NationStates Jolt Archive

Why facilitate the realisation of that intention by giving the person a gun?

Because if they want to kill, they'll find a way to do it. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005
Sword killer sparks weapons call

...these people have the wrong idea. Go ahead, ban away. It hasn't made a whit of difference, the means just get more esoteric.

A gun lying in a glass case - no
A gun in the hands of a human being - yes.

Then get the blame straight, please.

You're afraid of the human.

So... we are both buying our freedom, is that what it boils down to? You are buying it by buying guns and bullets, I'm buying it by paying taxes and going voting to ensure that my country remains safe for everybody?

You're not buying freedom. You're trying to buy security. Big difference.

The Empress Elisabeth of Austria was assassinated with a nail file. Have you ever tried to pull of a drive-by shooting with one of these? :rolleyes:
The items you quoted have another primary use, guns have the primary use to kill or injure people (apart from hunting guns, of course) The number of people worldwide killed by a gunshot is exponentially larger that the number of those clubbed to death by a frying pan....

You've seen too many movies--as far as the drive-bys go. Just like how many Americans misunderstand what all went on with the IRA.

Honey, are you really naive enough to think that an armed German population would have even tried to stop Hitler?


As for my government and society as a whole : human beings live in society because it's their nature, they are social animals. Every society needs rules, you will find that among ants as well as lions and chimps. To make sure these rules are obeyed by everyone, a group of animals has one or more leaders, whose responsibility it is to make sure that the group does well, who will have to act as intermediates to end arguments etc. These leaders are chosen in different ways, they can fight their way to the top, they can be the most experienced, but they rule by general consent.
A human state doesn't work any differently : Rulers rule by consent. As soon as they no longer fulfil their duty, society will get rid of them. It's either an election or a revolution, depending on the chosen system.
With a democratic system, you are guaranteed to decide on a regular basis, in a totalitarian system the population will overthrow the leader once it deems the situation intolerable. And in that case, even the most disarmed society finds the means to defend themselves. Look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a shining example. Look at Ghandi's liberation of India as another...

Overall, my government is just doing a better job protecting its population and keeping the crime rate to a minimum, that's all.


And when you don't have the weapons to be ABLE to overthrow the government? That's right--the totalitarians stay in power.

Ok, if you're going historically, you are right of course. I was more thinking on the lines of, say, the last 5 years or so.

The thing about guns is that they are very easily very dangerous. To really hurt somebody with a frying pan needs some strength, let alone determination. Knifes are easier, true, but they still require more physical effort than shooting a gun at somebody. I guess that's really the one thing that scares me :
Guns make it too easy to hurt other people.

You've obviously not shot a firearm--especially at a moving target. Once you get past 20 feet, you need some practice to be acurate with a pistol (the main target of anti-gunners). It's damn tough to hit something moving with a firearm having only a 4" barrel. It takes a great deal of time and effort to be able to cause the kind of harm you're intimating.

Why facilitate the realisation of that intention by giving the person a gun?

Having a gun doesn't cause someone to go out and shoot another. We have millions upon millions of legal, law-abiding gun owners in the US. A VERY small percentage (actually almost none) of law-abiding citizens use a firearm for assault. It's generally those that have already obtained a firearm illegally that use the weapon for assault.

The laws don't help--the illegal guns are still used illegally. It only stops those that are law-abiding from defending themselves.

Also, and armed population is no guarantee for freedom. Sorry, but the common citizen can't do much against a Main Battle Tank with a standard gun bought in a gunstore. And he'd get his butt owned by a professional soldier with modern equipment. Thinking that armed people guarantee freedom is delusional. Some weirdass militia can't do much against a modern army.


Ahem....Iraq. If it were so easy, the US military would have been out of there a long time ago (not that they should have been there in the first place, mind you).

Must be an interesting flora and fauna where you live... :rolleyes:

That's typical North American fauna. We haven't cleared all the critters from our lands--and we don't really want to. They are supposed to be there after all.

Attacking a bear with a Katana would even out the odds, wouldn't it? I mean, what chance does the bear have against a gun?


Considering you need a minimum of a .44 magnum to take down a grizzly....they have a great chance of killing you before you can kill them. Light deer guns have very little chance.

Yes, there were those assholes a while back that proved you could kill a grizzly with a 9mm, after they shattered its leg, so it couldn't get away--they had to empty 11 rounds into that poor critter's head and body to make it bleed to death.

