America kills John Lennon, and over a million other people since, with guns. If that's not tyranny, I don't know what is.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
America kills John Lennon, and over a million other people since, with guns. If that's not tyranny, I don't know what is.
No, "America" didn't kill John Lennon. Mark David Chapman did. If that's not an appeal to emotion and a propagandized distortion, I don't know what is.
P.S. You should consult a dictionary.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Guns are inanimate objects.
Yeah, and cars don't inspire people to drive them and guns don't inspire people to kill people.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
No, "America" didn't kill John Lennon. Mark David Chapman did. If that's not an appeal to emotion and a propagandized distortion, I don't know what is.
P.S. You should consult a dictionary.
Other countries have laws to prevent these murders. If you choose not to have those laws you are guilty of not preventing the deaths. It's that simple. Ever wondered how driving on city streets with no speed limits would effect road death numbers?
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Other countries have laws to prevent these murders. If you choose not to have those laws you are guilty of not preventing the deaths. It's that simple.
Wow. What an utterly fallacious statement. Your hatred for people's right to own firearms has so distorted your thinking that you are now simply resorting to attempting to brow-beat people into accepting your propositions and restrictions on their rights.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Wow. What an utterly fallacious statement. Your hatred for people's right to own firearms has so distorted your thinking that you are now simply resorting to attempting to brow-beat people into accepting your propositions and restrictions on their rights.
Er, no mj, that's hyperbole and you know it.
I believe people do have the right to own arms, but I believe that they should only be allowed to own them if they have passed tests, like in the UK, to show they aren't a threat to anyone with them, and that they're properly stored. I believe that semi-automatics should be banned, except in the cases of properly organised militias, who would have to be properly trained and vetted, at least to the level of the police.
If in the UK a government were to get in and reverse our current laws and then make the laws here the same junk laws as you have in the US, there would be a massive spike in violent gun crimes. Anyone who voted for those laws, would really be a murderer. They might like to argue otherwise, but be honest, they would. Same true in the US. Your massive violence problem is staring you in the face every day from all across society, and you allow it to continue.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Er, no mj, that's hyperbole and you know it.
Says the man accusing an entire nation of murder and imply guilt for murder because they won't take away people's guns.
I believe people do have the right to own arms, but I believe that they should only be allowed to own them if they have passed tests, like in the UK, to show they aren't a threat to anyone with them, and that they're properly stored.
So you don't want to entirely restrict people's rights, just a little bit. 
You want to mandate all manner of tests and prove "they aren't a threat to anyone" (guilty until proven innocent) and oversee their homes and cars and claim that people owning guns is a form of tyranny. 
I believe that semi-automatics should be banned, except in the cases of properly organised militias, who would have to be properly trained and vetted, at least to the level of the police.
So you don't want to entirely restrict people's rights, just a little bit. You want to mandate what types of firearms are owned and by whom. You want only those with power to have the more powerful firearms. And claim that people owning guns is a form of tyranny. Is it your turn today to demonstrate irony and hypocrisy?
P.S. I find it interesting that you've now jumped from America having killed John Lennon (a crime that was committed without a semi-automatic firearm) to semi-automatic firearms. You may want to retreat here until your get your whole position straightened out.
If in the UK a government were to get in and reverse our current laws and then make the laws here the same junk laws as you have in the US, there would be a massive spike in violent gun crimes.
We so appreciate your unsupported claims and predictions.
Anyone who voted for those laws, would really be a murderer. They might like to argue otherwise, but be honest, they would. Same true in the US. Your massive violence problem is staring you in the face every day from all across society, and you allow it to continue.
Says the man accusing me of hyperbole. I said again, your obvious hatred of people's right to own firearms is distorting your thinking and causing you to make fallacious claims.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Chicago has almost as many people murdered with guns in January 2013, as the UK did in all of 2012- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/chicago-homicide-rate-201_n_2569472.html
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
And Chicago has banned the ownership of firearms by private citizens and has restricted the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves and their property with ownership and use of firearms if necessary leaving only the police (ineffective) and criminals with firearms. How ironic is this?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Says the man accusing an entire nation of murder and imply guilt for murder because they won't take away people's guns.
