patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

I guess that's why the founding fathers owned slaves.

That's a gross oversimplification, filled with massive implications of complete and utter bullshit. Some owned slaves, MOST did not. For example, Ben Franklin partly argued that separation from Britain was necessary because every attempt by the Colonies to end slavery was thwarted / reversed by the British Crown. Adams was prominent about it (as we've learned, so was his wife...)... No doubt a compromise with the south was made to build a unified front in independence against the Brits. So, yes, many southerners were holders. After the war some released theirs. Franklin, Rush, Jay, Livingston were all anti slavery, as were a majority. Efforts among them ended slavery in PA, CT, RI, NH, VT, NY, NJ. Many midwestern states prohibited it based on efforts by a federal act authored by Rufus King, signed by GW prohibiting slavery in those territories.

In America, "liberty" and "freedom" are just code-words that mean "freedom for the powerful to rule in their own interest at the expense of the weak."

Stop buying into the "freedom" bullsh*t.

And here we go.... By the way, I said LIBERTY, not FREEDOM. These are two related, but distinctly different ideas. Regardless, you've been badly indoctrinated by those who want to impugn the founding of this nation in order to undermine the ideas behind BOTH, it would seem.

It's not about "freedom vs. tyranny." It's about power, and those who have it and those who don't.

All of the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors to distract people from that fact.

I don't think you're off base here, at least at the core... Just muddled. POWER is about authoritarianism vs. liberty. Power can only be consolidated at the expense of individual liberty. Either you have the right to say no thanks, or you don't. Either you own your body and life, or you don't. Either you own what your body produces, past, current or future, or you don't.

When power is concentrated and there for the taking, it most certainly will be used at the expense of the individual. Where this country has erred is not with liberty, but by allowing for power to be used at the expense thereof. Understand that, and you'll get somewhere.

Leopold B Scotch says

Regardless, you've been badly indoctrinated by those who want to impugn the founding of this nation in order to undermine the ideas behind BOTH, it would seem.

Care to elaborate?

Leopold B Scotch says

POWER is about authoritarianism vs. liberty. Power can only be consolidated at the expense of individual liberty.

Power can be consolidated with money. Money buys politicians. Thus people with money can simply buy laws that act in their favor.

Leopold B Scotch says

When power is concentrated and there for the taking, it most certainly will be used at the expense of the individual.

Abosultely.

Leopold B Scotch says

Where this country has erred is not with liberty, but by allowing for power to be used at the expense thereof.

How do you propose to fix that problem? Money buys political power.

Leopold B Scotch says

Understand that, and you'll get somewhere.

You really think I don't understand that?

It's much more peaceful and organized in places like China, where the citizens have no access to fire arms. As long as the government can keep a lid on media leaks, they can keep things nice and tidy and compliant however they like. People starving to death? That's fine...as long as it doesn't end up on TV.

And the US military is everywhere. We have hundreds of bases all over Europe alone. We take care of everyone. Those countries can afford to go gun-free, Captain America just steps in and keeps the peace.

Yep, increase gun-control laws and put your trust in government. It will all work out fine. We have a wonderful representative republic. I voted for someone, who assigned someone to create a committee to appoint oversight groups within the government who recently awarded hundreds of separate government entities to use drone aircraft to keep an eye on all of us domestically! Those drones have got our backs. And the cops are just everywhere! In the near future, after strict gun control in the US, if someone pulls out a piece, the silent remote hexicopter will drop down out of the sky and deactivate it with a laser beam.

Oh! and the economy will always remain stable and we'll always be able to afford salaries for police. No city ever limits funding to police officers. They are well paid and ready to stop the outlaws at every turn.

Lastly, the US has a firm moral compass by which we commonly live. We all share the same values in respect of life, liberty and property, so i'm confident my neighbors (hell...everyone!) will remain passive and compliant even when times are bad. (like things could ever go bad).

Mr. Holmes was playing with evidence bags on his hands like they were sock puppets the other day. He acts like that BECAUSE he has guns. If he didn't have guns, he'd be as sane as you and me. He wouldn't have done anything with gasoline or diesel fuel. (even though fire explosions are much more batman-like cinematically-speaking). Insane guys never use commonly available combustibles, because that would be just completely "over-the-top". I'm mean, a psycho has to draw a line somewhere.

