2007 (111)
2008 (219)
2009 (121)
2010 (101)
2011 (161)
2012 (183)
2013 (99)
2023 (1)
2024 (1)
昨天凌晨，本地的一间酒吧发生了一起枪击案，原因是一位酒客和酒吧保安发生争执，被保安赶出了酒吧。酒客不甘心，开车返回酒吧拿着枪对着保安一阵乱枪，所幸保安只是腿部受了轻伤。
在这个平时宁静得连野鹿都可以堂而皇之在市中心散步的小城里，出了这样的大事，让警察忙了一整天，民众们也交头接耳不断打听着事件的经过，多少有些提心吊胆。
今晨打开报纸，头版当然是有关枪击案的报道，来龙去脉鸡毛蒜皮一一道来，但案犯尚未抓获，办公室同事们都在抱怨警察效率太低，大家不免有些人心惶惶。
报纸再翻开几页，看到一个孩子身挎冲锋枪的照片，那稚嫩的小脸和这杀人武器实在不相称，估计是伊拉克或索马里的儿童。然而仔细一看，这竟然是来自我们的邻居——美国的新闻！
这个年仅7岁名叫Chance McQueen的小男孩在其父亲的带领下参加一个几千人的集会，反对政府禁枪。若是平时，咱也见怪不怪，美国嘛，啥事情没有呢？然而，Sandy Hook的悲剧才过了两个月，28个鲜活的生命，20个天真活泼的孩子啊！
这些爱枪的美国人，难道心中没有对生命的敬畏？面对那20名孩子纯真的笑脸，还有什么理由握住那冰冷的枪把，嗜枪如命呢？
拿把枪玩玩也就罢了，可是看了以下这些数据，如果你还是支持美国人所谓的持枪自由的话，那就真叫人无语了：
从Sandy Hook悲剧后短短的一个星期里，美国又相继发生100多起枪击案，共有406人丧生，其中 6人是13岁以下的儿童，21人不到17岁。这两个多月里，美国平均每天有18人死于枪下，统计数据显示，自1976年的近30年里，美国每年死于枪下的冤魂都在10000人上下，10000乘以30 是多少啊！
生命在子弹面前人人平等，美国历史上有44位总统，其中竟有9位遭到暗杀。
这难道就是所谓的自由？杀人也可以自由吗？
再别拿什么宪法修正案来自欺欺人了，民众持枪是为了推翻独裁的政府？现如今别说民众可以持枪，凭美国政府的军事实力，就是坦克随便卖，老百姓也不可能和政府对抗，枪支贸易背后的利益关系还用点破吗？
啥？教师以后可以持枪上课？学校由武装校警持枪保护？想到这些馊主意我就恨不得抽那些军火商们几个耳光。
好了，想想自己在当年没有选择去美国还是万幸，只是祝愿美国的兄弟们小心为妙。美国的爱枪族还会不断壮大，李双江言传身教还出了一个恶棍李天一，这位McQueen先生的7岁小儿Chance以后会不会成Adam Lanza第二呢？GIVE HIM A CHANCE!
上帝保佑美国， 阿门！
1。合法持枪数量和犯罪率没有任何关系。。。
2。mass shooting近100年来没有增加（1929年是顶点），根据波士顿东北大学的研究。。。
所以任何控枪法律诸如所谓攻击武器禁令都是无必要的，更不用说有违宪的可能。。。
横向比较，Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy做过了
WOULD BANNING FIREARMSREDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B.KATES* AND GARYMAUSER**
结论：控枪不能减少暴力犯罪。。。
但是枪支总数是有记录的，20年来枪支从两亿不到升至3亿多的历史最高点是无可争辩的事实，同期犯罪率降到接近历史最低点。。。
factcheck网站同样指出“。。 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至少比较中立些。。。
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和日本例子至多说明持枪和凶杀没有任何联系。。。
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): >>>过去20年（得从94年算，93年算进的话是21年了），从94年到2013，持枪者/家庭比例就是基本持平（可以说小幅上升），不是吗？至少没有任何统计意义上的下降，而枪支总数成倍增加，犯罪率逐年下跌。不是事实吗？
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): >>>您还是没明白我的意思，我说的是给老师佩枪或给学校配警卫不是从mass shooting概率角度出发的
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): >>>其中两万左右是自杀，这没法算在里面。。。
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还特地选了他家方圆20英里内唯一一家禁枪的影院，既不是离他家最近的，也不是人最多的一家。。。
Respectfully --
So?
(6): >>>通常mass shooting的定义要4个以上的死亡
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.