So you don't want to entirely restrict people's rights, just a little bit. You want to mandate all manner of tests and prove "they aren't a threat to anyone" (guilty until proven innocent) and oversee their homes and cars and claim that people owning guns is a form of tyranny.
So you don't want to entirely restrict people's rights, just a little bit. You want to mandate what types of firearms are owned and by whom. You want only those with power to have the more powerful firearms. And claim that people owning guns is a form of tyranny. Is it your turn today to demonstrate irony and hypocrisy?
P.S. I find it interesting that you've now jumped from America having killed John Lennon (a crime that was committed without a semi-automatic firearm) to semi-automatic firearms. You may want to retreat here until your get your whole position straightened out.
We so appreciate your unsupported claims and predictions.
Says the man accusing me of hyperbole. I said again, your obvious hatred of people's right to own firearms is distorting your thinking and causing you to make fallacious claims.
I have other things I need to do, so I'll leave you with this. Lennon was killed by someone who would never be allowed to own a firearm in the UK, and yet people like you saw fit that he can legally purchase a gun, as he did back then. Like I say, if people with your views changed the laws in the UK to the one's you have in the US, and worse even, then I think, as I know a lot of other Brits would, that you would be indirectly responsible for murder. America killed John Lennon.
Wikipedia- "Chapman's legal team put forward an insanity defense based on expert testimony that he was in a delusional and possibly psychotic state at the time, but nearing the trial Chapman instructed his lawyer to plead guilty based on what he had decided was the will of God. Judge Edwards allowed the plea change without further psychiatric assessment, and sentenced Chapman to a prison term of 20 years to life with a stipulation that mental health treatment be provided."
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Lennon was killed by someone who would never be allowed to own a firearm in the UK,
I understand that. And I understand that you support restrictions on people's right to own firearms at least unless they have proven to be fit to own one per your standards. Despite your denial above. This statement here clarifies what you support.
...and yet people like you saw fit that he can legally purchase a gun, as he did back then. Like I say, if people with your views changed the laws in the UK to the one's you have in the US, and worse even, then I think, as I know a lot of other Brits would, that you would be indirectly responsible for murder. America killed John Lennon.
Here we go again with these fallacious implications. I suspect it is all you are left with now that you've realized you're proposing a form of tyranny and restriction of people's rights. You're likely subconsciously feeling guilty about this, so you're attempting to deflect by using appeals to emotion and alleged guilt to make your case. If there is anyone guilty in that crime (other than Mark David Chapman himself) it is his wife to whom he allegedly revealed an intention to kill John Lennon (even showing her the gun) and who failed to alert the police of this revelation.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
And Chicago has banned the ownership of firearms by private citizens and has restricted the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves and their property with ownership and use of firearms if necessary leaving only the police (ineffective) and criminals with firearms. How ironic is this?
Effective gun control is possible though. It takes a concerted effort. There's no doubt that blacks and hispanics are the worst gun offenders. In fact if male US blacks aged between 10-24 yrs old were a country in their own right, they would have the highest murder rate of any country in the world, except when genocide is taking place. You have to target the worst offenders first. Whatever happens it needs to be thorough, otherwise things will just tick on as they are now. Drug laws should be changed too. Sending people to prison just makes them less likely to get a real job.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
I understand that. And I understand that you support restrictions on people's right to own firearms at least unless they have proven to be fit to own one per your standards. Despite your denial above. This statement here clarifies what you support.
Here we go again with these fallacious implications. I suspect it is all you are left with now that you've realized you're proposing a form of tyranny and restriction of people's rights. You're likely subconsciously feeling guilty about this, so you're attempting to deflect by using appeals to emotion and alleged guilt to make your case. If there is anyone guilty in that crime (other than Mark David Chapman himself) it is his wife to whom he allegedly revealed an intention to kill John Lennon (even showing her the gun) and who failed to alert the police of this revelation.
So you're ok with nutters owning guns. Got it.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Effective gun control is possible though.
I'm sure it is.
It takes a concerted effort.
Of course.
