whereas americans, on a whole, correct me if I'm wrong, have no moral objections to killing criminals Conditionally True. Americans generally have no moral objections to killing a criminal in the act of commiting a crime of great bodily harm (death of a lawful person need not be a sure outcome to justify the death of the criminal.) The moral arguments for state punishments after the crime, however, vary greatly. There are many in the United States who object to the death penalty for any crime, and entire states where no crime will get you on death row. The Federal court systems still employs the death penalty, however, so criminals who have committed capital crimes across a few states are out of luck. My personal thoughts on the matter is that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the most grevious of crimes, but should be applied very carefully (you can't release someone from the grave upon finding new evidence.) I don't think that the death penalty should be justified as a deterence (the debate on it's effect as a detterent is a hot one), but it is a fitting individual punishment for some crimes. But that's an argument for another thread;).
Any which way, thank you for taking the time to butt heads with me; I do enjoy a good argument.
Would you be kind enough to detail these incidents, if not in public, then in an email to me? I often get into debates, and would like to know more, if it pleases you.
In terms of UK having more violent crime but fewer murders, someone else posting to this article detailed the differences between UK and US statistics keeping. The basic tendancy is that the UK Home office does everything it can to show the smallest number of crimes, and the US DoJ processes data in a way to give the highest possible numbers. The UK actually redid it's statistics-keeping a couple years ago because the numbers were becoming quite an embarrassment. As far as I can tell, they're still an embarrassment. The DoJ thought though is that the higher the crime rate, the more funding law enforcement departments will get. Once they've got the funding, it's rarely cut, even when crime falls. But again, someone else described the statistics keeping differences, so please look for them. Assuming that the net result is still true- that the US has more murders (I can believe this) but a lower violent crime rate otherwise, I think your initial conclusion is true- the easy availibility of arms + tradition of self defense does count for much of the difference. And quite frankly, I'm not going to cry if some rapist gets his brains blown out. Also, the Urban areas of the United States suffer from a huge gang violence problem, a problem just starting to arise in the UK. (Their murder rates have been skyrocketing lately, including gun related homicides.) If you leave out gang-ridden urban areas, crime rates in the US are comparable to any european country or canada, and often times better. Even including those high-crime areas, I think we're probably 7th on the list of violence in developed countries. Now certainly gang & drug related crime is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but leaving it out helps put the rest of the country's crime rates in perspective. Also, the British people are generally famed for their restraint, which may help explain the lesser murder. Perhaps their criminals are a little less apt to 'finish the job' when attacking or robbing someone. Just a guess.
for the other points: 1. The instant death tool of choice for alot of japanese lately is the train. Just as effective as a gun, and alot messier. (Get this- they bill the family for the cleanup. Real Nice.) But suicide is acceptable over there anyway. There's alot of ins and outs about suicide that make it's analysis difficult, and I think it's been said that the availability of guns does increase elderly suicide rates. This makes some sense, because if your mobility is limited, you don't have the option of jumping in front of a truck or train, or jumping off a ledge, or perhaps even hanging yourself. For the physically capable though, they have a number of choices on how to kill themselves, many of them instantenous. I've read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that females attempt suicide more often than guys, but guys succeed more often than girls. This is for a couple of reasons: A) Some think that often times girls try to commit suicide as a desperate plea for help, in a time of crisis, whereas guys will comtemplate suicide for sometime and make a definate decision that they want to die. B) Because of A, guys will choose a more violent, final method of killing themselves, because they've thought about it. So i think among feeble groups, the availability of guns may increase suicide rates. Among able-bodied though, I don't think that the availibility of guns would have a significant impact.
2. The comparison to swimming pools was meant to show that it's not a huge public health problem, that we allow our children to engage in statistically deadlier activities daily. No lives are saved by a child swimming recreationally, are they? If there's no net benefit to swimming, why alow it at all? Just stay away from lakes and you're all set. But we allow our children to swim, and swim ourselves, because we acknowledge that some acceptable risk is inherent in every activity, and that the enjoyment derived from that activity outweighs the slim risk of death we run performing it. In that light, even as a purely recreational activity, it's acceptable to have guns around for just target shooting. For the number of childrens lives saved by shooting, I'd like to again point to Klecks high estimate of 2 million legal, defensive, life saving uses of guns yearly by American citizens. Gun control advocates place the number at around 200,000. This is still two orders of magnitude larger than the number of murders, by any method, of children in 1997- 2,100. (see Here For 1997, the cause of child death are as follows, starting at 44,000 for Motor vehicles:
Motor Vehicles
Falls
Poison
Drowning
Fires & Burns
Ingestion of Food & Objects
Firearms
Poison Gases
(Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1997) Guns don't even rate in the top 8. How many defensive gun uses save children is a question for further debate, but I'm already tired of any public initiative that flies under the banner of "for the children." 3. Doctors make sometimes make mistakes that outright kill people- some mistakes- a lot of them- aren't just a matter of 'failing to save someone.' Also, if a life is taken in a legal and moral self defense situation, that is not a bad thing, and should not be considered in a negative light. Whose death does society benefit from? The would-be mugger/rapists death, or the death of the woman he attacked? Don't try to tell me that their lives are equally valuable, because the dead robber no longer terrorizes society, and that's a good thing. That being said, Kleck's research was an attempt to come up with a figure that shows you that the number of lives saved by guns exceeds the number taken by them. You must also remember that there are a number of situations where it is permissible (and I think morally acceptable) to kill an attacker when your death is not a definate outcome otherwise. Anyway, I need to get to sleep, but I'd reccomend reading every +3 comment and higher under this article, and doing some further reading on Kleck's efforts directly, because it will be of higher quality than any second or third hand info I relate in my sleep deprived state.
