263 replies to this topic

[sUper GeNius]

I'm unconvinced that just about any amount of "reasonable regulation" is either necessary or a good thing.

I think a training requirement would make sense. Many states have one now, but Pennsylvania does not. Here's the problem. The anti-gunners, and I mean the true anti-gunners, the ones who want guns eliminated from society, they see regulation as a stepping stone in the right direction. They recognize to inch along is better than to not move along at all. It reminds me of this new healthcare initiative in the stimulus bill. Your physician will need to contact the Feds to get information as to the cost effectiveness of the treatments being considered. Those promoting this scheme state that that will be it, just a 'suggestion' from the Fed. Of course, once this sytem is in place, they'll inch along until the day the Fed says, Nope, you ain't getting that procedure.

Same with a HR45. This anti-gun bill calls for the Attorney General to get a record of every gun owner in he US, along with a copy of his medical records. When you buy a gun, you would actually sign a HIPPA form releasing your records to the Attorney General! There's a nice stepping stone.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 22 February 2009 - 05:12 AM.

[johnf]

.fonclea.25-Jan 2009
I an deeply conviced the average citizen does not have the ability to see how and when using a gun. Exept for professionals i don't now why i should have the need of a gun.
It's like asking to the average citizen to be dentise, doctor or Pilote. Dangerous and ridiculous.

Two, weeks ago, again a crazy story had been reported in news of a man who use his gun to intimidate another man because his child was making to much noise.

That's called felony menacing. Criminal behavior, BTW.
I like to illustrate concealed carry permits:
A few million given to civilians in the US. (Unproven to be a causor of the following reductions in crime in those areas)
Something under 10% of them ever revoked. In some states you lose it for failure to pay child support or taxes, or incorrect information on a household building permit.
Of the revocations, maybe 3% for any kind of serious crime, and of those, maybe 1.5% for any crime involving a gun.

US Department of Justice figures that say that civilians who use guns in defense are ~11% as likely as police to use them wrongly or cause undue harm.
A phenomenon called "contagious shooting" among police: one cop thinks he sees something threatening and opens fire, so all the cops in the vicinity shoot in the same general direction. Numerous high-visibililty cases; A minivan was stopped for traffic violations, and one cop saw someone getting something out of hiding, so a shooting frenzy ensues. The guys in the minivan are unarmed and not wanted or anything, but the cops fired 105 rounds.
The Bell shooting in NYC: 50+ shots fired, one cop fired 31 times, which meant he emptied one high capacity magazine, reloaded, and emptied another.
The Diallo shooting also in NYC - 41 shots fired at an unarmed man who didn't understand that they guys chasing and shouting at him were plain-clothes cops.
A recent case in Denver of a no-knock drug raid based on anonymous tips: the wrong house, and a guy in his bed was shot several times because in the dark he had someting in his hand: a can of cola.
If a citizen shoots at a dark and menacing figure in their home, and fire more than twice or so, and if any hit the invader from behind, then prosecutors will ruin that person's livelyhood defending themselves in court. Cops get a few days paid administrative leave while the incident is under investigation, and no permanent black mars on their records.


One article I have which states that if preserving human life was the imperative of human rights advocates around the world, then they'd argue for an AK-47 in each household across the world. Maybe they couldn't stop genocide, but for each family rounded up, a few secret police wouldn't make it back. More than 50 times the number of civilians have died at the hands of their own governments in various pogroms in the 20thC than by civilian hands as crimes etc. (article .pdf)
People say that small arms wouldn't mean anything against the might of the modern US army: how about a couple hundred million of them -and they're not actually primarily for use against troops in or out of their tanks and fighter jets (and all of their support network). They're for the politicians who'd order those tanks and fighter jets against their own citizens. They're for newspaper editors and judges who speak only in favor of the government and the concentration camps.


News for you: every cop (every pilot etc) was once untrained. A cop carries primarily to defend themselves (and the police are not required by law to come to anyone's aid, even if they can). A civilian or permit holder goes to lengths and personal cost and carries because of personal choice.
What makes someone with a government job a steel-nerved saint with impeccable judgement?

A large majority of people in this world are too stupid, uneducated, insane and impatient to have a gun.

I hear this a lot (sadly).
If you really feel that way about all your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers, then get help and get a new set of acquaintances.
And people say that gun owners cling to their metal phalluses to hide from their fear of the world...

We who speak in favor of civilian arms are saying that we trust people around us, and aren't bothered that they might want to own arms. We assume that people who aren't felons or insane are decent people, who won't go off their nuts and run on a killing spree because they couldn't get their favorite parking space...

[sUper GeNius]

If a citizen shoots at a dark and menacing figure in their home, and fire more than twice or so, and if any hit the invader from behind, then prosecutors will ruin that person's livelyhood defending themselves in court. Cops get a few days paid administrative leave while the incident is under investigation, and no permanent black mars on their records.

It's worse than that. Even if you're found not-guilty by the criminal court, you can still be sued in civil court and lose. And even if you're found not at fault, you can lose a bunch of money defending yourself. I got news for you. If this were to happen in a large city like Phila, you'd better be VERY careful about jury selection.