>>> 这位仁兄看来看东西并不仔细，所以HCC才会说：Did you really read the statistics that you cited？ 我的原文明明说的“凶杀案的减少跟持枪增加一倍无关”，怎么就变成“持枪和凶杀案没有关系”？
说一下现实的，咱们不用或真或假的数据支持，也很难有个人理解不同的。持枪可以让一次事故的死亡人数成倍的增长，这个你不能有意见吧。只要有心，不用太多体力，远距离就可以夺走数十条性命。刀/拳头/棍棒都不能与此相拼。
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人是平均数字，有某年特别高，有某年特别低。。。
======================================
James Holmes还特地选了他家方圆20英里内唯一一家禁枪的影院，既不是离他家最近的，也不是人最多的一家。。。
===============================
其中两万左右是自杀，这没法算在里面。。。
Is that not what you were saying/suggesting? If not, that's fine.
〉〉〉〉〉〉〉
您还是没明白我的意思，我说的是给老师佩枪或给学校配警卫不是从mass shooting概率角度出发的，如果从概率角度出发这是低到无意义的，所以你用走火概率来反对给老师佩枪的出发点就是错的。。。您应该从防止mass shooting(无论概率是多少）的出发点来讨论这个问题。。。
Kennesaw, Georgia和日本例子至多说明持枪和凶杀没有任何联系。。。
过去20年（得从94年算，93年算进的话是21年了），从94年到2013，持枪者/家庭比例就是基本持平（可以说小幅上升），不是吗？至少没有任何统计意义上的下降，而枪支总数成倍增加，犯罪率逐年下跌。不是事实吗？
--- 这很容易解释，这两者并不是直接且唯一对应关系。凶杀案的减少也许，或者肯定跟持枪增加一倍 一毛钱的关系都没有。
>>>>>>不好意思，如果持枪和凶杀案没有关系，那禁枪不是吃饱了撑的。。。
反而，可能如果持枪不增加，凶杀案可以减少25%！
>>>>>>事实证明你是错的，dc, chicago禁枪后凶杀案大幅度上升。。。
--- 这很容易解释，这两者并不是直接且唯一对应关系。凶杀案的减少也许，或者肯定跟持枪增加一倍 一毛钱的关系都没有。反而，可能如果持枪不增加，凶杀案可以减少25%！ 没有发生的事情谁可以解释呢？这就好比说哪位老人抽了一辈子的烟，活到97岁，就可以说抽烟让人长寿？只能的解释是：如果他不抽烟，她也许可以活107。。。。
这就是反对禁枪的人的一贯言论：每天死在枪下的人远少于拳头/刀/棍棒/车祸。。。为什么不禁止手/刀/棍子/车子。这些人忘了：1、枪的数量是多少，每支每次可以杀多少人。拳头/刀/棍棒/车祸的基数又是多少，每个每次可以杀多少人？这其中的危险性是可以被比较的吗？ 2。以上东西被创造出来的原因是让人们生活的更好。而武器被创造出来的原因就是可以更容易/大批量/迅速的杀生（别跟我说杀动物是为了让人们生活的更好，我们常吃的猪牛羊可不是枪打死的）。武器首先是为了用于人类的战斗，为了杀人，其次才是自卫。
还有，很多人不反对持枪,但是一定要加强枪支管理，像这样十几岁的小孩随便在父母那里拿几支枪出去杀20几个更小的孩子。一群人却带着自己的小孩给他们洗脑，拥有枪支是人与生俱来拥有的权力。。。。真是让人齿冷。也许正是因为这些疯子的存在，更多的人想要购买枪支了。。。
(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?
很显然，支持教师持枪（或禁止突击步枪）的考虑并不是从区区每年平均35人死于mass shooting这个极小几率的原因出发的。。。
(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，你支持的哈佛研究观点是持枪者/家庭（非枪支总量）在过去20年内下降，而枪杀案率同时期下降，所以减少持枪者/家庭有助于减少枪杀案。
可惜是错的：
1。美国持枪者/家庭的比例现在是20年来最高的，Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 (gallup poll)，而犯罪率却从1993年来一直下降。。。
2。Kennesaw, Georgia,镇法律规定每家必须要持有一把枪，100%持枪率，照这结论该血流成河了，事实呢？枪杀案率0.2起（每10万人）是全美平均枪杀案率的1/15，在2007年被评为全美10个最适合家庭居住的市镇。。。
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.
============================
这里您用的不是归谬法，您用的是稻草人谬误，即你用一个你自己的夸张扭曲的观点来替代我的观点，从而加以批判...
我的观点是如果意外几率是你决定担忧主次顺序的重要因素的话（您自己说的你担心枪支造成的意外要比校园枪案几率高），那么从意外几率上来说您最优先需要考虑的是车祸意外。。。
但是您把我的观点变成了：我觉得枪支安全不重要。。。
很显然，支持教师持枪（或禁止突击步枪）的考虑并不是从区区每年平均35人死于mass shooting这个极小几率的原因出发的，所以您的几率优先理论不成立。。。
谁告诉你有枪的人就嗜枪如命呢？每年有多少人噎死，也没见你不吃饭啊。
>凭美国政府的军事实力，就是坦克随便卖，老百姓也不可能和政府对抗...
