Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

[dust1n]

Hmmmm....then your opposition to widespread gun ownership & appreciation is "paranoia".

I really don't even know what you are getting at or trying to say. I don't care who owns a gun. I find gun fetishism disgusting. I'm not paranoid of gun owners, whether legal or non-legal. But thanks for trying to use your awesome reasoning to diagnose my psyche on the topic. I guess since finding gun fetishism disgusting is so entirely foreign to you, that "paranoia" is about the only way you might be able to understand it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't even know what you are getting at or trying to say. I don't care who owns a gun. I find gun fetishism disgusting.

You're paranoid over my fetish.

I'm not paranoid of gun owners, whether legal or non-legal. But thanks for trying to use your awesome reasoning to diagnose my psyche on the topic. I guess since finding gun fetishism disgusting is so entirely foreign to you, that "paranoia" is about the only way you might be able to understand it.

I'm slyly illustrating the downside of extreme language, ie, it inspires a response in kind.

 

[dust1n]

You're paranoid over my fetish.

I wasn't even aware you had a fetish. Are you getting paranoid about my paranoiac inclinations?

I'm slyly illustrating the downside of extreme language, ie, it inspires a response in kind.

Let me ask you this... do you believe a gun fetishism exists at all?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

There are variances within cultures, too. Canada and the US are both diverse countries. At the same time, there are commonalities that cross borders.

I've travelled all over both countries. From what I've seen, I'd say that there's less cultural difference between, say, Michigan and southern Ontario than there is between Michigan and California. Maine - not just the geography, but also the people - feels more like New Brunswick than it does like Florida.

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?

I think terms like "responsible gun owner" are misleading because they suggest a binary distinction that doesn't reflect the real world.

There's a saying in transportation engineering: "the only 'safe' road is one with no cars." The same is true of firearms: the only society with no gun crime is one with no guns.

What we really have is a continuum of risk: at one end is the hypothetical (and fictitious) "perfectly safe" gun owner. At the other end, we have someone who's so reckless that they're certain to hurt or kill themselves or others. In between is an increasing scale of risk, and a threshold where the law implicitly says "up to this level of risk is acceptable; above it is unacceptable."

... and then we have imperfect enforcement of that threshold.

Legal gun owners fall into several categories:

1. gun owners who will follow the rules for their whole lives
2. gun owners who don't follow the rules but haven't yet been caught
3. gun owners who have followed the rules so far but could be induced to break them in the right circumstances

I think it's foolish to base policy on the assumption that any gun owner who hasn't yet been convicted of a firearm offense falls into category 1.

The law can't tell the difference between "responsible" and "irresponsible" gun owners. It can only tell the difference between gun owners who have been caught breaking the law and those who haven't been.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't even aware you had a fetish. Are you getting paranoid about my paranoiac inclinations?

No, I'm getting sarcastic (blame the Ibuprofen).

Let me ask you this... do you believe a gun fetishism exists at all?

Sure. But I'd say it's rare. The very people you would decry are people I know,
for whom the word "fetish" does not apply. I'm also sure the people who are
paranoid about guns are a tiny minority too. But it's fun to over-generalize, eh?

 

[dust1n]

Sure. But I'd say it's rare. The very people you would decry are people I know, for
whom the word "fetish" does not apply. I'm also sure that there are people who
are paranoid about guns are a tiny minority too. But it's fun to over-generalize, eh?

So you somehow magically know now who the people are I would decry as a fetishist, and the criteria I use to go about setting it? How, exactly? I really wouldn't know how fun it is to over-generalize in this particular situation; an example in which I did such an over-generalization would be great, since the claim is being made.

 

[Alceste]

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.

You've repeatedly used the word "prefer", which certainly implies choice. You've taken the position that those who think wanting to have a gun handy "just in case" a rapist turns up is excessively paranoid would "prefer" to see a woman raped than a rapist shot. Has anyone every said any such thing? No. I PREFER to say to anyone I catch in the act of an attempted crime "**** off right now or I'm calling the police". (For the record, I've also averted an attempted "kick the door down" burglary attempt on a neighbor with this phrase.) That's what I prefer to BOTH allowing criminals to do whatever they want AND shooting any criminals I catch in the act. What's the problem?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you somehow magically know now who the people are I would decry as a fetishist, and the criteria I use to go about setting it? How, exactly? I really wouldn't know how fun it is to over-generalize in this particular situation; an example in which I did such an over-generalization would be great, since the claim is being made.

I use the same magic you use to know that gun enthusiasts are fetishists.

You really don't see that the term "fetish" is inflammatory & inappropriate?

