and revoked seventy-two because of crimes committed by the permit holder. Most of these crimes did not involve the use of the permitted gun.

Virginia and Texas were basically the same in this respect. So it appears that up until around 2000 at least (perhaps things have changed since) legal gun owners were behaving very well in those states.

Quoting AJJ

I fully agree that not everyone should be allowed a gun. And of course those who do carry them should keep them concealed in public (I thought people had to by law anyway).

Generally, concealed carry is much more heavily regulated than open carry. So, the law doesn't agree with your assessment. Many places in the US allow open carry while most require a permit which may be difficult to obtain for concealed carry.

Quoting AJJ

Violent crimes are 81 percent higher in states without non-discretionary laws. For murder, states that ban the concealed carrying of guns have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with the most liberal concealed-carry laws.

I am very skeptical of these statistics. If you look at the data, it is very ambiguous whether or not gun ownership has an effect on violent crime.

Quoting T Clark

Generally, concealed carry is much more heavily regulated than open carry. So, the law doesn't agree with your assessment. Many places in the US allow open carry while most require a permit which may be difficult to obtain for concealed carry.

I see. I intuitively thought open carry would be more restricted that concealed carry, but there you go.

Quoting T Clark

I am very skeptical of these statistics. If you look at the data, it is very ambiguous whether or not gun ownership has an effect on violent crime.

I haven’t read Lott’s book, but according to Hitchens his findings, though challenged, weren’t refuted. That was the case 20 years ago anyway.

Hitchens gives crime figures for Australia during its first two years of firearms restrictions, after a 1996 massacre in Tasmania:

...armed robberies rose by 73 per cent, unarmed robberies by 28 per cent, assaults by 17 per cent and kidnapping by 38 per cent. Murder did fall by 9 per cent, but manslaughter increased by 32 per cent.

Quoting AJJ

I fully agree that not everyone should be allowed a gun. And it seems prudent for those who do carry them to keep them concealed in public (I thought people had to by law anyway). But here’s something else quoted by Hitchens from Lott’s book:

The problem with such figures is that they don't account for other differences in the areas that they are looking at, such as population density. The places with the strictest gun laws are ususally cities, which have higher crime rates across the board.

Quoting AJJ

Virginia and Texas were basically the same in this respect. So it appears that up until around 2000 at least (perhaps things have changed since) legal gun owners were behaving very well in those states.

The vast majority of people behaves "well" insofar as most people respect the law to a wide extend. However, the more guns that are around, the easier those guns end up on the black market. In countries with strict gun laws, acquiring a gun is highly risky, because very few people have access to guns and therefore the avenues are easier to police. Getting a gun (either legally or illegally) requires planning and effort, and this alone provides some amount of protection.

But I think that one of the most important factors, and one that is often overlooked, is culture. In an european country, where guns are rarely seen outside the hands of the police, people simply do not tend to think of a gun as an option or a solution.

Quoting Echarmion

The problem with such figures is that they don't account for other differences in the areas that they are looking at, such as population density. The places with the strictest gun laws are ususally cities, which have higher crime rates across the board.

According to Hitchens, Lott found that “the largest drops in violent crime following the introduction of legal concealed handguns came in the most urban counties with the highest population and greatest crime rates.” Lott is said to have gone into immense detail, sometimes looking county by county at the effects of changes in gun law.

Quoting Echarmion

The vast majority of people behaves "well" insofar as most people respect the law to a wide extend. However, the more guns that are around, the easier those guns end up on the black market. In countries with strict gun laws, acquiring a gun is highly risky, because very few people have access to guns and therefore the avenues are easier to police.

It seems the widespread availability of guns does cause this problem. However, this doesn’t necessarily speak in favour of strict gun laws. Hitchens again:

Brazil and Russia, both countries with far tougher gun laws than the USA, have murder rates four times higher than America.

Quoting Echarmion

But I think that one of the most important factors, and one that is often overlooked, is culture. In an european country, where guns are rarely seen outside the hands of the police, people simply do not tend to think of a gun as an option or a solution. Getting a gun (either legally or illegally) requires planning and effort, and this alone provides some amount of protection.

