Yeah, if we all have weapons on us at all times, no one would ever get shot... or if they did, at least the room would become a hail of gunfire. That would be safer.
Your parodies of reality get funnier all the time. The fact is, if more honest citizens were allowed to carry guns, that would act as a powerful deterrent to crimes of violence.
Of course. Everyone knows the American west in the 19th was so much safer with nearly 100% gun ownership. No one dared commit a crime... without lots of people.
2 sides to this and you are both sort of right. nick says honest citizens being allowed to carry guns would be a deterrent to crime. agreed. bret, and i wonder about the untrained laying down a lead umbrella in a crowded area, maybe after having drank too much. with rights come responsibility. how many would be willing to be a back stop in a crowded bar where someone, who may have been drinking, perceives a threat and whips out the jammy to deal with it? no guns in bars was there for a reason, and 1 guy dying shouldn't put everyone else at risk.
Bret, your idea about Western history is skewed, out of proportion, in fact the "wild West" was a lot safer statistically speaking than any of the large cities. Facts are - more guns LESS crime, that is not NO crime just the right of the citizen to defend themselves. (Here is another fact - citizens are FAR, FAR, FAR less likely to mistakenly shoot someone in defense or the act of stopping a crime, that is - the non-trained, non-official is safer and more responsible than all of the LEO forces).
If you want to talk smack about "guns" I suggest you start brushing up on your facts... I think you spend too much time in the nanny states.
As far as intoxicants - anyone wants to piss their money off on that crap is welcome - but you make a mistake while intoxicated the same penalty as if it were first degree murder should apply...
In my opinion if you get in an automobile and kill someone, first degree should apply - no mercy for stupidity. That alone should weed out the idiots quickly (or at least make them less likely to be stupid).
There are absolutely no statistics to back up your baseless claims that justice is best served by emotionally involved participants in a crime.
I find it particularly telling that you are so punitive and frankly fascist in your outlook. You probably see nothing wrong with shooting dead a person for theft if caught, even though you would (hopefully) oppose the death penalty for an individual charged with theft.
You should give Saudi Arabia a try, you would love their justice system. Swift and heavy handed.
No statistics? Bret you are arguing like a christian, there is no debate about the FACT that areas with more gun ownership in the United States have a lower crime instance than areas where there is restrictive gun control.
Facts _________________________
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY _________________________________________
I find it telling that you are arguing like a religious supporter, telling in that many atheists end up giving up religion for a sky daddy for a human based god of the state - sad actually.
Hey, if someone is responsible for a crime under the influence why is their irresponsibility with something dangerous any less a travesty?
You choose to take an intoxicant and do not take steps to prevent your use of or irresponsible application of dangerous items then you simply are supporting your irresponsible acts - choices good or bad are choices, time for personal responsibility.
If gun control is so effective explain California or New York, you should be safe there.
You BTW have not provided a single shred of evidence that we should give up our rights outside of a few state worshiping propagandistic sound bytes...
This is reminiscent or religious irrational platitudes, by implying that I am equating the crime of theft with the death of an individual, I clearly was not.
And for the record a trespassing thief caught in a persons home should expect deadly force as a consequence of their actions. The individual home owner can only expect that a forceful entry into their homes with violence is a direct indication of deadly intent on the part of the intruder.
You clearly are using fascist incorrectly as I am supporting personal not state responsibility - a person would choose to get drunk, then choose to get in a car (and no driver is unaware of the deadly statistics of drunk driving as it is part of the requirements for a drivers license) - is acting no differently than randomly firing a gun in to a schoolyard blindfolded.
1. You will find countries without guns laws, or laws at all, have astronomically higher homoicide rates, and nations with the lowest homocide rates do have strict gun control (such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Hong Kong, Greece, and Indonesia). The Europeans nations with high gun ownership and low crime, like Switzerland, do so coupled with mandatory military service and training (and the gun is the military issued rifle).
2. I don't oppose gun ownership rights, I just know owning a gun is a stupid idea for most people and that owning a gun has nothing to do with "making" someone murder others, but rather is involved in more accidental shootings than actual shootings for the purpose of defense. Accidental use is a far greater problem, both now and in the American west. Accidental deaths include both improper use, children happening upon it, and wielding a gun and shooting it at a friend or family member when frightened and unaware that it is not a criminal.
3-5. You will find more deaths due to guns in the American west (which I never called "wild," like you did) because there was more conflict, certainly between Americans and natives or Mexicans. Since no reliable data from this era exists, I'm assuming yours comes from the "Rectum Institute of Non-research." Suffice to say, we know from grave studies that the average lifespan was much shorter (sometimes as low as 34 for men, and they weren't dying from bubonic plague). On top of that, many cities in the American West had strict gun control, forbidding the carrying and use of guns within city limits.
