High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[Kulindahr]

No, what I believe is that they have the rights that they have forged for themselves, and they are just as "right" and "inalienable" and "intrinsic" as the structure that is built to defend them. For 20 000 years of human civilization, most people did not have those rights. That tells us something important. Every right we think we have, only exist as long as the power to enforce it exists. Which means that those rights are a subject to change if the structure changes. Anything else is empty philosophy.

That position merely renames privilege with a noble-sounding word, turning "rights" into a myth promulgated by those with power to pacify the masses. It makes cannibalism equal to compassion, murder equal to mercy, despotism equal to democracy. It is, in short, the philosophy that there are no morals, there is only the convenience of those with force at their disposal.

Government is force, nothing more nor less. The only difference between governments is twofold: in what they do with their privilege of force, and in whether they have a monopoly. Where they have a monopoly, the condition is tyranny, however it may be prettified and hidden.

Humans have always had their rights, but for most of history they believed the same lie you do: that what counts is power, not humanity; force, and not dignity.

 

[Rolyo85]

The semantics is when you take a statement of fact and make it a personal attack.

And the chance of you getting shot on the street there is little different from that in the US, as long as you're not involved in crime.

Your "facts" are offensive, and not really "facts" at all. A fact is that Obama won the election in November. A fact is that a number of kids got murdered at Sandy Hook. That not glorifying guns and choosing to not make them freely available to any lunatic out there makes you a loser who has chosen to be "property", is not a "fact". It's your personal opinion, and warped ideology. Don't dare call it "fact".

That's your personal issue. If your government would rather let you fall prey to a criminal, without the means to make sure the criminal loses, then they are in cooperation with the criminals to make you a victim.

Criminals in my country don't have guns because guns aren't freely available in my country, so there isn't that many of them to go around. Sorry if that pisses on your "facts".

 

[Kulindahr]

If airbags killed more people on orders of magnitude than it saved or helped in car accidents I'd say let's either redesign or get rid of them.

So you're a utilitarian of the variety which believes that people as statistics are to be protected above people as individuals -- that the herd is more important than the individual.

Rights do not depend on whether some find them not practical.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So you're a utilitarian of the variety which believes that people as statistics are to be protected above people as individuals -- that the herd is more important than the individual.

Rights do not depend on whether some find them not practical.

When the rights of the individual endanger the community of individuals they have to be tempered.

Which is why the 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to a nuclear weapon.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your "facts" are offensive, and not really "facts" at all. A fact is that Obama won the election in November. A fact is that a number of kids got murdered at Sandy Hook. That not glorifying guns and choosing to not make them freely available to any lunatic out there makes you a loser who has chosen to be "property", is not a "fact". It's your personal opinion, and warped ideology. Don't dare call it "fact".



Criminals in my country don't have guns because guns aren't freely available in my country, so there isn't that many of them to go around. Sorry if that pisses on your "facts".

If a government tells its people that they can't have firearms, they're making them prey for criminals -- that's a fact. It may not be palatable, but it's still a fact. Every person killed or raped by a criminal because they couldn't get to a firearm for their defense was victimized as much by their government as by the perpetrator, because the government established the situation wherein the criminal could exercise his will.

It's irrelevant whether the criminals have guns -- what's relevant is that the government denying them to the innocent is conspiring to aid the criminal.

 

[Kulindahr]

When the rights of the individual endanger the community of individuals they have to be tempered.

Which is why the 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to a nuclear weapon.

No, the Second Amendment doesn't entitle you to a nuclear weapon, because it doesn't talk about them at all -- it talks about keeping and bearing arms under the concept of the militia.

 

[Rolyo85]

That position merely renames privilege with a noble-sounding word, turning "rights" into a myth promulgated by those with power to pacify the masses. It makes cannibalism equal to compassion, murder equal to mercy, despotism equal to democracy. It is, in short, the philosophy that there are no morals, there is only the convenience of those with force at their disposal.

Government is force, nothing more nor less. The only difference between governments is twofold: in what they do with their privilege of force, and in whether they have a monopoly. Where they have a monopoly, the condition is tyranny, however it may be prettified and hidden.

Humans have always had their rights, but for most of history they believed the same lie you do: that what counts is power, not humanity; force, and not dignity.

Ideology is not fact. Deal with it. Just because you believe in rights being intrinsic, doesn't make it so. And, frankly, it's irrelevant to reality either way.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, the Second Amendment doesn't entitle you to a nuclear weapon, because it doesn't talk about them at all -- it talks about keeping and bearing arms under the concept of the militia.

It didn't talk about them at all because they didn't exist yet in 1776.

But the concept of the right to individual arms to ensure government could never become tyrannical would naturally need to expand as the machinery of war advanced so that citizens always had commensurate power to stop a government from oppressing them.

So if we accept the 2nd Amendment as rigidly as you say we must as a universal, unquestionable natural human right, I want my nuke. It's the only want to ensure the government can't oppress me, I can't take on the army with a handgun.

 

[Telstra]

Relax everybody.

Steven Seagal is training a civilian posse in Arizona to keep schools safe.






Seriously.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/sheriff-hires-steven-seagal-to-train-civilian-posse-20130211-2e78s.html

Laughable.
Those teachers are dead before they can go and get a gun.

