No one will remember what the argument was about by dreamtrove

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm open to alternative arguments, because I'm well aware of the end results of a gun control society.

And THAT is the best alternative argument there is.

The benefits of guns outweighs the risks. ;)

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 9:37 AM

Yet it is one the arguments that has failed to convince me. We need a better solution.

If the guns belonged to a well regulated militia, it would make sense, as long as the local authority which it was under reflected the will of the people.

I guess one thing that is needed is for the people to be able to take the guns back. But if they then used those guns against fellow citizens the well regulated is lost. If I take my gun out and yours is still there, or auraptors, then the militia can still shoot me.

It's a pickle.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 9:50 AM

I think we can't look at the problem in terms of guns. We have to study the problem in terms of the actors.

What's making people choose to act on their aggressive impulses? Where do these impulses come from? Take a school shooting for example. What makes those kids want to shoot their teachers and classmates?

I feel it is more important to solve the root problem than simply take away their guns.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 10:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I would be happy to surrender all of my guns if the government would do the same.

However, since that's not likely to happen, I agree with Sky. You have to figure out why people shoot each other and work on that problem.

A cursory examination of gunless societies will reveal that violence still occurs. So removing guns simply removes an efficient tool. It does not solve the underlying problem.

In any event, the current state of my nation makes me very grateful for the concept of private firearms ownership. This government does not inspire me to disarm in the least.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 11:26 AM

WISHIMAY

This goes under the same problem set as my problem with people handing babies to people who probably know they don't have good intentions.

Both are problems that don't really have comprehensive solutions. You can't fix what's deep deep down really wrong with people. And even if you could, I don't see how you could stop the sometimes random series of events that cause people to "snap".

I do think that people should have psychological testing before they are allowed to have guns OR kids, if I could be sure the system was objective. And before you start coming up with fairy tales of people being sterilized or babies "rehomed" if they fail, I'm talking about a system of rewards for passing, including doing what's necessary to pass- taking parenting classes, or firearms training (hopefully not both at the same time

) . Is it gonna happen? No. I'd love to see somebody implement it and see if it works, though...

Systems can be changed... Dead babies and slaughtered families can't be brought back... Oh, and I do know of a couple people who were saved by guns, so it does happen. Not as many as lost to guns especially kids shooting themselves or other kids(toddeler shot a five yr old just the other day

), but it does happen...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 12:09 PM

ack

It's becoming hopeless. When i post now, my next post is often deleted by someone else's post.

CTS,

My long message was deleted by Wish's posting due to a bug. Too bad, I said it quite well and took a lot of time at it.

In many fewer words: We cannot be masters of our own actions all of the time because we are all prone to snap. It's a moments lapse of judgment or loss of sanity. Suddenly you're surrounded by giant spiders, or it's 1974. This is not new, stress is not new, things may be barbaric today, but what about Britain in the 19th c. or the 18th?

Though I was nonviolent, I definitely lost touch with reality. I've known maybe people to snap and off themselves. In part they had a ready means of doing so. Gun related suicides alone cause more American deaths than the war.

I've lost many friends to similar situations, suicide, pointless gun battles, because tempers flared or reason was lost.

This problem will always be with us and always has because we are not sane. No one is, not 100% of the time. There's no way that you can tell me with certainty what you will the the world is when you wake up tomorrow morning. If we give ourselves the tools for our own annihilation then our own annihilation is ensured.

Also, case in point, it's doing nothing stem the encroachment of tyranny, which is running a better clip here in the USA than in the UK.

That was not as well said, but ack, I'm frustrated at the site.

Wish,

Not cool. That was one of the most appalling things ever said on the board, I had forgotten that you had said it. It wasn't funny, and I'm not up for joking about it.

Anthony,

That's not going to be a winning argument. The death rate is about 5 times higher without gun control. But I'm not advocating gun control. I'm waiting to hear a better argument if you guys have one. I get that the board is pro-2nd amendment. I want a definition or implementation that would not allow some neighbor of mine to flip out and shoot my kids because he thought they were an army of invading goblins for a minute and a half.

If I cannot get that, then I vote against the second amendment, and while I know you don't care, I also know you know that I represent the fence sitter vote on this issue, and this is an issue very much on the fence at the moment.

Also, pre-emptively, I'm rejecting background checks, not because they would prevent me from owning a fire arm, as I have no intention of purchasing one. I'm a pretty good shot, but I see no use in a gun. If I needed to defend myself, it would probably take at least an RPG. Rather, I reject the idea because I think past performance is no guarantee of future results when it comes to sanity. In fact, I think it's a poor diagnostic tool. I know, having been crazy, that I'm a far better steward of my sanity today than I was before I snapped. The same I think is true of other crazies I have known.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 2:20 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm a 2a gal. I think that if people work on themselves and learn to govern their own actions we would have a lot less problems with them snapping and offing each other. The only time I would use a gun would be to defend me and mine, I know this about myself, I['ve not got that kind of temperment and the idea wouldn't even be on the table for options when I get upset, it just ain't applicable. I know that others have different temperments than I, but I believe that self awareness and good skills can do a lot for people's actions in life.