Please read the slashdot thread links I provided. I wanted to cover topics I didn't extensively cover in those threads. Some of them are paranoid, however, some people too readily equate preparation with paranoia. Coming from the viewpoint of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms needn't be defended, as it's a fundamental right. The literature on this is extensive, and found in some of those links. As to the type of weaponry, the militia spoken of in the second amendment were expected to arm themselves with the type of rifles in common use by the military at the time. Then, that was muskets. Today, the weapon of choice is the M-16 Rifle, or the AR-15 civilian equivalent.
Back in World War 2, America was completely unprepared for the Western Japanese attack. Rumor has it that Army officials estimated that the Empire of the Rising Sun could have made it as far as Ohio before the Army could have done anything about it. a few years after the war, Japanese and American commanders were having a meeting, and the conversation turned to WW2. The Japanese were asked why they didn't attack the mainland with troops, because the victory would have been assured. The Japanese Commanders disagreed. They had done their homework, and knew that every other home in the nation had guns, and the training and werewithall to use them. They would not step into such a snakepit, where the enemy would constantly surround them, even without the benefit of artillery and armor.
That being said, the concept of natural rights, capable self defense (ie modern, capable weapons.) among them, stands on its own.
As for why should you care? When you don't need a gun, you don't need a gun. But on the very rare occasion when you need a gun, YOU REALLY NEED A GUN.
ANyway, please read the threads i linked to and this entire topic. all your questions are answered well by others than myself.
Now, I personally do not think the right to keep and bear arms should hinge on the utility of it, but you can read more on my stance in the threads linked to above. Literature It should be noteworthy that some researchers- Gary Kleck and John Lott, I think- started out their research seeking to prove gun control lowers crime, and found just the opposite. Being intellectually honest, they switched sides. For some good reading, with some solid factual basis & unrefuted citations, read Richard Poe's Book "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" (ISBN 0-7615-2558-0) or Chapter 10, 'Gun Control Advocates- Good Guys with blood on their hands'of "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America", a book by noted Libertarian Larry Elder. (ISBN 0-312-26660-X)
Poe's book condenses the research of Kleck and Lott into a more palatable format, while combining it with his own research and observations. An excellent read. Lott has statistically shown that in states with more liberal concealed-carry laws, crime rates against persons drop significantly. This is offset by a slight increase in property crimes in these locations, which is only rational & definately preferable to confrontational crimes. Kleck's research shows that guns are used legally and defensively to stop crimes anywhere between 800,000 to 2 million times per year. Gun control advocates estimate around 200,000 such uses per year, which is still more than enough to show the positive impact. Larry Elder's writing style is a bit too conversational at times, but that stems from his main job as a radio talk show host. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote in the aforementioned book, Chapter 10 is right on target. Either way, the book is an excellent read.
The most notable book from the Gun Control advocate side was Michael Bellesiles' (formerly of Emory University) book "Arming America", however, he has been thoroughly discredited (Note: The linked article is very tongue in cheek, but nonetheless details his downfall at the hands of his equally liberal but intellectually honest peers.) Now the Gun Control Advocates have nothing. Why? Because they have to lie. There are many who say in this thread, "The sides are equally valid, you can't have an unbiased analysis." This is wrong.
Gun control advocates must rely on distortions or outright lies to prove their point, because the facts are not behind them. This is a harsh statement, but I will defend it anecdotally. My opinions I've formed from the aforementioned books, and from such sites as packing.org and guncite.org, and from the occasional spot check of their accuracy. If you want supporting documentation for my opinions, look to what I've already given you.
1. Gun control advocates often cite "Gun deaths" when talking about the need to control guns. The assumption is that by removing the most efficient means to cause death, the deaths will not occur. What they don't tell you is that about half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available. Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
2.When Gun Control advocates speak of all the children who die each year to gun violence, they include inner-city gangbangers as old as 24. While their deaths are tragic as well, they cannot be honestly compared to the suburban nuclear family with two responsible adults, actual children (ie, at most 18 years old), and a handgun for protection. If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms. Their utility, however, is unquestionable, so we allow their presence despite how often they kill people. The utility of guns is not so obvious, even with the 800,000 legal defensive of guns each year that Kleck estimates, because most of the time, a shot isn't fired, and it isn't reported, because the citizen is afraid of running afoul of the confusing labrynth of gun laws in any particular state- and they've already solved the situation.