 

[Alceste]

I use the same magic you use to know that gun enthusiasts are fetishists.

You really don't see that the term "fetish" is inflammatory & inappropriate?

I think I can clear this up right now. He's saying SOME people elevate the concept of guns to the level of fetishism. Some.

 

[freethinker44]

who was shot in the face and out on the street within an hour?

'merica

 

[freethinker44]

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!)

It wasn't a joke on your healthcare, Canadian healthcare is way better than in the US. It was a joke on US healthcare. I know how you feel about the healthcare Poe's, I exaggerated a bit, but sadly these are all arguments I've heard against socialized healthcare.

 

[dust1n]

I use the same magic you use to know that gun enthusiasts are fetishists.

What gun enthusiasts did I equate to fetishists? I don't ever remember providing any example. I think I even make it rather explicit when I said:

I have no problem with gun collectors or gun historians.

If one is enthusiastic about guns, great. I just find that incredibly boring, but not disgusting. But then again, I don't see how enthusiasm became equated with fetishism until this particular response of yours.

You really don't see that the term "fetish" is inflammatory & inappropriate?

If one does this to guns, as per your provided definition: "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades," then I would find the term accurate and appropriate, whether or not it is inflammatory, though that was not my intentions.

 

[dust1n]

'merica

Ah. Sorry, not the greatest at the at determining whether something was intended to be ironic or not.

 

[Alceste]

It wasn't a joke on your healthcare, Canadian healthcare is way better than in the US. It was a joke on US healthcare. I know how you feel about the healthcare Poe's, I exaggerated a bit, but sadly these are all arguments I've heard against socialized healthcare.

I know! Me too! I once heard two American women discussing the horrors of Canadian health care on a Seattle bus, and that was 20 years ago. Their comments sounded eerily like your post. I would have loved to jump in and clear up a few of their misconceptions, but they were both much, much bigger than me, and I was worried they might be armed. Lol.

 

[Apex]

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.

Haven't you figured it out yet? Words can mean whatever you want them too in this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haven't you figured it out yet? Words can mean whatever you want them too in this thread.

I'm a slow learner, & I'm working on being less pedantic & rigid.
I only recently discovered that "rising" can mean "falling" when speaking
of the USAistan violent crime rate. It must be a Canuckistanian thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

What gun enthusiasts did I equate to fetishists?

Good question.
You didn't name names.

I don't ever remember providing any example. I think I even make it rather explicit when I said: If one is enthusiastic about guns, great. I just find that incredibly boring, but not disgusting. But then again, I don't see how enthusiasm became equated with fetishism until this particular response of yours.
If one does this to guns, as per your provided definition: "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades," then I would find the term accurate and appropriate, whether or not it is inflammatory, though that was not my intentions.

I know many "gun nuts", using the term affectionately towards my ilk, so I read your use of "fetish" to be quite broad. But to make this about the ambiguity of to whom the word "fetish" applies isn't really the issue. It's about using a word which strikes me as an insult intended to demonize gun aficionados (there's a hard one to spell). I pointed out that countering that barb with "paranoia" is the same sin, noting that you object to it.

We should all be aware of our goals in discussion, & ask if our choice of language serves our purpose.
Do my words enhance discussion, or do they polarize? Which do I want? We may be imperfect in our
attempts to be civil & engaging, but we should try.

 

[Alceste]

I'm a slow learner, & I'm working on being less pedantic & rigid.
I only recently discovered that "rising" can mean "falling" when speaking
of the USAistan violent crime rate. It must be a Canuckistanian thing.

No, more of a knowing how to read and write English thing. Very difficult to wrap your head around it if you can't understand that words can have several meanings, and you need to consider the context to figure out which meaning is intended. That could be a Canadian thing, come to think of it, for all that the Yanks get bogged down struggling with a single meaning of a single word in half these debates instead of - you know - debating.

 

[Apex]

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

A common argument from firearm opponents here is that the availability of firearms in the US is a major factor in our homicide rate.If you (Canadians) can still "have all the guns you want", except handguns, then it should follow that your homicide rate should be comparable to ours when comparing only those firearms available in both countries.

Here is that data for 2010:
US: 826 homicides*, 2.7 per million people
Canada: 55 homicides, 1.6 per million people

The US rate is still 69% higher. What accounts for that?


*(This does not include firearms of unknown type)
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is that data for 2010:
US: 826 homicides*, 2.7 per million people
Canada: 55 homicides, 1.6 per million people

Canuckistan is still a pretty violent place.
How are they killing each other?