2007 (111)
2008 (219)
2009 (121)
2010 (101)
2011 (161)
2012 (183)
2013 (99)
2023 (1)
2024 (1)
昨天淩晨，本地的一間酒吧發生了一起槍擊案，原因是一位酒客和酒吧保安發生爭執，被保安趕出了酒吧。酒客不甘心，開車返回酒吧拿著槍對著保安一陣亂槍，所幸保安隻是腿部受了輕傷。
在這個平時寧靜得連野鹿都可以堂而皇之在市中心散步的小城裏，出了這樣的大事，讓警察忙了一整天，民眾們也交頭接耳不斷打聽著事件的經過，多少有些提心吊膽。
今晨打開報紙，頭版當然是有關槍擊案的報道，來龍去脈雞毛蒜皮一一道來，但案犯尚未抓獲，辦公室同事們都在抱怨警察效率太低，大家不免有些人心惶惶。
報紙再翻開幾頁，看到一個孩子身挎衝鋒槍的照片，那稚嫩的小臉和這殺人武器實在不相稱，估計是伊拉克或索馬裏的兒童。然而仔細一看，這竟然是來自我們的鄰居——美國的新聞！
這個年僅7歲名叫Chance McQueen的小男孩在其父親的帶領下參加一個幾千人的集會，反對政府禁槍。若是平時，咱也見怪不怪，美國嘛，啥事情沒有呢？然而，Sandy Hook的悲劇才過了兩個月，28個鮮活的生命，20個天真活潑的孩子啊！
這些愛槍的美國人，難道心中沒有對生命的敬畏？麵對那20名孩子純真的笑臉，還有什麽理由握住那冰冷的槍把，嗜槍如命呢？
拿把槍玩玩也就罷了，可是看了以下這些數據，如果你還是支持美國人所謂的持槍自由的話，那就真叫人無語了：
從Sandy Hook悲劇後短短的一個星期裏，美國又相繼發生100多起槍擊案，共有406人喪生，其中 6人是13歲以下的兒童，21人不到17歲。這兩個多月裏，美國平均每天有18人死於槍下，統計數據顯示，自1976年的近30年裏，美國每年死於槍下的冤魂都在10000人上下，10000乘以30 是多少啊！
生命在子彈麵前人人平等，美國曆史上有44位總統，其中竟有9位遭到暗殺。
這難道就是所謂的自由？殺人也可以自由嗎？
再別拿什麽憲法修正案來自欺欺人了，民眾持槍是為了推翻獨裁的政府？現如今別說民眾可以持槍，憑美國政府的軍事實力，就是坦克隨便賣，老百姓也不可能和政府對抗，槍支貿易背後的利益關係還用點破嗎？
啥？教師以後可以持槍上課？學校由武裝校警持槍保護？想到這些餿主意我就恨不得抽那些軍火商們幾個耳光。
好了，想想自己在當年沒有選擇去美國還是萬幸，隻是祝願美國的兄弟們小心為妙。美國的愛槍族還會不斷壯大，李雙江言傳身教還出了一個惡棍李天一，這位McQueen先生的7歲小兒Chance以後會不會成Adam Lanza第二呢？GIVE HIM A CHANCE!
上帝保佑美國， 阿門！
1。合法持槍數量和犯罪率沒有任何關係。。。
2。mass shooting近100年來沒有增加（1929年是頂點），根據波士頓東北大學的研究。。。
所以任何控槍法律諸如所謂攻擊武器禁令都是無必要的，更不用說有違憲的可能。。。
橫向比較，Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy做過了
WOULD BANNING FIREARMSREDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B.KATES* AND GARYMAUSER**
結論：控槍不能減少暴力犯罪。。。
但是槍支總數是有記錄的，20年來槍支從兩億不到升至3億多的曆史最高點是無可爭辯的事實，同期犯罪率降到接近曆史最低點。。。
factcheck網站同樣指出“。。 gun ownership data itself is lacking — it comes only from public opinion surveys。。。”
”People today are simply more likely to tell survey-takers they do not own a gun, he said, because it is less socially acceptable.“
gallup至少比較中立些。。。
Sorry, correction for my previous comment: by banana argument, I meant the grenade argument. I confused the two because you made the analogy of grenade with banana.
There are also quite a few leaps of logic in your statement below. Respectfully, I just don't have that kind of time.
---------
I have asked you to pinpoint the logic leaps you refer to in my previous comment.
Speaking of logical leaps, do you agree with my analysis of your banana argument, including the invalid leap of logic? Yes or no. If not, please also pinpoint the part that you do not agree.
Please do not use the excuse of time constraint --- which seems to disappear when it suits you and when you wrote so much in the debate with hehe01 at the same time --- to be evasive and at least have the courage and the confidence to acknowledge when you are wrong, and to tell me, in specifics not with vague, vacuous accusations --- where I am wrong.
>>>So it appears that you do not get what I am saying...