But there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that strict gun laws do provide protection.

In the USA, so-called ‘hot’ burglaries, committed while the victim is in the house, comprised 13 per cent of the total. In England and Wales they accounted for about 50 per cent of the total.

I’ll say again I agree with Hitchens that allowing guns in the UK is not the best option, but he makes a strong case for it being a fair option.

Quoting AJJ

I haven’t read Lott’s book, but according to Hitchens his findings, though challenged, weren’t refuted. That was the case 20 years ago anyway.

If you look on the web, there seem to have been a bunch of studies, the results of which seem to be pretty inconclusive. That's for the US. It is my understanding that gun ownership in the US is really different than the UK. Many more people here own guns and it's relatively easy to get them. Is that also true for Australia?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting T Clark

If you look on the web, there seem to have been a bunch of studies, the results of which seem to be pretty inconclusive. That's for the US. It is my understanding that gun ownership in the US is really different than the UK. Many more people here own guns and it's relatively easy to get them. Is that also true for Australia?

I’ve had a quick look and there is indeed an ongoing debate.

Gun ownership is tightly restricted in the UK. I don’t know what it’s like in Australia, but according to Hitchens’ book they tightened their gun laws after ‘96 and violent crime went up significantly over the first two years.

Given the vast majority of people in possession of legal guns (according to the statistics I’ve quoted) don’t commit any serious crimes, I’m wondering how it could be that violent crime instead rises in tandem with liberal gun laws. Another thing to consider is that England’s crime rate was incredibly low at the beginning of the 20th century, compared with what it is now, and at that time we had very liberal gun laws ourselves.

Quoting tim wood

Did you need to hunt?

Hunting was a family tradition. We ate what we shot. Do you eat meat? Do you need to? Is it better for me to have someone else kill the meat for me? Learning to shoot was the first thing I had to do where I, at the age of 11 or 12, had to take responsibility for the safety of others in a serious way. Nothing else came close till I got my license at 16.

I don't really like hunting. I didn't when I was a teenager. Getting up at dawn in January with the cold wind blowing off the Chesapeake Bay and the rain coming down. The role of the young guys in hunting is to be the mules. Hauling, moving decoys around, cleaning the birds when hunting's over. But I'm comfortable around guns and I know how to use them safely.

Quoting tim wood

If the 2d amendment did not exist, I would not write it; but as it does exist and exists for an original reason, notwithstanding modern perversions of that meaning, I would not repeal it. It is part of the original experiment.

Originalism - the idea that some theoretical "original intent" of the Constitution is what's important - is an approach usually used by right wingers who want to get the Federal government out of State government business. They want to eliminate the "modern perversions" that form the basis for Federal involvement in environmental regulation, civil rights, worker protection, and so on and so on. I don't know your overall politics, but you should be careful about jumping on the original intent bandwagon.

Quoting tim wood

Question: you go to a major league baseball game only to see some clearly odd-looking people wearing guns. When asked, they say for protection: do you feel safer with them near you?

I'm the wrong person to ask. Watching baseball is the only thing I know more boring than hunting. I do think that businesses and other institutions should have the right to exclude otherwise legal firearms from their properties. That way, I can decide whether or not to do business with people who allow guns. Some states have proposed taking away that right in some situations. And sure, I might feel better not sitting next to people legally carrying guns. But there are also some people who don't feel safe when black or Hispanic people are sitting near them.

Quoting AJJ

Another thing to consider is that England’s crime rate was incredibly low at the beginning of the 20th century, compared with what it is now, and at that time we had very liberal gun laws ourselves.

Keeping in mind that the murder rate in the US is more than 5 per 100,000 while those in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia are about 1 per 100,000.

Reply to T Clark

Sure, though here’s something I quoted earlier:

Brazil and Russia, both countries with far tougher gun laws than the USA, have murder rates four times higher than America.

