Yes. The logic i've already spelled out; the belief held by law is that they are not mature enough to completely understand the ramifications of signing a contact, the issues being voted on, etc.
If they can't fully appreicate those, how are they to appreciate what they've done?
So you can argue if you feel 18 is the appropriate cut of age, but the reasoning still stands regardless of age; they simply are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
Philadelphia has a decent one; Rochester NY has a good bus system (no rail for local travel). Burlington VT has a good bus system.
I've heard Chicago has an ok one (that needs improvement, granted) and from what I hear of their traffic, an overhaul is needed. I believe I heard Boston has passable public transit too...but those are only second hand.
I shouldn't have said you can't vote based on a single issue. But one certainly shouldn't.
If you're right about people voting on a single issue, it stands to reason that there are other more important issues than speed limit. Since they are mutually exclusive at this point the issue never gets addressed, even though a major of people may want it raised...they just have another more important issue deciding their vote.
You don't have to live nearby, as long as you're in the same city. Most cities have decent public transportation.
I think there are alot of laws the majority doesn't really want, however I'm not convinced they're willing to do anything about it. They see it easier just to ignore the law then try to change it.
Besides, you can't (and shouldn't) vote for a candiate based on one issue.
Read the reasoning though; the other 56% said that people under 18 cannot do many (most) adult things, so why is it allowable to hand out adult punishments? In order to receive an adult punishment, you should be capable of making adult decisions. If they aren't competent enough to vote or join the army or enter contracts, how are they competent enough to fully understand thier actions? If you aren't capable of entering a contract, i doubt you are capable of fulling understanding the crime you commited.
The Supreme court however picked 18 as the cutoff, as that age is more universally considered 'adult.' You can join the army, vote, enter into contracts, etc.
If you feel a 16 yr old is an adult, then you should want to lower the age limits for all of the above as well.
capitalism doesn't seem to be workable when it comes to cable/satellite (no ala carte channels)
It is; its just that the majority of people aren't offended by what you deem 'inappropriate.' If people didn't really want to see it, it would disappear on its own, would it not?
Oh, and you can get ala carte channels. I believe a law was passed some time ago forcing cable cos to offer that (if you ask, they'll try to deny you can at first though..).
Only broadcast media, because of the limited spectrum problem, and the penetrability of private property boundaries, should legitimately subject to decency regulation, per the Pacifica case.
Why does limited spectrum make censorship ok? Doesn't satilite radio also use limited spectrum? Aren't they also a private business? Doesn't their 'broadcast' also reach into my home? (I hope it does, I was thinking about subscribing.)
With satellite radio and cable television, you have to get special equipment and/or connections, pay a fee for the service, and sometimes even pick very specific channels.
I have a problem with the FCC even dicating content on broadcast radio.
You could have made the same arguement years ago; to hear sound and / or images broadcast over the airwaves, you need to buy 'special' equipment to do so. When TV first started, that special equipment was simply the TV set itself. So your logic for defending cable while allowing censorship on broadcast falls apart.
Do you exempt regulation from new methods of delivery until that method reaches a critcal mass? Because most people do have cable (in some form), and satilite radio seem to be taking off too.
Indeed. It seems that a flood of cars trying to get around the old woman who can't see over the steering wheel, and going on 35 in the left lane, causes much more problems (and risk) then if everybody was just going about the same speed.
Another similar case is when you have two same direction lanes and one is closed...forcing a large volume of cars into a smaller space then they had previously seems more dangerous.
Then don't drive 65, stay at 55 and in the right lane. Based on what I see when I'm driving most people don't have a problem with speeding, as just about all roads I drive on people do 10 over the limit. Driving is inherently risky; if you don't want the risk don't drive.
I'm sure one reason that we don't raise the speed limit to 200 is that the highest rated tires can't handle that speed, and will fly apart. I have no problem with telling someone not to drive faster then they can handle (i.e., reflexes) or their vehical can handle.
The only kind of accident I can think of where speeding actually causes accident would be taking a turn too fast. Any other time you'll likely have another cause of the accident; speed just determines how bad the result will be.
Again, look at Switzerland; they are required to own fully automatic rifles, and have one of the lowest crime rates around. Saying that arming the citizens just doesn't seem to lead to the anarchy you wish it would.
For the record, having citizens active in thier own defense is not anarchy at all, and is never what I was advocating. You still can have laws and have citizens armed.
You haven't linked to any studies on the psychology of different methods of killing.
Nor have you linked to any supporting your end of it.
I don't see how owning a gun in this situation would help very much -- if a government can persuade the army to participate in a coup, there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop it happening (you may be able to overthrow the government post-coup, but that's a different story). The main ingredient in a revolution is always the unpopularity of the existing government, not the extent to which the populace is armed -- a tyrannical government would quickly sieze privately owned weapons, presumably. Anyway, given that it's easy-peasy to obtain illegal guns (according to you at least), could we not just use illegal weapons to fight government oppression? After all, if a civil war breaks out, there's no reason to obey the laws of the government you're fighting.
Which is why 'arms' in the US also hasn't traditionally included just guns either; the idea being we'd have militias which would be called upon to form the army, and the army would be disbanded when no longer needed. Traditionally a standing army was looked upon as something ripe for abuse. That changed after WW2 unfortunatly.
At any rate i don't see much point in continuing to respond to your comments; we seem to be in a stalemate of sorts.
