Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Further support that even the good intentions may well end up causing harm.
However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur. A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents. To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181). To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device. To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers. There were many who called GW Bush a tyrant for the Patriot Act. And just today, our FBI director was asked if it was legal for the government to kill a US citizen on US soil and he actually said he would have to check into it. The context of this discussion was the FBI's explanation of the legal aspect of killing an American citizen on foreign soil if he was deemed an imminent threat. The very discussion is unimaginable to most Americans - where is the due process guaranteed to every citizen? And who gets to decide "imminent threat". The Justice Department's position that the FBI was explaining was the due process was effectively practiced based on how they selected their targets. Really? Really? My point is, the concern about tyranny is real. Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down. The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231). If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right????? |
Originally Posted by finestkind
However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.
Originally Posted by finestkind
A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.
Originally Posted by finestkind
To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).
Originally Posted by finestkind
To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational
Originally Posted by finestkind
And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.
Originally Posted by finestkind
To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.
Originally Posted by finestkind
Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down.
Originally Posted by finestkind
The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231).
Originally Posted by finestkind
If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????
AR1 - suggest you lay off the drink for a bit, then post. While I find it difficult to follow some of your nonsensical rambling, I will attempt it nonetheless.
Originally Posted by AR1
If only (they said to me) Concealed permits were in that theater, the folks there would have dealt with him. Oh really? pitch dark, your engrossed in a movie and a shot rings out. Do you A: Hit the deck or B: stand up with the other 40 or so guns in the room and shoot who?
Originally Posted by AR1
That tells you all you need to know. The land of the free is a country haunted by fear - fear of itself. We can talk statistics all we like but it doesn't change that, and until it does, everyday we await the next nutjob who wants his inevitable death on the front pages with his victims.
I don't have a gun because I'm fearful. I have a gun because I know I live in a world that is not perfect and there are bad guys with guns. I am responsible because I wish to equip myself with the tools to protect my family and myself. It is out of duty, not fear, that I do this. It is for the love of my family that I protect them. And even if the bad guy didn't have a gun, I'm not going to let him get close enough to my family to use a knife, a club, a brick or any other imaginary weapon in your Utopian land of make believe. I'm not going to count on my cunning or strength, I'm going to count on the great equalizer that is the most superior weapon I can legally obtain. |
@ AA
Again, I'll say poppycock. Your treasured study claims, (after reassessments which confirms the author's ability to take a dataset and manipulate it), that I have a 2.7 times better chance of dying from a gun because my house has one or more. But what it does not take into account is the fact that, in an armed household the thing I'm most worried about, (the armed intruder), won't meet a happy end at the end of one of my weapons. So really your study, while it sounds wonderful, doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that if an armed intruder enters Kellerman's perfect house he's golden, if he enters an armed house his likelihood of assuming room temperature is increased infinitely. Thus, the educated gun owner has no worry about Kellerman's mental meanderings. @ HrkDrvr Your ad hominem attacks do not eliminate the fact that there are multiple ways to manipulate data. Kellerman chooses to ignore some data (self defense) and manipulate the rest in manners that support his sponsors. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to find things that support his sponsors when conducting a study. Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory? Straw man argument. Nobody said that. I said that guns are not a health issue. Death due to guns is a crime or social issue. Not health. Read again. There were two stats provided for each area, violent crime total (which includes all murder) and gun-related murder and non-negligent homicide (which I'm pretty sure is specific to guns). It is one of the key ways the FBI delineates the data in the Uniform Crime Report, so my source did as well. It's available on the web if you'd like to peruse it. King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Nowhere does that mention guns. I would LOVE to peruse your data, but you've not linked it and I'm not going to go hunting it with the vaguest of detail.Actually, no. You don't seem to know much about our university system. The overwhelming majority are sponsored by the state and even the private institutions receive many millions in grants from the government. They all tend to be quite liberal/left/socialistic for the most part. So, no, I wouldn't expect any university to really combat another university on this particular issue. In fact, most social issues tend to be generally agreed upon by the universities. Was the Kellerman study done by a university? I didn't look...I thought it was an ER doctor. Another straw man argument. The nature of crime does indeed change as does the study of it. The incidences change and the criminals change too. My university degree is in criminology, so I'm well versed in the ever changing nature of crime. Crime is a reflection of society and society has radically changed since 1992. It's no different than quoting a study done in the '60s or 1800s. Why don't we go pull up some old phrenology studies and apply them to today, I mean, since the nature of crime hasn't changed, so surely the studies are still valid. No. Kellerman is both flawed and outdated. I'd also like to know why you think that was a straw man: I wasn't stating an argument for you at all there. You keep saying Kellerman is flawed, but haven't shown how: every "reason" you've given I've provided a counter to and you've not responded. And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless. What variables would you control for to determine how increased gun ownership, increased numbers of guns, and increased access to guns due to more liberal laws in all but one state do not affect crime rates? I am not missing 20 years of data, I can quickly go get it for you from the FBI UCR, but honestly, I'm tired of doing simple leg work for you as you refuse to use reason and insist on using a single study from a biased source. Uh, yes we are. Your little list includes all countries - most of which do not have access to guns like the US has. AND it includes suicides, not just homicides - not the subject of this debate. http://mark.reid.name/images/figures...de-vs-guns.png - picture removed because it was HUGE. Source Also, this: The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing, I would Just Like to Point Out… No, it's not tinfoil hat stuff; more ad hominem. I apologize for my sloppy word choice. 'They', of course, means the gun control lobby in the US - I'm sorry I assumed that was understood. They, the gun control lobby, want to remove all weapons. It is their stated goal. You need to teach PTT statistical analysis. And I think you perhaps need to check up on the meaning of some of the logical fallacies you're throwing around here: they don't quite tally up with what is being said :ok: |
Bollocks. And at this point I have been drinking. In California... The woman I used as an example represents the single viewpoint I've come across in my time over here, family and friends cling on to their arms through fear. Fear that in their lifetime somehow if it's not their homes they"ll be called into action to stop looting at the supermarket come armageddon. Two nights ago I sat in this bar watching nobody react to a man collapse (I did) Yet you'll quite happily justify a society that reacts with a gun. Twisted.
