• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

Alceste

Vagabond
Yet after still having the option to own a gun taken away you still have criminals and homicides. If criminals are not using guns to kill others they must be using something else. So in an environment without guns people are still killing each other by various other means. Are they not?

Now, you live in a large country with a military. Your military personal are allowed to use and carry guns because they are trained to do so. These military personal are placed within a training process know as boot camp. During this boot camp their minds are readjusted through fatigue to follow orders given to them without question. They follow orders of an individual/s you have not met in person and frankly do not know. You believe these people you have not met have your best intentions in mind because your vote tells them so. Now are these people elected as politicians in your country always great and outstanding individuals?

Now these politicians that you have given large power to suddenly believe knifes are too dangerous for you to have. They point to the statistics as more and more people are being killed with knifes. They point to evil knife gangs. You believe it is silly absolutely outrageous. But others disagree and with mass propaganda suddenly those around you believe so as well. But, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe all those in your country are intelligent and are never persuaded.

We have lots of political parties to choose from up here. It's not so easy to push us around.

BTW, we can have all the guns we want here, just not the kind you can slip into a pocket or a glove compartment.

I suppose we have crime and violence, but it's at a level that having your iPhone grabbed at the train station makes the local news in most cities. Murder is usually the result of gang turf battles or domestic violence. (Stories about the murder use "known to police" as shorthand for probably involved in sine kind of criminal activity.)

Even if there were reason to worry about bring attacked in the street, you're far less likely to die of a knife wound than a gunshot wound.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
You're flailing. One single word does not a straw man make.

It wasn't a single word that was a straw man, but your entire statement: "you're claiming that if you DON'T want to murder people left and right who you feel threatened by, that must mean you WANT to get raped." You deliberately twist my words in desperation, yet I'm the one who is flailing?

Also, regardless of whether it's me or you or someone else, I choose that they are NEITHER raped NOR kill the person who is trying to rape them.

Ethical dilemmas are haaaaaaard. :sad4:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I taught political science for roughly 25 years, and I used to bring in the local police, the state police, or the FBI for each course. In regards to a loaded gun in the house, every single one said not a good idea and that 911 was best and safest in case of emergency.

Now, just to explain, I live and taught in a Detroit suburb whereas the conditions there are different than in Detroit. My one cousin was a DPD officer and used to live in Detroit, and when he got home from work, he put both gun and bullets under lock and key in separate containers. Why? He said he saw way too many accidental shootings and shootings done out of anger, and they far outnumbered burglars or murderers who were shot by homeowners.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yet after still having the option to own a gun taken away you still have criminals and homicides. If criminals are not using guns to kill others they must be using something else. So in an environment without guns people are still killing each other by various other means. Are they not?
In most cases, no, they're not.
 

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
No what made the US the most powerful was that it used to have a strong industry then it exchanged a significant portion of that for a strong finance sector. That mindset has only undermined the US geopolitical position and enabled competitors like Russia and China to gain influence they may well not have managed to secure were the US to not have had a similar mindset.

What made the United States the most powerful country is creating an environment for those who do think outside of the herd the ability and resources to do so. The inherent conflict created by conflicting cultures interestingly blooms new ideas. Because before any industry or financial sector is created by a new idea and a mentality used to implement it.


Nor do drug dealers obey drug laws nor smugglers obey import/export regulations. It is completely the wrong way to understand the purpose of laws - you dont make laws because everyone is inclined to abide by the law - you make laws so as to codify the expectations of society so that were someone to break such codified expectation (law) then one has objective basis from which to redress that behavior through the exercise of judicial power (to punish offence, to mitigate impact, to rehabilitate individuals etc); this is the very foundation of a 'republic'.

Therefore you do admit that criminals if they truly wish to do so will get guns. But, its okay because if they are caught with them they get in trouble. Yet when they are not caught they have more power than the general human population. Which is discouraged and reconditioned through reinforcement to perceive that they are bad. Taught that since they cannot have them no one else will. This however creates a larger gap between those with and without them does it not?