There's no doubt that blacks and hispanics are the worst gun offenders. In fact if male US blacks aged between 10-24 yrs old were a country in their own right, they would have the highest murder rate of any country in the world, except when genocide is taking place.
I suspect the statistics would bear the truth of that. However, you'd likely be called a racist if you said that out loud as a journalist or politician in the US. The important question here is "Why?" I suspect most gun violence in the US is gang and drug-trade related. So the US, through it's laws, has created a new prohibition which has created new violence. Add to that the continual ratcheting up of the cost employing young people through various government laws and you have young people (disproportionately black and Hispanic and poor) with far fewer legitimate and gainful and legal employment prospects turning to gang activity and illegal drug-trade. Nice job America.
You're looking at symptoms. Start looking at deeper causes and things look more interesting. And it looks like the government is causing these problems, indirectly, through the unintended consequences of its other freedom restrictions. Again, how ironic is that?
You have to target the worst offenders first.
Yes. I know that's the philosophical basis of leftist income tax policy.
Drug laws should be changed too. Sending people to prison just makes them less likely to get a real job.
These things need to be done first.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So you're ok with nutters owning guns. Got it.
I see what you've done here.
You've taken an allegation of insanity, assumed it to be true, assumed it could be effectively and objectively detected in way that wouldn't be abused by the government so that people with some kind of mental illness could be prevented from legally owning potentially dangerous tools, and assumed that such people would be unable to obtain firearms in non-legals ways to accomplish their goals and then turned all of that around on me and claim that I'm "ok with nutters owning guns."
If I'm not mistaken, this is basically begging the question (multiple times) combined with a non sequitur in about 7 words. Very efficient.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Yeah, and cars don't inspire people to drive them and guns don't inspire people to kill people.
Does the car control you? Does the gun control you?
They are inanimate objects.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Does the car control you? Does the gun control you?
They are inanimate objects.
Of course these things don't control people. But let's take this suggestion that some object can inspire its use and run with it for a moment.
Can a car inspire its own use? Sure. In a way. If I was given an opportunity to drive something like a Ferrari or Porsche...that might be an inspiring car to drive. But this does not automatically translate into me driving it recklessly (or drunk) and endangering my life and the lives and property of others.
Can a computer inspire its own use? Sure. I love my MacBook Air. It is one of the most beautiful pieces of computer engineering I've ever used. I love to just use it! But this doesn't automatically translate into me becoming a hacker and vandalizing websites or breaking into computer systems to steel things.
Can a firearm inspire its own use? Possibly. Not for me personally, but I could imagine it. But this does not automatically translate into going out and killing people and going on a shooting spree.
Can a fine, well-crafted chef's knife inspire its own use? Sure. I'm told anyway. But this does not automatically translate into stabbing someone.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The hyperbole starts at the top:
Democrat Charlie Rangel claims "millions" of kids being "shot down by assault weapons"
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
The hyperbole starts at the top:
Democrat Charlie Rangel claims "millions" of kids being "shot down by assault weapons"
To add this to Hands' comments, we get: America is killing millions of kids and people you you and I are guilty of mass murder.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm sure it is.
Of course.
I suspect the statistics would bear the truth of that. However, you'd likely be called a racist if you said that out loud as a journalist or politician in the US. The important question here is "Why?" I suspect most gun violence in the US is gang and drug-trade related. So the US, through it's laws, has created a new prohibition which has created new violence. Add to that the continual ratcheting up of the cost employing young people through various government laws and you have young people (disproportionately black and Hispanic and poor) with far fewer legitimate and gainful and legal employment prospects turning to gang activity and illegal drug-trade. Nice job America.
You're looking at symptoms. Start looking at deeper causes and things look more interesting. And it looks like the government is causing these problems, indirectly, through the unintended consequences of its other freedom restrictions. Again, how ironic is that?
Yes. I know that's the philosophical basis of leftist income tax policy.
These things need to be done first.
I watched a documentary by Storyville recently called "The House I Live In". You might find it interesting, if you've not seen it already. It certainly shows how brutal government policy has been on blacks. Reagan though didn't help, and I believe you may well have voted for him. Did you?
