NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had a look at the Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) , as they keep getting refered to in this Forum again and again. I had the general impression that it is not very clear what rights this declaration is talking about specifically, or else that not everybody agrees with them.

So, I picked out a few (there's way too many to list them all) and would like to see which of those you agree with.

How about the right of self defence?

How about the right of self defence?

It's not in the declaration as such, but I think it would be included in the "Right to security of person"

All of the above! :)

All but liberty and property.
"Liberty" is merely a means of describing a certain political state. I believe no nation has the right to influence anotther nation's political system.
"Property" is used to justify all kinds of crap and badly defined. It can only hold in conjunction with a clause that says: "Property creates Responsibility" - like in the German constitution for example.

All except "Other" are very nice sentiments, and the world would be a better place if all of them were agreed upon as being fundamental rights.

Sadly, they are not enforced or enforceable outside the First World, and many of the Third Worlds' worst violators get a 'pass' because they talk about what they are doing using 'progressive' language that appeals to people who've never experienced sustained deprivation of those rights.

I'd love to see the Right of Self-Defense added, though; it would be a good guardian of the others-better by far than relying on the kindness of megalomaniac government thugs.

I'd love to see the Right of Self-Defense added, though; it would be a good guardian of the others-better by far than relying on the kindness of megalomaniac government thugs.
A right to exercise violence contradicts a number of the other ones.

I picked all but Right to Life and Education, though I am rethinking the first. The reason I picked the first was because I support the death penalty, but I think it would be more accurate to say the person had given up their right to life when they committed the crime...

No on Right to Education when it comes to college. If you want college, work for it. Get a scholarship if you can, grants if you can, loans if you must. It would be nice if every student who could make it in college, mentally, did but it takes hard work just to get there.

I would argue against the statement that a right to self-defence contradicts the other rights. The most obvious ones that it could contradict would be life and security. However, if the violence is in self-defense, it is impossible by definition to use this in any aggressive manner. Therefore, if excersized properly, this right could only be used when reacting to another who is attempting to violate your right to life and security, thereby forfeiting his own.

Of course, self-defense stops once the enemy is no longer a threat. For example, when the mugger has been beat down and is limping away you can't keep swinging your baseball bat till he stops moving.

A right to exercise violence contradicts a number of the other ones.

Which? I don't see any contradiction-when violence is offered, it by nature suspends niceties, and is at base the violation of your rights (Liberty, security, life, property?) A Right that is not enforceable is not a right. Enforcement is only possible in most cases, with the threat of violence, or the actual doing of violence. Whether that violence comes from the State, or from the Individual makes little difference save one: Most often, your Human Rights are being abused by the The STATE, or by the armed-and-violent representatives of that state. further, there is no right to commit Rape, to enslave, or to Rob someone. Criminals (those who do not respect either the law, or the rights of others) will not be stopped by stern notes. Bullets stop criminals. does it matter if the rapist is gunned down by his victim, or by the state when he declines to be arrested?

here's where it matters: The state is only obliged to act after-the-fact. The Victim should have the right to prevent the crime from happening in the first goddamned place.

Did not tick them all as some need to be more tightly described before I would sign up to them. The right to property for example, very vague!

...Bullets stop criminals. does it matter if the rapist is gunned down by his victim, or by the state when he declines to be arrested?

here's where it matters: The state is only obliged to act after-the-fact. The Victim should have the right to prevent the crime from happening in the first goddamned place.
I'm glad I don't live in your country.

(NOTE: THIS IS OOC AND REFLECTS PERSONAL OPINONS ONLY! MY NATION DOES NOT REQURE HUMAN RIGHTS AS IT'S A COLLECTIVE CONSIOUSNESS)

Right to life: The phrase has been currupted to basically mean the restriction/banning of abortion and therefore not a human right (as the phrase prohibits restrictions/bannings)
Verdict=REJECTED

Right to security of person and safety from torture or inhuman treatment: This is essential as it's aboloishment would destroy the foundations of civilised sociaty. Torture is NEVER justified.
Verdict=Approved

Right to liberty: Liberty is the human ideal. Without it, we're better-off dead.
Verdict=Approved

Right to equality before the law: All men and women of all races, colors, beliefs, and backgrounds are ALL equal. We are all humans.
Verdict=Approved

Right to property: This is a tough call. While what is earned by one person is theirs by right, this leads to things like greed which inadvertantly leads to human suffering.
Verdict=Partially approved

Freedom of religion: Without the freedom of belief, the right to liberty is contridicted.
Verdict=Approved

Freedom of expression: Same as freedom of religion. Human beings have free-will for a REASON!
Verdict=Approved

Right to education: Education is the key to solving all the world's problems. Without knowledge, we are nothing but beasts.
Verdict=Approved

Right to bear arms: This can only lead to violent crime. Hunting is one thing, but criminals with guns are FAR more dangerous then criminals without them. If it's harder for them to get guns, then there are fewer violent crimes.
Verdict=REJECTED

Freedom of the press: I will only say this once. "Information is the key to controlling all of civilisation. Beware of he who controls your information, for in his heart he deems himself your master." Without this right, even the most liberal democracies can form into a shadow-dictatorship.
Verdict=Approved

Right to fair and unbiased elections: IF MAN CANNOT CHOSE HIS OWN LEADERS THEN MAN IS UNFIT TO CALL HIMSELF INTELLEGENT
Verdict=APPROVED

(NOTE: THIS IS OOC AND REFLECTS PERSONAL OPINONS ONLY! MY NATION DOES NOT REQURE HUMAN RIGHTS AS IT'S A COLLECTIVE CONSIOUSNESS)

Right to life: The phrase has been currupted to basically mean the restriction/banning of abortion and therefore not a human right (as the phrase prohibits restrictions/bannings)
Verdict=REJECTED

Well, that depends on your definition of "human life", I guess. Many argue that you can't call an embryo a human being until the 3rd month of pregnancy, therefore whatever you choose to do before that time doesn't really interfere with its rights.


Right to property: This is a tough call. While what is earned by one person is theirs by right, this leads to things like greed which inadvertantly leads to human suffering.
Verdict=Partially approved

"Property means responsibility" is a phrase from the German constitution that I would like to see incorporated in this charta.
Yes, you do have the right to own things. That's a human right. But you do not have the right to use your property in any way you seem fit, it's society's right to limit that freedom.