I think its good that DT feels like he can be honest about this issue though, about how he feels even though he knows that we're mostly all 2a people. I understand where your concerns are coming from DT, but I can't warrant more gun control. I do think though that a class requirement, take a class when you get a gun, would be good because some people are pretty dumb, maybe that would help people to act smarter? I'm okay with background checks, but I think that they're probably flawed in their current incarnation.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 2:44 PM

A riona a chara,

The best 2a argument i felt ever made on this site was made by Kwicko. Mikey said "the guns go to the range, shoot at the range and stay at the range. They harm no one."

I'm looking for something that has this kind of logical solidity, not necessarily this or a parellel argument, but he are the problems I have with "gun smarts" solutions:

1) background checks can't predict the future, as I said above. I think they're always going to be problematic.

2) gun classes could also make matters worse. Cho, the VA tech shooter was one of the most impressive marksmen i've ever read about. He killed 32 people using something like 34 bullets. The video he made demonstrates his expertise. My cousin who committed suicde was also a weapons expert. He didn't shoot himself, because he thought that it was not the most effective means to kill someone.

i think that i should clarify what this solution would have to do:

A) it would protect me so that the police wouldn't come and kick down the door and kill my family.

B) it would not set up a situation where if my neighbor flipped a mental short circuit, he might come in and kill my family.

There are probably other qualifications, but these are the principle two.

My origins on this issue are that my personal experience has been that armed neighbors is much more common, but my father's experience was that armed police destroyed his entire family, and in fact, culture.

All,

Add to this the three year old shoots five year old story. I've known many people in real life with similar stories. Someone comes in and feels that it's their duty to show the children the real secrets of life, and the impportance of self defense.

I was at a party once, and such a kindly outsider, a very nice man, introduced a six year old to a loaded gun. The kid thought it was a toy, he picked up the gun, pointed it at his mom and said "bang bang, you're dead." the gun was loaded, but his little finger didn't hqve the strength to pull it because it wasn't a hairline trigger. If it had been a different make of gun, he would have just killed his mother. This sort of thing by itself is a stupidity which is more dangerous for our nation than war.

So, maybe training would help this, but I don't want a large population of heavily armed single jilted males, which each generation produces many millions of.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm looking for something that has this kind of logical solidity,

Well, we've already offered our arguments. If none of it meets with your expectations of "logical solidity" (whatever that is), maybe you just aren't going to find it here.

Yes, people do snap, and unfortunately guns are around when they do.

But I think history shows that the number of people who are killed when the govt snaps is overwhelmingly larger.

In both cases, more guns can counteract the snapping gun-holders.

Another way to think of it is to think of guns as power. Power concentrated in large denominations is govt.

Power broken down into small individual pieces is anarchy. Keeping power broken up is the only way to keep power getting bigger.

When power "snaps," it is better to have power in small individual pieces. It does much less harm.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 4:42 PM

Cts

Two problems

One, i wasn't arguing in favor of govt.

Two, citizens having guns in no way diminishes the power of govt.

The proof of this is in the american police state. Not only have we become more fascist than countries without guns, but,..

What happens when people dptry to defend against the govt. With guns? Waco. The govt. Uses the fact that they have guns as an excuse to call out bigger guns. Like they just did in N. Dakota with the predator drone.

So, i think it's a weak argument. Unless you're advocating our right to rpg, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes. I know if we had a nuke, they wouldn't frack with us. They don't seem particularly worried that we have guns.

Anyway, sorry, my uch better argument was deleted, but i did lay out the two most key points to riona above.a solution has to provide a world in which the police won't suddenly kill my family and neithe will my neighbor.

ETA: also, i said i was looking for new arguments, because the old ones had failed me. And they have. But these are old arguments. There has to be a better structure.

ETA2: for everyone
Also, while i'm at it, why guns. Why limit it at all. There has to be a line you draw in between people with talking sticks and toddlers with personal nukes. Where do you draw it and why.?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Unless you're advocating our right to rpg, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes.

I got no problem with it.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2011 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Unless you're advocating our right to rpg, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes.
I got no problem with it.

I do. When my neighbor snaps and decides that I'm a pekingese trying to control his mind, he will nuke us all

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 4:07 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Internally, I think a society, internally, should not have guns.

I'm open to alternative arguments, because I'm well aware of the end results of a gun control society.

I'm unaware of anyone I personally know who was injured or killed by use of a gun. I've known people who died of car accidents, health problems and the like, but never a gun shot.

I see civility as a bigger issue, and guns are just the ugly, deadly side effect of a society going out of control.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 4:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Two, citizens having guns in no way diminishes the power of govt.

The proof of this is in the american police state. Not only have we become more fascist than countries without guns, but,.."

Hello,

Guns are just tools. If nobody uses them, they will do nothing. If everybody uses them, they will do quite a bit.

Right now, very few people are fighting the government, and most of them are doing so overseas.

