Slashdot Mirror
UK To Mull High Video Game Taxes — To Fight Knife Crime
chareverie writes "The Prime Minister of the UK is being urged to impose high taxes on violent video games in an effort to reduce the number of knife-related crime. The request comes from Richard Taylor, who argues that young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.' He doesn't have a definitive number on how much to tax on the offensive video games, but says that they should be 'very high.' Rap music is also voiced to be a concern due to the alleged negativity and language. Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
Correlation is causation! Mwahaha.
People spending more time playing video games have less time to stab people.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I fucking know who this makes me want to stab.
Now that they've done away with all gun and knife crimes, they need to fight shillelagh crimes. Shillelagh crimes have been steadily on the rise, doubling from one to two in just ten years. Even worse, some oafs are starting to hammer nails into their shillelaghs, just so they have metal pokey-bits to inflict more damage.
We need to tax all carpenters and lumberyards in the UK, or our youth will pay a terrible price in violence and fear.
If raising taxes is a method of fighting crime (it's not, but supposing it is) then why not raise taxes on the sale of knives ?
The youth of Britain apparently feel that the law has no control over them (something I agree is probably the case).
So you solve that by... raising taxes? It doesn't even matter on what, it might as well be rutabagas for the good it does you in terms of solving the problem. How is making video games that thugs want more expensive so they have to knife four more people to get the funds really going to help?
Instead, how about imposing some more forceful law over those that feel the law is irrelevant to their actions? When actions start having real consequences, people can and will change.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
, you know, knives?
Gotta love the British who enact law simply because one person has a tragedy that might have been averted.
They pulled this a few years ago with violent porn, where some woman was raped and killed, and the cops found some violent porn in his house, and proceeded to outlawing the porn, to prevent the porn from causing the feelings of rape in the guy, or something like that. Makes no sense to me.
if they would put police on the street. Apparently, spy cameras don't deter knife crime unless someone actually gets arrested for it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Why not, if we must permit them to beg the question, tax knives instead?
Because it's just a tax-grab, that's why.
Athy, athier, athiest.
The British gov't has systematically distorted statistics and selectively presented data in order to advance its own agenda.
This latest ploy probably has little to do with crime, and more to do with bringing in more cash to fund the gov't's pet projects. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7780057.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7781030.stm
K
How can anyone seriously expect it to hold sway over anybody else? The kids are only following the examples set by their leaders. Especially disheartening as we discover how deeply the corruption permeates everything.
What?
Some people in the UK are also calling for the ban of any pointed chef's knives. These people claim that there's no possible reason for a knife to have a point to it except to stab people. Now, I'm not a chef, but I've done my share of cooking. I will often use the pointed tip of my knife to "stab" a food item if the food (like, say tomatoes) resists my initial slice attempts (e.g. looks like it's going to squish instead of slice cleanly). What's next? Ban scissors? Box cutters (not just from planes but any possession of)? Swiss Army Knives?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
England, what the hell is wrong with you? I understand you guys got chavs and all, but between CTV and the nanny state stuff I actually feel like I'm in safer and more sane land in the US than the few times I've gone to the UK.
Perhaps giving your youth some say in their lives and something to do besides play video games and stick people with knives might get them more involved with positive influences. Teens are rebellious largely because they are ignored as children when they want to do something as an adult, but held to adult responsibilities when they try to act like children. Give them an outlet for their raging hormones and a way to actually use the skills you're drilling into their heads in school rather than those they pick up from video games.
Don't they know that for a long time now you don't run faster with a knife?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
better to fine anyone that calls a knife a "weapon".
its a potentialy dangerous tool if missused.
atm kids in the uk are raised being told knives are for crime / stabbing ppl so your not allowed to have one.
so of course when they get one what do they think its for?
most ppl raised with knifes being an every day tool treat them with respect as they have cut themselves in the past and have an understanding and respect of the harm they can do.
Is anyone surprised that the chavs and yobs running around with knives are powerful, and the defenseless British public are scared and powerless? This is exactly what happens when the criminals lack fear because the British people have been completely disarmed. What is a person supposed to do now against someone who has a knife? Ask politely for them to stop?
While the timing of this article, and response, is very poor given the two horrendous gun crimes yesterday and today, perhaps it is time to revisit the anti-weapon stance that has gripped England since the Scottish school massacre. Take away the guns, then only criminals will have them. Outlaw knives, and only criminals have them. Outlaw video games next?
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
There should also be a huge surcharge on Mario Kart applied to the uninsured motorists accident fund. While we're at it, America's Army could be taxed to fund the new push in Afghanistan, and the Bee Movie game could be taxed to find a cure for the honeybee diseases. Let's get creative. In this recession we need to find new ways of extracting money from people. Gamers obviously have too much.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
If you can't see the causal relationship between video games and stabbing hookers, then you've never played Hello Kitty Island Adventure.
Plus there is the minor side issue that most video games use guns, not knives to inflict damage. It sounds like the proponent of this tax are yet another example of knee-jerk reactionaries with a hate-on for video games and rap music. Why is it that such nutbars are even heard by government, much less seriously considered?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Far be it from me to suggest that people RTFA or question the correctness of a summary title, but the father of a murdered boy urging the Prime Minister to tax violent games is a pretty big fucking step from the "UK To Mull High Video Game Taxes - To Fight Knife Crime " in the summary title.
Just for clarity - the UK government aren't doing anything like what's being implied. One man, rightly or wrongly, is suggesting this.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Explain to me how making games more expensive will make people less likely to stab others? If anything it'll raise stabbing incidents because people will have to take up robbery to afford the video games. Then they'll just wind up in prison, and it's nothing but stabbing in there.
I have nothing compelling to say
they need to head off spoon crimes. I recommend SPOOOOOOOOONGUARRRRD!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
All the rich criminals who fire thousands of employees causing them to get desperate to the point of prostitution, robbery, suicide and more because their stock price went up a few bucks for that week and they cashed in millions.
Just a thought...
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
...that some deranged turd will use WHATEVER weapon he can get his hands on to do WHATEVER he wants...
outlaw guns, use knives
outlaw/outtax knives, use baseball/cricket bats
outlaw bats, use rutabagas
You can never prevent crime, just certain tools used to accomplish it. Even if they have to resort to bare handed strangulation, that's what they'll do....
Twin or more? ITA
Apache/Spring/La
I see you're taking after America and it's horrible system of taxation, Britain, along with the justifications for doing so. Have you considered applying for colony status with us? We're still accepting new member states. Granted, our 401k and stock options are crap right now, and there's no health coverage, but you'll make it all back with smugness, and on your first day you get a large bat and combat boots as well as a welcome gift. /grinning, ducking, running
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I heard Jack Thompson over at the pub commenting that the degradation of society has a strong corollary with the development of more violent games. Remember Pong? You could scarcely kill someone with a pong machine as it took the strength of 10 geeks to lift it. Now when cartridges came by there was a critical paradigm shift which resulted in a switch from 'death by console' to 'death by cartridge'. If we use the same measure it takes .005 geeks to lift and swing a cartridge with deadly force. Yet this was the equivalent of using an animal bone until the advent of optical media. Coupled with the introduction of bad asian ninja movies it took very little for young minds to substitute throwing star with cd. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to tax the hell out of games.
The child abduction and violent crimes against kids are down.
Largely because of: a) more indoor playing from video games, b) increase in homework, c) increased amount of supervised time (school, extra-circular stuff, etc...).
Of those video games is a major factor. It is no-brainer to me that video games playing would reduce incidence of stabbing not increase it.
If that was really the goal, they should give kids a BBC xbox channel full of free quality games and issue rebate coupons to people to buy their kids consoles.
This is what happens to a country that takes people's guns away.
I propose a 278% tax on all history books. History has long been known to contain scenes of bloody violence, sexual deviance and disregard for authority. It is time that the government and parents started to take a stand against the corruptive influence of history.
He was stabbed by a gang of 11 to 14-year-olds. The boy's mother had complained repeatedly to the principal about bullies, yet he did nothing.
Bullying is the real problem here which should be addressed.
sig: pv qid
'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.'
If that was true why do they resort to stabbing before trying some shoplifting. It sounds like the guy is abusing his position to push some legislature through. He should step back and ask what is better for the general public. Heavy taxation on an industry or social programs, like sports, clubs, technology competitions, that would get those kids off the street and being more active members of society.
We've been dealing with this all throughout history. Right now video games are evil. Before that, loud music. Go back far enough, and the first caveman to make fire probably had a rock thrown at him for trying to corrupt "the children".
I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
Well, it depends on what you consider to be "real". There have always been horrible stabbings, and there will always *be* horrible stabbings. The media have decided to get hysterical about this type of crime (which has been occurring for millenia), and have magnified each recent incident as if it's some kind of new mysterious killing technique that was invented in south london by black teenagers.
The good news for us gamers is that the government is unlikely to risk upsetting the UK game development gravy train, as at the moment it's one of the few industries that's actually doing ok considering the current climate.
An easy way to combat street crime would be to put more uniformed plods on the street, but such a plainly obvious solution is beyond this government (and doesn't supply a source of easily abused funds).
OK, so nobody is seriously going to believe that taxing video games is going to stop knife crime.
But if they used the tax money to pay for better education and ameneties for kids, then why not?
Of course, that will never happen...
Sooo, they put a tax on video games and how does that cut down (no pun intended) on knife crime?? Do they use that money to hire more cops to patrol, or do studies on the relationship between gaming and knife crime?? Seems to me like they are just looking for another revenue stream, and vilifying video games usually seems to be an easy target, especially when its being done for the greatest of all causes, for the children.
My head just exploded.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
... soon criminals will only have knifes. What's next? Sticks and stones?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
He has a point. After a few rounds of capture the flag in my favorite First-Person Knifer, I sometimes just want to go outside and stab some hobos.
Everybody is talking about violent video game control. Got to control the violent video games. Fuck, that, I like violent video games. No, I think we need some knife control. I think every knife should cost five thousand pounds. Five thousand pounds for a knife. Know why? Cos if a knife cost five thousand pounds, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be stabbed you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, that other guy put 5,000 pounds into stabbing his ass!' And people'd think before they stabbed someone 'Man I would cut your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no knives on lay-away!'
Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
So this guy's channeling Pat Pulling?
I believe that it is a self rectifying problem.
Two guys have a knife fight, one brings a game.
I just don't see the need to worry about it, eventually the gamers will get smart or diminish via attrition.
If I lived in the UK, I'd have to go with a crossbow.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
There are rules about selling excessively violent games to children, and the problem is these rules aren't followed by parents and retailers. The tax should only be charged when games are illegally sold to children.
Stabbings occur with knives! Not Video Games. It's the knives that they should be taxing!!!
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
What has this got to do with guns?
Do you think violent crime would be so rampant if the criminals weren't assured of having unarmed victims?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"[young people] feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like"
It's a sad and dangerous day when "knife crimes" are seen as bad because they are disrespectful of the law.