Right to bear arms: This can only lead to violent crime. Hunting is one thing, but criminals with guns are FAR more dangerous then criminals without them. If it's harder for them to get guns, then there are fewer violent crimes.
Verdict=REJECTED



The right to bear arms is NOT a human right, and I don't think it ever will be. Thank goodness for that.

i always bear arms...
i dont wear long sleeves. :D

I'm for all of them. Plus others.

Right to fair and unbiased elections: IF MAN CANNOT CHOSE HIS OWN LEADERS THEN MAN IS UNFIT TO CALL HIMSELF INTELLEGENT
Verdict=APPROVED
B~ll~cks!
Democracy is as good or bad as any other type of Gov. Many cultures and societies florish without it.

B~ll~cks!
Democracy is as good or bad as any other type of Gov. Many cultures and societies florish without it.
Seconded.

I put self defense in "Other", since "security of person" implies that another body would be in charge of it.

And since police and military cannot be everywhere at once, it is impossible for a second party to "secure" me or any other individual, without infringing on my freedom.

I am violently against Other. Other should be wiped off the planet and anyone who supports Other should be shot on sight.

I support a right to bear arms. I mean, people get held up at knife point all the time; should we ban knives next?

Knives are less dangerous than guns. With a knife you can threaten, and possibly kill a man/woman, but with a shotgun you can kill dozens of people within a minute. Most deaths were caused by another self-defender and not by criminals and terrorists. Right to bear arms is unnecessary IMHO.

Freedom of religion: It's nice, but there needs to be some clause about "freedom to NOT have other people force their religion on you". It'd make people much happier.
Freedom of expression:This is dwindling, partially due to oversenstive parents who can't be assed to monitor what their kids see, partially due to overly moralistic conservatives, and partially because people are idiots who don't want to see things they don't like.
Right to marry:Article 16 is an interesting one. It says that men and women of full(legal?) age have the right to marry and found a family. It doesn't say anything about the men and women having to marry the opposite sex. Hmm...
Right to leisure:We have a right to that? Sweet!
Right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family:Including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. We'd better get to work on utilizing out that one...
Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. If this doesn't give any rights to engage in activies, what was the point of the last 29 articles? Just a nice list that has no legal meaning? :/

Knives are less dangerous than guns. With a knife you can threaten, and possibly kill a man/woman, but with a shotgun you can kill dozens of people within a minute. Most deaths were caused by another self-defender and not by criminals and terrorists. Right to bear arms is unnecessary IMHO.

You don't have to reload with a knife. Knives can kill just as easily as a firearm can. Most deaths by shooting are NOT caused by a self-defender (and even if they were, why does the schmuck who attacked you get to live anyway?)--they are caused by police or criminals.

Right to arms IS the right to self defense (doesn't have to be a firearm necessarily). Do you really think the police can be everywhere, at any time, to be there to defend you?

Criminals will always have access to guns. There is no way around that. Since the police and military cannot be everywhere, and some words on paper stating that firearms are illegal surely won't stop a criminal, why deny the right of a citizen to defend themselves? It doesn't make sense.

I also believe in the saidly diminished, if not defunct, right to privacy.

... Just a nice list that has no legal meaning? :/
Exactly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding international agreement by itself; the question of whether it represents customary international law is open. However, there are two legally-binding human rights Covenants based upon the UDHR, 1) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 2) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

I also believe in the saidly diminished, if not defunct, right to privacy.

That would be a good one to have back, yes. :(

You don't have to reload with a knife. Knives can kill just as easily as a firearm can. Most deaths by shooting are NOT caused by a self-defender (and even if they were, why does the schmuck who attacked you get to live anyway?)--they are caused by police or criminals.

Right to arms IS the right to self defense (doesn't have to be a firearm necessarily). Do you really think the police can be everywhere, at any time, to be there to defend you?

Criminals will always have access to guns. There is no way around that. Since the police and military cannot be everywhere, and some words on paper stating that firearms are illegal surely won't stop a criminal, why deny the right of a citizen to defend themselves? It doesn't make sense.

With knives you can't kill anyone from a distance and it makes you think twice before attacking against someone.

Right to self defense is not just right to kill every criminal and pickpocket who stumbels in your way. When you kill someone, he can't get another chance to start a whole new life. Proper punishment is necessary, but my point was that every gun-armed self-defender can't be the right man to share justice.

Not every criminal can just order a gun for hundred credit. To sell firearms in every smalltown guarantees that everyone who wants a gun can have one. The way I see it, there would be less gunners in the street if the government would make it harder to get firearms.

With knives you can't kill anyone from a distance and it makes you think twice before attacking against someone.


Knives can be thrown--effectively. Ever shot at a moving target just 30 feet away? It's not easy. Don't be fooled by movies. Nice assumption about thinking twice, BTW. For those of us who carry, lethal force is the LAST option.


Right to self defense is not just right to kill every criminal and pickpocket who stumbels in your way.


You're right. You're also assuming that's what everyone with a gun will automatically do what you just described. Not the case--if it were, the murder rate by firearms in the US would be in the millions (we do have over 80 million gun owners and 300 million guns).


When you kill someone, he can't get another chance to start a whole new life. Proper punishment is necessary, but my point was that every gun-armed self-defender can't be the right man to share justice.


Hey, you're the one assuming (incorrectly I might add) that everyone who has been shot dies. There's a 60% survival rate, actually. Also, you're assuming that when a firearm comes out that it will be fired. Also an incorrect assumption on your part. Firearms are used up to 2.5 million times per year in the US, to stop crime--a much higher number than the 12.5K murders with them. Stop assuming someone will die in the mere presence of a firearm.


Not every criminal can just order a gun for hundred credit. To sell firearms in every smalltown guarantees that everyone who wants a gun can have one. The way I see it, there would be less gunners in the street if the government would make it harder to get firearms.

The only thing stricter guns laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get guns. It never stops the trafficking of weapons. The world has proven that criminals that don't use guns can (and do) still kill. Disarming the law-abiding populace is most certainly not the answer.

And also, when guns are harder to get, crime rises dramaticly.

Country's with stricter gun control laws such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain have more burglaries of occupied homes per capita than the United States. Canada's burglary rate of occupied homes is more than three times that of the United States. The UK's rape, robbery, burglary, and assault rate's are all substantially higher than in the United States.

I'll cite sources if you need them. ;)

And also, when guns are harder to get, crime rises dramaticly.

Country's with stricter gun control laws such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain have more burglaries of occupied homes per capita than the United States. Canada's burglary rate of occupied homes is more than three times that of the United States. The UK's rape, robbery, burglary, and assault rate's are all substantially higher than in the United States.