"They don't seem particularly worried that we have guns."

I think the government is relying on conditioned obedience to do most of their work. If some people start rebelling, they'll round up the guns. Then either we all need to rebel, or we'll be disarmed.

As for your neighbor deciding to kill you? He could do this with an axe, a chainsaw, a car, or any number of implements. Guns are efficient means to the end, but if someone really wants to kill you because you are a demon or some such, then I suspect they'll broaden their horizons.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:02 AM

Well, for one of your points, I don't think Waco should necessarily stop anyone - I think that one was less about armed resistance to the government and more about religious intolerance. But either way, ultimately the problem wasn't having the guns or necessarily using the guns for defense, but rather being really stupid obvious and maybe a little plain stupid.

Because yes, surely the best use of guns is to set up a cult next to a bunch of fire and brimstone bible belt Baptists, proselytize them, and when they call in the hooting national guard jackboots looking for a little of the ultra-violence to get rid of you, hole up together IN A FORTRESS and have a SHOOT OUT. That'll end REAL well.

Frem gave an example recently that I think showed how to do it. So he said there were some native americans who were pissed off because a developer was encroaching on their land to build a mini-mall or something. There were a series of confrontations, first with the security the developers hired, then police, and then the national guard as well, and each time the native americans came back better armed than their opposition, until yes, someone pulled out the RPGs. The National Guard and the developer backed off. But what made this work I think was first of all they probably weren't clustered together in a building that could be easily taken out in one go, and they probably showed up each time anonymous with their faces hidden so they couldn't be tracked individually back to their homes.

But, I do see where you're coming from on the grounds of suicides, jilted admirers, bullied kids, and too young kids. Which is probably why you're right about a well-regulated militia. And there's other better options than a gun to consider when you're talking self-defense, such as having a brain and knowing how to distract and feint against a person who has a gun, but there's even tools I'd consider more efficient and less lethal (except maybe for the .22 calibur, which is only lethal if you're REALLY trying hard).

>_> Heck, there's still secret weapon caches up in Scotland and people biding their time. The best weapon you can have against a government is one they don't realize you have until you play it - so long as it doesn't also hurt you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think the government is relying on conditioned obedience to do most of their work. If some people start rebelling, they'll round up the guns. Then either we all need to rebel, or we'll be disarmed.

Yep.

The only reason we have a police state despite gun ownership is because people aren't using the guns they own.

I am convinced that we would have had a police state a lot sooner had we not been gun owners. Witness the rest of the world.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:36 AM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Wish,

Not cool. That was one of the most appalling things ever said on the board, I had forgotten that you had said it. It wasn't funny, and I'm not up for joking about it.

I get the feeling you don't really have a sense of humor. Might wanna look into lightening up a bit.

Why sooo serious??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:39 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I would be happy to surrender all of my guns if the government would do the same.

However, since that's not likely to happen, I agree with Sky. You have to figure out why people shoot each other and work on that problem.

A cursory examination of gunless societies will reveal that violence still occurs. So removing guns simply removes an efficient tool. It does not solve the underlying problem.

In any event, the current state of my nation makes me very grateful for the concept of private firearms ownership. This government does not inspire me to disarm in the least.

It's not "the Gun" to me so much as the attitude that goes along with them. It is very much the same as our attitude towards our military - we settle things we don't like with the military or with threats of it. It shapes our foreign policy too much - if you have it, you will use at some point - at the very least it's always part of the dialogue. And it's how other countries think of us as well.

"I would be happy to surrender all of my guns if the government would do the same."

We've made too many enemies with our military to not have them well armed. It's a conundrum innit?

Let's figure out why people shoot each other, definitely, and until we figure it out let's make sure they can't.

"A cursory examination of gunless societies will reveal that violence still occurs. So removing guns simply removes an efficient tool. It does not solve the underlying problem."

With all due respect... that is so lame! "Until we figure out how to keep people from getting really mad at each other or wanting to take other people's stuff..."
I hope to go to Hong Kong some day - it's on my dream list. And if I get there I will never worry about what part of town I wander into, whether it's safe or not. Never worry. Whereas in every single city in the US I'd have to look at a map and wonder about where I can and can't go. And that's because of gun crime, nothing else. Does that seem right to you?

"In any event, the current state of my nation makes me very grateful for the concept of private firearms ownership. This government does not inspire me to disarm in the least."

You are going to defend yourself against a tank with your guns?
What were those Egyptians armed with in Tahrir Square? Anthony - you would do so much more damage to any government with your words and winning personality and a cell phone and a Twitter account than you will ever do with all of your guns combined.

People really think the gov is coming to round them up and put them is Kamps? Seriously? Don't they do enough crap that guns can't defend us against already?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:45 AM

Quote:
I've never known anyone whose life was saved by a gun, nor for whom things improved because guns enter the scene.

I call BS - you know me.

