Is anyone upset by the band's anti-gun position? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2001, 10:54 PM   #31
STING
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Local Time: 03:34 PM
I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!
__________________
 
Old 07-24-2001, 12:37 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING:
I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!
Comparing the U.S. to the low guns/low crime societies of the United Kingdom or Canada is one of the most common arguments among gun control advocates. In rebuttal, gun control opponents typically reference high guns/low crime nations such as Switzerland and Israel. However, these comparisons miss the mark. The futility of pairwise comparisons between nationsí crime rates relative to their gun ownership becomes apparent once one realizes that there are countries with every permutation: the US (high guns/high crime); Switzerland and Israel (high guns/low crime); Japan (low guns/low crime); and Mexico (low guns/high crime). Any two countries can be compared or contrasted to make any point desired.

A simple thought experiment will illustrate this point: Three countries, X, Y and Z have very strict anti-gun laws. Should we assume their homicide rates to be very low? In fact, X, Y and Z have homicide rates 100-150 percent greater than the U.S. (compare the U.S. homicide rate at 9.5 people killed/100,000 to Xís 19.7/100,000 in 1993). Should we suppose that X, Y and Z have one common feature that is responsible for their homicide rates? Since X, Y and Z are low guns/high crime societies, should we assume that guns are not causing the homicides? If so, why not?

X, Y and Z are actually Russia, Taiwan and South Africa, respectively. But which one characteristic, the same in Russia, Taiwan and South Africa throughout the past and present, is responsible for their homicide rates? Attempting to distill the cause of homicide down to one factor such as guns, in each of these very diverse countries, is difficult if not impossible.

Gun control advocates claim that the crime rate is low in the UK because the British have fewer guns than Americans. But European countries have always had lower violent crime rates than the US, even before strict gun control laws were passed. Moreover, many violent crime rates in Europe and elsewhere are increasing faster than in the U.S. right now.

Furthermore, the logic of the low guns/low crime rate fails when one considers that the UKís homicide rate is lower for non-gun homicides as well. Clearly, fewer homicides committed with knives, sticks, etc. cannot be attributable to gun control.

Very little can be concluded from international studies focused on the guns/crime relationship. Not surprisingly, most of the research is technically weak. The best available homicide and suicide data collected from 36 countries by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when analyzed by Gary Kleck, demonstrates that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide.

To summarize, there is no consistent global correlation between gun availability and violent crime rates.


__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 02:52 AM   #33
STING
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Local Time: 03:34 PM
I find it amazing what gun advocates will do to dispute the facts. Lets take some of these cases where violent crime or homocide with fire arms is higher than in the USA according to your data. Russia, is a country that is suffering very much from poverty, crime, civil war, and other problems. How there could be reliable gun ownership data, when the location of many Russian military weapon systems is in question, is crazy. Gun Advocates probably took gun ownership Data from the old Soviet Union and applied it to the Russia from the early 90s to make a point. The Russia of the 1990s is far different from the Soviet Union and much equipment from the vast stockpiles the Soviet Army had has been taken or purchased by civilians or organized crime. So that example is wrong.
Gun ownership is high in Switzerland because nearly all males are considered part of the Military Reserve and required to train at certain time during the year. The weapons that people have are for military use for the nation and NOT individual security or use!
Israel is a nation that is almost in a constant state of War. The country was attacked and fought 5 major wars in its first 34 years! The weapons that everyone has again are for the security of the nation against attack and not individual use unless your a settler on the West Bank or Gaza.
South Africa is another country where there is much poverty and political upheaval. Not a good comparison.
Among developed Industialized nations at peace, though only possible exception you might have is Switzerland. Again, this is a unique case due to the countries military policies. Although, I have not researched it, I'm sure the laws about when and where the citizens can use those weapons are very strict and would make the NRA red with anger if imposed in the USA. I also think that most of the weapons will be rifles and not hand guns.
Countries like the UK, Ireland, Canada, and Australia are good comparisons to the USA because they both have similar standards of living. Crime occurs in all those countries, but the death rates in places like the UK and Canada are amazingly smaller. Why? In those countries gun access is very restricted while in the USA its not.
Also it is not simply that more people die in the USA than in the UK from gun violence. ITs the Degree to which more do. 10,000 to 50! 50% more people have been killed in Cincinnati in the last 3 months than in all of the United Kingdom last year!
Ever wonder why the military often confiscates the weapons of civilians when they move into a newly conquered area during a war. Its for security reasons and everyone including the civilians are safer because of it.
Guns should only be in the hands of the Military, Police and other law enforcement. USAs current system does not work. How could anyone argue that, with 671,000 gun deaths in the USA since 1980, are system is a success. That total is more than all the USA deaths from World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War combined! It is clear that the American system of gun control has FAILED! It is time to try something new! The NRAs main concern is the "rights" of gun owners! It is not the massive death rate that we have in the USA relative to other countries from such weapons. One also knows there are problems when the Police force in Seattle is out gunned by two bank robbers and a person like David Koresh is able to stock pile a vast numbers of weapons.
The USA needs to radically change its gun control policy in order to reduce the number of deaths in the USA. Crime often occurs where poverty exist, but deaths from crime increase rapidly when guns are more available. If the UK were suddenly flooded with weapons, the death rate from crime would go up rapidly. Thats why the government keeps strict gun control laws. In the USA, the gun "rights" lobby has prevented meaningful gun control laws from being passed which is why it is very difficult to improve the situation. Individuals simply cannot be trusted like members in the Military and Police force. Hopefully something can be done with campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of the NRA on are elected leaders.
I've disagreed with U2 in the past on somethings, but this is one thing I agree with them.
__________________
 
Old 07-24-2001, 03:39 AM   #34
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:34 AM
One reason people so rabidly defend "The Right To Bear Arms" is that it's nice to be able to protect oneself from the riff raff of society. You know, the criminals (who are often black and hispanic, aren't they?? pub crawler asks this question facetiously and sarcastically. Pub is trying to bait gun ownership advocates into having an honest discussion about this issue.)