American's own over 300 million guns, so they're not going away any time soon, unless a very clever metal detector can be used to scan wide areas. A sensible policy would be to do just that. Scan everywhere, take all the guns, and then only issue guns to those who properly apply and are successfully vetted to own a gun. The guns that were confiscated would only be given back to those who passed. Guns, like AR15's and other semi-autos would not be given back. The whole process would probably take about 6-12 months and the the legally owning gun owners of America would be safer than ever. A win win for all.
~ http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html
The above graph shows blacks 10-24 year olds homicide rate of 60.3 per 100,000. The following table shows the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 from around the world. The highest on the list are El Salvador and Jamacai with about 28 per 100,000. In the US about 75% of murders are committed by firearm, so the US black rate of firearm homicides would be about 47 per 100,000. That means US black males aged 10-24 years old murder rate is nearly twice as high as the worlds most dangerous countries.
Table of firearm murders per 100,000 worldwide- http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Pretty shocking for supposedly the greatest country in the world. Everyone in the media should be pointing it out. It's far from racist to do so. We need to see how bad things really are, to try and jolt people to take action to stop it. It's an American disgrace.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Does the car control you? Does the gun control you?
They are inanimate objects.
Tell that to the 574 women who were shot to death by their partner in 2010. Or the 7,451 who were treated in an emergency rooms for gunshot wounds. Women are 11 times more likely to die in a violent assault with a gun than they are by a non-firearm weapon. The fact is that these are weapons, and when people don't have them they rarely cause as much harm as when they do.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Tell that to the 574 women who were shot to death by their partner in 2010.
So the guns took control of these partners through some form of mind control and forced them to shoot the women?
Are guns sprouting legs, roaming the streets, and seeking out women to shoot?
The fact is these are inanimate objects and they, in and of themselves, do not kill or harm anyone.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Tell that to the 574 women who were shot to death by their partner in 2010. Or the 7,451 who were treated in an emergency rooms for gunshot wounds. Women are 11 times more likely to die in a violent assault with a gun than they are by a non-firearm weapon. The fact is that these are weapons, and when people don't have them they rarely cause as much harm as when they do.
Actually, I tell them that that you (and people like you) would prefer they were denied the tools to defend themselves from such terrible people.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I watched a documentary by Storyville recently called "The House I Live In". You might find it interesting, if you've not seen it already. It certainly shows how brutal government policy has been on blacks. Reagan though didn't help, and I believe you may well have voted for him. Did you?
I was too young.
American's own over 300 million guns, so they're not going away any time soon, unless a very clever metal detector can be used to scan wide areas. A sensible policy would be to do just that. Scan everywhere, take all the guns, and then only issue guns to those who properly apply and are successfully vetted to own a gun. The guns that were confiscated would only be given back to those who passed. Guns, like AR15's and other semi-autos would not be given back. The whole process would probably take about 6-12 months and the the legally owning gun owners of America would be safer than ever. A win win for all.
How...umm...tryannical of you. 
The above graph shows blacks 10-24 year olds homicide rate of 60.3 per 100,000. The following table shows the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 from around the world. The highest on the list are El Salvador and Jamacai with about 28 per 100,000. In the US about 75% of murders are committed by firearm, so the US black rate of firearm homicides would be about 47 per 100,000. That means US black males aged 10-24 years old murder rate is nearly twice as high as the worlds most dangerous countries.
Table of firearm murders per 100,000 worldwide- http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Pretty shocking for supposedly the greatest country in the world. Everyone in the media should be pointing it out. It's far from racist to do so. We need to see how bad things really are, to try and jolt people to take action to stop it. It's an American disgrace.
It is a disgrace. It is not racist to point these things out (though some will accuse you.) But why are blacks and Hispanics more likely to be involved with this violence? Hint: It's not the guns. That's just the instrument.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm still trying to understand how those who believe guns are so dangerous and people cannot be trusted with them can possibly think it's a good idea to limit their ownership and use ONLY to people who happen to work for the government.
What is it about working for the government that suddenly makes guns not dangerous and people trustworthy and competent with them?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
But you think it's tyrannical to deprive someone as insane as John Lennon's killer of a gun. If you can't see that he was too ill to be allowed a firearm then you're really a part of the problem when it comes to these endless spree killings in the US. Add in full availability of fully automatic AR15's, which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to restrict, and there's no ending the massacres.