The NRA has liability insurance available for purchase. I highly recommend it.

[sUper GeNius]

Looks like the SCOTUS has stopped another end-around attempt by teh anti-gunners. An email from the NRA:

NYC Lawsuit Against America's Firearms
Manufacturers Denied By U.S. Supreme Court

Fairfax, Va. - On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court denied consideration of New York City and Washington, D.C. lawsuits, New York v. Beretta and Lawson v. Beretta, respectively, that tried to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals. The Court 's order leaves standing a pair of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and District of Columbia Court of Appeals, both of which found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prevents these types of lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers and dealers.

"Big city mayors conceived these lawsuits to try and litigate American gun manufacturers - who President Roosevelt referred to as "the arsenal of democracy" - out of business," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "NRA has always believed the courts would agree with Congress that the PLCAA rightfully stops these reckless and politically motivated lawsuits."

In 2000, New York City, Washington, D.C. and several individual plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers, based on the idea that although they manufactured a legal product, forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy. In addition to being based on a bogus legal theory, these lawsuits endangered American armed forces and law enforcement. During congressional debate over the PLCAA, the Department of Defense agreed with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms is a threat to America's domestic and international security.

"We are pleased that the courts have recognized the misguided intent of these lawsuits," concluded Cox. " America's law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits that have no legal merit.

[sUper GeNius]

Geez, now I can't defend myself in Yosemite from the dope fiends. Time to double-up on my usual NRA donation.

http://www.washingto...d=moreheadlines

http://www.google.co...jKv5TgD972ILR80

[imarobot]

It's true that guns (by themselves) don't kill people. People (mainly with guns) kill people. Whether it is wise to have a lot of guns around
depends on the society. When I stayed in Switzerland I learned every man had an automatic rifle at home. They have military training 3
weeks a year. That's a very disciplined society with relatively low income gap (GINI=33) and so the murder rate is low.
We are not as disciplined in the US and the income gap is much larger (GINI=45). Murder rate in the US is very high. Those are the things
that should be taken into account.
I don't know if having a gun for defense works as a deterrent. I don't go to the shooting range very often. It aggravates my tinnitus. On the
other hand, criminals do train, it's part of their profession.

The idea behind this is important. Guns are dangerous when society is unbalanced. Do we outlaw guns? Or do we balance society so that fewer criminals are created? There's a way in there to make both the left and right happy and work together: the right wants guns, the left wants social equality; the right can have guns as long as the left can remove the imbalance.

To invoke the 2nd amendment to justify individual gun ownership is complete bullcrap.
If most people are in favor of gun ownership, so be it. It should be decided on it's own merits.

I agree with the bullcrap comment in principle, but it makes me uncomfortable. There were valid, pressing reasons why the Constitution and its first set of Amendments were created. Those issues still exist. People today seem to have largely forgotten what happened -- not just why the American Revolution occured, but how governments treated the people, why the legal system evolved, why social movements gained members and momentum.

Today, our liberties leak away through a thousand small cuts rather than rushing out in few big wounds. Compared to the past, the issues today (in the United States) are more complex and subtle, the impact not always obvious, but the outcome is ultimately the same. For that reason, the Constitution and its Amendments should serve as reminders of what the core values should be. Don't dismiss the document because it's old. No matter how intelligent and selfless the people, the core values we should demand of our government will always be relevant.

So be extremely cautious when the government (or anyone) wants to take something away from you, whether that's your gun, your camera, your voice, or your supplements. Those aren't objects they're taking away from you. Those are freedoms.

Edited by imarobot, 25 March 2009 - 05:23 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Today, our liberties leak away through a thousand small cuts rather than rushing out in few big wounds. Compared to the past, the issues today (in the United States) are more complex and subtle, the impact not always obvious, but the outcome is ultimately the same. For that reason, the Constitution and its Amendments should serve as reminders of what the core values should be. Don't dismiss the document because it's old. No matter how intelligent and selfless the people, the core values we should demand of our government will always be relevant.

So be extremely cautious when the government (or anyone) wants to take something away from you, whether that's your gun, your camera, your voice, or your supplements. Those aren't objects they're taking away from you. Those are freedoms.

Bingo! Sums up my entire political position. You ought to add that *any* government involvement in our lives sets the stage for even more. Ceding power to our government is sometimes necessary, but we ought to be very cautious, as the flow is usually in one direction.

[tunt01]

Today, our liberties leak away through a thousand small cuts rather than rushing out in few big wounds. Compared to the past, the issues today (in the United States) are more complex and subtle, the impact not always obvious, but the outcome is ultimately the same. For that reason, the Constitution and its Amendments should serve as reminders of what the core values should be. Don't dismiss the document because it's old. No matter how intelligent and selfless the people, the core values we should demand of our government will always be relevant.

So be extremely cautious when the government (or anyone) wants to take something away from you, whether that's your gun, your camera, your voice, or your supplements. Those aren't objects they're taking away from you. Those are freedoms.