I'll cite sources if you need them. ;)

Heck, I'd like to see them, just to have the extra ammo. Thanks!

Right to marry:Article 16 is an interesting one. It says that men and women of full(legal?) age have the right to marry and found a family. It doesn't say anything about the men and women having to marry the opposite sex. Hmm...

Read more carefully. It does not say men and women have a right to marry only members of the opposite sex. It does not say only that a man and a woman have a right to marry each other.

It says men and women have a right to marry and start a family. Same-sex couples can start a family.

Particularly in light of the several provisions regarding equal rights and equal protection under the law, this means a right to marry. Period. Whether it be someone of the same or other gender.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. If this doesn't give any rights to engage in activies, what was the point of the last 29 articles? Just a nice list that has no legal meaning? :/

Again, read more carefully. It says: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

It does not say you have no right to engage in activities protected in the first 29 articiles. To the contrary, it says you do not necessarily have a right to engage in activies that attempt to destroy any of the first 29 rights and freedoms.

Define "Right to property."

Is it a right to have a house, flat aparement etc or a right to private property?

I just had a look at the Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) , as they keep getting refered to in this Forum again and again. I had the general impression that it is not very clear what rights this declaration is talking about specifically, or else that not everybody agrees with them.

So, I picked out a few (there's way too many to list them all) and would like to see which of those you agree with.
I agree with all of them. In fact, that document is the basis for most of my political beliefs. My doctrine, if you will.

Of course, self-defense stops once the enemy is no longer a threat. For example, when the mugger has been beat down and is limping away you can't keep swinging your baseball bat till he stops moving.
I agree. To many people on this forum, particularly Americans (sorry), the right to self-defense, which I agree with, seems to mean the right to use lethal force in self-defense, which I don't agree with, unless it's absolutely necessary.

I'd love to see the Right of Self-Defense added, though; it would be a good guardian of the others-better by far than relying on the kindness of megalomaniac government thugs.
I agree, but that right would be no more enforceable than the other rights. Even if you have a gun, you can't stop the government removing that right.

I support a right to bear arms. I mean, people get held up at knife point all the time; should we ban knives next?
Now you're using Tony Blair logic!

You're right. You're also assuming that's what everyone with a gun will automatically do what you just described. Not the case--if it were, the murder rate by firearms in the US would be in the millions (we do have over 80 million gun owners and 300 million guns).
Countries with stricter gun control laws such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain have more burglaries of occupied homes per capita than the United States. Canada's burglary rate of occupied homes is more than three times that of the United States. The UK's rape, robbery, burglary, and assault rate's are all substantially higher than in the United States.

To be fair, the murder rate per capita in America is outrageously high, relative to other countries.

To be fair, the murder rate per capita in America is outrageously high, relative to other countries.

Too true, Tattoo. :(

bump!

I'll cite sources if you need them.
If you don't mind I'd like to see them too...

And 40% lethality rate is darn high compared to how much less chances would be if you would try to throw a knife. I'm not saying that knives are safer or more humane, but they would surely prevent many deaths in some cases. Not that I have anything against self defense, but I'd rather let my wallet go than trying to reach my pocket for a gun.

To be fair, the murder rate per capita in America is outrageously high, relative to other countries.
Correct. But only murder and rape are more common in the US than the UK, with it's stricter gun laws. ;)

United States of America 2003 Crime Rates According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/toc03.pdf)

14,408 Murder Victims Total
Murder Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 5.7
Table of Cause of Death (http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/825/2003crime0ay.jpg)
Rape Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 32.1
Robbery Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 142.2
Agravated Assault Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 295.0
Burglary Rate: 740.5 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants.

United Kingdom Crime Rates

The best source I could find for UK crime per 100,000 inhabitants:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$3G0FU5MCAIUF1QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html&secureRefresh=true (Which cites the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention)

Assault Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 851
Burglary Rate per 100,000 inhabitants: 1,579

Due to the UK not putting there crime rates for other crimes, which are reported by Home Office, the source I will use is an article by by Jeremy D. Blanks, Ph.D. (http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm).

Canada

Five times as many burglaries were committed against occupied residences in Canada than in the United States[Footnote 177].
A Toronto study found that 48% of burglaries were against occupied homes, and 21% involved a confrontation with the victim.[Footnote 178]
Only 13% of United States residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes[Footnote 179].
Most Canadian residential burglaries occur in the nighttime, while American burglars prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of a confrontation. When an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is at least equal to his chance of being sent to jail.[Footnote 180]
Since Bill C-51 took effect, the breaking and entering rate in Canada rose 25%, and has even surpassed the American rate.[Footnote181]

Orginal Sources cited by another source (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html):

Gary Kleck, Crime Control Though the Private Use of Armed Force, 35 Social Problems 16 (Feb. 1988) [hereinafter Gary Kleck, Crime Control]; Norman Okihiro, Burglary: The Victim and the Police 31 (1978); [U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Household Burglary 4 (1985) [hereinafter Household Burglary].

A study of an unnamed "northern city" in Ontario for the years 1965-70 also appears to show a relatively high level of burglary against occupied residences. The study reported that 12.2% of burglaries were committed in the daytime, 69.5% were at night, and 18.3% were unknown. Arguably, no person was home for the "unknown burglaries" since if someone had been home, the time of entry would be known. See Peter Chimbros, [b]A Study of Breaking and Entering Offenses in 'Northern City' Ontario, in Crime in Canadian[/i] Society 325 (Robert A. Silverman & James J. Teevan Jr. eds. 1975).

See Norman Okihiro, supra note 177.

See Household Burglary, supra note 177.

See Under the Gun, supra note 170, at 139 (the risk of either outcome for a burglar is about one to two percent). Other criminologists similarly attribute the preference of American burglars for daytime over nighttime entry to burglars' fears of confronting an armed homeowner. See George Rengert and John Wasilchick, Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything 30 (1985); J. Conklin, Robbery and the Criminal Justice System 85 (1972).

See Blackman, The Canadian Gun Law, supra note 161, at 19.

Correct.

Now, I'll cite the sources and edit this post soon. ;)

If you must take us down this side-alley, please post actual original statistical sources and not second- or third- hand assertions. Thanks.

If you don't mind I'd like to see them too...