Do you believe people who have committed crimes with guns should have full access to any weapons they wish when they're released from prison? Suppose that only illegal weapons were confiscated. Would that not be ok? Doesn't it make sense to make it harder for criminals to get guns?
It is a disgrace. It is not racist to point these things out (though some will accuse you.) But why are blacks and Hispanics more likely to be involved with this violence? Hint: It's not the guns. That's just the instrument.
Guns play a role. They come from a violent gun culture, that's clearly hard for them to resist. Cultures where weapons aren't used to solve disputes, don't turn to guns that often, even when they're available for them to do so. All these places across the US where there are these killings, won't change their ways overnight. Sensible gun laws can help reduce the rates, but gun violence is how these people operate, so whilst the numbers can come down, the times a long way off to where large criminal portions of those races see guns as culturally alien. But that's no reason to stop trying to prevent them obtaining them. In fact that's the only way they'll ever change.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
I'm still trying to understand how those who believe guns are so dangerous and people cannot be trusted with them can possibly think it's a good idea to limit their ownership and use ONLY to people who happen to work for the government.
What is it about working for the government that suddenly makes guns not dangerous and people trustworthy and competent with them?
When you look at the resources and modern weaponry our government has, it's hard to see how we could possibly fight against them. South African blacks defeated Apartheid, not with guns, but by general strikes. The same would happen in the US, the UK or anywhere else. Unless the army and police turn against the government, in this day and age, it's all about financial harm, not physical. No one wants to be rounded up or be unfairly treated by their government. Your argument that somehow you'll fend off such evil in a bloody civil war, is likely to either to be completely uneffective or lead to a bloodbath nobody could want. Just don't show up to work, block roads, cut power, you name it, civil disobedience, but an all out civil war shooting the police and military is pure madness, which would lead to vast numbers of innocent men, women and children being killed.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
But you think it's tyrannical to deprive someone as insane as John Lennon's killer of a gun.
Where did I say that?
If you can't see that he was too ill to be allowed a firearm then you're really a part of the problem when it comes to these endless spree killings in the US. Add in full availability of fully automatic AR15's, which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to restrict, and there's no ending the massacres.
You're begging the question again. If you insist on weaving your posts with fallacies, it's going to be difficult to get anywhere here.
Do you believe people who have committed crimes with guns should have full access to any weapons they wish when they're released from prison?
If they have served the time for their crime and completed their sentence, sure. They've paid the price.
Suppose that only illegal weapons were confiscated. Would that not be ok?
The problem here is how do you achieve that without being tyrannical and basically violating everyone's rights to be free from search?
Doesn't it make sense to make it harder for criminals to get guns?
Is this a trick question? Aren't you engaging in some kind of circular logic? Which criminals?
Guns play a role. They come from a violent gun culture, that's clearly hard for them to resist. Cultures where weapons aren't used to solve disputes, don't turn to guns that often, even when they're available for them to do so. All these places across the US where there are these killings, won't change their ways overnight. Sensible gun laws can help reduce the rates, but gun violence is how these people operate, so whilst the numbers can come down, the times a long way off to where large criminal portions of those races see guns as culturally alien. But that's no reason to stop trying to prevent them obtaining them. In fact that's the only way they'll ever change.
I think we should base our laws and policies on your unproven and unsupported claims, assumptions and predictions.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
When you look at the resources and modern weaponry our government has, it's hard to see how we could possibly fight against them.
Possibly. But this argument is irrelevant and unsupported. In fact, there have been many revolutions that people have fought against bigger, strongrt, better equipped governments and armies. In fact, if anything, history is almost completely against you on this claim.
South African blacks defeated Apartheid, not with guns, but by general strikes.
Is it possibly because they couldn't? Were they unarmed already so they used only what was available to them? Did it take longer this way?
The same would happen in the US, the UK or anywhere else.
Another unsupported assumption. The American revolution was fought against a (at the time) better armed and more sophisticated military super power.