(To spell it out, knife crime are bad because they hurt innocent people, not because bureaucrats say they're 'illegal')
\u262D = \u5350
...since they also 'feel that the law has no control over them'.
... let`s put a tax on GETTING stabbed. When people wake up in intense care with a sidewalk washing bill, maybe they`ll be more careful next time about letting young whippersnappers stab them while on a video game fueled rampage.
Is Richard Taylor the UK's Jack Thompson?
The request comes from Richard Taylor, who argues that young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.'
No different than kids were when I was one of them, and there were no such things as video games back then.
Rap music is also voiced to be a concern due to the alleged negativity and language.
Don't you Brits have freedom of speech? Offensive speech is the only kind that needs protecting!
Free Martian Whores!
I still don't get this. Why is knife crime suddenly such a big deal here in the UK? It seems like every other day some newspaper or TV news or something is talking about it. You hear phrases like "knife-crime epidemic" bandied about.
See 2008 crime figures:
Nothing to see here. Move on. Stop whining, and yes, Daily Mail editors, I mean you.
Ban rap, make video games untaxable. Better world begins.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
How about they require gun ownership from all of their citizens. I'll bet that would do more good.
Here's my evidence, where's his? http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Assuming for a minute that it's because the youth feel the government has no control over them that they're stabbing people, why wouldn't they just steal the games and/or music that causes they're behavior?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Why stop at video games? Why not cops and robbers, cowboys and indians. or even army men and dinosaurs. Do not forget the lincoln log and lego forts used as cover.
One of many violent crime trends
The UK's slightly different trend
Note the fact that violent crime was MUCH MORE prevalent (in the US) before first person shooters became popular (Wolfenstein 3D in '92, Doom in '93, Quake in '96, etc.). Based on real data, there is a clear INVERSE correlation between the number of violent video games readily available and the number of violent crimes taking place for any given year.
If I were to use garbage statistics to come up with stupid taxes, I would tax men between the ages of 16 and 24. Simply being a young adult male, across all cultures and for as long as humans have existed, is the biggest risk factor for committing violent crime. Vote Man Tax!
Mod Parent Up! Parent has a very valid and insightful post.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
This might work if they took the tax money from video games and applied it to things that really would reduce violent crime. Of course, things like reducing poverty, increasing literacy, and providing drug treatment for people who want to get off drugs won't get you as many headlines as bashing video games.
I thought all crime was supposed to cease in England when they banned firearms.
So, now it's knives?
Next, they will come for the pointy things.
Eventually, everyone in England will be required to be lobotomized in order to prevent anyone from taking any actions whatsoever that might be harmful to someone else.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
They made knives available and cheaper to the lowest common denominator of society. Plus easy credit made it possible to order with express shipping! So it's MasterCard's fault too! And the TV stations that broadcast these calls for slaughter!
Don't forget your local/national/international package delivery service for allowing dangerous, dangerous knives to be dropped off at the homes of young, impressionable children. It's called "The Postman Always Rings Twice," not "The Homicidal Maniac Always Rings Twice."
And the parents, such horrid parents, for using knives in front of their children, cutting meat and chicken like so many innocent bystanders.
Home kitchens should have all utensils tethered to the walls like in prisons. I've seen it on TV. I've never heard about anyone getting stabbed in a prison kitchen.
Now how much would you pay? In dollars or the souls of your victims?
I prefer the good old days of clean cut television. Wholesome programming like "Leave It To Beaver." But can anyone help me remember what Beaver's last name was?
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
"The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers. I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint."~attributed to Hesiod (8th century B.C.)
So, what's new? In Hesiod's case, I don't think it was video games that were causing this behavior! Young people act rebellious -- get over it!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If you think punishment of any form is not a deterrent, then talk to the guy who wrote the proposed law since he's the one saying youths have no regard for the law and that is a problem (again, how it relates to his proposed solution is not clear but whatever).
Punishment is not a 100% deterrent, but that does not mean punishment is never a good answer to get some level of prevention.
In particular, note that negative consequences are even more powerful. Fear of capital punishment is remote in someone's mind, but fear a target may be armed is much closer to someone's mind as a criminal. That's why areas with fewer gun control laws have all sorts of better crime statistics in general, especially when you factor out criminal vs. criminal crime (like turf wars).
If you truly believe utter lack of punishment and personal responsibility makes for a great society, I encourage you to move to the UK in a small town with some of the "Youths" in question and see how you feel in two years.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing."
Actually, although it doesn't make it any less tragic, I'm pretty sure he was stabbed with a broken bottle...
Before you ask, in the UK bottles are only taxed heavily if they contain alcohol.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I would postulate that knife crime and video games are mutually exclusive.
Everyone knows that kids that are obsessed with video games will never leave the house voluntarily.
If raising taxes is a method of fighting crime (it's not, but supposing it is) then why not raise taxes on the sale of knives ?
That is a damn good idea. And to stop rape, we should tax penises. By the pound.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
most ppl raised with knifes being an every day tool treat them with respect as they have cut themselves in the past and have an understanding and respect of the harm they can do.
Obligatory Family Guy Quote:
"That hurts! My God, is that what I've been doing to people? I belong here."
I will often use the pointed tip of my knife to "stab" a food item if the food (like, say tomatoes) resists my initial slice attempts (e.g. looks like it's going to squish instead of slice cleanly).
Offtopic, but you either need to sharpen your knives or use the right knife. Probably both. :-)
A freshly sharpened chefs will cut tomatoes, but not for long. Using the steel hone will prolong this, but it's still not the right blade for that. I pull out a scalloped or serrated blade, and that works wonders. Even so, I need to get mine sharpend.
The result is there's no clear distinction, possible between a stream of governemnt income and an expenditure. If they wanted to spend more on fighting knife crime, they could do it now - it's just that something else would take a cut (pardon the pun). Likewise, the extra revenue from videogame taxes could just as well be spent financing another illegal war somewhere.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
... feels as if the government *must do something* owing to his loss...
Hell's bells, why do we excuse this ridiculous assumption everyone has that the government is the solution...
Did he teach his child to be aware of his surroundings, or was the government supposed to provide cops to watch his every step?
Did he consider moving since the neighborhood was turning to shit or did he expect the government to clean up the streets at some other tax payers expense?
Did he teach his kid not to piss off and enrage the unstable or was the government supposed to put him in a protective custody so he could shoot off his mouth without consequences?
Maybe none of these apply, maybe all of them do, but damn... this insistance that we can't make changes ourselves, that it HAS to be done by the government is 80% of why the economy in both our countries is sucking the crack pipe right now.
Don't know about you, but my daughter has known for the last 10 years (she's 14) that if she's ever uncomfortable being somewhere, get off the streets and call me, anytime and anyplace. And I've taught her to be paranoid an err on the side of caution... should I have to? Well, not if we lived in Candyland...
But we don't... so get off your ass, protect yourselves, and then see what you can do to make the place better... after that, then maybe the government can help. But if you haven't done that first, you make idiots look smart and the crime situation is a direct result of your (and your predecessors) actions.
--
I drank what?
They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like
and
Taylor's son, Damilola Taylor, was killed in November 2000 at the age of 10 by knife stabbing
Why would he allow his ten year old son to go on the street and flaunt the law?
What happened to his child is a sad and tragic thing. However, by his own logic, the kid was doomed anyway. I think this is why they created the word 'absurd'.
Take away his position and this guy is just another nutbag on the corner shouting while holding a crudely drawn cardboard sign.
Richard Taylor is one of the proponents of this tax. He is the father of Damilola Taylor, who was killed with a knife or broken bottle. Danny and Rickie Preddie, aged 18 and 19, were ultimately convicted of the crime and sentenced to 8 years youth custody. The Taylor family was awarded £11,000 for their son's death. I can certainly understand Mr. Taylor's desire to prevent the same thing from happening to other children, but taxing video games is a pretty weak preventative measure. His target audience doesn't even pay for the video games, their parents do. The whole system reeks. I would offer my idea of justice for Damilola's death, but I doubt it would be well received. Instead to Mr. Taylor I offer my condolences and prayers that he might find peace.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
If you are concerned about knife violence the obvious thing to do is to purchase a handgun and learn how to use it. You will then be prepared to deal effectively with knife-toting assailants.
Oh wait, we're talking about Great Britain. I suppose you could try hiding under your covers.
While I have every sympathy for the poor man, it's not a good idea to let the victims of crime determine how to prevent it. Their judgement tends not to be the most balanced.
He doesn't know what the causal relationship is between knife crime and games, nor does he have any idea what the effect will be on demand for games should they be taxed (it's possible that the publishers would end up swallowing a large part of it because games are presumably at the price which maximises profit*number of sales).
It's that England is a hellhole. And the big cities, especially, are just awful.
Everything is old and dirty and depressing in England. And, frankly, they like it that way. But it does start to affect the populace after a while.
Not to be rude or anything, but maybe he shouldn't have named his son Damilola? With a name like that, the kid was doomed to be either the victim of a gang or the leader of a gang...
Seriously though, there's too many things wrong with the whole story to do more than begin to point them out. He's trying to legislate his grief, which has been a bad idea since the beginning of time (and the reason a lot of humanity has gotten away from the idea of kings). And in the process, he totally missed his mark. If he wants to legislate something, he should consider what went wrong in the schoolyard.
Why, with the UK's omnipresent surveillance and nanny state, did no one notice that a pack of kids had gone all Lord of the Flies on the playground? Could it be that the surveillance of everything DOESN'T WORK? That it induces a sense of false security on the part of adult supervision, eliminates the idea that personal responsibility should be inculcated in kids, and does absolutely nothing to address any of the root causes of gang violence? Could it be that by passing law after law after stupid assinine law that a contempt for the law has been bred into the citizenry? And now he wants to add another stupid assinine law...
A certain Biblical quote is apropos: You reap what you sow.
Someone shot people with a gun, so the UK outlawed guns. Crime went up anyway, only now they're apparently using knives. Take away knives, and they're down to blunt instruments.
An intimate encounter with which is the only plausible explanation for loonies like the ones running the UK thinking that they can control every part of a person's life in the name of security.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"A government big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take away all you have".
Yes. No.
One of the messages touted around in England is that knife crime breeds knife crime. The children are carrying knives to protect themselves against other knife-wielding children. If you carry a knife, there's more chance of you using it.
I agree with that a little.
I carried a knife as a child. A good boy scout always had a sharp penknife. The only person I ever cut was myself.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
And of course that was right after the stick-wielding cavemen unsuccessfully lobbied to ban rocks.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Tonight I'm going to start on a flash game. Basically your an intoxicated youth, you run around knifing people in town centres trying to stay off CCTV (because that's what youths do I understand), you need to steal bottles of liqour and syringes as power ups. If you drink too much your screen blurs, you fall down and The Fuzz get you, if you sober up, you go back to school get a job and the game is over. Watch out for the CCTV. What shall I call it? "Tax This!"