Alright, dude, you don't seem to get what I was saying either.
Let's make it very simple: your analogy (of car deaths) was not on point. Cars and guns are two very different things. Cars are a necessity, for most part of the US. We have to do a risk/benefit analysis on whether the benefit exceeds the harm. Guns are different. Grenades are even more different. You tried to compare apples with oranges. So, I brought in some bananas -- just to remind you that some things are not comparable.
There are also quite a few leaps of logic in your statement below. Respectfully, I just don't have that kind of time.
I will address one, though. You said: "Now the yearly car death number obviously exceeds gun death."
Well, are you sure about that?
---------------
Your argument for cost/benefit analysis actually, again for the second time perhaps unwittingly, supports the whole point of my and hehe01's correct understanding or my argument which I stated before, I quote:
"author's reasoning that death numbers suffice to justify banning of a substance is absurd."
"the absurdity of the author's logic that the number of death resulting from a substance was sufficient to warrant banning (or legalizing) that substance."
death number carries no sufficient bearing on banning of a substance (e.g. guns)."
"absurdity of the author's argument that the number of death resulting from a substance should be sufficient to ban or legalize that particular substance."
hehe01:"The point is using death number to decide banning or allow something is just not correct...Therefore the fact grenade causes less death should have no bearing on whether to ban it or not…"
All I am saying is that death number alone is not enough to justify banning and legalization decision of a substance. You need other things, such as cost/benefit analysis, just as you are saying now, applied to the substance, cars as well as guns, under consideration. Do you intend to apply the cost/benefit analysis to cars but not to guns? Is it because cars and gun are different, you can impose double standards on them? If you are impartial, are you yourself not advocating not making the banning decision based only on the death numbers but on a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis? Why are you opposing my argument? Is it just because the conclusion put your conviction in doubt?
Now let us look at the technical aspects of your argument.
Let's address your last question first, since that is only substantive and relevant question you raise in your reply. Here is my data source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year. You can see the corresponding yearly death number by motor vehicle easily triples that of the gun death in the author's graph over the same period. I only need the first number to be larger than, even similar to the second to make my deduction stand.
I only point out the logical flaws in the author's article. You move some other albeit related topic. So let's address that. You are making two mistakes.
1) You say, "Cars and guns are two very different things." Are you saying if two things are different, they can not be compared? When can two things can be compared then, only when they are not different, i.e. only when they are the same? If so, what is the point of comparing them, when they are already the same? Are you not making another logical blunder?
A comparison can be made on a specific aspect or property so long as one assign, or more than one people agree to, assign an ordering to that aspect of property. Even an apple and an orange, and even your banana, can be compared based on their weights, their bulk Young's modulus, their reflexive light spectrum, their statistics of DNA sequencing, or chemical compound bond structure, etc., etc, so long as you specify the exact property. Regarding our topic at hand, we are simply talking about the yearly death number caused by substances. Regarding that property, which can be expressed in integer numbers, by what rhyme or reason, can they not be compared?
2) You raised a great issue of cost/benefit analysis. As I said in the beginning, you said the death number is not sufficient to justify the banning of cars, and wanted to apply cost/benefit analysis to the decision. Should the same argument not apply to guns as well, and should you not base the decision only on the death number, and should you not apply cost/benefit analysis to that? Are you not committing the sin of double standards? If you do not advocate applying double standards, then you are actually supporting my argument that death number is not enough to justify bans.
Let's address the general issue of mode of discussion.
Dude, you echo my statement and say I do not get what I was saying. When I made that claim, I made explicit all the premise and assumptions, laid down and bare under the sun all the detailed steps and argument for my deduction and the analysis of your deduction for you and everyone to pick on. I stand corrected of any mistakes I may have committed. You claim "The only point here is this: the logic you used did not entirely ring true. That's all.", "there are also quite a few leaps of logic in your statement below". Then why do you not pinpoint those leaps of logic? So I have a chance to defend my argument. I also stand corrected of and ready to admit any mistakes I may have committed. Do you have the same courage and confidence? I hope I read you wrong but you seem to adopt the tactics of evasion by making vague accusations without backing them up with specifics by claiming dismissively and disrespectfully --- contrary to your claim "respectfully" --- "I just don't have that kind of time". Well you seem to have all that time marshaling and posting all that data in the ongoing argument. I hope you are not saying you are capable of collecting data but either not capable of or unwilling to understand or interpret them in a logical fashion.
Respectfully, I sincerely await your respectful, careful and detailed response.
(1): >>>Kennesaw, Georgia和日本例子至多說明持槍和凶殺沒有任何聯係。。。
What about Sugar Land, Texas, which does not have the ordinance that Kennesaw, Georgia has on guns? Its murder/manslaughter rate? 0. That's even lower than Kennesaw. (BTW: Kennesaw has a population of 29,783 (2010); Sugar Land has a population of 78,817 (2010)). (Sugar Land crime rate was from 2010, FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement).