Well, I think I've written enough for now. I've cited most of my sources in this thread, or the threads I've linked to above, so don't ask me to defend them, as I already have.
That being said, I enjoy debate and will reply promptly to any intelligent reply/challenge.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Some groups of interest: Jews for the Preservation of Fire Arm ownership (remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising!) Second Amendment Sisters Pink Pistols (Gays for Gun rights. They rightfully need to defend themselves from some of the morons wandering around this nation. The Matthew Shepard incident would have been a footnote in the local police dossier if he had been armed and able to defend himself.) www.packing.org (Concealed Carry information for all 50 states) Sorry for no links, but you all know how google works.
It's a great place to order catalogs for almost any type of goods you need. I recommend it highly. Oh, wait, this is a thread about spammers and their laywers? Please mod me down as off topic, I'm horribly sorry for the oversight.
Meaningless....builds on Free Software licenses but adds clauses to "promote fundamental human rights of end-users". Cute, but utterly pointless. A Gold star for thought, but not for effort. If these folks want to make a difference, adding such a clause is merely a self-congradulatory measure that allows the Hactivismo folks to pretend like they're making a difference- when they're not. May I suggest the Peace Corps if you really want to do something?
Why I stopped playing the Sims...
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Back in 2000 (when I was a Business Admin major, and had plenty of time. I'm now a Mech-E student, and I don't sleep.) I picked up the Sims and installed it on my computer, and I quickly got addicted. I'd play 3-5 hours most nights, getting my character better jobs, improving the house, wooing neighborhood women and having my character make friends. Did pretty well, too. Then one day, I got up from a session, and started walking down the hall to the bathroom. I started thinking things like: "My Bladder meter is getting pretty low. Hygene Bar could use a refresher too, maybe I should jump in the shower. And it would be nice to up my social meter."
Then I realized I was looking AT MY REAL LIFE through the metric of The Sims. Realizing how pathetic this was, I took said bathroom break and shower, went back to the room, and unistalled the Sims.
I now hang out with real people. When I'm not posting on slashdot anyway.
Well, somebody has to. And if the ACLU is taking care of everthing else, do they really need to duplicate efforts? Which is why I don't really care that the ACLU ignores (at best, misinterprets it at worst) the second amendment, because Heston's crew has it covered.
They aren't playing ANY of the latest games. Unreal 2k3 stutters on a 2GHZ with 512MB and a GeForce3 card. Actually, it played quite nicely on my geforce 2, PIII 800 Mhz machine, with only 256MB of RDRAM. Granted, it was at 800X600X16- but it was quite playable.
Yeah, I'm thinking about joining the ACLU, but if I do, I'll have to get a membership to the NRA as well, because we all know how the ACLU counts to ten:
Already done. They're called 'Soyuz.' Russia swaps them out every 6 months or so. Part of the reason that they only have three people on the space station is that the evacuation capacity is severely limited.
You cannot just ignore these problems, no matter how badly you want the solution to be "an armed populace". The simple fact is that in reality, this "solution" only works in a small percentage of cases.
Gary Kleck, Criminology Proffessor at Florida State University, did some research, and estimates that guns are used defensively and legally anywhere between 800,000 to 2.5 million times per year. Even the lower end of the scale is plenty of instances- but you never hear about them on the news, because which is more interesting- a dead subway commuter who got killed by a mugger with a gun, or the same mugger turning tail and running when the commuter pulls a gun on him? You don't believe the media tells both sides of any story equally, do you? Maybe, just maybe, they report only the most sensationalistic stories, so they can get the highest ratings?
Medical Malpractice, on the other hand, kills three times as many people per year as guns do. Maybe we should outlaw doctors, because they're an obvious threat to society. (Roam around that Guncite site I linked to for kleck- you'll find the figure)
Thats true, but then, look at the USA's example: its one of the countries with the highest homicide rate, much higher than most of the European countries where guns are outlawed. You have to wonder why. Give England some time. Now that they've disarmed all honest people there and made defending yourself more or less illegal, they're fast on track for catching up to our murder rate. You're now twice as safe in New York City as your are in London. Oh, and by the way, Japan, with guns completely outlawed, has a much lower murder rate than the US. But on the other hand, they kill themselves often enough to make up the difference. And the criminals still have guns there, too.
Yes, the work of Professor John Lott, who reviewed crime rates in states that had recently instituted liberal Concealed Carry Laws, and compared them to States that hadn't. After adjusting for a number of different factors, he came to the conclusion that the fewer laws that prevent honest folks from arming themselves, the less the crime rate. It is worth noting the reduction in crimes against individuals was slightly offset by an increase in property crimes-but I'd rather have someone swipe something out of my yard then mug me. How about you?