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Murders are NOT a hard figure as the article seems to claim. Disappearances are NOT murders. If an illegal immigrant disappears no statistic will reflect this.
As for the known murders, maybe they were down. Serious crime tends to go through periods of calm and upheaval. That can seriously upset the murder average. So of those murders that the article presents as a simple number HOW many are so called senseless violence?
And how many attempts of murder stopped short of murder because advancing medical science saved the victim?
Any figure, no matter how simple can be massaged to tell the story you want to and NEVER is this more evident then like in this article when the author tries to let a simple figure with no details tell a major story.
Remember about crime that the powers that be are always pushing their own angle and constantly changing their metrics.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This story is a load of rubbish and should be treated as such. Because:
A. This is not government policy, some guy called Taylor, is going to "advise" the prime minister to do something. Well lots of people advise the prime minister to do something, it does not mean he does it or that it is government policy.
B. This government constantly announces policies which sound snappy or eye catching. They are however not real policies, they are only designed to get on the news a night, so people think the government is doing something about an issue. Very often the policy comes to nothing and is forgotten about within a week. Or even more commonly, the policy is a re-announcement or something that has already happened.
C. I am even more suspect, because it said "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is set to announce fresh Government plans this morning to cut the number of knife crimes" Well they have been in office for around 11 years so it is a bit late to announce "plans" when you only have just over a year left in office. (i.e. it is just another eye catching announcement)
Having said that, this government sometimes does not forget about there crazy ideas and tries to force them in to law. E.g. detention for 42 days with out trial.
So I am sceptical, and I just hope they all get kicked out of office soon so we don't get there nasty ID cards and uber database of all our e-mails.
One of the messages touted around in England is that knife crime breeds knife crime. The children are carrying knives to protect themselves against other knife-wielding children. If you carry a knife, there's more chance of you using it.
Only if you consider self-defense to be a crime. If you are carrying around a knife/sword/gun/lightsaber and are a decent person why would you use it for any other reason?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other. Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not against strangers (check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/), but against people who know each other (family especially)... you would be hard pressed to argue that this violence would be prevented if everyone owned weapons. The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime.. I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.
I've been playing TF2 and have killed hundreds of virtual representations of real people.
I've even made maps of real places and put cops in them to kill. Hrmm, I must be getting ready for a real killing spree now.
That, or maybe I'm just going to go out and teach people about the scriptures.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Enact laws which require all guns and knives to be replaced by walkie talkies
Of course being that we have advanced much since those times I suppose cell phones are more likely.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
I suspect that we would both agree that the best way to lower crime is to address the underlying causes of it. You'll note how crime tends to go down when the economy is doing better and less people are pushed into desperate acts for example.
I also suspect that we would both agree that no matter how good of a job you do on paragraph a, you'll never be able to entirely eliminate violent crime. Once you accept this you have to decide if you want your citizenry to be able to defend themselves or if they should have to rely on the state to do it for them. Personally I want to be able to defend myself and am glad that I live in a country where that is possible.
The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime
*shrug*, I've seen studies of convicted criminals that suggest that one of the biggest fears they have is running into an armed victim that is able to resist their attack. Either way though I don't really have to justify my ownership of weapons in the United States. It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What has this got to do with guns? You are aware that knives are weapons as well, I assume.
And yes, I would think so. I think they might be even more violent if they knew that their victom was walking around with a weapon similar to theirs. Instead of saying "gimmy yo mony or I hurt ya!" They will attack and not ask, but take.
When in Belgium many years ago they gave weapons to the people on armed money trucks, instead of lower robberies, the amount was the same, but just more violent. Immediately shooting and killing the drivers.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What use is a tax when people don't even buy stuff anymore?
What has this got to do with guns? You are aware that knives are weapons as well, I assume.
Where did I specifically mention guns? As I recall British law prohibits the plebs (err, citizens) from carrying anything that might be remotely useful for self-defense. They aren't even allowed to carry pepper spray the last time I checked.
And yes, I would think so. I think they might be even more violent if they knew that their victom was walking around with a weapon similar to theirs. Instead of saying "gimmy yo mony or I hurt ya!" They will attack and not ask, but take.
So your solution is to disarm the citizenry and make them dependent upon police response time and/or the good moral character of the criminal not to kill them? Let's play this debate from the other side of the fence: What compelling reason do you have to disarm people who aren't criminals? Is the freedom to keep and bear arms just a bit too much freedom for you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Last time i checked, america still has victims of crime. Not sure what both parties carrying guns would accomplish, except to make one or more parties into a fatality.
Guns just give one a feeling of security and safety. Youre still just as likely to get shot if someone pulls a gun on you, whether you have one or not. What are you going to do, out draw them? Please.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a gun with me at all times for a feeling of security. But the few times when I have been mugged, me having any sort of weapon would have very quickly become the criminal having that weapon, along with my wallet and phone. Should you have the right to kill someone because they want your wallet? (I say yes, but most civilized societies disagree). Its a logical fact however that the more people that are armed, the more people are going to get shot. Handguns only have one purpose, and that is to solve problems. The effects of that solution though are often not considered until it is too late. Alot of people just dont give a fuck, and their egos bruise easily.
I really dont think arming more stupid humans is the right way to go.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Not sure what both parties carrying guns would accomplish, except to make one or more parties into a fatality.
And the criminal ending up a fatality is a bad thing, because.....? The criminal is the one who made the decision that somebody was going to die when he decided to pull that knife or gun. At that point it's just a question of who.
But the few times when I have been mugged, me having any sort of weapon would have very quickly become the criminal having that weapon, along with my wallet and phone
Maybe you should learn some situational awareness so you won't get surprised like that in the future? Go take a self-defense class. You need not carry a gun to learn ways to defend yourself against those situations, although the gun certainly helps.
Should you have the right to kill someone because they want your wallet?
I would only kill someone if I believed my life was in danger. If someone pulls a gun or a knife on me then my life is in danger and his underlying motives (be it robbery or murder) don't really matter, do they?
I really dont think arming more stupid humans is the right way to go.
So what is the way to go? You'll never eliminate all crime. Criminals will always be armed with something. The only question is whether or not the citizenry should be able to defend themselves. I've yet to hear a compelling argument for why they shouldn't be able to.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I thought it was only the Royalty who was inbreeding.
"Hey guys! We've got a generation of angry men who are feeling downtrodden and oppressed by growing government intervention in our lives and limited financial means. They're taking out their impotent frustration with violent crime. I know! Lets limit their access to the media they like, and reduce their effective disposable income! Oppression ALWAYS works against violent demographics!"
It's been a long time.
Here in the states, idiots don't attempt to link video games to knife crimes at all. I suspect if handguns were outlawed in the US, we wouldn't have issues with video games at all. On a serious note, though, these clowns are going to link anything they can to video games.
What compelling reason do you have to disarm people who aren't criminals? Is the freedom to keep and bear arms just a bit too much freedom for you?
For one, every criminal was at one time a non-criminal. So if you ban guns from getting in the hands of non-criminals, then you are banning guns from getting in the hands of all first-time criminals as well. And secondly, most guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegally. Criminals don't buy them from the local store, recording their serial number and name for the sale. They buy them on the street corner or steal them. If the law abiding citizens don't have guns, then the guns can't be stolen to be used in crimes. The law abiding citizen can't accidentally sell it to a criminal second hand who misrepresented themselves as a law abiding citizen.
As for "compelling" you will define that objective word to mean whatever you want it to be for wherever your personal opinion lies. There are reasons to disarm an entire society. There are reasons not to. "Compelling" arguments are made for both sides, as both exist or existed somewhere.
Learn to love Alaska
They destroyed industrial communities. They gave the police virtually unlimited powers to stop and search young people. They established a foreign policy of might-makes-right and went out of their way to antagonize and alienate immigrant communities. They lied, took bribes, started wars, incited racism, crushed civil liberties, and they are still standing trying to talk like statesmen.
And computer games are to blame when the kids go berserk? Fucking retarded.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
For one, every criminal was at one time a non-criminal. So if you ban guns from getting in the hands of non-criminals, then you are banning guns from getting in the hands of all first-time criminals as well
So your suggested method of solving crime is to take away my civil rights? Why not get rid of those pesky jury trials and burden of proof while you are at it? That would probably also be effective at bringing down crime.
If the law abiding citizens don't have guns, then the guns can't be stolen to be used in crimes
So when the criminals switch to using knives instead are you gonna take those away too?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Make sure you can supply it from abroad or over the Net, and then do some astroturfing in the Sun (one of the UK screech papers) to decry it as a threat to the children (etc etc, just use the Sun as a sample) so that it gets banned in the UK.
There is no better ad for the game possible - soon you'll be rich.
At which point that bank collapses too.
Insert
Is illustrating dumb statistical mistakes useful somehow ? I obviously assumed that there are no statistical mistakes involved in the relevant studies.
Obviously you need sufficient data, over a sufficiently long period of time.
(and to be honest I can imagine hurricane damage necessitating government savings, and therefore teacher layoffs, so a (very) weak correlation is indeed not out of the question)
It only shows _some_ connection, which may be very convoluted (but always real) between 2 data SETS (and 1 data point, like you gave, obviously proves nothing, there are rules about that) (and before you say it, one studies equals obviously exactly the amount of data points they claim to have researched, excepting fraud)
Hi Vlad,
You could study criminology and learn what I'm about to tell you. You could study sociology and learn what I'm about to tell you. You could read Dickens, Hugo or Moore and learn it, or you could teach high school and find it out the hard way. You could even blacksmith for a while, hammer on some metal, learn what they mean by "work hardening" and learn what I'm about to tell you by metaphor.
Raising penalties doesn't stop bad behavior. It just makes the game meaner.
By raising penalties, you're hoping the alter the "risk/reward" calculation in the offender's head. The problem is, most offenders don't expect to get caught, so their risk is always zero. If you're trying to wrap your head around that, think of it in terms of how the young think they're immortal. I personally didn't really know, in my heart, that I would die one day until I was forty.
It usually takes a few iterations of "offense/punishment" until the offender changes their behavior. If you really want someone to change, you have to use the carrot as well as the stick. You have to pull them as well as push. "That's the wrong way, here's a better way."
You want to empty the prisons of young people? Give them hard, meaningful, responsible work that pays them well and garners the respect of the community. You want them to show you respect and responsibility? Then you have to GIVE them respect and responsibility. I don't mean flipping burgers and taking abuse all day. Put them to work doing jobs they can be proud of, and the prisons will empty of all but the most recalcitrant.
The problem is the carrot costs money. It costs the top economic tiers easy profit. And worst of all, the carrot doesn't give them the sick raging wife-beating hard-on that the stick does.