So, having a gun around does not necessarily reduce death/gun-related death. Agree?
(2): >>>過去20年（得從94年算，93年算進的話是21年了），從94年到2013，持槍者/家庭比例就是基本持平（可以說小幅上升），不是嗎？至少沒有任何統計意義上的下降，而槍支總數成倍增加，犯罪率逐年下跌。不是事實嗎？
Well, if you want to interpret statistics that way, then I can also say: for the past 21 years, gun ownership had declined. In the mean time, crime had gone down.
So yeah, you can dress up the numbers anyway you'd like. Mark Twain had a good analogy for it -- "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
But for the sake of numbers: please be advised that the numbers above are from Gallup (gun ownership). Another study by General Social Survey also indicated that gun ownership had declined -- here are some (more) numbers:
54.0% in 1977 (the peak)
45.5% in 1993
32.3% in 2010
You can see those numbers here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
So overall, gun ownership is on the decline, while in the mean time, crime is also dropping. And -- that's not my opinion. Take a look at: Crime is down -- and so is gun ownership, David Lauter, July 23, 2012, Los Angeles Times
(See http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722 )
And yes -- the number of guns went up, but the number of gun owners dropped -- so...
(see Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns ; http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining )
(3): >>>您還是沒明白我的意思，我說的是給老師佩槍或給學校配警衛不是從mass shooting概率角度出發的
Then why should we let teachers carry guns to schools?
I thought you were the one who said that (1): it was a good idea to let teachers carry guns because (2): (you claim) gun bans lead to school shootings.
No?
And, to be clear -- I am not necessarily against letting school police carry guns. Provided -- that they are well trained.
(4): >>>其中兩萬左右是自殺，這沒法算在裏麵。。。
Why not?
Aren't suicides deaths?
10,000 deaths a year is not significant enough?
And, 32% (or, 47%) of U.S. households own at least 1 gun. Whereas, 90.9% of U.S. households own at least 1 car. (2010, U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2010 data, Table CP-4.). If 90.9% of U.S. households own at least 1 gun, I would expect gun related deaths to increase proportionately.
(5): >>>James Holmes還特地選了他家方圓20英裏內唯一一家禁槍的影院，既不是離他家最近的，也不是人最多的一家。。。
Respectfully --
So?
(6): >>>通常mass shooting的定義要4個以上的死亡
That's the FBI's definition for "mass murder." But you used the phrase "mass shooting." "Mass shooting" is defined as: "Multiple discharging of firearm(s) onto a group of unarmed victims." (see McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.)
The unfortunate examples I cited previously would seem to qualify as "mass shooting." If you want to use the more restrictive definition, then yeah, you get fewer deaths if you change the way you call it. I just find it difficult to explain to the family of the victims of mass shootings when 20 persons were injured while only 3 people died, that their suffering cannot be included in the statistics.
I just thought there's something wrong there.
>>> 這位仁兄看來看東西並不仔細，所以HCC才會說：Did you really read the statistics that you cited？ 我的原文明明說的“凶殺案的減少跟持槍增加一倍無關”，怎麽就變成“持槍和凶殺案沒有關係”？
說一下現實的，咱們不用或真或假的數據支持，也很難有個人理解不同的。持槍可以讓一次事故的死亡人數成倍的增長，這個你不能有意見吧。隻要有心，不用太多體力，遠距離就可以奪走數十條性命。刀/拳頭/棍棒都不能與此相拚。
mass murder is defined as the person murdering four or more persons during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders.
年度平均35人是平均數字，有某年特別高，有某年特別低。。。
======================================
James Holmes還特地選了他家方圓20英裏內唯一一家禁槍的影院，既不是離他家最近的，也不是人最多的一家。。。
===============================
其中兩萬左右是自殺，這沒法算在裏麵。。。
Is that not what you were saying/suggesting? If not, that's fine.