I guess I'll just make one final comment: Evil wins only when good does nothing. By letting someone use force to steal or rape or otherwise try to control you, you're letting evil win. You're saying 'its ok, take anything you want, do anything you want, just don't hurt me.' Its that attitute that let stalin stay in power and Hitler roll through Europe.
IIRC, there were a couple of studies done on speed limits.
One said that the number of accidents remained largely unchanged when the US from from 55 to 65.
The second (which was misquoted to try and convice people to lower the limit again) said the number of fatal accidents rose.
I take away from both of those that raising the speed limits does not CAUSE more accidents, but when accidents do happen they are more likely to be fatal.
So I don't really see the problem in raising the limits, since I belive most people understand that going faster makes accidents more fatal..
Yeah, but the point is that you're more likely to die if you're carrying a gun, because a mugger is much more likely to want to kill you if you're armed. So you're safer not being armed.
Sorry, but if you had bothered to read the links I sent you, you'd see the evidence simply does not support your view.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the case. If illegal gun ownership is so easy, how come so few people own guns in the UK? First off, not all that many people know where to go. Second, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are too great for many small time criminals.
Again, evidence does not support your view. I imagine people in the UK don't own guns because they don't want to, being conditioned that they are evil and all. Its a shame UKers don't question their leaders more.
Per your 'small time criminals comment.' Small time criminals are, by definition, already fairly safe, as the police, especially in large cities, have larger criminals to bust. If you don't believe me, try driving a car around Philly with expired inspection / registration and no license or insurance...see how long you can get away with it before police come after you.
It does take them out of the hands of criminals very effectively. It seems to be a common myth that all self-respecting criminals are armed with illegal weapons, but most gun crimes are committed with legal weapons. Some criminals in the UK have guns, but like I said, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are such that most small time criminals don't have one.
Again, you need to take your head out of the sand. The data does not support your views.
Really? Not sure how you can have a rational argument about this, but that seems obviously wrong to me.
There have been various studies that seem to back up my view..thats how you have a rational discussion. And again, it seems 'obviously wrong to you,' but so did the notion that the sun revolved around the earth. Fortunately there too, we had science to set us straight.
Small sample. Probably lots of methodological errors. Can you give me a link to the study?
I gave you a link to an article about the study; I'm sure you're capable of goggling to find more. I believe the professor was John Lott. I'm sure there are others.
Then either the US is doing something wrong in enforcing its gun laws, or most criminals in the US are armed with legal weapons. I suspect the latter. Either way, it's no excuse for legalizing firearms.
Criminals cannot by weapons legally here. There's a large black market (just like in any country) where they get them. Historically, the US has viewed being armed as a right, both to protect against criminals and an oppressive government. The framers of our Consitition knew this (as they had just used arms to kick out the Brits). IIRC, arms were 'illegal' in the colonies as well...but that didn't stop anyone, did it?
Yes, absolutely. I'd be more at risk if I was armed, and making the assumption that all muggers want to kill me.
Except the data seems to suggest that muggers would simply stop mugging. The stakes have become higher for you, but also for the mugger. Is taking money from you worth the risk of being killed to the common mugger? I'd think not.
If you give the public access to guns, the only effect regarding the police is that they get more and better guns. In the UK, for example, most policemen aren't armed because they won't need to deal with gunmen. In the US, arming the citizenry has simply led to the police becoming armed as well. So I don't feel that in the UK I have any less power over the police than an armed citizen would in the US. I also would not want ordinary citizens to be more powerful than the police, since this would lead to anarchy (certainly not justice). Abuses of police power cannot be prevented by allowing anyone at all to obtain and abuse power.
And here I thought I had the choice not to listen.
Wow...you're purposely being dense. Replace would with could, ok?
I'm sure you could with a good enough receiver, and VT is not the only state near rochester (parts of PA are closer). And most importantly, the fact that there are other stations talking louder over top of the Rochester one. The Rochester station may not come in clearly, but it's still interfering with stations in other states.
No, I could not. There's a station here on the same frequency...not to meantion the mountains in between which cut down greatly on reception of a signal. Honestly I don't really care about this point, I never said the FCC shouldn't be able to work out disputes, I've only indicated I have problems with their ability to fine over content.
First come first serve doesn't work. There is already more demand than supply in many areas. And it's not fair anyway. Why should some company get eternal rights to a frequency just because it was there first?
What do you propose then? How many radio stations gave up their license for a band anyway? The fact that supply is lower then demand is just the nature of the technology; and future digital radio sounds like it could free the spectrum crunch anyway.
I'd rather FCFS over taking away licenses because of censorship.
If the content of the broadcasts were not the concern of the FCC, just know there wouldn't be free radio. It'd be encrypted, and you'd have to pay for it. And all the money for subscriptions would go to Clearstation, just because they got there first.
I doubt people would have paid for radio to begin with. It would have died right away, just like I'm sure TV would have.
The fact is that people ARE willing to pay for radio and TV; they prove by paying for sat. radio and cable TV. Besides, why wouldn't things happened just as they did with advertising supported radio?
I doubt 'let me sell you this brand new technology that will forever lock you into just us and you'll be paying monthly for also' would have gone over too well.
It's just that the favored scale of democracy in Europe is national, not European. Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power, for "macro" policy matters (including intellectual property).
Just as an FYI, it wasn't setup for this...but with the direct election of senators, thats what ended up coming to be.
Just as easily? What planet are you living on? It's very rare for muggers to kill their victims.
You think your mugger couldn't have if he wanted to. I said they CAN, not that they always (or even usually do). To me, even a small risk of a mugger choosing to kill me is enough that i'd rather be able to defend myself.
In the case of guns, most people who go to the trouble of obtaining an illegal weapon are not the sort of small time criminals who are likely to jump you in a dark alley (or whatever).
Its easier to buy a gun illegally then legally. All you need is cash and to know where to go.
Not true at all. It only takes a flash of anger to pull a trigger. You need to have a much stronger desire to kill someone to beat them to death. Knives are very dangerous, but I think knife wounds are generally less fatal than gun wounds (not sure though). And of course they have to be inflicted face to face.
A knife wound in the right place is equally as fatal as a bullet. Likewise, there are alot of places you can be shot that are not fatal.
Pride dictates that you should resist attack, but common sense dictates the opposite. At least in the UK, the advice given by the police is not to fight back against muggers, since it's not worth the risk.
Of course thats the advice. What would be the purpose of the police if everyone could defend themselves? I think that avise also encourages crime; by people being told NOT to fight back, attackers know that most will follow besides knowing they are disarmed.
I wasn't in the least bit lucky. Muggers want money, they don't want to go to prison for life. If he'd wanted to kill me, he would have killed me before he took my wallet, would he not?
Maybe, maybe not. He may decide its easier to kill you then risk you identifying him. Remember, he wants to avoid capture at all costs.
I don't think it really works like that. If I was a half-competent mugger, I wouldn't expect that I'd have to kill someone. When you factor in the desperation which is normally the motive for this kind of crime, I think it's very likely that many people who do not really want to kill anyone would still be capable of mugging. The fact that armed muggers generally hold their victims up rather than simply shooting them suggest that this is the case.
You're right; a mugger that doesn't want to kill would stop mugging if he likely WOULD have to kill to acomplish the robbery. This was my point of course...
Sure, but in a society where guns are illegal, you don't need the police to keep you safe most of the time. Contrast this with a society where everyone is armed, where you could be shot at any minute. I don't expect the police to keep me safe, which is one reason why I want dangerous weapons to be controlled.
This is of course false. As i stated before, making guns illegal does not take them out of the hands of criminals. Therefore you do need police most of the time to keep you safe. If you don't expect police to keep you safe, what exactly is their role in society?
OK, so if guns don't make it easier to kill people, WTF is the point in owning a gun? I said it's more difficult to kill someone if you don't have a gun. If you deny this, you are apparently denying that guns have any utility.
I meant difficult pyschologically. You had argued that mentally its more difficult to beat someone then shoot them. I disagree. Physically yes, guns make it easier. No longer to you have to be strong or even skilled..everyone can now defend themselves equally.
That's not really very good evidence. In any case, forcing people to arm themselves can surely be no better than forcing them not to, from you point of view?
Why isn't it? The drop in breakins coicidedes exactly with the law taking effect. Forcing them to arm themselves where most were not before provided an immediate benefit. There are other benefits as
Read the cases again, they certainly didn't ignore the first amendment. They discussed it in length.
And in the end chose to ignore it. I'm sure there is a long winded explaination as to why it didn't apply in their minds, but ultimately they allowed censorship. The fact is without the ability to fine, you WOULD hear 'objectionable' content on radios.
All of them do.
If thats true, I should be able to hear the Nerve from rochester NY here in VT. But I can't. So not all of them can.
How do you pick which competitors are allowed to use the frequencies in the first place, then?
You allow the FCC to license the use of the airwaves, most likely on a first come first serve basis. But the CONTENT of said broadcasts should not be the concern of the FCC.
As I said, it's usually too late to defend yourself once you've been attacked. Having a weapon would make it more likely to turn into a truly violent confrontation. As it is, I just lost some cash. No big deal.
As soon as you are attacked, its impossible to turn the situation? Whoever attacks first wins? You were lucky to only lose some cash, you could just as easily lost your life.
Laws don't have to be universally respected for them to have effect. If laws were universally respected we wouldn't need to enforce them, or indeed pass them in the first place.
Agreed, but those that still chose to break the law now have a much easier target..namely those that chose to respect the law. I'm also not sure simply having the law stops anything. Do you think most people would steal simply because its legal?
We were talking about civility, not free will.
Indeed, but you picked a group of people that are trained NOT to be civil under certain conditions. You made the claim that just because soldiers had guns they should be civil; I attempted to point out reasons (other then being armed or not) that they were not.
I agree that being armed is not inherently uncivil. I fail to see how it could make people more civil, and I can see many ways in which it could do the opposite.
By civil I'm assuming you mean we aren't just running up and stealing / injuring others. I believe that if everyone was armed those that currently are willing to mug / murder would not be so willing to do so, as they know they will very luckly not get away with it. Lawbreaks don't break laws ONLY if they think they can't get away with it. No one breaks a law knowing they will fail..
You were mugged because your mugger correctly believed he could mug you (being reasonably sure you were 'defenseless') and get out before those that actually could defend you arrived (because there's never a cop around when you actually need one). Thats the situation setup by removing your ability to defend yourself and giving it to another.
If no-one has guns, you don't need a gun to stop someone harming another person. Of course, there will always be some people (though not many people) who own guns illegally. That's just life, unfortunately -- I don't claim that a gunless society would be perfectly safe. However, it would be considerably safer than a society where everyone is armed.
Your assumption is false however. Police cannot possibly keep everyone safe. The current state of affairs is such that they probably will NOT be able to keep you safe.
Lets imagine a pack of wolves after a flock of chickens. Without protectors and not being able to defend themselves, they are at the mercy of wolves. Dogs can help guard them, but you need to keep them around the chickens at all times and must have enough to cover the whole flock. A single dog cannot guard 10,000 chickens.
The obvious answer is to add more dogs; however, humans, unlike dogs, will tend to abuse their power, thus leading your 'protectors' now being the very ones you need protection against. This is why the chickens would be better off learning to defend themselves.
Only by pummeling me to death with his fists. Very few people are capable of doing that to complete strangers without a motive. Pulling a trigger is a lot easier, both psychologically and physically.
Do you have any proof of that last statement? Would killing you with a knife be easier then using his fists, but still harder then using a gun? I think that if someone can kill, the method doesn't matter to them.
Great idea, I'd better kill everyone now in case they want to kill me. Look, he said "give me your wallet", or words to that effect. It was pretty damn obvious what he wanted. Sure, he could have killed me afterwards. He could have done that even more easily if I'd had a gun.
You're just being ridicious here. There's quite a difference between what you sug
I don't see the distinction. If I want others to leave me alone and I tell them to do so, then am I not compelling them to do as I want? In any case, guns can be used to implement many different forms of social control, not just the one you arbitrarily mention. In an environment where everyone has the ability to quickly and easily kill anyone else, there are a number of consequences. Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone). Others will use it for other purposes, some of them quite sinister. Whatever the details, it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that the imminent threat of death is a catalyst for civility. If it were, soldiors would be the most civil members of our society.
The problem as you seem to acknowledge is that not everyone will leave you alone as you wish. The fact that you were mugged proves this. Therefore you must have some way to back up your wishes, with force if necessary.
Walking around disarmed leads to the very problem you encountered. Anyone who is eitehr physically stronger, can suprise you, or simply disregards anti-gun laws can overpower you with force, and you have little recourse. If someone is willing to mug you, do you believe they care they are breaking the law? Do you think that they would respect the anti-gun laws either? Probably not.
Oh, and soldiers are NOT free willed people, they've been conditioned to do as told without question. that is something a free willed person would not be conditioned to do.
Now on the other hand, do you think that someone would run around shooting up their office knowing EVERYONE in said office was armed? Probably not, since its very likely the shooter would himself be shot quickly. Lets reverse the sitution you were in; would you attack a someone commiting a violent crime if he was armed and you were not?
Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone).
The only legitimate reason to NOT leave someone else alone is if they are doing harm to a 3rd party. Its likely that said harming party would not have begun to harm the 3rd party knowing there were others around that could use force easily to stop him (and the party he intends to harm may also be able to use that force).
True, but this trivializes the issue. Just about anything can be used for good things or bad things.
I agree, but you are universially saying that being armed is bad and never good.
I was mugged, and I'm glad I didn't have a gun. My attacker caught me by surprise so I had no time to defend myself, and if I'd had a gun he could have used it to threaten (or kill) me.
Um, wasn't the mugger already threatening your life? Could he not have killed you already if he wanted to?
Anyway, I could never bring myself to kill someone simply because they wanted my wallet, so I don't think a gun would be much use to me.
Did you know at the time when you were first attacked that all he wanted was your wallet? Are you certain that he might not have let you live even if you gave it to him? Could you bring yourself to kill someone to stop them from killing you?
It's usually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger because you won't know you're actually being mugged until its too late. (Of course, you could always walk around pointing your gun at everyone just in case they're about to mug you, but that's not very civil. Still, at least they'd leave you alone.)
This is true; part of defending yourself is being aware of your surrounding though. This is true if everyone is armed or not. I'm NOT blaming you, please don't think that. However, any reasonable person knows the possible of being mugged exists, and would take steps to prevent i
Travelling on a bus/coach/train/aircraft as a passenger is a lot different to driving the vehicle yourself.
Really, so are you saying you only have the right to travel when its completely under someone elses control?
In this country, I believe it is mandatory to resit your driving test every 3 years beyond a certain age. They must also pass a medical check. If your country has a system whereby blind people are behind the wheel, then I will make sure I never go over there.
Its not. Old people are insulted by the very notion that something they've been doing all their lives they cannot do anymore. Since old people almost ALL vote, any such requirements to add retesting fail.
Furthermore, I have yet to know of any state that requires one to retest at all, unless ordered to do so by a court. To renew, you simply fill out the renewal form and send your payment. You either get your license, or a paper telling you to go in to update your photo. But you are not retested.
If you believe aforementioned 80 yr old w/diabetes and those thick glasses, but are not legally blind, can see well enough to drive then yes, you should stay away.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The logic i've already spelled out; the belief held by law is that they are not mature enough to completely understand the ramifications of signing a contact, the issues being voted on, etc.
If they can't fully appreicate those, how are they to appreciate what they've done?
So you can argue if you feel 18 is the appropriate cut of age, but the reasoning still stands regardless of age; they simply are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
Because its unfair maybe? Essentally what you are saying is they should have all of the consequences of being an adult without any of the benefits.
Pyschology disagrees with you also; a child does not have the capacity to really understand what they've done when they've commited murder.
The feds are extoring; they setup a situation where the states are finanically dependant on them, then force them to comply to get funding.