The stick makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel mighty. It feels GOOD to be able to MAKE people do what you want. "Steal a candy bar? LOSE A HAND!" It's quick, it's easy, it seems cheap (at least out the outset). Hell, in America, you can even make a profit off of it.
And it's totally counterproductive.
When some kid steals a candy bar and loses a hand, he knows there's no such thing as justice, only power. He learns he was punished not for theft, but for insulting the powerful. You lose all possibility of rehabilitation, and have made an outsider, an enemy of society for life.
Study your history. The harsher the penalties, the faster your prisons flood until eventually you come to a Vlad Tepes world where there are no "soft" moves left. You lose all nuance, and with penalties and offenses both set to their extreme, life expectancies begin to drop precipitously.
Crime is a function of the economy, and trying to suppress it through increased punishment merely tightens the release valve on the pressure cooker. If you want to lessen crime, you have to increase meaningful employment. Telling me I can't carry my Leatherman is just "security theater" that doesn't even begin to address the problem.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Banning video games and knives is not sufficient. Clearly we need robots to "to serve and obey and guard men from harm".
[Insert pithy quote here]
All this is going to do is drive up piracy. More expensive computer games won't stop people getting them, it will just make more people decide they dont want to pay £50 or whatever they will charge for them, and download it instead.
Truly fantastic idea...
I do agree with both things you assumed I would agree with. I would also be interested to read one of those studies suggesting convicted criminals fear armed victims. While it is very likely true that criminals fear victims being able to resist, I wonder how much that fear factors in to their decision to commit a violent crime. I would also be interested to see if there are any studies linking stricter gun control laws with an increase in violent crime in the area.
I would like to note as well that I am not an anti-gun zealot, and do not want to repeal the second amendment nor outlaw guns. I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
To point out another flaw in your argument I missed the first time is that your logic rests on the assumption that a criminal who fears that his victim is armed would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place. Wouldn't the criminal just as likely make a preemptive strike or make sure they are better armed?
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions, it seems just as likely as the criminal deciding to abandon the life of crime because his victim might be armed. In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time. The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first. This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first. The game theory pushes the threshold for deadly violence much lower.
This of course is a simplified argument, but so is yours that more guns means criminals are afraid and commit less crimes. I think the rational approach is the one we take (mostly) in the US... restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
In the UK, the parent of anyone murdered is allowed to create one new law, preferably something dumb, against whatever they suppose it is in the murderer's life that offends them.
For details of the process, ask Liz Longhurst
Ten year olds should pay through the nose for video-games, sure. Oh, and hey: is this something that can be self-regulating like the ESRB? Game retailers can charge ten year-olds double, even triple, the normal price. No need for taxes to get involved, I'd certainly be willing to do my part by charging extra for any used games I sell to ten year-olds.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Let's follow the legislators logic. They want to tax violent video games so that game producers have less profit and less incentive to make violent games, right? So let them make pirating such games legal and DRM illegal. Voila! Two birds with one stone!
I do believe I've found the root of this problem. Please urge parliament to begin taxing all new NES games to put an end to this nightmare.
http://www.i-mockery.com/romhacks/knifeboy/
I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
In the ideal world I wouldn't have to "defend" my rights. Remember that it's a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Needs.
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions
It does make a lot of assumptions. If you want to play the assumptions game I could throw this one at you: In the UK the robber doesn't care if you are home or not because he knows you are unarmed. In the US he's going to make the extra effort to find an unoccupied home so he doesn't have to upgrade his robbery to murder or run the risk of being shot himself. There are actually some statistics that support this -- the UK has a higher rate of "hot" burglaries (i.e: the residents were home) than the US does.
In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time
Then why isn't everybody on edge in the 38 US States that have "shall issue" concealed carry laws? In those states if you meet the criteria (generally no criminal record, history of mental health issues and some safety training) they HAVE to issue you a carry permit. Vermont takes it step further -- you can carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. None of those states have turned into the Wild West. How do you explain that?
The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first.
Actually the rational response is not to get involved in a situation that might escalate into violence in the first place. Go find someone with a carry permit and talk to them face to face. Virtually all of them will tell you that carrying a gun has made them less likely to allow a confrontation to escalate. Very few people want to shoot someone. Deadly force of any kind is a last resort, reserved for when your life is in mortal danger.
This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first.
Actually if he's trying to pick a fight then you'd better leave. Why would you want to get involved in any sort of fight (fistfight or gunfight) except as a last resort to defend your person, life or that of a loved one?
restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
The only problem is it's blatantly unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There probably is a relationship between playing violent video games and those likely to knife people and be violent, however people rarely seem to consider the direction of the relationship. Isn't it that violent people prefer to play violent games, rather than violent games make people suddenly that much more violent? Nobody can deny they do have an effect, but one that is on par with a competitive game of paintball, for example.
So UK, how are those gun control laws working out for you? Guess what guns don't kill people - people kill people. You now have knife stabbings now what? Ban knives too? How about quit blaming guns, video games, music and look at the real problem PEOPLE.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
The UK will become a nation of sporks.
So your suggested method of solving crime is to take away my civil rights?
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so low. Please tell me where I stated that it was my suggested method of solving crime. I "suggested" nothing. I stated one reason. There is a difference, and unless you are able to see the difference, there is no point discussing the finer points of civil rights, since you'd paint everything with huge useless sweeping statements.
Why not get rid of those pesky jury trials and burden of proof while you are at it? That would probably also be effective at bringing down crime.
Actually, getting rid of barriers to prosecution would increase crime, as there would be more people successfully prosecuted, and thus more criminals.
So when the criminals switch to using knives instead are you gonna take those away too?
I never stated that anyone should take anything away. There was a "give a reason" question posted. I gave a reason. Anything you read into it past that is your own fabrication. Try responding to the words I wrote and not the random emotions floating through you as you read. You previously stated this is a "debate." However, you treat this as an abuse session. If anything is stated that you don't like (not even necessarily disagree with, since you haven't ever actually posted why someone is wrong), you insult them and belittle their statements, even if their statements are true statements of fact. Fact: If no one had firearms, there would be no gun-related crimes. Now, you can make up all sorts of things you think I'm implying, but they'd all be wrong. I'm simply stating a fact that is an important one to consider for some of the arguments on crime. And once you are capable of stating "why yes, I agree 100% that if there were no guns there would be no gun-related crimes" then you may have something useful to add. Until then, you are a yapping little dog that should have a muzzle on it because you say nothing useful and just annoy all those around you, even those that agree with you.
Learn to love Alaska
You shouldn't need to stab tomatoes if you're using a proper well-sharpened 8" chef's knife. Don't listen to the kooky armholes who try to convince you to use a serrated knife for that purpose. (or really any purpose except bread) Just keep a steel by the knife drawer and use stones every couple of uses, or get a bunch of knives and take 'em to the supermarket every couple weeks.
I don't know if the points are actually necessary for anything (fruit cup maybe?), but they're also a by-product of sharpening the knife. Even if you manufacture a blade with a rounded tip, it's going to develop a point after a few sharpenings.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
There's been lots of crying kids saying "but he/we only had the knife for self defence, he was never going to use it!". People have been stabbed with their own knives, and they've put themselves in danger by trying to defend themselves when they should have just fled.
Fact: If no one had firearms, there would be no gun-related crimes.
That's not a fact, nor is it likely. For example, my friend is a civil war re-enactor. He has a small cannon. He transports it across states where his possession is illegal. That's a gun-related crime (a cannon is a gun), but it doesn't use a firearm (a cannon is not a firearm). Further, just because there are no firearms, does not mean there are no gun related crimes. For example, I could steal a number of valuable paintings each of which portrays a gun, which makes the crime gun-related, but does not involve a gun per se. I could infringe upon the copyright of a person who has drawn up plans for the manufacture of a gun (even if no actual guns existed), and that would be a gun-related crime.
And once you are capable of stating "why yes, I agree 100% that if there were no guns there would be no gun-related crimes" then you may have something useful to add.
Why would you want him to make such untrue statements? If you're going to split hairs as to what is or is not a reason or "compelling" reason then why should you not be taken to task for semantic idiocy as well? The thing is, you haven't presented any reason for banning gun ownership because you have not stated a goal, and without a defined goal, there is no point in debating at all.
Please tell me where I stated that it was my suggested method of solving crime. I "suggested" nothing. I stated one reason
And I pointed out the utter stupidity of that reason, namely that taking away rights from the populace should not be regarded as an acceptable way to tackle crime.
Actually, getting rid of barriers to prosecution would increase crime, as there would be more people successfully prosecuted, and thus more criminals.
I don't even know how to respond to that. So what makes one a criminal in your mind isn't the act of violating the law but the act of being successfully prosecuted for it?
If anything is stated that you don't like (not even necessarily disagree with, since you haven't ever actually posted why someone is wrong)
You want to know why you are wrong? Let's start with the fact that it would be utterly impossible to take away all guns. Even occupying forces with zero regard for human rights have never been able to successfully disarm an entire population. How do you purpose to secure the >200 million guns in the United States without shredding the Bill of Rights? If you accept the fact that guns will still exist then it seems illogical to assume that all gun-crime will go away. It might go down as they become less available but it won't go away, other crime will take it's place and the populace will be less equipped to defend itself against that crime.
I'm simply stating a fact that is an important one to consider for some of the arguments on crime.
Your "fact" is based on a state of affairs that to my knowledge has never been achieved in the course of human history. Weapons have always existed. The criminal element has always managed to gain access to them. Do you have any examples of a society where this wasn't the case? I could make the statement "If people wouldn't kill each other the murder rate would be zero" and call it a "fact", but that doesn't mean it will ever happen in the real world.
However, you treat this as an abuse session
Until then, you are a yapping little dog that should have a muzzle on it because you say nothing useful
Pot, kettle, black? I may be an opinionated asshole but I haven't insulted anybody yet.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?
Are you trying to imply that there are no other differences between the US and UK that could create differences in their violent crime rates? Are you trying to imply you have evidence that gun control laws are the determining factor, despite the lack of correlation if you look at countries in general?
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
There have been lots of studies on the issue. The consensus last time I researched it heavily was that strict gun control laws result in a very, very slight increase in violent crime, barely within the range of statistical significance. That is to say, gun control laws are useless and likely slightly counterproductive in stopping violent crime and murder.
I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other.
This is cherry picking. I could just as easily say very large criminals who lift weights prefer guns are banned in an area because they can get away with more crime due to their physical ability to dominate most others.
Such use cases are fairly pointless and border on speculative masturbation. You have to look at overall rates of violent crime.
Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not...
The same thing I said before.
I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.