Bingo! Sums up my entire political position. You ought to add that *any* government involvement in our lives sets the stage for even more. Ceding power to our government is sometimes necessary, but we ought to be very cautious, as the flow is usually in one direction.

that's fairly conspiracy theorist in nature. i bet you guys enjoy watching the x-files.

the second amendment was a very important statue written hundreds of years ago at a time and place of necessity. today it is an archaic throwback and often used excuse for hobbyists or delusional people who think they need guns to protect themselves and their rights. a gun owner isn't hurting anyone, it is about personal freedom and personal rights?

i assume we could say the same thing about cocaine users. similar to prohibition of alcohol in the 20's, these self indulgences or hobbies should be personal rights and all cocaine users, traffickers are being unfairly prosecuted and having their innate freedoms infringed upon by a gov't gone rampant in regulating what someone can and cannot do. who is a cocaine user hurting? why not just let them do it and regulate it? it seems pretty innocuous.

the problem in that logic is that it puts the freedoms of one over the welfare of the entire nation. the statistics are pretty cut and dry, the US has a higher homicide rate by guns than most other industrialized nations. a lot of our health care costs and the average living rate of an American vs. other industrialized countries gets effected by the violence and death rate due from guns.

i'm not saying that a stun gun or mace is the perfect answer to defending a person's home, but i think there are a lot of advances afoot that make the practicalities of guns in the US pretty moot. we are getting to a point where the trade-offs are just too minor and the justification for legalized guns is just absurd.

you may think you are protecting your home and your individual rights as a gun owner, but you are also paying for the failures of the rest of society in the form of higher taxes for the law enforcement costs, the medical care costs (hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy due to ER overburdened) and other areas just to cover that individual right. at the end of the day, it financially drains society as a whole.

[tunt01]

An attorney who works in suburban Philadelphia, a very nice neighborhood, was shot and killed in broad daylight in front of his office last week. Too bad he wasn't armed.

What I don't get is this innate them or us mentality. Why is the answer to the problem more guns? If the bad guys have guns, we need guns. We should all have guns to defend ourselves and kill the bad people who also have guns. Why allow guns then in the first place? (stupid answer: cuz it's my right and it's in the constitution).

It's like saying the answer to the cold war is more nuclear weapons. They got nukes, so we need more nukes, they'll put nukes in cuba, so we need to put nukes in western europe (NATO), etc. Then all you have are situations like Vietnam where no one really wins and it becomes this stupid stalemate where people are just dying and nothing is gained on a net basis.

At what point do the criminals/bad guys stop carrying guns and committing acts of violence because they realize all the good guys have guns too? I'm still waiting for that day...

[sUper GeNius]

An attorney who works in suburban Philadelphia, a very nice neighborhood, was shot and killed in broad daylight in front of his office last week. Too bad he wasn't armed.

What I don't get is this innate them or us mentality. Why is the answer to the problem more guns? If the bad guys have guns, we need guns. We should all have guns to defend ourselves and kill the bad people who also have guns. Why allow guns then in the first place? (stupid answer: cuz it's my right and it's in the constitution).

It's like saying the answer to the cold war is more nuclear weapons. They got nukes, so we need more nukes, they'll put nukes in cuba, so we need to put nukes in western europe (NATO), etc. Then all you have are situations like Vietnam where no one really wins and it becomes this stupid stalemate where people are just dying and nothing is gained on a net basis.

At what point do the criminals/bad guys stop carrying guns and committing acts of violence because they realize all the good guys have guns too? I'm still waiting for that day...

Bad analogy to the nukes. A country that has no ability to defend itself usually finds itself a "territory" of another country.


Until the heart of man changes, I'll retain the ability to defend myself. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament.

[rwac]

i assume we could say the same thing about cocaine users. similar to prohibition of alcohol in the 20's, these self indulgences or hobbies should be personal rights and all cocaine users, traffickers are being unfairly prosecuted and having their innate freedoms infringed upon by a gov't gone rampant in regulating what someone can and cannot do. who is a cocaine user hurting? why not just let them do it and regulate it? it seems pretty innocuous.

I totally agree with you. Cocaine, Heroin, Amphetamines should all be legal, along with firearms.
People can be perfectly well adjusted and functioning members of society while using any of those.

The danger of drugs comes from
a) lack of quality control causes overdoses and poisoning
b) the illegality of it causes it to become expensive, so junkies have to steal.

Of course, FM will probably disagree with me here ...

[tunt01]

Bad analogy to the nukes. A country that has no ability to defend itself usually finds itself a "territory" of another country.


Until the heart of man changes, I'll retain the ability to defend myself. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament.

I don't expect to change your viewpoint. But I think your counter argument is pretty lacking.

- In the industrialized world today, war is waged more on an economic basis rather than a physical basis. Trained guerrilla warfare involves combatants who wear slick suits and call themselves bankers or economists. The US's largest competitor in the world today is China. Nukes won't win the fight for resources, competitive wages, and a better quality of life -- economic and financial success will. The US won its last fight against USSR and communism. That fight was won through economics, neither guns or nukes really turned the tide.


But the latter comment is really where your logic is lacking, imo:

- "Changing the heart of man," is a real cop out and poor excuse. Man does not change. People fight, throw punches, get drunk and violence erupts. It happens in communities across america, it happens in soccer stands of europe, it happens all over planet earth. If you honestly think that 1) removing weapons/tools for violence is a worse idea than 2) waiting for mankind's natural preponderance for violence to wane than you are sorely disavowed of common sense.

