This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.
This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine. Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for. Are you complaining about something specific? Or do you just not like it whenever there is a group of more than 1 person and you are "brutally coerced" into compromising? Do you think I like paying taxes more than anyone else? (Or dealing with other annoying government stuff?) Hell no! But I'd rather put up with moderate governments instead of being forced to deal with "mob rule" and hard-line supremacist attitudes. That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise? Where is your compromise? And maybe that's why your world view has not manifested - it's too absence of any type of compromise for it to be accepted. Sucks to be you, man. Voting is compromise. That's where the compromise is. |
|
|
|
Instead, I suggest you take a deep look at the policies employed in other nations as a starting point.
Although I think you are missing the point by comparing one country to another (simply too many variables to make any meaningful conclusions), I picked Australia off the top of my head mainly because I know they have recently enacted more gun control. |
|
|
|
Let's start with some facts:
1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.
Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US. What was your point again? Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that. Quit cherry picking. Because developed nations tend to end up enacting gun control and because developed nations tend to have lower rates of violence does not mean that one implies the other. You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft. |
|
|
|
Let's start with some facts:
1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.
Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US. What was your point again? Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results. It is also not clear that less guns will. The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored. I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does. Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly? Since about of the quarter of the meat I eat is harvested with a rifle, yes, my guns are important. And good job dismissing my points by calling them a dismissal instead of addressing them. The only points I saw from you were speculation about why gun control wouldn't work, rather than an analysis of where it clearly works. |
|
|
|
Links servicing your views are kind of silly. Instead, I suggest you take a deep look at the policies employed in other nations as a starting point. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results. It is also not clear that less guns will. The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored. I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does. Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly? |
|
|
|
Questions for pro-gun activists: do you realize there are places and communities in this world where you don't have to fear a random armed idiot will invade your home or shop, and you don't have to consider the whole "should I own a gun?" question? Do you realize how fucked up place you live in? Do you realize that you owning a gun and having certain related "rights" does not make it any less fucked up? Do you think you live in a normal place? Have you asked yourselves what can actually be done to make things better, other than playing along and perpetuating the madness?
You live in a place where murder, rape, assault, robbery, arson, kidnapping, etc doesn't exist? Did you suggest that a gun can not prevent crime? This is an outright lie and I have no idea what gave you such a misguided view. Yes, I live in a normal place. I don't know of anywhere on Earth that has zero crime. Yes, I've thought long and hard on how to make things better, but I do not control policy, so I'm left doing what I can to protect my family. If, with the snap of my fingers, I could remove all deadly weapons from the world, assured that this would cause no harm on any innocent lives for the rest of time, I would. (Difficult when someone can beat another human to death with their fists. Suddenly, large powerful men have an advantage over women, children, and the elderly.) If someone invented a force shield that could protect an individual from all forms of aggressive violence, and it could extend to their property and shelter (to prevent being starved to death, etc), I would trade all my guns for one shield for each of my friends and family and be done with guns forever. Unfortunately, these shields don't exist. A firearm is my imperfect solution to an imperfect world filled with imperfect beings. Would you force law abiding citizens to disarm? All well and good. But have you forgotten our discussion? Guns exacerbate the problem. Take a cue from other countries and their policies. It's mind boggling that you think 300 million guns in this country is a good thing. Did it ever occur to you that more guns means more police, and more guns in the hands of police? The opposite is true in many other countries. |
|
|
|
How about its no ones business what type of knifes a person owns. The owner need not explain to anyone why he owns it and the answer "because i like it" should suffice!
Let's at least focus on gun control then, since we have proven models of effectiveness in many other countries. |
|
|
|
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)
Its cumulative so maybe not today or tomorrow, but some day the motorist might hurt someone by their speeding, so if you continue to ticket them when they speed, it usually encourages them to slow down. It is the deceleration impact that kills people and the person going faster has the advantage in these cases. That is one of the reason we have speeding laws. Myrkul's mindless post is an example of him engaging in deflection. Or perhaps he really is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Note that in his question, it really appears that he does not have a clue what a speeding ticket is for. Just to clarify, and I hope I don't need to embellish in further posts: speeders, if not punished, continue to speed until an accident might kill others, such as pedestrians (it has happened) or individuals in other cars who were obeying the speed limit. It's rather unfathomable that myrkul really doesn't appear to understand this. |
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude.  Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. Indeed. It's attitude which creates policies which allow an unhealthy and unnecessary quantity of guns in the US. And knives. You don't want restaurants to have knives for meal preparation? What about in your kitchen? I believe he's referring to the long pointy knives which are solely intended for stabbing and have no place in the kitchen. As far as I know, the UK is the only place that is addressing this problem. We could prevent a lot more deaths and far more injuries by outlawing these vicious instruments. So you're in favor of such measures? That's great. And that certainly does not preclude gun control, but complements it. Glad you're on board. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results. Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime. End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board. End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step. End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system. While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list? Do other nations around the world spend similar amounts of money on the war on drugs compared to the U.S.? Welfare? How many military bases do these other countries have around the world? Troops abroad? Some nations have very strict laws on drugs. Some nations have much better government provided safety nets for people. No country operates a military organization like the US. In other words, it's not as correlative as you might think. Oh, but the number of guns are as correlative as you might think? Yeah - they're pretty damn correlative, actually. Especially when you factor in the nature of the laws regulating firearms and ammunition. Switzerland is always cited by the pro gun crowd, almost as if they didn't bother actually educating themselves on the restrictions imposed on ownership. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results. Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime. End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board. End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step. End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system. While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list? Do other nations around the world spend similar amounts of money on the war on drugs compared to the U.S.? Welfare? How many military bases do these other countries have around the world? Troops abroad? Some nations have very strict laws on drugs. Some nations have much better government provided safety nets for people. No country operates a military organization like the US. In other words, it's not as correlative as you might think. |
|
|
|
So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?
Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths. Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy. Fair enough. As long as the solution doesn't involve forcing law abiding citizens to disarm, I think there is certainly progress to be made. But that's what the other nations do. And it works. If you force law abiding citizens to disarm, you obviously have a group which is armed to enforce this. Now you've created two distinct classes of people. History has taught me that this will lead to more death. Is this what is happening in the better performing countries on the list? Are you certain that the root cause of your fears is disarming the public - or perhaps there were other mitigating circumstances? |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results. Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime. End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board. End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step. End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system. While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list? |
|
|
|
So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?
Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths. Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy. Fair enough. As long as the solution doesn't involve forcing law abiding citizens to disarm, I think there is certainly progress to be made. But that's what the other nations do. And it works. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0Let's start with some facts: 1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico. 2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries. 3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US. 4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US. 5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US. Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.
|
|
|
|
So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?
Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths. Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy. |
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude. Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. Indeed. It's attitude which creates policies which allow an unhealthy and unnecessary quantity of guns in the US. And knives. You don't want restaurants to have knives for meal preparation? What about in your kitchen? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