Not only have there been uncountable occasions where being armed PREVENTED things from going south, most of the time there's been some kind of encouragement or chicanery intent on disarming me there's been ill intent behind it - intent which has in every case FAILED because of that armament, because the "risk" of engaging ain't worth the "reward" of executing whatever nastiness they had in mind.

Quote:
My short logic is that sanity is something that takes time and reflection, and something that humans can achieve through effort, but not an innate quality we possess

I disagree, and in fact once you muddle through your knee-jerk reaction here, so too do you.
Cause frankly a lot of public school and other social conditioning is bent towards destroying that sanity, and despite the enormous effort put into it, still fails to completely wreck it in most people.
Therefore it is innate by default, or the powers that be would not have set such massive mechanisms toward its destruction in place, would they ?

A weapon, it's just a tool, nothing more, nothing less - kitchen knives are more ubiqitous, and have been a factor in far more domestic blowups than this, the ONLY reason such a big to-do is being made of it is that it's handy fodder for them that'd see us all disarmed and therefore unable to resist whatever nefarious doings they have in mind for us.

And make no mistake, even a handful of armed people can seriously fuck up attempted tyranny, and sometimes, even ONE.
Ponder for a moment the likely fate of Arianna Godboldo if not for her mothers ill-fated single shot into the ceiling as a last resort against the powers that be ?
Would it have drawn enough notice or support without that act, would it have bought the time for others to get involved and start trying to call the local powers that be to heel ?
Would the cascade of attention then revealed the massive amount of chicanery that was going on there ?

ONE shot, a single round, and not even aimed at anyone - forestalled a nightmare, not well enough by my opinion, but better than simply lying down and taking it, for it was her ABILITY to resist, successfully, via a firearm, which started putting the brakes on this mess - and no lesser means would have succeeded.

Just HAVING a weapon in the equation can often stop tyranny in it's tracks.

Quote:
THE RIGHT TO BUY WEAPONS IS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE.
A.E. Van Vogt - The Weapon Shops of Isher

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:53 AM

Quote:
People really think the gov is coming to round them up and put them is Kamps? Seriously? Don't they do enough crap that guns can't defend us against already?

Japanese Americans and internment, Muslim Americans and Gitmo, more black men are in prison than out, white protestors and political dissenters certainly get jailed, and now targets are set on latinos.

Perhaps you should not be so scornful of the worst case scenario when history has shown that we CAN AND DO stoop to that level.

Quote:
And if I get there I will never worry about what part of town I wander into, whether it's safe or not. Never worry.

Have fun getting stabbed and shot by the triads, then (who own guns despite gun-control). Crime is everywhere, every city has it's bad neighborhoods.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS... the benefits of guns?

Uh.... when was the last time that gun ownership changed anything for the better in the USA? Did gun ownership stop the transfer of wealth to the already obscenely wealthy, stop the invasion of Iraq, break up the big banks, improve our schools, reduce drug addiction rates, or bring our jobs back from overseas? Did guns stop the bill containing indefinite detention from passing? Did gun ownership do ANYTHING to free up the internet?

I'm not seeing ANY positive political outcomes from gun ownership here in the USA. The government is NOT afraid of it's people, it is becoming more and more a tyranny.

If anything, the problem of the second amendment is that you have people like Wulf who collapse the entire notion of freedom to ONE issue... and in fact he would use a gun to contravene other people's freedom in all sorts of arenas, proving that gun ownership by itself certainly does not make people more free.

Just look at our government's "war on drugs". If even the government can't make headway... using all the technology and firepower it can muster on the topic... what would make anyone think that guns in the hands of (mostly) idiots would be more successful? I call that an epic fail.

FWIW, the only time that guns COULD make a difference in the USA... in terms of political freedom and political power... is if (a) the gun-owning population was able to think novel, complex, meaningful thoughts about the nature of freedom. Not seeing that. Most of the adamant gun-owners that I know of and read about tend to be more right-wing fascist than anything. And (2) the 2a-ers would have to set aside their "rugged individualism" long enough to actually coordinate their actions and cooperate with each other and the population at large. Again, since most 2a-ers seem to want to live in the Wild West, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Now, gun ownership as a matter of individual safety is another issue. So if we're going to talk 2a, let's separate the topics because those are two different things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:03 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Police in Texas say the man they believe is responsible for a Christmas Day shooting that left him and six members of his extended family dead was dressed as Santa Claus.

Grapevine police spokesman Sgt. Robert Eberling said Monday the shooter "showed up shortly before the incident took place" in the Santa outfit and was a member of the family opening gifts in the apartment.

Eberling said the identity of the man and the victims will be released after autopsies are conducted Monday.

Police went to the apartment Sunday after receiving a 911 call in which no one was on the other line. They found four women and three men, aged 18 to 60, dead.

We must pass a law to ban all Santas immediately!

BTW Obama just passed a law allowing foreigners to buy guns for the first time, because his Fast & Furious got stopped for killing cops.

Obama DOJ Makes It Easier For Legal ‘Aliens’ To Get Guns -- Dec 22 2011
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/obama_doj_makes_it_e
asier_for_legal_aliens_to_get_guns.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:07 AM

Re: Government.