Now John Lott's book, "More guns, less crime" is a bit thick for a casual read, so I'd reccommend Poe's Book, "The seven myths of gun control", based on the work of Lott and others. Read an interview with Lott about his book here: Reason Magazine It's worth noting that Lott started out with an anti-gun stance, but being academically honest, changed his mind after reviewing the facts. I'd quote statistics for you, but I don't have any of these texts handy. I'll leave your knock on the second amendment and the subsequent flamebait alone for now, because I should be doing some work, and if you're actually curious about the facts of the matter, and not just throwing stones (while living in a glass house, I might add), I've given you enough to consider.
The stickers should read "Don't shoot Lawful People. Criminals in the process of commiting assualt, rape, or murder are OK to shoot." Crimes fall where honest people are armed, because criminals fear for their lives. Gun control legislation only makes it safer for criminals to go about their business, as they can be confident their victims are unarmed.
If they ignore laws about rape, murder, or assualt, what makes you think they'll obey gun control laws any more than a stupid sticker?
Furthermore, why are there so many young people that are so conservative these days? Maybe because today's liberal thought is an intellectual vacuum. Social Darwinism is the way to go- if you have government programs propping up the less motivated, then the will to get off the dole nearly dissapears. Small, private charities have always been better at getting people back on their feet, because private charities cannot afford to support people for all of their wasteful lives. The government, however, can afford it, and increasingly finds itself becoming a stand in parent for so many illegitimate children. Americans are some of the most generous people on the planet- we give, on average, over $900 a year to charity. In heavily socialized countries, such as is often found in europe, the rate falls to a tenth of that. The American Way is to work your ass off to pull yourself up by your boot straps, and then when you make it, do your best to help out your fellow man. The American way should not be to tax the hard-working to prop-up to support the irresponsible. I am not heartless, but I believe that the government should stay out of the charity business. If these are views that are considered 'conservative,' then so be it. I prefer to call it 'responsibility'
Did you self-create? No? Your existance came to be by efforts other than your own, and your parents were enabled to create you by a process they didn't decide on either. Pick a creator. The abstract concept of 'mother nature' will do. I'm agnostic, bordering on aethistic. If the notion of creator bothers you, then call them natural, logical rights. The basic concept remains; that a government is given powers by those it governs, so that ultimate power lies with the just rights of the people. If you're getting caught up on a vague reference to some sort of God, you're missing the point.
Of course they will be able. Why should the first amendment carry any weight outside the US. Are americans really that arrogant as to assume the US constitution applies to every country in the world? Well, ideally, parts of it should, yeah. Not that the US has any authority to enforce it across borders. The first ten amendments to the United States constitution list inalienable, human rights bestowed upon us by our creator. Whatever creator you pick, the idea is that the first ten amendments- protecting free speech, right to keep and bear arms, no quartering soldiers in one's home, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, etc- apply to all humans. Including silly Europeans.
That being said, it is not, nor should it be, the business of the United States Government to go around protecting the rights of people in other lands- hell, we barely do it here it often seems.
But, as an inalienable human right, the first amendment should apply to everyone in the world. Repealing the first amendment would mean nothing, as the right still exists. Should any of the first ten amendments to the constitution be repealed, though, it would mean it was time for a new government, nothing else.
Even Thomas Jefferson,... wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
Yeah, i just bought the new tori amos album- cd, dvd, photos, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I'll give to some girl I know. for $16.99, a damn good deal.
I donated $5, and got this in reply: Wow! I was feeling pretty discouraged today after evaluating how much time this fight is taking me away from our business. I go from day to day wondering if the media is going to stay interested in this.
After getting the slashdot post late in the day there was an outpouring of support including many financial contributions totaling over a thousand dollars. And more are coming in as I'm typing this. I can' begin to thank you enough for your support.
I have a lot of fight in me because I believe in what I'm doing and I believe what PanIP is doing is wrong...if not criminal. The defendants that are joining me in this fight have no guarantee of the financial risk we're taking. We simply believe that if we don't stop PanIP now, it will only get harder after they've stung several hundred companies. I'm committed to fighting this so others won't have to deal with the disruption and hassles that I'm dealing with in our business.
I was notified today that PanIP has sued me with a second law suit claiming basically that my web site is defaming their reputation. Can you believe that! Apparently they think they have a patent on free speech as well as e-commerce.
Please stay tuned and help me spread the word. I need your help. We will win!
Timothy Beere DeBrand Fine Chocolates www.debrand.com
These guys really are pig-f*ckers, huh? Maybe someone can clue PanIP into the notion that you can't sue someone for telling the truth.
Every time I see a "Schwinn" in Wal-Mart, it sets my teeth on edge.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I bought the last good schwinn at a bike shop before they finished going south- I paid $400 for a Mesa GS. I've beat the crap out of that bike (I weigh 250 lbs) and it just asks for more. A year and a half of hard trail riding and only minor adjustments for service. Hell, the wheels are still true.
I bought that bike after I wrecked a Walmart bike in A SINGLE RIDE. (hehehehe at least Walmart took it back.)
Now I go in and see schwinn badges on the same kind of peace of shit bike I destroyed in an hour. I find it incredible that they still have the audacity to put "Schwinn Quality" on the badges.
My next bike will probably be a Specialized road bike. I too cringe when i see Schwinns in walmart. A sad thing indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out Jeffrey Snyder's piece A Nation of Cowards
It's a great read, and I agree with it almost completely. Also, feel free to email me for any further debate.
Conditionally True. Americans generally have no moral objections to killing a criminal in the act of commiting a crime of great bodily harm (death of a lawful person need not be a sure outcome to justify the death of the criminal.)
The moral arguments for state punishments after the crime, however, vary greatly. There are many in the United States who object to the death penalty for any crime, and entire states where no crime will get you on death row. The Federal court systems still employs the death penalty, however, so criminals who have committed capital crimes across a few states are out of luck.
My personal thoughts on the matter is that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the most grevious of crimes, but should be applied very carefully (you can't release someone from the grave upon finding new evidence.) I don't think that the death penalty should be justified as a deterence (the debate on it's effect as a detterent is a hot one), but it is a fitting individual punishment for some crimes. But that's an argument for another thread
Any which way, thank you for taking the time to butt heads with me; I do enjoy a good argument.
Would you be kind enough to detail these incidents, if not in public, then in an email to me?
I often get into debates, and would like to know more, if it pleases you.
In terms of UK having more violent crime but fewer murders, someone else posting to this article detailed the differences between UK and US statistics keeping.
The basic tendancy is that the UK Home office does everything it can to show the smallest number of crimes, and the US DoJ processes data in a way to give the highest possible numbers. The UK actually redid it's statistics-keeping a couple years ago because the numbers were becoming quite an embarrassment. As far as I can tell, they're still an embarrassment. The DoJ thought though is that the higher the crime rate, the more funding law enforcement departments will get. Once they've got the funding, it's rarely cut, even when crime falls. But again, someone else described the statistics keeping differences, so please look for them.
Assuming that the net result is still true- that the US has more murders (I can believe this) but a lower violent crime rate otherwise, I think your initial conclusion is true- the easy availibility of arms + tradition of self defense does count for much of the difference. And quite frankly, I'm not going to cry if some rapist gets his brains blown out. Also, the Urban areas of the United States suffer from a huge gang violence problem, a problem just starting to arise in the UK. (Their murder rates have been skyrocketing lately, including gun related homicides.) If you leave out gang-ridden urban areas, crime rates in the US are comparable to any european country or canada, and often times better. Even including those high-crime areas, I think we're probably 7th on the list of violence in developed countries.
Now certainly gang & drug related crime is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but leaving it out helps put the rest of the country's crime rates in perspective.
Also, the British people are generally famed for their restraint, which may help explain the lesser murder. Perhaps their criminals are a little less apt to 'finish the job' when attacking or robbing someone. Just a guess.
for the other points:
1. The instant death tool of choice for alot of japanese lately is the train. Just as effective as a gun, and alot messier. (Get this- they bill the family for the cleanup. Real Nice.) But suicide is acceptable over there anyway. There's alot of ins and outs about suicide that make it's analysis difficult, and I think it's been said that the availability of guns does increase elderly suicide rates. This makes some sense, because if your mobility is limited, you don't have the option of jumping in front of a truck or train, or jumping off a ledge, or perhaps even hanging yourself.
For the physically capable though, they have a number of choices on how to kill themselves, many of them instantenous. I've read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that females attempt suicide more often than guys, but guys succeed more often than girls. This is for a couple of reasons:
A) Some think that often times girls try to commit suicide as a desperate plea for help, in a time of crisis, whereas guys will comtemplate suicide for sometime and make a definate decision that they want to die.
B) Because of A, guys will choose a more violent, final method of killing themselves, because they've thought about it.
So i think among feeble groups, the availability of guns may increase suicide rates. Among able-bodied though, I don't think that the availibility of guns would have a significant impact.
2. The comparison to swimming pools was meant to show that it's not a huge public health problem, that we allow our children to engage in statistically deadlier activities daily. No lives are saved by a child swimming recreationally, are they? If there's no net benefit to swimming, why alow it at all? Just stay away from lakes and you're all set.
But we allow our children to swim, and swim ourselves, because we acknowledge that some acceptable risk is inherent in every activity, and that the enjoyment derived from that activity outweighs the slim risk of death we run performing it. In that light, even as a purely recreational activity, it's acceptable to have guns around for just target shooting.
For the number of childrens lives saved by shooting, I'd like to again point to Klecks high estimate of 2 million legal, defensive, life saving uses of guns yearly by American citizens. Gun control advocates place the number at around 200,000. This is still two orders of magnitude larger than the number of murders, by any method, of children in 1997- 2,100. (see Here For 1997, the cause of child death are as follows, starting at 44,000 for Motor vehicles:
(Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1997)
Guns don't even rate in the top 8.
How many defensive gun uses save children is a question for further debate, but I'm already tired of any public initiative that flies under the banner of "for the children."