Now about repealing that troublesome amendment in the constitution...

deepcgi says

Lastly, the US has a firm moral compass by which we commonly live. We all share the same values in respect of life, liberty and property, so i'm confident my neighbors (hell...everyone!) will remain passive and compliant even when times are bad. (like that's gonna happen).

Hey, someone else gets it!

American in Japan says

How many crimes are actually prevented by people havng/bringing their gun(s) ?

(in the US that is).

The NRA and other gun advocacy groups claim its on the order of several million a year (based on self-reporting by gun owners). If you only consider cases where a perp actually gets shot (and therefore it is verifiable), its a tiny handful.

StillLooking says

This is exactly why guns should be banned. If the police can't even get lethal force right, then obviously ordinary people can't either.

Huh?!? You're conflating acts of self defense, where would be victim knows full well who is threatening him/her, whereas the police breakdown a door, shoot first and figure out they've broken down the wrong door later. Mixing apples and oranges is fruit salad, not a valid argument.

And in my neck of the woods there is a very strong anti-gun sentiment. I wonder why there is no political power behind the sentiment.

Neat.

Apocalypse: You're right. That's certainly how we've got it working in Afghanistan. I've seen gunships sail in and lay down suppressing ground fire while the poppy field works scramble for cover from those nasty rebel militants.

The US is quite accomplished at making drugs safe for everyone's enjoyment. If the gunships weren't there protecting the opium...it really would turn into a good ole' ghetto free-fire fight.

wthrfrk80 says

Care to elaborate?

Just saying I've heard the argument before from people who are very pro big government progressive solution types who go after the founding fathers as a way to dismiss the validity of liberty and most of the good stuff they stood for, and that the founding was really a ruse to benefit a landed oligarchy. (They then go on to usually celebrate FDR and Johnson, and now Obama, etc.)

Your comment "seemed" to sympathize with that belief since I I've heard it exclusively from that side of the fence, and in my reply I chose the word "seem" specifically to leave that open-ended for your clarification. In hindsight, my words could appear more accusatory than intended.

wthrfrk80 says

"Power can be consolidated with money. Money buys politicians. Thus people with money can simply buy laws that act in their favor....How do you propose to fix that problem? Money buys political power."

Our system was IMO intended to be far less consolidated, where liberty trumped the state and democracy. So long as the people understood the idea of liberty and why it was so important to prevent governments from having the power to trample it, things were better. Where people withheld liberty from others for their own reasons (race, gender, etc.), things were wrong.

We fixed some wrongs over the past centuries, but just the same began allowing more and more collective violations of liberty to take place so long as it was not purely based on race, religion, gender, etc.... (unless you're talking college applications and meeting jobs numbers for racial purposes, where legally you're required to hire / discriminate based on those factors....).

I believe things get more screwed up when you enable violations of liberty to be used as a means to solve injustices against liberty. E.g., collusion among powerful business interests in the 1800s lead to 1) anti trust laws, which were (as should have been expected) essentially bought and paid for by the very folks who were trying to create monopolies, and consequently presented regulatory hurdles against competition to be erected vs smaller competitors while guaranteeing oligopoly among the primary players. With the door open, that it was under Federal Authority to regulate as such, more and more was bought and paid for by the biggies at the expense of the small guy, consider tax and regulatory complexity that strongly favors multinational conglomerates with the critical mass to handle; and 2) Unions that formed to respond against the oligopolies who were preventing the free flow of labor by interfering with smaller competitors, who instead of addressing the problem of "power being bought to screw free flowing labor via solid competition", instead carved out their own power fiefdom at the expense of liberty, which only served to enfranchise organized labor at the trough dominated wrongly at the expense of the rest of the people by the biggest players, as if two wrongs make a right.

As to your question, then, of how do we fix it? Short of reacquainting a majority with the benefits of liberty over progressivism (which is enforced by power at the expense of liberty, thus only exacerbating the root problem), there isn't a fix. We are doomed to be lead by those elected to 1) seize and redistribute the economic seed corn accumulated over past generations during more liberty-oriented times and 2) tell us that what we're eating is a miracle harvest of interventionism.

Reality is that it is free-lunchism, plain and simple. When a society grows addicted to eating seed corn vs. working to create greater harvests, eventually there is famine. That is where our economy had been tipping, and now capitulating. People are about to realize that the seed stores are quite thin having bought into the free lunch train for so long. Hopefully they'll realize there error and not be seduced by outright Marxism or some deeper lunacy that within the dark side of the force.

wthrfrk80 says

Leopold B Scotch says

Understand that, and you'll get somewhere.

You really think I don't understand that?

You talk allot about money being at the root of the issue, so please give a little leeway re my conclusion. Apart from Money not being the same as LIBERTY, it leaves quite a bit for others to infer about your views on money. If the problem is money, what do you propose? Or is it power? Chicken and egg, it is. I think if you simply allow for liberty (e.g. a "consensual" clause to the constitution allowing individuals to opt out if they are otherwise not causing violations of others' liberty), you'd restore money to more productive purposes as then the path to more money is through commerce and value exchange vs. co-opting a bunch of pliant politicians willing to, for example, hand over the banking system to a cartel in exchange for a cut of the action and the ability to monetize govt. spending (subsidize their own power...).

But I digress. Perhaps you totally get it, and you seem to say you do. If so, how can I disagree? I just had your other comments to go on.

foxmannumber1 says

there is a genetic component to intelligence

While this statement might be true, your extension of that statement to IQ scores is pretty tricky. The way IQ is measured is not much of a science. Ever taken an IQ test? Unless you have a source for your statement, I suggest you be careful about connecting ideas and consider all of the thought which might have led to your conclusion.

bdrasin says

If you only consider cases where a perp actually gets shot (and therefore it is verifiable), its a tiny handful.

What is also verifiable is what I stated here:

Leopold B Scotch says

What's impossible to gauge is the deterrent fact that an armed populace presents to potential criminals. There are plenty of examples of crime going down dramatically when there is a highly public vigilante taking matters into his own hands. Bernie Goetz's handling of four would be muggers who thought he "looked like easy bait" caused mugging to nearly vanish in the (NY) city during the time between his "self defense" and his turning himself in about two weeks later.

That was clearly verifiable, and the inference is that criminals are deterred by the threat of being shot at by potential victims with hidden packed heat. The exact numbers can never be known, but the drop was massive in NYC.

Not saying you think this way, but those who argue the "unverifiability of deterrence" as a reason for making guns illegal should therefore apply the same logic to the police. How do you know the police deter crime? What are the statistics? In fact, you could argue that crime goes up where there are more cops if you're poor at statistics. (cops are assigned in greater concentrations to high crime areas.)

Leopold B Scotch says

Just saying I've heard the argument before from people who are very pro big government progressive solution types

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I think that most of those progressive types are full of it. I believe their claims of "wanting to make the world a better place" are just cover to acquire more wealth/power for themselves. Every dictator believes his rule is benevolent. I'm willing to bet both the Kock Brothers and George Soros think they're going God's work.

There are some who believe that only 1. cops 2. military should own guns.
They are either 1. brainwashed to fear guns 2. like being sheep 3. afraid to learn what guns do.
Whether or not guns prevent violent crime in thousands of cases in the USA every year is an interesting but irrelevant fact.
Oppressive goverments universally fear an armed populace.
If you have ever shot a good gun at a range it's so much fun and you will naturally find it enjoyable.
My favorite handguns are CZ, and the CZ75 my favorite because it's so accurate. It's a pleasure to hit where you want to with a gun. Cop guns suck because they are plastic and the recoil causes the gun to jump around. Mililtary handguns are usually not plastic.
Perhaps you have a family and are not concerned to have strangers someday come bother you in your house. You will be frantically dailing 911 and hope that the donut shop is just a block or two from your home.
Remember, when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

Leopold B Scotch says

Leopold B Scotch says

What's impossible to gauge is the deterrent fact that an armed populace presents to potential criminals. There are plenty of examples of crime going down dramatically when there is a highly public vigilante taking matters into his own hands. Bernie Goetz's handling of four would be muggers who thought he "looked like easy bait" caused mugging to nearly vanish in the (NY) city during the time between his "self defense" and his turning himself in about two weeks later.

Got some stats to back that up? My quick search indicates murders in NYC were already dropping in 1984 (had been for a couple of years):

The big drop in crime starting in the 1990s was probably due to roe v wade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Anyway, the original question was how many crimes are directly prevented by legal guns ownership, so I don't think this is a great example. Goetz did not have a license if I recall correctly.

Leopold,

Take a look at this thread.

/?p=1214445

Thoughts?

bdrasin says

Got some stats to back that up? My quick search indicates murders in NYC were already dropping in 1984 (had been for a couple of years):

Nothing popped up for me either. I'm old enough to recall pretty vividly that the temporary drop (we're talking 10 days bernie was on the lam) was a cited issue in the great debate of the problem of crime in NYC and other major cities back then.

The big drop in crime starting in the 1990s was probably due to roe v wade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Good one!

Actually, crime rates continue to rise in NYC through the rest of the decade. Again, Goetz was a 10-day phenom.

Goetz did not have a license if I recall correctly.

Goetz was declined a license after getting beaten up during a mugging and watching the perps clear the police station before he was even allowed to leave. He took it into his own hands.

Anyway, the original question was how many crimes are directly prevented by legal guns ownership, so I don't think this is a great example.

I think the deeper question in this thread is "private ownership of guns preventing crime" and should the recent events in Aurora translate into legislative action to increase gun restrictions. Someone mentioned NYC. D.C. and Chi-town as examples of an easy disarmed population.

I think putting myself in the shoes of a criminal says a lot about what I'm willing to rob if I were a robber. Soft targets without defense would be a first go-to. If I had to rob a place with a gun or two, I'd much prefer those armed to be wearing a nicely identifiable uniform and shiny badge so I know exactly who to take out before taking care of business. The last thing I'd want to deal with is the unknown of who in a large group is actually armed.

I mean, really... this is common sense.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rkNpi85c6Ko

check it out, awesome pistol

Leopold B Scotch says

I think the deeper question in this thread is "private ownership of guns preventing crime" and should the recent events in Aurora translate into legislative action to increase gun restrictions. Someone mentioned NYC. D.C. and Chi-town as examples of an easy disarmed population.

Examples of disarmed populations? Don't you think countries are better examples than individual cities, where you can just go to the next town? So how about:
Australia
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Italy
...etc...

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime. Sure, there are cultural differences but do you think this can all just be hand-waved?

I've never heard a counter-argument to this that didn't boil down to:

the collective republican id said

No! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

bdrasin says

Examples of disarmed populations? Don't you think countries are better examples than individual cities, where you can just go to the next town? So how about:
Australia
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Italy
...etc...

These are all racially homogeneous super majority white societies.

bdrasin says

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime.

Just wait until the Euro collapses.

foxmannumber1 says

Nooooooooooooooo! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

There it is again...

wthrfrk80 says

bdrasin says

All have much stricter gun laws than USians would ever tolerate, and all have much lower rates of violent crime.

Just wait until the Euro collapses.

Oh it'll be bad, but I don't expect their violent crime rates to go up to anywhere near ours. And it would be worse if they had our gun laws.

bdrasin says

There it is again...

No it's not. I made no reference to any gun law or stats concerning gun violence. Merely pointing out racial demographics.

American in Japan says

How many crimes are actually prevented by people havng/bringing their gun(s) ?

(in the US that is).

all of the ones that would have happened and did not happen.

simple folks.
Guns are not good, guns are not bad. Guns are a tool.
A gun in the hands of a pad person is a bad thing. (so is a bat, a bomb, or your neck)
A gun in the hands of a good person is not a danger to anyone BUT a bad person. Period. Charlie Heston said something like this once, and he was right, and it's still right.

StillLooking says

This is exactly why guns should be banned. If the police can't even get lethal force right, then obviously ordinary people can't either.

Huh?!? You're conflating acts of self defense, where would be victim knows full well who is threatening him/her, whereas the police breakdown a door, shoot first and figure out they've broken down the wrong door later. Mixing apples and oranges is fruit salad, not a valid argument.

Your implication here is that average citizens would have better judgement and be less prone to mistakes than trained police. Well that is just plain malarky.

simple folks.
Guns are not good, guns are not bad. Guns are a tool.
A gun in the hands of a pad person is a bad thing. (so is a bat, a bomb, or your neck)
A gun in the hands of a good person is not a danger to anyone BUT a bad person. Period. Charlie Heston said something like this once, and he was right, and it's still right.

