You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 02:47:18 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?  (Read 2791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mia h

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #100 on: February 06, 2014, 01:04:20 PM »
While I was trying to find data regarding a correlation between guns per capita and gun deaths per capita (not as easy as it sounds - everyone seems to want to give the 'gun deaths' statistic as a raw number), I discovered that there are more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians (roughly 101 guns per 100 people).
It's horrendously out of date but I guess you mean something like this


I while I can't find or remember the exact figures, if you add the populations of Germany, UK, Austraila, France, New Zealand (and maybe a couple other countries) you end up with a population roughly the size of the US but they all have strict gun controls. But those nations combine have mabye 5% of the rate of gun deaths as in the US. Which means one of two things; either gun controls really do work or if you believe the US gun lobby in that gun laws won't stop the killings, then what they are actually saying is that the US population is naturally homicidal.

Online Blythe

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #101 on: February 06, 2014, 01:09:51 PM »
It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

I just wanted to add that in the USA, there are a lot of laws that vary from state to state involving brandishing or improper exhibition of a firearm--just about every state agrees that it's not okay. This article talks about that a bit, mostly with a Florida focus, but other states are mentioned in the article. It's important to remember that in the USA, brandishing a firearm can legally be construed as a threat to a person's life and safety, so....yes, if a person is brandishing a gun at someone, the person getting a gun waved at them does have a logical reason to fear that the other person is threatening to use deadly force on them. Just thought I'd put that here after reading some of the thread.

On topic to the thread, with this firearm info in mind: just because a person "thinks" they see a gun is not a reason to shoot. One needs to know there is a weapon. Just thinking that there "might" be a gun is not a valid excuse.

(Not going to comment on the fellow who killed the man he caught molesting his daughter--I'm not seeing that as relevant to this thread's original topic).

Edit: Changed some pronouns to make the post cleaner looking.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 01:11:08 PM by Blythe »

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #102 on: February 06, 2014, 01:16:28 PM »
Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

So, what did Australia do? Why, they disarmed the populace and made it easier and safer for criminals.

source: http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #103 on: February 06, 2014, 01:28:43 PM »
Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

So, what did Australia do? Why, they disarmed the populace and made it easier and safer for criminals.

source: http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html


You might want to check those statistics.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

You also might want a more credible source than the one you're citing. WPU is a fringe conspiracy theory website.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 01:38:28 PM by Torch »

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #104 on: February 06, 2014, 01:29:48 PM »
As an anecdotal point - the institution that I work for is unfortunately located in an area of the city that has notoriously high crime rates and gang activity.  In an effort to make our institution 'safer,' the public safety administration decided to make the area of our facility a 'gun-free-zone' - a term that is expansive enough to preclude carrying other weapons as well.  I can't tell you how many times we get notified now of crimes taking place in the area of our institution, now that the criminals know that this is an area of middle-to-upper class individuals, who have no form of defense.

Offline mia h

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #105 on: February 06, 2014, 01:32:41 PM »
Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

The Australian criminologists would seem to disagree with you : http://www.aic.gov.au/

Quote
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has released the National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program (NARMP) report covering calendar years 2009-10

Nationally, armed robbery continues to decrease. In 2003, the rate of armed robbery victimisation was 33 persons per 100,000, whereas the rate was calculated at 18 persons per 100,000 in 2010.

In raw figures, victim numbers fell from 8,865 in 2003 to 5,713 in 2010 - a 36 percent decrease. The number of incidents in which these victims were involved has also decreased over time, with a 24 percent decrease from 6,640 robberies in 2006 to a low of 5,022 in 2010.


Also using % changes is a very bad way to measure these things, that 19% increase murders commited using firearms could mean that the national rate has gone up from 5 deaths a year to 6 deaths a year http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Offline Zakharra

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2014, 01:45:29 PM »
Thank you Val, you got what I was trying to explain.

Some laws may reflect what society finds right and wrong but they do not dictate it. If they dictated it then society would not have found them right or wrong prior to them becoming laws... and that seems to me to be an incoherent position.

I think this may be a somewhat loose definition of culturally acceptable. There are many things that are considered unacceptable in certain cultures that are not illegal. And I'm not sure I can agree that it is the law that determines a culture and what is acceptable within it.

This I agree with utterly. However I view the law in and of itself meaning this and nothing more.

This is a pretty controversial position, and one that's only really gained prominence in the last 200 years or so. To give a very simple example, the US Constitution expressly sets out that it (and everything that comes from it) is based on morality and ethics. The entire theory of natural law (which has been considered the basis of law for most of human history) is based on the idea that the law and morality are intrinsically linked. Even legal positivism, the opposite position, generally accepts that the basis of legal systems has to be from a moral stand point.

To further this point, why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? I would argue the reasons are moral and ethical; they are the very basis for those laws. They predate the law and the law reflects them

 Val covers this more eloquently than I do, but I will answer the last questions you asked. Why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? For murder, there is no real acceptable reason to do so, you would be the one killing someone else because of greed, anger, because you want to, jealousy, any number of reasons. Killing in self defense is allowed because you are actively trying to preserve -you- life, or that of your family/friends/nation. You are trying to stop someone from killing you or taking your possessions. That's the difference at the base of it. Murder is the unlawful taking of life, self defense is the preservation of life.  From there is gets murky when you get into circumstances and situations and bringing in of differing morals and ethics.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?
« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2014, 02:01:55 PM »
It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

 Look at it this way; people act upon the information they have. In a situation when the adrenalin is pumping, your body is primed to act/react. The fight or flight response. If someone has a gun or any other weapon pointed at you, it is best to assume they -will- use it. That means they are directly a threat to you and yours and you should react accordingly, as if they really are a threat. For myself, I have stated my position on this, if I  think you ( a general you, not you personally Kythia) are a physical threat to my family or me, especially if you have a weapon, if I have a chance, I -will- take you out with lethal force. I might have problems afterwards, but during it, it will be live or die, the safety of me and my family verse that of a hostile intruder. for me, morals will not come into the equation at all and I would never judge someone harshly for killing someone in legitimate self defense.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 04:53:02 PM by Zakharra »