If you are going to take a critter down, you have a responsiblity to do it as quickly, and as painlessly, as possible.

Hmmm lets see.... what has guns done for me.
I don't know... How about living in perpetual fear that i'll get a bullet in the head next time i go outside, considering the fact a large portion (less than most, though) of the terrorist attacks in Israel involve a terrorist with a gun?
How about contributing to this so-called-"war" that seems to go on forever?



There IS gun control over here. You have to get a license and to go through physical and psycological tests before you can get a gun. You also have to go through a test every year or so in order to keep using it. You have to carry the license around where ever you go with the gun.

Without this kind of gun control, after every terrorist attack in Israel, a giant heap of hot-heads would go carrying a killing franzy upon palestians.
Which would, inevitably, cause even more terrorist attacks, which, in turn, would cause more hot-heads.... See where i'm going here?


Guns had done alot for me. Bad things though, not good.
Gun control? Only good things. Probably saved my life.

Because if they want to kill, they'll find a way to do it. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005
Sword killer sparks weapons call

...these people have the wrong idea. Go ahead, ban away. It hasn't made a whit of difference, the means just get more esoteric.

I agree. The page you referenced above has this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4592825.stm

This was death by beating. Take away weapons and there's still the good ol' fist and boots. Also note the last two sentences:

"Retired resident Ricky Hay, 61, said: "They run amok here of an evening.

"If you walk through the town centre you're taking a chance and there are no police about to help you."

No means to self-defense and no police protection. Hmmmm.

Accidently blown a hole in my floor... :eek:

Guns have done nothing for me, except give me a fear of going into places with lax gun control and lots of guns, and made me despise people who spout off baseless and utterly false facts such as "they'll find something else to kill people with"(true, but guns make it a LOT easier to kill people with far less effort and involvement, which is especially dangerous when it comes to conflicts, such as arguments between people who know each other, where violence may occur but without a high risk of death UNLESS there's a gun around waiting to be used; take away the guns and fewer people kill other people) and "they're needed for self defense"(fact:having a gun in the home makes you LESS safe. This really ought to be common knowledge by now. Also, for every tiem a gun is justifiably used in self-defense, dozens of people die due to gun-related causes(accidents, homicides, etc.))

As are the rest of us, Britain has lasted 939 years without being invaded or losing national identity in some way, we just learned diplomacy as a handy skill to help us do it.

Replies in bold.
Only because we were around to stop the germans or russians.

(fact:having a gun in the home makes you LESS safe. This really ought to be common knowledge by now)
Fact: that statistic has been debunked more times than Clinton cheated on Hillary.

The "43 Times" Fallacy Becomes The "2.7 Times" Fallacy

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
Methodological And Conceptual Errors:

* used only one logistic regression model to describe multiple socially distinct populations
* psychosocially, economically, and ethnically unrepresentative study populations
* study populations, compared to general population, over-represented serious social dysfunction and financial instability, factors that would expectedly increase risks of homicide
* unrepresentative nature of dysfunctional study populations prevents generalizing results to population at large
* when properly used, an "odds ratio" only estimates relative risk of study and control populations * misleading because the ratio gives no estimate of actual or baseline risk
* one week after publication of this article, during his presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, H.E.L.P. conference (Chicago, October 18, 1993), the lead author emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, and similar to Kellermann , A.L. and Reay, D.T. "Protection or Peril? An analysis of firearms-related deaths in the home." New England Journal of Medicine, 1986. 314: 1557-60.:
* ignored criticisms of 1986 methodology, so, for the second time, repeated the harshly criticized methodology of Rushforth from 1976
* non-sequitur logic
* in 1986, correct methodology described, but never used, by the lead author
* failed to consider the protective benefits of guns

Kellermann and his co-authors have persisted in their discredited methodology. In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article,32 Kellermann et al. once again attempted to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk. Both the case studies and control groups in this study were socially and demographically unrepresentative of the areas studied or of the nation as a whole. The groups had exceptionally high incidence of social dysfunction and instability. For example, 52.7% of case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 24.8% had alcohol-related problems, 31.3% had a household history of illicit drug abuse, 31.8% had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, 17.3% had a family member hurt so severely in a family fight that medical attention was required.