LA ex-cop,就一个人，几千警察对付了好几天，最后还是因为有人报警才打死的.政府的原子弹有用吗？
>>>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.
您的观点是More guns = more homicide， 事实就是美国1990年左右的1亿多只枪支量到了2013年变成了3亿多支，而枪杀案率从1990年的7起（每10万人）下降到了现在的4起（每10万人）。。。您能否认这些数字吗？难道不是More guns = less homicide吗？
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.?
====================================
事实上我常去加拿大，而且我也的确是这样觉得的，我在美国近20年了，从来没有和别人打假，被抢啥的，即便我有段时间在黑人区上班，夜里走去地铁站也从来没有任何问题，倒是去加拿大10来次中有一次，一个中东家伙硬生生用车把我逼停（我都不太清楚是为啥，在美国最多就按个喇叭的事儿），下来罗嗦还朝我吐口水，被我当街撂倒揍了一顿，也没见警察来，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/
=============================
那您如何解释过去20年中美国持枪增加一倍，但凶杀案率确降低了50%呢？
2。绝大多数持枪家庭都没有任何问题，美国3亿多支合法枪并没有造成大的犯罪，绝大多数枪杀案主要集中在市区黑人，西裔帮派仇杀。
3。目前，未成年小孩在无人监督的情况下拿到枪，父母要坐牢的。。。
4。我同样没有计算mass shooting中受伤的人数。。。
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%的美国家庭有枪，一吵架就拔枪早就死绝了。。。
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/
〉〉〉〉事故几率可以减低，通过定期培训等方式，美国每年枪支事故死亡600多，3亿支枪，700万老师即使人手一支也不过同比利14起，比平均每年35人死于mass shooter还是要少点。。。
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，暴力犯罪为984 （每10万人）
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
>>>>老师应该在培训后才能随身携带。。。
(2): in a heated debate/exchange, that a teacher may accidentally use the gun,
〉〉〉〉47%的美国家庭有枪，一吵架就拔枪早就死绝了。。。
(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.
〉〉〉〉即便是老师也要在筛选，培训，并且自愿的情况下才可以佩枪。。。
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?
〉〉〉〉事故几率可以减低，通过定期培训等方式，美国每年枪支事故死亡600多，3亿支枪，700万老师即使人手一支也不过同比利14起，比平均每年35人死于mass shooter还是要少点。。。
------------------
回复hehe01的评论:
HCC 评论于：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...
错，暴力犯罪率加拿大从1962年以来从来就没比美国低过，您的wiki网站上的结论是很误导的（故意的），它耍了个花招，只告诉你谋杀，抢劫和某一种assault是美国高，但没告诉你性攻击和其他assault加拿大要高的多，用这段话自己引用的数字来源：
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
美国2000年为例，暴力犯罪为475 （每10万人）
加拿大2000年，暴力犯罪为984 （每10万人）
两倍还多呢，此外Australian Institute of Criminology的数字也同样证明加拿大的暴力犯罪是美国的两倍：
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi115.html
错，暴力犯罪率加拿大从1962年以来从来就没比美国低过，您的wiki网站上的结论是很误导的（故意的），它耍了个花招，只告诉你谋杀，抢劫和某一种assault是美国高，但没告诉你性攻击和其他assault加拿大要高的多，用这段话自己引用的数字来源：
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4B12A796-B0C9-436C-9F64-840D3EBEE09F/0/CrimeStatisticsinCanada2004.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
美国2000年为例，暴力犯罪为475 （每10万人）
加拿大2000年，暴力犯罪为984 （每10万人）
两倍还多呢，此外Australian Institute of Criminology的数字也同样证明加拿大的暴力犯罪是美国的两倍：
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?
造成校园枪击案的原因就是校园禁枪令。。。为啥卡罗拉多影院杀手选了方圆20英里内唯一一家“gun free"禁枪影院行凶。。。
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.
============================================
为啥是馊主意？pearl high school shooting和newtown极其相似，都是杀了自己妈后去学校杀人，唯一不同的是pearl high school副校长有枪，制止了凶手，减少了伤亡。。。
造成校园枪击案的原因就是校园禁枪令。。。为啥卡罗拉多影院杀手选了方圆20英里内唯一一家“gun free"禁枪影院行凶。。。
====================================
美国枪支业总量才13B（300多家厂商总和），还没啥媒体公司newcorp一家的一半多。。。枪支行业的总量极小,大多就是作坊式的爱好者开的，有啥利益？
========================================
很多吗？
在美国意外死亡里，枪支排在第十位，前面第一位，死于烟草的是枪的10多倍，死于酒精的是枪的3倍。。。
再别拿什么宪法修正案来自欺欺人了，民众持枪是为了推翻独裁的政府？。。凭美国政府的军事实力，就是坦克随便卖，老百姓也不可能和政府对抗。。。
==================================
您的上述两个观点是自相矛盾的，即然能枪杀总统，咋叫不能和政府对抗？
如果和政府不能对抗，为啥禁不了枪呢？