Ok, here it is...

More people have been killed in history by the stroke of a tyrants pen than all the firearms on the planet combined.

You give ONE psycho ONE gun, let him loose - even if he had unlimited ammo, even if no one fought back, he could not in a single lifetime, possibly kill as many people as a government does in that same time.

The weapons themselves are not dangerous.
PEOPLE are dangerous.
And none more so than those who "just follow orders".

I also wouldn't overestimate a tank - shit man, you know why tanks usually have an infantry escort ?
Cause peasants with fucking rocks can disable one if they're determined enough, just ask the Soviets how many tanks they lost that way, and although I doubt we'd admit it, we probably have too - not to mention one of those police APCs was knocked out a while ago by some kid who realized that an exposed driveshaft was a really nice weakpoint and happened to have a wrench handy.

Besides which, as often as I hear "but they can't do that!" Piz, I have a LOT of experience with "them" actually DOING such crap, and post a good bit of it, yes ?

Knowledge and words are fine weapons, allies are even finer ones, but when it comes down to the personal and my puny wheelchair bound ass, the ONLY thing in the equation which is gonna even the odds against some musclebound young thug lookin for his next fix is a firearm - and if you don't think a mere pistol can put a halt to tyranny, again I direct you to the matter of Maryanne Godboldo.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:13 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

How's than ban on Santas coming along?

No names = illegal aliens?

Is it Santa......or SATAN?!!!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1299/santy.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You give ONE psycho ONE gun, let him loose - even if he had unlimited ammo, even if no one fought back, he could not in a single lifetime, possibly kill as many people as a government does in that same time.

I tried to say that. But you say it so much better.

I call it Fremagic.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS... the benefits of guns?

Uh.... when was the last time that gun ownership changed anything for the better in the USA?

Guns are like vaccines. Their benefits lie in things we DON'T see.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"It's not "the Gun" to me so much as the attitude that goes along with them. It is very much the same as our attitude towards our military - we settle things we don't like with the military or with threats of it. It shapes our foreign policy too much - if you have it, you will use at some point - at the very least it's always part of the dialogue. And it's how other countries think of us as well."

Hello,

I own several firearms, and I have never settled a dispute with one. Is it part of the dialogue? I would say it's part of anyone's consideration when they make decisions. However, if you feel it's not 'the gun' but rather 'the attitude' then I agree.

"We've made too many enemies with our military to not have them well armed. It's a conundrum innit?"

Well, it's a problem. So I guess they won't disarm, and neither will I.

"Let's figure out why people shoot each other, definitely, and until we figure it out let's make sure they can't."

Can't? No one has figured this out in the history of the world since firearms were developed, as far as I know. Guns have been outlawed, but they've never been eradicated. Moreover, guns aren't the only means people have to hurt one another. They are simply the primary means that the weakest members of society have at their disposal to harm the strongest.

"I hope to go to Hong Kong some day - it's on my dream list. And if I get there I will never worry about what part of town I wander into, whether it's safe or not. Never worry. Whereas in every single city in the US I'd have to look at a map and wonder about where I can and can't go. And that's because of gun crime, nothing else. Does that seem right to you?"

My dream list has England on it. And I do worry about my safety should I visit. Not only is violence a real possibility, but self-defense is highly regulated there. So I guess your feeling of safety and security is personal to you.

"You are going to defend yourself against a tank with your guns?"

That's pretty silly. Will you ask me also if I intend to stop muggers with a sewing needle? Guns are good for killing people. That's probably what it would be used for in a rebellion.

"What were those Egyptians armed with in Tahrir Square? Anthony - you would do so much more damage to any government with your words and winning personality and a cell phone and a Twitter account than you will ever do with all of your guns combined."

I hope so. I also hope that wise-practices will keep me from having a grease fire.

"People really think the gov is coming to round them up and put them is Kamps? Seriously?"

Well, it's actually happened in living memory. We also have about 2 million people in jail right now. Many of them are in jail for crimes that didn't actually harm another human being. I'm not sure why this is farfetched?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:25 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
People really think the gov is coming to round them up and put them is Kamps? Seriously? Don't they do enough crap that guns can't defend us against already?

Japanese Americans and internment, Muslim Americans and Gitmo, more black men are in prison than out, white protestors and political dissenters certainly get jailed, and now targets are set on latinos.

Quote:
And if I get there I will never worry about what part of town I wander into, whether it's safe or not. Never worry.

Have fun getting stabbed and shot by the triads, then (who own guns despite gun-control). Crime is everywhere, every city has it's bad neighborhoods.

Japanese Americans and internment - I won't defend our actions then but the Japanese were combatants and we were Afraid - more importantly we've progressed so far since then. If you ever get to go to a WWII museum (New Orleans D-Day is great) you'll see much of the anti-Japanese propaganda that was used then. It's laughable now because we just aren't the same people, but I know that those cartoons of the buck-toothed, big glasses "Nip with a bayonet" worked back then, as hard as that is to believe today. I know I will probably never convince you of that or that internment of Japanese was different than systematic extermination of millions of Jews, so be it - we're different now and we do learn.