Both the case studies and control groups in this study had very high incidence of financial instability. For example, both case subject and control heads of household had a median Hollingshead socioeconomic score of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest level of socioeconomic status). These are factors that would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence, including homicide. The subjects and controls did not even reflect the racial profile of the studied counties; 62% of the subjects were Black compared with 25% of the overall population of the three studied counties.

The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups undercut the authors' attempts to generalize from this study to the nation at large. The results cannot even be generalized to the counties studied because both the case and control groups did not even represent the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many complex variables, the authors should have used multiple logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, used only one logistic regression model.

Interestingly, according to the authors' own data, guns were next to last in importance of the "risk factors" studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting one's home held more risk than guns according to the authors' calculations, yet the most important risks were barely mentioned in the publicity or the authors' discussion. It appears that the authors were more concerned about generating a headline-grabbing "factoid," exaggerating gun risk, than about accurately or honestly assessing the risks of the dysfunctional populations studied.

Edgar A. Suter, MD

Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy

And when you don't have the weapons to be ABLE to overthrow the government? That's right--the totalitarians stay in power.

That's why I quoted the fall of Socialism in East Germany. Not a single shot was fired... not one.

Then get the blame straight, please.

You're afraid of the human.

Wrong again. I'm afraid of humans with guns.

You've seen too many movies--as far as the drive-bys go. Just like how many Americans misunderstand what all went on with the IRA.

What I know is that this is an American phenomenon that even has it's own name. And I'll let you know that there is no word for that phenomenon in German...

You're not buying freedom. You're trying to buy security. Big difference.

No, I buy the freedom to step outside my door without the need for a gun. Or to stay inside without the need for one.

Well, some wigger used a gun to kill a friend of mine for no reason at all. Thats about it really.

Having a gun doesn't cause someone to go out and shoot another. We have millions upon millions of legal, law-abiding gun owners in the US. A VERY small percentage (actually almost none) of law-abiding citizens use a firearm for assault. It's generally those that have already obtained a firearm illegally that use the weapon for assault.

The laws don't help--the illegal guns are still used illegally. It only stops those that are law-abiding from defending themselves.

Are we back at that again? I already pointed that out so many times before:

I'm not going to tell you how to do things in the United States. For all I care, you can guarantee every citizen a machine gun at birth!
All I'm saying is that the US obviuosly are a more violent society with a less effective police and legal system that make give regular citizen a feeling of being constantly threatened by everybody (including trheir own government) and that there are societies on this planet where people leave a very much more peaceful and quiet but no less free life.

WHAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT????

As for the bear-remarks, I was being sarcastic. I apologise if that was above your understanding....

That's why I quoted the fall of Socialism in East Germany. Not a single shot was fired... not one.

That's because Russia let them go. That was the ONLY reason. No peaceful protest, just lack of money. Oh yeah, and a couple of gents named Gorbachev and Reagan to iron out some details.

Guns have done nothing for me, except give me a fear of going into places with lax gun control and lots of guns, and made me despise people who spout off baseless and utterly false facts such as "they'll find something else to kill people with"(true, but guns make it a LOT easier to kill people with far less effort and involvement, which is especially dangerous when it comes to conflicts, such as arguments between people who know each other, where violence may occur but without a high risk of death UNLESS there's a gun around waiting to be used; take away the guns and fewer people kill other people) and "they're needed for self defense"(fact:having a gun in the home makes you LESS safe. This really ought to be common knowledge by now. Also, for every tiem a gun is justifiably used in self-defense, dozens of people die due to gun-related causes(accidents, homicides, etc.))

Oh man, you should be shitting your pants here in Wisconsin then--we have legal open carry in this state.

How can you be scared of an inanimate object? How?

Your baseless facts are the ones coming from your gun-grabbing site, sir.

There is no fact that proves that having a gun in your home makes it less safe. There is a higher chance that you may have an injury RELATED to a firearm, but doesn't increase your chances of actual injury--which means, you're not any more likely to be hurt just having the tool around. The reason it's not common knowledge is because you're spouting off a falicy.

Bullshit on your reverse numbering as well--approximately 2.5 MILLION crimes per year are prevented in the US due to firearms. You have fewer than 40 thousand deaths related to firearms per year. Around 12,000 are actual homicides. More are involving suicide (they'll DEFINITELY find another way without the gun).

Wrong again. I'm afraid of humans with guns.