And 40% lethality rate is darn high compared to how much less chances would be if you would try to throw a knife. I'm not saying that knives are safer or more humane, but they would surely prevent many deaths in some cases. Not that I have anything against self defense, but I'd rather let my wallet go than trying to reach my pocket for a gun.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: Many criminals in the US are killing victims more, to cover their tracks. So, when you give up your wallet, there's still a really high chance of you being killed, so you can't identify them.

This may seem reprehesible to you, but yes, that person who is willing to attack me to get something I own is much less important to me than that which I have sacrificed my time, effort, and income to obtain.

Then there is the human relations side--anyone trying to attack someone I care about--their life is pretty much forfeit at that point. They have no rights when it comes to attacking another human being. They give them up, when they choose to assault someone.

Humans have no intrinsic rights save those granted by the state. As such, I believe in none of the rights as granted by this so called "Declaration of Rights", only in those that match the rights of a British Subject.

...a much higher number than the 12.5K murders with them...
Well, you know it is higher than that...also, check the number of murders on countries like France in Germany. Multiply them to account for population.

I say, if you must have guns, just make the bullets a thousand dollars a magazine. Some comedian said it, but it does make sense. If your safety is so important to you, you'll afford it, but you'll think twice before you blast all over the time.

Well, you know it is higher than that...also, check the number of murders on countries like France in Germany. Multiply them to account for population.


Nope, murders by handguns are around 12,500 per year. It's not higher than that in the US. The only reason I'm using the US is because we've got the highest murder rate with firearms. Then again, we also have the highest number of crimes stopped with them as well (the 2.5 million previously noted).


I say, if you must have guns, just make the bullets a thousand dollars a magazine. Some comedian said it, but it does make sense. If your safety is so important to you, you'll afford it, but you'll think twice before you blast all over the time.

Not wise--that just about sums up Chris Rock's idea. You must practice to be a responsible weilder. "Blast all over"--wow. You really don't know much about gun owners, do you?

Humans have no intrinsic rights save those granted by the state. As such, I believe in none of the rights as granted by this so called "Declaration of Rights", only in those that match the rights of a British Subject.

I'll say bullshit to that. The state isn't my parent, or guardian, or nanny. They don't have the right to determine what is mine, what I do, or what I think. It's people that think like what you posted above that keep the world's populaces in chains. To think that one human has authority over another....sheesh.

a) Nope, murders by handguns are around 12,500 per year.
b) "Blast all over"--wow. You really don't know much about gun owners, do you?
a) Then gimme a link. Just for good measure.
b) You know what I mean...one would think twice before firing at something or someone if the cost of that is so much greater. Simple Economics would suggest you would wait until you really are certain that you are in danger.
Judging by the number of family members shot by their relatives, that currently isn't the case.

a) Then gimme a link. Just for good measure.
b) You know what I mean...one would think twice before firing at something or someone if the cost of that is so much greater. Simple Economics would suggest you would wait until you really are certain that you are in danger.
Judging by the number of family members shot by their relatives, that currently isn't the case.

A: http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/resources_factsheets_homicide2.pdf
From an anti-gun site, even. That was for the year 2000.

B: Those of us who carry definitely think several times over already. Pricing defense out of reach is just as bad as banning it. Then you get the elites with money only able to defend themselves against criminals. Brilliant.

Where are you getting your stats of family members shot by their relatives? Please post that link.

A: http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/resources_factsheets_homicide2.pdf
From an anti-gun site, even. That was for the year 2000.

B: Where are you getting your stats of family members shot by their relatives? Please post that link.
a) But following that there are also some interesting stats about injuries caused by firearms that led to death. Somewhere double that every year since 1972...

b)http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home
Now, that is probably the most biased website on the web, but they provide references as well. Feel free to go digging, but I reckon the Police Depts for example are fairly neutral when they collect their data.

a) But following that there are also some interesting stats about injuries caused by firearms that led to death. Somewhere double that every year since 1972...


Uh huh...it's still an anti site. I just pointed it out so you'd accept the 12.5K.


b)http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home
Now, that is probably the most biased website on the web, but they provide references as well. Feel free to go digging, but I reckon the Police Depts for example are fairly neutral when they collect their data.

Leonstein, the Brady's constantly pad their numbers--things like including 24 year olds in "children" related stats.

Anything you post from them is automatically a lie, meant to completely disarm the universe.

I know we'll never find a truly neutral source for firearms, but man, don't use the Brady site.

How about the right of self defence?
Right to security and safety is good enough

Right to security and safety is good enough

Maybe for you. The government will not always be there to help you. And if they were, you certainly wouldn't be safe anymore.

since "security of person" implies that another body would be in charge of it.no it does not...you can defend yourself..and your family

Anything you post from them is automatically a lie, meant to completely disarm the universe.
Well that's not exactly a valid argument.
As I said, there are references provided, from third parties.
The valid one to my point is mainly the work of Arthur L Kellerman, who is a recognised authority in emergency medicine research.
He wrote much about guns and did research on their effectiveness when it comes to home defence. He is not anti-gun himself, he likes shooting for sport. Yet his research shows that one is 22x more likely to shoot a family member rather than an actual intruder, and more.
If you have access to scientific journals, I would point to:
Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

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.

Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72.

Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.

Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." The Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2, August 1988

He has also established that even if there is a gun at home, it is used for defence in less than 2% of home invasions. But I don't have an article for that.

The right to bear arms is NOT a human right, and I don't think it ever will be. Thank goodness for that.

Thank goodness you aren't in a position to decide what my rights are and aren't. Until there's no more criminals or government thuggery in this world, then yes I do have the right to proper self defense tools.

I'm glad I don't live in your country.

Yeah, that's pretty horrible that my country still recognizes our right to defend ourselves, rather than forcing us to rely on police forces which are not omnipotent or omnipresent. Lick the boots of your government masters, slave. I'll stand ready with my self defense tools to defend my family and myself.

Yeah, that's pretty horrible that my country still recognizes our right to defend ourselves, rather than forcing us to rely on police forces which are not omnipotent or omnipresent. Lick the boots of your government masters, slave. I'll stand ready with my self defense tools to defend my family and myself.
Democratic government is the servant of the people and not the other way around. People would live in utter anarchy if there would be no governments. State offers you many great services like education, healthcare, public transportation, police forces etc. to you.
Government against People isn't constructive society.
Government working with People is the principle of modern welfare-state.

Thank goodness you aren't in a position to decide what my rights are and aren't. Until there's no more criminals or government thuggery in this world, then yes I do have the right to proper self defense tools.