Reply to AJJ

Yes, better than Russia and Brazil. And that, my friends, is what is known as damnation by very faint praise.

Reply to AJJ

You the man AJJ! A happier society is where depressed people own machetes and swords and non depressed people own assault rifles and hand guns. Makes me proud to be an American. Everyone needs to own a gun or a compound bow (with out a self releasing trigger). Some people use these devices for compound bows that help you release it easier. These devices aren't good for depressed people. Depressed people wouldn't mind getting shot anyway so they don't need to protect themselves from people with assault rifles.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Women are less likely to commit suicide because their dna makes them want to live a longer life. I'm not saying men are less ethical than women, just that women are more focused on living into old age than men. A depressed man is more likely to shoot himself than a depressed woman. I think the solution for depressed men is to own a compound bow without one of those easy release gadgets. I personally pray to be shot at long range by a man in a tower every day of my life. I'm not unique.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Your right, if men matter as much as women then yes, guns are very dangerous to their owners. I was following with the OP topic. I don't own any real guns due to depression (common problem among many people). There are weapons and ranged weapons that are safe to the owner such as a compound bow. (don't buy special release mechanisms). I do however like when my neighbors own an assault rifle because there is nothing they can do to harm me with that assault rifle. lol

Quoting tim wood

Do I undertand you correctly that when you were a child you and others were in danger, and that you required a gun to protect you from those dangers?

I wasn't clear - What I meant to say was that, as an 11 year old, using a gun was the first thing I had ever done that could have hurt someone badly. It was a very serious thing - both for me and for the people who were teaching me to shoot - father, uncle, grandfather. There are rituals about how you hold and carry guns. How you hand one to someone else. How you inspect it when you first pick it up and then again before you put it away. Using a gun is a grownup thing to do.

Quoting tim wood

A comedian, of all people, and from Australia, gets it right. Youtube, and imo required watching for people who do not understand what guns are:

Very funny, although it didn't change my mind about anything. I guess that means I'm in the first 20%.

Quoting christian2017

Women are less likely to commit suicide because their dna makes them want to live a longer life. I'm not saying men are less ethical than women, just that women are more focused on living into old age than men.

This is not true.

Reply to T Clark

Statistics show women commit suicide less often. Gun laws don't prohibit women from owning hand guns nor assault rifles. Do you want to retract that statement?

Quoting AJJ

Gun ownership is tightly restricted in the UK. I don’t know what it’s like in Australia, but according to Hitchens’ book they tightened their gun laws after ‘96 and violent crime went up significantly over the first two years.

This statistic is no surprise but, to me, it gives no valid argument against tightening gun laws. The method for tightening gun laws in Australia in 1996 began with a voluntary surrender of weapons that would fall outside the new laws, including unregistered and unregisterable guns.

So a gun owner could choose between surrendering his weapons to the authorities, keeping them in defiance of the law (and identifying as a criminal), or unloading them on the black market, perhaps for a tidy profit. One can imagine a flood of weapons in the hands of violent criminals and organised crime syndicates, and a shrinking window of opportunity to get away with activities such as armed robberies before the full force of the new laws came into effect.

So what happened after the first two years?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to T Clark
https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

In 2017, men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women.

and i would recommend you go a little further through that website. Women more concerned with their mortality then men and evolutionary logical thought would dictate this is due to their dna. Are you sure about your prior position?

Quoting christian2017

Statistics show women commit suicide less often. Gun laws don't prohibit women from owning hand guns nor assault rifles. Do you want to retract that statement?

So, the fact that women commit suicide a lower rate than men indicates that women's DNA makes them want to live a longer life? No... I'll stick with my original statement.

Quoting christian2017

Are you sure about your prior position?

Yeah, I'm comfortable with my original position.

Reply to T Clark

well if you choose not to elaborate, i'll also refrain from elaborating my position too much. DNA is a real thing you know and in fact it does influence the decisions people make. You want to have a chat?