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone. And even if we grant the very dubious claim that guns make one safer(all the evidence shows that owning a gun seriously raises the likeliehood that one will get their fool head blown off by a gun), how is it fair to those that choose not to own guns to allow the bad guys to have guns?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone

there may be stupider comments on here than this, but I doubt it.

StillLooking says

how is it fair to those that choose not to own guns to allow the bad guys to have guns?

I stand corrected. That's even stupider.

Weapons use should be an elective in H.S., just like cooking, welding, and drivers training. There should be hunting clubs and target shooting clubs, in every H.S. in this nation. The answer is more education about proper weapons use.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone.

How do you plan on doing that? How will you keep criminals from getting guns? Just curious.

StillLooking says

And the only way to keep guns away from the bad is to keep them away from everyone.

How do you plan on doing that? How will you keep criminals from getting guns? Just curious.

The mass production of guns requires heavy industry. A law banning guns can thus easily be enforced unlike drugs which does not require heavy industry for manufacture.

Thus the only new guns after a ban will be hand made and limited quantity. Thus the price of guns will quickly become so expensive that two bit punks will no longer be able to acquire them.

Still,

I'm getting Deja Vu...

StillLooking says

The mass production of guns requires heavy industry. A law banning guns can thus easily be enforced unlike drugs which does not require heavy industry for manufacture.

Unlike drugs, guns are not put into your bloodstream. Guns also do not disappear once used.

To do what you propose, you would have to repeal the 2nd amendment. This simply won't happen, but let's pretend it did. All gun factories would cease making guns for private citizens and for the government only. All of these agencies would have to develop more complete disposal systems for used guns and a more indepth tracking system for in use guns. A logistical nightmare.

We have ~200 million privately owned guns in the US, which I would guess is a conservative estimate. They would all have to be turned in and destroyed. It would be another logistical nightmare that would take decades.

If every private citizen willingly gave up their firearms the government would fail the logistical problems.

Your liberal eutopia of no guns and racial harmony will never exist.

Still Looking - I don't want to bring a bat to a gun fight. In an unlit house at night, just the SOUND of a shotgun shell getting chambered is enough to make people flee. Know what I mean?

Let's remove all of our troops who occupy more than a thousand military bases in other countries around the world, and then see if their strict gun control policies continue to prevent violent crime. It's difficult to find a nation with strict gun control laws who aren't currently under our heavily-armed protection. Our strongest presence is felt in Germany, Japan, Italy, and Austria

In fact, I can't think of one country with laws as strict as you describe that doesn't escape massive internal funding for defense and law enforcement due to US military intervention.

deepcgi says

In fact, I can't think of one country that doesn't escape internal funding for defense and law enforcement due to US military intervention.

Defense, yes. Law enforcement, no.

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

SARCASM.

If it is found that the rifle or 100 round clip malfunctioned, the shooter should sue the manufacturer. He has the right to buy a product that operates properly. He should be pissed. He might have been able to wound & kill more women and children?
How many gun lovers had family members wounded or killed in Aurora?
Collateral damage happens. Do not tread on 2nd amendment rights.

If someone wants you dead you're dead, whether your armed or not.
What's the saying?: You will not hear the bullet.
How many are 10 feet tall & BULLET PROOF?

StillLooking says

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

If you don't want to own or use a gun, so be it. Just don't tell me I also have to be defenseless. But that's the libs method of operation - if THEY don't like something, their feelings trump everything else, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Why can't you defend yourself with a baseball bat?

no no no, YOU can LIMIT how YOU defend YOURSELF. A bat, your hands, a fly swatter, bad breath, whatever. But, your only hope of survival is an armed gov agent if the bad guy(s) come after you or your family or your pet or your neighbor or your treasure. That's your CHOICE. I CHOOSE to not limit my ability to defend myself, my family, my pets, my neighbors, or my treasure. What ever happened to the ProChoice liberal voices?

deepcgi says

Law enforcement, yes. They HAVE law enforcement because we staff their military.

They also have generous welfare states because we pay to defend them. The Europeans are like the adult children that live at home rent-free and then bitch about how unenlightened we are.