Except where noted in the Constition, the feds should have NO sway whatsoever on state governments.
The power structure should be a pyramid, with the Feds at the top, and local gov'ts at the bottom, where the people hold more sway.
Philadelphia has a decent one; Rochester NY has a good bus system (no rail for local travel). Burlington VT has a good bus system.
I've heard Chicago has an ok one (that needs improvement, granted) and from what I hear of their traffic, an overhaul is needed. I believe I heard Boston has passable public transit too...but those are only second hand.
I shouldn't have said you can't vote based on a single issue. But one certainly shouldn't.
If you're right about people voting on a single issue, it stands to reason that there are other more important issues than speed limit. Since they are mutually exclusive at this point the issue never gets addressed, even though a major of people may want it raised...they just have another more important issue deciding their vote.
You don't have to live nearby, as long as you're in the same city. Most cities have decent public transportation.
I think there are alot of laws the majority doesn't really want, however I'm not convinced they're willing to do anything about it. They see it easier just to ignore the law then try to change it.
Besides, you can't (and shouldn't) vote for a candiate based on one issue.
Read the reasoning though; the other 56% said that people under 18 cannot do many (most) adult things, so why is it allowable to hand out adult punishments? In order to receive an adult punishment, you should be capable of making adult decisions. If they aren't competent enough to vote or join the army or enter contracts, how are they competent enough to fully understand thier actions? If you aren't capable of entering a contract, i doubt you are capable of fulling understanding the crime you commited.
The Supreme court however picked 18 as the cutoff, as that age is more universally considered 'adult.' You can join the army, vote, enter into contracts, etc.
If you feel a 16 yr old is an adult, then you should want to lower the age limits for all of the above as well.
capitalism doesn't seem to be workable when it comes to cable/satellite (no ala carte channels)
It is; its just that the majority of people aren't offended by what you deem 'inappropriate.' If people didn't really want to see it, it would disappear on its own, would it not?
Oh, and you can get ala carte channels. I believe a law was passed some time ago forcing cable cos to offer that (if you ask, they'll try to deny you can at first though..).
We demand a single government approved freespeech network with all DRM content and no way to turn it off !
Isnt that done in F451?
Heh..I'm not so sure about this.
My first attempt, the shorter 'excuse me' is often ignored. The second attempt 'move it!' never is.
Maybe politeness should go both ways, it would work alot better then.
Only broadcast media, because of the limited spectrum problem, and the penetrability of private property boundaries, should legitimately subject to decency regulation, per the Pacifica case.
Why does limited spectrum make censorship ok? Doesn't satilite radio also use limited spectrum? Aren't they also a private business? Doesn't their 'broadcast' also reach into my home? (I hope it does, I was thinking about subscribing.)
I agree. You control what you are offended over. Its not my fault that others have an irrational reaction to arbitrary words or ideas.
Why does using certain words automatically mean the speaker is unintelligent?
With satellite radio and cable television, you have to get special equipment and/or connections, pay a fee for the service, and sometimes even pick very specific channels.
I have a problem with the FCC even dicating content on broadcast radio.
You could have made the same arguement years ago; to hear sound and / or images broadcast over the airwaves, you need to buy 'special' equipment to do so. When TV first started, that special equipment was simply the TV set itself. So your logic for defending cable while allowing censorship on broadcast falls apart.
Do you exempt regulation from new methods of delivery until that method reaches a critcal mass? Because most people do have cable (in some form), and satilite radio seem to be taking off too.
Indeed. It seems that a flood of cars trying to get around the old woman who can't see over the steering wheel, and going on 35 in the left lane, causes much more problems (and risk) then if everybody was just going about the same speed.
Another similar case is when you have two same direction lanes and one is closed...forcing a large volume of cars into a smaller space then they had previously seems more dangerous.
Then don't drive 65, stay at 55 and in the right lane. Based on what I see when I'm driving most people don't have a problem with speeding, as just about all roads I drive on people do 10 over the limit. Driving is inherently risky; if you don't want the risk don't drive.
I'm sure one reason that we don't raise the speed limit to 200 is that the highest rated tires can't handle that speed, and will fly apart. I have no problem with telling someone not to drive faster then they can handle (i.e., reflexes) or their vehical can handle.
The only kind of accident I can think of where speeding actually causes accident would be taking a turn too fast. Any other time you'll likely have another cause of the accident; speed just determines how bad the result will be.
I suppose then that we aren't getting anywhere in this discussion. You're right that there are studies on both sides, but it seems to have helped in a town of 5,000. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=fire fox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=gun+own ership+law+Kennesaw%2C+Georgia&btnG=Search
Again, look at Switzerland; they are required to own fully automatic rifles, and have one of the lowest crime rates around. Saying that arming the citizens just doesn't seem to lead to the anarchy you wish it would.
For the record, having citizens active in thier own defense is not anarchy at all, and is never what I was advocating. You still can have laws and have citizens armed.
You haven't linked to any studies on the psychology of different methods of killing.
Nor have you linked to any supporting your end of it.
I don't see how owning a gun in this situation would help very much -- if a government can persuade the army to participate in a coup, there's pretty much nothing you can do to stop it happening (you may be able to overthrow the government post-coup, but that's a different story). The main ingredient in a revolution is always the unpopularity of the existing government, not the extent to which the populace is armed -- a tyrannical government would quickly sieze privately owned weapons, presumably. Anyway, given that it's easy-peasy to obtain illegal guns (according to you at least), could we not just use illegal weapons to fight government oppression? After all, if a civil war breaks out, there's no reason to obey the laws of the government you're fighting.