But the only difference between a gun sitting on a table and one being pointed at you is the human.

In any case, you've got to be scared of me then. Even though I've never done anything violent in my adult life. Can't say ever--I did kill that sparrow when I was 12, with a pellet gun, after all.

Doesn't make sense that you'd be scared of a law-abiding citizen.

What I know is that this is an American phenomenon that even has it's own name. And I'll let you know that there is no word for that phenomenon in German...

And the Japanese don't have their own word for CD, either--your point?

No, I buy the freedom to step outside my door without the need for a gun. Or to stay inside without the need for one.

Um, that's not freedom--that's security and/or peace of mind.

Your freedom is the ability to step outside your door at any point because you choose to. If you don't step outside because you're scared, that's still your choice, but the freedom to choose still remains.

As for the bear-remarks, I was being sarcastic. I apologise if that was above your understanding....

Kinda like your understanding of the word freedom?

You better not get me started on soldiers and wars, friend ;)

So you're a pacifist (sp?). Whoopdie doo. Please tell me when you get back form dreamland and return to reality, if you think wars will end anytime soon.

Attacking a bear with a Katana would even out the odds, wouldn't it? I mean, what chance does the bear have against a gun?

The human is the dominant life form on the planet -- we rule the earth. All of nature is subordinate to the will of the human being. Our minds have the ability to think and invent things to protect us and help us as we physically, without anything that man has created, are weak, and would not survive in the wild. Which is why we made projectile weaponry for hunting large game.

As for looking cool... you can't argue with bad taste, I guess :D

Damn straight. :D

So you're afraid of the police, then?

I live in Chicago, I'd be a fool not to be.

Also, and armed population is no guarantee for freedom. Sorry, but the common citizen can't do much against a Main Battle Tank with a standard gun bought in a gunstore. And he'd get his butt owned by a professional soldier with modern equipment. Thinking that armed people guarantee freedom is delusional. Some weirdass militia can't do much against a modern army.


I've got news for you, with a few grand and no special permits I can go out and buy a rifle that can kick through an armored personel carrier with ease. The same rifle can (with a bit of training) reliably hit a target at 400 yards (and trained snipers have confirmed kills at 2000+ yards). For even less money I can buy a semiautomatic rifle that could penetrate any body armor on the market. Here in the states there have been "wierdass militias" that have held off the National Guard well enough that the government decided to negotiate rather than take the casualties that would come from going in by force. An armed populace with reasonably modern weapons can easily stand up to professional soldiers when they have the advantage of being at home and not wearing a uniform. Just look at the American Revolution or Vietnam.

You better not get me started on soldiers and wars, friend ;)

Attacking a bear with a Katana would even out the odds, wouldn't it? I mean, what chance does the bear have against a gun?

As for looking cool... you can't argue with bad taste, I guess :D

Ever known a bear hunter? A gun evens the odds pretty well. An American Grizzly is more than able to kill a man even after its been shot. You pretty much have to take it down on the first shot, because you don't get a second.

Hmmm lets see.... what has guns done for me.
I don't know... How about living in perpetual fear that i'll get a bullet in the head next time i go outside, considering the fact a large portion (less than most, though) of the terrorist attacks in Israel involve a terrorist with a gun?
How about contributing to this so-called-"war" that seems to go on forever?



There IS gun control over here. You have to get a license and to go through physical and psycological tests before you can get a gun. You also have to go through a test every year or so in order to keep using it. You have to carry the license around where ever you go with the gun.

Without this kind of gun control, after every terrorist attack in Israel, a giant heap of hot-heads would go carrying a killing franzy upon palestians.
Which would, inevitably, cause even more terrorist attacks, which, in turn, would cause more hot-heads.... See where i'm going here?


Guns had done alot for me. Bad things though, not good.
Gun control? Only good things. Probably saved my life.


Actually, the loosening of gun control has protected you. Most terrorist attacks in Israel used guns until concealed carry became legal and the Israeli government started an aggressive campaign to arm it's citizens. Nearly 1 in 10 Israeli citizens (not military, government, or police) carries a concealed weapon. Its hard to attack 100 people in a mall with a Kalishnakov when 10 of them draw pistols on you. Granted, this has lead to the rise of suicide bombers, but I'd be willing to guess its harder to find someone willing to blow themselves up than find someone willing to shoot and run.

