Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good morning Tin. Glad to see you're still in fighting form. I'm feeling quite benevolent this morning, despite vituperative foreign intervention.
I think that the new Administration will likely flex its muscles in this area of gun legislation as it tires of, or fails in, easily resolving all of the world's problems. Mr. Barama will however be presented as a great and tireless leader, which he may well be methinks, and he will put forth some broad new measures to improve the safety and civility of cities such as his home town (Chicago). God knows that city needs something!
In other, simpler words, this ongoing controversial issue will all come to a head. Not right away, but soon enough. A good socialist admin just can't keep its muddy paws off of others' rights. And frankly I can hardly wait. Just as with the Heller case, this one will potentially resolve the larger, and smaller, issues once and for all.
Meantime, as a strong counter-argument (assuming the listener isn't a hard-headed dolt, with mud on his or her thumb...), I was looking around for stunning examples of failed legislative efforts. I first found some stuff by a fellow name of John Hay Rabb (Google him...), but then found info from him in an even larger article, linked below, by Dan Mariano from Manila. Wow! what an article. What stats! Required reading?
It clearly notes that the US per capita murder rate is significantly lower than a number of more controlled states. What is also of real interest is the fact that all of those states with higher murder rates are also significantly more "managed", "controlled" or "repressed" societies.
Just as a teaser from his article though, I directly quote Dan Mariano here:
"During a hearing of the House public order and safety committee last month, the pro-gun groups pointed out that a total gun ban would be “more dangerous as civilians, particularly those whose lives are in imminent danger from criminals, would become defenseless. Pressing home their point, the pro-gun group asked Joson if he and other lawmakers would also be willing to disarm their family members, children and other relatives. The congressman was reportedly stumped.
Advocates of a so-called “gunless society” often invoke the example of the United States and its comparatively lax restrictions on firearms as an example of a gun-obsessed nation gone berserk. Media coverage of campus shootings, for instance, has certainly reinforced that terrifying image.
In fact, statistics show otherwise.
Or this, from Mr. Rabb's article:
Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries.
...the UN Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world."
(PS: don't most little countries who also usually want a handout from the US when they are in trouble typically love and totally trust the fabled UN?. So this quoted report must be true, right? Just askin...)
And the articles then go on to prove the case. Well, that assumes the listener listens, and doesn't just impatiently wait for his or her chance to stumble in and again show their established bone-headed-ness. (To that point, I think a person's openness to rethinking an issue is a clear sign of intellectual honesty, clarity of mind, and humility. What, alternately, does persistent stubbornness show? ).
From a debating perspective, it's game over here.
The Manila Times Internet Edition | OPINION > Natural response to danger (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/apr/07/yehey/opinion/20080407opi2.html - broken link)
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 You are aware that Australia has been a former penal colony, right? Maybe bein' a former penal colony explains why the citizens of America and Australia are in favour of gun rights.
Pacifism, just like using violence, is a conscious choice, so calling it avoidance is sheer stupidity. A pacifist uses more intelligence than someone who resorts to violence, they usually only act on instinct.
Besidez, it is easier to hit someone than to be hit. And taking a hit takes more courage than pummeling your opponent into submission.
what does australia's origins as a nation have to do with its current gun violence in a gun-restricted area? do the great great grandparents of current australian criminals affect whether or not gun control would be more or less effective there? are you trying to imply that gun control works everywhere else--but not in australia, and therefore, we shouldn't use that country as an example of what to expect in the rest of the world?
because their ancestors were criminals...
smart.
also, choosing pacifism is certainly noble. gandhi and mlk both had some great ideas, and for the most part, they were successfully undertaken. but pacifism does not solve everything.
also, many gun owners practice pacifism. it is certainly an effective tool in some circumstances.
but, agreeing with tin, the direction of your argument is tangential, and not properly thought out. what you are trying to say here in effect is that since pacifism is the moral highroad, then citizens should be required to not protect themselves.
did you think that one all the way through? do you actually agree with it now that i am pointing it out to you?
if you do think that pacifism should be enforced, should we ban everything else that could be used as self defense? blades? martial arts classes? pepper spray? should we ban anything that could alert those that could help us out--possibly with violence? whistles? cell phones? certainly, were the police to react fast enough (meaning they just happened to be within 50 feet or so of the crime as it is being committed), it is probable that a good numebr of those instances would result in police violence against the criminal, which goes against the moral highroad of pacifism.
also, if you think that pacifism should be enforced, what of the instances where pacifism won't solve the problem? nonviolent demonstrations are often effective against governments because they make a point in a way that a government can't afford to prosecute as they would often otherwise desire--with brutal force. governments need to preserve public image.
do criminals worry about that? is a rapist likely to give up when his victim demonstrates nonviolent resistance? which potential rape victim is usually the one that gets away without harm and without molestation--the one that screams, bites, kicks, and fights like mad, or the one that submits and relents? would you really try to persuade women to submit when assaulted by a pervert?
