NationStates Jolt Archive

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Someone else already posted this, FYI.

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.


Lol I love you

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Someone else already posted this, FYI.


Sorry 'bout that. Must have missed it the first time around....


Feel free, however, to be amused or irritated at it a second time! :D

I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
This part is awsome as well
it is SO fucking true

*Being amused freely*

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, gun control versus the right to keep and bear arms...

(SA pulls out first pistol, tosses it into Gun Control advocate's lap. Then pulls out another pistol.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

BANG! (SA shoots Gun Control advocate's kneecap.)

Gun Control advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU SHOT MY KNEECAP!

SA: Well, now you have either the opportunity to dial 911, or pick up that gun and use it...

Gun Control advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN! (frantically dials 911 on his cell phone)

SA: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the police could arrive before I fire again.

Gun Control advocate: HELP! I've just been shot in the knee by a..."

BANG! (pause) BANG!

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, gun control versus the right to keep and bear arms...

(SA pulls out first pistol, tosses it into Gun Control advocate's lap. Then pulls out another pistol.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

BANG! (SA shoots Gun Control advocate's kneecap.)

Gun Control advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU SHOT MY KNEECAP!

SA: Well, now you have either the opportunity to dial 911, or pick up that gun and use it...

Gun Control advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN! (frantically dials 911 on his cell phone)

SA: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the police could arrive before I fire again.

Gun Control advocate: HELP! I've just been shot in the knee by a..."

BANG! (pause) BANG!

So, you're saying assault with a deadly weapon is a perfectly reasonable excuse for gun control?

So, you're saying assault with a deadly weapon is a perfectly reasonable excuse for gun control?

I'm saying that if you aren't willing to defend your own life, then why would you ask someone else to risk their own life to defend it?

I'm saying that if you aren't willing to defend your own life, then why would you ask someone else to risk their own life to defend it?

I s'pose. I just think that it's a poor example, but that's because I deplore violence

Meh, I must have missed this the first time around. It makes me smile :D

I'm saying that if you aren't willing to defend your own life, then why would you ask someone else to risk their own life to defend it?
I wouldn't ask anybody...I have never asked a single person to grow up and become a police officer, a soldier, or any person who might be expected to die for me. Yet they seem to make that choice anyhow. Much like how I would never ask a person to spend 20+ years in school to become a doctor to treat my illnesses, yet some people choose to do that.

I s'pose. I just think that it's a poor example, but that's because I deplore violence
The original is also a poor example from that perspective. But criminals usually don't wait for you to call 911, so in that respect his story is realistic.

I'm saying that if you aren't willing to defend your own life, then why would you ask someone else to risk their own life to defend it?Ah, but if gun control had been in place back in the day, the chances of the SA guy having one would have been reduced a bit...

Original Poster - That is classic. I've saved it to my harddisk, in fact.

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, gun control versus the right to keep and bear arms...

(SA pulls out first pistol, tosses it into Gun Control advocate's lap. Then pulls out another pistol.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

BANG! (SA shoots Gun Control advocate's kneecap.)

Gun Control advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU SHOT MY KNEECAP!

SA: Well, now you have either the opportunity to dial 911, or pick up that gun and use it...

Gun Control advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN! (frantically dials 911 on his cell phone)

SA: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the police could arrive before I fire again.

Gun Control advocate: HELP! I've just been shot in the knee by a..."

BANG! (pause) BANG!
Not wanting to pull this off topic, but surely if guns were banned, you wouldnt have been able to get the pistol which you used to shoot the gun control advocate, and even if you were able to (through the black market, for example) you would not only have already committed a crime, but the gun control advocate, having been shot in the knee cap, would be unable to muster the strength to fire back even if he was so inclined anyway.

Yeah, you're right. I'm too much of a naive idealist anyway :p

I s'pose. I just think that it's a poor example, but that's because I deplore violence

Oh, I deplore violence, unless it's absolutely necessary. But I've found that the threat of violence is the only thing that violent people recognize.

Wife-beaters for example. Once their wife moves out, she's at an increased risk of death - not by firearm (in the US) but by beating or other methods.

If she has a protective order from the court, her risk goes up by an order of magnitude.

Police can't ever get to her in time to protect her.

But, if the man knows she is armed, has been trained, and has a protective order (which legally classified him as a lethal threat), he sees the threat of violence - violence that could be legally be used against him.

And they don't come back. Ever. My personal experience, in training over 200 women in the past 2 years.

I'm saying that if you aren't willing to defend your own life, then why would you ask someone else to risk their own life to defend it?


Maybe for the same reason that I call Roto Rooter instead of trying to unclog a drain line myself. Because it's not that I couldn't do it - but rather that it's a crap job best left to the professionals.


People don't have to be willing to do EVERYTHING to certify the validity of whether certain things need to be done or not.

And I don't understand why violence has to be absolutely necessary, although, Second, with your post it makes sense. I just hope that there's some way to end the cycle, but, then again, I'm a naive idealist :p

Maybe for the same reason that I call Roto Rooter instead of trying to unclog a drain line myself. Because it's not that I couldn't do it - but rather that it's a crap job best left to the professionals.

People don't have to be willing to do EVERYTHING to certify the validity of whether certain things need to be done or not.

So I guess if someone was raping you, you would just submit? Or would you ask them if they could allow you a minute to use your cell phone?

