Re: Re Look out! long hair gun loon!
Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:31:48 -0500
Wayne Hayes wrote:
>
> This article contains replies to Dana Kissick, Michael Lorrey, Geoff Smith,
> and Damien Sullivan.
>
> Dana Kissick <munchkiss1@mail.istal.com> writes:
> >Please explain to me how you come up with the figures of 80-95% of
> >homicides thru the use of firearms when the year with the highest figure
> >(1974) was only 71.3%.
>
> Hmm, you're right. I was looking at the "other" column, which fluctuates
> between about 7% an 15%, and subtracting that from 100. The problem
> is that the percentages quoted don't seem to add up to 100. Something
> is not being counted, and I don't know what it is. But you're right
> that if you add up the columns "handguns" and "firearms", the numbers
> are closer to 50-70% of murders being committed using guns.
>
> >[stuff about defending himself and his family from criminals]
>
> As I've said, those may be valid reasons for wanting to own a gun. And,
> if I lived in certain parts of the US, I might be more prone to own a gun,
> too. This leads nicely to...
>
> phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien R. Sullivan) writes:
> >[Americans] kill each other more often period, regardless of weapon.
>
> True. I wonder why. (I'm not being sarcastic.)
>
> >There are other differences between the US and the other
> >industrialized nations. Size, long term racial problems, possibly how
> >we've treated our cities.
>
> Possibly. Another possibility:
>
> Michael Lorrey <retroman@together.net> writes:
> >Another big factor I can't identify in words, but it is definitely
> >related to the Canadian psyche and is possibly the same reason why
> >during the American Revolution, the Canadians did not join in the
> >revolt.
>
> True. As a friend of mine puts it, "Canada *exists* primarily for
> the purpose of not being the United States." Before the American
> Revolution, Canada was just as much a French colony as a British
> one. Then the "United Empire Loyalists" fled north to Canada during
> and after the American Revolution, and from that point on, they (we?)
> were the majority, and have loved to define Canada as "not American"
> ever since. One of Canada's most proud differences from the US is
> our lower rate of violence. Many people think this is *because* we
> don't have easy access to guns. I don't think it's that simple, but
> it's probably a factor. I think a larger factor is simply our culture,
> which *tries* to be less violent than the US simply because it's one
> of the most obvious ways we can differentiate ourselves from the US.
> Which leads me to...
>
> Geoff Smith <geoffs@unixg.ubc.ca> writes:
> >I think the best explanation for the violence of the
> >US compared to Canada is culture. Americans began their country by
> >fighting, Canadians just waited it out until we were *given* independence.
> >Which was the better strategy? Who cares, but the point is that this is a
> >reflection of cultural differences (which I think are slowly blurring)
> >One important motivator for Canadians to avoid violence is that many
> >Canadians pride themselves on being as un-American as they can, and most
> >Canadians see Americans as violent (just look at all the movies that come
> >out of Hollywood!) Hopefully, the Canadian tendency towards nonviolent
> >solutions will rub off on the US, and the US tendency to prize individual
> >liberty will rub off on Canada
>
> It would be nice, but unforunately the exact opposite is happening.
> Canada is becoming more violent, while the US is becoming less free.
> In Toronto, for example, overall crime rates have dropped slightly
> in the past few years, but *violent* crime has gone up. I'm not
> sure why. Perhaps the violent culture of our Big Brother to the
> south is finally rubbing off on us.
>
> Geoff also writes:
> >On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> >> the main reason Canada is so peaceful is [...] because it is
> >> so ethnically homogenous.
>
> >I think your concept of an ethnically homogenous Canada either comes from
> >only seeing certain parts of Canada, or from the lack of African-Canadians.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Parts of Canada are indeed very homogeneous;
> other parts are extremely multicultural. Like Vancouver, Toronto has
> a huge asian population. Also plenty of Indians (not the North-American
> type), Italians, Portugese, Greeks... the list goes on. One of the
> best benefits of this is the diversity of food. :-) I love the fact
> that, within walking distance of my office, there is genuinely good
> food from all over the world. And like Vancouver, many departments
> on the U of Toronto campus have huge numbers of asians; in my own
> department (computer science), I believe asians number at least as
> many as people of European descent.