Unless the army and police turn against the government, in this day and age, it's all about financial harm, not physical. No one wants to be rounded up or be unfairly treated by their government. Your argument that somehow you'll fend off such evil in a bloody civil war, is likely to either to be completely uneffective or lead to a bloodbath nobody could want.
Again with the unsupported assumptions.
Just don't show up to work, block roads, cut power, you name it, civil disobedience, but an all out civil war shooting the police and military is pure madness, which would lead to vast numbers of innocent men, women and children being killed.
It would be interesting to see how an unarmed revolutionary group engaging in the tactics you propose here would be dealt with by a heavily armed government.
The bottom line of all this is that a) people have a right to own fire arms, and b) you want to deny them this right. If you're going to do this you at least owe us some sensible and logical explanations about how your only going to prevent the bad people (however that is objectively defined) from having them without violating the other rights (privacy, secure from search and seizure) of everyone.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
When you look at the resources and modern weaponry our government has, it's hard to see how we could possibly fight against them. South African blacks defeated Apartheid, not with guns, but by general strikes. The same would happen in the US, the UK or anywhere else. Unless the army and police turn against the government, in this day and age, it's all about financial harm, not physical. No one wants to be rounded up or be unfairly treated by their government. Your argument that somehow you'll fend off such evil in a bloody civil war, is likely to either to be completely uneffective or lead to a bloodbath nobody could want. Just don't show up to work, block roads, cut power, you name it, civil disobedience, but an all out civil war shooting the police and military is pure madness, which would lead to vast numbers of innocent men, women and children being killed.
You didn't answer my question.
Why do you believe arms are dangerous in the hands of "ordinary" people, but not people who work for the government?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Another unsupported assumption. The American revolution was fought against a (at the time) better armed and more sophisticated military super power.
And it started when the British government attempted to seize stockpiles of weapons from the colonists. The aggressor was the government, not the people.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You didn't answer my question.
Why do you believe arms are dangerous in the hands of "ordinary" people, but not people who work for the government?
Clearly I do think guns can be dangerous in the hands of government
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Where did I say that?
You're begging the question again. If you insist on weaving your posts with fallacies, it's going to be difficult to get anywhere here.
If they have served the time for their crime and completed their sentence, sure. They've paid the price.
The problem here is how do you achieve that without being tyrannical and basically violating everyone's rights to be free from search?
Is this a trick question? Aren't you engaging in some kind of circular logic? Which criminals?
I think we should base our laws and policies on your unproven and unsupported claims, assumptions and predictions.
Most of the UK's gun crime is from Afro-Carribeans. They're a tiny percentage of the population, but they love guns. It's how they operate from where they're from, and that mindset is hard to change in them for some reason. The only way to stop them is to take their guns. They won't change otherwise. Do you really not recognise that these bad neighbourhoods in the US now have a culture that involves gun violence? They're not going to stop shooting each other for a long time to come. The difficult part is trying to respect peoples rights in reducing the violence. Personally I favour a Rudy Giuliani approach. More cops, less prisons. Go after all small offences strictly. It's better to try and stop the rot before it spreads, and that's exactly what that policy does. Also focus on hotspots. It's been proved now that the crime doesn't just go somewhere else, like had previously thought.
High crime areas do need to be searched for illegal weapons. Remember kids are being shot on the street. Huge numbers of people are being maimed for life. The communities aren't safe places. So if it means searching those areas thoroughly for where weapons are kept, it's pure madness not to. Common sense should dictate that. If it means tens of thousands of search warrants, to be within the constitution, so be it. It's amazing how Americans just want to sit back and take it whilst thousands die.
You said earlier you weren't sure whether Chapman was mentally ill. You also don't seem to think it's possible to pick out people who will commit violent crimes. To some degree you're right, no system can predict the future, but sensible analysis of the most likely is possible. Interviews with them and keeping a close eye on whether they're beating their wives etc, all can help determine that their current circumstances mean that their too big a threat to society to be allowed guns. Your idea that a criminal can shoot a mother and her children, serve his or her time and walk out of prison and buy a gun, is absurd. Yet again you're letting your idealistic beliefs threaten the lives of those about you.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Most of the UK's gun crime is from Afro-Carribeans. They're a tiny percentage of the population, but they love guns. It's how they operate from where they're from, and that mindset is hard to change in them for some reason. The only way to stop them is to take their guns. They won't change otherwise.