You either submit or you resist at moments like those. People nowadays have a greater risk of injury or death if they submit. That's what most police self-defense courses teach today.

So, if it's a crap job, why would you even ask someone else to do it? Or, being a crap job, how could you count on someone to do it right?

Ah, but if gun control had been in place back in the day, the chances of the SA guy having one would have been reduced a bit...
Around here we have had gun control since before modern guns existed. That does not prevent criminals from using guns. Also in the US legally owned guns are very seldom used for crimes. Those criminals who use guns for their crimes have usually already been convicted of something, so they can't legally buy guns there either.

And an idiot :p

So I guess if someone was raping you, you would just submit? Or would you ask them if they could allow you a minute to use your cell phone?

You either submit or you resist at moments like those. People nowadays have a greater risk of injury or death if they submit. That's what most police self-defense courses teach today.

So, if it's a crap job, why would you even ask someone else to do it? Or, being a crap job, how could you count on someone to do it right?
Of course most people would defend themselves if it were immediately necessary. But I would PREFER, whenever possible, to allow police to deal with criminals, because they are trained to deal with situations in a way that minimizes death and injury (at least in theory). It's like how if I were bleeding to death I would do my best to slap on a tourniquet (however you spell that), but I would vastly prefer to have a medical professional treat my wounds.

This is the coolest thing ever. May I distribute it?

ID is just grand. It posits that a hypothetical, unindentified and unobservable intelligence has, at some point in time impossible to pinpoint, done something unobservable and unindentifiable, in an unobservable and unindentifiable way, to some unindentifiable organism or other, therefore somehow sustaining the development of life.

Quickly, someone bring down Occam's Razor.

Of course most people would defend themselves if it were immediately necessary. But I would PREFER, whenever possible, to allow police to deal with criminals, because they are trained to deal with situations in a way that minimizes death and injury (at least in theory). It's like how if I were bleeding to death I would do my best to slap on a tourniquet (however you spell that), but I would vastly prefer to have a medical professional treat my wounds.
Of course you prefer it, but in both self defense and first aid you don't have the option to call for an expert. Either you do it yourself or you leave it to fate.

And I don't understand why violence has to be absolutely necessary, although, Second, with your post it makes sense. I just hope that there's some way to end the cycle, but, then again, I'm a naive idealist :p

The women don't ask for the violence. And the only other option would be to station a policeman with the woman (let's say three men, in shifts of one each) for the rest of her life.

Violence is not "necessary" in this case. What is necessary is to demostrate the proper resolve to the offender - to let him know that if he crosses the line, he'll end up legally dead.

Most of them are cowards in the first place - they only victimize women they know won't fight back. As soon as she demonstrates a willingness to fight back - even if she never fires a shot and never draws the gun - he stops.

The three times that I have stopped a robbery (people robbing me) I never had to fire a shot. Nor did I arrest anyone, since I am not a policeman. I'd rather that the people in question think that there are others like me out there who would rather not be robbed - that it's dangerous and inefficient to rob for a living - and that the punishment would be swift and deadly.

They fear an armed citizen more than they fear the police. Policemen have more rules - they are sued more often - and the courts have loopholes. Most felons in this area know the game - and most have been in and out of prison more than once.

Most of them also know that it's dangerous to rob people in Fairfax County, Virginia, where we carry guns both concealed and openly. It's far easier in neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland, where people are disarmed by law, unable to fight back by law, and are just as wealthy as those people in Fairfax County. That's why the violent crime and murder is 65 percent lower in Fairfax County.

Of course you prefer it, but in both self defense and first aid you don't have the option to call for an expert. Either you do it yourself or you leave it to fate.
In some situations, yes. I never denied that. There are other cases when the "do it yourself" mentality can be dangerous, even fatal. Being a grown up is about knowing that many situations won't be textbook, and about learning how to judge the appropriate response. My point is that you are over-simplifying.

Of course you prefer it, but in both self defense and first aid you don't have the option to call for an expert. Either you do it yourself or you leave it to fate.
You should ideally be able to do both: call for an expert while dealing with the situation to the best of your ability. That way you won't die/get shot, but at least manage to survive long enough to tell a cop/medic.

At least, that's what I'd do: call 911 while brandishing a firearm in the general direction of would-be mugger to scare him off, or alternately disable him with a well-placed ankle twist and spinning side kick. Then, when the police arrive, they can take the situation into their own hands.

Of course, if you don't have the opportunity to call 911, then you should defend yourself.

(And why is this which was originally an ID/Evolution debate suddenly turning into a gun control debate???)

(And why is this which was originally an ID/Evolution debate suddenly turning into a gun control debate???)

Because I'm retarded :p

Around here we have had gun control since before modern guns existed. That does not prevent criminals from using guns. Also in the US legally owned guns are very seldom used for crimes. Those criminals who use guns for their crimes have usually already been convicted of something, so they can't legally buy guns there either.Well? Where's "here"? The place I live there's a lot less gun crime because there's a lot less guns on the market.
Likewise, the biggest problem with firearms is that they make people feel safe. This includes criminals too, which is why a criminal with a gun is much more likely to break in when the residents are in than otherwise.

