Another NRA meme with no merit. Tell me, can you cite one example where gun control advocates called for a banning of guns from a society where no people existed? If you can, then that might lend some credence to your repetition of that pointless slogan. Instead, you'll discover that gun control advocates seek a reduction in the possession of guns by people, which is a condition, not an object. Possession is a condition in which people possess guns, which implies a relationship between two things - a person, and a gun, which in combination, can be deadly.
Please, stop with the meaningless sayings.
So what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas where the population doesn't want them to be banned? Don't you think they have the right to make up their own minds? Funny how if you look at the cultures that like guns, you'll find the most gun deaths. Funny how that works. Therefore, what you're saying is: cultures which don't want guns banned want to live in a culture where there are a lot of gun deaths. Please answer the questions, don't try to tap-dance around them. If a culture wants guns, then that culture has failed itself. Have you noticed that the same people who want guns also want their government to not tax them, and not provide social nets, thus creating desperate situations, and crime? Do you think they have the right to make up their own minds, or don't you? It's a yes or no question. And what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas against their will? Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer? |
|
|
|
Another NRA meme with no merit. Tell me, can you cite one example where gun control advocates called for a banning of guns from a society where no people existed? If you can, then that might lend some credence to your repetition of that pointless slogan. Instead, you'll discover that gun control advocates seek a reduction in the possession of guns by people, which is a condition, not an object. Possession is a condition in which people possess guns, which implies a relationship between two things - a person, and a gun, which in combination, can be deadly.
Please, stop with the meaningless sayings.
So what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas where the population doesn't want them to be banned? Don't you think they have the right to make up their own minds? Funny how if you look at the cultures that like guns, you'll find the most gun deaths. Funny how that works. Therefore, what you're saying is: cultures which don't want guns banned want to live in a culture where there are a lot of gun deaths. Please answer the questions, don't try to tap-dance around them. If a culture wants guns, then that culture has failed itself. Have you noticed that the same people who want guns also want their government to not tax them, and not provide social nets, thus creating desperate situations, and crime? |
|
|
|
Another NRA meme with no merit. Tell me, can you cite one example where gun control advocates called for a banning of guns from a society where no people existed? If you can, then that might lend some credence to your repetition of that pointless slogan. Instead, you'll discover that gun control advocates seek a reduction in the possession of guns by people, which is a condition, not an object. Possession is a condition in which people possess guns, which implies a relationship between two things - a person, and a gun, which in combination, can be deadly.
Please, stop with the meaningless sayings.
So what do you hope to accomplish by banning guns in areas where the population doesn't want them to be banned? Don't you think they have the right to make up their own minds? Funny how if you look at the cultures that like guns, you'll find the most gun deaths. Funny how that works. Therefore, what you're saying is: cultures which don't want guns banned want to live in a culture where there are a lot of gun deaths. |
|
|
|
^^^^^ That, Rampion, is my point and understanding of the matter entirely, which I completely agree with.
Note the statement Rampion made: "Nobody in Switzerland wishes to carry a gun..." It would help if people in the U.S. stopped wishing to carry guns... Finally, something that makes sense from you! Guns don't kill people, people do. Another NRA meme with no merit. Tell me, can you cite one example where gun control advocates called for a banning of guns from a society where no people existed? If you can, then that might lend some credence to your repetition of that pointless slogan. Instead, you'll discover that gun control advocates seek a reduction in the possession of guns by people, which is a condition, not an object. Possession is a condition in which people possess guns, which implies a relationship between two things - a person, and a gun, which in combination, can be deadly. Please, stop with the meaningless sayings. |
|
|
|
^^^^^ That, Rampion, is my point and understanding of the matter entirely, which I completely agree with.
Note the statement Rampion made: "Nobody in Switzerland wishes to carry a gun..." It would help if people in the U.S. stopped wishing to carry guns... |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. All that tells me, though, is that things are much more complicated.
I wish there was some comparable set of data/countries/regions where cultures were the same, and guns were the only difference. I thought maybe Canada and US (both have similar gun restrictions, but vastly different crime rates), but even that isn't very adequate.