Guns have done nothing for me, except give me a fear of going into places with lax gun control and lots of guns, and made me despise people who spout off baseless and utterly false facts such as "they'll find something else to kill people with"(true, but guns make it a LOT easier to kill people with far less effort and involvement, which is especially dangerous when it comes to conflicts, such as arguments between people who know each other, where violence may occur but without a high risk of death UNLESS there's a gun around waiting to be used; take away the guns and fewer people kill other people) and "they're needed for self defense"(fact:having a gun in the home makes you LESS safe. This really ought to be common knowledge by now. Also, for every tiem a gun is justifiably used in self-defense, dozens of people die due to gun-related causes(accidents, homicides, etc.))

To address you points one at a time.

1) People will find other weapons with which to kill. Just look at the movement in England right now with doctor's groups attempting to restrict access to pointed kitchen knives since they are now the number 1 murder weapon.

2) There have been less than 10 instances (according to the FBI) of individuals with legal concealed firearms using them in a criminal fashion since the FBI began keeping track (some time in the 80s). Compare that to concealed carry rates breaking the 1 million mark in the United States, thats far below the national average.

3) The much lauded statistic saying that having a firearm in you home makes you less safe is based upon flawed data. In the study you're referring to "being injured with a firearm in your home" included suicides, and gun injuries/deaths involving weapons brought into the home by an intruder. Furthermore the study made no distinction between legally and illegally owned firearms.

4) The vast majority of self defense incidents are never reported. It is exceedingly uncommon for a citizen to report to the police if they brandished a weapon to scare away a criminal. I myself have first hand knowledge of dozens of instances when guns were used in self defense, only the one where someone was actually shot got reported.

Try a google on " bear killed by an airman from Eielson AFB"

Do not look if you are squeamish.

No katanas for me.

who post

What? Confounds? I don't believe it!


Yet another example of why its a bad idea for pundits to play with journals.

Overall, my government is just doing a better job protecting its population and keeping the crime rate to a minimum, that's all.
Actually, no. First of all, on average irish society is much more homogenous than american society. This tends to lead to a much more peaceful society. Secondly, you do not have the inner-city black population. Sad but true. And before anyone cries racism, rural and suburban black populations generally have the same or lower crime rates as their seperate race counterparts. Blacks end up counting for near 50% of violent crimes in this country even though they comprise only 13% of the population. The leaders of the black community, with a few exceptions(Chris Rock and Bill Cosby being two, I think Eddie Murphy also, but I'm not sure about that.), have by and large ignored this issue. The black population of this country has a murder rate of around 27-29 per 100,000. If you are a young black male ages 16-24 you are vastly more likely to be murdered by gunshot than any other category of person, and the perpetrator is most likely going to be another young black male between the ages of 16-24.

I take a bit of a moderate approach when it comes to guns. I don't have anything against guns themselves. In fact, if I had a gun and someone came after me, I would shoot them in the leg... if I saw a weapon on them, I would shoot somewhere else and not worry about their life. Like someone said, people that break into homes and attack you aren't there to be friends. I wouldn't shoot to kill over a TV, but I would if I saw a weapon or felt as if my life was in danger (or if someone was trying to rape me).

As far as killing animals, I really am not for it at all... BUT, I know that when the deer population gets out of hand, people's lives are in danger. When the animal population threatens people's lives, something MUST be done. Driving in OH or PA is HORRIBLE when the deer come out... a deer that was hit on the side of the road at least once every five miles... not safe at all and very dangerous.

On a side note, is Chicage really THAT bad of a place to live? I am considering graduate shcool there, but your posts that mention Chicago are making me think twice....

Never touch the Cartridge after is has been ejected from the gun. :sniper: does paintball count? 22's are fun, no recoil whatsoever and you can destroy something easely. :-D

That's because Russia let them go. That was the ONLY reason. No peaceful protest, just lack of money. Oh yeah, and a couple of gents named Gorbachev and Reagan to iron out some details.

You haven't been there, have you? I suggest you study that part in history a bit before making statements about Russia here, the GDR had it's own government and it overthrew it.
You can talk to me about that or to some friends and family members of mine, who took part in the uprising.

I'm not afraid of humans, and I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of humans with guns. Where's the difficult part in that sentence?

I've already pointed out that our societies, and therefore our views are very different. My idea of freedom is being free to do what I choose without constantly having to defend myself.

