SHUD ENGLAND RESTORE GUN FREEDOM ?

Quote:

My failure to challenge your stats resulted from my contemptible lack of energy,
NOT from assent to their veracity, nor to their accuracy.

Quote:

Considering the incredible energy you put into advocating gun freedom (seen in the very numerous posts),
I find it rather dubious that your failure to challenge the stats result from contemptible lack of energy.

That 's the fact.
I did not assent.

Quote:

I asked you to do so three times in your other gun thread,
and implicitly once here...And you still haven't challenged them.

I 'll take a look at them.
However, whether thay were accurate,
or how thay were cooked ( IF that is what happened )
is not necessarily apparent upon gross observation.

Quote:

I should think that would be because they are impossible to challenge.

If thay were based on politically motivated lies,
I 'd not necessarily have knowledge of the errors,
so that I can challenge them. I was not looking over their shoulders,
when thay drew them up.

Quote:

Face facts David,
international stats show a correlation
between increased guns (in a country) equaling increased deaths.

Stats in America have consistently shown that better armament of the future
victims has reduced crime in state after state.

Quote:

It's too bad you didn't keep the references to your alleged book cooking.
It makes your argument rather weak when you say
"I heard this, and I heard that - therefore I am right...err, but I can't tell you where I heard this and that."

Agreed.
There is a chance that I 'll be able to get the specifics.
I 'll see what I can do;
( not that success or failure will have any practical effect; I believe that the USSC will handle that ).

Quote:

Personally, stats are the only thing worth debating,
otherwise it comes down to purely emotional arguments with no reasoning.

That is false.

I have confidence that more guns in the hands of the citizens
reduce crime, but even if u succeeded in convincing me of your stats,
I 'd not throw my gun collection in the garbage.

I have use of it, regardless of your ( questionable ) stats.
If a burglar broke into my bedroom in the middle of the nite,
he 'd likely get a few rounds of .44 caliber hollowpointed slugs
in his lower intestine. He can discuss the stats with me,
while he is bleeding on the floor.

Quote:

(Well, I have no problem with emotional arguments -
everyone is entitled to their emotions,
but don't expect me to change my mind because of someone elses emotions)

I am not that low.

Other than discussing emotional arguments,
we can discuss whether government was ever granted authority
to control or curtail my rights of self defense,
including my right to instant access to vital emergency equipment,
and
we can discuss the philosophical foundations of Americans' rights
of self defense.
David

Quote:

this debate is fatuous.
There are two extremes, a society without guns, or a society where everyone is armed.
Now ask yourself which is the better ideal? Obvious.

So in which direction should be the general thrust of the law?

Mandatory personal armament is the better deal
( as in Colonial times )
or maybe just a good, hefty tax credit
for being well armed in public.
Teach children safe n accurate firearms handling,
in their earliest years in school.

Quote:

Its simply stupid to think that if you pour 200m guns into a society of 300m people
the rate of gun crime and gun related incidents/accidents will drop.

It is stupid to think that if violent criminals believe that continuing
their predatory careers is too risky, based on observed casualities
of their criminal friends, thay will take the risks anyway,
instead of going to a gun control jurisdiction where it is SAFER for them,
to continue their careers.

Quote:

Its the logic of the kindergarten.
If all the bad people were shot dead there would be no bad people and no crime,

I favor BANISHING violent recidivists, behind 1000s of miles of water.

David

I 'll take a look at them.
However, whether thay were accurate,
or how thay were cooked ( IF that is what happened )
is not necessarily apparent upon gross observation.

Quote:

Quote:

Face facts David,
international stats show a correlation
between increased guns (in a country) equaling increased deaths.

Stats in America have consistently shown that better armament of the future
victims has reduced crime in state after state.

Quote:

why should we base current social contract, understanding of citizenship, on 1700s?

Because that is when it was made.

Quote:

Society evolves, so does interpretation of the constitution and its underlying principles.
what social contract meant that day is very different from what it means today.

If u claim that the contract CHANGED,
if u allege that government was granted MORE POWER,
then it is up to u to prove it.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David

dagmaraka wrote:

Quote:

why should we base current social contract, understanding of citizenship, on 1700s?

Because that is when it was made.

Quote:

Society evolves, so does interpretation of the constitution and its underlying principles.
what social contract meant that day is very different from what it means today.

If u claim that the contract CHANGED,
if u allege that government was granted MORE POWER,
then it is up to u to prove it.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David

Citizens vote, citizens make changes, citizens are constitutional. I suggest David that you represent less than 5% of the voting citizens. Tthe Nation and the universe are bigger than david, learn to live with it.

Quote:

I 'll take a look at them.
However, whether thay were accurate,
or how thay were cooked ( IF that is what happened )
is not necessarily apparent upon gross observation.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Face facts David,
international stats show a correlation
between increased guns (in a country) equaling increased deaths.

Stats in America have consistently shown that better armament of the future
victims has reduced crime in state after state.