- "I don't believe in unilateral disarmament," is really a statement of fantasy. The process of removing guns from a country would be akin to treating any gun like an illegal drug. The country could impose minimum sentencing guidelines and very harsh felony penalties. It would be a lengthy process in removing weapons from society, but the net positive 5+ years out would be well worth it, imo.


Again, I don't expect your viewpoint to be swayed by any of my comments or any others in this thread. People who own guns ten to be very ideological, kind of like the anti-abortion maniacs. In my opinion, the economics and logic don't support the argument in favor of the 2nd amendment in today's society. But I would really expected a lot more logic and facts than this.

In an economic downturn, crime always surges higher. We've had a very large over-extended run in positive economic growth in the US during the last 20 years. We are now going to enter a 10-20 year period of economic strain, muddling along and probably a lower standard of living. I would expect a continued uptick in violence and probably a lot of it will involve guns. Even without Barack Obama as president, the pressure for reform will likely mount over time.

I honestly think within 5-10 years the gun lobby will begin to realize that their days are numbered and not only will assault weapons be gone, but they will have to begin to realize that it would be far better to still be able to maintain the existence of weapons like Rifles (very hard to conceal) on the store shelves of Wal-mart and give up the fight for handguns, which will eventually be curtailed over time due to popular sentiment.

Edited by prophets, 28 March 2009 - 06:38 PM.

[tunt01]

I totally agree with you. Cocaine, Heroin, Amphetamines should all be legal, along with firearms.
People can be perfectly well adjusted and functioning members of society while using any of those.

The danger of drugs comes from
a) lack of quality control causes overdoses and poisoning
b) the illegality of it causes it to become expensive, so junkies have to steal.

Of course, FM will probably disagree with me here ...

It's simply not logical or possible because it's the job of the federal government to create rules that benefit society at large. If you honestly think there is nothing wrong w/ Cocaine on the streets, then where do you draw the line?

why not let any pharmaceutical company make and sell any drug without FDA approval? Just start prescribing random molecules to people at will, it's personal freedom. if someone takes the drug and gets cancer or dies from a heart attack due to the molecule, it's a consequence of their personal decision.

why have any laws regarding the safety of vehicles? who needs airbags, seat belts, DUI laws or speed limits? just let people drive 200 mph, get smashed and they will suffer the consequences of their own personal mistakes.

why have any laws about mutual funds, financial fraud, or regulations in the financial markets about insider trading? just let people make their own investment decisions and if they get suckered, that's a consequence of their own mistakes.


we can go on and on...

im not a very big fan of government regulation, i'm fairly pro business and not exactly a big fan of barack obama. but it is delusional to think that legalization of drugs, guns and other tools of self-destructive behavior is a good way handle these issues.

in other cases like prostitution, i could agree with you that it should be legalized. but that is another subject.

Edited by prophets, 28 March 2009 - 06:44 PM.

[rwac]

It's simply not logical or possible because it's the job of the federal government to create rules that benefit society at large. If you honestly think there is nothing wrong w/ Cocaine on the streets, then where do you draw the line?

Benefit society at large without causing too much damage to society.
Even with drug prohibition, there are people who use cocaine.
People who don't use drugs will not start using them just because they become legal.

Do you think having an underground economy with gangs is really preferable to giving cocaine the same status as cigarettes ?

The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, because of the drug war.

Believe it or not, There were no legal restrictions on the importation or use of opium in the United States until 1875.
Was everyone a druggie before that ? No.

Besides, why would there be cocaine on the streets ?
Cocaine would be sold in nice cocaine stores with a choice of flavors.

why not let any pharmaceutical company make and sell any drug without FDA approval? Just start prescribing random molecules to people at will, it's personal freedom. if someone takes the drug and gets cancer or dies from a heart attack due to the molecule, it's a consequence of their personal decision.

It's the prescription that needs FDA approval, which is reasonable.

There are lots of random molecules being sold as supplements.
Lots of people use them, and you don't see people dying left and right.

The dangerous ones get weeded out, and their manufacturers sued.

why have any laws regarding the safety of vehicles? who needs airbags, seat belts, DUI laws or speed limits? just let people drive 200 mph, get smashed and they will suffer the consequences of their own personal mistakes.

These laws, are probably not strictly libertarian, but you don't see a significant fraction of the population in prison because of them.
You are affecting other people by driving on the road.

And yes, the speed limits are too low.

why have any laws about mutual funds, financial fraud, or regulations in the financial markets about insider trading? just let people make their own investment decisions and if they get suckered, that's a consequence of their own mistakes.

People still get suckered.
There's something to be said for keeping your eyes open while investing.

Right now, people feel free to put their money in a failing bank offering 5%, because it's FDIC insured.
This isn't normally a problem, except in situations like the current when there's a serious chance
of the FDIC running out of money.