as far as i am aware, enforced pacifism is obviously flawed to everyone here. the idea of pacifism is that it is a moral highroad, which it ceases to be if it is mandatory. not to mention the fact that i am confident that most cases of "chosen" pacifism are actually cases of stunned inaction, cowardice. it is simple psychology.
and as we all know, thanks to the thousands of violent crimes committed with knives, hammers, nail guns, pillows, and ground glass, so can anything else.
as for the claim of nothing else being as efficient and tremendously forceful as a firearm, i would disagree. if i wanted to really make sure someone was dead, and wanted to cause as much trauma as possible, i would run them over in a large truck at high speed..
Any physical item can be used as a weapon given enough determination, but doesn't mean it does not have other uses. I wouldn't pull out a gun in public and the people around me expect me to do something not involving severe injury or death. The others I might be cutting up veggies, or driving my wife to work, or putting up drywall. Cars cause more trauma, but are much larger...the power to weight ratio is much higher in a gun then a car (though gas is much higher to gunpowder), plus it's hard to hide one in your pants.
I argue for regulation, you argue against...I think some one said the nature of compromise is where neither side is happy with the finished result. The politicians will do as the majority decide, they want to get reelected...
I don't think pacifism works myself, I just don't agree that peaceful resistance works when the chips are down. Civil disobedience works against a government and it's people to a point, but armed incursions, civil wars, and etc...you have to have the option that if they bring out the guns they will get a fight back and not just saying no. Guilt and public outcry that passive resistance requires in order to win doesn't always work, and if you relying on it when people send you to the hospital or kill you...does it really help you to do that? You have the moral highroad, but you might not live to see what it helps.
what does australia's origins as a nation have to do with its current gun violence in a gun-restricted area? do the great great grandparents of current australian criminals affect whether or not gun control would be more or less effective there? are you trying to imply that gun control works everywhere else--but not in australia, and therefore, we shouldn't use that country as an example of what to expect in the rest of the world?
because their ancestors were criminals...
smart.
Okay, you got me; I confess to be smart.
My guess is that unlike you I don't pretend that Australia and / or America is the world.
Every society has its criminals, but it stands to reason that a former penal colony even has more criminals than a 'normal' society.
The Netherlands has no gun rights, but we have no drive-by shootings or student shootings either.
And compared to the US we aren't tough on criminals either yet our 'soft' approach works better than the American way.
Quote:
also, many gun owners practice pacifism. it is certainly an effective tool in some circumstances.
A pacifist owning a gun is like a priest who claims to have abstained from sex all his life yet isn't a virgin.
Originally Posted by subsound
Quote:
I argue for regulation, you argue against...I think some one said the nature of compromise is where neither side is happy with the finished result.
I too argue for regulation by saying that only the professionals should be armed with a gun.
Most people can't control their emotions therefore are unfit to use such a simple weapon as a gun.
Quote:
The politicians will do as the majority decide, they want to get reelected...
Are you saying that politics is nothing more than mob justice?
I too argue for regulation by saying that only the professionals should be armed with a gun.
Most people can't control their emotions therefore are unfit to use such a simple weapon as a gun.
Very true, I wish there was a good way to peep in some ones head and make sure that happens!
Ooo, if only they could do it for cars too...I would camp at the DMV to hear some one say "I'm sorry sir/ma'am you will talk on your cell phone and don't know how to merge, everyone around will be pushed to insanity by your driving. Here is your pass to the short bus."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
Are you saying that politics is nothing more than mob justice?
No, majority rule...the will of the people. Representative democracy is usually stated as to act in peoples best interest and not as direct proxies of will (direct democracy)...but if the politician doesn't have a similar stance to the issues in fashion to the majority I can't see how they would be elected by a popular vote. (Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
If politician A had a stance to fix the economy and consume one baby a day (gross exaggeration) it's doubtful he would get the majority of votes to go to Washington and pursue his agenda..because people will not agree with it and vote the other person in.
Mob justice is the intimidation of constitutional authority and is a form of anarchism, pretty much the complete opposite of a representative democracy...including that disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force instead of an independent judiciary (Ochlocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Any physical item can be used as a weapon given enough determination, but doesn't mean it does not have other uses. I wouldn't pull out a gun in public and the people around me expect me to do something not involving severe injury or death. The others I might be cutting up veggies, or driving my wife to work, or putting up drywall. Cars cause more trauma, but are much larger...the power to weight ratio is much higher in a gun then a car (though gas is much higher to gunpowder), plus it's hard to hide one in your pants.
I argue for regulation, you argue against...I think some one said the nature of compromise is where neither side is happy with the finished result. The politicians will do as the majority decide, they want to get reelected...
