Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:30PM   Printer-friendly

"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.

Discuss.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:24AM

    by looorg (578) on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:24AM (#198874)

    Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.

    Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:50AM (#198909)

    Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.

    Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?

    Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
    If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:35AM (#198928)

      Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.

      Maybe people should be more clear.

      If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.

      Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM (#199217)

        Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.

        I'm not sure about that. Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults, its fair to say that if somebody uses an interpretation that nobody else would just to suit their argument that they're equivocating, and the intentional usage of fallacies to support one's argument oly occurs when there are no valid ones left; with no valid arguments left, they have in essence conceded.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM (#199256)

          Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults

          Also a non sequitur. They only concede when they say they concede, by definition. Unless you think you can read thoughts. These are just arbitrary 'rules' placed on debates that make no sense in reality.

          I don't like it when theists tell me I actually believe in god in my heart. I wouldn't like it if someone told me I "conceded" because I violated some arbitrary debate rule they or others made up.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM (#199675)

            If somebody's argument is only supported by fallacies it is invalid by definition. No matter how long you continue pushing your invalid position, it will remain invalid. An invalid argument is one that has been conceded by default.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM (#198939)

    Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?

    Take a trip to Singapore or Malaysia.
    Be sure to put a single bullet in your stuff where it will be easily discovered.
    (You don't even need to have a gun.)
    See you in a few decades.

    Japan has an amazingly low firearm death rate.
    Only the Yakuza (Mafia) has guns--and the tattoos and missing fingers make those guys very obvious to the cops, so carrying around guns routinely is definitely out.

    -- gewg_

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:04AM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:04AM (#198975) Journal
    http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ [time.com]

    Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:09AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:09AM (#198978) Journal

      Pressed the wrong key!

      It isn't just the number of guns, but the way they are controlled. And it also has a lot to do with the mental attitude of those who own the weapons.

      However, all those countries that have stricter gun control laws than the US have fewer shootings per capita - who would have thought it? In the case of Switzerland, about 10% of the number in the USA.