Believe it or not, there's such a thing as too much regulation, and that's where we are right now.

we can go on and on...

im not a very big fan of government regulation, i'm fairly pro business and not exactly a big fan of barack obama. but it is delusional to think that legalization of drugs, guns and other tools of self-destructive behavior is a good way handle these issues.

in other cases like prostitution, i could agree with you that it should be legalized. but that is another subject.

If Obama legalizes Marijuana, that will likely be the only good thing in his presidential term.

Edited by rwac, 28 March 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[rwac]

I honestly think within 5-10 years the gun lobby will begin to realize that their days are numbered and not only will assault weapons be gone, but they will have to begin to realize that it would be far better to still be able to maintain the existence of weapons like Rifles (very hard to conceal) on the store shelves of Wal-mart and give up the fight for handguns, which will eventually be curtailed over time due to popular sentiment.

You're mistaken.
Living in Chicago & NY does not give you any idea of popular sentiment.

The trend has been very much in the other direction.

Edited by rwac, 28 March 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[tunt01]

Benefit society at large without causing too much damage to society.
Even with drug prohibition, there are people who use cocaine.
People who don't use drugs will not start using them just because they become legal.

Do you think having an underground economy with gangs is really preferable to giving cocaine the same status as cigarettes ?

The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, because of the drug war.

If the world's reserve currency was not the US Dollar, and this wasn't the biggest market for the product, I doubt that would be the case.

Believe it or not, There were no legal restrictions on the importation or use of opium in the United States until 1875.
Was everyone a druggie before that ? No.

Besides, why would there be cocaine on the streets ?
Cocaine would be sold in nice cocaine stores with a choice of flavors.

Times change. The benefits outweigh the costs, imo. I'm also heavily in favor of strict control of unhealthy foods likes sugary soda drinks, mcdonalds crappy meals (fast food in general), so you can tack that onto your freedom agenda while I keep it high on my own pro-regulation list.

The benefits to society at large in explaining and limiting the damage done to our country's people, imo still greatly outweigh the costs.

It's the prescription that needs FDA approval, which is reasonable.

There are lots of random molecules being sold as supplements.
Lots of people use them, and you don't see people dying left and right.

The dangerous ones get weeded out, and their manufacturers sued.

That's a pretty unrealistic assessment. What is the right level prescription for arsenic or barium chloride? Should we just let today's illegal/controlled substances flow like water from the river delta?
A lot of people cannot afford to sue these manufacturers because 1) it's expensive to mount a lawsuit 2) the company will just declare bankruptcy and there will be no assets to cover the claims/harm done, and 3) many other countries have regulation of supplements and it's not entirely a bad thing to control quality and healthfulness of the product.

Suggesting that the American public at large ought to be one giant guinea pig experiment before any actual tests are done on any molecule/chemical is pretty ridiculous.

These laws, are probably not strictly libertarian, but you don't see a significant fraction of the population in prison because of them.
You are affecting other people by driving on the road.

And yes, the speed limits are too low.

There are indirect consequences for legalizing drugs and other illicit behaviors, that while not direct do have negative consequences on society at large.

I could go even a step toward the boundaries of what most would consider insane by saying, all cars should be illegal because they pollute the environment and indirectly harm the health of the country's citizens. The speed limit should be 0 -- 0 emissions.

People still get suckered.
There's something to be said for keeping your eyes open while investing.

Right now, people feel free to put their money in a failing bank offering 5%, because it's FDIC insured.
This isn't normally a problem, except in situations like the current when there's a serious chance
of the FDIC running out of money.

Believe it or not, there's such a thing as too much regulation, and that's where we are right now.

There is 0 chance of the FDIC running out of money because they are backed by the printing presses of the US Government.

I'm not suggesting that people ought to earn a guaranteed return on their money. But it's clearly the role of the government to make sure the financial system, the drugs/health care system, the rules of the road, the framework of the basis of how our country operates is maintained in a lawful and fair way.

Accepting a trade off in slightly lower speed limits so that society at large doesn't kill themselves, even though you think you are Dale Earnhardt Jr. and can handle 90+ mph is a very small trade-off. Regulation is designed with a common purpose in mind and for the beneficial outcome of everyone. I also have no problem driving 90+ mph (and have actually done so on several occasions while driving cross country). But the reality is that I'm glad that the incompetent who cannot handle 90 mph are forbidden from doing so, because it keeps them from killing me when they are held in check by such rules.

And that's the basis of a rational society. It's not about giving you a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys. It's about taking guns away from everyone to keep the stupid/criminal/insane from even having a chance from hurting someone in the first place.

[rwac]

If the world's reserve currency was not the US Dollar, and this wasn't the biggest market for the product, I doubt that would be the case.

But it is.
Are you suggesting that America should become poor, just so we can't afford drugs ?

Times change. The benefits outweigh the costs, imo. I'm also heavily in favor of strict control of unhealthy foods likes sugary soda drinks, mcdonalds crappy meals (fast food in general), so you can tack that onto your freedom agenda while I keep it high on my own pro-regulation list.

The benefits to society at large in explaining and limiting the damage done to our country's people, imo still greatly outweigh the costs.

They will come after your favorite food, and mine next.
Don't you know, red meat is bad for health.