And yes, you are a fascist for believing in such punitive pentalties for offenses. I didn't say anything about intoxicants diminishing one's crime, but I would never say death arising from auto accident (or any accident at all) deserves the punishment of death or even lengthy imprisonment.
I never once said people have no right to own guns, just that it's patently absurd and statistically proven to be less safe to own guns. You're welcome to comensate for your lack of manhood in any legal manner you choose.
You posted... "I never once said people have no right to own guns, just that it's patently absurd and statistically proven to be less safe to own guns. You're welcome to comensate for your lack of manhood in any legal manner you choose."
Nice try - pathetic, sad, and telling of elitist statist worship, with a nasty attitude like that you will make yourself unwelcome in the south, consider moving before your Atlantic coast attitude causes stress to your unfortunate neighborhood.
And of course typical of a trans-religionist where worship of your own inflated ego and the state has replaced the irrational worship of an imaginary friend.
You are "arguing" JUST like a self important christian, ignoring the facts and promoting your own self aggrandizement and perceived superiority.
I take it you would not understand a "fascist" if he jumped out of a grave in Italy and pinched your buttocks.
Have a family member killed by a drunken driver and return with your "punitive penalties" argument - irresponsible stupid drunk + car is simply murder by irresponsible action.
If you propose that it is less safe to own guns then explain why the increase in the volume of guns and gun owners produces safer areas - you have provided NO facts to support your propaganda.
Of course you completely ignore the well documented studies and even the historical reviews that put to rest your propagandistic "argument".
Even today there are strict laws on the carry of guns in the western/southern state of Texas, by population volume the crime is much higher than in "open carry" states that by your reasoning should have higher crime and death by firearm - in FACT they are lower.
You can insult me all you want, it doesn't make your ridiculous case any less violent.
Fascism: a far-right, radical and authoritarian political ideology organized around corporatism, characterized by totalitarian state power.
If you can't see why a fascist would love the idea of the state putting people to death... well, I can't say I'm surprised, given American education being what it is.
I have lost two close people (not technically family, though they were my parents' best friends, frequent baby-sitters, and my god-parents) to a drunk driver, who was brothers with the town's mayor and got off scot-free, no less. And yet, I don't think the world would be a better place if he were dead, nor do I think guns should be outlawed just because I had a friend growing up who was shot by his 4 year old brother (maybe because he lived, but I doubt that is the reason, either).
I don't need to make personal and emotionally charged arguments to justify my stance, perhaps because making an emotional argument based on anecdotal evidence is the surest way to be wrong. Thank you for clarifying why you feel the way you feel. Get back to me when you think about it.
I am reluctant to point out obvious facts to you, one because you seem resistant to rational review, and two because it just seems juvenile. You may not consider them insults but calling someone a fascist and then casting aspersions to ones security in manhood do to owning weapons are both insulting. At first I just thought a solid "FU" would work, then I had the idea that could very well be mistaken that we could find areas of mutual agreement as a base for rational exchange, we are both atheists, both above average in communicative skills, and socially very liberal (so far as you have identified yourself).
Far from fascist, I am supporting PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY letting the cover of "just dumb and intoxicated" drop as a shield from some who would choose to be irresponsible.
I was originally making the point that an person using a firearm while intoxicated should be charged in a court of set laws for the crime of murder, then while thinking about it further I feel that the intoxicated with ANY dangerous item should have the same EXPOSURE to the law regardless of what item caused a death.
If you cannot grasp this and understand that in a fair court of law exposure to responsibility is NOT fascist then you have an unusually skewed view of politics and clearly do not understand the definition of fascist you have posted above in the same way we could expect from the average reader.
Exposure to fair judgment under the law also goes BOTH ways, where a thoughtful jury could consider mitigating circumstances, where the exposure to responsibility to the law could be severe or lenient according to the personal judgements of those involved. - I have to ask HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT FASCIST?
Far from adopting a position from emotion, it seems you are projecting your own problems with personal responsibility into some bizarre hatred of the rational, logical, people who understand the danger of the state manipulated by those who wish to apply force without "getting their hands dirty".
And I again point to the fact that using reason, and logic in this exchange you are bereft of any factual support for your positions other than your continued use of auto-speculative superciliousness - a sign of the typical eastern elitist who is as irrational a statist as the brainless bible thumping fundamentalists are about a sky daddy...
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.
Yeah, if we all have weapons on us at all times, no one would ever get shot... or if they did, at least the room would become a hail of gunfire. That would be safer.
ReplyDeleteat least the room would become a hail of gunfire
ReplyDeleteYour parodies of reality get funnier all the time. The fact is, if more honest citizens were allowed to carry guns, that would act as a powerful deterrent to crimes of violence.
Of course. Everyone knows the American west in the 19th was so much safer with nearly 100% gun ownership. No one dared commit a crime... without lots of people.
ReplyDelete"If I was an action hero, nothing bad would ever happen to me" might have been a better title.
ReplyDelete2 sides to this and you are both sort of right. nick says honest citizens being allowed to carry guns would be a deterrent to crime. agreed. bret, and i wonder about the untrained laying down a lead umbrella in a crowded area, maybe after having drank too much. with rights come responsibility. how many would be willing to be a back stop in a crowded bar where someone, who may have been drinking, perceives a threat and whips out the jammy to deal with it? no guns in bars was there for a reason, and 1 guy dying shouldn't put everyone else at risk.
ReplyDeletei feel dirty
ReplyDeleteHow about this: you work on people being able to smoke and gamble in bars, then we work on the gun thing. Priorities, people, priorities.
ReplyDeleteBret, your idea about Western history is skewed, out of proportion, in fact the "wild West" was a lot safer statistically speaking than any of the large cities. Facts are - more guns LESS crime, that is not NO crime just the right of the citizen to defend themselves. (Here is another fact - citizens are FAR, FAR, FAR less likely to mistakenly shoot someone in defense or the act of stopping a crime, that is - the non-trained, non-official is safer and more responsible than all of the LEO forces).
ReplyDeleteIf you want to talk smack about "guns" I suggest you start brushing up on your facts... I think you spend too much time in the nanny states.
As far as intoxicants - anyone wants to piss their money off on that crap is welcome - but you make a mistake while intoxicated the same penalty as if it were first degree murder should apply...
In my opinion if you get in an automobile and kill someone, first degree should apply - no mercy for stupidity. That alone should weed out the idiots quickly (or at least make them less likely to be stupid).
There are absolutely no statistics to back up your baseless claims that justice is best served by emotionally involved participants in a crime.
ReplyDeleteI find it particularly telling that you are so punitive and frankly fascist in your outlook. You probably see nothing wrong with shooting dead a person for theft if caught, even though you would (hopefully) oppose the death penalty for an individual charged with theft.
You should give Saudi Arabia a try, you would love their justice system. Swift and heavy handed.
No statistics? Bret you are arguing like a christian, there is no debate about the FACT that areas with more gun ownership in the United States have a lower crime instance than areas where there is restrictive gun control.
ReplyDeleteFacts
_________________________
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY
_________________________________________
I find it telling that you are arguing like a religious supporter, telling in that many atheists end up giving up religion for a sky daddy for a human based god of the state - sad actually.
Hey, if someone is responsible for a crime under the influence why is their irresponsibility with something dangerous any less a travesty?
You choose to take an intoxicant and do not take steps to prevent your use of or irresponsible application of dangerous items then you simply are supporting your irresponsible acts - choices good or bad are choices, time for personal responsibility.
If gun control is so effective explain California or New York, you should be safe there.
You BTW have not provided a single shred of evidence that we should give up our rights outside of a few state worshiping propagandistic sound bytes...
This is reminiscent or religious irrational platitudes, by implying that I am equating the crime of theft with the death of an individual, I clearly was not.
And for the record a trespassing thief caught in a persons home should expect deadly force as a consequence of their actions. The individual home owner can only expect that a forceful entry into their homes with violence is a direct indication of deadly intent on the part of the intruder.
You clearly are using fascist incorrectly as I am supporting personal not state responsibility - a person would choose to get drunk, then choose to get in a car (and no driver is unaware of the deadly statistics of drunk driving as it is part of the requirements for a drivers license) - is acting no differently than randomly firing a gun in to a schoolyard blindfolded.
Drunk + Car = death
Drunk + Gun = death
How is it different?
Regarding your "facts:"
ReplyDelete1. You will find countries without guns laws, or laws at all, have astronomically higher homoicide rates, and nations with the lowest homocide rates do have strict gun control (such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Hong Kong, Greece, and Indonesia). The Europeans nations with high gun ownership and low crime, like Switzerland, do so coupled with mandatory military service and training (and the gun is the military issued rifle).
2. I don't oppose gun ownership rights, I just know owning a gun is a stupid idea for most people and that owning a gun has nothing to do with "making" someone murder others, but rather is involved in more accidental shootings than actual shootings for the purpose of defense. Accidental use is a far greater problem, both now and in the American west. Accidental deaths include both improper use, children happening upon it, and wielding a gun and shooting it at a friend or family member when frightened and unaware that it is not a criminal.
3-5. You will find more deaths due to guns in the American west (which I never called "wild," like you did) because there was more conflict, certainly between Americans and natives or Mexicans. Since no reliable data from this era exists, I'm assuming yours comes from the "Rectum Institute of Non-research." Suffice to say, we know from grave studies that the average lifespan was much shorter (sometimes as low as 34 for men, and they weren't dying from bubonic plague). On top of that, many cities in the American West had strict gun control, forbidding the carrying and use of guns within city limits.
And yes, you are a fascist for believing in such punitive pentalties for offenses. I didn't say anything about intoxicants diminishing one's crime, but I would never say death arising from auto accident (or any accident at all) deserves the punishment of death or even lengthy imprisonment.
I never once said people have no right to own guns, just that it's patently absurd and statistically proven to be less safe to own guns. You're welcome to comensate for your lack of manhood in any legal manner you choose.
Bret
ReplyDeleteYou posted...
"I never once said people have no right to own guns, just that it's patently absurd and statistically proven to be less safe to own guns. You're welcome to comensate for your lack of manhood in any legal manner you choose."
Nice try - pathetic, sad, and telling of elitist statist worship, with a nasty attitude like that you will make yourself unwelcome in the south, consider moving before your Atlantic coast attitude causes stress to your unfortunate neighborhood.
And of course typical of a trans-religionist where worship of your own inflated ego and the state has replaced the irrational worship of an imaginary friend.
You are "arguing" JUST like a self important christian, ignoring the facts and promoting your own self aggrandizement and perceived superiority.
I take it you would not understand a "fascist" if he jumped out of a grave in Italy and pinched your buttocks.
Have a family member killed by a drunken driver and return with your "punitive penalties" argument - irresponsible stupid drunk + car is simply murder by irresponsible action.
If you propose that it is less safe to own guns then explain why the increase in the volume of guns and gun owners produces safer areas - you have provided NO facts to support your propaganda.
Of course you completely ignore the well documented studies and even the historical reviews that put to rest your propagandistic "argument".
Even today there are strict laws on the carry of guns in the western/southern state of Texas, by population volume the crime is much higher than in "open carry" states that by your reasoning should have higher crime and death by firearm - in FACT they are lower.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou can insult me all you want, it doesn't make your ridiculous case any less violent.
ReplyDeleteFascism: a far-right, radical and authoritarian political ideology organized around corporatism, characterized by totalitarian state power.
If you can't see why a fascist would love the idea of the state putting people to death... well, I can't say I'm surprised, given American education being what it is.
I have lost two close people (not technically family, though they were my parents' best friends, frequent baby-sitters, and my god-parents) to a drunk driver, who was brothers with the town's mayor and got off scot-free, no less. And yet, I don't think the world would be a better place if he were dead, nor do I think guns should be outlawed just because I had a friend growing up who was shot by his 4 year old brother (maybe because he lived, but I doubt that is the reason, either).
I don't need to make personal and emotionally charged arguments to justify my stance, perhaps because making an emotional argument based on anecdotal evidence is the surest way to be wrong. Thank you for clarifying why you feel the way you feel. Get back to me when you think about it.
Bret.
ReplyDeleteI am reluctant to point out obvious facts to you, one because you seem resistant to rational review, and two because it just seems juvenile. You may not consider them insults but calling someone a fascist and then casting aspersions to ones security in manhood do to owning weapons are both insulting. At first I just thought a solid "FU" would work, then I had the idea that could very well be mistaken that we could find areas of mutual agreement as a base for rational exchange, we are both atheists, both above average in communicative skills, and socially very liberal (so far as you have identified yourself).
Far from fascist, I am supporting PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY letting the cover of "just dumb and intoxicated" drop as a shield from some who would choose to be irresponsible.
I was originally making the point that an person using a firearm while intoxicated should be charged in a court of set laws for the crime of murder, then while thinking about it further I feel that the intoxicated with ANY dangerous item should have the same EXPOSURE to the law regardless of what item caused a death.
If you cannot grasp this and understand that in a fair court of law exposure to responsibility is NOT fascist then you have an unusually skewed view of politics and clearly do not understand the definition of fascist you have posted above in the same way we could expect from the average reader.
Exposure to fair judgment under the law also goes BOTH ways, where a thoughtful jury could consider mitigating circumstances, where the exposure to responsibility to the law could be severe or lenient according to the personal judgements of those involved. - I have to ask HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT FASCIST?
Far from adopting a position from emotion, it seems you are projecting your own problems with personal responsibility into some bizarre hatred of the rational, logical, people who understand the danger of the state manipulated by those who wish to apply force without "getting their hands dirty".
And I again point to the fact that using reason, and logic in this exchange you are bereft of any factual support for your positions other than your continued use of auto-speculative superciliousness - a sign of the typical eastern elitist who is as irrational a statist as the brainless bible thumping fundamentalists are about a sky daddy...