Things are complicated. But maybe, just maybe, you could let go of your insistence that guns are great for a moment, and realize that maybe the numbers are telling you something. |
|
|
|
|
And so it would appear that:
Switzerland has more rapes per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more assaults per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more car thefts per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more drug offenses per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more murders committed by youths per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more murders committed with firearms per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more prisoners per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more suicides per capita than Japan.
Switzerland has more total crimes per capita than Japan.
|
|
|
|
Crime in Japan vs. Switzerland: Bear in mind that many of the statistics are reported in absolute numbers, not per capita, so you must factor in the population difference. Japan's population: 127.8 million Switzerland's population: 7.9 million Japan has 16 times the population, so do the relevant math where necessary. Here are some statistics for you: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japan/Switzerland/Crime |
|
|
|
Japan/United States comparison (for years where there is data for both):
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09 / 4.0
2002: 0.04 / 4.1
2001: 0.04 / 3.9
In summary, Japan has about 50 to 100 times less gun homicides per capita.
That's so obvious it shouldn't even be noted, the interesting thing is that while 10% of swiss households have guns (18% in the US), their homicide rate is lower than some countries were guns are banned. It should be remarked that in Switzerland there is no "gun loving culture" at all, guns cannot be carried in public unless a reservist is en route to his unit for training or you have a special permit (for example because you do a security job, no other exceptions). Anyhow, IMO this just points out again than education is more effective than banning. In any case, you can bet that if there were no guns in Switzerland the homicide rate would be even lower. That's what the gun lovers here don't get: Switzerland tightly regulates firearms. Anyway, for Rassah, I'm working up some crime statistics of Japan vs. Switzerland. |
|
|
|
|
Japan/United States comparison (for years where there is data for both):
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09 / 4.0
2002: 0.04 / 4.1
2001: 0.04 / 3.9
In summary, Japan has about 50 to 100 times less gun homicides per capita.
|
|
|
|
|
For the United States:
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2011: 3.6
2010: 3.5
2009: 3.7
2008: 4.0
2007: 4.1
2006: 4.2
2005: 4.1
2004: 3.9
2003: 4.1
2002: 4.1
2001: 3.9
2000: 3.8
1999: 3.8
1998: 3.3
1993: 7.0
|
|
|
|
|
Some statistics for Japan:
Homicides (any method)
2008: 582
2007: 553
2006: 621
2005: 637
2004: 703
2003: 759
2002: 784
2001: 776
2000: 818
1999: 834
1998: 851
1997: 755
1996: 719
1995: 759
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
2008: 0.5
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.5
2005: 0.5
2004: 0.6
2003: 0.6
2002: 0.6
2001: 0.6
2000: 0.7
1999: 0.7
1998: 0.7
1997: 0.6
1996: 0.6
1995: 0.6
1994: 0.6
Gun Homicides
2008: 11
2002: 47
2001: 56
1997: 34
1996: 36
1995: 42
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1997: 0.03
1996: 0.03
1995: 0.03
1994: 0.02
|
|
|
|
Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.
Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical? This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves. If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them that their actions are directly affecting someone else's property, be it the water they drink or the air they breathe. The ethical person who respects property rights would change their actions to mitigate damage, or at least be made aware of consequences. If the person remains ignorant, how is that any different from a shoplifter or a vandal? If it's not, we have ways of dealing with people who damage other's property. So, is the real issue the ethics of environmental issues (you are damaging property), or trying to convince people that their actions are damaging property? (like the issue of global warming deniers)? And if it's the later, then how will having a majority not be convinced help government pass environmental laws against the wishes of that majority? I guess my long convoluted point is that, it's not the government enforcement that we need to focus on (since the government won't even have the laws to enforce), it's the message and the explanation of property damage. You act as if I haven't been trying to educate anon, yet he refuses to listen. Furthermore, scroll back a little and look at the words of Spendulus. |
|
|
|
Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.
Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical? This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves. Someone who claims the high moral ground about their right to do what they will, land usage wise, are collectively destructive to society and its future when they operate with the belief that their decisions, based on their ideas of morals exempt them from further study and understanding. |
|
|
|
You also gloss over the fact that you can't get rid of guns completely. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And governments. (Sorry for the redundancy.)
