biffvernon wrote:So let's just try a thought experiment. If by magic all private gun ownership ceased by lunchtime today, just which countries do you fear will invade the USA?
And why do you think that countries without much private gun ownership do not tend to get invaded by others?
It would not be an instantaneous cause an effect. It might take years but if the USA lets itself become weak enough those that have less will come and seize The USA's resources by force. So based on need and proximity the two top choices would be Mexico and China.
And why do you think that countries without much private gun ownership do not tend to get invaded by others?
I think you have that twisted around. Countries with a well armed citizenry are less likely to be invaded. Switzerland being the prime example.
PS_RalphW wrote:vt I see no evidence of mental illness in the latest mass murderer.
I'll wait until the experts evaluate him. In the meantime it appears to have a high probability as there is no rational reason that explains his actions.
PS_RalphW wrote:vt I see no evidence of mental illness in the latest mass murderer.
I'll wait until the experts evaluate him. In the meantime it appears to have a high probability as there is no rational reason that explains his actions.
So, just to clarify, assuming he is mentally ill, would you favour hospitalization or lethal injection?
I started to write a long comment on the nature of mental illness, and the widespread confusion about what it consists of, leading to the belief that is best summed as ' insanity is not thinking like me', but I decided there was no point because the target audience would miss the point entirely.
Science has come a long way in this area in recent decades, education less so.
Coming from a related academic background, I have major issues with definitions of mental health. On the one hand, when it comes to behaviours and cognitions that are inconvenient to modern industrial society, there is no shortage of "conditions". On the other hand, there is a pathological reluctance by our judicial system, for example, to accept that much criminal behaviour occurs as a result of mental illness. Presumably, because to do so would require that we take a long hard look at our societal structures and what they do to people's mental health at the systemic level.
In short, if someone can't hack it in our society, then it's cos there is something wrong with them and so society does not need to address their problems in any systemic/social policy way. On the other hand, if not hacking it leads someone to behave in ways that are deviant/illegal, then they will likely be held fully legally responsible in a way that implies they have full cognitive responsibility for their actions.
It's a philosophically contradictory, incoherent mess.
Good to see they have a president who is telling it like it is:
Obama wrote:Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.
PS_RalphW wrote:vt I see no evidence of mental illness in the latest mass murderer.
I'll wait until the experts evaluate him. In the meantime it appears to have a high probability as there is no rational reason that explains his actions.
So, just to clarify, assuming he is mentally ill, would you favour hospitalization or lethal injection?
Hospitalization of course but if he was ever considered cured I would still consider him guilty and needing to be kept locked up if not executed.
I don't buy into this Innocent by reason of insanity deal and instead would consider him guilty but insane. then if he gets cured of his insanity he is still "guilty".
That chart shows that gun ownership rates do not correlate to to murder rate. Notice France Austria and Iceland. Yes the USA murder rate is high but other factors are driving it.
If you look at total homicide rates ,not just gun deaths you get a better picture and can see some countries you want to avoid visiting. http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
vtsnowedin wrote:That chart shows that gun ownership rates do not correlate to to murder rate. Notice France Austria and Iceland. Yes the USA murder rate is high but other factors are driving it.
If you look at total homicide rates ,not just gun deaths you get a better picture and can see some countries you want to avoid visiting. http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
You are quite right. Gun ownership, by itself, does not directly correlate with a high murder rate. You also need a homicidal, f*cked-up culture with no capacity for humility or self-reflection.
A trouble with that chart is that it doesn't distinguish between hand-gun and hunting-rifle ownership. I guess the case of Iceland illustrates this neatly.
Little John wrote:You are quite right. Gun ownership, by itself, does not directly correlate with a high murder rate. You also need a homicidal, f*cked-up culture with no capacity for humility or self-reflection.
The whole culture or population does not need to be off kilter, just a segment that deals with and consumes large amounts of illegal drugs.
vtsnowedin wrote:
I'll wait until the experts evaluate him. In the meantime it appears to have a high probability as there is no rational reason that explains his actions.
So, just to clarify, assuming he is mentally ill, would you favour hospitalization or lethal injection?
Hospitalization of course but if he was ever considered cured I would still consider him guilty and needing to be kept locked up if not executed.
I don't buy into this Innocent by reason of insanity deal and instead would consider him guilty but insane. then if he gets cured of his insanity he is still "guilty".
I agree with this. Talking of mental illness and someone being out of control, read this:
