Is all speech rightful? This is a serious and deep question. I believe the answer is, yes. Specifically, if speech or expression which is unpopular is deemed not protected then where would we draw the line? One can argue that bans on the production, and to a point distribution of child porn is okay, from a free speech perspective, on the grounds that it isn't so much the expression that is being regulated but the abuse of children. I believe that line is crossed when one tries to pass laws against simulated child porn using either CGI or young looking, yet legal, people. At that point one is no longer regulating the abuse of children but directly regulating the expression of an unpopular view point.
The other issue is what is defined as child porn from the perspective of age. For instance, the definition of pedophile (which of course is linked indirectly to the definition of child porn) is well documented. However, people are often accused of this when they really shouldn't be. To wit, a person of age X finding a person of age Y attractive/sexy/whatever when Y is equal to some semi-arbitrary number. This assumes that the Y in this case is a fully developed (at least physically) member of their sex. It is my opinion that if an older male can say they've never found a 16 year old female attractive they are either lying or blind. That's biology. There's nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this. However, take a naked picture of such a young woman and you're up the creek. Never mind that we as society have decided that such a person is old enough to drive, hunt, and various other activities where when one considers the full implications of, life hangs in the balance.
I'm not prepared to argue whether it should be legal to take such pictures or engage in such related activities. I do, however, call into question the logic stated by those who would argue in favor of such bans. This also, of course, touches on related issues of "age of consent" both to sexual issues and other areas where it has been decided that one needs a certain level of maturity. Some people at 16, to continue to use my own arbitrary number, are more than mature enough to engage in sex with whomever they like in addition to the other responsibilities of an 'adult'. Others are not. I suppose in the end we have an arbitrary number, usually 18, simply because it is easier. There is nothing magical about turning 18 that makes one suddenly mature enough to handle all life has to offer and I believe anyone with any sense knows that. It is probably just believed to be too hard and too complex to come up with any kind of sliding scale or tests. After all, how do you measure maturity and if you had such a test and found that large portions of the existing 'adult' population failed, then what?
Thank you. I suspect such drops have more to do with other issues, the crime rate there wasn't all that terrible to begin with. I further suspect as the economies of the world take a beating we'll see a general rise in crime. Though I believe in gun ownership, I'm uncertain whether a ban causes crime to automatically go up. There seems to be a lack of evidence supporting that. There is some evidence that crime rates trend down in areas with more permissive ownership as compared to comparable, geographically and demographically, areas.
Do you not wish to discuss his record because you aren't American, and therefore don't care, or because it isn't important to you?
I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started.
The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop.
I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.
As a point of order, there is no freedom to make real child porn. I say real child porn to distinguish between semi-arbitrary definitions of child (can we really say a 17 year old is a child?) and undeniable children. The reason there is no freedom to do that is the same as there is no freedom to commit murder. You do not have the freedom to initiate harm on another against their will. A child cannot give true consent.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if the prohibitions of distribution are wise either. Not because such "products" are a good thing, but because I'm uncertain whether such efforts actually serve to protect children, or merely make society feel better because they are 'doing something'.
I am also compelled to point out that feeling freer isn't the same thing as being freer. Not anymore than feeling safer is the same as actually being safer. The laws you refer to don't make you any safer at all. If those 'shitheads' are truly threats, those laws won't stop them at all, will they?;)
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!
Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?
So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.
Last points first. I'd generally agree with your entire last paragraph. Youtube is free to remove whatever they like from their site and the idea of removing such individuals from society at large and teaching them better, if possible, is a good one.
Why not keep poison in the kitchen or landmines in the garden? Because, that would be silly. I own guns because I enjoy shooting them as as skill, and for protection if it should (God forbid) ever come to it. One will likely never need them for such a task. However, if you do there is no replacement for them.
If it is paranoia to own a gun for protection, given the low likelihood of using it for such, then I presume it is also paranoia to have home owner's insurance or fire extinguishers. You're not likely in any given year to need either of these things, so I assume you'll be getting rid of them shortly if you have them.
I think the question of "Do they give you an erection?" says far more about you than it does about me. Would you like to ask the women I know who own and use guns the same question? Or are you simply projecting your issues on me/us?
What I really want to know is who marked your comment Insightful. I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Was the "Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates." statement documented? Did you ask for evidence for those claims? Or did you simply accept them regardless because you believe the same thing?
Why should only one side (the "others") have to document claims?
It was not and I did not. I do believe that crime will generally tend to rise in the absence of a populace able to defend it self from crime, providing the real reasons for crime also exist. On the other hand simply banning guns, knives, pointy sticks, or whatever does not by itself lead to higher crime. There is no evidence to support this. However, there is some evidence which indicates the opposite. Areas of the country which have loosened their laws on such issues as Concealed Carry have experienced drops in general crime rates. It must be said though that since causality does not equal causation there could be other forces at work. What cannot be denied is that gun control has never shown a drop in crime rates, and it's opposite has never shown a rise.
One who is advocating the expansion or protection of a right is always given great latitude in issues such as documentation or evidence. Would we have seriously demanded evidence and such before giving women suffrage? Or *insert minority*? Of course, not. If a person is advocating from a position of rights restrictions, yes, they should have to provide overwhelming evidence that the right should be curtailed for a definite provable good. Otherwise, it is simply bigotry in action against a particular right and those who choose to exercise it.
Some have claimed that the rise of the powerful Federal government, as opposed to the sovereign states, along with its huge budgets and all consuming power can be traced directly to 1920 and women's suffrage. Most people can agree at some level the Federal government is overly powerful and intrusive these days. However, would this be considered sufficient evidence to remove the vote from women? Of course, not. Such would be ridiculous. In fact, it could say that no amount of evidence can be used to justify the elimination, or virtual elimination by over regulation, of a core right.
You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.
This sentence makes no sense as a response. Regardless of whether or not Obama's voting record now constitutes proof, it's utterly ridiculous to assume a direct comparison between the USA and the UK when it comes to things like gun crime (and remember, the parent post you responded to doesn't make that comparison, the grandparent post it's responding to does).
If Obama's voting record and public statements doesn't constitute evidence of his stance on issues and the things he'd like to do given a chance, then what pray tell does?
As to comparing so-called 'gun crime' rates between the US and UK, I wasn't attempting to do so. The PP put forth that violent crime is dropping in Britain, with the possible implication that it is the draconian gun laws which are to thank. I asked for his evidence that rates are dropping. No direct comparison of crime rates, not gun crime as that is a misnomer, between the UK and the US can be made as you are correct that such a thing would be ridiculous.
Err... Actually you might want to look at Virgin, Utah and their crime rates. Yes, gun ownership is mandatory.
Whereas I agree with your sentiment, it must be noted that the crime rate in Virgin, Utah is non-existent for far simpler reasons. Their population is only a few hundred. How much crime could they have?
You're right, let's mandate that all citizens, hell all residents regardless of citizenship, are required to carry loaded guns at all times. Yeah, that will work out great. Around here, law abiding citizens may obtain permits to carry CONCEALED handguns in many public locations, and the castle doctrine is pretty forgiving in one's home. Should we not even try to control guns? Japan does pretty well as far as gun crimes are concerned, because they don't tolerate them legally or socially.
You are making the mistake of segregating 'gun crime' from 'crime'. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' anymore than there is 'pencil crime' or 'car crime'. There is just 'crime'. To say other wise is to redirect the debate away from the act and towards the tool. Excluding certain relatively rare cases, this isn't useful.
Japan has relatively low crime rates for reasons that have nothing to do with gun prohibition. They just don't have as many people committing crimes. However, what is undeniable is that the victims of those crimes are generally left defenseless against such crime. I fail to see how that improves the situation any.
To answer the question of "Should we not even try to control guns?" you simply have to look at how ineffective prohibitions are in general. At best blanket gun bans, and lesser bans such as the Assault Weapons Ban (a misnomer in the first place) simply create a black market for the banned items. Regulations requiring background checks and such have produced no measurable, verifiable impact on crime. In short, there is no evidence of any kind which proves that gun control works for reducing general crime, violent or otherwise. If you can provide such, please do.
Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.
The knife ban was a response to inflating knife crime, not the cause of it. And US politics has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. He was simply going through a list of subjects that he knew could spark a flame war. The definition, if you will, of flamebait.
There actually was a knife ban? I missed that. My mistake.
However, you're making the same mistake that a great many people do. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' anymore than there is 'car crime' or 'swimming pool crime'. These terms are all designed to redirect the discussion away from the real issue, crime, and towards the object used to commit the crime. I will agree that some of the GP's statements were a bit over the top. The core argument, however poorly made or not, is still sound. Prohibitions on weapons do not work to reduce crime. They merely, at best, shift the tools of choice to something else. The crime doesn't go down, the law abiding population just become defenseless.
Furthermore, comparing New York (I presume you meant just the city) with England is neither wise nor fair. The NYC Metro population is a third of the population of all of England packed into an area much smaller. You have a much higher density of poorer people, which tends to lead to more crime in general. The UK also had 1,201 murders in 2002. Whereas NYC had less than 500. Perhaps the comparison wasn't so bad after all.;)
I submit that gun control can only be said to work if you use the faulty methods I mentioned above of segregating so-called 'gun crime' from regular crime. If the goal is simply to reduce crime committed by people using guns, then you might be able to succeed. However, if the goal is the far more useful object of reducing crime in general, gun control will fail every single time. There's just no evidence on hand, unless you can provide such, that proves that banning a given type/class of weapon reduces crime in general.
What really sort of scared me was this statement he made in 2003:
"I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns"
lets see...since what he considers a "Assault Weapon" is in reality just a scary looking hunting rifle, that would illegalize ammunition for every single one of my hunting rifles; I imagine you could still get 30-30 rounds, 22-250 and some other weak rounds that were never chambered for a scary looking gun. but you would also lose a lot of hunting rifles because they use pistol ammunition, like the.357 and.44 marlin lever actions. So, what, 90% plus of all rifles made illegal or "limited"?
If he came out and definitively said "I'm going to fully restore all the rights infringed upon by BushCo, the patriot act, etc" it would be a little easier to swallow having someone so intent on crippling the 2nd amendment as a potential president.
On the other hand, with McCain the only hope we have is that he can't really make things much worse, can he?
Any person who on the one hand would claim to restore certain rights, while in the same breath declare he wishes to end certain other equally fundamental rights cannot be trusted.
Also, I believe he is on the record as desiring a ban on "armor piercing" ammo. I further believe that statement referred to common police body armor, which can be defeated by almost any rifle round. Thus, such a ban would eliminate all modern rifles more powerful than.22LR.
Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.
I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.
And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)
Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and Washington, D.C. as examples. If you want international examples, see Russia with an almost total ban on handguns. Yet, they have sky high rates of crime and in particular murder.
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.
Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.
However:
But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.
Didn't they also get caught out fudging the books on crime awhile back, or was that Chicago? Either way, it of course doesn't take into account unreported crime. Given the reports from people on the ground over there, I'd have to think that a 41% decrease is bull. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Aside from the part about banning knives (they haven't gotten around to doing that as yet), how is this flamebait? Because it doesn't tow the left leaning groupthink on/.?
I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama!
Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!
But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal, all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he.;)
Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.
That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.
BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.
Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?
You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.
Agreed on both the quality of Church schools and the voucher idea. The only thing I'd say to the second point is that I'm not sure you can do reasonable standards without running into the same problem. What if parents "A" want their kid to go to a school which teaches only creationism and parents "B" want their kids to go to one which teaches only evolution? Is it possible that they are both within 'reasonable' standards? I suppose one could define such standards to only encompass the minimum requirements. That might work. Furthermore, I think it would work so long as the government would allow such vouchers to be used for any random school. If I wanted to send my kid to a satanic school (as long as no one is getting sacrificed;) ) that shouldn't be the governments business.
Regrettably for a great many people, freedom of choice really means freedom to choose what I want you to.
I believe I would agree with questioning the knowledge of a person who seriously contends that evolution doesn't take place and isn't the primary motive force behind the variety of life we see. To deny evolution to that degree is to deny that water is wet.
Which is precisely what this whole hullabaloo is all about. When you read about "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" in US politics, those are code words for fundamentalist Christianist wackos, none others. These are people who build Creationist "museums" complete with a Dinosaur-riding Jesus.
Whether the universe was "created" cannot be so easily disproved.
You are mis-understanding what aspects of "creationism" are being discussed in this context. It is specifically the evolution of biological organisms which is the bone of contention here for the knuckle-draggers, not the origins of the Universe or the Big Bang.
They of course do not subscribe to the idea that God created every individual type of creature and life form individually
Actually, this is precisely what these Creationists we are discussing here do. The cornerstone of this lunacy is the premise that the Bible has to be taken literally. No esoteric equivocations. Seven actual days ~6000 years ago, Adam + Eve from his rib, etc and so on.
I understand your position and indeed science does not (presently) reach beyond the t-zero moment of the Big Bang. But the people who can reconcile that view with their religion are most likely Deists, not Christians and they are unlikely to be involved with the Creationist lunacies we are discussing here.
Ah, you are referring to an "extreme" view of the subject. I know some of the "earth is 4000 years (or so) old" people. They are very strange indeed.
I believe I would agree with questioning the knowledge of a person who seriously contends that evolution doesn't take place and isn't the primary motive force behind the variety of life we see. To deny evolution to that degree is to deny that water is wet.
Yes it is. Flath Earth "theory" and Creationism are pretty much the same as far as their complete lack of power to explain the observable evidence, therefore they are equivalent with each other in this respect from the point of view of science.
Except that it isn't. Flat Earth theory can be disproved easily. Whether the universe was "created" cannot be so easily disproved. Even the evidence for the Big Bang does not prove the Bang wasn't the method by which the universe was created by a knowing being. So they aren't in the same category over all. Doubly so when you factor in that many evolutionary biologists do believe in God and that God created the universe. They of course do not subscribe to the idea that God created every individual type of creature and life form individually. For those who have pointed this out several times, there is a difference between believing in evolution as a process and evolution as the genesis of all life. There is also a difference between evolution as a process and the big bang. The ideas simply are often tied together.
Agreed. I wouldn't want to see church run education for the same reason. Regrettably, at this time a good number of private schools are religious. However, in the absence of government education sucking up huge sums of money and returning questionable results, it is likely non-religious private schools would multiply. If for no other reason there are large numbers of people who would like to have them.
In this case I think you're smoking crack. Requiring belief in Creationism clearly establishes a state religion, on some level, which would violate the prohibition on making a law respecting a establishment or religion. Speaking of its existence doesn't, but the minute you require belief in it you've established a religious world view in a government class room. Fail.
It seems that insulting is the normal method for such people. Either you agree with them in totality or you are a moron. What were you thinking?!!? Thinking for yourself and not just accepting his/her world view. Moron.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Is all speech rightful? This is a serious and deep question. I believe the answer is, yes. Specifically, if speech or expression which is unpopular is deemed not protected then where would we draw the line? One can argue that bans on the production, and to a point distribution of child porn is okay, from a free speech perspective, on the grounds that it isn't so much the expression that is being regulated but the abuse of children. I believe that line is crossed when one tries to pass laws against simulated child porn using either CGI or young looking, yet legal, people. At that point one is no longer regulating the abuse of children but directly regulating the expression of an unpopular view point.
The other issue is what is defined as child porn from the perspective of age. For instance, the definition of pedophile (which of course is linked indirectly to the definition of child porn) is well documented. However, people are often accused of this when they really shouldn't be. To wit, a person of age X finding a person of age Y attractive/sexy/whatever when Y is equal to some semi-arbitrary number. This assumes that the Y in this case is a fully developed (at least physically) member of their sex. It is my opinion that if an older male can say they've never found a 16 year old female attractive they are either lying or blind. That's biology. There's nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this. However, take a naked picture of such a young woman and you're up the creek. Never mind that we as society have decided that such a person is old enough to drive, hunt, and various other activities where when one considers the full implications of, life hangs in the balance.
I'm not prepared to argue whether it should be legal to take such pictures or engage in such related activities. I do, however, call into question the logic stated by those who would argue in favor of such bans. This also, of course, touches on related issues of "age of consent" both to sexual issues and other areas where it has been decided that one needs a certain level of maturity. Some people at 16, to continue to use my own arbitrary number, are more than mature enough to engage in sex with whomever they like in addition to the other responsibilities of an 'adult'. Others are not. I suppose in the end we have an arbitrary number, usually 18, simply because it is easier. There is nothing magical about turning 18 that makes one suddenly mature enough to handle all life has to offer and I believe anyone with any sense knows that. It is probably just believed to be too hard and too complex to come up with any kind of sliding scale or tests. After all, how do you measure maturity and if you had such a test and found that large portions of the existing 'adult' population failed, then what?
Thank you. I suspect such drops have more to do with other issues, the crime rate there wasn't all that terrible to begin with. I further suspect as the economies of the world take a beating we'll see a general rise in crime. Though I believe in gun ownership, I'm uncertain whether a ban causes crime to automatically go up. There seems to be a lack of evidence supporting that. There is some evidence that crime rates trend down in areas with more permissive ownership as compared to comparable, geographically and demographically, areas.
Do you not wish to discuss his record because you aren't American, and therefore don't care, or because it isn't important to you?
Thank you :)
I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started. The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop. I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.
As a point of order, there is no freedom to make real child porn. I say real child porn to distinguish between semi-arbitrary definitions of child (can we really say a 17 year old is a child?) and undeniable children. The reason there is no freedom to do that is the same as there is no freedom to commit murder. You do not have the freedom to initiate harm on another against their will. A child cannot give true consent.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if the prohibitions of distribution are wise either. Not because such "products" are a good thing, but because I'm uncertain whether such efforts actually serve to protect children, or merely make society feel better because they are 'doing something'.
I am also compelled to point out that feeling freer isn't the same thing as being freer. Not anymore than feeling safer is the same as actually being safer. The laws you refer to don't make you any safer at all. If those 'shitheads' are truly threats, those laws won't stop them at all, will they? ;)
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!
Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?
So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.
Last points first. I'd generally agree with your entire last paragraph. Youtube is free to remove whatever they like from their site and the idea of removing such individuals from society at large and teaching them better, if possible, is a good one.
Why not keep poison in the kitchen or landmines in the garden? Because, that would be silly. I own guns because I enjoy shooting them as as skill, and for protection if it should (God forbid) ever come to it. One will likely never need them for such a task. However, if you do there is no replacement for them.
If it is paranoia to own a gun for protection, given the low likelihood of using it for such, then I presume it is also paranoia to have home owner's insurance or fire extinguishers. You're not likely in any given year to need either of these things, so I assume you'll be getting rid of them shortly if you have them.
I think the question of "Do they give you an erection?" says far more about you than it does about me. Would you like to ask the women I know who own and use guns the same question? Or are you simply projecting your issues on me/us?
What I really want to know is who marked your comment Insightful. I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Was the "Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates." statement documented? Did you ask for evidence for those claims? Or did you simply accept them regardless because you believe the same thing?
Why should only one side (the "others") have to document claims?
It was not and I did not. I do believe that crime will generally tend to rise in the absence of a populace able to defend it self from crime, providing the real reasons for crime also exist. On the other hand simply banning guns, knives, pointy sticks, or whatever does not by itself lead to higher crime. There is no evidence to support this. However, there is some evidence which indicates the opposite. Areas of the country which have loosened their laws on such issues as Concealed Carry have experienced drops in general crime rates. It must be said though that since causality does not equal causation there could be other forces at work. What cannot be denied is that gun control has never shown a drop in crime rates, and it's opposite has never shown a rise.
One who is advocating the expansion or protection of a right is always given great latitude in issues such as documentation or evidence. Would we have seriously demanded evidence and such before giving women suffrage? Or *insert minority*? Of course, not. If a person is advocating from a position of rights restrictions, yes, they should have to provide overwhelming evidence that the right should be curtailed for a definite provable good. Otherwise, it is simply bigotry in action against a particular right and those who choose to exercise it.
Some have claimed that the rise of the powerful Federal government, as opposed to the sovereign states, along with its huge budgets and all consuming power can be traced directly to 1920 and women's suffrage. Most people can agree at some level the Federal government is overly powerful and intrusive these days. However, would this be considered sufficient evidence to remove the vote from women? Of course, not. Such would be ridiculous. In fact, it could say that no amount of evidence can be used to justify the elimination, or virtual elimination by over regulation, of a core right.
You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.
This sentence makes no sense as a response. Regardless of whether or not Obama's voting record now constitutes proof, it's utterly ridiculous to assume a direct comparison between the USA and the UK when it comes to things like gun crime (and remember, the parent post you responded to doesn't make that comparison, the grandparent post it's responding to does).
If Obama's voting record and public statements doesn't constitute evidence of his stance on issues and the things he'd like to do given a chance, then what pray tell does?
As to comparing so-called 'gun crime' rates between the US and UK, I wasn't attempting to do so. The PP put forth that violent crime is dropping in Britain, with the possible implication that it is the draconian gun laws which are to thank. I asked for his evidence that rates are dropping. No direct comparison of crime rates, not gun crime as that is a misnomer, between the UK and the US can be made as you are correct that such a thing would be ridiculous.
Err... Actually you might want to look at Virgin, Utah and their crime rates. Yes, gun ownership is mandatory.
Whereas I agree with your sentiment, it must be noted that the crime rate in Virgin, Utah is non-existent for far simpler reasons. Their population is only a few hundred. How much crime could they have?
You're right, let's mandate that all citizens, hell all residents regardless of citizenship, are required to carry loaded guns at all times. Yeah, that will work out great. Around here, law abiding citizens may obtain permits to carry CONCEALED handguns in many public locations, and the castle doctrine is pretty forgiving in one's home. Should we not even try to control guns? Japan does pretty well as far as gun crimes are concerned, because they don't tolerate them legally or socially.
You are making the mistake of segregating 'gun crime' from 'crime'. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' anymore than there is 'pencil crime' or 'car crime'. There is just 'crime'. To say other wise is to redirect the debate away from the act and towards the tool. Excluding certain relatively rare cases, this isn't useful.
Japan has relatively low crime rates for reasons that have nothing to do with gun prohibition. They just don't have as many people committing crimes. However, what is undeniable is that the victims of those crimes are generally left defenseless against such crime. I fail to see how that improves the situation any.
To answer the question of "Should we not even try to control guns?" you simply have to look at how ineffective prohibitions are in general. At best blanket gun bans, and lesser bans such as the Assault Weapons Ban (a misnomer in the first place) simply create a black market for the banned items. Regulations requiring background checks and such have produced no measurable, verifiable impact on crime. In short, there is no evidence of any kind which proves that gun control works for reducing general crime, violent or otherwise. If you can provide such, please do.
Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.
The knife ban was a response to inflating knife crime, not the cause of it. And US politics has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. He was simply going through a list of subjects that he knew could spark a flame war. The definition, if you will, of flamebait.
There actually was a knife ban? I missed that. My mistake.
However, you're making the same mistake that a great many people do. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' anymore than there is 'car crime' or 'swimming pool crime'. These terms are all designed to redirect the discussion away from the real issue, crime, and towards the object used to commit the crime. I will agree that some of the GP's statements were a bit over the top. The core argument, however poorly made or not, is still sound. Prohibitions on weapons do not work to reduce crime. They merely, at best, shift the tools of choice to something else. The crime doesn't go down, the law abiding population just become defenseless.
Furthermore, comparing New York (I presume you meant just the city) with England is neither wise nor fair. The NYC Metro population is a third of the population of all of England packed into an area much smaller. You have a much higher density of poorer people, which tends to lead to more crime in general. The UK also had 1,201 murders in 2002. Whereas NYC had less than 500. Perhaps the comparison wasn't so bad after all. ;)
I submit that gun control can only be said to work if you use the faulty methods I mentioned above of segregating so-called 'gun crime' from regular crime. If the goal is simply to reduce crime committed by people using guns, then you might be able to succeed. However, if the goal is the far more useful object of reducing crime in general, gun control will fail every single time. There's just no evidence on hand, unless you can provide such, that proves that banning a given type/class of weapon reduces crime in general.
What really sort of scared me was this statement he made in 2003: "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns" lets see...since what he considers a "Assault Weapon" is in reality just a scary looking hunting rifle, that would illegalize ammunition for every single one of my hunting rifles; I imagine you could still get 30-30 rounds, 22-250 and some other weak rounds that were never chambered for a scary looking gun. but you would also lose a lot of hunting rifles because they use pistol ammunition, like the .357 and .44 marlin lever actions. So, what, 90% plus of all rifles made illegal or "limited"?
If he came out and definitively said "I'm going to fully restore all the rights infringed upon by BushCo, the patriot act, etc" it would be a little easier to swallow having someone so intent on crippling the 2nd amendment as a potential president.
On the other hand, with McCain the only hope we have is that he can't really make things much worse, can he?
Any person who on the one hand would claim to restore certain rights, while in the same breath declare he wishes to end certain other equally fundamental rights cannot be trusted.
Also, I believe he is on the record as desiring a ban on "armor piercing" ammo. I further believe that statement referred to common police body armor, which can be defeated by almost any rifle round. Thus, such a ban would eliminate all modern rifles more powerful than .22LR.
Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?
As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm
Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.
I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.
And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)
Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and Washington, D.C. as examples. If you want international examples, see Russia with an almost total ban on handguns. Yet, they have sky high rates of crime and in particular murder.
I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...
A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995. Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.
However:
But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.
Didn't they also get caught out fudging the books on crime awhile back, or was that Chicago? Either way, it of course doesn't take into account unreported crime. Given the reports from people on the ground over there, I'd have to think that a 41% decrease is bull. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Aside from the part about banning knives (they haven't gotten around to doing that as yet), how is this flamebait? Because it doesn't tow the left leaning groupthink on /.?
I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama! Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!
But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal, all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he. ;)
Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.
That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.
BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.
Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?
You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.
Agreed on both the quality of Church schools and the voucher idea. The only thing I'd say to the second point is that I'm not sure you can do reasonable standards without running into the same problem. What if parents "A" want their kid to go to a school which teaches only creationism and parents "B" want their kids to go to one which teaches only evolution? Is it possible that they are both within 'reasonable' standards? I suppose one could define such standards to only encompass the minimum requirements. That might work. Furthermore, I think it would work so long as the government would allow such vouchers to be used for any random school. If I wanted to send my kid to a satanic school (as long as no one is getting sacrificed ;) ) that shouldn't be the governments business.
Regrettably for a great many people, freedom of choice really means freedom to choose what I want you to.
Which is precisely what this whole hullabaloo is all about. When you read about "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" in US politics, those are code words for fundamentalist Christianist wackos, none others. These are people who build Creationist "museums" complete with a Dinosaur-riding Jesus.
Yeah, that place cracks me up. :)
You are mis-understanding what aspects of "creationism" are being discussed in this context. It is specifically the evolution of biological organisms which is the bone of contention here for the knuckle-draggers, not the origins of the Universe or the Big Bang.
Actually, this is precisely what these Creationists we are discussing here do. The cornerstone of this lunacy is the premise that the Bible has to be taken literally. No esoteric equivocations. Seven actual days ~6000 years ago, Adam + Eve from his rib, etc and so on.
I understand your position and indeed science does not (presently) reach beyond the t-zero moment of the Big Bang. But the people who can reconcile that view with their religion are most likely Deists, not Christians and they are unlikely to be involved with the Creationist lunacies we are discussing here.
Ah, you are referring to an "extreme" view of the subject. I know some of the "earth is 4000 years (or so) old" people. They are very strange indeed.
I believe I would agree with questioning the knowledge of a person who seriously contends that evolution doesn't take place and isn't the primary motive force behind the variety of life we see. To deny evolution to that degree is to deny that water is wet.
Huh? He very clearly said that a belief in creationism would not be required in his scenario. You're tilting at windmills.
Sorry.. my mistake. Misread it. :)
Yes it is. Flath Earth "theory" and Creationism are pretty much the same as far as their complete lack of power to explain the observable evidence, therefore they are equivalent with each other in this respect from the point of view of science.
Except that it isn't. Flat Earth theory can be disproved easily. Whether the universe was "created" cannot be so easily disproved. Even the evidence for the Big Bang does not prove the Bang wasn't the method by which the universe was created by a knowing being. So they aren't in the same category over all. Doubly so when you factor in that many evolutionary biologists do believe in God and that God created the universe. They of course do not subscribe to the idea that God created every individual type of creature and life form individually. For those who have pointed this out several times, there is a difference between believing in evolution as a process and evolution as the genesis of all life. There is also a difference between evolution as a process and the big bang. The ideas simply are often tied together.
Agreed. I wouldn't want to see church run education for the same reason. Regrettably, at this time a good number of private schools are religious. However, in the absence of government education sucking up huge sums of money and returning questionable results, it is likely non-religious private schools would multiply. If for no other reason there are large numbers of people who would like to have them.
In this case I think you're smoking crack. Requiring belief in Creationism clearly establishes a state religion, on some level, which would violate the prohibition on making a law respecting a establishment or religion. Speaking of its existence doesn't, but the minute you require belief in it you've established a religious world view in a government class room. Fail.
It seems that insulting is the normal method for such people. Either you agree with them in totality or you are a moron. What were you thinking?!!? Thinking for yourself and not just accepting his/her world view. Moron. :)