This evidence of reconditioning is an example of how easily intelligent yet corrupt people can use laws to do as they see fit. Creating the necessity for tools for objection.



Side note (not really related): The meaning of 'republic' is one of the reasons I find the attitude of the republican party towards regulation to be so amusing.

The republican party convictions were initially those of the democratic party. However at a point within American history they reversed. Not that it means that they are superior.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Source was the former chief of police of the DPD. He did not differentiate between the legal and illegal, so I would suppose the figure includes both.
That is not really a source, at least not a credible one.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
I did hear him say it when interviewed on t.v., and if you believe I'm lying, so be it.
It is not necessarily that you are lying, it is that he had to have gotten that from some other source with hard data, that is what I am interested in.
 

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
BTW, we can have all the guns we want here, just not the kind you can slip into a pocket or a glove compartment.

First you say that you have gun control. Then you say you can have all the guns you want. If your okay with having all the guns you can wish who are you to tell others they shouldn't have guns. If anyone can have a gun from where you are from and your against it then you should be campaigning against it where you live.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Even if there were reason to worry about bring attacked in the street, you're far less likely to die of a knife wound than a gunshot wound.

Yeah, but you have to wait for like, 12 days in a waiting room and have a hearing in front of a death panel to determine if you're worthy of healthcare, and only then will you be assigned a first year med student to fix your knife wound. Here in the US we can get shot in the face and see the best doctor in the country and be easily fixed and back on the streets ballin' in less than an hour, because we're cool like that.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
It wasn't a single word that was a straw man, but your entire statement: "you're claiming that if you DON'T want to murder people left and right who you feel threatened by, that must mean you WANT to get raped." You deliberately twist my words in desperation, yet I'm the one who is flailing?



Ethical dilemmas are haaaaaaard. :sad4:
What's hard about that? It's not even a dilemma. You want people to get raped? No. You want people killing other people? No. Where is the dilemma? I'm honestly not seeing it, unless this is a false dichotomy after all. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say: I choose neither. When I've been in a position to stop a sexual assault in the past (a guy groping a passed out friend at a party), all I had to do was say "get the **** out if my house right now or I'm calling the police". Rape averted, no shooting death required. I choose that, and I can't see why shooting the guy would have been a wiser course of action.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
First you say that you have gun control. Then you say you can have all the guns you want. If your okay with having all the guns you can wish who are you to tell others they shouldn't have guns. If anyone can have a gun from where you are from and your against it then you should be campaigning against it where you live.

I'm not against it. I will probably get a gun myself in the future. Canadian guns are for shooting dinner. American guns are for shooting at threatening or scary people.It's a totally different mentality. I'm completely content with the fact that Canada has very strict limitations for allowing us to carry guns designed to be easily hidden on your person that have no practical use apart from shooting at other Canadians. If I ever felt the need to shoot a home invader or threaten him with a gun, I'm sure a hunting rifle would do a perfectly reasonable job.

It's like this - everybody's kitchen is full of sharp knives, which are perfectly capable of stabbing other people. Still, most people will raise an eyebrow if you feel the need to carry a switchblade in your pocket. It says something about how you see the world and your fellow human beings.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Yeah, but you have to wait for like, 12 days in a waiting room and have a hearing in front of a death panel to determine if you're worthy of healthcare, and only then will you be assigned a first year med student to fix your knife wound. Here in the US we can get shot in the face and see the best doctor in the country and be easily fixed and back on the streets ballin' in less than an hour, because we're cool like that.

Lol! Nice. (I hope those are jokes about our health care - I don't even know any more after Sarah Palin nearly got herself elected. I'm easily Poe'd on the subject. No offense!)
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"Fetishism" is the wrong word, unless you're a metaphor wielding wag (which is OK). It's a guy thing (sometimes a gal thing too) to obsess over cool mechanical things, eg, cars, tools, trucks, knives, guns, watches, pens. (Yes, I know pen collectors, & I even went to a pen show out of curiosity. As you might suspect, it's a really weird crowd. I fit right in.) But guns also have sporting & political components which really inspire the fanatical gearhead. I'd be even more of one were it not for the fact that they're pricy little things which require much more security than collecting heavy iron such as....