You've got the right to drive a car, too, and it's still not a human right.
I just love the way American gun fanatics blow things out of all proprtion and then act insulted...

Yeah, that's pretty horrible that my country still recognizes our right to defend ourselves, rather than forcing us to rely on police forces which are not omnipotent or omnipresent. Lick the boots of your government masters, slave. I'll stand ready with my self defense tools to defend my family and myself.

Funny how we don't even need our governments to protect us... because, you see, mine has a very, very small military indeed and its police are not even carrying guns. And still - guess what - nobody in my family, no friend of mine, no colleague of mine has ever been victim to any crime, apart from petty theft.

The complete list of human rights is: Life, Liberty, Property. All the ones listed, except the "right" to education are special cases of those.

Then I'd like to comment on another thing.

Democratic government is the servant of the people and not the other way around. People would live in utter anarchy if there would be no governments. State offers you many great services like education, healthcare, public transportation, police forces etc. to you.
That's utterly ridiculus. If the government would monopolize the shoemakeing industry and force you to buy five pairs of military boots per year, would you then say "State offers you many great services like shoes"? The state does not give me any of those, it prevents me from starting my own school or hospital, and it forces me to buy their services, instead of some other that I might prefer.

The complete list of human rights is: Life, Liberty, Property. All the ones listed, except the "right" to education are special cases of those.

Then I'd like to comment on another thing.


That's utterly ridiculus. If the government would monopolize the shoemakeing industry and force you to buy five pairs of military boots per year, would you then say "State offers you many great services like shoes"? The state does not give me any of those, it prevents me from starting my own school or hospital, and it forces me to buy their services, instead of some other that I might prefer.


You do know that you can leave your state and choose to use the services of another, if you want to?
You cannot be forced to live in any one state if you don't want to, according to human rights...

You do know that you can leave your state and choose to use the services of another, if you want to?
You cannot be forced to live in any one state if you don't want to, according to human rights...
1) I Can't choose to not pay for the services of any state.
2) I should not have to leave my country to have my human rights.

1) I Can't choose to not pay for the services of any state.
2) I should not have to leave my country to have my human rights.

1) Well, yes, you could. But it would mean living in an area were there are no states, Antarctica might be one. As it is, every bit of land is owned by one group of people or another (you can also call them states if you want), there's not much land left that doesn't already belong to any of them.
2) Your country is exactly that, your state. If you don't like its services, either use the political tools you have to change them or else select another provider.... that's capitalism.

no it does not...you can defend yourself..and your family

Okee doke, then.

Well that's not exactly a valid argument.
As I said, there are references provided, from third parties.
The valid one to my point is mainly the work of Arthur L Kellerman, who is a recognised authority in emergency medicine research.
He wrote much about guns and did research on their effectiveness when it comes to home defence. He is not anti-gun himself, he likes shooting for sport. Yet his research shows that one is 22x more likely to shoot a family member rather than an actual intruder, and more.
If you have access to scientific journals, I would point to:
Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

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.

Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72.

Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.

Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." The Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2, August 1988

He has also established that even if there is a gun at home, it is used for defence in less than 2% of home invasions. But I don't have an article for that.


Ah, but like the rest of anti-gun research, it only revolves around guns. It never takes into account the global aspect of crime.

Many defenses of homes and persons using firearms are never reported.

If you look hard enough, you will find out that you're several times more likely to die by a hammer, if you have it in the house...Kellermann's using sensationalist "statistics".

You've got the right to drive a car, too, and it's still not a human right.
I just love the way American gun fanatics blow things out of all proprtion and then act insulted...

Actually, no, that's not a right. You have to obtain permission from the government to legally drive.

Actually, no, that's not a right. You have to obtain permission from the government to legally drive.

Wow, and you don't go through the roof because of that? considering that cars are even less dangerous than guns and are absolutely vital to get around the US?

See, where I am, you can get a government permission to own a gun. Or one to drive. Or both.
I don't really think either should be a right (meaning "available without training, proof you can handle it and permission to handle it), but there you go...

The complete list of human rights is: Life, Liberty, Property. All the ones listed, except the "right" to education are special cases of those.

Then I'd like to comment on another thing.


That's utterly ridiculus. If the government would monopolize the shoemakeing industry and force you to buy five pairs of military boots per year, would you then say "State offers you many great services like shoes"? The state does not give me any of those, it prevents me from starting my own school or hospital, and it forces me to buy their services, instead of some other that I might prefer.
Governement offers you many options and if you don't like them, you can just pick another (private healthcare or private school). It doesn't mean you have to use state-provided/free healthcare to please your government. And, as stated before, you can always choose where to live. Government can't stop you from leaving the country.

Wow, and you don't go through the roof because of that? considering that cars are even less dangerous than guns and are absolutely vital to get around the US?


I didn't say I LIKED having to get a license. And cars kill MANY more people than guns do.


See, where I am, you can get a government permission to own a gun. Or one to drive. Or both.
I don't really think either should be a right (meaning "available without training, proof you can handle it and permission to handle it), but there you go...

There you have it. I don't believe I should have to ask permission of someone else to be able to do something, when I have yet to act irresponsibly. I don't believe in punishing first.

Governement offers you many options and if you don't like them, you can just pick another (private healthcare or private school). It doesn't mean you have to use state-provided/free healthcare to please your government.


No, but it sure means you still have to pay for it. There's the part that's wrong.


And, as stated before, you can always choose where to live. Government can't stop you from leaving the country.

Government also can't stop you from changing the government, either. At least not in the US. And that's the point. It's never, "If you don't like it, get the f*&k out". You get enough people to agree with you, and vote to change things.

If you look hard enough, you will find out that you're several times more likely to die by a hammer, if you have it in the house...Kellermann's using sensationalist "statistics".
Very likely. But no one buys a hammer and then claims he can defend himself from harm with it.
And don't start with statistics. I assume you know very little about the mathematics behind the work someone like Kellermann does. I learn all about it, and I can tell you now...there is nothing as perfect as inferential statistics.
He like shooting. His speciality is emergency medicine research. He did research into gun ownership - and that is what he got as a result.
Certainly less biased than anything the NRA could publish to support their "defense against crimes" campaign.

I didn't say I LIKED having to get a license. And cars kill MANY more people than guns do.



There you have it. I don't believe I should have to ask permission of someone else to be able to do something, when I have yet to act irresponsibly. I don't believe in punishing first.