That's a pretty unrealistic assessment. What is the right level prescription for arsenic or barium chloride? Should we just let today's illegal/controlled substances flow like water from the river delta?
A lot of people cannot afford to sue these manufacturers because 1) it's expensive to mount a lawsuit 2) the company will just declare bankruptcy and there will be no assets to cover the claims/harm done, and 3) many other countries have regulation of supplements and it's not entirely a bad thing to control quality and healthfulness of the product.

Suggesting that the American public at large ought to be one giant guinea pig experiment before any actual tests are done on any molecule/chemical is pretty ridiculous.

Hmmm ?

I said you'd need to do testing for something to be prescribed.

Have you heard of paying a lawyer on contingency ?
You only pay the lawyer if you win the case, otherwise, nothing.

Besides there is such a thing as reputation.
There's always an incentive to have quality control, because not all companies are fly by night.

There are indirect consequences for legalizing drugs and other illicit behaviors, that while not direct do have negative consequences on society at large.

I could go even a step toward the boundaries of what most would consider insane by saying, all cars should be illegal because they pollute the environment and indirectly harm the health of the country's citizens. The speed limit should be 0 -- 0 emissions.

All the consequences are mainly due to the illegality of the drugs.
Legalizing them would make most of them go away.

I have no doubt there are people who would make such an argument.

I'm not suggesting that people ought to earn a guaranteed return on their money. But it's clearly the role of the government to make sure the financial system, the drugs/health care system, the rules of the road, the framework of the basis of how our country operates is maintained in a lawful and fair way.

We're discussing whether these laws should exist, not whether they should be implemented fairly.

Accepting a trade off in slightly lower speed limits so that society at large doesn't kill themselves, even though you think you are Dale Earnhardt Jr. and can handle 90+ mph is a very small trade-off. Regulation is designed with a common purpose in mind and for the beneficial outcome of everyone. I also have no problem driving 90+ mph (and have actually done so on several occasions while driving cross country). But the reality is that I'm glad that the incompetent who cannot handle 90 mph are forbidden from doing so, because it keeps them from killing me when they are held in check by such rules.

I see. Suddenly the rules don't apply to you, only everyone else.

And that's the basis of a rational society. It's not about giving you a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys. It's about taking guns away from everyone to keep the stupid/criminal/insane from even having a chance from hurting someone in the first place.

Gun control will not stop the criminal/insane. They will get their guns anyway, or knives or baseball bats or ... ?

The difference is that the gun is the only thing that puts the 60 yr old grandma on reasonably equal footing with the bad guys.

im not a very big fan of government regulation

From what I can see, you seem to be a fan of government regulation in all it's forms.
Is there any regulation you would oppose ?

[sUper GeNius]

I honestly think within 5-10 years the gun lobby will begin to realize that their days are numbered and not only will assault weapons be gone, but they will have to begin to realize that it would be far better to still be able to maintain the existence of weapons like Rifles (very hard to conceal) on the store shelves of Wal-mart and give up the fight for handguns, which will eventually be curtailed over time due to popular sentiment.

You're mistaken.
Living in Chicago & NY does not give you any idea of popular sentiment.

The trend has been very much in the other direction.

Concealed permits holders have vastly increased and many more municipalities allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. But then again, these are just facts, which don't seem to matter to a/the troll. That's the last post of his I'll get suckered into.

[tunt01]

You're mistaken.
Living in Chicago & NY does not give you any idea of popular sentiment.

The trend has been very much in the other direction.

- I've lived in many parts of the country including Arkansas and Louisiana for more than five years, including some very poor neighborhoods where one of my neighbors was murdered. None of this has changed my views.

- I didn't claim otherwise re: registration trends. I'm simply putting up my opinion of what the next 10-15 years of a higher crime rate and level of gun violence in the future due to lower economic standards will engender upon the popularity of guns in this country.

Concealed permits holders have vastly increased and many more municipalities allowing law-abiding citizens to carry. But then again, these are just facts, which don't seem to matter to a/the troll. That's the last post of his I'll get suckered into.

The past does not necessarily correlate to the future. Home prices went up for 20+ yrs... people assumed they would go up forever with no consequence to the downside. Then suddenly things changed.

I'm merely putting out my opinion, that public sentiment will likely change in the next 5-10 years. It's entirely a guess on my part, and I've no illusion otherwise.

Edited by prophets, 28 March 2009 - 09:30 PM.

[tunt01]

Are you suggesting that America should become poor, just so we can't afford drugs ?

I'm suggesting correlation is not causation. You are extrapolating facts from minor correlated events.

They will come after your favorite food, and mine next.
Don't you know, red meat is bad for health.

I don't eat red meat, so I could care less. I view food in the purist sense. It's fuel to be productive and power my exercise/office work. I'm not going to sit on my ass in a restaurant for 2 hours. I'd rather eat for 45 mins and then be in a dance club for the remainder.

Have you heard of paying a lawyer on contingency ?
You only pay the lawyer if you win the case, otherwise, nothing.

Besides there is such a thing as reputation.
There's always an incentive to have quality control, because not all companies are fly by night.