The point about the word "drive-by shooting" is, it is an American word, it's an American phenomenon. Did you ever wonder why not a single one of them ever occured in say, Germany, Austria, Ireland?

Your freedom is the ability to step outside your door at any point because you choose to. If you don't step outside because you're scared, that's still your choice, but the freedom to choose still remains.

Ok, give the child another name. So I have freedom and peace of mind. The fact remains, I have it.

Please stop going on about that bear-remark, it was supposed to be funny, sorry if it's not to you.

As for being a pacifist : I know that wars won't stop. What does being a pacifist have to do with my grasp of reality?

You haven't been there, have you? I suggest you study that part in history a bit before making statements about Russia here, the GDR had it's own government and it overthrew it.
You can talk to me about that or to some friends and family members of mine, who took part in the uprising.


I guess it was a really quiet movement in 1987, when I was there. Now, really, do you honestly think if they really didn't want to keep the land, they wouldn't have had their own Tiananmen? Hoo boy.


I'm not afraid of humans, and I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of humans with guns. Where's the difficult part in that sentence?


The point is you're letting your fear control you, and trying to let your fear control others. We're not. We're just trying to be prepared for eventualities. If we're in that kind of a situation, will we be scared, you bet--but we're not going to let our fear get us killed by being unarmed.


I've already pointed out that our societies, and therefore our views are very different. My idea of freedom is being free to do what I choose without constantly having to defend myself.


Yeah, but in communication, you need to use agreed upon standards (we like to call them definitions), and you're trying to bend words to mean something they don't. So use the words you actually mean, instead of mutiliating other words to suit what you feel you think they should mean. Freedom (as it applies to humans) is the ability to choose for oneself--nothing more--no extra attachments (no "security" no "safety"). Freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. YOU are responsible for your own safety. You don't have the right to tell anyone else how to handle theirs. If you're uncomfortable with it, tough--you don't have the right to control others--ever.


The point about the word "drive-by shooting" is, it is an American word, it's an American phenomenon. Did you ever wonder why not a single one of them ever occured in say, Germany, Austria, Ireland?


Is there an equivalent of "23 skidoo" anywhere else? You're going to find several turns of phrase in the American vernacular--just like there are terms and phrases in other languages not found elsewhere as well. You're just trying to use this particular one to somehow prove some point by sensationalizing it.


Ok, give the child another name. So I have freedom and peace of mind. The fact remains, I have it.


No, you don't have freedom. You may think you do, and therefore have that peace of mind--because you've fooled yourself into believing it. Before you flip out, we don't have as much as we used to in the US, either. I'm most certainly not happy about that.


Please stop going on about that bear-remark, it was supposed to be funny, sorry if it's not to you.


When talking about killing, it's never a joke. It's a very serious matter. Especialy when you can be easily killed in the process.


As for being a pacifist : I know that wars won't stop. What does being a pacifist have to do with my grasp of reality?

Because you're forcing your ideals on others. That has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Very much like what the US is pushing on Iraq right now. Do you really want to be like that?

<snip>

Once again, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on others. I'm free and safe over here, you're free and armed over there. I'm not trying to change any of that. Please stop pretending I would be trying to force your guns away from you.

What I was trying to point out is that there are multiple ways of organising and preserving freedom and peace, the US is going there one way, Europe is taking a different approach. Both places are free, but they are using different methods.

Freedom is an abstract concept, the freedom of choice is only part of the whole.
You ALWAYS have the freedom of choice. To remain with my former example, before the GDR freed itself from Socialism, you had just as many choices. You could choose to leave the country. But the consequence was that you either had to risk your life in doing it illegally, or you could wait five years in prison until you were release to the GFR.
You always had the choice to voice your opinion or to keep it to yourself, you just had to face the consequence of maybe ending up in prison for subversive influence.

Freedom in the classical sense means that you have the right to do certain things free of consequence and free of retribution
These are a number of things, generally known as Human Rights.
Your freedom ends where it infringes the freedom of others.
Can we agree on this?

Now, I don't know what you might have been doing in the GDR in 1987, but at that time the country was peaceful, quiet and socialist.
The Monday demonstrations didn't start to become powerful until 1989, after Hungary had opened it's borders to Austria.
Yes, the USSR could have sent tanks to a foreign country once again, as they did in Prague in 1968 or even in Berlin in 1954. They didn't.
The Volkspolizei could have shot at the demonstrators in Leipzig and Berlin, but they didn't.
The GDR could have refused to let the people who camped in the German embassy in Prague travel to the FRG, but it didn't and Gentscher got to deliver his emotional message on that balcony in August.
Events might have gone very differently, that's normal.