 

[Rolyo85]

If a government tells its people that they can't have firearms, they're making them prey for criminals -- that's a fact. It may not be palatable, but it's still a fact. Every person killed or raped by a criminal because they couldn't get to a firearm for their defense was victimized as much by their government as by the perpetrator, because the government established the situation wherein the criminal could exercise his will.

It's irrelevant whether the criminals have guns -- what's relevant is that the government denying them to the innocent is conspiring to aid the criminal.

Government is part of the people. If the people wanted guns, they would have made the government change the laws so we could have them. We don't want them. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. Unfortunately, your half of the US is not an advanced culture.

And your entire stance is violently hypocritical, in case you aren't aware of it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If a government tells its people that they can't have firearms, they're making them prey for criminals -- that's a fact.

Then explain why we are more prey to criminals-- and often ones who have guns-- than people in more regulated first world societies.

 

[Benvolio]

Government is part of the people. If the people wanted guns, they would have made the government change the laws so we could have them. We don't want them. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. Unfortunately, your half of the US is not an advanced culture.

And your entire stance is violently hypocritical, in case you aren't aware of it.

Who is the "we" in "We don't want them."? I hope you are not purporting to speak for a "the people". Few are saying they want to take all guns away. We Americans, by a large majority, have always wanted to retain the right to bear arms.

 

[lambdaboy]

More people have died by guns in the U.S. than in all the wars we have fought.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mmentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

 

[HenryReardon]

You're actually arguing HenryReardon's position, that people should be required to face all the dangers of life with no means to deal with them unless you're rich.

Kindly provide proof of that ridiculous statement.

 

[HenryReardon]

More people have died by guns in the U.S. than in all the wars we have fought.
url]

So what? Was there a point to that bit of nonsense?

 

[HenryReardon]

. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. t.

More nonsense. Please provide proof that guns are capable of doing anything - unless a violent human being is holding them.

 

[itsmejeff]

Thanks for the blog article... doesn't do much in comparing or contrasting at all. And America's crime rate isn't that low. And the insult that was deleted in your post.

There is a study linked in the article. www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf

But it's still very high in contrast to European countries that have lower rates of crime. Liberals hate facts? Everyone can look at this thread and point to the fact that conservatives are the one that hates facts. By the way, Los Angeles has seen its crime rate drop to the lowest point in decades. California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. So what does that do to that argument? It absolutely destroys it.

No, individual with child-like abilities in logic, it does not. Crime rates are generally lower prior to changes in firearms laws. New York and California have seen decreases in crime prior to weapons laws went into effect. There has been a consistent decline in crime since the 1990s. Not because of less guns either. The majority of people are committing less crimes (theories abound, but the reasons are unknown).

Other places have seen no effect from firearms laws. The District of Columbia and Chicago are examples there. Why? Because the relationship between crime and firearms laws is tenuous at best. Firearms are durable. They last a long time. Law does little to change that. Weapons will always be available. People who want them will be able to get them. People looking to engage in criminal activity just ignore law. People working in the market for illegal substances need firearms as they have no court protection for contracts.

As an aside, I have a magic stick that prevents tornadoes. There has never been a tornado near me. I will sell it to you--guy who has never taken a course in statistics and clearly is lacking in an ability to understand causation--for US$1 million.

It's nice to see someone post so many misconceptions about another culture... I guess right wingers do that a lot... misinterpreting and mischaracterizing other cultures.

Do a bit of reading. Look at peer reviewed journals about Japanese culture and reporting of rape and sexual assault specifically. enough has been written about it. Suicide is also seen as responsible in Japan. See "inseki-jisatsu." different culture. Different views.'

The problem here is that you do not understand math. It is not unexpected, but it prevents any actual examination of facts.

Government is part of the people. If the people wanted guns, they would have made the government change the laws so we could have them. We don't want them. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. Unfortunately, your half of the US is not an advanced culture.

Not quite.

What firearms are is effective. They do not cause anything. Fatality rates are higher with firearms than other weapons. Again, most murders are unplanned. Using a firearm is somewhat easier than using other weapons, so people who are shot are more likely to die. But violence is inherent in the species. And other species as well. Primates kill. A lot. Infanticide, murder, and war-like acts of aggression to take over territory are seen in chimpanzees.

What actually is happening is that stupid people are failing to examine the root causes of crime. They blame firearms because it is easy. Liberals are just as bad at math and science as conservatives. That is a very American quality.

 

[HenryReardon]

Criminals in my country don't have guns because guns aren't freely available in my country, so there isn't that many of them to go around. ".

If "your" country is such a utopian paradise, why are you here wasting valuable space in mine?

 

[chrisrobin]

I wasn't born with a gun.

But you were, Blanch - you were!

 

[bankside]

Kulindahr, whenever you quote me, followed by "So, you're saying..." it would be much appreciated, and much more accurate, if you began "So, I'm going to pretend you're saying..." and then just took it from there. Sililarly, "So, you are..." ---> "So, I'm going to pretend you are..."

It's kind of a "tell" I think they would say, in poker, much like another poster who'd begin by "noting" someone's "opinion" as a way of introducing an argument that was rather thin.