Lawyers go after people with deep pockets. Any company that can sell poisons on the internet and then fold tomorrow is a danger to society at large. There is no recourse for the fooled customers.

All the consequences are mainly due to the illegality of the drugs.
Legalizing them would make most of them go away.

I have no doubt there are people who would make such an argument.

I don't think it's good for the welfare of a society to have drugs in the mix. It just ends up screwing up people's lives, lowers productivity and wealth within the country. You can legalize it and relieve the system of the burden of law enforcement costs, over crowded jails, but then you have a new set of problems that are likely larger in cost with overburdened drug rehab programs, broken lives, and a whole new set of gov't programs to deal with people who get hooked on drugs before the age 18 and need to be protected by the state/federal system.

It's a trade-off that I'm not willing to make. If you are, that's your choice. Maybe you'll teach your kids/family not to take drugs. But I've no confidence in the average US parent doing well on that front and having to pay the tax bill to clean up the mess is not where I'd want to go with my $.

I see. Suddenly the rules don't apply to you, only everyone else.

they do apply to me. i'm ready to eat the ticket if i have to. I got clocked going (i think it was about) 93 in New York once and paid my ~$200 ticket.

Gun control will not stop the criminal/insane. They will get their guns anyway, or knives or baseball bats or ... ?

I don't think so, not if they are made outright illegal everywhere. I think over time it will be pretty hard to get guns into the country. Manufacturing would have to move down to Mexico. Importation would be pretty difficult, if handled properly at the ports.

The data in other countries doesn't seem to indicate that knives and baseball bats would produce the same murder rate as guns do.

The difference is that the gun is the only thing that puts the 60 yr old grandma on reasonably equal footing with the bad guys.

Mace? Alarms? Stun Guns? Other options are on the horizon.

You can't stop a criminal from committing an act of violence against someone. I think we both can agree on that. But you can take tools away from them, and that's where we disagree. Maybe the criminal will break into the 60 yr old grandma's house and shoot her with a stun gun instead of a real gun. If she dies from a heart attack, or the guy ties her up and throws her in the nearest river, she's still going to die. Anyone can kill anyone. But taking guns out of the equation seems like a net positive for society at large to me.

From what I can see, you seem to be a fan of government regulation in all it's forms.
Is there any regulation you would oppose ?

I'm against the union check card law proposed in congress today, if that's any consolation to you.

I'm against the 90% tax law on the AIG / TARP bonuses.

I'm against centralized, government control of the US Health care system in the form of a single payer entity. But I'm in favor of a national health care system, where a minimum very basic/standard level of care is available to all people.

I'm against higher corporate taxes, but in favor of higher individual taxes.

I'm against Title IV educational loans which are a bonanza for University of Phoenix, Capella, Strayer, Devry, ITT and exploitation of the taxpayer/student who takes out the loans.

I'm against a lot of the individual provisions of the $787 B stimulus plan and think the democrats have way over-reached and taken advantage of their position in government.

Edited by prophets, 28 March 2009 - 09:48 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

the purpose of the second amendment is not self defense. Its for the violent overthrow of the government.

If the government thinks its time to take everyone's guns away a significant portion of the pro-gunners might think this means it's time to over throw the government.

Our military and police force is mostly composed of pro-gunners.

If I were you prophets I'd worry slightly more about pissing off a bunch of heavily armed people who otherwise mind their own business.

[tunt01]

the purpose of the second amendment is not self defense. Its for the violent overthrow of the government.

If the government thinks its time to take everyone's guns away a significant portion of the pro-gunners might think this means it's time to over throw the government.

Our military and police force is mostly composed of pro-gunners.

If I were you prophets I'd worry slightly more about pissing off a bunch of heavily armed people who otherwise mind their own business.

heh. I paused for a moment, before I decided to insert myself into this discussion. I didn't think anyone would actually have their minds changed by my blathering.

Nonetheless, I thought I had to put my arguments out there, because I think they are more widely held than a lot of the pro-gunners realize.



I work for an investment fund and I get paid to analyze markets, companies, and what is going to happen in the next 5+ years. I spent 3 years making bets against the real estate market and it took a lot of grit and analysis to make it work. If I had to make a bet today, I would still say that in 10-15 years we will begin to see the issue swing back against the pro-gunners and in favor of much stricter legislation.

thx for your post tho...

[eternaltraveler]

If I were you prophets I'd worry slightly more about pissing off a bunch of heavily armed people who otherwise mind their own business.

heh. I paused for a moment, before I decided to insert myself into this discussion. I didn't think anyone would actually have their minds changed by my blathering.

Nonetheless, I thought I had to put my arguments out there, because I think they are more widely held than a lot of the pro-gunners realize.

I think your views are very widely held. I also think those slightly in the direction of the extreme end of the pro gunners side don't care. I by no means intended to suggest I would ever be part of such revolutionary nonsense. It would be doomed to failure and I can always just leave for greener pastures (that after all is what the US was founded on). But even a relative few can cause a lot of damage. Wide sweeping legislation like you suggest would not be good for our society. But that isn't in the cards either. Creeping erosion is, and has a much lower probability of violence. The first step is federal registration of firearms. Many states have no registration including my state of residence. Without it there is no knowing who to go seize guns from.