Quoting memes again, are you? Actually, in reality, it works like this: When the NRA gets everyone clammering for guns, then lots of guns get manufactured, sold, and transferred into the hands of outlaws. When guns are not outlawed, lots of people without morals have guns. When guns are really outlawed, (that is, effective laws enforced effectively), the outlaws do not have guns. Japan would be an example. |
|
|
|
crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?
I think so. "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww." "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies. I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one. Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts  understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity. Intuition only goes so far. Intuition plus ignorance on a subject is a dangerous combination. I tend to follow the rule that if a politician says he wants to take my money for some environmental issues, he's a fucking liar. And if some anonymous person on the Internet tries to lecture me about environmental morality, he's a fucking idiot. Now, is that intuition? Sounds like willful ignorance to me. I guess I have no idea if it is or not.
I clarified it for you. |
|
|
|
Please answer, why do you suppose Japan regulates firearms so tightly?
There's only one reason why a government would want to regulate firearms: to control the populace. A government that sincerely wanted to help the citizens would protect their rights, educate them, lead by example, and stay the hell out of the way of everything else (like money creation). This is conjecture on your part until you back it up with something more. Please do so. Even if you were right, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the annual gun deaths in Japan? And finally, please compare and contrast competing theories, such as a nation's (its people's) interest in safety. I said it earlier, and I'll say it again. The most dangerous entities in this planet are governments. They have killed more people than any other cause, likely the sum of every other cause. What Japan does is irrelevant, and I'm not going to go for your red herring. You may trust them, or your government, but I don't. Japan is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your world view? America is still the most free nation in the world, because of one thing and one thing only: the populace is armed, and many of them distrust governments at all levels (rightfully so).
You mean freedom to have guns, freedom that allows your criminal neighbors to have guns, and freedom from social nets that might prevent people falling into a life of criminal activities? That kind of freedom? My words are still true: the cause of all the world's problems are a lack of Godliness. Without God, there are no morals, no right and wrong, and all hell breaks loose. Yes, it is that black and white. Everything else is irrelevant.
Is that so? Then explain this: http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/01/14/two-maps-states-with-the-most-gun-deaths-vs-states-with-high-church-attendance/ |
|
|
|
Please answer, why do you suppose Japan regulates firearms so tightly?
There's only one reason why a government would want to regulate firearms: to control the populace. A government that sincerely wanted to help the citizens would protect their rights, educate them, lead by example, and stay the hell out of the way of everything else (like money creation). This is conjecture on your part until you back it up with something more. Please do so. Even if you were right, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the annual gun deaths in Japan? And finally, please compare and contrast competing theories, such as a nation's (its people's) interest in safety. |
|
|
|
It's useless to argue with people who reject the reality that they live in a criminals' utopia because of arms control laws, who believe that being a defenseless murder/rape/maiming/etc victim is morally superior to exercising the inherent human right to self defense.
If we live in a criminals' utopia, it is not because of arms control laws. If that were the case, then the society of Japan would be a criminals' utopia. But it is not. Ergo, criminals' utopias do not exist because of arms control laws. There are other reasons why criminals' utopias exist. A contributing factor could indeed be due to ineffective arms control. Now, back to mdude77: Please answer, why do you suppose Japan regulates firearms so tightly? |
|
|
|
Children playing with guns and accidentally shooting their siblings are criminals? A God given right? This is not the place to discuss theology.
You are taking me out of context. The right to defend yourself is a God given right. A free man has the right to access any weapon that exists. Yes, ANY. With power comes responsibility. As I said earlier, if there were no guns in existence anywhere, you'd be arguing the Feds should be the ones controlling who has a sword or not, as everyone knows bad guys get swords from good guys. For your own protection of course. Can you point to where I wish people to not be educated about the dangers of guns and their proper usage and storage?
I've never seen you indicate otherwise. Instead you promote trusting an untrustworthy government to deem certain individuals fit to own guns, and not others. That one flew right over your head, I guess.
Insults where get you nowhere. Why do you suppose Japan regulates firearms so tightly? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
