patrick.net

Actually banning humans isn't a bad idea.....

It would only take 13 "holdout" states to block a repeal of the 2nd Amd.
I wonder who those would be? :?

Alaska
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Arizona
New Mexico
Wyoming
Montana
Texas
Arkansas
Virginia
South Carolina
New Hampshire

Actually banning humans isn’t a bad idea…..

I agree. Unchecked population growth is the environmental disaster.

Peter P Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
‘denial of access to care for those who need it a prominent feature’

Humanity was doomed the moment we rejected evolution.

There is less denial of access to housing, regardless of whether you can get a loan. Hence emergency accom, affordable housing schemes, public housing, and so on. Certain things are thought of as universal rights of citizenship. It is perhaps unfortunate that Americans think universal access to guns is far more important than universal access to healthcare.

Let's see what Hillary has to say when she gets the healthcare reform project again in November.

Peter P Says:
Actually banning humans isn’t a bad idea…..
I agree

There is nobody left to offend, troll.

If you take guns, they use spears and bats.
take away spears and bats, they use knives and brass knuckles.

All those things are illegal to carry on your person here. Many of them are also illegal to carry around in the US.

One piece of advice is not to walk down dark alleys in gang areas. For those countries that have gang areas. Also, with a decent welfare state, you will have fewer 'bad guys' driven to acts of economic desperation in general.

I don't believe the aim of bearing arms in the 2nd amendment was to protect people against internal threats, I thought it was to 'raise a militia' under 18th century conditions in a frontier society. Further, it is quite difficult to get a Concealed Carry license, most people keep their guns at home, where they are mostly used by children, in accidental discharges, and for suicides.

That reminds me of a disturbing view of the US by a writer called Bob Ellis:

...one quarter of it Third World, one half of it stressed and barely coping, divorced, face-lifted, working a second job to pay the alimony, one quarter of it millionairist or billionairist, smug and power-crazed and swindling anyone it can.
House price carcinoma

Bob Ellis has had a long and close involvement with politics, covering as a journalist twenty-four campaigns in Australia, the UK and the USA, and writing speeches or slogans for Kim Beazley, Bob Carr, Mike Rann and others.

Something on Li-ion battery technology:

Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery

Also, with a decent welfare state, you will have fewer ‘bad guys’ driven to acts of economic desperation in general.

People in "economic desperation" have no rights to commit crime. We the people should not have to pay them protection fees just to be safe from their misbehaviors.

Further, it is quite difficult to get a Concealed Carry license, most people keep their guns at home, where they are mostly used by children, in accidental discharges, and for suicides.

Children can also drown themselves in their parents' HELOC-financed pools, while their parents are drowning in HELOC-financed debt.

Those who think outlawing guns will make illegal guns disappear should be reminded that crimes were outlawed long ago.... and they are still around.

Peter P Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
People in “economic desperation” have no rights to commit crime. We the people should not have to pay them protection fees just to be safe from their misbehaviors.

Yes, but they will. And you have made it abundantly easy for them to obtain arms to do it with. You are paying a very dangerous 'protection fee' by having to purchase your own arms, with its training and registration costs, and the outcome will very likely be death for someone if ever used. And the death could be the user's. Perhaps welfare costs are a more humane alternative.

Besides which, the argument is irrelevant in terms of defending a supposed 'constitutional right', as the context of the 2nd amendment is clearly around being able to raise an organised militia to add to a standing army.

Children can also drown themselves in their parents’ HELOC-financed pools, while their parents drown in HELOC-financed debt.
yes, so let's keep piling on the risk -- if we have 1 risky situation at home, then it will be just as safe as if we create 100.

Oh, and I forgot crimes of passion and unstable persons. And shopping mall and school and college massacres.

Yes, but they will.

So it is necessary for the rest of us to defend ourselves from these people.

Welfare costs may look affordable by themselves but welfare itself disincentivizes production. Welfare is the cancer of the economy.

Oh, and I forgot crimes of passion and unstable persons.

Such "passionate" people are highly motivated. See OO's example in Japan. Unstable persons should have been isolated from the society in the first place.

How many mall shootings could have been prevented or stopped if more people carry legal concealed weapons?

as the context of the 2nd amendment is clearly around being able to raise an organised militia to add to a standing army

It is clearly around individual rights. But sometimes reality is so clear that nobody sees a thing.

Imagine being in room with 10000 light bulbs. ;)

already done it on another forum a while ago, but I'll dig out the stats again.

already done it on another forum a while ago, but I'll dig out the stats again.