I don't regard that as punishment at all.
I think it's justified that, if you are about to give a potenitally lethal item (be that a car or a gun) to a person, you first ask him to prove that he/she can handle it responsibly, at least in the way the item was intended to be used.

If I remember correctly, a big arguement of the pro-gun side is that guns are only dangerous when used by people who are unfamiliar with it and don't know how to use it correctly. By introducing training and a license you can make sure that at least those people who legally get a gun know how to use it, right?
I know there will always be people obtaining guns illegally, just like there will always be people driving without license, so it would be a compromise. But saving just one single life this way would justify it, in my eyes.

Very likely. But no one buys a hammer and then claims he can defend himself from harm with it.


I would. You have a VERY effective club, with some sharp parts, too. Hammers were used effectively as weapons for centuries. Admittedly, those war hammers were more effective than todays nail bashers, but 20 ounces of sharp or flattened steel will be very effective as a weapon.


And don't start with statistics. I assume you know very little about the mathematics behind the work someone like Kellermann does. I learn all about it, and I can tell you now...there is nothing as perfect as inferential statistics.


Riiiiight. Statistics can be used at any time to prove anything. I've seen it to prove both sides of the same argument.


He like shooting. His speciality is emergency medicine research. He did research into gun ownership - and that is what he got as a result.
Certainly less biased than anything the NRA could publish to support their "defense against crimes" campaign.

Funny, I've seen anthropologists research gun ownership as well, and come to the conclusion that it's not the tool, it's the human. I don't like to use NRA stats because they are viewed as I view the Brady stats. It doesn't matter if he likes shooting or not--he still doesn't believe in self-responsibility, and that has colored his stats to prove what he wants to prove.

1. Riiiiight. Statistics can be used at any time to prove anything. I've seen it to prove both sides of the same argument.

2. It doesn't matter if he likes shooting or not--he still doesn't believe in self-responsibility, and that has colored his stats to prove what he wants to prove.
1. Do you know what inferential statistics is? If not, then start googling.
2. Prove it. Is it just his results that make him that way or do you actually have any information I don't have?

I don't regard that as punishment at all.


Yes it is. You're restricting someone who hasn't shown that they are irresponsible. That is indeed punishing first.


I think it's justified that, if you are about to give a potenitally lethal item (be that a car or a gun) to a person, you first ask him to prove that he/she can handle it responsibly, at least in the way the item was intended to be used.


And you are more than entitled to your opinion. But it's still controlling someone when they have done nothing wrong.


If I remember correctly, a big arguement of the pro-gun side is that guns are only dangerous when used by people who are unfamiliar with it and don't know how to use it correctly.


Maybe by some, but not by me. Guns are only dangerous if the person is. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are dangerous if they are untrained.


By introducing training and a license you can make sure that at least those people who legally get a gun know how to use it, right?


Again, I leave that responsiblity to the individual.


I know there will always be people obtaining guns illegally, just like there will always be people driving without license, so it would be a compromise. But saving just one single life this way would justify it, in my eyes.

You'll be saving a criminal's life and sacrificing several law-abiding citizens' lives. Not a justified trade.

Yes it is. You're restricting someone who hasn't shown that they are irresponsible. That is indeed punishing first.



And you are more than entitled to your opinion. But it's still controlling someone when they have done nothing wrong.



Maybe by some, but not by me. Guns are only dangerous if the person is. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are dangerous if they are untrained.



Again, I leave that responsiblity to the individual.



You'll be saving a criminal's life and sacrificing several law-abiding citizens' lives. Not a justified trade.

Let me put it this way : Would you let a ten-year-old handle a gun? Or drive a car?
If not, why? He hasn't yet proven to be irresponsible, as he hasn't yet shot a person nor cause an accident. Why would you punish him by not giving him a gun or the right to drive?

1. Do you know what inferential statistics is? If not, then start googling.
2. Prove it. Is it just his results that make him that way or do you actually have any information I don't have?

<sigh>

How can I prove something when the method I'd use to prove it is being questioned? That's a paradox.

How can I prove something when the method I'd use to prove it is being questioned?
Explain.
You said his results are invalid because of his views.
I challenge you to prove that he indeed has those views, because I believe you simply assume those to be his views because of the results his research provides.

Let me put it this way : Would you let a ten-year-old handle a gun? Or drive a car?


Would I? It's not my call. It's their parents' or guardians' call. I was shooting when I was six. I haven't had any formal training for rifles. I didn't have formal training for pistols (AFTER I had shot them already) until I was over 30. I have yet to hurt anyone or even remotely come close to it.

The only reason I could see for having an issue with a 10 year old driving whatsoever would be physical size to reach the pedals, grab the wheel, and see out the windows. But again, it's not my call. If the parents are letting their child do this, they are still the ones responsible. It's not my call to tell someone how to be a parent. Nor is it yours.


If not, why? He hasn't yet proven to be irresponsible, as he hasn't yet shot a person nor cause an accident. Why would you punish him by not giving him a gun or the right to drive?

I wouldn't. :)

Explain.
You said his results are invalid because of his views.
I challenge you to prove that he indeed has those views, because I believe you simply assume those to be his views because of the results his research provides.

Actually, I said his results are invalid because statistics can be used or manipulated in presentation to prove whatever you want to prove. So, unless you deal with raw factual numbers--like 12500 people murdered by firearm in a year (even then you can alter perspective), you can make number show anything you want by calculation. Just go back to proving that 1 equals 0. If you can do that, you can cook any stat you want.

Anyone that know stats knows this can be done. So, if he proves that guns are bad, he has an anti or some other control stance. So he may say he likes firearms, but he doesn't like it when others have them.

...It's not my call to tell someone how to be a parent. Nor is it yours....
In that case, I am gonna teach my child to be a raping, pedophiliac terrorist.

1. So, unless you deal with raw factual numbers...
2. Just go back to proving that 1 equals 0...
1. Which he is....
2. I can only prove that 1 = -1...
1=(-1)²=sqrt((-1)²)=sqrt((-1)*(-1))=sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)=i*i=-1

In that case, I am gonna teach my child to be a raping, pedophiliac terrorist.

Hmm...how are you going to do that without breaking the law first?

If you are teaching by example, then you will be attacking someone else, and be a criminal.

If you are just teaching with words or using a dummy of a sort, then the child will be breaking the law when they try it for real and be jailed or killed.

Either way, there are some laws against it because it would be an attack on another somewhere along the way. You can do what you want to yourself--not others.

Good luck with your kid.