〉〉〉〉〉〉〉
您還是沒明白我的意思，我說的是給老師佩槍或給學校配警衛不是從mass shooting概率角度出發的，如果從概率角度出發這是低到無意義的，所以你用走火概率來反對給老師佩槍的出發點就是錯的。。。您應該從防止mass shooting(無論概率是多少）的出發點來討論這個問題。。。
Kennesaw, Georgia和日本例子至多說明持槍和凶殺沒有任何聯係。。。
過去20年（得從94年算，93年算進的話是21年了），從94年到2013，持槍者/家庭比例就是基本持平（可以說小幅上升），不是嗎？至少沒有任何統計意義上的下降，而槍支總數成倍增加，犯罪率逐年下跌。不是事實嗎？
--- 這很容易解釋，這兩者並不是直接且唯一對應關係。凶殺案的減少也許，或者肯定跟持槍增加一倍 一毛錢的關係都沒有。
>>>>>>不好意思，如果持槍和凶殺案沒有關係，那禁槍不是吃飽了撐的。。。
反而，可能如果持槍不增加，凶殺案可以減少25%！
>>>>>>事實證明你是錯的，dc, chicago禁槍後凶殺案大幅度上升。。。
--- 這很容易解釋，這兩者並不是直接且唯一對應關係。凶殺案的減少也許，或者肯定跟持槍增加一倍 一毛錢的關係都沒有。反而，可能如果持槍不增加，凶殺案可以減少25%！ 沒有發生的事情誰可以解釋呢？這就好比說哪位老人抽了一輩子的煙，活到97歲，就可以說抽煙讓人長壽？隻能的解釋是：如果他不抽煙，她也許可以活107。。。。
這就是反對禁槍的人的一貫言論：每天死在槍下的人遠少於拳頭/刀/棍棒/車禍。。。為什麽不禁止手/刀/棍子/車子。這些人忘了：1、槍的數量是多少，每支每次可以殺多少人。拳頭/刀/棍棒/車禍的基數又是多少，每個每次可以殺多少人？這其中的危險性是可以被比較的嗎？ 2。以上東西被創造出來的原因是讓人們生活的更好。而武器被創造出來的原因就是可以更容易/大批量/迅速的殺生（別跟我說殺動物是為了讓人們生活的更好，我們常吃的豬牛羊可不是槍打死的）。武器首先是為了用於人類的戰鬥，為了殺人，其次才是自衛。
還有，很多人不反對持槍,但是一定要加強槍支管理，像這樣十幾歲的小孩隨便在父母那裏拿幾支槍出去殺20幾個更小的孩子。一群人卻帶著自己的小孩給他們洗腦，擁有槍支是人與生俱來擁有的權力。。。。真是讓人齒冷。也許正是因為這些瘋子的存在，更多的人想要購買槍支了。。。
(2): Why don't we take a look at the other end of the spectrum?
Let's look at Japan. Guess how many gun related homicides they had?
Eleven (11)
(2008, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011 Global Study on Homicide).
James Eagan Holmes alone did more in 1 day than the entire country of Japan in 1 year.
(3): There are people who disagree with your contention re: Kennesaw. You can take a look at:
Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7.
Professor Hemenway opined: "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."
(1): So, I am wondering -- did you really read the statistics that you cited?
You cited "Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 (gallup poll)."
I pulled that article. (See http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx )
According to the article: gun ownership declined from 54% (1993) to 41% (2010). During that same period of time, crime went down (per you).
2011 was the only year that was different, when gun ownership went up to 47%. But in the long run, guns ownership did not go up. It went down when you look back into the history, say, 1993.
So let's compare the numbers:
Gun ownership (per your statistics, above):
1993: 54%.
2011: 47%.
Violent crime rate (per your statistics from yesterday, FBI Uniform Crime Reports):
1993: 746.8 (per 100,000)
2011: 386.3 (per 100,000)
Thoughts?
很顯然，支持教師持槍（或禁止突擊步槍）的考慮並不是從區區每年平均35人死於mass shooting這個極小幾率的原因出發的。。。
(1): That is actually what you (seem to have) said: you said that car accident deaths are higher, so why aren't we more worried about it? Tacit in that statement is: since gun deaths are lower, let's not worry about it.
Is that not what you were saying/suggesting? If not, that's fine.
(2): By the way: in US, deaths from car crashes in 2009 was 30,797. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nov. 27, 2012). In 2010, it was 32,885. Id.
In US, deaths by firearm averaged 32,300 annually between 1980 and 2006. (National Center for Health Care Statistics, CDC, 2009).
(3): As far as I am aware, no one ever said car safety is not important. So -- I am not sure why we have to discuss car safety in a thread that addresses guns.
(4): what is your definition of "mass shooting"?
Do the ones below count? (The death toll seems to be more than 35).
February 22, 2012—Five people were killed in at a Korean health spa in Norcross, Georgia, when a man opened fire inside the facility in an act suspected to be related to domestic violence.
February 26, 2012—Multiple gunmen began firing into a nightclub crown in Jackson, Tennessee, killing one person and injuring 20 others.
February 27, 2012—Three students at Chardon High School in rural Ohio were killed when a classmate opened fire.
March 8, 2012—Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when a gunman entered the hospital with two semiautomatic handguns and began firing.
March 31, 2012—A gunman opened fire on a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, Florida, funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others.
April 2, 2012—A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, California, walked into his former school and killed seven people, “execution-style.” Three people were wounded.
April 6, 2012—Two men went on a deadly shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shooting black men at random in an apparently racially motivated attack. Three men died and two were wounded.
May 29, 2012—A man in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a coffee shop and killed five people and then himself.
July 9, 2012—At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, Delaware, three people were killed, including a 16-year-old player and the event organizer, when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer.
July 20, 2012—James Holmes enters a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opens fire with a semi-automatic weapon; twelve people are killed and fifty-eight are wounded.