NEJM -- Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home

AL Kellermann and DT Reay

Abstract

To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Hand-guns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths. The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.
-----
Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.E.P. (born 1955) is professor and founding chairman of the department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and founding director of the Center for Injury Control at Rollins School of Public Health, a collaborating center for injury and violence prevention of the World Health Organization. His publications include more than 180 peer-reviewed papers, monographs and book chapters on various aspects of emergency cardiac care, health services research, injury prevention and the role of emergency departments in the provision of health care to the poor.

Kellermann co-chaired the Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance of the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, of which he is an elected member. Kellermann holds career achievement awards for excellence in science from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the Injury Control and Emergency Health Services Section of the American Public Health Association. As a 2006-2007 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow, he joined the Professional Staff of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Washington, D.C. In 2007 he was awarded his profession's highest leadership and career achievement award by the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Kellermann is well known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm related injuries and deaths, published over two decades in 50 peer-reviewed publications. In a 1995 interview, Kellermann saw firearm and other injuries not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public health priorities: "I grew up around guns. My dad taught me how to shoot when I was eleven or twelve years old. Firearms are fascinating pieces of equipment. I enjoy the sport of shooting, although I rarely shoot anymore. However, as a clinician, as someone who is committed to emergency medicine, it is equally evident to me that firearm violence is wreaking havoc on public health."

NEJM -- Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide. A tale of two cities

JH Sloan, AL Kellermann, DT Reay, JA Ferris, T Koepsell, FP Rivara, C Rice, L Gray, and J LoGerfo

Abstract

To investigate the associations among handgun regulations, assault and other crimes, and homicide, we studied robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia, from 1980 through 1986. Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery. In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver (simple assault: relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.20; aggravated assault: relative risk, 1.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.19). However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, the relative risk of death from homicide, adjusted for age and sex, was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver (relative risk, 1.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.08). Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. Rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities. We conclude that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community.

I have worked (however briefly) in a "desperate" area or two. Gang violence at night. Family problems and mental problems by day. And from what I have seen, the welfare and the well-intentioned social workers do not help much. Maybe they help a little. With the young ones.

That said, it does not seem right to just throw the desperate people away for the sake of economic expedience. Those without athletic or academic or other gifts do seem to find themselves with few good choices with regard to job, safety, nutrition. Some areas don't have grocery stores, just corner stores, and nutrition absolutely has an impact on mental and emotional state.

Welfare, no, that is not a choice. It does not lead anywhere. But all of us would be better off if those folks suffering from a severe lack of good choices could be offered just a few good options.

Note these only refer to 'successful' homicides and suicides -- survivable woundings and maimings, sometimes creating lifelong disability, comprise a much larger group.

I now think airline deregulation was a failure. Smaller and mid size markets are losing service. The industry in total is losing over 6B per year.

DS, thank you for posting the battery link. I found it very interesting and passed it on.

Don't we have the right to bear thermo-nuclear arms -- the ones that we would need to protect ourselves from our tyrannical government? Help me to understand this republican talking point, Peter P.

This is, of course, now the electric energy/2nd amendment thread.

The Wikipedia entry on the 2nd makes very interesting reading, particularly the exact history of the intent of the amendment when it was written. Going back even further in time, Henry II of England had sort of 'self defence' and 'watch and ward' legislation allowing British subjects to harbour weapons at home, but when gun technology came along and Catholic/Protestant tensions rose, those laws changed.

See particularly Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Origin

Wiki is falling-over-left, so read with caution.

Most techies are left-leaning anyway. Most of my friends are liberals.

How is our government tyrannical?

In many "developed" and "civilized" countries in Europe you can be prosecuted simply for saying mean things about certain groups of people or for denying certain historical facts.

Governmental tyranny can be measured by its maximum tax rate.

Isn't the right to bear arms supposed to save us from some supposed tyranny? So it is an odd juxtaposition to see the little cabin dweller with a six shooter holed up against modern weapon systems that cost billions of dollars. How exactly does the rationale for the right to bear arms jibe with nuclear weapons?

Nice attempt at changing the subject. You do get points for style for defending the homeland against the liberal democracies. Try saying that you want to overthrow the government of the United States sometime.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Perhaps it is supposed to save us from the tyranny of the majority.

When criminals are afforded more rights than their victims, the relevance, currency, and necessity of the Second Amendment become obvious.

You are an obvious troll. Nobody could possible wear so many backwards views on his sleeve. I am calling you out. I am surprised that nobody else has, but then again, look at the democrats in congress.

Besides, I think that safeguards on the machinations of the justice system are compatible with the view that one must be literally on guard against the state. To state otherwise is a contradiction.

PS -- Sweden has high tax rates. Are they a tyranny?

You are entitled to your opinions. The freedom of speech protects dissenting views, yours or mine.

Lost Cause,

Peter P gets a lot of leeway because he is a patrick.net old-timer, and part of the initial in-crowd. But yeah, most of the time his pithy on-liners are off the chart when it comes to sensibility. I'd write him off as harmless if it wasn't for the fact that impressionable persons seem to have a weakness for these kinds of libertarian free-market self-sufficiency fantasies.

I've met lots of these "Ayn Rand"-type free-market strong-man-fantasy fantasts over the years, and they must get started on their philosophy one way or the other. So it can be important to provide balance and public push-back to their views.

Once In a while I get dragged into a big argument, but I don't always have the energy for it. Maybe the best countermeasure would be to generate lots of pithy anti-libertarian one liners. That might be less work than actually trying to argue the points?

For example:

Free-market police protection? Let me put your 911 call on hold while I run your credit check. Your call is very important to us.....

Free-market drug approval? Please don't blame the market that your child was born with no arms. Rest assured that the company responsible will surely be punished with bankruptcy in a few years. Be patient, they will be held accountable eventually.

Welfare, no, that is not a choice. It does not lead anywhere. But all of us would be better off if those folks suffering from a severe lack of good choices could be offered just a few good options.

Eliza, I agree.

Social programs should focus on providing options for everyone to take responsibility. Welfare in its present form is just a way to shift responsibilities. It is not only doomed to failure; it is toxic.

Most view equality as a virtue and that the government ought to inject equality at every opportunity. Here is yet another "backwards" view I have: the quest for equality is futile because it goes against the grains of human nature.

Free-market police protection? Let me put your 911 call on hold while I run your credit check. Your call is very important to us…..

Business opportunity! A 911 pre-approval service! :)

See, the market finds its ways.

Anyway, I personally think that justme is a very reasonable person and his views are usually very understandable. Together, I hope we can continue to make this blog entertaining. (Yes, infotainment is all the rage. Sad?)

It is rather pointless to actually argue because people invariably choose to believe what they choose to believe. One cannot hope to change their views without changing what they feel about those views.

to defer the responsibility of ethical choice to the inanimate ‘market’.

Yes! You have described the core of my meta-ethical belief, that individuals ought to delegate ethical decisions to a self-optimizing, self-organizing system, such as a minimally yet meaningfully regulated market.

If I act selfishly, within the confines of the market, knowing that market actions bring upon the greatest good, I am indeed making a moral decision.

That is our only hope of finding morality out of human nature.

Hmm, why is it that only poor people get labeled as irresponsible. One long-line sentence, possibly pithy:

Securities and banking laws should encourage related-industry leaders to take responsibility for mishandling Other People's Money (OPM), likewise to stop perpetuating their misdeeds by steering their children into positions of power on Wall St, and use their own money to pay back defrauded investors rather than accepting public handouts (bailouts).

Peter P,

Your views are also easy to understand, and in real life I suspect strongly that you are also a reasonable person ;-).

Welfare in its present form is just a way to shift responsibilities.

Pay no attention to the real problems. Peter P has got it all figured out, with one answer wrapped in a pretty little bow.

For God's sake, people literally die on the streets every day in America, and Peter is worried that some welfare mother is uncompetitive. (Among industrial countries, America has the greatest disparity between rich and poor, and the most poor, high rate of disease and early deaths etc.)

Why do you pick on the poor? Why not pick on the rich and powerful? Do you think that you will make a difference by picking on the poor? All that does is get republicans elected. The only time things ever change is when you pick on the rich and powerful.

Your views are also easy to understand, and in real life I suspect strongly that you are also a reasonable person

I certainly don't bite ;)

Hmm, why is it that only poor people get labeled as irresponsible.

Because they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible. Welfare, in its present form, is the biggest offender.

I do not pick on the poor. I do, however, pick on the idea that wealth disparity is evil.

Get real. Humanity has a hierarchy and it will always have a hierarchy. Forcing equality will only create undesirable artifacts.

they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible.

People like you think that the privilege that you enjoy is everybody's God-given right. Well, it isn't. There are barriers upon barriers erected long ago of which you are blissfully unaware. There are many, many poor people supporting your consumptive lifestyle. The markets that you love so much lead to monopoly. There is a grip on that monopoly that is not easily loosened. You and your babbling just distract from the real issue of restoring balance and justice.

a market must always exist in the medium of a legal system.

Yes, but not necessarily a justice system.

>>Because they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible. Welfare, in its present >>form, is the biggest offender.

Peter P,

What about rich kids? How do we incentivise them to become responsible? I suppose taking away daddy's money (aka. "generational welfare") is out of the question? Right, that would be wrong, it is known as the "death tax" in the moneyed circles.