Of course you prefer it, but in both self defense and first aid you don't have the option to call for an expert. Either you do it yourself or you leave it to fate.
Depends largely on the "first aid" in question. My [soon to be] cousin-in-law got shot in a hunting accident in the woods -- a VERY VERY LARGE shoulder wound -- and his options were calling for help and hoping it came in time, relying on his friends to be able to do him any good at all, or just bleed to death. He called for help, even though it wasn't the best possible option. Not because he didn't trust that his friends would do their best to help him (even though I still hold to the likelihood that the weapon wasn't discharged under the circumstances they described and they were trying to cover their asses for a stupid joke gone horribly awry....), but because he knew that for the risk it was the BEST option.

This same group of guys, consequently, lost a friend three years prior on a canoe trip, because they convinced one of their friends to "quit being such a pussy" and not call for medical aid with hypothermia and apparently quite a high fever after being knocked out of the boat in some rapids and clinging to a rock for several minutes. Even in the middle of nowhere, with seemingly no other choices, it's ALWAYS a viable option to call an expert.

I think I know who you are Second Amendment. You're that guy who keeps getting banned. How long do you reckon you'll last in this guise before they do you (yet) again?
D'ya think the mods would let us run a beting pool?

Because I'm retarded :p

OMG!!11!!

Teh FLAMEZ!!! :p

(Is it against the rules to flame yourself?)

So, if it's a crap job, why would you even ask someone else to do it? Or, being a crap job, how could you count on someone to do it right?
Simple specialization … its what allows society to grow at the rate it has

Not everyone has the ability to do all things at once … so we have specialists people good at unclogging drains and are willing to do it for money

We also have people willing to defend us for money … fix our computers or cars for money …

In the end we ALL rely on these specialists to do their job

Depending on law enforcement to do what they are paid to do is no better or worse then depending on any other specialist … it is their job

While I am all for personal defense looking down on those that depend on the service of one of those specialists is hardly the right attitude

Well? Where's "here"? The place I live there's a lot less gun crime because there's a lot less guns on the market.
Likewise, the biggest problem with firearms is that they make people feel safe. This includes criminals too, which is why a criminal with a gun is much more likely to break in when the residents are in than otherwise.

"Here" for me is the US - where 93 percent of violent crime takes place without a firearm. It does make people safer, as our Department of Justice indicates - over a million times a year.

Most people who break in here in the US know the difference in sentence between armed robbery (mandatory 8 years, maximum 20) versus breaking and entering or burglary (unarmed).

Most criminals on the street, according to the Department of Justice statistics, don't even have a gun. Despite the best attempts of the media and Hollywood to portray otherwise. It's also been my experience on the street.

D'ya think the mods would let us run a beting pool?
You show me proof of a PayPal account and I might enter into a bet with you on it......

(Is it against the rules to flame yourself?)
Man, if it is, I'm like, Screwed4000......

I think I know who you are Second Amendment. You're that guy who keeps getting banned. How long do you reckon you'll last in this guise before they do you (yet) again?
D'ya think the mods would let us run a beting pool?If Second Amendment is who I think it is, then his last nation is still around...

If Second Amendment is who I think it is, then his last nation is still around...

I don't recall him ever being banned. But, I could very well be wrong.

Perhaps it is someone different?

I think I know who you are Second Amendment. You're that guy who keeps getting banned. How long do you reckon you'll last in this guise before they do you (yet) again?
D'ya think the mods would let us run a beting pool?

I have been deated a total of ONE time - and that was back in the summer as Whispering Legs.

Care to try again? And what, pray tell, have I posted in this thread that would be construed as anything but debate, other than this answer?

In some situations, yes. I never denied that. There are other cases when the "do it yourself" mentality can be dangerous, even fatal. Being a grown up is about knowing that many situations won't be textbook, and about learning how to judge the appropriate response. My point is that you are over-simplifying.
I'm not. I am just asking to give the adults their right to judge that. Or could you point me to where I am making my oversimplified claim?

"Here" for me is the US - where 93 percent of violent crime takes place without a firearm. It does make people safer, as our Department of Justice indicates - over a million times a year.

Most people who break in here in the US know the difference in sentence between armed robbery (mandatory 8 years, maximum 20) versus breaking and entering or burglary (unarmed).

Most criminals on the street, according to the Department of Justice statistics, don't even have a gun. Despite the best attempts of the media and Hollywood to portray otherwise. It's also been my experience on the street.Ah, but where does that mentality that it is still safe to burglarize a place when the inhabitants are in come from then?

I have been deated a total of ONE time - and that was back in the summer as Whispering Legs.

Care to try again? And what, pray tell, have I posted in this thread that would be construed as anything but debate, other than this answer?
I was right! SA is a reincarnation of WL (aka Sierra BTHP).

Ah, but where does that mentality that it is still safe to burglarize a place when the inhabitants are in come from then?

Why don't we ask the felons in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the in-home robbery rate is 65 percent higher than in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Maybe it's because the felons know the people in Montgomery County are unarmed, and the people in Fairfax County are armed.

Which house would you rather break into? Isn't it nice that the legislators and police in Montgomery County have made their county safe for unarmed burglars to break in?

They don't even have guns when they break in - they just make sure they have three or four large males and they kick the family's asses.

You should ideally be able to do both: call for an expert while dealing with the situation to the best of your ability. That way you won't die/get shot, but at least manage to survive long enough to tell a cop/medic.