Which is why 'arms' in the US also hasn't traditionally included just guns either; the idea being we'd have militias which would be called upon to form the army, and the army would be disbanded when no longer needed. Traditionally a standing army was looked upon as something ripe for abuse. That changed after WW2 unfortunatly.
At any rate i don't see much point in continuing to respond to your comments; we seem to be in a stalemate of sorts.
I guess I'll just make one final comment: Evil wins only when good does nothing. By letting someone use force to steal or rape or otherwise try to control you, you're letting evil win. You're saying 'its ok, take anything you want, do anything you want, just don't hurt me.' Its that attitute that let stalin stay in power and Hitler roll through Europe.
IIRC, there were a couple of studies done on speed limits.
One said that the number of accidents remained largely unchanged when the US from from 55 to 65.
The second (which was misquoted to try and convice people to lower the limit again) said the number of fatal accidents rose.
I take away from both of those that raising the speed limits does not CAUSE more accidents, but when accidents do happen they are more likely to be fatal.
So I don't really see the problem in raising the limits, since I belive most people understand that going faster makes accidents more fatal..
Yeah, but the point is that you're more likely to die if you're carrying a gun, because a mugger is much more likely to want to kill you if you're armed. So you're safer not being armed.
Sorry, but if you had bothered to read the links I sent you, you'd see the evidence simply does not support your view.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the case. If illegal gun ownership is so easy, how come so few people own guns in the UK? First off, not all that many people know where to go. Second, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are too great for many small time criminals.
Again, evidence does not support your view. I imagine people in the UK don't own guns because they don't want to, being conditioned that they are evil and all. Its a shame UKers don't question their leaders more.
Per your 'small time criminals comment.' Small time criminals are, by definition, already fairly safe, as the police, especially in large cities, have larger criminals to bust. If you don't believe me, try driving a car around Philly with expired inspection / registration and no license or insurance...see how long you can get away with it before police come after you.
It does take them out of the hands of criminals very effectively. It seems to be a common myth that all self-respecting criminals are armed with illegal weapons, but most gun crimes are committed with legal weapons. Some criminals in the UK have guns, but like I said, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are such that most small time criminals don't have one.
Again, you need to take your head out of the sand. The data does not support your views.
Really? Not sure how you can have a rational argument about this, but that seems obviously wrong to me.
There have been various studies that seem to back up my view..thats how you have a rational discussion. And again, it seems 'obviously wrong to you,' but so did the notion that the sun revolved around the earth. Fortunately there too, we had science to set us straight.
Small sample. Probably lots of methodological errors. Can you give me a link to the study?
I gave you a link to an article about the study; I'm sure you're capable of goggling to find more. I believe the professor was John Lott. I'm sure there are others.
Then either the US is doing something wrong in enforcing its gun laws, or most criminals in the US are armed with legal weapons. I suspect the latter. Either way, it's no excuse for legalizing firearms.
Criminals cannot by weapons legally here. There's a large black market (just like in any country) where they get them. Historically, the US has viewed being armed as a right, both to protect against criminals and an oppressive government. The framers of our Consitition knew this (as they had just used arms to kick out the Brits). IIRC, arms were 'illegal' in the colonies as well...but that didn't stop anyone, did it?
Yes, absolutely. I'd be more at risk if I was armed, and making the assumption that all muggers want to kill me.
Except the data seems to suggest that muggers would simply stop mugging. The stakes have become higher for you, but also for the mugger. Is taking money from you worth the risk of being killed to the common mugger? I'd think not.
If you give the public access to guns, the only effect regarding the police is that they get more and better guns. In the UK, for example, most policemen aren't armed because they won't need to deal with gunmen. In the US, arming the citizenry has simply led to the police becoming armed as well. So I don't feel that in the UK I have any less power over the police than an armed citizen would in the US. I also would not want ordinary citizens to be more powerful than the police, since this would lead to anarchy (certainly not justice). Abuses of police power cannot be prevented by allowing anyone at all to obtain and abuse power.
And should your PM decide to usurp powe
And here I thought I had the choice not to listen.
Wow...you're purposely being dense. Replace would with could, ok?
I'm sure you could with a good enough receiver, and VT is not the only state near rochester (parts of PA are closer). And most importantly, the fact that there are other stations talking louder over top of the Rochester one. The Rochester station may not come in clearly, but it's still interfering with stations in other states.
No, I could not. There's a station here on the same frequency...not to meantion the mountains in between which cut down greatly on reception of a signal. Honestly I don't really care about this point, I never said the FCC shouldn't be able to work out disputes, I've only indicated I have problems with their ability to fine over content.
First come first serve doesn't work. There is already more demand than supply in many areas. And it's not fair anyway. Why should some company get eternal rights to a frequency just because it was there first?
What do you propose then? How many radio stations gave up their license for a band anyway? The fact that supply is lower then demand is just the nature of the technology; and future digital radio sounds like it could free the spectrum crunch anyway.
I'd rather FCFS over taking away licenses because of censorship.
If the content of the broadcasts were not the concern of the FCC, just know there wouldn't be free radio. It'd be encrypted, and you'd have to pay for it. And all the money for subscriptions would go to Clearstation, just because they got there first.