3. Doctors make sometimes make mistakes that outright kill people- some mistakes- a lot of them- aren't just a matter of 'failing to save someone.' Also, if a life is taken in a legal and moral self defense situation, that is not a bad thing, and should not be considered in a negative light. Whose death does society benefit from? The would-be mugger/rapists death, or the death of the woman he attacked? Don't try to tell me that their lives are equally valuable, because the dead robber no longer terrorizes society, and that's a good thing.
That being said, Kleck's research was an attempt to come up with a figure that shows you that the number of lives saved by guns exceeds the number taken by them. You must also remember that there are a number of situations where it is permissible (and I think morally acceptable) to kill an attacker when your death is not a definate outcome otherwise.
Anyway, I need to get to sleep, but I'd reccomend reading every +3 comment and higher under this article, and doing some further reading on Kleck's efforts directly, because it will be of higher quality than any second or third hand info I relate in my sleep deprived state.
Please read the slashdot thread links I provided. I wanted to cover topics I didn't extensively cover in those threads.
Some of them are paranoid, however, some people too readily equate preparation with paranoia.
Coming from the viewpoint of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms needn't be defended, as it's a fundamental right. The literature on this is extensive, and found in some of those links. As to the type of weaponry, the militia spoken of in the second amendment were expected to arm themselves with the type of rifles in common use by the military at the time.
Then, that was muskets. Today, the weapon of choice is the M-16 Rifle, or the AR-15 civilian equivalent.
Back in World War 2, America was completely unprepared for the Western Japanese attack. Rumor has it that Army officials estimated that the Empire of the Rising Sun could have made it as far as Ohio before the Army could have done anything about it.
a few years after the war, Japanese and American commanders were having a meeting, and the conversation turned to WW2. The Japanese were asked why they didn't attack the mainland with troops, because the victory would have been assured.
The Japanese Commanders disagreed. They had done their homework, and knew that every other home in the nation had guns, and the training and werewithall to use them. They would not step into such a snakepit, where the enemy would constantly surround them, even without the benefit of artillery and armor.
That being said, the concept of natural rights, capable self defense (ie modern, capable weapons.) among them, stands on its own.
As for why should you care?
When you don't need a gun, you don't need a gun. But on the very rare occasion when you need a gun, YOU REALLY NEED A GUN.
ANyway, please read the threads i linked to and this entire topic. all your questions are answered well by others than myself.
Here are some of my offtopic threads on slashdot on the matter:
Movielink Snubs DRM-less Macs
and another:
ACLU campaign challenges patriot act
Now, I personally do not think the right to keep and bear arms should hinge on the utility of it, but you can read more on my stance in the threads linked to above.
Literature
It should be noteworthy that some researchers- Gary Kleck and John Lott, I think- started out their research seeking to prove gun control lowers crime, and found just the opposite. Being intellectually honest, they switched sides.
For some good reading, with some solid factual basis & unrefuted citations, read Richard Poe's Book "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" (ISBN 0-7615-2558-0) or Chapter 10, 'Gun Control Advocates- Good Guys with blood on their hands'of "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America", a book by noted Libertarian Larry Elder. (ISBN 0-312-26660-X)
Poe's book condenses the research of Kleck and Lott into a more palatable format, while combining it with his own research and observations. An excellent read. Lott has statistically shown that in states with more liberal concealed-carry laws, crime rates against persons drop significantly. This is offset by a slight increase in property crimes in these locations, which is only rational & definately preferable to confrontational crimes. Kleck's research shows that guns are used legally and defensively to stop crimes anywhere between 800,000 to 2 million times per year. Gun control advocates estimate around 200,000 such uses per year, which is still more than enough to show the positive impact.
Larry Elder's writing style is a bit too conversational at times, but that stems from his main job as a radio talk show host. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote in the aforementioned book, Chapter 10 is right on target. Either way, the book is an excellent read.
The most notable book from the Gun Control advocate side was Michael Bellesiles' (formerly of Emory University) book "Arming America", however, he has been thoroughly discredited (Note: The linked article is very tongue in cheek, but nonetheless details his downfall at the hands of his equally liberal but intellectually honest peers.)
Now the Gun Control Advocates have nothing. Why? Because they have to lie. There are many who say in this thread, "The sides are equally valid, you can't have an unbiased analysis." This is wrong.
Gun control advocates must rely on distortions or outright lies to prove their point, because the facts are not behind them.
This is a harsh statement, but I will defend it anecdotally. My opinions I've formed from the aforementioned books, and from such sites as packing.org and guncite.org, and from the occasional spot check of their accuracy. If you want supporting documentation for my opinions, look to what I've already given you.
1. Gun control advocates often cite "Gun deaths" when talking about the need to control guns. The assumption is that by removing the most efficient means to cause death, the deaths will not occur. What they don't tell you is that about half of the "Gun deaths" are suicides. While this is tragic, the dedicated suicidal person will often use the most abrupt way to end their lives available. Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
2.When Gun Control advocates speak of all the children who die each year to gun violence, they include inner-city gangbangers as old as 24. While their deaths are tragic as well, they cannot be honestly compared to the suburban nuclear family with two responsible adults, actual children (ie, at most 18 years old), and a handgun for protection. If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms. Their utility, however, is unquestionable, so we allow their presence despite how often they kill people. The utility of guns is not so obvious, even with the 800,000 legal defensive of guns each year that Kleck estimates, because most of the time, a shot isn't fired, and it isn't reported, because the citizen is afraid of running afoul of the confusing labrynth of gun laws in any particular state- and they've already solved the situation.