At least, that's what I'd do: call 911 while brandishing a firearm in the general direction of would-be mugger to scare him off, or alternately disable him with a well-placed ankle twist and spinning side kick. Then, when the police arrive, they can take the situation into their own hands.

Of course, if you don't have the opportunity to call 911, then you should defend yourself.

(And why is this which was originally an ID/Evolution debate suddenly turning into a gun control debate???)
*Total agreement with your first three paragraphs. At least if you allow that there are some people who can't learn fancy ninja fighting, but whose lives still are important.

The ID story has already been posted, so it was used to give an analogy for an other argument. In the USA for some reason there is a correlation between believing in creationism and not believing that the state is omnipresent and omnipotent and whatever the all good word is.

Because I'm retarded :p
Ha. <_<

I was right! SA is a reincarnation of WL (aka Sierra BTHP).
Thought so … specially with the “over 200 women” line … I knew I had heard that before but could not remember from who

anyways how did this end up on a gun controll topic? oh yeah the hijack

If Second Amendment is who I think it is, then his last nation is still around...
Yes, I still have Sierra BTHP - I had severe trouble logging in during the recent Jolt forum upgrade.

Ah, but where does that mentality that it is still safe to burglarize a place when the inhabitants are in come from then?
Most of the crime in my metro area is actually with a deadly weapon (most likely guns). I don't trust the statistics of the national government, because as they say that, for instance, the murder rate is down however much this year, it's up by more than 20% in the Kansas City area this year. Assault with a deadly weapon is up 12% as of last Friday. Aggravated burglary is up almost 25%. EVERY CRIMINAL HERE seems to have a gun.....

Thank God I live in the more classy side with constant police action. I think our biggest crime wave was a peeping tom about a year and a half back :eek:

I was right! SA is a reincarnation of WL (aka Sierra BTHP).
That was sooo obvious...I mean, very few other NSers are total anti-gun-control freaks (j/k SA) and have dealt with wife-beaters... :rolleyes: [/off-topic]

So I guess if someone was raping you, you would just submit? Or would you ask them if they could allow you a minute to use your cell phone?

You either submit or you resist at moments like those. People nowadays have a greater risk of injury or death if they submit. That's what most police self-defense courses teach today.

So, if it's a crap job, why would you even ask someone else to do it? Or, being a crap job, how could you count on someone to do it right?


Actually, I prefer to live in a country where the criminals by and large do not use guns because they do not feel that they have a reasonable expectation that they will be facing one. And also where sentancing made it a poor choice.

If you are the type to rob houses, and you don't expect the homeowner to have a gun, and the law states that you get a five-times longer penalty if you go in with one - then you probably don't.

Which is why - since you picked the crime - incidents of sexual assault are approximately equal between canada and the US, but far more Canadian women survive the rape. Because murder does not seem to be the inevitable outcome. It's a horrible crime, but one that I would rather my daughter live through should she ever face it.


Starting an arms race with the criminals is not a recipe for increased public safety, however I think that your country has gone far too far down that path to reverse itself. So maybe gun control isn't for you. It works quite well elsewhere though.


But anyway...


Are you almost done hijacking this subject yet?

Simonist']Most of the crime in my metro area is actually with a deadly weapon (most likely guns). I don't trust the statistics of the national government, because as they say that, for instance, the murder rate is down however much this year, it's up by more than 20% in the Kansas City area this year. Assault with a deadly weapon is up 12% as of last Friday. Aggravated burglary is up almost 25%. EVERY CRIMINAL HERE seems to have a gun.....

Thank God I live in the more classy side with constant police action. I think our biggest crime wave was a peeping tom about a year and a half back :eek:

Better to trust the statistics than the local news reports.

Even the local statistics agree with the Federal ones in our area.

*Total agreement with your first three paragraphs. At least if you allow that there are some people who can't learn fancy ninja fighting, but whose lives still are important.
Well, I strongly encourage everyone to learn some kind of martial art. It's proved invaluable to me. Besides, if I accidentally kill someone with Spinning Hook Kick, I can use self-defense as an excuse. :p

Seriously, though, I think this is going onto gun control because the original figured prominently in another debate yesterday and there's little more that can be said on that.

I don't recall him ever being banned. But, I could very well be wrong.

Perhaps it is someone different?

I went inactive over a month with Whispering Legs, and when I logged back on it was gone. So I started Sierra BTHP.

Simonist']Most of the crime in my metro area is actually with a deadly weapon (most likely guns). I don't trust the statistics of the national government, because as they say that, for instance, the murder rate is down however much this year, it's up by more than 20% in the Kansas City area this year. Assault with a deadly weapon is up 12% as of last Friday. Aggravated burglary is up almost 25%. EVERY CRIMINAL HERE seems to have a gun.....

Thank God I live in the more classy side with constant police action. I think our biggest crime wave was a peeping tom about a year and a half back :eek:
Ah, but remember that 74.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Well? Where's "here"? The place I live there's a lot less gun crime because there's a lot less guns on the market.
Likewise, the biggest problem with firearms is that they make people feel safe. This includes criminals too, which is why a criminal with a gun is much more likely to break in when the residents are in than otherwise.
Here==Sweden. But the exact place does not matter.

EDIT: In Europe, the crime rate and murder rates are comparable to those in the USA (the difference can be put up to gang troubles in some big cities). But the gun 'density' is much lower in Europe. Kind of puts a hole in the theory that guns increase the propensity to make crimes. Unless there is another reason why Europe should have higher crime rates (to outweigh the guns).