You do see the inherent hypocrisy in your stance don't you David.
On the one hand you call any stat disproving your stance as false or cooked,
and on the other hand you present all your stats (which amounts to a news article) as true.
U distort what I said.
................................................................................................

By the way - In one of your arguments, you attempt to compare International Stats, with internal Stats (stats inside the US).

As the US has an overall problem with firearms
(both volume and crime related),
the banning of firearms in one State creates enormous problems :
I deny that the US has any problems
with firearms, as long as thay function properly.

- there's already a hell of a lot of firearms in the state anyway. And a large percentage of the criminals are already heavily armed (this isn't the case in many other countries)
- At a guess, the entrenched US gun loby and culture of guns makes sure many will keep their guns anyway, illegal or not (I know some of that happened here in Australia, and it seems the US is much more gun loving than here)
- US state borders are porous - guns can freely come in from the adjoing State where Guns are legal

These problems make the internal comparisons you nominate as likely, but they are are due to circumstances relevant to the US, not necessarily to other countries.

The focusing on your state comparisons also clouds what the overall picture is - one of increased gun crime with increased guns.

In other words, state to state comparisons inside the US are not comparative to country to country comparisons.

since you talk about it, i believe you have read some of the social contract theories.

it wasn't "made" in 1700s.
It is made everyday. It's what citizenship is.

I deny that the US has any problems
with firearms, as long as thay function properly.

dagmaraka wrote:

since you talk about it, i believe you have read some of the social contract theories.

it wasn't "made" in 1700s.
It is made everyday. It's what citizenship is.

That is the same as saying
that no social contract exists.

If that is true,
then government has no legitimacy
and its laws have only the authority of a schoolyard bully.

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

since you talk about it, i believe you have read some of the social contract theories.

it wasn't "made" in 1700s.
It is made everyday. It's what citizenship is.

That is the same as saying
that no social contract exists.

If that is true,
then government has no legitimacy
and its laws have only the authority of a schoolyard bully.

David

no it is not the same...hence nothing follows. next.

Quote:

'll take a look at them.
However, whether thay were accurate,
or how thay were cooked ( IF that is what happened )
is not necessarily apparent upon gross observation.

Quote:

Face facts David,
international stats show a correlation
between increased guns (in a country) equaling increased deaths.

Quote:

Stats in America have consistently shown that better armament of the future
victims has reduced crime in state after state

.

You do see the inherent hypocrisy in your stance don't you David. On the one hand you call any stat disproving your stance as false or cooked, and on the other hand you present all your stats (which amounts to a news article) as true.

Quote:

U distort what I said.

One explanation is your police cooking the books
to make gun prohibition falsely appear to be not as bad as it really IS,

OK, lemme get this straight, Vik:

If a politically motivated, collectivist-authoritarian, anti-self defense
police propagandist programs a police computer
with false data

I am not " after international comparisons. "
I do not deem them to be relevant, nor of interest ( with all respect ).

Quote:

- The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period.

Y r we interested in suicides with firearms ??
Do u prefer that suicides jump off the tops of hi buildings ?
or drive their cars fast into opposing traffic ?
Du u require suicides to use knives ?

Everyone has the right to end his life,
whenever he dam pleases; that is a PERSONAL DECISION.

By what right do u seek to interfere ?

I know that the English police cooked the books * on statistics
to make gun prohibition look not as bad when it made crime WORSE
in England ( particularly in home invasions, wherein the homeowners
are known to be at home, since the criminals have faith that thay have
DISARMED themselves, in obedience to English law against self defense ).
I do not have data handy regarding Austrailian,
but I am skeptical, since human nature tends to be similar
from England to Austrailia.

In relation to other arguments going on re firearms, these stats from the Nationmaster website regarding violent crime :

Rankings

Assault stats :
US #6 @ 7.6 per 1000 people
UK #8 @ 7.5 per 1000 people
Aust #10 @ 7.0 per 1000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita&int=-1

Robberies
UK #8 @ 1.57 per 1000 people
US #11 @ 1.38 per 1000 people
Aust #15 @ 1.16 per 1000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita&int=-1

Rapes
Aust #3 @ 0.78 per 1000 people
US #9 @ 0.30 per 1000 people
Uk #13 @ 0.014 per 1000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita&int=-1

Firearms murder rate
US #8 @ 0.032 per 1000 people
Aust #27 @ 0.0029 per 1000 people
UK #32 @ 0.001 per 1000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita&int=-1

Overall murder rate
US #20 @ 0.043 per 1,000 people
Aust #43 @ 0.015 per 1,000 people
UK #46 @ 0.014 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&int=-1

nope. constitution is only one part of social contract.
besides, interpretations of the constitution changed dramatically over time as well, so that only serves to support my point.

You come out with all these silly ideas because you are desperate to justify the fact that you like playing with guns.
You ought to know better at your age. Put away your playthings and start acting like a man.