Well, I think I've written enough for now. I've cited most of my sources in this thread, or the threads I've linked to above, so don't ask me to defend them, as I already have.
That being said, I enjoy debate and will reply promptly to any intelligent reply/challenge.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Some groups of interest:
Jews for the Preservation of Fire Arm ownership
(remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising!)
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols
(Gays for Gun rights. They rightfully need to defend themselves from some of the morons wandering around this nation. The Matthew Shepard incident would have been a footnote in the local police dossier if he had been armed and able to defend himself.)
www.packing.org
(Concealed Carry information for all 50 states)
Sorry for no links, but you all know how google works.
www.catalogrequest.com
It's a great place to order catalogs for almost any type of goods you need. I recommend it highly. Oh, wait, this is a thread about spammers and their laywers? Please mod me down as off topic, I'm horribly sorry for the oversight.
Meaningless. ...builds on Free Software licenses but adds clauses to "promote fundamental human rights of end-users".
Cute, but utterly pointless. A Gold star for thought, but not for effort.
If these folks want to make a difference, adding such a clause is merely a self-congradulatory measure that allows the Hactivismo folks to pretend like they're making a difference- when they're not.
May I suggest the Peace Corps if you really want to do something?
Back in 2000 (when I was a Business Admin major, and had plenty of time. I'm now a Mech-E student, and I don't sleep.) I picked up the Sims and installed it on my computer, and I quickly got addicted.
I'd play 3-5 hours most nights, getting my character better jobs, improving the house, wooing neighborhood women and having my character make friends. Did pretty well, too.
Then one day, I got up from a session, and started walking down the hall to the bathroom.
I started thinking things like:
"My Bladder meter is getting pretty low. Hygene Bar could use a refresher too, maybe I should jump in the shower. And it would be nice to up my social meter."
Then I realized I was looking AT MY REAL LIFE through the metric of The Sims. Realizing how pathetic this was, I took said bathroom break and shower, went back to the room, and unistalled the Sims.
I now hang out with real people. When I'm not posting on slashdot anyway.
Well, somebody has to. And if the ACLU is taking care of everthing else, do they really need to duplicate efforts?
Which is why I don't really care that the ACLU ignores (at best, misinterprets it at worst) the second amendment, because Heston's crew has it covered.
They aren't playing ANY of the latest games. Unreal 2k3 stutters on a 2GHZ with 512MB and a GeForce3 card.
Actually, it played quite nicely on my geforce 2, PIII 800 Mhz machine, with only 256MB of RDRAM. Granted, it was at 800X600X16- but it was quite playable.
Yeah, I'm thinking about joining the ACLU, but if I do, I'll have to get a membership to the NRA as well, because we all know how the ACLU counts to ten:
1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Already done. They're called 'Soyuz.' Russia swaps them out every 6 months or so. Part of the reason that they only have three people on the space station is that the evacuation capacity is severely limited.
You cannot just ignore these problems, no matter how badly you want the solution to be "an armed populace". The simple fact is that in reality, this "solution" only works in a small percentage of cases.
Gary Kleck, Criminology Proffessor at Florida State University, did some research, and estimates that guns are used defensively and legally anywhere between 800,000 to 2.5 million times per year. Even the lower end of the scale is plenty of instances- but you never hear about them on the news, because which is more interesting- a dead subway commuter who got killed by a mugger with a gun, or the same mugger turning tail and running when the commuter pulls a gun on him? You don't believe the media tells both sides of any story equally, do you? Maybe, just maybe, they report only the most sensationalistic stories, so they can get the highest ratings?
Medical Malpractice, on the other hand, kills three times as many people per year as guns do. Maybe we should outlaw doctors, because they're an obvious threat to society. (Roam around that Guncite site I linked to for kleck- you'll find the figure)
Thats true, but then, look at the USA's example: its one of the countries with the highest homicide rate, much higher than most of the European countries where guns are outlawed. You have to wonder why.
Give England some time. Now that they've disarmed all honest people there and made defending yourself more or less illegal, they're fast on track for catching up to our murder rate. You're now twice as safe in New York City as your are in London.
Oh, and by the way, Japan, with guns completely outlawed, has a much lower murder rate than the US. But on the other hand, they kill themselves often enough to make up the difference. And the criminals still have guns there, too.
Now John Lott's book, "More guns, less crime" is a bit thick for a casual read, so I'd reccommend Poe's Book, "The seven myths of gun control", based on the work of Lott and others. Read an interview with Lott about his book here: Reason Magazine It's worth noting that Lott started out with an anti-gun stance, but being academically honest, changed his mind after reviewing the facts.