Quoting christian2017

well if you choose not to elaborate, i'll also refrain from elaborating my position too much. DNA is a real thing you know and in fact it does influence the decisions people make. You want to have a chat?

I think you and I have a difference in our understanding of how inference works. I don't see how the fact that women commit suicide less frequently than men tells us anything about their DNA or about whether they want to live a longer life than men do.

Reply to T Clark

Once again you are being vague. Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA?

Quoting christian2017

Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA?

What, like doing the dishes?

Reply to Brett

I assume you mean women doing dishes? In my house the men do the dishes. Assumptions are fun and funny. On a different note dna is responsible for many of the world's good and bad decisions (atleast partly)

Quoting christian2017

Women more concerned with their mortality then men and evolutionary logical thought would dictate this is due to their dna.

You were talking about women. I stayed on your subject. You said women’s daily decisions are based on their DNA. Thats a big assumption.

Reply to Brett

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

Reply to christian2017

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make?

Reply to Brett

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

Oh oh.

Reply to Brett

Heres the articles for your enjoyment:

https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(10)00075-9

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-dna-determine-the-diet-for-you

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/19/do-your-genes-determine-your-entire-life

http://genesinlife.org/genes-your-health/how-do-genes-impact-health-and-disease

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/02/twins-identical-genes-different-health-study

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/archives/ourgenes/could_we.html

https://www.qualityhealth.com/depression-articles/how-genetics-affects-your-decision-making

https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07/23/genetics-influence-drinking-decisions/15945.html

Quoting Brett

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make?

no. life is extremely complex but to say dna doesn't effect our decisions is unscientific and probably irrational

Quoting Brett

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make?

i find it strange the way you phrased that. You could have phrased that "does every human decision based on DNA". The answer is no. The funny thing is that you could argue a stars gravitiational pull from 2 billion miles away effects our decisions. I'm not a big fan of predestination but it is hard to entirely dismiss and at this point in time i believe in it and i think that will be the case for the foreseable future.

*"is every human decision based on dna?"

Quoting christian2017

Once again you are being vague. Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA?

I doubt any reputable scientist qualified to make judgments in genetics, psychology, comparative zoology, or any other discipline ever made such a statement. Not even the most far out proponent of sociobiology would have. What you're talking about is silly and reductive. Naive to the point of incomprehensibility.

Time to put up or shut up. Provide some evidence. Specific to the point of DNA making women want to live longer, not some general statement about how behavior has a genetic component. I don't mean to be mean, but you can't just make dipsy-doodle comments without references and expect to be taken seriously.

Reply to T Clark

what? Look up a few posts. I posted 8 effing articles. This is a very common concept in scientific journals and pop science magazines. you are a silly goose

Reply to christian2017

Only two of the effing posts you put up have anything to do with genetics influencing decision making. Neither of them say anything about women's DNA making them want to live longer. Both of them discuss general behavioral tendencies.

Reply to T Clark

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above.

Quoting christian2017

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above.

I don't "agree to disagree." Your understanding of genetics and human nature is naive and wrong. On the other hand, if what you mean by "agree to disagree" is that continued discussion on the subject between us is pointless, well then maybe I do agree to agree to disagree.

Reply to T Clark

why wrong? I didn't say anything offensive pertaining to DNA. We can argue about naive.

Do you agree to disagree or do you not to agree to disagree? At the begininng and end you explicitly stated to opposite things.

What about my understanding of DNA is Naive. I stated earlier that DNA isn't the only factor in decision making. I don't even actually like the notion of DNA effecting our choices nor do i like the concept of predestination or fate. These are simply conclusions i came to partly based on my understanding of scientific determinism ("a brief history of time" by stephen hawkings)

Quoting christian2017

why wrong?

I don't mean to be rude, but I stand by my decision that any further discussion of this issue at this time is pointless.

Reply to T Clark

thats fair.

Quoting Possibility

So a gun owner could choose between surrendering his weapons to the authorities, keeping them in defiance of the law (and identifying as a criminal), or unloading them on the black market, perhaps for a tidy profit. One can imagine a flood of weapons in the hands of violent criminals and organised crime syndicates, and a shrinking window of opportunity to get away with activities such as armed robberies before the full force of the new laws came into effect.