August 5, 2012—A white supremacist and former Army veteran shot six people to death inside a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before killing himself.
August 14, 2012—Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage; one of the dead was a police officer.
September 27, 2012—A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered his former workplace and shot five people to death, and wounded three others before killing himself.
October 21, 2012—45-year-old Radcliffe Frankin Haughton shot three women to death, including his wife, Zina Haughton, and injured four others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself.
December 11, 2012—A 22-year-old began shooting at random at a mall near Portland, Oregon, killing two people and then himself.
December 14, 2012—One man, and possibly more, murders a reported twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself.
(See http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead )
Alright, dude, you don't seem to get what I was saying either. Let's make it very simple: your analogy (of car deaths) was not on point. Cars and guns are two very different things. Cars are a necessity, for most part of the US. We have to do a risk/benefit analysis on whether the benefit exceeds the harm. Guns are different. Grenades are even more different. You tried to compare apples with oranges. So, I brought in some bananas -- just to remind you that some things are not comparable.
There are also quite a few leaps of logic in your statement below. Respectfully, I just don't have that kind of time.
I will address one, though. You said: "Now the yearly car death number obviously exceeds gun death."
Well, are you sure about that?
That’s actually not my point of view. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted by Harvard. I am just passing on what research on this topic has concluded.
I would prefer not to quibble over semantics or choice of words, but I think you probably will agree that data for the past 20 years shows that fewer and fewer people/households are owning guns, which coincides with your observation that gun related homicides are declining.
Coincidence?
===============================================
好吧，不扣字眼，你支持的哈佛研究觀點是持槍者/家庭（非槍支總量）在過去20年內下降，而槍殺案率同時期下降，所以減少持槍者/家庭有助於減少槍殺案。
可惜是錯的：
1。美國持槍者/家庭的比例現在是20年來最高的，Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 (gallup poll)，而犯罪率卻從1993年來一直下降。。。
2。Kennesaw, Georgia,鎮法律規定每家必須要持有一把槍，100%持槍率，照這結論該血流成河了，事實呢？槍殺案率0.2起（每10萬人）是全美平均槍殺案率的1/15，在2007年被評為全美10個最適合家庭居住的市鎮。。。
Are you saying -- (1) It's more likely for kids to die of car accidents than of gunshots (2) So -- let's not worry about gun safety? If that's what you are suggesting, I think I remember someone said something about reductio ad absurdum somewhere.
============================
這裏您用的不是歸謬法，您用的是稻草人謬誤，即你用一個你自己的誇張扭曲的觀點來替代我的觀點，從而加以批判...
我的觀點是如果意外幾率是你決定擔憂主次順序的重要因素的話（您自己說的你擔心槍支造成的意外要比校園槍案幾率高），那麽從意外幾率上來說您最優先需要考慮的是車禍意外。。。
但是您把我的觀點變成了：我覺得槍支安全不重要。。。
很顯然，支持教師持槍（或禁止突擊步槍）的考慮並不是從區區每年平均35人死於mass shooting這個極小幾率的原因出發的，所以您的幾率優先理論不成立。。。
誰告訴你有槍的人就嗜槍如命呢？每年有多少人噎死，也沒見你不吃飯啊。
>憑美國政府的軍事實力，就是坦克隨便賣，老百姓也不可能和政府對抗...
LA ex-cop,就一個人，幾千警察對付了好幾天，最後還是因為有人報警才打死的.政府的原子彈有用嗎？
>>>Giving you the benefit of the doubt, not nitpicking on your logic --- as I said before, we can discuss the details if you wish ---
Respectfully, and to tell you the truth: no thanks. The only point here is this: the logic you used did not entirely ring true. That's all.
With that, if you still want to discuss the details, then sure and go ahead.
----------------------
So it appears that you do not get what I am saying and do not fully understand the implication what you yourself said.You said "the logic you used did not entirely ring true". After you have read my following detailed analysis of my logic, if you still think so, please support your claim by laying out in kind my logical flaws,so we can look into that.
Let's explicitly lay out the author's implicit proposition (if you disagree with my explication of WuKong's article then please explicitly write down your understanding of it): In the ideal world (the word "should" from now on refers to this ideal world) of WuKong, there is a threshold for numbers of deaths resulting from substances. The substance is banned if and only if the yearly number of deaths of which exceeds that threshold. Guns are (should be) banned.
1. Let's look at my derivation first. Since WuKong advocates banning guns, therefore the yearly number of gun deaths must have exceeded that threshold. Now the yearly car death number obviously exceeds gun death, so by WuKong's proposition, cars should be banned. Unless WuKong does advocates banning cars, there is a contradiction. Now if WuKong does so advocate, WuKong's world would not be acceptible to most of people including you (I suppose you would not wish cars be banned) and me. What is for sure is there is a contradiction somewhere. So WuKong's proposition does not stand or not acceptible to most of us (including vast majority of gun haters). This is called reductio ad absurdum, if you don't already know it.