I would still say that in 10-15 years we will begin to see the issue swing back against the pro-gunners and in favor of much stricter legislation.

Of course. We will also start to be seeing a large increase in socialism in that timeframe as automation continues to replace more of the workforce

I spent 3 years making bets against the real estate market

same here. The current situation has been obvious for a decade.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 29 March 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[tunt01]

america's version of european socialism might not be too bad.

we definitely won't get sweeping reforms, but imo: all hail gradualism!

[TianZi]

"It is a fact that in geographical areas where guns are restricted and outlawed only outlaws have guns. It is a fact that these communities have higher crime rates, higher homicide rates, and are less safe- on many different levels of abstraction. This has nothing to do with beliefs or feelings. If you want to verify the basic facts, just Google it."

On the face of it, this is a prima facie false statement: every community in every developed nation has a police force, and in many of those communities, the police carry guns while other citizens are prohibited from doing so. Unless all police are criminals, it cannot be true that in all "geographical areas where guns are restricted and outlawed only outlaws have guns."

It is also a false statement that all communities that outlaw guns have a higher homicide rate.

This may or may not be true in the United States, which is likely the only concern of the author of the post quoted above. It is demonstrably false as regards nations other than the United States that have banned private citizens from owning guns / handguns. Japanese law forbids ownership of handguns, and makes ownership even of hunting rifles a burden. The per capita homicide rate is eight to ten times times lower than in the US.

This is also almost invariably true across Western Europe in those nations with restrictive gun ownership laws, other "developed" countries in East Asia, and the neighbor to the north of the US, Canada. We can see the relevant statistics here:

http://www.unodc.org...es-05012009.pdf

I'm unaware of any "developed" / "First World" nation that has banned handgun ownership having a per capita intentional homicide rate higher than that of the US, although there may be exceptions to the obvious general trend.

So the statistics demonstrate something other than what said poster would like to believe. But this doesn't mean that in a given case, an individual might not die but for the possession of a gun allowing him/her to survive an otherwise lethal encounter. Also, it is certainly not the case that banning gun ownership necessarily ensures that a given community outside the US will have a lower per capita intentional homicide rate than the US. As we can see from the examples of Switzerland and Norway, other societal factors are at least equally important.

Edited by TianZi, 02 April 2009 - 08:26 AM.

[imarobot]

that's fairly conspiracy theorist in nature. i bet you guys enjoy watching the x-files.

It's a little disappointing that you'd start with a personal attack. I know you pulled your punch, but still. I've read a lot of your posts. You're definitely smarter than that.

the second amendment was a very important statue written hundreds of years ago at a time and place of necessity. today it is an archaic throwback and often used excuse for hobbyists or delusional people who think they need guns to protect themselves and their rights. a gun owner isn't hurting anyone, it is about personal freedom and personal rights?

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I think it's unfortunate that the gun rights are in there. But they are. Will removing this right cause the other rights to disappear? Not necessarily. But removing this right, at the very least, encourages people (and the government) to think that the rights can at any time be taken back. The erosion that eternaltraveler mentions is happening. I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Over time, a little erosion leads to some serious gaps. I'm afraid of speeding that erosion along.

So if removing the gun rights creates an unwanted precendent, but guns are too dangerous to have around, what do we do? Is that a stalemate? This is when there's an advantage to being neither left nor right. Inawe hinted at a solution: the problem isn't guns so much as it's criminals using guns. Obvious, right? So why aren't we tackling the crime problem?

What if we can lower the number of criminals with a net positive financial cost? Crime is expensive: for the victims of crime, enforcing laws, prison, non-contributors to society. There are a thousand things we should be trying to reduce crime. More enforcement is not a financially smart or socially progressive solution. We make progress on lowering the number of criminals (and lowering the number of repeat criminals) and many other problems fade -- including the problem of our rights leaching away. Everyone would win.

Guns aren't the best protection from criminals. Neither are the police. The best protection from criminals is turning criminals and potential criminals into good citizens.

Edited by imarobot, 02 April 2009 - 04:40 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Guns aren't the best protection from criminals. Neither are the police. The best protection from criminals is turning criminals and potential criminals into good citizens.

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 02 April 2009 - 05:59 PM.

[tunt01]

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

this.

and economic warfare > conventional warfare.

[imarobot]

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

this.

and economic warfare > conventional warfare.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems we're mostly in agreement. The focus should be on the ecomonic issues that encourage criminal behavior and gun use. Fewer economic issues means less desperation. Less desperation means a drop in crime and criminal gun use. A drop in crime and criminal gun use means less fear. Less fear means our rights are not as likely to be eroded.

Edited by imarobot, 02 April 2009 - 08:13 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

this.

and economic warfare > conventional warfare.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems we're mostly in agreement. The focus should be on the ecomonic issues that encourage criminal behavior and gun use. Fewer economic issues means less desperation. Less desperation means a drop in crime and criminal gun use. A drop in crime and criminal gun use means less fear. Less fear means our rights are not as likely to be eroded.

yes, you can start by ending prohibition and decriminalizing all substances. Most crime is driven by black markets generated by the government.