I doubt people would have paid for radio to begin with. It would have died right away, just like I'm sure TV would have.
The fact is that people ARE willing to pay for radio and TV; they prove by paying for sat. radio and cable TV. Besides, why wouldn't things happened just as they did with advertising supported radio?
I doubt 'let me sell you this brand new technology that will forever lock you into just us and you'll be paying monthly for also' would have gone over too well.
It's just that the favored scale of democracy in Europe is national, not European. Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power, for "macro" policy matters (including intellectual property).
Just as an FYI, it wasn't setup for this...but with the direct election of senators, thats what ended up coming to be.
Just as easily? What planet are you living on? It's very rare for muggers to kill their victims.
You think your mugger couldn't have if he wanted to. I said they CAN, not that they always (or even usually do). To me, even a small risk of a mugger choosing to kill me is enough that i'd rather be able to defend myself.
In the case of guns, most people who go to the trouble of obtaining an illegal weapon are not the sort of small time criminals who are likely to jump you in a dark alley (or whatever).
Its easier to buy a gun illegally then legally. All you need is cash and to know where to go.
Not true at all. It only takes a flash of anger to pull a trigger. You need to have a much stronger desire to kill someone to beat them to death. Knives are very dangerous, but I think knife wounds are generally less fatal than gun wounds (not sure though). And of course they have to be inflicted face to face.
A knife wound in the right place is equally as fatal as a bullet. Likewise, there are alot of places you can be shot that are not fatal.
Pride dictates that you should resist attack, but common sense dictates the opposite. At least in the UK, the advice given by the police is not to fight back against muggers, since it's not worth the risk.
Of course thats the advice. What would be the purpose of the police if everyone could defend themselves? I think that avise also encourages crime; by people being told NOT to fight back, attackers know that most will follow besides knowing they are disarmed.
I wasn't in the least bit lucky. Muggers want money, they don't want to go to prison for life. If he'd wanted to kill me, he would have killed me before he took my wallet, would he not?
Maybe, maybe not. He may decide its easier to kill you then risk you identifying him. Remember, he wants to avoid capture at all costs.
I don't think it really works like that. If I was a half-competent mugger, I wouldn't expect that I'd have to kill someone. When you factor in the desperation which is normally the motive for this kind of crime, I think it's very likely that many people who do not really want to kill anyone would still be capable of mugging. The fact that armed muggers generally hold their victims up rather than simply shooting them suggest that this is the case.
You're right; a mugger that doesn't want to kill would stop mugging if he likely WOULD have to kill to acomplish the robbery. This was my point of course...
Sure, but in a society where guns are illegal, you don't need the police to keep you safe most of the time. Contrast this with a society where everyone is armed, where you could be shot at any minute. I don't expect the police to keep me safe, which is one reason why I want dangerous weapons to be controlled.
This is of course false. As i stated before, making guns illegal does not take them out of the hands of criminals. Therefore you do need police most of the time to keep you safe. If you don't expect police to keep you safe, what exactly is their role in society?
OK, so if guns don't make it easier to kill people, WTF is the point in owning a gun? I said it's more difficult to kill someone if you don't have a gun. If you deny this, you are apparently denying that guns have any utility.
I meant difficult pyschologically. You had argued that mentally its more difficult to beat someone then shoot them. I disagree. Physically yes, guns make it easier. No longer to you have to be strong or even skilled..everyone can now defend themselves equally.
That's not really very good evidence. In any case, forcing people to arm themselves can surely be no better than forcing them not to, from you point of view?
Why isn't it? The drop in breakins coicidedes exactly with the law taking effect. Forcing them to arm themselves where most were not before provided an immediate benefit. There are other benefits as
Read the cases again, they certainly didn't ignore the first amendment. They discussed it in length.
And in the end chose to ignore it. I'm sure there is a long winded explaination as to why it didn't apply in their minds, but ultimately they allowed censorship. The fact is without the ability to fine, you WOULD hear 'objectionable' content on radios.
All of them do.
If thats true, I should be able to hear the Nerve from rochester NY here in VT. But I can't. So not all of them can.
How do you pick which competitors are allowed to use the frequencies in the first place, then?
You allow the FCC to license the use of the airwaves, most likely on a first come first serve basis. But the CONTENT of said broadcasts should not be the concern of the FCC.
As I said, it's usually too late to defend yourself once you've been attacked. Having a weapon would make it more likely to turn into a truly violent confrontation. As it is, I just lost some cash. No big deal.
As soon as you are attacked, its impossible to turn the situation? Whoever attacks first wins? You were lucky to only lose some cash, you could just as easily lost your life.
Laws don't have to be universally respected for them to have effect. If laws were universally respected we wouldn't need to enforce them, or indeed pass them in the first place.
Agreed, but those that still chose to break the law now have a much easier target..namely those that chose to respect the law. I'm also not sure simply having the law stops anything. Do you think most people would steal simply because its legal?
We were talking about civility, not free will.
Indeed, but you picked a group of people that are trained NOT to be civil under certain conditions. You made the claim that just because soldiers had guns they should be civil; I attempted to point out reasons (other then being armed or not) that they were not.
I agree that being armed is not inherently uncivil. I fail to see how it could make people more civil, and I can see many ways in which it could do the opposite.
By civil I'm assuming you mean we aren't just running up and stealing / injuring others. I believe that if everyone was armed those that currently are willing to mug / murder would not be so willing to do so, as they know they will very luckly not get away with it. Lawbreaks don't break laws ONLY if they think they can't get away with it. No one breaks a law knowing they will fail..
