No offense TT but you are sounding very much like a politician at this point.
Ouch, that hurt! Quite a mean streak you're showing, there, Mick !?
The very article that i quoted out of earlier basically said the "use of statistics" never gives you the whole story and are usually calculated against a lower statistic from a previous year and is a direct comparison against that only.
That's why I posted the link:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=523002...where you can check for yourself if the statistics were treated in a fair and meaningful way for you. I thought it was a pretty thorough treatment of the raw data. Far more detail than the quick summaries brought forward by the anti's and the media. Did you download/check it?
For example, if we had 3 more gun deaths in my state this year the rate of gun deaths would be up 75%, as a statistic that looks terrible but in reality it is nothing at all.
It's worse than that, actually. But, first I must protest the use of "gun deaths" as a reasonable term.
1) the gun didn't die. It never had a soul or any life like qualities that I can recognize.
2) the term implies that the sole cause of the death was the gun, to which I cannot abide. Guns do not kill. It will NOT function without a trigger finger attached to it.
3) More frequently, I see "Gun related deaths" used as a statistic by the anti-gun lobby, and the media, and the statistic they use INCLUDES suicides, police shootings, accidental discharges, and justifiable self-defense occurrences, as well as criminal use of the gun in the commission of a crime.
Just think how your presented statistic of "3 more gun deaths" would be construed without the added information that they were all either the result police actions or suicides? It would only be then that you'd realize that the stat was given expressly to make the reader connect evil with guns without any firm basis for that belief. Personally, I'd feel manipulated, which from my own research, is exactly what the anti-gun lobby and the media wishes to foster. (The ends justify whatever means necessary to further their goal, which is gun confiscation).
Having probably the most active gun lobby in the western world you will have plenty of fodder to quote from, some true and some highly exaggerated, while we are having this discussion you need to realize that these beliefs are considered outdated by most if not all the rest of the western society.
The U.S. have defined within it's tenets that firearm ownership is a right held by individual citizens. We have the most active lobby because the right is in constant jeopardy, and if that one falls or is abrogated, it signals the impending abrogation of all the rest of the rights previously deemed inalienable (not part of government privilege distribution). It's importance merits support by ALL citizens in this regard, given they wish to remain free and enjoy the remainder of that "Bill of Rights".
The rest of the "Western world" has placed no such trust into the hands of it's citizens. Instead, government officials are allowed to agree among themselves, which privileges (not inalienable rights), their citizens are allowed retain.
The basis over here is that the "people" share the same responsibilities/sensibilities as those elected to govern them. This concept is quite "foreign" (if you'll pardon the expression) to those outside the US. In fact, it is abhorrent to those in competing sovereigns, for our government tenets are perceived as "beyond comprehension", in that individual citizens can make meaningful decisions about such important matters as who will live and who may die. Such decisions elsewhere must be made by a supreme governing body, not the lowly, citizens.
I simply don't see that individual responsibility for their own actions is an outdated belief. Is this what "the rest of western world" wishes to abolish? How can that be an accepted desire?
Further, if your media is controlled by the government, the viewpoints of your government are almost certainly being drilled into the viewers minds, but probably not overtly. One of the practices that keeps a government regime in power is the belief by it's governed, that other governments are worse. Correct, truthful, objective, and forthright information is not always easy to obtain, wherever you live.
I completely understand the fact that you will defend this completely and i applaud you for this but you need to take into account the way this comes across to the rest of the world {as we are a worldwide forum} as this is not the norm for us.
Um, well... right back at cha, buddy. When you say that :
Thank god for guns.
Are you kidding!!!!!!!!! wasn't this the cause of the problem in the first place...
Mick
...how is this not an attempt to influence US position on the gun issue? And, how does it NOT infer that guns are evil, in and unto themselves?
You mention at one stage about our "freedom" maybe you should jump on a plane and come out for a visit while your dollar is nearly double ours, we are a very easy going "free" society and welcome everyone else' s views with open arms.....but that does not mean that we must agree with them....to each his own....
I'm certainly envious about your population level being equivalent to U.S. 1850 levels. The open spaces/countrysides must be wonderful, as they were here back in that era. US immigration rate was about 200,000 per year back then. Our society was quite a bit "freer" then, as well.
I once thought visiting (even living) in AU would be a grand adventure, and rather looked forward to it. After learning a bit more about Aussie propensity for solving "disagreements" with fists, I reconsidered. It would seem the culture or perhaps elements thereof, favors fisticuff contests and considers them "recreation" for the general populace. I'm not certain how the police authorities view this. But, I expect I simply wouldn't fit in. For me, fighting or inflicting damage upon another individual, is most distasteful. I have no desire for such activities. Sadly, I expect I will never see AU, in my lifetime.
One last word from me on this subject, i would defend my freedom and my family to the death as i would expect anyone else to do so.... peace and good will.
A worthy sentiment, for sure.
But, to paraphrase Patton (sort of), I would rather defend my freedom and family by the death of my aggressor enemies, rather than my own death.
Peace, and good will to you, too, Mick.
Regards,