Everyone acts with a mix of emotive and reasoned decision making regardless of if they are a criminal or not. If you were in a gun store next to a machine gun and a criminal was outside shooting up your car would you go shoot it out with them, or call the cops? Some people would choose each, but most people aren't interested in risking their life for the cost of a car. Most criminals are a lot less interested in burglary if they believe people are armed and may shoot them, which is why numerous studies have shown an ordinance requiring every home in a neighborhood to have a firearm drastically reduces burglary rates there. In Florida, they did away with rental car license plates because criminals were running rental cars off the road and robbing them. Why rental cars? Because they knew those were almost always tourists who flew in and were not armed (unlike much of Florida's citizenry). Both are demonstrations of crime being averted by criminals rationally fearing for their lives and changing their behavior to avoid potentially being shot.
I would put a tax on all people who stand in water!
Also, all foreigners living abroad.
Haven't lived in the UK. Have spent a lot of time in Compton and Venice in LA. Does that count?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
The thing is, you haven't presented any reason for banning gun ownership because you have not stated a goal, and without a defined goal, there is no point in debating at all.
You have a defined goal, showing I'm wrong, but yet, you don't even know what it is that I'm advocating. So you are, by definition, debating with someone that isn't debating, right? And that doesn't sound silly to you? So why not shut up and quit making intellectually inconsistent statements? And furthermore, your premise that debating when not everyone has stated their goals is pointless is silly. Most people don't define their goals. To do so gives information to their opponents. Ever watch politicians talk about a point? They don't give their goal. Is it more money from industry? Is it because they feel some personal need? You don't know, because they'll debate the issue all day long on the issue merits without revealing some personal goal. Yet it's still considered debate with a point. So your comment seems senseless.
Learn to love Alaska
And I pointed out the utter stupidity of that reason, namely that taking away rights from the populace should not be regarded as an acceptable way to tackle crime.
So? Just because you think it stupid does not make it so.
You want to know why you are wrong? Let's start with the fact that it would be utterly impossible to take away all guns.
Wait, so I'm wrong because I'm probably right, but that the conditions I gave can't be met. Sounds a whole lot like you think I'm right, but that you can't agree with something that you think to be the premise of someone that disagrees with you. That makes you a bitter, pettly little fool. Open your mind, and we can debate. Otherwise, you just think of me as a sounding board for your platitudes. That's not a debate. If neither person have a chance of changing their minds, isn't not a debate, but two interspersed monologues.
How do you purpose to secure the >200 million guns in the United States without shredding the Bill of Rights?
Premises do not bother with such questions. It's a premise. That you are incapable of accepting any premise I present indicates that you are a closed minded bigot that doesn't listen to anything anyone says, but likes phrases like "my cold dead hands."
Pot, kettle, black? I may be an opinionated asshole but I haven't insulted anybody yet.
Wah. You are sad that I made fun of you for being incapable of discussing something. You should stop being an idiot if you don't want people to call you that. You asked a question that you didn't want an answer to. I answered it. You pretty much said "you are wrong" without anything but a flawed opinion that didn't even address anything I said. Try again. Maybe you'll get it next time.
Learn to love Alaska
There are reasons to disarm an entire society. There are reasons not to. "Compelling" arguments are made for both sides, as both exist or existed somewhere.
I give more credence to the reasons not to do so. Such as tyranny (scroll down to Athenaion Politeia 14-15), racist oppression, and worst, out-right genocide, over and over.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I give more credence to the reasons not to do so.
And that's fine, as long as you don't elevate your opinion over those whose opinions differ from you. To do so is elitist and exclusive, which leads to all the bad things you talked about.
Learn to love Alaska
If somebody doesn't believe their opinion is better, they have self-esteem issues. (And in a social Darwinistic sense, if somebody believes their opinion isn't better, they're right.) Beware the argumentum ad temperantiam.
Elitism itself is rational, and leads to meritocracy, not by itself exclusively to tyranny nor racism, and certainly not genocide.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Elitism itself is rational, and leads to meritocracy, not by itself exclusively to tyranny nor racism, and certainly not genocide.
Considering that there has never been a meritocracy, I must assume that elitism doesn't exist, or that you are wrong. Given your elitism regarding your elitism, that means that meritocracy is unstable and degerates into those things you list that elitism doesn't turn into.
Learn to love Alaska
"young people feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like." Well, isn't that the reality of the situation? The law serves as a punishment more than a deterrent. That is how it has always been.
This might be alarmingly straightforward for the British masters of nuance, but how about allowing people to defend themselves from nutters with knives?
You're confusing the limits of human beings to create perfect systems with the existence of systems. Does communism not exist because attempts at it never live up to the ideal? Many ancient, medieval, and modern societies are in varying degrees meritocractic. (Just as there are varying degrees of freedom or democracy, or do those not exist too unless they are perfect, complete, and total?)
Your second sentence is the most woefully deficient syllogism I've ever seen effected. If meritocracy is derived from elitism, then being an elitist makes meritocracy unstable if it exists? And therefore what you want to be true is, and what I want to be true isn't? I wish I could summon the ghost of Demosthenes to slap the shit out of you for such terrible logic. Rather than deal with any rational progression of what your definition of terms are (I linked to a freakin' article) to how those concepts interact to produce a result, you just say, essentially, it is because ipse dixit.
What else, though, could I expect from somebody who says a socio-political structure has never existed simply because no structure has lived up to some abstract, perfect ideal. By that definition, nothing exists. Pure nonsense.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
You have a defined goal, showing I'm wrong, but yet, you don't even know what it is that I'm advocating.
You haven't advocated anything i've seen, just nitpicked and tried to derail other conversations with pointless nonsense. I returned the same.
So you are, by definition, debating with someone that isn't debating, right?
Nope. No debate. Just sparring over crap.
And that doesn't sound silly to you?
Would I have brought up the distinction that a cannon isn't a firearm if I wasn't being silly?
So why not shut up and quit making intellectually inconsistent statements?
How can I make inconsistent statements when I only made one statement when you wrote that?
And furthermore, your premise that debating when not everyone has stated their goals is pointless is silly. Most people don't define their goals.
Argumentum ad populum? I don't care if most people are idiots. You can't have a useful debate unless a goal is stated. That's why we're not debating or doing anything useful other than browbeating you for entertainment.
Ever watch politicians talk about a point? They don't give their goal.
Ahh, the gold standard for reasoned debate. Yes, let's emulate politicians. Shit... I'd rather imitate drug addicted pop musicians. At least a few of them have fashion sense.
They don't give their goal. Is it more money from industry?
You've misunderstood. You need a goal as to what you want to accomplish by enacting legislation, which they always state. You don't need to reveal all your motivations for wanting to achieve that goal or ulterior motives. Even the bridge to nowhere had a stated goal.
So your comment seems senseless.
That's not the only thing that seems senseless.
You haven't advocated anything i've seen, just nitpicked and tried to derail other conversations with pointless nonsense. I returned the same.
I saw a question asked. I answered it. Others didn't like my answer. It was an accurate answer. The question was to give reasons. I did. That you (and others) don't like the reasons doesn't negate the fact that they are valid reasons, even if you believe they are trumped by other factors, and they are used in the discussions at hand by those that actually get to make policy. I can't help it if an explanation of other people's reasons drives you nuts. The fact is that many people don't like guns. There are a number of valid reasons to restrict or ban ownership. Attacking people for having opinions different than yours won't convince anyone of anything. So I must assume that you aren't interested in conivncing anyone of anything, but just pointless attacks to make you feel better about your own position. Is it working?
That's why we're not debating or doing anything useful other than browbeating you for entertainment.
Fuck you. You are just whining because I gave good reasons to ban guns. Rather than arguing the points, you are attacking the messenger. Wah. Idiots like you (and Charlton Heston) that support gun ownership are the reason it's under attack. "My freedom to shoot you is more important than your freedom from being shot." Now go fuck yourself and crawl under the rock you came from. You stated that you aren't trying to have a conversation or a debate or anything like that, but to play with me. Go play with yourself, like every other day. And make sure you clean up before mom comes to clean up your room.
Learn to love Alaska
Why not knife taxes?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hi Vlad,
And with that display of stunning intellect, I stop reading your post and can feel safe in calling you an utter twit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In my honest opinion, reading about knife crime in newspapers induces fear in young people, potentially resulting in their getting knives to protect themelves.
Maybe we should tax the violent newspapers!
Surely it would make more sense to reduce the cost of video games? I know more people that have been the victim of violent crime purely by kids mugging them for that xbox or game the kid couldn't afford.
- Dan
So? Just because you think it stupid does not make it so.
Yes it does, because my UID is lower than yours, so there! Err, wait, no it's not. Well it's cooler than yours :P And what the hell your nickname includes the letters 'AK' so you should be pro-gun anyway ;)
Wait, so I'm wrong because I'm probably right, but that the conditions I gave can't be met. Sounds a whole lot like you think I'm right, but that you can't agree with something that you think to be the premise of someone that disagrees with you.
What, you want me to agree that if we could create your magical fantasy land with no guns that there would be no gun violence? I'll stipulate to that if you stipulate to the fact that I could kill you with my magic missiles if the AD&D spell book worked in the real world.
Otherwise, you just think of me as a sounding board for your platitudes
Actually I think a lot less than that about you once you upgraded your "yapping dog" insult to "bigot".
Premises do not bother with such questions. It's a premise
Your premise is irrelevant because it's based on something that can't be achieved.
That you are incapable of accepting any premise I present indicates that you are a closed minded bigot that doesn't listen to anything anyone says
Bigot? Really? Pretty big word to pull out. Try this on for size: I used to be a card carrying Democrat/ACLU member until I realized the hypocrisy of fighting for every single civil liberty except the right to keep and bear arms. I've been on the side of the fence that you are arguing from and found it lacking.
but likes phrases like "my cold dead hands."
That phrase about sums up my feelings on the subject. It's bombastic but then political statements usually are. Is "my cold dead hands" any worse than "my body, my choice"? Is it any worse than those that strip naked to protest some action of government? It's political speech and if you don't agree with it then fine but it seems folly to insult those that do.
Wah. You are sad that I made fun of you for being incapable of discussing something
Amused would be a better word to use :)
You should stop being an idiot if you don't want people to call you that
Ah, more insults. A sure sign of someone whose intellectual quiver is empty.
You asked a question that you didn't want an answer to. I answered it. You pretty much said "you are wrong" without anything but a flawed opinion that didn't even address anything I said
You are wrong, because your answer is based on a state of affairs that can't be achieved. It's the same argument that the religious conservatives use when they say "If there was no pre-martial sex there would be no babies born out of wedlock or STDs" The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world. As a result I'm not inclined to take people who would argue such points seriously.
Try again. Maybe you'll get it next time.
I hope your next response will be better thought out or that you'll come up with some original insults (really, "idiot" and "bigot"? I could do better than that) to amuse me ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
young people 'feel that the law has no control over them. They just feel that they can go on the streets and do whatever they like.'