I went inactive over a month with Whispering Legs, and when I logged back on it was gone. So I started Sierra BTHP.
(P.S. If you clear your cookies, you can login from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/ as Sierra BTHP. I'm not sure what browser you're using, so I'm not sure how to do that, but you can look in the Jolt FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?s=&action=faq).)

Better to trust the statistics than the local news reports.

Even the local statistics agree with the Federal ones in our area.
I only get statistics from the news. Everything else I actually hear from my friends. That's the upside of having friends scattered throughout the metro.....you always get the best crime stories without having to experience them yourself :D

And how IS it better to trust the statistics than the local news reports? The local news reports is what's going to tell me what's actually going on that could MATTER to me, not the national numbers. It's not all that comforting for me to think "Wow, murder sure is going crazy this year, the count is WAY higher than last year at this time.....but heck, the government tells me the numbers are down, who am I kidding? La dee da..."

Oh, I deplore violence, unless it's absolutely necessary. But I've found that the threat of violence is the only thing that violent people recognize.

Wife-beaters for example. Once their wife moves out, she's at an increased risk of death - not by firearm (in the US) but by beating or other methods.

If she has a protective order from the court, her risk goes up by an order of magnitude.

Police can't ever get to her in time to protect her.

But, if the man knows she is armed, has been trained, and has a protective order (which legally classified him as a lethal threat), he sees the threat of violence - violence that could be legally be used against him.

And they don't come back. Ever. My personal experience, in training over 200 women in the past 2 years.

Oh, it's you. Sierra get banned while I was on hols?

Why don't we ask the felons in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the in-home robbery rate is 65 percent higher than in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Maybe it's because the felons know the people in Montgomery County are unarmed, and the people in Fairfax County are armed.

Which house would you rather break into? Isn't it nice that the legislators and police in Montgomery County have made their county safe for unarmed burglars to break in?

They don't even have guns when they break in - they just make sure they have three or four large males and they kick the family's asses.That's all nice that it applies to two American counties, but over here, we don't have the problem of four large males entering houses and we don't have guns either.

Simonist']I only get statistics from the news. Everything else I actually hear from my friends. That's the upside of having friends scattered throughout the metro.....you always get the best crime stories without having to experience them yourself :D

And how IS it better to trust the statistics than the local news reports? The local news reports is what's going to tell me what's actually going on that could MATTER to me, not the national numbers. It's not all that comforting for me to think "Wow, murder sure is going crazy this year, the count is WAY higher than last year at this time.....but heck, the government tells me the numbers are down, who am I kidding? La dee da..."

The news often does not report events. It selects them.

Most actions of self-defense are NEVER reported in the news even if the police find out about them. That would be reporting "good news".

Statistics are generally more accurate. Your local police are under a mandate to collect statistics as well. You should look at those.

That's all nice that it applies to two American counties, but over here, we don't have the problem of four large males entering houses and we don't have guns either.
Exactly to try and fit a two variable regression like he appears to be doing seems rather ill advised with all the other factors

Employment factors … housing … wealth … cultural makeup … just to name a few it would be hard to get a good linear fit with just the name of two towns and a difference in crime stats

The news often does not report events. It selects them.

Most actions of self-defense are NEVER reported in the news even if the police find out about them. That would be reporting "good news".

Statistics are generally more accurate. Your local police are under a mandate to collect statistics as well. You should look at those.
Did you even CHOOSE to read what I said? I DON'T WATCH THE NEWS. I hear about my crime watch crap from either people involved or people in the area. The numbers are all I get from the news. So I don't give half a crap what they "select" for the nightly news, 'cause I'm not hearing it.

Fine, I'll bite. I just CHECKED the metro statistics as of last week on the crime rates.....oh my God, guess what. The news was mostly accurate.

Maybe we're not ALL fear-mongers when it comes to local news :rolleyes:

Actually, I prefer to live in a country where the criminals by and large do not use guns because they do not feel that they have a reasonable expectation that they will be facing one. And also where sentancing made it a poor choice.


You mean the US? Where 93 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm?
Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

Oh, it's you. Sierra get banned while I was on hols?
No, he just couldn't log into the forums with it. Sierra's still around.

That's all nice that it applies to two American counties, but over here, we don't have the problem of four large males entering houses and we don't have guns either.
Here we have burglars going express from Poland to Sweden to do burglary. They go in, pick up all valuables they can get easily. If there is an alarm or if they are seen they just go to the next house. No one can do anything, since they leave the town, and usually the state, before the cops have time to react.

You mean the US? Where 93 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm?

Just a question, and I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just curious: where'd you get that statistic?

Exactly to try and fit a two variable regression like he appears to be doing seems rather ill advised with all the other factors

Employment factors … housing … wealth … cultural makeup … just to name a few it would be hard to get a good linear fit with just the name of two towns and a difference in crime stats

Fairfax County, Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland are about as demographically identical as you can get.

Two suburbs of Washington, D.C., with nearly identical population, population mix, ethnic mix, earnings, wealth distribution, land area, etc.

The major difference is the laws concerning guns. Montgomery County, Maryland's other major difference is that they have nearly twice the police. And yet they have more crime.

Their crime rate used to be identical. But when Fairfax got the right to carry concealed, the rate dropped faster in Fairfax. Montgomery County has never recovered.