Gitmo? That hardly counts as "Muslim Americans."
"775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Most of these have been released without charge. The United States government continues to classify many of these released detainees as "enemy combatants". As of May 2011, 171 detainees remain at Guantanamo." - wiki

"more black men are in prison than out" Your numbers are in error,
"More than 846,000 black men were incarcerated in 2008, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice estimates." versus 38 million African Americans in the US.
And I think it's more of "more poor people are in jail than wealthy." Don't you think that will always be the case? Isn't lack of stuff the number one reason why people commit crimes?

"targets are set on latinos" I don't know where you get that - if you mean "illegal immigrants" then I would agree - as the law stands now we are targeting law breakers and when it comes to illegal immigrants most are Latinos and from Mexico. We target murderers and thieves too.

"Have fun getting stabbed and shot by the triads, then (who own guns despite gun-control). " Dang, so I still have to worry about people with guns - thanks for making my point!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:34 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Re: Government.

Ok, here it is...

More people have been killed in history by the stroke of a tyrants pen than all the firearms on the planet combined.

You give ONE psycho ONE gun, let him loose - even if he had unlimited ammo, even if no one fought back, he could not in a single lifetime, possibly kill as many people as a government does in that same time.

The weapons themselves are not dangerous.
PEOPLE are dangerous.
And none more so than those who "just follow orders".

I also wouldn't overestimate a tank - shit man, you know why tanks usually have an infantry escort ?
Cause peasants with fucking rocks can disable one if they're determined enough, just ask the Soviets how many tanks they lost that way, and although I doubt we'd admit it, we probably have too - not to mention one of those police APCs was knocked out a while ago by some kid who realized that an exposed driveshaft was a really nice weakpoint and happened to have a wrench handy.

Besides which, as often as I hear "but they can't do that!" Piz, I have a LOT of experience with "them" actually DOING such crap, and post a good bit of it, yes ?

Knowledge and words are fine weapons, allies are even finer ones, but when it comes down to the personal and my puny wheelchair bound ass, the ONLY thing in the equation which is gonna even the odds against some musclebound young thug lookin for his next fix is a firearm - and if you don't think a mere pistol can put a halt to tyranny, again I direct you to the matter of Maryanne Godboldo.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

I think the answer to many of your statements was in SignyM's last line:

"Now, gun ownership as a matter of individual safety is another issue. So if we're going to talk 2a, let's separate the topics because those are two different things."

I need to put it in my signature - I'm fine with home gun ownership, I get it. "Man's home is his castle..." Especially in Detroit!

Did you use guns to break up the Hell Camps?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:38 AM

Quote:
Dang, so I still have to worry about people with guns - thanks for making my point!

My point was not in defense of guns, my point was being AWARE OF DANGER and reality.

You can no more waltz down any old street in Hong Kong with utmost certainty of your safety than you can say that there are no internment and/or labour camps in the U.S.

I scorn your views of safety as much as you scorn my cautions, the way you cover your eyes and plug your ears and say it can never happen. Because it is happening, it does happen, people are dying, people are suffering, and here you are saying "all is well."

You ENABLE the evil of the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:39 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You give ONE psycho ONE gun, let him loose - even if he had unlimited ammo, even if no one fought back, he could not in a single lifetime, possibly kill as many people as a government does in that same time.
I tried to say that. But you say it so much better.

I call it Fremagic.

I call it faulty logic. BOTH are bad, one doesn't prove the other. And while we're here... what did the government use to kill all those people...?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS-

Quote:
You give ONE psycho ONE gun, let him loose - even if he had unlimited ammo, even if no one fought back, he could not in a single lifetime, possibly kill as many people as a government does in that same time.

I think you completely misunderstood what Frem was saying. In fact, I suspect your understanding is 180 degrees at odds with what he meant.

Quote:
Guns are like vaccines. Their benefits lie in things we DON'T see.

Well, maybe you can find me a study, then, where the introduction of guns somewhere in the USA created more political freedom?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:49 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Dang, so I still have to worry about people with guns - thanks for making my point!

My point was not in defense of guns, my point was being AWARE OF DANGER and reality.

You can no more waltz down any old street in Hong Kong with utmost certainty of your safety than you can say that there are no internment and/or labour camps in the U.S.

People who are so certain of their own safety seldom really are.

It amazes me away that you would attempt to equate HK with any city in the US - I think you are so used to living with our level of violence that you are numb to it.

"Although one of the most famous criminal organizations in the region, the Triads are not the only source of organized crime in Hong Kong.
Smuggling (both goods and people), counterfeit goods, corruption and prostitution syndicates are all the result of organized groups operating in the territory. Generally organized crime groups in Hong Kong keep a low profile and many of its most profitable activities do not attract high levels of public outrage e.g. illegal gambling and copyright piracy.
As organized crime does not necessarily equate with street crime, it has been said that Hong Kong society can be lulled into a false sense of security. Without high levels of street crime and no great numbers of Mafia-style organized crime syndicates, it has been suggested that the people of Hong Kong, believe that their society is, in law and order terms, healthy and clean, although this may not be the case." - wiki

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:53 AM

Did you not even read the last paragraph of your own quotation?