2. Let's look at your statement on grenades. We do not know what yearly number of death is caused by grenades comparing to that of any substance that WuKong would allow or legalize. WuKong does not say what that threshold is in his ideal world. As such we can not deduce whether that grenade number is above or below the threshold, and we are blocked from drawing any conclusion on legality of owning grenades, contrary to what you claim. That is why I say, that in the strict sense your logic does not follow. Now, as I did before, giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting up so that your conclusion is valid, suppose we know the number of yearly grenade death is below the legalization threshold, then we reach your conclusion that the grenades should be legalized. Now again, unless WuKong does advocates legalizing grenades, or legalizing grenades is palatible to gun haters, we come to a contradiction again. This is again called reductio ad absurdum. Your statement, given the benefit of the doubt, just shows that.
Either way, WuKong's proposition is not acceptable to either himself or majority of gun haters. Therefore his proposition is absurd, wrong or nonsense (whatever you may want to describe a self-contradiction). Moreover, your statement on grenade --- perhaps unwittingly -- showed that and supported my claim.
Do you agree with the above deduction? If not, please pinpoint specifically where you do not agree, and tell me explicitly and in as much detail what your logic is.
Are you saying -- (1) It's more likely for kids to die of car accidents than of gunshots (2) So -- let's not worry about gun safety? If that's what you are suggesting, I think I remember someone said something about reductio ad absurdum somewhere.
At the end of the day, if you are not worried about kids being accidentally shot in school by teachers or others carrying a gun, well, your heart is much stronger than mine.
That’s actually not my point of view. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted by Harvard. I am just passing on what research on this topic has concluded.
I would prefer not to quibble over semantics or choice of words, but I think you probably will agree that data for the past 20 years shows that fewer and fewer people/households are owning guns, which coincides with your observation that gun related homicides are declining.
Coincidence?
I have no problems of picking up a gun for defensive purposes!
However, if no one has guns to begin with, I'm fully against the private ownership of any firearms!
Respectfully, and to tell you the truth: no thanks. The only point here is this: the logic you used did not entirely ring true. That's all.
With that, if you still want to discuss the details, then sure and go ahead.
您的觀點是More guns = more homicide， 事實就是美國1990年左右的1億多隻槍支量到了2013年變成了3億多支，而槍殺案率從1990年的7起（每10萬人）下降到了現在的4起（每10萬人）。。。您能否認這些數字嗎？難道不是More guns = less homicide嗎？
I think it may be a little late to send Nancy Lanza to jail.
And yes, I am aware that her son was 20. Does it matter now?
Look, the point here is: do you want guns go off in a school? Let's make a comparison:
(1): number of crimes in school that were prevented by a teacher carrying a gun, and
(2): number of people at school accidentally shot by a gun.
I don't want kids to have to face an increased chance of getting shot at, accidentally, by their teachers. If you think teachers with guns can prevent mass shootings (how often has that happened, btw?), I could only respectfully point out that the chances of being killed AND injured seems to be much higher.
Again -- I am concerned about your interpretation of the statistics. Perhaps the article below will explain it:
"A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data."
"Those who own guns, own more guns," said Josh Sugarmann, the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun control advocacy group. Last year the organization released an analysis of figures from the General Social Survey, which found that both the number of households owning guns and the number of people owning guns were decreasing."
(See http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining )
However, fewer Americans and American households are owning guns in the last 20 years.
(See http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722 )
Gun ownership is down, not up for the past 20 years. And it overlaps with a decrease in crime in the same time period. What do you think we can learn from that?
>>>In strict sense, your logic does not follow.
In a strict sense, neither does yours.
And my example re: grenade also explains why your example re: cars does not logically refute the author's position.
----------------
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, not nitpicking on your logic --- as I said before, we can discuss the details if you wish --- on the premise that what you said before regarding grenade was valid, I am saying you actually by following the author's logic showed that author's reasoning that death numbers suffice to justify banning of a substance is absurd.
You can also refer to Hehe01's response regarding this. He explains in a direct fashion why your argument actually supports my claim that death number carries no sufficient bearing on banning of a substance (eg. guns).
What you did, perhaps unwittingly, was reductio ad absurdum. I suppose you understand what that is. If you still do not agree and wish to discuss the logic process in detail, say so, and I will write out the whole deduction process and lead you through it step by step.
(7): Have you ever been to Canada? Do you honestly believe that Canada is more "violent" than the U.S.?