I also speak to felons regularly here. They prefer to rob and commit crimes in Montgomery County, because they know the victims are certified as unarmed.

Simonist']Depends largely on the "first aid" in question. My [soon to be] cousin-in-law got shot in a hunting accident in the woods -- a VERY VERY LARGE shoulder wound -- and his options were calling for help and hoping it came in time, relying on his friends to be able to do him any good at all, or just bleed to death. He called for help, even though it wasn't the best possible option. Not because he didn't trust that his friends would do their best to help him (even though I still hold to the likelihood that the weapon wasn't discharged under the circumstances they described and they were trying to cover their asses for a stupid joke gone horribly awry....), but because he knew that for the risk it was the BEST option.

This same group of guys, consequently, lost a friend three years prior on a canoe trip, because they convinced one of their friends to "quit being such a pussy" and not call for medical aid with hypothermia and apparently quite a high fever after being knocked out of the boat in some rapids and clinging to a rock for several minutes. Even in the middle of nowhere, with seemingly no other choices, it's ALWAYS a viable option to call an expert.
I think the example was with a bleeding wound. If you have ten minutes to wait for the ambulance with that you probably are as well off without doctors. Or going there with your own car after cleaning and covering it.

No, he just couldn't log into the forums with it. Sierra's still around.

Blast.

Fairfax County, Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland are about as demographically identical as you can get.

Two suburbs of Washington, D.C., with nearly identical population, population mix, ethnic mix, earnings, wealth distribution, land area, etc.

The major difference is the laws concerning guns. Montgomery County, Maryland's other major difference is that they have nearly twice the police. And yet they have more crime.

Their crime rate used to be identical. But when Fairfax got the right to carry concealed, the rate dropped faster in Fairfax. Montgomery County has never recovered.

I also speak to felons regularly here. They prefer to rob and commit crimes in Montgomery County, because they know the victims are certified as unarmed.


Alright so what’s your R^2 value for the line … that or your associated P-Value

It would be great to see how good of a predictor statistic gun ownership has on crime rate

I think the example was with a bleeding wound. If you have ten minutes to wait for the ambulance with that you probably are as well off without doctors. Or going there with your own car after cleaning and covering it.
So a gunshot wound to the shoulder isn't a "bleeding wound"? Or, moreover, if you're in the middle of the woods (like, y'know.....in a hunting trip, like I said) with not a whole lot to work with aside from the environment around you, the time it takes for the helicopter makes you "as well off without doctors"?

Confusing circumstances, there. Very very confusing.

Just a question, and I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just curious: where'd you get that statistic?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon.

"Weapon" also includes knives, clubs, etc. Not just "firearms". So the overall use of firearms is much lower in crime that you believe.

Note that "weapon" is not synonymous with "firearm" in the study.

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

Since we're hijacking threads, anyone here been to see the 'Wallace & Grommit' movie? I enjoyed it.
So much so that yesterday when I was in a delicatessan I bought some wensleydale cheese for the first time in my life. Found it a bit bland to tell the truth. Much prefer aged gouda or a nice bit of stilton.

Since we're hijacking threads, anyone here been to see the 'Wallace & Grommit' movie? I enjoyed it.
So much so that yesterday when I was in a delicatessan I bought some wensleydale cheese for the first time in my life. Found it a bit bland to tell the truth. Much prefer aged gouda or a nice bit of stilton.

I'm wondering who you thought I was. Whispering Legs had well over 8000 posts when I stopped NS for nearly two months.

Since we're hijacking threads, anyone here been to see the 'Wallace & Grommit' movie? I enjoyed it.
So much so that yesterday when I was in a delicatessan I bought some wensleydale cheese for the first time in my life. Found it a bit bland to tell the truth. Much prefer aged gouda or a nice bit of stilton.

I still haven't seen it, and it's driving me nuts! Wallace and Gromit rule!

Simple specialization … its what allows society to grow at the rate it has

Not everyone has the ability to do all things at once … so we have specialists people good at unclogging drains and are willing to do it for money

We also have people willing to defend us for money … fix our computers or cars for money …

In the end we ALL rely on these specialists to do their job

Depending on law enforcement to do what they are paid to do is no better or worse then depending on any other specialist … it is their job

While I am all for personal defense looking down on those that depend on the service of one of those specialists is hardly the right attitude
And banning the tools to do it yourself is as stupid for self defense as it would be for leaking tubes if your house got flooded in a minute. Besides I met a guy the other day who said if he wanted to do somebody in he'd rather use a plumbers wrench than a gun. As deadly if you get to choose the time and place to attack, but much harder to track.;)

Alright so what’s your R^2 value for the line … that or your associated P-Value

It would be great to see how good of a predictor statistic gun ownership has on crime rate

If you would really like me to crunch the numbers, I'll do it.

We have data going back to 1990 for both counties.

Do you have any other suggestions on variables we should control for?

Like I said I am not against self defense but I question if a gun is necessary
Personally I would not ban them , but I would not use them either

And I would want a good effort into tracking them and their owners and or users

If you would really like me to crunch the numbers, I'll do it.

We have data going back to 1990 for both counties.