Fetishism is the word I meant to employ. I have no problem with gun collectors or gun historians. It's the fetishism I find distasteful, and when I say fetishism, I do mean the exalting of firearms, and the continuing manufacturing of and mass selling of guns. My sister-in-law collects pocket knives. She doesn't place a huge value on pocket knives outside of aesthetic appreciation.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Yeah, but you have to wait for like, 12 days in a waiting room and have a hearing in front of a death panel to determine if you're worthy of healthcare, and only then will you be assigned a first year med student to fix your knife wound. Here in the US we can get shot in the face and see the best doctor in the country and be easily fixed and back on the streets ballin' in less than an hour, because we're cool like that.

Who was shot in the face and out on the street within an hour? :rolleyes:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Fetishism is the word I meant to employ. I have no problem with gun collectors or gun historians. It's the fetishism I find distasteful, and when I say fetishism, I do mean the exalting of firearms, and the continuing manufacturing of and mass selling of guns. My sister-in-law collects pocket knives. She doesn't place a huge value on pocket knives outside of aesthetic appreciation.
Fetish | Define Fetish at Dictionary.com
"Fetish" is a histrionic use of the word, particularly regarding manufacturing & selling.
It seems a war of words of dubious applicability.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
What's hard about that? It's not even a dilemma. You want people to get raped? No. You want people killing other people? No. Where is the dilemma?I'm honestly not seeing it, unless this is a false dichotomy after all. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say: I choose neither. When I've been in a position to stop a sexual assault in the past (a guy groping a passed out friend at a party), all I had to do was say "get the **** out if my house right now or I'm calling the police". Rape averted, no shooting death required. I choose that, and I can't see why shooting the guy would have been a wiser course of action.
As I've repeatedly stated, I never claimed that those were the only two possible outcomes; that was never the point. Your anecdote is non-applicable and thus irrelevant. In fact very little of what you've been babbling about has been relevant. You keep telling me what you "choose", but why would I be interested it that when it has nothing to do with what I've said? It was never about what one should or should not do. It was about people's sentiments toward what others may do or not do. Why do I have to keep re-explaining something so simple? Someone does A and results in X, and you have an opinion of it. Someone does B and results in Y, and you have an opinion of that as well. The point was about the opinions, NOT about A or B being the only possible choices, or that X or Y were the only possible outcomes.
 
Last edited:

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
It's not apples and oranges at all. Poverty correlates strongly with crime, drug addiction, lack of education, violence, yada yada yada everywhere in the world. Including Canada.

You claimed in a prior post that demographics doesn't have anything to do with this, but yet, poverty, race, culture - it all comprises demographics, which directly shapes a community.

I'm not suggesting that you haven't seen poverty, crime, drug addiction, etc. in your own country. I challenge that there are likely variances in culture.

What's unique about the US is that INSTEAD of implementing public policies that are proven to alleviate poverty, many if not most Americans seem to believe everybody should pack a gun around to defend themselves against the poor. What's the point, when the poor have guns too? All you're going to do is get more people killed.

First of all, you're not making sense. If MOST Americans were of the mindset that we needed to protect ourselves from the poor and should pack as a result, it's not reflected through action, as less than half of the US owns guns. A single gun owner may own multiple guns, but, if he or she is a responsible gun owner, how are they any more dangerous than the criminal who is packing an illegally owned weapon that will not be accounted for in statistical data?

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center
Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns - CNN.com

Second, I have not used verbiage to stigmatize or demean low-income Americans as you seems to be implying through your choice of verbiage.

Third, you may want to educate yourself on the plethora of workforce type programs offered in conjunction with social welfare and other community programs throughout the United States, both non profit, government based and otherwise. There already exist programs to support those who are determined to end cycles of poverty. Before you start projecting that Canada's solutions will fix all of America's problems, you need to first educate yourself on all 50 states and their local workforce engagement programs in addition to whatever federal assistance programs we have available.

Then, we can make comparisons.