I have a couple of problems with this explanation. Why would regular people unload their guns onto a market whose buyers are criminals, and so likely to use those weapons against them? Perhaps a few unwise people did that, but there’d need to be some proper evidence that a lot of people did.

And it makes no sense to say there was a “shrinking window of opportunity to get away with activities such as armed robberies before the full force of the new laws came into effect.” Why would a disarmed public make it more difficult to get away with armed robbery?

I don’t know what happened to crime in Australia after those two years. But I think the point is simply that the claim less legal guns equals less violent crime isn’t a straightforward one to make.

Quoting AJJ

But I think the point is simply that the claim less legal guns equals less violent crime isn’t a straightforward one to make.

Fair enough. I’m not sure where Lott got his statistics from, but I notice that only the first two years of data were available following the law changes when his book was published (1998). All the Australian data I’ve seen show the spike in gun homicides in 1996, after which the gradual decline that was occurring (before the massacre) resumed without much change. Still, this isn’t a convincing argument for gun control laws.

In my opinion, the aim of Australia’s gun control laws in 1996 was to enable police to prosecute more outlaw bikie gang members for possessing and brandishing illegal firearms (particularly against police), rather than actually reduce the incidence of shootings per se. But they won’t tell you that’s the reason. The decade prior to 1996 saw three other shooting massacres, all related to Melbourne crime syndicates, and the gun laws were already being discussed in parliament earlier that year. The massacre of 35 tourists and shopkeepers in an innocent little heritage town was a handy impetus to garner public support and push the laws through. Without it, the public didn’t much care about bikie gang wars or police safety.

Personally, I think the real issue with US gun culture (apart from feeding on fear) is that Americans see possession of a firearm as a fundamental part of their identity as a nation - in the same way as Australians see alcohol and gambling (which, incidentally, is where our major social issues stem from). There will be no effective gun laws in the US unless they can find a way to put aside this element of their identity. America without gun ownership is like Australia without beer (much less unnecessary violence and social destruction, if you ask me).

As for the argument regarding gender equality, to suggest that feminists should be supporting the right to carry a weapon because it gives women a more ‘equal’ ability to defend themselves that wouldn’t be there without the gun is beyond ridiculous, and attempts to direct the focus away from genuine feminist issues - such as the use of broad gender statistics which perpetuate the assumption that women are ‘generally’ less capable than men.

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me.

I don’t have a gun, and there isn’t one on our property. I’m not going to pretend I feel safe 100% of the time. But to believe that possessing a gun and knowing how to use it makes you feel safer than without it is a delusion that feeds on fear, in my opinion.

Reply to Possibility

I know very little about Australia and its politics beyond those statistics, so can’t comment any more about that.

The issue I’m concerned with here is whether allowing legal gun ownership deters violent crime. It seems to me effective gun laws would be based on a true understanding of that deterrence (if there truly is one, and whatever it might be worth).

Quoting Possibility

As for the argument regarding gender equality, to suggest that feminists should be supporting the right to carry a weapon because it gives women a more ‘equal’ ability to defend themselves that wouldn’t be there without the gun is beyond ridiculous

Feminist groups already do (or did at the time Hitchens’ book was written) support the right to carry guns. Hitchens gives Armed Females of America as an example.

Quoting Possibility

and attempts to direct the focus away from genuine feminist issues - such as the use of broad gender statistics which perpetuate the assumption that women are ‘generally’ less capable than men.

I don’t see that it does; it just highlights an aspect of the debate that creates a contradiction in a standard left-wing world view.

Quoting Possibility

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me.

The statistic I quoted isn’t about women feeling safe; it’s about men and women alike being safer when they’re allowed to carry handguns, with the greater difference being among women.

Quoting AJJ

Feminist groups already do (or did at the time Hitchens’ book was written) support the right to carry guns. Hitchens gives Armed Females of America as an example.