Do you have any other suggestions on variables we should control for?
Well usually you start with an individual predictor stat find the fit then work on a multi variable regression and see the new fit and if it reduces your error

Ah, but where does that mentality that it is still safe to burglarize a place when the inhabitants are in come from then?
Reality, maybe. But a gun would probably not do anything about our burglars. You can't shoot a guy who is already leaving.

Ohhh...I do like a nice bit of cheese, Grommit.

Well usually you start with an individual predictor stat find the fit then work on a multi variable regression and see the new fit and if it reduces your error

The concealed carry passed in 1995. The open carry passed in July 2002. I'll have to look up the laws in Maryland - they have become progressively stricter over the same time.

Fairfax's violent crime and murder rate has been dropping faster since 1995 - faster than the rate in Montgomery.

It's 65 percent lower now for both violent crime and murder. Shall we take that as our first hypothesis - that all other things (that we're aware of or can find data for) being equal, people walking around with concealed guns lower crime? By 65 percent over 10 years?

Of course the problem I run into is that Montgomery has hired twice the police that Fairfax has - we could end up saying that more police = more violent crime if we can exclude all other factors.

The concealed carry passed in 1995. The open carry passed in July 2002. I'll have to look up the laws in Maryland - they have become progressively stricter over the same time.

Fairfax's violent crime and murder rate has been dropping faster since 1995 - faster than the rate in Montgomery.

It's 65 percent lower now for both violent crime and murder. Shall we take that as our first hypothesis - that all other things (that we're aware of or can find data for) being equal, people walking around with concealed guns lower crime? By 65 percent over 10 years?

Of course the problem I run into is that Montgomery has hired twice the police that Fairfax has - we could end up saying that more police = more violent crime if we can exclude all other factors.
Well HO is usualy 0 so yeah H1 would be

H1: != 0


Well first we would do just the guns versus crime fit ... see if it works out then we add other variables ...

I think I got a copy of minitab on this computer somewhere I know I have SAS at least lol

Simonist']So a gunshot wound to the shoulder isn't a "bleeding wound"? Or, moreover, if you're in the middle of the woods (like, y'know.....in a hunting trip, like I said) with not a whole lot to work with aside from the environment around you, the time it takes for the helicopter makes you "as well off without doctors"?

Confusing circumstances, there. Very very confusing.
Well, if he'd been bleeding profuesely you would have torn off a piece of your clothes to stop the bleeding until you could get help. If you didn't even think of that he was probably not bleeding very much.

Do you have sources for that? I'd like to see it (to reuse the argument).
Ye gods. Yes I do.

I posted about 10 links this past summer as Whispering Legs in order to make the argument with CanuckHeaven.

Most of the data came from the County Police Departments of each county (for crime and firearm use). I also have other sites for demographic data (also gathered by each individual county).

But it's this summary that got me looking at the data in the first place:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED120999.cfm

His assertion is that it's because we execute people in Virginia, and because our punishments are more severe (even though the rate at which police solve crimes is identical).

I spent a lot of my spare time talking to felons (it's easy because my off hours are spent doing domestic violence work). And I found through talking to them that they fear an armed citizen far more than the certainty of punishment by courts or police. At least they can game out what happens in court - they have no control over being shot at by a civilian.

It might well be that it's a combination of "every law abiding citizen walking around with a gun" and "you get caught doing violent crime and you go to jail for life or we execute you".

Either way (in fact, both), the criminals get the message.


The FBI reported recently that serious crime fell by 10 percent during the first half of 1999, extending the nationwide drop in crime to 7 1/2 years. This is good news, to be sure, but the FBI's national figures tell only part of the story. In some jurisdictions, crime has dropped dramatically, while in others it has gone down only slightly, or even risen. And in some cases, stark differences in crime rates exist between jurisdictions that are nearly identical in every other way.

A perfect example is found in comparing Montgomery and Fairfax counties in the Washington suburbs. While the 1999 data are not yet available for the two counties, the 1998 data show that both are fairly safe places to live, with rates for almost all offenses below the national norm. But the FBI statistics show a striking disparity in crime rates between the two. For example, although its 1998 population was 11.5 percent larger than Montgomery County's, Fairfax had 1,083 fewer violent crimes. Even after controlling for population size, which works in Montgomery's favor, the Maryland county has a violent-crime rate 2.4 times that of its Virginia neighbor. Crime by crime, a resident of Montgomery is 1.7 times more likely to be raped, 2.2 times more likely to be robbed and 2.8 times more likely to suffer an aggravated assault.

This discrepancy has emerged only in the past 20 years. During the late 1970s, Fairfax and Montgomery had roughly similar crime rates. But crime rates have since plummeted in Fairfax, while dropping only modestly, or even rising, in Montgomery.

Montgomery's average population from 1978 to 1998 was 7 percent smaller than Fairfax's, but the Maryland county had 2,400 more rapes, 6,153 more robberies, 11,770 more aggravated assaults, 38 more murders and 38,087 more burglaries.

From a social-science perspective, this discrepancy shouldn't exist, since the two counties have almost identical socieconomic profiles. According to the Census Bureau, both have low poverty rates (5.4 percent for each jurisdiction in 1995), similar per-capita incomes ($ 41,539 in Montgomery and $ 39,951 in Fairfax in 1997) and similar unemployment rates (2.3 percent in Montgomery and 1.6 percent in Fairfax in 1998).