Seing that Mr Taylor is the father of Damilola Taylor, who was murdered, I almost feel ashamed to disagree with him. After such a painful loss it is not diffifult to understand that he will desperately want to see something, almost anything, done. But I don't think this is the right way - young people don't oppose the rules or disrespect the law simply because they don't feel that breaking them has no consequences. If that were the case, then harsher penalties would really work and prevent crime - which unfortunately they don't.
I think the problem is that some grow up feeling they are not part of normal society - they don't feel they receive the benefits of society and don't feel they owe society anything; so why follow the rules? Harsher punishments or taxing things does not address this problem - it would make more sense to try to find a way to integrate young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into society. They are perfectly able to follow the rules of the group or gang they belong to.
But, money is a man made concept. It's just paper, or bits on a computer. How can there possibly be a lack of money?
The problem is then with the nature of money.
Silvio Gesell has an interesting take on the subject.
Deleted
And what the hell your nickname includes the letters 'AK' so you should be pro-gun anyway ;)
The AK is for Alaska, not Russian firearms. And who says I'm not pro-gun?
I'll stipulate to that if you stipulate to the fact that I could kill you with my magic missiles if the AD&D spell book worked in the real world.
Never stopped gun-nuts from quoting fiction as fact before. "An armed society is a police society" or such. And how polite were people in the old west?
It's the same argument that the religious conservatives use when they say "If there was no pre-martial sex there would be no babies born out of wedlock or STDs" The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world. As a result I'm not inclined to take people who would argue such points seriously.
Well, then you'll never have a useful discussion with me on this topic. Because I see that reasoning as perfectly valid, since it is true. That doesn't mean that extra-marital sex (any sex outside marriage, not just pre) should be banned, or even frowned upon, but that it is true that without it there would be no STDs and no babies born out of wedlock. Of course, if contraception that protected against STDs was used every time, then the same result would be achieved. So their argument is also an argument for contraception. But then, it's not even an arguement, as they aren't advocating, just making a statement. You are already guessing what they will say next, then dismissing them because of it. That takes us back to you ignoring facts because you find them inconvenient.
It's political speech and if you don't agree with it then fine but it seems folly to insult those that do.
Why? When someone comes up with a catch phrase designed to charge up people and cause division, I don't like it. That's the reason we get crap politicians for life. Just bring up abortion or taxes or guns in any election, and people almost completely ignore the person running and just vote on whatever issue polarized them most.
Learn to love Alaska
The UK outlawed the ability of it's own citizens to defend themselves and therefore made sheep out of men and helpless herds for the wolves of society. Taxing video games won't solve the issues resulting from British societal suicide; allowing folks to defend themselves would be a significant step towards leveling the playing field. Most criminals have a sense of self-preservation and won't attack someone if they think they can actually defend themselves - and that the law would be on the defenders side. If they are going to tax, make it so the money goes to training folks how to protect themselves and giving them the means to do so!!
Well, then you'll never have a useful discussion with me on this topic. Because I see that reasoning as perfectly valid, since it is true. That doesn't mean that extra-marital sex (any sex outside marriage, not just pre) should be banned, or even frowned upon, but that it is true that without it there would be no STDs and no babies born out of wedlock.
That reasoning clearly isn't valid if the underlying statement refers to something that will never be achievable in the real world. The statement itself may be true but how useful is it as a talking point if it can never happen in the real world? You'll clearly never be able to prevent all sex outside of marriage or confiscate all firearms, thus those that claim doing so would solve some societal problem aren't operating in reality.
That takes us back to you ignoring facts because you find them inconvenient.
If that "fact" refers to something that is impossible to achieve in the real world then that "fact" isn't worth anything and deserves to be ignored.
That's the reason we get crap politicians for life. Just bring up abortion or taxes or guns in any election, and people almost completely ignore the person running and just vote on whatever issue polarized them most.
Abortion, taxes and guns are the reason we get crap politicians for life? Some would regard those are wedge issues that will drive single issue voters but I always thought the reason we got crap politicians for life had more to do with gerrymandering and our two-party first-past-the-post system.
Personally I don't regard guns as a wedge issue. I regard them as a civil liberties issue. I view those that would seek to impose gun control in the same manner as I view those that would seek to listen to my phone calls without a warrant or restrict my right to free speech.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I saw a question asked. I answered it. Others didn't like my answer. It was an accurate answer.
Actually you failed to answer it because you did not provide a reason or goal. You just claimed that certain actions would do certain things, ignoring the goals stated in the earlier parts of the discussion and not introducing one of your own.
... they are used in the discussions at hand by those that actually get to make policy.
argumentum ad verecundiam.
I can't help it if an explanation of other people's reasons drives you nuts.
Again, you didn't present a reason, just a fraction of an argument.
The fact is that many people don't like guns. There are a number of valid reasons to restrict or ban ownership.
Both true, but you presented no such reason. You see in both rhetoric and logic you need to present the end goal and then a logical progression and support. You presented no end goal.
Attacking people for having opinions different than yours won't convince anyone of anything.
I'm not attacking you for having a different opinion. I don't even know your opinion on this matter. I'm not even attacking you. I'm attacking and poking fun at your complete failure to present a cogent or coherent argument or response, coupled with your personal attacks on the writer who actually had made real points and was having an intellectually honest discussion before you derailed it with a complete lack of substance.
So I must assume that you aren't interested in conivncing anyone of anything, but just pointless attacks to make you feel better about your own position. Is it working?
Nah, I'm so egotistical it is clinical. This isn't about me. It's about you. If you want to be an arrogant jerk (just like me) at least be competent. Arrogance I can accept, but only when not coupled with incompetence.
Fuck you.
No thanks.
You are just whining because I gave good reasons to ban guns.
Good reasons? Evil reasons? Either way, you didn't give any reason because you didn't state a goal. There is no reason to do anything if you don't have a goal. "Banning guns reduces the demand for iron mining" is not a reason, it's just an assertion. A goal is the reduction of iron mining, but it is not implicit in the previous statement.
Rather than arguing the points, you are attacking the messenger.
Wait, you made points? I don't recall any. What point did you make and what was it trying to support? I am attacking the messenger, because said messenger was being a prick while not having a message, or at least miserably failing to convey it.
Wah. Idiots like you (and Charlton Heston) that support gun ownership are the reason it's under attack
Nah, gun ownership is "under attack" by politicians because it is a great issue to get them votes, whether they are pro or con, people get emotional and irrational and afraid and are willing to vote as a result. That's pretty much why any issue becomes big in politics, but gun control laws are a poster child.
"My freedom to shoot you is more important than your freedom from being shot."
We already have a law to cover that. It's called "assault with a deadly weapon". I'm willing to support gun control laws as soon as someone puts together credible evidence that such laws can significantly cause a reduction in violent crime and/or murder. Once that happens, gun control falls into the category where one can claim it is conflicting rights and the rights of victims are being infringed by ownership.
Now go fuck yourself and crawl under the rock you came from.
Nah, I think I'll sit on the couch and drink some Tang and whiskey while watching
Again, you didn't present a reason, just a fraction of an argument.
I presented a reason. That you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a reason.
Learn to love Alaska
That reasoning clearly isn't valid if the underlying statement refers to something that will never be achievable in the real world.
So, by that reasoning, we should try to be the worst possible person we can, because perfection is unobtainable. I disagree.
Personally I don't regard guns as a wedge issue. I regard them as a civil liberties issue. I view those that would seek to impose gun control in the same manner as I view those that would seek to listen to my phone calls without a warrant or restrict my right to free speech.
So you'd happily vote for someone that had "I will take all guns" as a platform? No? Then it is a wedge issue.
Learn to love Alaska
So, by that reasoning, we should try to be the worst possible person we can, because perfection is unobtainable. I disagree.
No, by that reasoning we should ground our arguments in reality and not in fantasy land. It has little to do with being the best possible person that you can.
So you'd happily vote for someone that had "I will take all guns" as a platform? No? Then it is a wedge issue.
If that's your definition of "wedge issue" then I guess civil rights is also a wedge issue if I wouldn't vote for someone who wanted to bring Jim Crow back. There are varying issues that I consider when deciding who to vote for. Supporting and upholding the constitution is number one on that list. If you are going to gut any part of the Bill of Rights then I'm not going to vote for you, regardless of whatever other redeeming qualities you may profess to have.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, by that reasoning we should ground our arguments in reality and not in fantasy land.
We should ground arguments in easy to understand and easy to agree to premises, which may be unrealistic in the real world, but give a starting point to start the discussion.
If that's your definition of "wedge issue" then I guess civil rights is also a wedge issue if I wouldn't vote for someone who wanted to bring Jim Crow back.
It's a litmus test you use for whether you'll vote for them. Others use the same test and go the other way, so it's a wedge issue. No one is on the other side of the Jim Crow laws, so it isn't a wedge.
There are varying issues that I consider when deciding who to vote for.
And if you use those as litmus tests, and a reasonably large number would choose the other way, then it is a wedge issue. That you think so little of the other people's side that you dismiss them, even if they are large in number, doesn't change the fact it fits every possible definition of a wedge issue.
If you are going to [stance A] then I'm not going to vote for you, regardless of whatever other redeeming qualities you may profess to have.
And that defines a wedge issue, when others will apply the exact oppose view on the same issue. And it must be a wedge issue, or else they won't have a stance on that issue (like no politician has a published stance on Jim Crow, but then you are the one bringing up fantasy land examples, while bashing mine).
Learn to love Alaska
No one is on the other side of the Jim Crow laws, so it isn't a wedge.
We solved racism in this country while having this conservation? Awesome!
And if you use those as litmus tests, and a reasonably large number would choose the other way, then it is a wedge issue
I'm a bit unclear as to the purpose of this conversation. Are you bemoaning so-called "wedge issues" or just pointing out that they exist? Interestingly enough you've yet to make any argument and seem determined to split-hairs with me over the definition of terms like "wedge issue" and the wisdom of starting discussions with premises that hold no relevance in the real world.
like no politician has a published stance on Jim Crow, but then you are the one bringing up fantasy land examples, while bashing mine
*shrug*, my only point was that one man's "wedge issue" is the issue that decides another man's vote. You may consider gun rights to be a "wedge issue" and bemoan the fact that people decide their votes based upon them but as stated numerous times I consider them to be a civil liberty and vote accordingly. I suspect that if you are honest there are a few issues that would be deal-breakers for you as well in the voting booth.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... this kid got stabbed by a video game or what? I'm confused....
Young people don't think they can go in the streets and do anything they like because they listen to rap or play violent games. Young people go in the streets and commit violent crime because they feel frustrated and disenfranchised by the actions of the aristocracy and self righteous people like Richard Taylor! It's an act of rebellion against candy coated repression.
If you want to do something about the problem of violent street youth. Open a resource center providing services to homeless and disenfranchised youth. And for God sakes, stop listening to idiots like Richard Taylor.
We solved racism in this country while having this conservation?
Name a person who ran in a national race last election who stated "I'm for Jim Crow laws." If you can't, then it wasn't an election issue, and anything that's not an issue can't be a wedge issue.