You were mugged because your mugger correctly believed he could mug you (being reasonably sure you were 'defenseless') and get out before those that actually could defend you arrived (because there's never a cop around when you actually need one). Thats the situation setup by removing your ability to defend yourself and giving it to another.
If no-one has guns, you don't need a gun to stop someone harming another person. Of course, there will always be some people (though not many people) who own guns illegally. That's just life, unfortunately -- I don't claim that a gunless society would be perfectly safe. However, it would be considerably safer than a society where everyone is armed.
Your assumption is false however. Police cannot possibly keep everyone safe. The current state of affairs is such that they probably will NOT be able to keep you safe.
Lets imagine a pack of wolves after a flock of chickens. Without protectors and not being able to defend themselves, they are at the mercy of wolves. Dogs can help guard them, but you need to keep them around the chickens at all times and must have enough to cover the whole flock. A single dog cannot guard 10,000 chickens.
The obvious answer is to add more dogs; however, humans, unlike dogs, will tend to abuse their power, thus leading your 'protectors' now being the very ones you need protection against. This is why the chickens would be better off learning to defend themselves.
Only by pummeling me to death with his fists. Very few people are capable of doing that to complete strangers without a motive. Pulling a trigger is a lot easier, both psychologically and physically.
Do you have any proof of that last statement? Would killing you with a knife be easier then using his fists, but still harder then using a gun? I think that if someone can kill, the method doesn't matter to them.
Great idea, I'd better kill everyone now in case they want to kill me. Look, he said "give me your wallet", or words to that effect. It was pretty damn obvious what he wanted. Sure, he could have killed me afterwards. He could have done that even more easily if I'd had a gun.
You're just being ridicious here. There's quite a difference between what you sug
I don't see the distinction. If I want others to leave me alone and I tell them to do so, then am I not compelling them to do as I want? In any case, guns can be used to implement many different forms of social control, not just the one you arbitrarily mention. In an environment where everyone has the ability to quickly and easily kill anyone else, there are a number of consequences. Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone). Others will use it for other purposes, some of them quite sinister. Whatever the details, it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that the imminent threat of death is a catalyst for civility. If it were, soldiors would be the most civil members of our society.
The problem as you seem to acknowledge is that not everyone will leave you alone as you wish. The fact that you were mugged proves this. Therefore you must have some way to back up your wishes, with force if necessary.
Walking around disarmed leads to the very problem you encountered. Anyone who is eitehr physically stronger, can suprise you, or simply disregards anti-gun laws can overpower you with force, and you have little recourse. If someone is willing to mug you, do you believe they care they are breaking the law? Do you think that they would respect the anti-gun laws either? Probably not.
Oh, and soldiers are NOT free willed people, they've been conditioned to do as told without question. that is something a free willed person would not be conditioned to do.
Now on the other hand, do you think that someone would run around shooting up their office knowing EVERYONE in said office was armed? Probably not, since its very likely the shooter would himself be shot quickly. Lets reverse the sitution you were in; would you attack a someone commiting a violent crime if he was armed and you were not?
Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone).
The only legitimate reason to NOT leave someone else alone is if they are doing harm to a 3rd party. Its likely that said harming party would not have begun to harm the 3rd party knowing there were others around that could use force easily to stop him (and the party he intends to harm may also be able to use that force).
True, but this trivializes the issue. Just about anything can be used for good things or bad things.
I agree, but you are universially saying that being armed is bad and never good.
I was mugged, and I'm glad I didn't have a gun. My attacker caught me by surprise so I had no time to defend myself, and if I'd had a gun he could have used it to threaten (or kill) me.
Um, wasn't the mugger already threatening your life? Could he not have killed you already if he wanted to?
Anyway, I could never bring myself to kill someone simply because they wanted my wallet, so I don't think a gun would be much use to me.
Did you know at the time when you were first attacked that all he wanted was your wallet? Are you certain that he might not have let you live even if you gave it to him? Could you bring yourself to kill someone to stop them from killing you?
It's usually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger because you won't know you're actually being mugged until its too late. (Of course, you could always walk around pointing your gun at everyone just in case they're about to mug you, but that's not very civil. Still, at least they'd leave you alone.)
This is true; part of defending yourself is being aware of your surrounding though. This is true if everyone is armed or not. I'm NOT blaming you, please don't think that. However, any reasonable person knows the possible of being mugged exists, and would take steps to prevent i
Travelling on a bus/coach/train/aircraft as a passenger is a lot different to driving the vehicle yourself.
Really, so are you saying you only have the right to travel when its completely under someone elses control?
In this country, I believe it is mandatory to resit your driving test every 3 years beyond a certain age. They must also pass a medical check.
If your country has a system whereby blind people are behind the wheel, then I will make sure I never go over there.
Its not. Old people are insulted by the very notion that something they've been doing all their lives they cannot do anymore. Since old people almost ALL vote, any such requirements to add retesting fail.
Furthermore, I have yet to know of any state that requires one to retest at all, unless ordered to do so by a court. To renew, you simply fill out the renewal form and send your payment. You either get your license, or a paper telling you to go in to update your photo. But you are not retested.
If you believe aforementioned 80 yr old w/diabetes and those thick glasses, but are not legally blind, can see well enough to drive then yes, you should stay away.