Likewise, the racial, ethnic and family composition of the two counties is almost identical. Fairfax and Montgomery have nearly the same proportions of Asians and Hispanics, and there is only a slightly higher proportion of African Americans on the Maryland side (15.3 percent vs. 8.3 percent in Fairfax). Both counties have also seen rapid population growth and large-scale immigration during the past 30 years, which has changed them from enclaves that were almost completely non-Hispanic white to models of ethnic diversity. Nor does one county have significantly more broken homes than the other: 83 percent of the families with children in Montgomery consist of married couples, compared to 85 percent in Fairfax.

So what accounts for the dramatically different crime rates between the two counties. Is it police policy? Probably not. There is little evidence that the gap in crime rates comes from differences either in the professionalism or the amount of resources devoted to policing. In 1998 Fairfax County Police and Montgomery County Police solved 57 percent and 58 percent of all violent crimes respectively.

Is it gun-control policy? Perhaps. Maryland has stricter gun laws than Virginia, which means that criminals have a greater likelihood of being confronted by an armed citizen in Virginia. Indeed, the gap between the two counties in crimes that involve face-to-face contact with a victim (such as rape, burglary, assault and robbery) is much greater than for offenses in which such contact is unlikely (larceny and car theft, for example).

Is it criminal justice policy? This looks like the best explanation. The only significant way Montgomery and Fairfax have differed over the past 20 years is that they have been governed by state legislatures and gubernatorial administrations with vastly different approaches to crime.

While Maryland has largely adhered to older and more lenient criminal justice policies during the past two decades, Virginia has emerged as one of the toughest-on-crime states in the nation. For example, in 1994 Virginia was the first state to abolish parole for violent felons. Maryland has no such law. More recently, Virginia enacted a truth-in-sentencing law requiring all violent prisoners to serve a minimum of 85 percent of their sentences. Maryland law requires only that imnates serve 50 percent of their sentences. Indeed, looking back over the 20-year period 1978-98, for every 100 Maryland criminals in prison, 66 walked the streets as parolees; in Virginia, only 45 did.

As for capital crimes, Virginia has been far less reluctant to employ the death penalty, executing 11 murderers during the first nine months of 1999 alone. Maryland has executed only three murderers in the past 20 years.

Following the rapid drop in crime in New York City after the institution of police reforms by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, much attention was focused on better policing as the key to controlling crime. But the sharply different experiences of Montgomery and Fairfax counties offer compelling evidence that criminal justice reforms can also be effective in driving down crime rates. Conversely, lenient criminal justice policies can exact a substantial price, not just in inner cities but in some of the nation's most affluent suburbs.

Well, if he'd been bleeding profuesely you would have torn off a piece of your clothes to stop the bleeding until you could get help. If you didn't even think of that he was probably not bleeding very much.
I didn't think of shit. I wasn't there. It's not even my cousin, man, it's my fiancees cousin (hence "soon to be cousin-in-law"). I know ONE other guy real well who was on that trip, and I promise you the closest these guys could probably get to worthwhile first aid is placing the makeshift bandage atop the wound thinking it might help....maybe a little bit of pressure. Have you ever been shot with a rifle, or seen the kind of wound that can make? It's not something that you can simply "patch up" until the proper assistance arrives. It's not a situation of "Oh crap, well....better stop the bleeding until somebody gets here". Judging by where his scar is, it's really not even something that you can create a working tourniquet for without some really good training. Besides which, rational thinking in a calm situation and rational actions in a panicked situation are not exactly on an equal level. Much as I'd like to think I'd use all my safety and first aid training in that kind of crisis, I also realize that from the start the first thing that's likely to happen is a level-3 freak out.

Small problem. In that scenerio, you actually saw the scientist hit the person. We have not actually seen macroevolution happen. We have not directly observed it to occur, and we do not have anywhere near the evidence to presume that it happened on its own.

Small problem. In that scenerio, you actually saw the scientist hit the person. We have not actually seen macroevolution happen. We have not directly observed it to occur, and we do not have anywhere near the evidence to presume that it happened on its own.

It certainly happens on a regular basis with bacteria, virii, and rickettsiae (and all sorts of other microbes).

Right now, evolution is happenning with the H5N1 virus. Something that cannot be explained by Creationism or ID.

So, this thread is about whether guns where designed intelligently?

It certainly happens on a regular basis with bacteria, virii, and rickettsiae (and all sorts of other microbes).

Right now, evolution is happenning with the H5N1 virus. Something that cannot be explained by Creationism or ID.

Actually it can. There is evidence of anti-biotic resistant bactiaria that have not been exposed to antibiotics. Found in isolated cave systems under ground

You will also notice I said MACRO evolution

So, this thread is about whether guns where designed intelligently?

that's what I thought, but it seems to be about religion trying to masquerade as science in order to discredit science.

It certainly happens on a regular basis with bacteria, virii, and rickettsiae (and all sorts of other microbes).

Right now, evolution is happenning with the H5N1 virus. Something that cannot be explained by Creationism or ID.
I think that's something we need to repeat: Creationism is providing NO USEFUL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. Meanwhile, evolutionary theory is helping us in a host of fields. If the Creationists are so very adamant about their position, then I would expect each and every one of them to refuse vaccine, medicines, and other treatments that were developed using evolutionary theory. So when the Bird Flu hits, and there's not enough vaccine to go around, the Creationists will gladly step aside and let other people get treated. Right?