)

__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 06:26 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler:
One reason people so rabidly defend "The Right To Bear Arms" is that it's nice to be able to protect oneself from the riff raff of society. You know, the criminals (who are often black and hispanic, aren't they?? pub crawler asks this question facetiously and sarcastically. Pub is trying to bait gun ownership advocates into having an honest discussion about this issue.)
Okay, I'll take the bait. Your statement infers something horrible about gun advocates. Pub, that's just damned offensive to anyone who cares about this issue but may be on the opposite side of you.
I've NEVER heard a gun advocate say that guns are nice to protect themself from ANY minority. People for the right to bear arms are interested in teh right to protect themself from anyone (white, black, yellow, red, purple, orange, blue) that would pose a serious threat themselves or their family.
As for what you call "Riff Raff" - I consider Riff Raff anyone who would murder, molest or rape anyone. My definition of riff raff has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or socio-economic status.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 10:36 AM   #36
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 320
Local Time: 03:34 PM
The post also implies that only white people have the guns...everyone has the guns over here...

Dream Wanderer
__________________
dream wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 11:11 AM   #37
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 54
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING:
I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!
I've never thought I would agree with you STING, but on this one I do! Like I said in my previous post, I do think the issue of gun violence has a lot to do with poverty and the growing gap between rich and poor.
__________________
radiodivision is offline  
Old 07-24-2001, 02:38 PM   #38
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Memphis, TN, 38104
Posts: 226
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Balance! Is there an answer that includes balance? I dunno. I know that I live alone in a large city & want a new gun (I have protection albeit old) for self-defense. In that respect, why shouldn't I be allowed a gun? I don't like them, & like nuclear weapons, wish they'd never been made (although they were used in the Revolutionary War & largely are why I live in the US. Go figure). My problem is with so many "assault" and "automatic" weapons. I don't think they're used to hunt Bambi & put food on the table.

Anyway, I have no answers but think we need balance. I also think that if we had more of a sense of COMMUNITY in America, then "loners" & the "unstable" might be able to go to others for help instead of doing something really stupid. It all comes down to family & love (to be trite).

my 2 cents.

dave
__________________
bonofnattic is offline  
Old 08-03-2001, 11:26 AM   #39
War Child
 
Autumn454's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: dream beneath a desert sky- with Bono!
Posts: 852
Local Time: 10:34 AM
I just wonder if most Europeans are aware that there are places in America like the Appalachian mountains and the great plains and Rockies where a large percentage of the population carries guns, yet there has never been a murder in the history of the town. Maybe everyone is afraid because everyone else is armed. Or maybe all the crazies live somewhere else. I'm tired of the media portraying us as a bunch of gun weilding maniacs who must be stopped. Sure there are that type out there but it's not fair to label everyone like that. If these idiots didn't use a gun it would be another weapon.
__________________
Autumn454 is offline  
Old 08-03-2001, 05:56 PM   #40
STING
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Local Time: 03:34 PM
True it would be another weapon, but the chances of survival for the victim would greatly increase!
__________________
 
Old 08-04-2001, 12:32 AM   #41
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler:
One reason people so rabidly defend "The Right To Bear Arms" is that it's nice to be able to protect oneself from the riff raff of society. You know, the criminals (who are often black and hispanic, aren't they?? pub crawler asks this question facetiously and sarcastically. Pub is trying to bait gun ownership advocates into having an honest discussion about this issue.)
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Okay, I'll take the bait. Your statement infers something horrible about gun advocates.


Not all of 'em. Remember, I said "One reason..."

Quote:
Pub, that's just damned offensive to anyone who cares about this issue but may be on the opposite side of you. I've NEVER heard a gun advocate say that guns are nice to protect themself from ANY minority.
I don't think I've known anyone who would make such a comment publicly. That doesn't mean people don't think such thoughts. By the way, in another thread I opined that we all, myself included, have bigoted and even racist thoughts at one time or another. It's what one does with those thoughts that matters. I don't have many such thoughts now and I hope I have even less in the future. I'm cognizant of when I make an unfair assumption about someone in my mind, and I don't like it.

Quote:
People for the right to bear arms are interested in teh right to protect themself from anyone (white, black, yellow, red, purple, orange, blue) that would pose a serious threat themselves or their family.
As for what you call "Riff Raff" - I consider Riff Raff anyone who would murder, molest or rape anyone. My definition of riff raff has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or socio-economic status.
Fine, 80's, I accept that -- the part about your definition of riff raff, that is. I disagree, however, with your implied statement that you and your family are facing such a daily threat with respect to your well being and security. I just don't think the threat is as great as you do, and I live close to an area that isn't exactly the safest place in the world. Who are these people that "pose a serious threat to [you] or [your] family?" Are they hiding around every street corner? I just don't buy this rationale for arming oneself.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-05-2001, 03:48 AM   #42
War Child
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: BIG GOB'S BED
Posts: 933
Local Time: 03:34 PM
I believe guns are just all round bad things.
They should be banned everywhere.Whoever could make a weapon that is designed with the sole purpose of killing people was pure evil.If you carry a gun in defence the other person who may never have intended to use theirs and just had it as a bluff may then feel threatened.This would result in a death where as if there were no guns the world would be a safer place.
__________________
UV2001 is offline  
Old 08-06-2001, 03:38 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by UV2001:
If you carry a gun in defence the other person who may never have intended to use theirs and just had it as a bluff may then feel threatened.
Like maybe they were just "kidding around" when they told you they were going to rob you or rape you when they pointed their gun?

__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com