I don't buy the argument that the US is "more diverse" than Canada. In Toronto - our largest city, the population is fully half visible minorities. Half of those are first generation immigrants - these are people from all over the world, including refugees from extremely violent, extremely poor countries.

I think it's very challenging to continue to compare our countries and quite frankly, I really don't want to. My point was that demographics influence crime and I think we're on the same page.

What we DON'T have is sprawling ghettos where the poor are all swept into a corner together and forgotten about, then blamed for their own misfortunes when those areas become hotbeds of crime, ignorance and violence. *

Oh yes. I mean, seriously, the poor aren't capable of critical thinking and when you have six babies by 30 and have trouble keeping a job, it's not your fault at all. :rolleyes: I understand the mentality that you're emphasizing here, but, don't present as if the American poor are helpless, neglected people without minds and without hope and without any sort of accountability.


But even in this respect, America is not unique. Ghettos everywhere in the world are hotbeds of crime and violence. It's just that industrialized nations generally try to avoid creating ghettos through completely idiotic social, urban planning and economic policies. That works WAY better than guns, believe me. When they fail, as they did in the UK and France, surprise surprise!

I'm not claiming that America is unique. I've reiterated the importance of considering demographics when evaluating crime and approaching crime and solutions to problems.

The creation and "maintenance" of the American ghetto is a convoluted mess which is partially attributable to politics, partiallly attributable to greed and also attributable to apathy.

I digress...

It's not that I don't hear you or understand your point. Wherever the poor, desperate and forgotten are concentrated, the streets are not safe. That's true everywhere. I simply disagree with you that the specific issues America is dealing with exist nowhere else in the world, or that the "everybody should get a gun" solution many Americans favour could ever be as effective at reducing violent crime as a reasonable economic policy would be.

*(With the important exception of our reservation system, which is a breeding ground for violence, crime and addiction).

The thing is...I never said this. I never said that these problems happened only in America. I tried to illustrate to you WHY someone might want to own a gun for protection and WHY such a choice could be justified from the platform of self defense given a particular demographical "climate".

I have not said that everybody should get a gun. Who has said that everybody should get a gun. You've projected that most Americans own or support ownership of guns.

Well, no. Most Americans do not own guns. It's often reported that 88 guns can be found to every 100 Americans, but, these are total guns, not guns per person. I grew up in a household where my Dad owned multiple guns. We were taught from an early age not to touch because we would kill ourselves. My husband's family - same thing.

Out of the 80 million + Americans who own guns out of 300,000,000+ Americans, 8,855 died via homicide by firearm in 2012. It's tragic. But, statistically, we're killing each other off faster by automobile accidentally.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

95% of Americans own cars and over 32,000 people died in 2012 in auto accidents.

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/cambodia/30486/Publications/everyone_in_america_own_a_car.pdf
Auto Deaths Down Overall In 2012, Lowest Since 1949, Large Truck, Bicyclist Casualties Increase : Auto News : Auto World News

From a statistical perspective, our cars are more dangerous than our guns, but, we're not knee jerking everytime we read about a tragic car accident. People are losing life for the sake of convenience. That's not demonized. Gun ownership has a stigmatization attached to it, but a much greater percentage of guns are NOT used for violent crime.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
Fetish | Define Fetish at Dictionary.com
"Fetish" is a histrionic use of the word, particularly regarding manufacturing & selling.
It seems a war of words of dubious applicability.

"'Fetish' is a histrionic use of the word." I can't wrap my head around how a word is a histrionic use of itself. If you are suggesting that my usage of the word "fetish" is a histrionic depiction of something that isn't a "fetish," then I would suggest that no, I'm only applying the word "fetish" to things that pretty much fall under the definition you provided: "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"'Fetish' is a histrionic use of the word." I can't wrap my head around how a word is a histrionic use of itself. If you are suggesting that my usage of the word "fetish" is a histrionic depiction of something that isn't a "fetish," then I would suggest that no, I'm only applying the word "fetish" to things that pretty much fall under the definition you provided: "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades."
Hmmmm....then your opposition to widespread gun ownership & appreciation is "paranoia".
 
Top