Are you bemoaning so-called "wedge issues" or just pointing out that they exist?
You essentially stated that gun control isn't a wedge issue. Since that's laughably false and almost no one would agree with you, I pointed that out. Then you went off into wedge issues. Probably to defend your false statements about gun control not being a wedge issue.
*shrug*, my only point was that one man's "wedge issue" is the issue that decides another man's vote.
But that it doesn't decide everyone's vote doesn't mean it isn't a wedge issue. If it will polarize an election enough to sway voters in numbers greater than the difference, then it is a wedge issue, even if it doesn't sway that many people.
You may consider gun rights to be a "wedge issue" and bemoan the fact that people decide their votes based upon them but as stated numerous times I consider them to be a civil liberty and vote accordingly. I suspect that if you are honest there are a few issues that would be deal-breakers for you as well in the voting booth.
I don't understand. You are claiming that it isn't a wedge issue because you are a free thinker that doesn't get bogged down in such wedge issues, though your vote is pre-determined off a few litmus tests? Like you are above such pettyness, while at the same time stating you do it. For one, it isn't necessarily petty. And yes, there are deal-breakers for me in the voting booth. There should be for everyone. It's called being principled. However, your definition of civil liberties might not match mine.
Learn to love Alaska
You essentially stated that gun control isn't a wedge issue
No, I said I don't consider it a wedge issue.
If it will polarize an election enough to sway voters in numbers greater than the difference, then it is a wedge issue, even if it doesn't sway that many people.
By that definition every single issue that changes votes is a "wedge issue". Why not just get it out of the way and call them all wedge issues? And if not for "wedge" issues what should you decide you vote on? How cool the politicians last name is?
You are claiming that it isn't a wedge issue because you are a free thinker that doesn't get bogged down in such wedge issues, though your vote is pre-determined off a few litmus tests?
My vote is pre-determined based on the willingness of the politician to obey the US Constitution. What you call a wedge issue I call following their oath of office.
And yes, there are deal-breakers for me in the voting booth. There should be for everyone. It's called being principled
So why the hell are you arguing over what is and is not a wedge issue? You obviously consider guns to be a wedge issue. I do not. To each their own.
However, your definition of civil liberties might not match mine.
My definition of civil liberties encompasses the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the natural rights of man. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those. I will not vote for a politician who doesn't uphold that right. If that makes me a wedge voter in your eyes then so be it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, I said I don't consider it a wedge issue.
That's ambiguous. You don't consider it to be a wedge issue? Or you consider it to be a wedge issue in general, but it isn't for you? Also, you've stated that you will use it as a litmus test for voting for someone, and since others will do the same and land on the other side, doesn't that mean it is, by definition, a wedge issue?
My vote is pre-determined based on the willingness of the politician to obey the US Constitution. What you call a wedge issue I call following their oath of office.
I just don't get it. You state it is not a wedge issue, then state that it is a litmus test for determining your vote, which is the definition of a wedge issue. Do you just not like "wedge issue" because it makes you sound like an unthinking automaton? Because you've stated, repeatedly, that you treat it as a wedge issue.
So why the hell are you arguing over what is and is not a wedge issue? You obviously consider guns to be a wedge issue. I do not. To each their own.
Then define wedge issue. I can't think of any conceivable definition of wedge issue that won't include guns and your stance on guns. That you take some higher moral ground of "it's not a wedge issue because I believe it's a Constitutional requirement" seems to be a statement that you agree it exactly fits the definition of a wedge issue, but that you don't like that terminology.
I will not vote for a politician who doesn't uphold that right. If that makes me a wedge voter in your eyes then so be it.
It does. What I can't understand is how it doesn't make you a wedge voter in your own eyes. Two politicians are running against each other. They are identical twins. You can't tell which is which without a nametag. They hold the same views on everything. Then, Abe says "my brother doesn't like guns, but I hunt and keep a few for protection." Bob says, "Yeah, if I could I'd ban them all, but I know Abe likes them." They are both running for city council, which has no Constitutional authority. If you would pick Abe over Bob because of a personal preference regarding guns, then you are a voting based on a wedge issue. Gun control, abortion, states rights, affirmative action, health care, and such are issues that one side or the other will pull out in an otherwise close race to polarize the people. They *love* people like you. The non-wedge-voters that vote exactly how they tell you to vote based on released information. Sometimes the information isn't even true, just with enough polarizing words to trigger a response, but without enough facts to get them into trouble. And wedge voters fall in line. Those wedge voters that believe they aren't wedge voters are first in line and smug about it.
My purpose of going down this was to talk about how wedge voters polarize the country and help keep us in a 2-party system that's failing. That you were a strong wedge voter that thinks he is not was so baffling to me that I got on the tangent of trying to figure out how that could happen. The answer is that your "principles" determine your vote, on a wedge issue, exactly like a wedg voter, but you aren't a wedge voter because you are above all that petty stuff. I think you are wrong. You are acting in a manner identical to a wedge voter, so regardless of what you consider yourself, you are indistinguishable to an outside person from a wedge voter. Just make sure to wave the flag as you vote your single issue. That way no one will know you are a wedge voter. Oh wait, that's another sign, not a way to distinguish yourself.
Learn to love Alaska
That you take some higher moral ground of "it's not a wedge issue because I believe it's a Constitutional requirement" seems to be a statement that you agree it exactly fits the definition of a wedge issue, but that you don't like that terminology.
Whatever. I'm losing interest in splitting hairs with you. If you think that I'm a "wedge voter" because of my unwillingness to vote for someone who refuses to follow the Constitution then I guess I'm a "wedge voter". It's not just guns -- I won't vote for someone that wants to illegally wiretap my phone calls, impose a particular religion on me or restrict my freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. With regards to our current President, he lost my vote over the FISA issue long before I came to realize that his talk about respecting gun rights was as shallow as the rest of his campaign rhetoric.
Then, Abe says "my brother doesn't like guns, but I hunt and keep a few for protection." Bob says, "Yeah, if I could I'd ban them all, but I know Abe likes them." They are both running for city council, which has no Constitutional authority
Why should I vote for Bob in that scenario? In my state a locality has the ability to impose restrictions on firearm rights because we have no state preemption law. You can claim that they have "no constitutional authority" but they still have the ability to infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. I'm hopeful that will change in the future and that the 2nd amendment will be incorporated against the states but until it does I'm not voting for Bob for any office higher than dog catcher.
Gun control, abortion, states rights, affirmative action, health care, and such are issues that one side or the other will pull out in an otherwise close race to polarize the people. They *love* people like you. The non-wedge-voters that vote exactly how they tell you to vote based on released information.
So what your really saying is that issues decide elections? And this is a bad thing because.....?
My purpose of going down this was to talk about how wedge voters polarize the country and help keep us in a 2-party system that's failing
Issues polarize the country. Almost any political stance other than "I think baby murder should be illegal" will split almost any room into at least two camps. Issues aren't what's keep us in a two-party system -- the fact that we've allowed the two parties to rig the rules of the game (gerrymandering and first-past-the-post) are what keeps us in a two party system. I don't see how doing away with so-called "wedge voters" would solve the two party system -- if people aren't basing their vote on issues that are important to them, what are they basing it on?
Just make sure to wave the flag as you vote your single issue
You keep thinking that I have a single issue but I've yet to see any evidence of this. I have a number of issues that can best be summarized by wanting my elected officials to obey the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold. Guns are not and never have been the only deal-breaker for me. Your main complaint seems to be that they are a deal-breaker at all.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So what your really saying is that issues decide elections?
Yes. A few polarizing issues decide elections. And you are one of the polarized people. Did you vote for Bush? When talking about the Constitution he said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." Is that someone that would uphold your rights under it?
Learn to love Alaska
Yes. A few polarizing issues decide elections
So which issues aren't "polarizing"? The ones you care about?
Did you vote for Bush?
What part of "I only vote for politicians that uphold the constitution" is so hard to understand? No, I didn't vote for Bush.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So which issues aren't "polarizing"? The ones you care about?
No, some of them I care about are polarizing. I still don't get your insistance that if you care, it isn't polarizing or whatever your assertion is. Are you offended that you are a wedge voter? That there is one (or more) issue that will keep you from voting for someone, and all that has to be done to prevent you from voting for someone is to bring up that issue?
Learn to love Alaska
That there is one (or more) issue that will keep you from voting for someone, and all that has to be done to prevent you from voting for someone is to bring up that issue?
And the problem is?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And the problem is?
No problem. Those are wedge issues that divide voters. You are apparently offended at the word "wedge" and I have yet to figure out why.
Learn to love Alaska
You are apparently offended at the word "wedge" and I have yet to figure out why.
Stick to things you know and don't try to guess as to what I'm "offended" by. As I've previously stated I don't happen to think my position of only voting for politicians that follow all parts of the Constitution makes me a "wedge voter". You apparently disagree. Either way, unless you have something new I think we are done here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Stick to things you know and don't try to guess as to what I'm "offended" by.
I know you whine endlessly when I point out that you vote like a wedge voter. Most people don't whine in that manner when presented with something they agree with. Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong, rather than telling me to keep my nose out of your business as you post your business to a public forum.
As I've previously stated I don't happen to think my position of only voting for politicians that follow all parts of the Constitution makes me a "wedge voter".
Sure, you've stated that multiple times. Yet you are unable to define "wedge voter" or "wedge issue" in a manner that doesn't explicitly and clearly include you. You say you aren't a wedge voter, but agree that you vote like a wedge voter on an issue that looks like a wedge issue. I presumed that's because you don't like the word "wedge" and you then asserted that I can't know what you think about a word, despite your numerous comments about that word. I'm sorry for presuming that you had some intellectual consistency. It's obviously not there. And without that, you are right in that there is nothing to discuss.
Learn to love Alaska
I know you whine endlessly when I point out that you vote like a wedge voter
I haven't been "whining" at all. I've questioned your assertions and told you not to try and guess as to my emotional (apparently I'm "offended") state. Merely disagreeing with you does not qualify as "whining"
Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong
I've corrected you numerous times but you seem to have fairly effective selective reading skills ;)
Yet you are unable to define "wedge voter" or "wedge issue"
You seem unwilling to accept the fact that issues that you consider "wedge issues" are issues of importance to other people. It seems to really bother you that some people choose to vote based on abortion, guns. Tell me, what should I be basing my vote on? What do you base your vote on?
I presumed that's because you don't like the word "wedge" and you then asserted that I can't know what you think about a word
I don't have any opinion on the word "wedge" except insofar as I think it's A) A stupid thing to argue about, B) A stupid thing to label people with when they vote based on issues that you rank lower on the scale of importance.
I'm sorry for presuming that you had some intellectual consistency.
There you go again.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You seem unwilling to accept the fact that issues that you consider "wedge issues" are issues of importance to other people.