Would I? It's not my call. It's their parents' or guardians' call. I was shooting when I was six. I haven't had any formal training for rifles. I didn't have formal training for pistols (AFTER I had shot them already) until I was over 30. I have yet to hurt anyone or even remotely come close to it.

The only reason I could see for having an issue with a 10 year old driving whatsoever would be physical size to reach the pedals, grab the wheel, and see out the windows. But again, it's not my call. If the parents are letting their child do this, they are still the ones responsible. It's not my call to tell someone how to be a parent. Nor is it yours.



I wouldn't. :)

So you wouldn't have any problems with 10-year-olds going 130 km/h on the motorway? Or bringing guns to school for fun?

1. Which he is....
2. I can only prove that 1 = -1...
1=(-1)²=sqrt((-1)²)=sqrt((-1)*(-1))=sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)=i*i=-1

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/humor/onezero2.html

So you wouldn't have any problems with 10-year-olds going 130 km/h on the motorway? Or bringing guns to school for fun?

As long as no one's attacking or hurting someone else, no.

There are consequences for being irresponsible and hurting someone else, though. I'm a firm believer in punishing when someone HAS done something to someone else.

Hmm...how are you going to do that without breaking the law first?
The law, hey?
I'll say bullshit to that. The state isn't my parent, or guardian, or nanny. They don't have the right to determine what is mine, what I do, or what I think. It's people that think like what you posted above that keep the world's populaces in chains. To think that one human has authority over another....sheesh.

As long as no one's attacking or hurting someone else, no.

There are consequences for being irresponsible and hurting someone else, though. I'm a firm believer in punishing when someone HAS done something to someone else.

Has it ever occured to you that there may be a reason why 1) minors are not allowed to drive, own a gun and in your country even to drink alcohol and 2) minors are judged and punished differently from adults?

There is such a thing as "responsibiliy" and "understanding the consequences of your behaviour". Neither are very well developed in most children, hence the restrictive legislation.
A responsible way to act is to prevent accidents rather than punish people afterwards.
If you put people without driver's license nor experience behind the wheel of a truck and allow them to go any speed they want through heavy traffic, a good number of them will end up causing considerable damage and kill people. A good number will get out of the truck again, because they know about their limits and the consequences of their actions, but those will not undo the damage done by the first group.

And in what way am I endangering innocents by asking them to take a test before getting a gun?

The law, hey?

Not to mention the double standard in recognizing "parents" or "guardians" having authority over their child/ward but not the state over its subject.

Recognize both, or denounce both.

The law, hey?

Yup. I'm a Libertarian. I want VERY limited government, where people get to choose what they do with themselves--without interfering with others.

The only laws that would apply would be those against interfering with or harming others.

I have no say as to what you do with your body, put into it, think, etc. The only time I have a say is when you try to limit me when I'm not hurting anyone else.

Not to mention the double standard in recognizing "parents" or "guardians" having authority over their child/ward but not the state over its subject.

Recognize both, or denounce both.

I regognize a parent's authority over their own child.

The US doesn't have subjects. They have citizens. We are not ruled. We determine who is in government.

Has it ever occured to you that there may be a reason why 1) minors are not allowed to drive, own a gun and in your country even to drink alcohol and 2) minors are judged and punished differently from adults?


Because someone arbitrarily picked a number out of their ass and decided to apply it.


There is such a thing as "responsibiliy" and "understanding the consequences of your behaviour". Neither are very well developed in most children, hence the restrictive legislation.


If the parents are doing their job, it develops much quicker than you realize. And because parenting techniques vary from parent to parent, you get dissention. Then you get an arbitrary law created by those that sacrifice their time with their families to make a decision they know absolutely nothing about.


A responsible way to act is to prevent accidents rather than punish people afterwards.


No. A responsible act is to allow others to be responsible--and hold them to that responsiblity.


If you put people without driver's license nor experience behind the wheel of a truck and allow them to go any speed they want through heavy traffic, a good number of them will end up causing considerable damage and kill people. A good number will get out of the truck again, because they know about their limits and the consequences of their actions, but those will not undo the damage done by the first group.


And yet you can't prevent without infringing upon freedoms. When you nanny legislate, it dulls the senses and reactions of those that are actually responsible for their own safety. People become more careless because it's not their problem anymore, "They can't possibly do that! It's illegal!" You still have to watch for other drivers when you drive, yes?


And in what way am I endangering innocents by asking them to take a test before getting a gun?

You're not endangering--you're exacting force on someone else.

The US doesn't have subjects. They have citizens.
Semantics.
And actually, a college of qualified voters installs your leader, not actually you yourself.

And you are more than entitled to your opinion. But it's still controlling someone when they have done nothing wrong.

Maybe by some, but not by me. Guns are only dangerous if the person is. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are dangerous if they are untrained.
Government doesn't "control" people like "little playthings" in NationStates. What government is trying to do is to instruct you to use machinery that would in wrong hands cause lots of suffering. I don't see how this is a bad thing...

You'll be saving a criminal's life and sacrificing several law-abiding citizens' lives. Not a justified trade.
I don't see how someones life would be more valuable than others. It might be more profitable for society to sacrife the criminals, but I don't think anyone should be considered less-valuable person just because he isn't part of the society.

Because someone arbitrarily picked a number out of their ass and decided to apply it.



If the parents are doing their job, it develops much quicker than you realize. And because parenting techniques vary from parent to parent, you get dissention. Then you get an arbitrary law created by those that sacrifice their time with their families to make a decision they know absolutely nothing about.



No. A responsible act is to allow others to be responsible--and hold them to that responsiblity.



And yet you can't prevent without infringing upon freedoms. When you nanny legislate, it dulls the senses and reactions of those that are actually responsible for their own safety. People become more careless because it's not their problem anymore, "They can't possibly do that! It's illegal!" You still have to watch for other drivers when you drive, yes?



You're not endangering--you're exacting force on someone else.


Sorry, but I rather have legal drivers' licences in place than hving somebody punished after they killed me or anybody else in an accident, be that an accident with a gun or a car.

I think most accident victims will share my view.
I think a government is in place to ensure certain liberties and rights for its people, at least that is what my government is doing.
If you happen to live in a country made up of responsible, sensible adults only, lucky you. Reality is different. Reality is drunk driving, reality are accidents that kill people (and you can't bring them back to life by punishing the responsible driver/shooter), reality are dumb and stupid people endangering others on a daily basis.
I'm all for punishing the guilty, but I don't think we should make it too easy for them to harm innocents in the first place.