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference.

Quoting Possibility

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference.

Hitchens quotes their website at the time:

Those who push for gun control are of the same mind-set as Palestinian suicide bombers and the Taliban who kidnap women for rape and sex-slave trade. Both don’t like the possibility of armed citizens, in these cases, especially an armed woman.

Fair enough if they’re not principally a feminist group, but that sounds like an expression of feminism to me.

Quoting AJJ

Fair enough if they’re not principally a feminist group, but that sounds like an expression of feminism to me.

You cannot be serious.

Quoting Possibility

You cannot be serious.

The statement identifies gun control as a means of oppression, especially of women, and desires it be resisted.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Possibility

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference.

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise.

I do find it odd that such a group exists.

Quoting Possibility

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me.

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end?

Quoting AJJ

The statement identifies gun control as a means of oppression, especially of women, and desires it be resisted.

The statement is an appeal to fear and hatred: side with those who support ‘the possibility of armed citizens’, OR be associated with Palestinian suicide bombers, Taliban and anyone who kidnaps women for rape and sex-slave trade. This isn’t feminism. It’s a false dichotomy.

Quoting Brett

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise.

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females. That’s not the same as being feminist.

Quoting Brett

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end?

I’m not implying that it’s really a peaceful loving world, or that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. My position is that interacting with the world as if you should be afraid is not going to reduce malicious attitudes or fear - it’s going to add to it. Brandishing a gun doesn’t say ‘I am not afraid’ just because it incites fear in others.

Quoting Possibility

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females.

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights.

Quoting Possibility

The statement is an appeal to fear and hatred: side with those who support ‘the possibility of armed citizens’, OR be associated with Palestinian suicide bombers, Taliban and anyone who kidnaps women for rape and sex-slave trade. This isn’t feminism. It’s a false dichotomy.

If feminists are by definition incapable of posing false dichotomies, then fine, they’re not feminists.

Quoting Brett

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

.

But feminism is not aiming to represent the female view. Rather it is the advocacy for women's rights on the grounds of gender equality. Feminism aims to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

AFA aimed to repeal restrictions on gun ownership in the US by claiming to represent the female view. They were not advocating for women’s rights in particular.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

The real question is, will a gun make me, cause me to be, safer? And the answer to the question is no. No, period.

You can only be sure of that if you ignore everything I’ve shared in this thread.

Quoting tim wood

But therein lies the truth: guns often prove to be a cure much, much worse than any problem they're supposed to solve. .

Again, you have to flatly ignore the research of John Lott and all that Hitchens cites in his book to make this claim. I’m not saying mass availability of guns doesn’t cause problems, but it seems only prejudiced to dismiss entirely the possible benefits of their ownership by law-abiding people.

Quoting Brett

What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights.

Or maybe you should look into what feminism is all about instead of assuming things and then request to be proven wrong. For example, I have recently noticed in a podcast between 2 self-identified conservative guys that they were talking about feminist activism without understanding it and declaring that it was misplaced based on a similar strawman that it's all about serving the interests of women.

They were talking about an event in which feminists got some (female) cheerleaders fired and thinking that the feminist argument was somehow puritanical and flawed because it went against their strawman, when anyone that has ever listened to a feminist can tell you it's all about "setting unrealistic standards (of physical fitness and sex appeal in this case) for women at large" stemming from a rejection of beauty culture which is seen as serving the "male gaze". You don't need to agree with an ideology to know the positions it takes.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

How exactly, does a gun make you safer? Obviously there's a trick; don't fall for it.

It’s easy to think why one could, but that’s beside the point; the point being John Lott’s research shows allowing them to be legally owned and carried reduces violent crime. Peter Hitchens cites Lott’s and other research as well in support of this claim. I’m not familiar with the wider debate so perhaps they’ve got in wrong, but if they’re right and ignored simply because they defy prejudice and liberal consensus then people will get needlessly hurt as a consequence of being denied that protection. It runs both ways: Whichever side you’re on, it’s bad to be wrong here.

Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is specially pronounced for women.

I'd want to examine and critically analyze the data for this because the claim seems dubious.

Reply to Terrapin Station

I don’t see why. I certainly feel very inclined to behave myself around people with guns. What I find dubious is your claim that you’d credibly be able to “examine and critically analyze” data already subjected to those things by an academic statistician.

Quoting AJJ

I don’t see why.

For one, most people are not murdered by strangers, or in situations where they might be carrying concealed weapons.

Reply to AJJ

Also, Lott isn't a statistician. Not that I think that that's at all the only relevant expertise.

Quoting Terrapin Station

Also, Lott isn't a statistician. Not that I think that that's at all the only relevant expertise.

Well alright. He’s an academic who works extensively with statistics then.

Quoting Terrapin Station

For one, most people are not murdered by strangers, or in situations where they might be carrying concealed weapons.

Hitchens mentions the most-people-are-killed-by-people-they-know-claim:

In fact, the FBI’s category of people who ‘know’ their victims includes a huge number of rival gang members who know each other. This is not quite why this oft-quotes statistic is taken to mean.

Reply to AJJ

Some people--they tend to be unusually paranoid people--have a notion that a significant percentage of murders occur as random encounters in public. They worry about strangers coming up to them and mugging them or raping them and then killing them, or they worry about "maniacs" simply attacking them for no good reason, or whatever it is that they worry about strangers doing in essentially random encounters. These are the folks who tend to believe that carrying a concealed weapon is going to help them avoid these sorts of situations.

But that's not the source of most murders. Most murders are committed by people who know each other, either because they have a growing beef with them and/or due to more immediate emotional outbursts/crimes of passion, etc.

Reply to Terrapin Station

You say, ignoring what I’ve just posted. Assertions, nothing but.

Quoting AJJ

You say, ignoring what I’ve just posted. Assertions, nothing but.

It's not ignoring what you posted. People aren't not thinking of things like rival gang members when they note that most people aren't killed by strangers.

People who are thinking that people are killed by strangers are thinking what I mentioned above. Rival gang members aren't strangers perpetrating crimes on random people.

Reply to Terrapin Station

I’m going to explain this once. If you don’t get (which I know you won’t), then you don’t get it.

A lot of that statistic, according to what I’ve shared, is made up of gang members killing other gang members, who they “know”. This means that the statistic is for the most part not referring to regular people being killed by other regular people known to them.

Quoting AJJ

A lot of that statistic, according to what I’ve shared, is made up of gang members killing other gang members, who they “know”. This means that the statistic is for the most part not referring to regular people being killed by other regular people known to them.

"Most people are not killed by strangers; they're killed by people they know" does not amount to anyone saying "Killed by other 'regular people.'" That's a misunderstanding of "Most people are not killed by strangers."

The reason we point out that most people are not killed by strangers is because some people have a belief that a significant percentage of murders are committed by random encounters on the street. They're not.

Most women, however, are killed by "regular people" they know. Most women are not killed by rival gang members, drug dealers, etc.

Reply to AJJ

Your comprehension level is near-retarded. And that's not a joke or an exaggeration or just said to be an insult. It's meant as a serious observation.

Reply to Terrapin Station

A bizarre misunderstanding of what I said followed by more assertions.

Like I said: Only once. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

No, it's not beside the point. Answer the question; let's see where it goes.

It is beside the point and I think I made it clear why.

Quoting tim wood

John Lott’s research shows allowing them to be legally owned and carried reduces violent crime.
— AJJ
I am unfamiliar with the research, but one thing I know immediately:it does not say what you say it says.

Fair enough, it doesn’t say what I say it says, but it may actually say what John Lott says it says.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Ok. What does he say?

His book is called [i]More Guns, Less Crime[/I]. The quote in the OP is from it.

Quoting tim wood

And the question, "How exactly, does a gun make you safer," is a fair question. Either answer, or say why you won't.