Is it now possible for you to agree that two societies can be fundamentally different and still both be free? Or does it bother you that I refuse to take on YOUR beliefs, that the USA is the only safe and free nation on earth because everybody has guns?

Btw, the fact that I'm a pacifist doesn't mean that I expect the rest of the world pacifistic. People are way to short-sighted for that.

Freedom in the classical sense means that you have the right to do certain things free of consequence and free of retribution
These are a number of things, generally known as Human Rights.
Your freedom ends where it infringes the freedom of others.
Can we agree on this?


You bet we can. But feeling "safe" isn't a right--nor is it possible to create an atmosphere of safety. There will always be someone that doesn't feel safe enough. So, legislation can't really funtion to accomplish a goal that isn't possible.


Now, I don't know what you might have been doing in the GDR in 1987, but at that time the country was peaceful, quiet and socialist.


I was an exchange student in what was West Germany and I was visiting Berlin for a bit.


The GDR could have refused to let the people who camped in the German embassy in Prague travel to the FRG, but it didn't and Gentscher got to deliver his emotional message on that balcony in August.
Events might have gone very differently, that's normal.


I'm just saying that if the then USSR didn't want to let go, it would have been different. I'm saying it wasn't the people protesting. It was lack of funding--that's all.


Is it now possible for you to agree that two societies can be fundamentally different and still both be free? Or does it bother you that I refuse to take on YOUR beliefs, that the USA is the only safe and free nation on earth because everybody has guns?


The plethora of laws beyond the basics are what diminishes both our freedoms. We have several more consequences than are actually necessary, thereby infringing upon said freedoms. So, no, neither of our societies are actually free ones. I don't believe that the US is the only safe and free nation on earth. Because it isn't free anymore. Hasn't been for some time. But that's what I fight for--freedom for its citizens.

Using the law to cause your path to be realized is still forcing others.

In previous posts, I have stated that I do not find the statement “More Guns = Less Crime” statistically supportable. This is true, but for different reasons than you might suppose.

Published Crime Statistics are dependant on a single factor – the crime being reported to/investigated by the Police. Attempted crimes that are thwarted are often NOT reported simply because there is no identifiable suspect and “no harm no foul”. In essence, crime statistics are grossly under-representative of the actual number of crimes attempted in the US.

Keeping this in mind, lets approach Canuck’s “More Guns = More Crime” model.

If “More Guns = More Crime”, then the rate of successful/reported crime would rise in direct correlation. It does not, so that statement is a simple non starter.

The oft-cited Lott/Mustard research that generated the book “More Guns = Less Crime” has been sufficiently derided here that I will, for the sake of argument, dismiss their findings. I will, however use the averaged findings of 13 other defensive gun use (DGU) studies taken by independent news and research organizations from 1976 through 1994. (see findings HERE http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/DGUstudies.jpg )

Even when including the n/a datasets (that is, to assume that there were NO DGUs for that study) the Mean # of implied annual DGUs is 1,425,790.46 with a median of 1,414,544.

Assuming for the moment that ½ of these DGU were the result of an unarmed criminal attack and led to no increase in the “crime count” used in “Crime Statistics” (because the criminal ran away), 710,083.6 otherwise reportable crimes went unreported because the “victim” had a firearm.

Given that in an average year in the US, there are some 500,000 gun-related crimes, if we waved our magic wand and all guns were to disappear – (and none were manufactured at home to replace them) AND we are to assume (equally irrationally) that NONE of those 500,000 gun-related crimes would have been committed without the access to a gun, there would have still been –AT A MINIMUM – 210,000 MORE crimes committed in the absence of firearms then in their presence.

So, in sum, while it is inaccurate to claim “More Guns = Less Crime”, it is not at all inaccurate to claim that, in the US, “More Guns = Less SUCCESSFUL Crime”. Given that US paradigm, (yes, we have a LOT of criminal activity… in any other country the Military would already be involved…) efforts to disarm the population are hopelessly naïve and dangerous.

I don't resent anybody but those that stayed out of the real world too long or never entered it tend to be woefully myopic.