And you were the one accusing me of letting the guilty run free and endangering the innocents with setting up tests like that.

Semantics.


If you say so. Our constitution tells us that we're supposed to rise up if the government becomes corrupt. You don't see that too often in the legal docs of a country with subjects.


And actually, a college of qualified voters installs your leader, not actually you yourself.

Very true. But rare is the occasion that the electoral college votes against the results of the popular vote in each state.

If you say so. Our constitution tells us that we're supposed to rise up if the government becomes corrupt. You don't see that too often in the legal docs of a country with subjects.



Very true. But rare is the occasion that the electoral college votes against the results of the popular vote in each state.

I didn't see you rising up against your government a lot lately, either. Although I get to hear about its corruption on a daily basis.... :D

Government doesn't "control" people like "little playthings" in NationStates. What government is trying to do is to instruct you to use machinery that would in wrong hands cause lots of suffering. I don't see how this is a bad thing...


When I know more about the subject than those passing the laws affecting said subject, that's a bad thing. Just because someone is voted into office doesn't mean they really know what should or should not be done. Blindly trusting in elected officials just leads to enslavement.


I don't see how someones life would be more valuable than others.


My life is more valuable to me than yours. Or anyone else I know and care about. They have a priority over you--in my life. If two people were drowning, you were one, and my wife was the other--there's no question who I'd save first. One life IS more valuable that another.


It might be more profitable for society to sacrife the criminals, but I don't think anyone should be considered less-valuable person just because he isn't part of the society.

They don't have to be part of society--I don't want to force anyone into any society. But if they attack someone, not defend, but attack, they lose their rights. I don't shoot to kill--I shoot to stop. If they end up dying in the process, I'm not going to let it bother me for too long.

I didn't see you rising up against your government a lot lately, either. Although I get to hear about its corruption on a daily basis.... :D

Let's see what happens when Patriot II starts going through....that will be the ultimate affront to the Constitution--by stripping away just about all the rights of the US citizen.

But you have to remember there are a lot of people in the country that like the nanny state idea, and just roll with it. There are more people like me every day, though, that want their rights back and are willing to enact political change to get it returned.

Sorry, but I rather have legal drivers' licences in place than hving somebody punished after they killed me or anybody else in an accident, be that an accident with a gun or a car.


And that is why you can handle a nanny state. That's fine. If you're comfortable with it, that's just ducky. But, I'm not telling Ireland how to run their government. I'm really only concerned with how my government is working--since I'm here, and not there (though you do have a very scenic place to visit).


I think most accident victims will share my view.


Yeah, they don't actually blame the person irresponsible not to get training, and would rather force everyone to fit their world view. Yeah, that's fair to everyone....


I think a government is in place to ensure certain liberties and rights for its people, at least that is what my government is doing.


My government was designed to protect the citizens from internal and external attack. Not from accidents. Or forcing poor training on everyone.


If you happen to live in a country made up of responsible, sensible adults only, lucky you. Reality is different. Reality is drunk driving, reality are accidents that kill people (and you can't bring them back to life by punishing the responsible driver/shooter), reality are dumb and stupid people endangering others on a daily basis.
I'm all for punishing the guilty, but I don't think we should make it too easy for them to harm innocents in the first place.


And I stand for freedom and responsibility first. Not a security blanket.


And you were the one accusing me of letting the guilty run free and endangering the innocents with setting up tests like that.

I never said you were endangering anyone. I said that you were enacting force upon others when you have no right to do that.

When I know more about the subject than those passing the laws affecting said subject, that's a bad thing. Just because someone is voted into office doesn't mean they really know what should or should not be done. Blindly trusting in elected officials just leads to enslavement.

My life is more valuable to me than yours. Or anyone else I know and care about. They have a priority over you--in my life. If two people were drowning, you were one, and my wife was the other--there's no question who I'd save first. One life IS more valuable that another.

They don't have to be part of society--I don't want to force anyone into any society. But if they attack someone, not defend, but attack, they lose their rights. I don't shoot to kill--I shoot to stop. If they end up dying in the process, I'm not going to let it bother me for too long.
If someone is voted into office, it means his/her ideas represent the people who chose to vote for him/her. I don't trust blindly to our officials, but when I think they are doing great job, I have right to support them. And if the government does something that I don't like, I have right to protest it.

But now we're talking about "some" citizens and "some" criminals, not personalities. If I wouldn't know any of those citizens and criminals, I couldn't decide wich one to promote in my eyes. Of course family, friends etc. are important part of our lives, but if we're talking about theoretically about people/race/class/etc. it doesn't matter.

Killing someone doesn't really help anything. In a long term, it just doesn't solve any problems.

Killing someone doesn't really help anything. In a long term, it just doesn't solve any problems.

That depends on your point of view.

That depends on your point of view.
Life is precious and everyone has right to live. Taking someones life is huge responsibility. I can't say that I know many who would be ready to kill someone... Even in tough places like in the army.

Life is precious and everyone has right to live. Taking someones life is huge responsibility. I can't say that I know many who would be ready to kill someone... Even in tough places like in the army.

Like I said, it depends upon your point of view. You have the right to not be attacked and the right to defend yourself, but you lose your rights when you attack another--including the right to life, depending on the actions of the individual you attack.

Like I said, it depends upon your point of view. You have the right to not be attacked and the right to defend yourself, but you lose your rights when you attack another--including the right to life, depending on the actions of the individual you attack.
Sounds a bit extreme to me...

Sounds a bit extreme to me...

Life's not exactly full of second chances by nature.

If you say so. Our constitution tells us that we're supposed to rise up if the government becomes corrupt. You don't see that too often in the legal docs of a country with subjects.
The New Hampshire constitution (or is is Vermont?) says that but the US Constitution does not.

But you have to remember there are a lot of people in the country that like the nanny state idea, and just roll with it.
They are in the majority since they fill up both major parties.

The New Hampshire constitution (or is is Vermont?) says that but the US Constitution does not.


Sorry, Declaration of Independence.


They are in the majority since they fill up both major parties.

There are a lot of lazy people out there that don't look at what's going on in DC. Those of us who actually look at the Federal Register realize that there is way too much useless crap on the books these days.

Sorry, Declaration of Independence.
Which is not part of the Constituion and has no real legal standing [/commentary]

Ihatevacations']Which is not part of the Constituion and has no real legal standing [/commentary]

Yeah, it didn't in 1776 either....and yet....