We must ban automobiles, they are weapons of terror!

[Seth]

Seth is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to listen to reason, guys. It's a lost cause. Why bother?

Not my fault. I listen carefully and respond in kind to expressions of reason. Unfortunately, you guys very rarely produce anything remotely related to reason.

[Seth]

[/thread]

Why aren't you fucking off again, pray tell?

[Seth]

He does realise that Uber will collapse, doesn't he?

I'll ride the nag as long as it lasts. With a little luck I'll die in the saddle before it does.

(unless it moves to tandem bikes - how's the leg fitness, Seth?)

Improving, actually. Thanks for asking.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Not that what you say is particularly true because automobiles are in fact a larger source of homicide in the US than guns are

Deaths resulting from automobile crashes are rarely homicides (in the sense of intentionally causing death), in any jurisdiction. Many (although not all) gun related deaths are, whether justifiable or not.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not that what you say is particularly true because automobiles are in fact a larger source of homicide in the US than guns are

Deaths resulting from automobile crashes are rarely homicides (in the sense of intentionally causing death), in any jurisdiction. Many (although not all) gun related deaths are, whether justifiable or not.

They are always homicides (the killing of a human being) but are not always murders.

And so what? Justifiable homicides merely reinforce the right of the individual to use deadly force in self defense, while unjustified homicides (murders) do exactly the same thing.

In neither case is the object causing death morally inferior or superior to anything at all, it remains an inanimate object that does not have intentions or moral weight.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

They are always homicides (the killing of a human being) but are not always murders.

OK, if you want to use the general use of the term homicide, fine. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme to say of deaths via cars that they are "not always murders". They are hardly ever murders, whereas the majority of gun deaths are intentional (allowing that some will be justified rather than murders)

[pErvinalia]

The point you were making, Seth, is that a car is also a weapon. While that is true, it is nowhere nearly as lethal a weapon as a gun. It is also used as a deliberate tool for murder far less often.

Not that what you say is particularly true because automobiles are in fact a larger source of homicide in the US than guns are,

WTF?!?

[Blind groper]

whereas the majority of gun deaths are intentional (allowing that some will be justified rather than murders)

There are 9000 gun homicides per year in the USA, and the FBI recognises only 400 as justified.

[mistermack]

Seth wrote:

They are always homicides (the killing of a human being) but are not always murders.

OK, if you want to use the general use of the term homicide, fine. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme to say of deaths via cars that they are "not always murders". They are hardly ever murders, whereas the majority of gun deaths are intentional (allowing that some will be justified rather than murders)

You do get lots of accidental gun deaths too. And is suicide included in homicides?
As it's the deliberate killing of a human being, it has a claim to be called murder.
Self murder.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

They are always homicides (the killing of a human being) but are not always murders.

OK, if you want to use the general use of the term homicide, fine. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme to say of deaths via cars that they are "not always murders". They are hardly ever murders, whereas the majority of gun deaths are intentional (allowing that some will be justified rather than murders)

So what? Dead is dead. We are condemning the tool of death here and it is a fact that cars kill more people than guns do every year. And in point of fact most car-related deaths fall under one or more descriptions of "murder" such as "involuntary manslaughter." The vast majority of accidents are the result of driver error or negligence. When your driving kills someone else, it's a crime in almost every case.

The point being that to say that guns must be banned because they kill people while ignoring another demonstrably more dangerous tool that kills many more people is intellectually dishonest.

If you're saying that guns should be banned because they are sometimes (quite rarely given the number of them in circulation, fewer than 0.0004% of them) used to kill someone as a part of a deliberate malicious act, you're still wrong because guns don't kill people, people kill people...and sometimes they do it with guns, or cricket bats, or knives, or rocks or automobiles. The problem is people who use weapons to kill, not which weapon they happen to choose. You don't prevent murders by banning the instrument because someone bent on murder will simply find another instrument. You control those with a penchant for murder, not their tool selection. And one really effective way to control violent criminals is to place effective and potentially lethal tools of self defense in the hands of their potential victims so as to make their decision to victimize someone more dangerous for them than for the victim. And if they decide to do so anyway, at least the victim can have the appropriately useful tools with which to hopefully thwart that crime.

[Seth]

whereas the majority of gun deaths are intentional (allowing that some will be justified rather than murders)

There are 9000 gun homicides per year in the USA, and the FBI recognises only 400 as justified.

And that's proof positive of the value of an armed citizen. That's 400 people who are NOT dead or injured by a violent criminal. If universal concealed carry for law-abiding citizens saves EVEN ONE LIFE then of course it's worth it, isn't it?

[pErvinalia]

I don't think that calculus works. If you save 400 people and 25 times or whatever that die because of guns, then it's clearly not worth it. You get MORE dead with guns. Sure, some of those other deaths will be carried out some other way, but they certainly won't be anywhere near that number.

[Blind groper]

You most definitely CAN save lives by banning guns. Certainly the gun itself has no intent to kill, but so what? The wielder certainly does, and the gun makes his intention more certain.

Of all the 20 odd wealthy westernised nations, there is a clear cut (0.6) correlation coefficient between gun ownership and murder rate.

I recently did a calculation of correlation coefficient between gun ownership and murder rate for all 38 OECD nations.

Then I redid it leaving Mexico out of the equation. Mexico has 8 times the per capita murder rate of any other OECD nation, mostly with guns, due to its drug syndicates, even though most Mexicans are too poor to own guns.

When Mexico was left out*, the correlation between gun ownership and murder rates for the other 37 nations was 0.8. That is MASSIVE.

*Excluding an outlier from such a calculation is a widely accepted technique in statistics to prevent an abnormal case skewing a general result.

[Seth]

[quote="Blind groper"]You most definitely CAN save lives by banning guns automobiles and five gallon buckets. Certainly the automobile and the five gallon bucket itself has no intent to kill, but so what? The wielder certainly does, and the gun makes his intention more certain.

And if his intention is self defense...??

[Seth]

I don't think that calculus works. If you save 400 people and 25 times or whatever that die because of guns, then it's clearly not worth it. You get MORE dead with guns. Sure, some of those other deaths will be carried out some other way, but they certainly won't be anywhere near that number.

The fallacy in your argument is that it attempt to make all persons who kill with guns morally equal. They aren't. The 400 justified shootings may or may not be in response to an attack by someone armed with a gun. It doesn't matter how many people are unlawfully murdered with guns, in this case what matters is that each and every one of those 400 people saved by having a gun and using it lawfully has an exactly equal and unalienable right not to be killed, just as the other 9000 do. Taking away all guns does not prevent murder, it merely makes murder easier and more convenient, and safer, for those who murder. Those who do not murder, but instead carry guns for self-defense do not contribute to the gun murder rates at all. The notion that murderers will not have guns if guns are banned is demonstrably false and therefore your argument fails.