====================================
事實上我常去加拿大，而且我也的確是這樣覺得的，我在美國近20年了，從來沒有和別人打假，被搶啥的，即便我有段時間在黑人區上班，夜裏走去地鐵站也從來沒有任何問題，倒是去加拿大10來次中有一次，一個中東家夥硬生生用車把我逼停（我都不太清楚是為啥，在美國最多就按個喇叭的事兒），下來羅嗦還朝我吐口水，被我當街撂倒揍了一頓，也沒見警察來，就走了。。。
More guns = more homicide
-- according to a study conducted by Harvard. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
=============================
那您如何解釋過去20年中美國持槍增加一倍，但凶殺案率確降低了50%呢？
2。絕大多數持槍家庭都沒有任何問題，美國3億多支合法槍並沒有造成大的犯罪，絕大多數槍殺案主要集中在市區黑人，西裔幫派仇殺。
3。目前，未成年小孩在無人監督的情況下拿到槍，父母要坐牢的。。。
4。我同樣沒有計算mass shooting中受傷的人數。。。
More guns = more homicide
-- according to a study conducted by Harvard. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
My question was -- where are the teachers going to put their guns? In their drawer? In their purse? Locker? (how would they get it when they need it then?) How do we know that teenage kids, known for their curiosity and disregard to authority, won't get access to it?
Here's one example:
http://www.9news.com/dontmiss/299943/630/Employee-charged--after-accidental-shooting-at-CU-dental-school
(2): 47%的美國家庭有槍，一吵架就拔槍早就死絕了。。。
The number I read was 32%. But, ok. One way or the other, I hope you realize that, in anger, people are capable of many things. I would want to keep a gun further away from an enraged person, not nearer.
(3): By the way, I haven't mentioned -- what if the kids bring a gun to the school? For instance -- what if Bobby decides to bring his favorite 0.22LR assault rifle to school? And, say, the boy sitting next to him at math class asked Bobby to "play" with the AR?
For example: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57383557-504083/police-8-year-old-wash-girl-accidentally-shot-by-a-gun-in-her-classmates-backpack/
〉〉〉〉事故幾率可以減低，通過定期培訓等方式，美國每年槍支事故死亡600多，3億支槍，700萬老師即使人手一支也不過同比利14起，比平均每年35人死於mass shooter還是要少點。。。
The 600 number you refer to does not include injuries, which are in the range of 14-15,000. But, ok. You did not mention the fact that these figures are before guns being allowed in schools. If guns are legalized in schools, then it would only stand to reason to expect the death/injury toll to skyrocket.
The school is a crowded place, I might add. Like some say, bullets don't have eyes.
In a strict sense, neither does yours.
And my example re: grenade also explains why your example re: cars does not logically refute the author's position.
加拿大2000年，暴力犯罪為984 （每10萬人）
I am concerned of your interpretation of the statistics. You are assuming that the numbers you cited, from two completely different sources, have the same definition for "violent crime."
I would point out that:
(1): For 2000, the vast majority of the Canadian "violent crime," per your source, is level 1 assault (621 out of 984), which does not involve a weapon or is not aggravated.
(2): The American definition of "assault" is different. Your source (FBI Uniform Crime Reports) defines assault as "aggravated assault," which "...usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm." (see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/aggravated-assault )
(3): so, if you apply the American definition, the Canadian "Level 1 assault" would not be included as "violent crime." Then, the Canadian violent crime rate would drop by about 64%.
(4): and there's more -- the Canadian "violent crime" definition also includes attempted murder and abduction, which are not included in the U.S. definition.
(5): and Canada uses the term "sexual assault" to compute its crime rate, which is broader than the "rape" used by the FBI. The FBI explained that its definition does not include statutory rape or other sex offenses. (see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape )
(6): the conclusion is -- Canada included more items under "violent crime" than the U.S. So of course Canada's "violent crime" rate is higher. If you apply the American definition, then, you should eliminate at least the Level 1 assault, the attempted murder, abduction...etc. With that, the violent crime rate would be 359 out of 100,000 for Canada (for year 2000). Compare that with 506.5 of the U.S. (and that does not include the difference in "rape" v. "sexual assault.")
(7): Have you ever been to Canada? Do you honestly believe that Canada is more "violent" than the U.S.?
(1): kids taking/accessing the gun when the teacher did not put the guns at a safe location
>>>>老師應該在培訓後才能隨身攜帶。。。
(2): in a heated debate/exchange, that a teacher may accidentally use the gun,
〉〉〉〉47%的美國家庭有槍，一吵架就拔槍早就死絕了。。。
(3): I assume you don't mean allowing the children to carry a gun to campus. If you do, I am sure you'd notice the danger in allowing children to carry a deadily weapon.
〉〉〉〉即便是老師也要在篩選，培訓，並且自願的情況下才可以佩槍。。。
Accidental gun discharge v. possibility of stopping a mass shooter in school (I thought you said that's rare nowadays). What's more likely to you?
〉〉〉〉事故幾率可以減低，通過定期培訓等方式，美國每年槍支事故死亡600多，3億支槍，700萬老師即使人手一支也不過同比利14起，比平均每年35人死於mass shooter還是要少點。。。
------------------
回複hehe01的評論:
HCC 評論於：2013-02-27 16:16:41
Then your logic would go both ways. The number of deaths by grenade use is far less than gun related deaths. So why don't we legalize grenade ownership?
