|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
lolo, internet discussion
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation.
Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there.
Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution".
|
On August 08 2012 19:02 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there. Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution".
Are wealthy black people 10 times more likely to commit crimes than wealthy white people?
Is an adopted black child 10 times more likely to commit crimes than an adopted white child?
Probably not. There's no reason to bring in race biology (which was what Mengele was all about) into it.
I highly doubt the US spends more money / student considering both school and college is free here, but that's beside the point. By the US I assume you mean the state, and not the parents.
|
United States41936 Posts
On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:
During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR.
While I agree that an armed citizen population would be useful following a successful military invasion by Nazi Germany or some kind of Red Dawn situation (WOLVERINES!!!!!!) I'm not sure that it is a sufficiently realistic threat to justify retaining the potential for citizen militias. You guys are the sole superpower and your military is sufficiently strong that it could hold its own against all of the potentially hostile powers in the world simultaneously, that means Nazi Germany probably won't be taking over anytime soon and if your Government does turn evil then you probably won't be overthrowing them with small arms anytime soon.
|
On August 08 2012 20:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:
During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR. While I agree that an armed citizen population would be useful following a successful military invasion by Nazi Germany or some kind of Red Dawn situation (WOLVERINES!!!!!!) I'm not sure that it is a sufficiently realistic threat to justify retaining the potential for citizen militias. You guys are the sole superpower and your military is sufficiently strong that it could hold its own against all of the potentially hostile powers in the world simultaneously, that means Nazi Germany probably won't be taking over anytime soon and if your Government does turn evil then you probably won't be overthrowing them with small arms anytime soon.
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
The armament of the United States of American citizens has directly resulted in the difference between being invaded and not being invaded. And, if our Government turns evil, doesn't mean our military will. Remember, it's the US citizens who fight for the government.
|
On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 00:37 froggynoddy wrote:On August 08 2012 00:27 Millitron wrote:On August 07 2012 23:23 froggynoddy wrote:On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote:I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway. Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away. Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%. Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure. There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally). Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up. Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries). You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.) Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary) However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this. TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort). EDIT: Also if anyone can find me a link to the report mentioned in this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html I will be very grateful. EDIT 2: *sigh* it was at the bottom of the page... http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Cars are a bad example, but his line of thinking isn't the problem. How about alcohol? Tons of people get drunk and hurt themselves or others, and alcohol is almost completely unregulated. Far more people are injured or killed as a result of being intoxicated than are hurt due to guns. Further, in some situations in which a person was shot, either he was drunk and violent and was shot in self-defense, or the shooter was drunk. Removing alcohol would decrease gun-violence rates as well. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of alcohol, I'm just pointing out that just because something is a contributing factor in situations where people are hurt or killed doesn't mean we should get rid of that thing. Not a bad point (re: alcohol). You are right just because something is a risk factor doesn't mean getting rid of it. What I would say in response is that it means that you need some seriously good reason to jusstify a potentially harmful activity/product, and then regulation to mitigate its harmful effects. If guns do not protect you (which the above pensylvania based study seems to suggest) then what reasons do you have left? Even hardened anti-gun control lobbyists accept that the reason why it was in the US consititution (to protect yourself from a dictatorial goveernment) is no longer a valid excuse. Similar to alcohol you could make the argument that it is simply ingrained in X's society'e culture, and that banning it (e.g.prohibition) causes more harm that the legalisation of said activity. In the cases of guns howeve I just don't see that this argument (re prohibition causing more harm than good) standing much scrutiny, however if you are willing to expand on this I am willing to read. Alcohol perhaps should be more regulated, and it is in various societies (I'm thinking Scandinavia mainly but am no expert in the subject). First, I would point out that just because civilians would never win a stand-up fight against a modern military doesn't mean guns would not help protect against a dictatorship. Instead of fighting traditional battles, you wage a guerrilla war. No military on Earth could possibly protect every refinery, factory, power plant, bridge, highway, radio tower, harbor, and rail depot in the country; and if it comes to blows, guns certainly can't hurt your odds. Second, I would point out that there are plenty of studies that do support the idea that guns protect people, they're earlier in the thread and easy to find on google. I'm not citing any because I don't think they're very valid, but neither are the pro gun-control ones. They're all either biased or forgetting to control for important socioeconomic and cultural differences. I would rather argue from almost pure philosophy, because at least then, we can all agree (sort of) on what is actually fact. Last, I would say that if you need a seriously good reason to justify something, that alcohol should be removed before guns. Alcohol only provides entertainment. Guns provide entertainment (shooting at a range), and they allow hunting, they help protect individuals' freedoms, and as a last resort can be used in self defense. By my count alcohol has one use, guns have four. As a closing point, I'm not in favor of having no regulations at all. I don't mind background checks, and I don't mind a safety course for pistols and/or anything semi-auto or full-auto. But no gun should be outright banned either; if I fulfill the proper safety course, I should be able to own and operate a Vulcan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) Edit: Fixed a typo, and wanted to thank froggynoddy for being pretty reasonable. Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:02 Cutlery wrote:On August 01 2012 03:18 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing. Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing. "In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:" "deterring tyrannical government;" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I thought democracy was a big enough deterrant for tyrranical government. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the people want a tyrranical government, and then defend themselves from it? I still think that tyranny in government does NOT imply that there should be a civil war against democracy, through usage of guns. It was probably meant for instances like when the sheriff is corrupt, or on 'someones side', in which case you'd be in possible mortal danger. But I obviously can't say for sure. I do find your interpretation horribly wrong though. I'm not trying to be cute with words, I'm trying to read into what they wrote oh so many years ago when the world was different, and what purpose it served them. I highly doubt your guns are deterring tyrannical government. Pls do give a recent example, if you want. During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR.
No problem  , internet discussion can be a force for good as well as a force for trolls.
Firstly, I assume that by arguing from 'pure philosophy' you mean using a priori reasoning rather than a posteriori (i.e. empirical evidence), as a philosopher would probably contend that everything is philosophy. Though I understand why you would prefer this as no study is 100% objective and no reputable study ever comes to absolute conclusions I think in the context of this discussion, when you have one side talking about the merits of gun possession which go against 'pure philosophical' reason (i.e. guns purpose/function is to harm, even self-defence is a harm albeit a potentially justified one... if you remove as many guns as possible then surely the potential for harm also decreases. A huge simplification I know but intuitively this makes more sense than other lines of argument). Multiple studies including the ones I posted earlier state that you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence if you yourself carry a gun. Now I know that this is not a directly causative statement but (as you may be carrying a gun because gun violence is more prevalent in your area) but it sure as hell seems to suggest a few things.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to have pure a priori reasoning because the premises of both sides of the camp are based on empirical facts.
Secondly, the militia argument does not stand scrutiny for the following reasons:
1.The US have never been invaded in modern times and has never really had to defend its homeland (Hawaii and the Pacific being obvious exceptions, but again... your homeland never) and there is very little reason to believe this would ever happen. Israel and other countries in the middle east or in other unstable areas of the world may have stronger ground to stand on here.
2. Modern warfare is not really conducive to huge land invasions like the examples raised regarding WWII. As we saw from the horrors of 9/11 and 7/7 the threat to the US, the UK and the rest of the 'West' (I hate this term but I guess it does have its uses) is not through conventional warfare where a guerilla-tactic style militia is going to have any real impact. And if we do end up in another huge WWIII type situation, I don't think your Vulcan is going to do very well when faced with Nuclear Warfare and other weapons more likel to be used against the 'west'.
Thirdly, you make two logical fallacies regarding alcohol. The first is assuming that because alcohol use has 'worse' effects than gun use this somehow makes your argument stronger. I contend that this has nothing to do with the argument apart from the fact that we agree that: 'perhaps some things need to be more regulated as they cause harm'. The second mistake you make is thinking as long as something has more uses than another then it is somehow more legitimate. I don't think I need to tell you how this does not make logical sense.
Finally I would just like to say the following: I think people are confusing the protective effectiveness of gun possession with the feelings of protection it grants. Everyone would 'feel' safer knowing they have a gun, this doesn't make you safer in reality. Similarly all the (UK-based) studies I've read regarding fear of crime are from areas that have the lowest crime-rates. And this is where we need empirical study to solve the issues for us as, particularly with crime, a whole load of emotions are involved which we convince ourselves must be somehow based/proportionate to what is happening to us in our environment.
|
On August 08 2012 21:05 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2012 16:03 Millitron wrote:
During WW2, the Polish resistance was a constant pain for the German puppet government and the Wehrmacht. After, WW2, the Polish resistance continued to be a huge problem for the Soviets all the way up until the fall of the USSR. While I agree that an armed citizen population would be useful following a successful military invasion by Nazi Germany or some kind of Red Dawn situation (WOLVERINES!!!!!!) I'm not sure that it is a sufficiently realistic threat to justify retaining the potential for citizen militias. You guys are the sole superpower and your military is sufficiently strong that it could hold its own against all of the potentially hostile powers in the world simultaneously, that means Nazi Germany probably won't be taking over anytime soon and if your Government does turn evil then you probably won't be overthrowing them with small arms anytime soon. Show nested quote +You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. The armament of the United States of American citizens has directly resulted in the difference between being invaded and not being invaded. And, if our Government turns evil, doesn't mean our military will. Remember, it's the US citizens who fight for the government.
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns
|
On August 08 2012 20:17 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:02 Romantic wrote:On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there. Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution". Are wealthy black people 10 times more likely to commit crimes than wealthy white people? Is an adopted black child 10 times more likely to commit crimes than an adopted white child? Probably not. There's no reason to bring in race biology (which was what Mengele was all about) into it. I highly doubt the US spends more money / student considering both school and college is free here, but that's beside the point. By the US I assume you mean the state, and not the parents.
Everyone needs to calm down a litle bit about this issue.
Firstly, statistics about a given group say very little about an individual, thats' just not how statistics work.
Secondly again people need to look at these issues in non-absolutist terms but more in terms of influences on a particular individual (as I have said previously a physician would talk in terms of 'risk' and 'protective' factors, terms I feel are really useful in this context).
Thirdly, Race is still an issue nowadays, and a confused one, when talking about crime. Just look at the UK riots (I recommend the Guardian/London School of Economics 'Reading the Riots' report into the matter - article about race can be accessed here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/08/were-the-riots-about-race) and ou can neither dismiss it entirely nor make sweeping statements.
Fourthly, to say that gun related homicide is more to do with race demographics than gun possession seems to make no sense whatsoever. The are certainly both facors to be considered, like social inequality, relations with police/authority, drug use etc... But to say that one is stronger than the other by saying that: 'This white guy who has nothing to/very little in common with this other white guy in completely different environments and that they happen to share a common characteristic means I am right' argument is absurd. Its the logical equivalent as saying: 'I ate cake this morning, next to me was this fat guy eating cake, therefore I must be fat.'
EDIT: It would be more than that, it would be: Some fat guys leating a different kind of cake in a different chain of restaurants in another country...'
|
On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns
Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening.
|
On August 08 2012 20:17 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:02 Romantic wrote:On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there. Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution". Are wealthy black people 10 times more likely to commit crimes than wealthy white people? Is an adopted black child 10 times more likely to commit crimes than an adopted white child? Probably not. There's no reason to bring in race biology (which was what Mengele was all about) into it. I highly doubt the US spends more money / student considering both school and college is free here, but that's beside the point. By the US I assume you mean the state, and not the parents.
What does that have to do with anything? You can't argue with the statistics.....
|
On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening.
Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays.
|
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
|
On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays.
So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying?
|
On August 08 2012 22:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:17 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 19:02 Romantic wrote:On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there. Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution". Are wealthy black people 10 times more likely to commit crimes than wealthy white people? Is an adopted black child 10 times more likely to commit crimes than an adopted white child? Probably not. There's no reason to bring in race biology (which was what Mengele was all about) into it. I highly doubt the US spends more money / student considering both school and college is free here, but that's beside the point. By the US I assume you mean the state, and not the parents. What does that have to do with anything? You can't argue with the statistics.....
His argument won't listen to statistics. He is appealing to political correctness. If you disagree with him, you're a racist & he wins. So just add him to your ignore list, like I have already done. You'll be happier the minute you do this.
|
On August 08 2012 22:48 kokomojowelieole wrote:
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Which is why the best legal sstems impose huge safeguards regarding state use of force (see procedural rules regarding police and prosecution and Human Rights provisions in Europe, Canada and other states). for your point to make sense (assuming you are making a point) you would have to prove that gun possession somehow effectively mitigates against the state's monopol on use of force.
|
On August 08 2012 22:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:17 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 19:02 Romantic wrote:On August 08 2012 16:03 Euronyme wrote:On August 08 2012 01:31 Portlandian wrote:On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases) It's due to the racial demographics of the countries you are comparing. White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc. The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe (or Canada). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Wow... Dr. Mengele over here. Here I thought racial biology was a thing of the past. I'd wager that a lot of black people are discriminated against and often grow up in poverty. As you have to pay for you education straight up in the US instead of through taxes, a lot of people who come from a poor home never get the chance to get out of the gutter where crime is very common. That involves both white and blacks. It's just more common with black people due to segregation. Where did he say the problem was biological or that he wants to do sadistic medical tests to blacks in concentration camps? What he said is a fact. The USA's crime problem is mostly due to different racial demographics. You can spend all day insulting people who mention this by calling them Dr. Mengele or debating why these differences are there, to what extent it is environmental or biological, to what extent a state can impact the environment, but the fact is they are there. Oh, by the way, the US spends more per student on public education K-12 than any first world country. COLLEGE is not free, but it is subsidized, and problems for blacks, for example, begin long before college age. You can also compare poor black vs poor white vs poor asian, or the same for any income level and there is still a large gap between them. It is never going to be as simple as, "Its all money and you need more wealth redistribution". Are wealthy black people 10 times more likely to commit crimes than wealthy white people? Is an adopted black child 10 times more likely to commit crimes than an adopted white child? Probably not. There's no reason to bring in race biology (which was what Mengele was all about) into it. I highly doubt the US spends more money / student considering both school and college is free here, but that's beside the point. By the US I assume you mean the state, and not the parents. What does that have to do with anything? You can't argue with the statistics.....
I'm saying that 'well we have high crime rates because of the blacks' is a very ignorant statement, and that the colour of your skin has nothing to do with crime rates.
I'm saying that if you did the same statistics of 'white trash' and hollywood actors you'd get the same curve, and it's very racist to blame crime rates in your country on a minority and leave it at that.
|
On August 08 2012 22:52 froggynoddy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:48 kokomojowelieole wrote:
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. Which is why the best legal sstems impose huge safeguards regarding state use of force (see procedural rules regarding police and prosecution and Human Rights provisions in Europe, Canada and other states). for your point to make sense (assuming you are making a point) you would have to prove that gun possession somehow effectively mitigates against the state's monopol on use of force.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but I'll respond anyway. Governments "over-reach" all the time and take unprecedented new steps because they realize people are sheep. Obama bailed out General motors (a private company) and sent an order to kill a US citizen (the al-alaki dude). I shouldn't have to spell out my entire argument because this is a public forum where people like brief, thoughtful posts like the one I originally provided:
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
The first word of my statement was the one you chose to ignore. I'm not saying it has happened, will happen, or must happen. I'm just positing that it may potentially happen. Best of luck to you spending more than 10 minutes before spamming out a reply as fast as possible, wasting everyone's time that reads these forums.
If you would like a cordial dialogue, send me a pm and I will return with a thoughtful, well-cited and meaningful reply.
|
I think we have different definitions on what consists of a 'waste of someone's time'. As such I bid you a happy farewell.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays.
The Wehrmacht certainly didn't have any qualms about not sticking to the rules. Yet they couldn't stabilize and hold the Balkans either.
This doesn't apply specifically to you but: It's funny that the people who argue they could topple the hypothetical USA tyranny with civilian owned small arms are usually the same who argue the US could easily win foreign asymmetric quagmires if they were only allowed to.
|
On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays.
I recommend you do the same, look for geneva conventions. And try to understand when the "restrictions" were added (protip, dec. 1978). They were not in place in the vietnam war (but they were added because of napalm and agent orange), if it would have been, america would actually pay up to today for the million (ye, one million and ~150000 children) people still suffering from the aftermath of agent orange.
You lost because you could not adapt to the guerilla warfare, which was the "reason" for agent orange in the first place (read up on what it was designed for).
But thats off topic i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