|
I'll give you that to a point. I can buy several semi-auto hunting rifles built by the likes of browning, winchester, remington. All in larger caliber than the ar-15 and knockoffs. In Montana, and most terrain in the mountainous western USA, longer shots are the norm. If you are lucky you may get 3-4 shots at 300 yds before the elk are in the trees. Which is why 7mm, 300 win. magnums are preferred calibers as the .223 don't cut the mustard.
I am NOT for gun control, but the argument of 30 round clips for hunting makes no sense to me when better platforms are available. Same for auto-loading pistols, my 45 acp only has an 8 round mag, which seems plenty for me. High capacity weapons have been a trademark of these nuts, if they are taken off the market it will have no effect on my ability to hunt or protect myself. |
:suspect: Bored with this now....I just wish Thames Valley Police would hurry up with my FAC variation.....:ok:
|
HrkDrv Apologise for not being succinct
Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny Borderline ad hominem? Based on what fact. I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one. I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights. Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature. I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem. Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison. I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment Just the example given by you I feel is pertinent. The use of an “illegal” fire arm to protect oneself with the result the victim becomes the criminal is an abuse/misuse of the justice system. You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone. Very happy to leave it to the Americans to do as they will. But being what we are, somewhat educated reasonable thinking people, trying to see the other side by having a discourse. Some logical reason as to why it is so. There are posters who have stated it is my right, so what. To do something just because you can do it is not a reason. Who’s right is right is as relevant as your acknowledgment of one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. There is no prejudgement just a desire to understand why when so much appears to be with the no vote. An increasing population with a lower socio economic background in an overpopulated urban area statistically shows a higher crime rate (or so I have read). If you are armed you are more likely to a) turn away an attempted mugging/robbery/assault b) defend yourself and others from a shooting. Acknowledged but one of the many questions would be if there were far harsher penalties would this reduce the crime rate and thereby negate the need to arm oneself. But I guess if that is only a minor reason to carry a gun and it is more relevant to do so because of the fear of tryanny, well I'm really doubtfull. |
If in the US people would only be allowed to have their gun at clubs or if they are police/militairy, gun related accidents would instantly decimate, even robberies would become much safer.
We have a situation where their are a growing number of guns though 300.000.000, getting ever more powerful and the NRA people successfully make everyone afraid. Generations are raised with it and make sure their kids have no doubts. |
Oh FFS, somebody please be kind and apply a gun to the back of this threads head to put it out of its' misery
|
"even robberies would become much safer."
Keesje And just how will robberies become safer ? |
This thread may have got a bit too serious and a bit too silly.
Why do folks talk of nutters and checks etc. As far as I was aware shooting in the USA are most often carried out by one single group in society. They aren't nutters, they don't intend to hurt and they are known to thr gun owner. Americans here should easily identify this group! I got a bit bored of the thread when banning cars etc was brought up. Statistically the highest percentage of death per activity is sleeping. Do these same folks propose banning sleep? I suppose aircrew carry weapons, drive cars and also sleep, so at least the thread could be relevant.:E |
Originally Posted by finestkind
(Post 7654601)
Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
CP Snow, Corridors of Power and I am losing the will to live. Obviously all this shooting is making them deaf and blind to how b o r I n g this thread has become. |
The robber knows nobody has a gun, takes the money and leaves.
He would bring bigger guns and be nervous/ violent if the are probably guns around. (And no, carrying a gun doesn't make the country safer Robberies statistics - countries compared worldwide - NationMaster) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.