I'd quote statistics for you, but I don't have any of these texts handy.
I'll leave your knock on the second amendment and the subsequent flamebait alone for now, because I should be doing some work, and if you're actually curious about the facts of the matter, and not just throwing stones (while living in a glass house, I might add), I've given you enough to consider.
Gun Control is hitting the bullseye
Personal Experience.
Crimes fall where honest people are armed, because criminals fear for their lives. Gun control legislation only makes it safer for criminals to go about their business, as they can be confident their victims are unarmed.
If they ignore laws about rape, murder, or assualt, what makes you think they'll obey gun control laws any more than a stupid sticker?
Furthermore, why are there so many young people that are so conservative these days?
Maybe because today's liberal thought is an intellectual vacuum.
Social Darwinism is the way to go- if you have government programs propping up the less motivated, then the will to get off the dole nearly dissapears. Small, private charities have always been better at getting people back on their feet, because private charities cannot afford to support people for all of their wasteful lives. The government, however, can afford it, and increasingly finds itself becoming a stand in parent for so many illegitimate children.
Americans are some of the most generous people on the planet- we give, on average, over $900 a year to charity. In heavily socialized countries, such as is often found in europe, the rate falls to a tenth of that.
The American Way is to work your ass off to pull yourself up by your boot straps, and then when you make it, do your best to help out your fellow man. The American way should not be to tax the hard-working to prop-up to support the irresponsible.
I am not heartless, but I believe that the government should stay out of the charity business. If these are views that are considered 'conservative,' then so be it. I prefer to call it 'responsibility'
Did you self-create? No? Your existance came to be by efforts other than your own, and your parents were enabled to create you by a process they didn't decide on either.
Pick a creator. The abstract concept of 'mother nature' will do. I'm agnostic, bordering on aethistic. If the notion of creator bothers you, then call them natural, logical rights.
The basic concept remains; that a government is given powers by those it governs, so that ultimate power lies with the just rights of the people.
If you're getting caught up on a vague reference to some sort of God, you're missing the point.
Well, ideally, parts of it should, yeah. Not that the US has any authority to enforce it across borders.
The first ten amendments to the United States constitution list inalienable, human rights bestowed upon us by our creator. Whatever creator you pick, the idea is that the first ten amendments- protecting free speech, right to keep and bear arms, no quartering soldiers in one's home, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, etc- apply to all humans. Including silly Europeans.
That being said, it is not, nor should it be, the business of the United States Government to go around protecting the rights of people in other lands- hell, we barely do it here it often seems.
But, as an inalienable human right, the first amendment should apply to everyone in the world. Repealing the first amendment would mean nothing, as the right still exists. Should any of the first ten amendments to the constitution be repealed, though, it would mean it was time for a new government, nothing else.
Even Thomas Jefferson,
Yeah, i just bought the new tori amos album- cd, dvd, photos, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I'll give to some girl I know.
for $16.99, a damn good deal.
I donated $5, and got this in reply:
Wow! I was feeling pretty discouraged today after evaluating how much time this fight is taking me away from our business. I go from day to day wondering if the media is going to stay interested in this.
After getting the slashdot post late in the day there was an outpouring of support including many financial contributions totaling over a thousand dollars. And more are coming in as I'm typing this. I can' begin to thank you enough for your support.
I have a lot of fight in me because I believe in what I'm doing and I believe what PanIP is doing is wrong...if not criminal. The defendants that are joining me in this fight have no guarantee of the financial risk we're taking. We simply believe that if we don't stop PanIP now, it will only get harder after they've stung several hundred companies. I'm committed to fighting this so others won't have to deal with the disruption and hassles that I'm dealing with in our business.
I was notified today that PanIP has sued me with a second law suit claiming basically that my web site is defaming their reputation. Can you believe that! Apparently they think they have a patent on free speech as well as e-commerce.
Please stay tuned and help me spread the word. I need your help. We will win!
Timothy Beere
DeBrand Fine Chocolates
www.debrand.com
These guys really are pig-f*ckers, huh? Maybe someone can clue PanIP into the notion that you can't sue someone for telling the truth.
The phones I used when I was a telemarketer where $600 siemens units. Don't you think they have volume limiters?
I left that job a long time ago.
Every time I see a "Schwinn" in Wal-Mart, it sets my teeth on edge.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I bought the last good schwinn at a bike shop before they finished going south- I paid $400 for a Mesa GS. I've beat the crap out of that bike (I weigh 250 lbs) and it just asks for more. A year and a half of hard trail riding and only minor adjustments for service. Hell, the wheels are still true.
I bought that bike after I wrecked a Walmart bike in A SINGLE RIDE. (hehehehe at least Walmart took it back.)
Now I go in and see schwinn badges on the same kind of peace of shit bike I destroyed in an hour. I find it incredible that they still have the audacity to put "Schwinn Quality" on the badges.
My next bike will probably be a Specialized road bike. I too cringe when i see Schwinns in walmart. A sad thing indeed.
Indeed, you should.
Defenesetration is the wisest path