>
> Michael Lorrey <retroman@together.net> writes:
> >It is interesting that you said absolutely nothing about the Washington
> >DC Murder rates.
>
> "Never ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by ignorance."
> I didn't mention them because I didn't have them handy, and I'm not
> familiar with them in any case. I don't claim to be an expert on
> gun use in any part of the world.
>
> >Studies of gun crime in the US show that gun crime rates are highest in
> >areas that have the most restrictive gun control laws.
>
> Another interesting data point indicating that the US is generally
> more violent than other first-world nations, since most other countries
> have more restrictive gun control laws than *anywhere* in the US, yet
> gun crime rates are *not* higher than in the US. I'm not flinging
> mud here, I'm just emphasizing again that the extra freedoms that
> you have come at a cost of a more violent culture.
>
> >Now, on the overall murder rates being higher, I won't debate, its
> >obvious that a free society like ours will tend to grant its citizens
> >the liberty to be able to commit the sort of crimes involved, while
> >societies like those in europe, descended from fuedal systems in which
> >only the aristocracy had a right to bear arms, are obviously not free,
>
> Huh? Why are they obviously not free? And to what extend freedom? We
> are free to travel as we please, within and between countries; we vote
> for our leaders, just as you do; we have (as a practical matter)
> freedom of speech, religion, association, and the press, just as the US
> is supposed to have. (Of course there are problems, but legally and
> in practice we have similar rights.) I don't know about the European
> countries, but Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of
> our Constitution (contrary to what somebody said a few days back).
> Certainly there are minor differences of degree and kind in the details,
> but I would hardly call Canada or any of the western European countries
> "obviously not free".
>
> >[obviously not free,]
> >in that the government protects the citizens from themselves.
>
> It seems that your definition of "free" lies solely in the right to
> bear arms. I believe this is an extremely narrow view. Are the
> other freedoms I mention above worth nothing?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I don't believe, a priori, that gun ownership is
> bad. As I've said, I've been on a rifle team where strict safety
> procedures were taught. People on this list (including yourself)
> have complained how gun owners are often portrayed as madmen. Would
> you complain if, for example, the *only* law that stood between you
> and a gun was a requirement to take a safety course? Would that
> be an opprossive law leading to a state that is "obviously not free"?
>
> [I'm trying to figure out if we're talking at cross-pursposes here,
> or if we really do have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes
> "freedom".]
SHow me one western european country, and you can include Canada, where
the national Constitution, if one happens to exist, explicitly
acknowledges that all political power derives from individuals, and is
delegated to the government by the consent of the people. France might
be one, but all of the others have peacefully transformed themselves
from monarchies to constitutional monarchies, to parliamentary
democracies, and in the fine print, you will always find a clause that
states that ultimate political power has been granted by God to the
monarchy, and the monarchy has delegated this to the people. Any nation
that has this Natural Law "divine right of kings" clause is a nation
where the people are NOT free, they are merely being treated "extra
special" by the true power. Canada, which peacefully was granted
independence by the British monarchy, acknowledges that their government
exists by the grace and good will of the British crown.
The British government, as peaceful and democratic as it is, is, after
all, a constitutional monarchy, in which the sovreign power is in the
body of the monarch, not in the people or in the parliament. There is no
freedom of speech or any other officially recognised rights that belong
to or originate from the people. The most that the government has is the
Magna Carta, which is a 'divine right' document, no matter what its
democratic implications. WHile the government does today observe human
rights as a matter of practice, and as required by the UN Charter, there
is no reason or legal requirement for them to do so explicitly.
Non-AMericans just can't seem to understand how importatant this
prinicple is, nor do many americans today. People think that if the
government observes a particular political right of the people as a
matter of form even though it is not legally bound to, that the people
actually, legally, posess this freedom. Not so. And I am not sorry to be
delivering this wakeup call, no matter how much you might deny or resist
its validity.
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?