==============================================
No, actually his logic is perfectly good. The point is using death number to decide banning or allow something is just not correct...Therefore the fact grenade causes less death should have no bearing on whether to ban it or not...
--------------------
Hehe01 got the logic right. HCC's statement actually shows the absurdity of the author's argument that the number of death resulting from a substance should be sufficient to ban or legalize that particular substance. HCC's logic betrays his true intent.
>>>You have some shitty logic. The number of death from traffic accidents far exceeds that from gun shots. Shouldn't you advocate banning cars by the same logic?
Then your logic would go both ways. The number of deaths by grenade use is far less than gun related deaths. So why don't we legalize grenade ownership?
----------
In strict sense, your logic does not follow. If you do not agree we can have a further detailed analysis of your logic. Overlooking the details, and giving you the benefit of doubt, what you just said followed my method of reductio ad absurdum to actually support my claim and showed from another angle the absurdity of the author's logic that the number of death resulting from a substance was sufficient to warrant banning (or legalizing) that subtance.
I do not know what you intend to advocate, but your statement precisely seconds my claim that the author's logic is flawed.
Then your logic would go both ways. The number of deaths by grenade use is far less than gun related deaths. So why don't we legalize grenade ownership?
==============================================
No, actually his logic is perfectly good. The point is using death number to decide banning or allow something is just not correct...Therefore the fact grenade causes less death should have no bearing on whether to ban it or not...
錯，暴力犯罪率加拿大從1962年以來從來就沒比美國低過，您的wiki網站上的結論是很誤導的（故意的），它耍了個花招，隻告訴你謀殺，搶劫和某一種assault是美國高，但沒告訴你性攻擊和其他assault加拿大要高的多，用這段話自己引用的數字來源：
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
美國2000年為例，暴力犯罪為475 （每10萬人）
加拿大2000年，暴力犯罪為984 （每10萬人）
兩倍還多呢，此外Australian Institute of Criminology的數字也同樣證明加拿大的暴力犯罪是美國的兩倍：
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi115.html
錯，暴力犯罪率加拿大從1962年以來從來就沒比美國低過，您的wiki網站上的結論是很誤導的（故意的），它耍了個花招，隻告訴你謀殺，搶劫和某一種assault是美國高，但沒告訴你性攻擊和其他assault加拿大要高的多，用這段話自己引用的數字來源：
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
美國2000年為例，暴力犯罪為475 （每10萬人）
加拿大2000年，暴力犯罪為984 （每10萬人）
兩倍還多呢，此外Australian Institute of Criminology的數字也同樣證明加拿大的暴力犯罪是美國的兩倍：
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi115.html
Then your logic would go both ways. The number of deaths by grenade use is far less than gun related deaths. So why don't we legalize grenade ownership?
造成校園槍擊案的原因就是校園禁槍令。。。為啥卡羅拉多影院殺手選了方圓20英裏內唯一一家“gun free"禁槍影院行凶。。。
Don't you think having guns on campus will lead to:
(1): kids taking/accessing the gun when the teacher did not put the guns at a safe location,
(2): in a heated debate/exchange, that a teacher may accidentally use the gun,
(3): I assume you don't mean allowing the children to carry a gun to campus. If you do, I am sure you'd notice the danger in allowing children to carry a deadily weapon.
Accidental gun discharge v. possibility of stopping a mass shooter in school (I thought you said that's rare nowadays). What's more likely to you?
You sure about that?
"Much study has been done of the comparative experience and policies of Canada with its southern neighbour the United States, and this is a topic of intense discussion within Canada.
Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada."
And:
"The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post-1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[18] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[19]
By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004, the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]
Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[20]"
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada )
sorry for you.
============================================
為啥是餿主意？pearl high school shooting和newtown極其相似，都是殺了自己媽後去學校殺人，唯一不同的是pearl high school副校長有槍，製止了凶手，減少了傷亡。。。
造成校園槍擊案的原因就是校園禁槍令。。。為啥卡羅拉多影院殺手選了方圓20英裏內唯一一家“gun free"禁槍影院行凶。。。
====================================
美國槍支業總量才13B（300多家廠商總和），還沒啥媒體公司newcorp一家的一半多。。。槍支行業的總量極小,大多就是作坊式的愛好者開的，有啥利益？
========================================
很多嗎？
在美國意外死亡裏，槍支排在第十位，前麵第一位，死於煙草的是槍的10多倍，死於酒精的是槍的3倍。。。
再別拿什麽憲法修正案來自欺欺人了，民眾持槍是為了推翻獨裁的政府？。。憑美國政府的軍事實力，就是坦克隨便賣，老百姓也不可能和政府對抗。。。
==================================
您的上述兩個觀點是自相矛盾的，即然能槍殺總統，咋叫不能和政府對抗？
如果和政府不能對抗，為啥禁不了槍呢？