\

You know, I've stepped up to the plate for guns on a number of occasions, but I gotta call bullshit on that. With education, especially higer education, you get exactly what you seek. Sure, you can spend four years studying underwater basket weaving with a minor in bongsmithing, but you can also spend four years becoming a more productive, useful citizen. Once you move past the undergraduate level, this becomes even more true. There are only two reasons to resent academia, ignorance or sour grapes.

And before you even consider it, go back and take a look at my previous posts before you spew some kinda "classic liberal" crap back at me.

Not only am I older than you my children are older than you.
You have unmitigated gall to make any statements about one making sweeping generalisations.
With balls that big do you have to have your pants custom made?



How dare you just assume that because I'm younger than you, I'm not mature enough to know myself!

Of course I know where I stand religiously and politically.

And to make your sweeping generalisation is very hypocritical of you. ;)

I was right my kids are older than you


Well I'm fifteen and I can easily understand that. However, there are some teenagers who aren't complete morons as you would think, most of the people I know, wouldn't really no that, but I do, and I know it as a fact.

Not only am I older than you my children are older than you.
You have unmitigated gall to make any statements about one making sweeping generalisations.
With balls that big do you have to have your pants custom made?

Well, I could say that this sounds a lot like flaming.

The fall of Socialism in the DDR was a result of 45 years of the Cold War and MILLIONS of lives in places like Korea, Vietnam and Afganistan were the Superpowers fought by proxy.


That's why I quoted the fall of Socialism in East Germany. Not a single shot was fired... not one.

I live in Chicago, I'd be a fool not to be.

True. Chiago police are #2 on the corruption scale, right behind New Haven, CT.

No a statement of fact my children are indeed older than him/her.

Also to call me down for making a blanket statement after throwing around a closet full of their own makes my statement hyberbole.
Well, I could say that this sounds a lot like flaming.

I take a bit of a moderate approach when it comes to guns. I don't have anything against guns themselves. In fact, if I had a gun and someone came after me, I would shoot them in the leg... if I saw a weapon on them, I would shoot somewhere else and not worry about their life. Like someone said, people that break into homes and attack you aren't there to be friends. I wouldn't shoot to kill over a TV, but I would if I saw a weapon or felt as if my life was in danger (or if someone was trying to rape me).

As far as killing animals, I really am not for it at all... BUT, I know that when the deer population gets out of hand, people's lives are in danger. When the animal population threatens people's lives, something MUST be done. Driving in OH or PA is HORRIBLE when the deer come out... a deer that was hit on the side of the road at least once every five miles... not safe at all and very dangerous.

On a side note, is Chicage really THAT bad of a place to live? I am considering graduate shcool there, but your posts that mention Chicago are making me think twice....


Where are you considering Grad school? I've grown up in Chicago my entire life. Like any big city, you have good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. My major problems with my home lie in the gun laws and the overwhelming corruption of the Mayor. Still, if you are a law abiding citizen and you don't "look like a criminal" (read, young, black, or in the wrong neighborhood) you should be fine. Just be polite to cops if you get in trouble and stay out of areas that look bad.

Guns kill my enemies! Basically anyone that opposes my laws or beliefs! :sniper: Aren't guns great!

The oft-cited Lott/Mustard research that generated the book “More Guns = Less Crime” has been sufficiently derided here that I will, for the sake of argument, dismiss their findings.

Please explain. I mean, there is the fact that Lott likes to talk himself up, but besides that, please explain how you can dismiss simple statistical analysis. The basic data was supplied by the FBI and the ANOVA tests are pretty straight forward.

What have guns done for me? Apart from the continuing struggle of freeing my land they help me kill rodents..ie, brits

Well, they have kept *them* back on their side of the pond. Although, some here might not be too concerned if they tried to "take back" Massachusetts.

Please explain. I mean, there is the fact that Lott likes to talk himself up, but besides that, please explain how you can dismiss simple statistical analysis. The basic data was supplied by the FBI and the ANOVA tests are pretty straight forward.
I know that. Sometimes you have to give your opponent a little concession to get your point across. I was making the point that even without Lott/Mustard the evidence is still there for massive amounts of DGU in the US, that those DGUs = unreported/non-statistical criminal activity, and that without the presence of firearms the crime statistics WILL rise in proportion to the number of DGUs that would be impossible.