Quote:
Japanese Americans and internment - I won't defend our actions then but the Japanese were combatants and we were Afraid - more importantly we've progressed so far since then. If you ever get to go to a WWII museum (New Orleans D-Day is great) you'll see much of the anti-Japanese propaganda that was used then. It's laughable now because we just aren't the same people, but I know that those cartoons of the buck-toothed, big glasses "Nip with a bayonet" worked back then, as hard as that is to believe today. I know I will probably never convince you of that or that internment of Japanese was different than systematic extermination of millions of Jews, so be it - we're different now and we do learn.

Oh, and Americans aren't afraid of Mexican drug smugglers, constant news of rise in Mexican crime, they aren't called slurs like "bean eater", there aren't laws in Arizona to stop anyone who looks Mexican simply because they look Mexican, there aren't plans to use PREDATORY DRONES against Illegal Immigrants?

Americans aren't afraid of Muslim terrorists? We don't have derogatory names like "desert rat" or "rag head"?

There aren't unflattering drawings and portrayals of both of them?

We do not LEARN, we merely get riled up and directed at each NEW supposed "threat."

Quote:
"more black men are in prison than out" Your numbers are in error,
"More than 846,000 black men were incarcerated in 2008, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice estimates." versus 38 million African Americans in the US.

Perhaps I was speaking more on what it feels like, but you just used the entire black race (men and women) to compare to the number of incarcerated MEN, and I question your numbers too. After looking it up, I'm seeing 1 in 8 black males in prison. But I suppose that's nothing to worry about! Cops aren't ever racist, juries aren't ever stacked, Judges aren't ever crooked, and no black men has ever been sent to jail for false cause!

I am done with you, you are so certain of your own safety that you deny dangers others face and suffer every day. You can't even acknowledge the problem exists, let alone be helpful in supplying a solution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"what did the government use to kill all those people...?"

Hello,

Are we back to disarming the government again?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:59 AM

Not to get involved, but having been to Hong Kong it struck me as very like an American city. There are parts of the city where you feel that everything is orderly and clean and big money rolls, and other places where you get the feeling shady deals are happening in back alleys. Some concepts transcend culture.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Dang, so I still have to worry about people with guns - thanks for making my point!"

Hello,

Was your point that there will be guns and violence no matter what controls we place on either?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:10 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Did you not even read the last paragraph of your own quotation?

I am done with you, you are so certain of your own safety that you deny dangers others face and suffer every day. You can't even acknowledge the problem exists, let alone be helpful in supplying a solution.

Yes, it says essentially the crime in HK is not street crime, the streets are safe, that was my original contention.

I never said I was certain of my own safety - I actually posted the opposite, that there are major parts of US cities I would never venture into, and that's because of people with guns - why is that so hard to acknowledge - am I alone in that?

I HAVE BEEN HELPFUL GAWDS DAMNIT - Hello, cell phone and Twitter? The world around us as an example?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:11 AM

I lived in a military dictatorship where there was no street crime. None. Zip. Nada. As a 13 year old girl, I wandered wherever I wanted in the city after midnight without a care in the world.

There was also no free speech, or free assembly, or free religion, or free anything. Corruption was rampant and half the goods you buy had to be bought on the black market. Poverty was despairing and people died from hunger. But hey, no street crime.

Absence of street crime is usually not a good sign. It is usually a sign of an overbearing despotic government.

The more power the govt has, the more de-powered the population is. The more power individuals have, the more crime (and snapping gun-toters) there are, but the less power govts have. Power is a finite comodity.

Guns put power into individual hands. You can have the power, or you can surrender it to govt. That's it.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:13 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not to get involved, but having been to Hong Kong it struck me as very like an American city. There are parts of the city where you feel that everything is orderly and clean and big money rolls, and other places where you get the feeling shady deals are happening in back alleys. Some concepts transcend culture.

Heh - you started this! I thought we were done with gun threads.

Of course, wherever there are people there will be crime. What kind depends on the culture and what's available.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:20 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, maybe you can find me a study, then, where the introduction of guns somewhere in the USA created more political freedom?

The Battle of Athens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

It also occurs to me there was a little dustup in 1775 at the North Bridge in Concord, MA that was about a lawful government trying to disarm it's subjects by force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_concord

No studies, but I presume real world examples are just as good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:20 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Dang, so I still have to worry about people with guns - thanks for making my point!"

Hello,

Was your point that there will be guns and violence no matter what controls we place on either?

Yes, it wasn't!