I won’t, because it’s beside the point. If John Lott’s research shows what he claims it shows, then the freedom to carry guns does make people safer, however that may be the case.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

You won't answer a fair question? And how can any relevant question "be beside the point"?

It’s not relevant, because it’s beside the point I was making. But regardless, I think these are pertinent examples, from Hitchens’ book:

A school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 was stopped by a teacher with a legal gun before police arrived. Another shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania was stopped by the owner of a nearby restaurant producing a legal shotgun, also before police arrived.

Quoting tim wood

I have now read on Amazon a sampling of Lott's book and am deeply suspicious of his methodology and his conclusions. Others can read there as well.

What makes you suspicious?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

So you’re suspicious for a bunch of vague reasons to do with your obvious prejudice. Great.

Quoting tim wood

A no-brainer thought experiment: in a bar full of drunks late a Saturday night do you feel safer if all have guns or none have guns?

Or everyone: no guns? Some guns? Everyone carrying a gun at all times? In my opinion Lott is selling something and I wonder what.

If they’re people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place then no, I wouldn’t feel safe. If they’re responsible people deserving of their permits, who are also drunk, then I feel perfectly safe; very safe in fact, since a loose cannon will be taken down by the rest of them (which would make that loose cannon less likely in the first place).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Or everyone: no guns? Some guns? Everyone carrying a gun at all times? In my opinion Lott is selling something and I wonder what.

I genuinely feel safer that the vast majority of adult males in my country do know how to use an assault rifle, aim the rifle by using the sights and know how to clean it… or will remember after a 10 minute recap on the weapon.

That you would have to have a personal firearm to defend yourself or your family from apparently other citizens of your country means that something has gone wrong in your society, like social cohesion and rule of law for starters.

Quoting tim wood

Actually, no. Very concrete and definite reasons having to do with statistics, which I understand well enough to know when they smell.

Prejudice:

Quoting tim wood

Anyone who supposes that guns make people safer is someone who left off thinking when he entered the room.

Vagueness (and prejudice):

Quoting tim wood

Some guns can make some people safer than they were under some conditions, and with certain prior qualifications. I see no evidence of that kind of consideration. And as well, the gun that makes that person safer in some ways increases his or her risk or danger in other ways, as well as affecting the safety of others.

Quoting tim wood

So you don't answer questions but ask them, draw false conclusions, are ignorant, and throw a little shade because you think that's argument. You must be a Trump!

I’ve answered your questions. The only conclusion I’ve drawn is it’s very possible legal guns make people safer. I’ve been citing from two respectable books by two intelligent authors. I’m not claiming to be well informed, but you’ve only read an Amazon preview.

Quoting tim wood

Or try being a bit more intelligent - I suspect you have it in you. Or quit. You've made this thread to this point useless. See if you can put back into it the life you've sucked out of it.

I’m happy to quit this particular exchange.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
From the Finnish Constitution:

Section 127 - National defence obligation

Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.

Basically all males between 18 and 60 years are in the reserve, meaning that they are liable to military service. Hence during wartime the government theoretically could force into the army even those that haven't done conscription, but opted for the non-military service. Officers and non-comissioned officers are up to 60 years in the reserve and the enlisted up to 40 years. Actual combat troops are below 30 years and only a minority, quarter of a million or so, have a position in the wartime army (from the basically 700 000 strong reserve). Career soldiers make about 2% of the wartime force. All this makes the wartime army quite old in age.

I remember just two weeks ago sitting in the canteen (soldiers home) during an excersize. There were British troops (Desert Rats) there eating pizza and waiting for helicopters to come to pick them up, which is a very rare sight in non-aligned Finland. One career officer commented: "Those British soldiers look so young." I had to comment "No, we are so damn old." It perhaps hadn't dawned that British professional soldiers are basically as young as our conscripts are. Youngsters indeed.

(Well, universal conscription works if you have a need for the deterrence. Otherwise, let's say if we would have a +1000 km border with Canada, we would have a tiny professional army that nobody cared about.)