I don't think pacifism works myself, I just don't agree that peaceful resistance works when the chips are down. Civil disobedience works against a government and it's people to a point, but armed incursions, civil wars, and etc...you have to have the option that if they bring out the guns they will get a fight back and not just saying no. Guilt and public outcry that passive resistance requires in order to win doesn't always work, and if you relying on it when people send you to the hospital or kill you...does it really help you to do that? You have the moral highroad, but you might not live to see what it helps.
so the gun issue is to be decided by weight-to-power ratio of guns to cars? sure, cars have other uses. sure, they don't make people as nervous (i think that is debatable). does that have anything to do with what constitutional rights should be vetoed, and which ones shouldn't?
again, you seem to be ignoring the idea that guns have other uses as well. i would bet that the majority of gun owners have never shot someone. so, what then is the use of the gun?
as far as politics and politicians, meeting in the middle does not necessarily mean that we made the correct decision. compromise is the inbred child of ignorance and arrogance.
as far as pacifism goes: talk to tricky about that; i'm not the one trying to create international law according to the ideal.
Originally Posted by stycotl Okay, you got me; I confess to be smart.
My guess is that unlike you I don't pretend that Australia and / or America is the world.
Every society has its criminals, but it stands to reason that a former penal colony even has more criminals than a 'normal' society. The Netherlands has no gun rights, but we have no drive-by shootings or student shootings either.And compared to the US we aren't tough on criminals either yet our 'soft' approach works better than the American way.
A pacifist owning a gun is like a priest who claims to have abstained from sex all his life yet isn't a virgin.
Originally Posted by subsound I too argue for regulation by saying that only the professionals should be armed with a gun.
Most people can't control their emotions therefore are unfit to use such a simple weapon as a gun.
Are you saying that politics is nothing more than mob justice?
as far as politics and politicians, meeting in the middle does not necessarily mean that we made the correct decision. compromise is the inbred child of ignorance and arrogance.
There is no exact middle, but if everything agreed on by a committee as the best solution to fit by all parties involved is stupid and arrogant (Compromise) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nothing can be the 100% correct decision 100% of the time...that's where precedent and challenges, as well as people debate the law as an evolving process.
If a majority of people can't decide how to run the country come to a compromise, then I think the word democracy needs to be redefined (Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I'm sorry, but I'd rather come to a decision that you consider arrogant and stupid through compromise then have terms dictated to me.
Originally Posted by stycotl Okay, you got me; I confess to be smart.
My guess is that unlike you I don't pretend that Australia and / or America is the world.
Every society has its criminals, but it stands to reason that a former penal colony even has more criminals than a 'normal' society.
The Netherlands has no gun rights, but we have no drive-by shootings or student shootings either.
And compared to the US we aren't tough on criminals either yet our 'soft' approach works better than the American way.
A pacifist owning a gun is like a priest who claims to have abstained from sex all his life yet isn't a virgin.
Originally Posted by subsound I too argue for regulation by saying that only the professionals should be armed with a gun.
Most people can't control their emotions therefore are unfit to use such a simple weapon as a gun.
Are you saying that politics is nothing more than mob justice?
admittedly, this was written a bit earlier, but i had a dinner appointment, so i am now just getting to post. noahma and rifleman have already disproved some of the things that i wanted to analyze further, but still, what the heck...
tricky, i've read some stuff of yours that makes me think you are intelligent. i've also read some stuff on here that makes me think you like to ignore reality just for the sake of your argument. overall, i am pretty sure that in person, you are a lot more reasonable than you seem to be on the net. but i'd be a liar if i said that i wasn't, or that most people weren't.
i'm not sure where you are getting the idea that i think the usa and australia to be exact miniaturizations of the rest of the world. feel free to fill me in on where you came to that conclusion. i will remind you that i am a pretty well-traveled individual, and a decently studied one as well.
also, feel free to back up your claim that the criminal ancestors of the australians have passed on those traits to their descendents hundreds of years later, and that there are indeed more criminals in the country because of it. until you do, i'll continue to think that a ridiculous, unsupported claim.
netherland criminal policy is a topic for another thread, which we've already wandered down.
however, netherland gun crimes are probably not NIL as you seem to be suggesting. no driveby shootings? really? no gun violence? hmm. sounds suspect. is there no form of homicide in the netherlands? no stabbings? no bludgeonings? stranglings?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are aware that Australia has been a former penal colony, right?
Maybe bein' a former penal colony explains why the citizens of America and Australia are in favour of gun rights.
A pacifist uses more intelligence than someone who resorts to violence, they usually only act on instinct.
And taking a hit takes more courage than pummeling your opponent into submission.
A pacifist owning a gun is like a priest who claims to have abstained from sex all his life yet isn't a virgin.
I too argue for regulation by saying that only the professionals should be armed with a gun.
Are you saying that politics is nothing more than mob justice?
Oooopppsssss