Holy crap. Now that sounds downright racist.
Do you really not recognise that these bad neighbourhoods in the US now have a culture that involves gun violence?
Of course I do. However you seem to attribute it to some cultural pre-disposition, specifically based on race or skin color. On the other hand, I suspect it is more circumstantial.
Personally I favour a Rudy Giuliani approach. More cops, less prisons. Go after all small offences strictly. It's better to try and stop the rot before it spreads, and that's exactly what that policy does. Also focus on hotspots. It's been proved now that the crime doesn't just go somewhere else, like had previously thought.
Giuliani, despite being a moron generally, probably did have a good approach here. It's based on the "broken windows" study/hypothesis and probably does have some merit.
High crime areas do need to be searched for illegal weapons. Remember kids are being shot on the street. Huge numbers of people are being maimed for life. The communities aren't safe places. So if it means searching those areas thoroughly for where weapons are kept, it's pure madness not to. Common sense should dictate that. If it means tens of thousands of search warrants, to be within the constitution, so be it. It's amazing how Americans just want to sit back and take it whilst thousands die.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Holy crap. Now that sounds downright racist.
Of course I do. However you seem to attribute it to some cultural pre-disposition, specifically based on race or skin color. On the other hand, I suspect it is more circumstantial.
Giuliani, despite being a moron generally, probably did have a good approach here. It's based on the "broken windows" study/hypothesis and probably does have some merit.
I'm not being racist here in the least. I've read about this problem in the UK and this is what the police are saying is why they are committing these gun crimes, when other criminals aren't. Note, I'm not saying it's because they are black, I'm saying that it is because the countries from which they come have made a particularly strong gun culture. You can be sure that the Afro-Carribeans here mostly don't even own guns, but the criminals often do. It's a way of life for them, and it's not getting any better.
I think there are many reasons why blacks and hispanics commit more violent crime per head than whites. I also think like you that the cause of that is circumstantial, not genetic, as you seem to think I am saying.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
Clearly I do think guns can be dangerous in the hands of government
Then why do you want to limit gun ownership and use to government?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Then why do you want to limit gun ownership and use to government?
I don't. I think people have a right to own guns, at least when someone else has them. In the UK I'm fine with our gun laws, actually more than fine having lived in and around Baltimore for ten years, I positively love them. I wouldn't expect Americans though to be fine with them. There are hardly any guns here and over 300 million in the US. It's understandable that American's would want to protect themselves. Banning some guns, makes sense. Banning some people from owning guns makes sense. Requiring background checks and approval so that people safely look after their guns makes sense. America still does very little, too little, and it pays day after day for it, whilst people demonise those who try and halt the carnage through sensible gun laws. It's all over the top. Did you see Alex Jones on Piers Morgan? That exchange exemplified what's wrong with so many American's, though maybe not quite at that same decibel level.
It should scare anyone that the government has guns, and the population are deprived of them. Like you and others rightly point out, history has shown that tyrants don't want those they go up against to be armed. The important questions are how well armed the population be. Someone like mj believes all weapons excluding weapons of mass destruction should be readily available with no background checks or registration of weapons. That's about as extreme as it gets. I suspect your views align pretty well with his on that. The problem is, that things are already bad. Take it to your level and things would be even worse. Granted you both believe things like wider employment through reduced government regulation, and a change in drug laws could lead to less crime, and I can see that being the case too in some ways. But you'll still live in a very violent society.
Fundamentally, the chances are that if you ever use your gun on the powers that be in the US, you'll end up dead or in prison. You'll end up harming those you wished to protect. The best cause is politics and if that fails civil disobedience. Sure, the state can kill some of it's workers, but it can't afford to kill too many. I doubt that you'll ever see it that way though. You'll probably always believe that your rights are more at risk with increased gun control. I think it's the exact opposite. Checkpoints in schools and neighbourhoods, curfews, fear and heavily armed and often brutal police, don't make me feel like I have more rights.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