But I do agree with your statement - eradication is not even a fantasy goal, it's not even a remote possibility and I would never argue for it. Reducing gun crime as they have in HK is though - I can't imagine any human not wanting that or not wanting to move in that direction.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:23 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"that there are major parts of US cities I would never venture into, and that's because of people with guns"

Hello,

If a deity snatched away their guns via magic, would you then feel safe going to these places? Are guns the magic component to your trepidation, or is it the violent crime?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Reducing gun crime as they have in HK is though - I can't imagine any human not wanting that or not wanting to move in that direction."

Hello,

I want to reduce gun crime, and all violent crime for that matter.

But not simply by surrendering my firearms and trusting in a positive outcome.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:26 AM

Quote:
Did you use guns to break up the Hell Camps?

Originally we tried arson, actually.
Then we tried violence of a more personal sort, usually involving a tire iron and combat boots, combined with excessive property destruction.
But in the end it was cameras that got the job done.

Although, make NO mistake about it, it took the violence and property destruction to GET to the point where cameras were gonna do any good - people tend to forget that, cause that fact is pretty unpalatable to them that would prefer the world not work like it does, yet were it not for the reputation and absolute certainty of massive retaliation, them with the cameras woulda got their heads bashed in.

Only once was there ever a situation where firearms were deployed on both sides, and in that our course of action was more getting the hell to cover than actually responding in kind, although had we not been armed that might have gone badly, yeah - still firearms are just a tool, and you use the right tool for the job.
I woulda no more used firearms for that than I would use a crescent wrench on a wood screw.

Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with what your perception of 2A advocates is before listening to what I actually say, if you'd be so kind.

Quote:
I call it faulty logic. BOTH are bad, one doesn't prove the other. And while we're here... what did the government use to kill all those people...?

Other people.
People who just followed orders.

Now, if you wanna seperate personal, individual self-defense from the Second Amendment, you're going to have the wee little problem of me pointing out that almost all self-defense is effectively individual whether it's against a mugger or a goon with a badge - cause for my part a lotta the time there's not very damn much difference; case in point.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/01/oakland_county_aut
horities_rai_1.html

Quote:
In Wednesday's raid, officers wore bulletproof vests, and one wore a mask, said attorney Jim Rasor, who represents Big Daddy's Enterprises. But they took nothing except about $20,000 in cash, gathered from receipts, the offices and wallets of about 10 employees and patients, he said.

Mind you, they made no arrests - ergo, does it really MATTER whether the jerk who stuck a gun in your face and emptied your wallet was a gangbanger or a goon with a badge ?
Past a certain point, what exactly is the difference other than some level of perceived legitimacy ?

Now if you wanna seperate points, better that we seperate the points between defending against each other, and defending against the government - that we might be able to argue seperately, but self-defense is almost always an individual act, you see.

Quote:
I think you completely misunderstood what Frem was saying. In fact, I suspect your understanding is 180 degrees at odds with what he meant.

I'm not sure how you mean this, Siggy - you've have to explain that one better, cause I think you might be mistaken, but I am not sure.

I will say that even a single pistol in the hands of an untrained person, again, *CAN* (but not necessarily will, yes) stop an act of tyranny, and cited an example which was conveniently ignored.

Thing is, also, listen to me the person instead of letting your own perceptions paint over what I am saying here - guns, by themselves, mean nothing - consider this from a perspective of physical security, you cannot feasibly make something impossible to take by someone determined enough to take it, what you DO is raise the difficulty level to where it's not worth the effort they're willing to expend to take it.

The weapons themselves are but one single tool in a much larger arsenal, right along with cameras, cooperation, communication, coordination, information, one small part of a unified collective whole, but a vital part I do believe, as vital as any other - take the distributor cap out of a car and see how far you get.

And yes, I too have "issues" with folks who are unwilling to defend a constitutional right for those they hate as well as themselves, or are willing to defend specific ones but not others, cause when it comes to the bill of rights I am of the mind that's an all or nothing - you defend em ALL, or you miss the goddamn point of having em in the first place, sure.

Anyhows, I'm out of time - a weapon is just a tool, and like any powerful tool can be dangerous, but end of the day it's just a THING, an object, it has no will or motivation of it's own till a person picks it up and operates it - without that key factor, it endangers no one.

Quote:
It's just an object, doesn't mean what you think.
-River Tam

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, maybe you can find me a study, then, where the introduction of guns somewhere in the USA created more political freedom?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Quote:
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

I posit that since dead people don't vote (well, not on purpose anyways..) that political freedom was thus improved.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:30 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"that there are major parts of US cities I would never venture into, and that's because of people with guns"

Hello,

If a deity snatched away their guns via magic, would you then feel safe going to these places? Are guns the magic component to your trepidation, or is it the violent crime?

I can whip twice my weight in wild cats sonny, so yeah, the gun thing pretty much.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:32 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Reducing gun crime as they have in HK is though - I can't imagine any human not wanting that or not wanting to move in that direction."

Hello,

I want to reduce gun crime, and all violent crime for that matter.

But not simply by surrendering my firearms and trusting in a positive outcome.

What if a magic fairy made that possible without you having to make that sacrifice?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:36 AM