If they weren't important to other people, then they wouldn't be wedge issues. If it wasn't important to them, they wouldn't care, so it wouldn't change their vote. I still don't understand why you keep trying to assert that if something is important to a person then it can't be a wedge. Because it is important to them is what makes it a wedge.
I don't have any opinion on the word "wedge" except insofar as I think it's A) A stupid thing to argue about, B) A stupid thing to label people with when they vote based on issues that you rank lower on the scale of importance.
I've never said that voting "wedge" (or the issues related to it) is of lower importance. You are the only one that asserted that. To state that you don't have an opinion of the word in the same sentence that you think it designates low importance issues indicates a level of lack of intellectual consistency. If you had no opinion on the word, then you wouldn't have argued about it for this long, despite you saying it's stupid to argue about (again, lacking intellectual consistency).
Learn to love Alaska
So you bemoan wedge issues (insofar as you hate politicians who campaign on them) but acknowledge that people might have a legitimate reason for voting based on them? Why are we arguing about this? Because it bothers you so much that I don't see myself as a wedge voter? I guess you must like me very much if you've gone to all this trouble to try and change my mind ;)
If you had no opinion on the word, then you wouldn't have argued about it for this long
I've just find you amusing in the same manner as the cat that toys with the mouse before delivering the killing blow. You start debates with positions that hold zero relevance in the real world (if we could get rid of all guns and all pre-martial sex we'd solve a lot of societal problems), defend using those positions as a "starting point" even while acknowledging that they hold zero relevance in the real world and argue endlessly over whether or not someone sees themselves as a wedge voter. I still don't know your actual opinions on gun rights and suspect that they probably aren't that interesting anyway.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So you bemoan wedge issues (insofar as you hate politicians who campaign on them) but acknowledge that people might have a legitimate reason for voting based on them?
Yes. Is so far as all politicians are liars, so they will polarize the issue to present a wedge issue as a wedge, rather than the two indistinguishable shades of grey it usually is. Both parties present the other as violators of the Constitution and try to convince you how their violations are not as bad as the other guys, and the other guy is really the one out to get you. Whoever is the best sounding is the one that will get the most play and be most likely to be believed. And so a campaign will be decided not on the actual issues, but on the issues the winner thought would best alienate his opponent. It may be good campaigning, but it is harming the country. The only two solutions are to have all people running for office be fair and truthful, or for people to stop voting based on wedge issues. Neither will happen, so we will get this system until it collapses. A third party (meaning 3+, preferably 5 or more) system could help, but the two parties have only one thing they always agree on, they don't like anyone messing with their duopoly on power.
You start debates with positions that hold zero relevance in the real world (if we could get rid of all guns and all pre-martial sex we'd solve a lot of societal problems), defend using those positions as a "starting point" even while acknowledging that they hold zero relevance in the real world and argue endlessly over whether or not someone sees themselves as a wedge voter.
Oh, never mind. This was all a waste. You are a bald-faced liar. I never said that the world would be "better" with any change. So quit lying and give it up, you liar. That's the real problem you have with me, you make up lies about what you think I meant, so you object to everything I say in some sort of game. You don't care what I say, you will just lie again like you did just then. And why? So that you can defend your narrow vision of the world (and no, that doesn't mean that your vision is necessarily wrong, but that whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to you, as you will blindly defend it without thought and lie to make up reasons why you won't examine anything outside your comfort level). So go back to lying to someone else. I'm done with it. I never stated anything would "solve societal problems." But you obviously think that no guns at all would improve the world, as you wouldn't have made that jump unless you believed it. Then you lie to me and yourself to cover up the fact that your personal views are based on lies. You should go into politics, you know what people say when they don't say it, then lie and convince others that your lies are real.
I'm done with liars. You can apologize for stating a lie and I'll explain what I meant that you misunderstood, but then you've stated that you enjoy lying to and about me because it's all a lying game to you, liar.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes. Is so far as all politicians are liars, so they will polarize the issue to present a wedge issue as a wedge, rather than the two indistinguishable shades of grey it usually is.
There are shades of gray with many issues but civil rights are not one of them. "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" are two phrases that don't seem to leave a lot of room for "shades of gray", at least IMHO.
The only two solutions are to have all people running for office be fair and truthful, or for people to stop voting based on wedge issues
What should they vote on then? In the final analysis, under your definition, they are all wedge issues. Any issue that the GOP and Democrats disagree on will be turned into a "wedge" issue. As voters it's our job to look past the lies and look at the policies they really intend to implement and their records.
A third party (meaning 3+, preferably 5 or more) system could help
I question how much it would "help" in the end. Are political campaigns going to become more elevated and truthful if we have three viable political parties instead of two? Doubtful. Various groups may get a better hearing on issues of importance to them under such a system -- the two-party system requires big tents and pushes out a lot of issues that lack a large following (try and suggest legalizing drugs in either party and see how far you get...) -- but I don't think we'd see better campaigns, which seems to be your main complaint.
Oh, never mind. This was all a waste. You are a bald-faced liar
More insults! Yey!
I never said that the world would be "better" with any change
Where did I claim you said it would be "better"? All I said was that you started debates with premises that weren't realistic, such as "If we could get rid of all guns there would be zero gun violence". I never claimed you actually believe that nonsense, only that you used such premises as arguing points. If I was one to throw around insults I could throw 'liar' right back in your face but I'm going to assume that your selective reading and/or dyslexia is at fault and that you have no ill will towards me.
So quit lying and give it up, you liar
I'm not one to give up :)
So that you can defend your narrow vision of the world
Yes, that narrow vision I have of wanting our elected officials to uphold the Constitution and not infringe on our natural rights.
as you will blindly defend it without thought
With regards to guns (the issue that originally started this whole discussion) I've already explained that I used to be on the other side of the fence. I've given that issue (and many others) more thought than you seem willing to give me credit for. You on the other hand don't seem interested in debating any issue and would rather throw around insults and argue over word definitions.
I'm done with it
Then why do you keep coming back for more? If you are that interested in me you should know that I'm already in a committed relationship and have no intentions of cheating on my partner ;)
I never stated anything would "solve societal problems."
It should be obvious to even you that I was summarizing your arguing points, namely that "no guns = no gun violence" and your agreement with "no pre-martial sex = no STDs or babies born out of wedlock".
But you obviously think that no guns at all would improve the world, as you wouldn't have made that jump unless you believed it
Actually no, if there were no guns then the weak people like us computer geeks (if I may stereotype for a second) would be dominated by the strong people and our only hope would be
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There are shades of gray with many issues but civil rights are not one of them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grey
You correct me even though I'm 100% correct. Just because someone does something differently from you, they must be wrong, even if every dictionary on the planet indicates they aren't wrong. But feel free to keep correcting me while I'm not even wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
You've been wrong so many times that it's hard to assume you are correct ;)
So are you done yet or do you want some more?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You've been wrong so many times that it's hard to assume you are correct ;)
I've not been wrong once with you. That you pick on things like my correct spelling by implying it's wrong when it isn't doesn't actually make me wrong. But feel free to continue to assert my wrongness when you are the only one that has been wrong (and a liar) for this whole conversation.
Oh, and I must have missed the apology for you lying about what I said.
Learn to love Alaska
If you are waiting for an apology while simultaneously hurling insults like "liar", "bitter, pettly little fool", "closed minded bigot" and "idiot" you are going to be disappointed.
Did I miss your apology for all of those? Hmm.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Did I miss your apology for all of those? Hmm.....
You were wrong when you lied about what I said. I wasn't wrong calling you a liar for lying.
Learn to love Alaska
There are those selective reading skills of yours again. Could you teach them to me? I'd love to be able to stick my head in the sand and ignore what people say as well as you can.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You've mastered them. You lie about what I say, prove it wrong, then get a sprain from patting yourself on the back. Did you need the name of a doctor?
Learn to love Alaska
I never lied about anything that you said. If your selective reading skills were tuned a little bit better you would have noted my previous remarks:
Where did I claim you said it would be "better"? All I said was that you started debates with premises that weren't realistic, such as "If we could get rid of all guns there would be zero gun violence". I never claimed you actually believe that nonsense, only that you used such premises as arguing points
It should be obvious to even you that I was summarizing your arguing points, namely that "no guns = no gun violence" and your agreement with "no pre-martial sex = no STDs or babies born out of wedlock".
Keep calling me a liar though. I wonder if you act this childish in the real world where there might be repercussions beyond looking like someone who has run out of legitimate arguing points?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It should be obvious to even you that I was summarizing your arguing points,
Ah but you didn't summarize them.
namely that "no guns = no gun violence" and your agreement with "no pre-martial sex = no STDs or babies born out of wedlock".
But what about where you "summarized" by stating that I said that no guns = better? If you took to summarizing what I said, and not what you think I would have said had you actually responded to the points and laid off the non sequiturs and ad hominems. But instead, you decided you knew were I was going, that you didn't like that place, so you headed off the agrument by hopping right to the end and declaring me wrong without ever even hearing what I was going to say.
P.S. I'm pro-gun.
Learn to love Alaska
But what about where you "summarized" by stating that I said that no guns = better?
My only intent was to point out the absurdity of using "if we had no guns there would be no gun violence" as a starting point to a debate about gun rights. I personally do not see the value in using arguing points that don't apply in the real world, as stated numerous times.
So where's my apology for the "yapping little dog" remark and various other insults that you've hurled my way?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I personally do not see the value in using arguing points that don't apply in the real world, as stated numerous times.
And I do. Any arguments must be applicable at the extremes or they aren't valid. So I start at one end and work towards the other (well, that was the goal in this case), but you wouldn't even accept that no guns would result in no gun crime. So you refuse to listen to my arguments, yet want to argue with me.
So where's my apology for the "yapping little dog" remark and various other insults that you've hurled my way?
I started those only after you lied. You've now admitted you lied in order to hyperbolize my statement to ridicule it, and somehow think that such lies deserve to be met with politeness. I never claimed to be polite, but was until you lied to make a point. If you are offended by such impoliteness, perhaps you could try to refrain from lying to mis-characterize someone else's statements.
Learn to love Alaska
but you wouldn't even accept that no guns would result in no gun crime
No, what I won't accept is that it's possible to have a society with no guns, hence the underlying premise is invalid. I do believe that I said "The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world". Yet you continue to harp on this claim that I refuse to accept it? Sounds like you are the one who is lying.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, what I won't accept is that it's possible to have a society with no guns,
Yet many of societies managed it.
Learn to love Alaska
Really? No guns? Not even for the military or the police? Because if they have them there will be some amount of corruption and criminals will manage to obtain firearms. So which society exists that has zero firearms?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So which society exists that has zero firearms?
The Ancient Mesopotamians. And they had no firearm-related crime.
Learn to love Alaska
Well when you put it that way it's kind of hard to continue arguing with your "logic" ;)
I bet they didn't have to worry about nuclear proliferation or climate change either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.