I don't think anybody has suggested that people without guns can't kill a lot of people. As already mentioned, Rwanda's genocide was mainly machetes, clubs, assorted blades and fire.

This guy killed a lot of people with a knife. I wonder how many more would have died had he been armed with kalashnikov.

Maybe none. Maybe more. Who is to say?

Look, getting murdered isn't exactly part of the English culture either. Nor is being obliged to submit to murder. Guns readily trump knives.

Some have raised the notion of an "arms race," implying destruction and impoverishment. However, this quite misunderstands the actual components of a bigtime arms race: these happen in national and military contexts, not in the civil and criminal. Sufficient firepower available to the good guys amounts to a violence suppressant. The bad guys, simply enough, can't rely on surviving any violence if the good guys are sufficiently equipped. Put another way, you can end a knife fight if you bring a gun.

And if everybody has a gun?

If everybody has a gun, people are very polite. In fact everyone doesn't need to have a gun. Just make it easy for regular people to conceal weapons. If criminals don't know who is or isn't armed they are less likely to attack. In 100% of the states where concealed carry permits were made legal, crime dropped dramatically (more than 10%). In the states with the strictest gun control laws, we see the most crime and the most gun violence. This is because the government has made people easier victims for those who would prey on us.

Criminals love gun control laws. Al Capone did, and so did Hitler.

Oh, bullshit.

Facts aren't bullshit just because you don't like 'em.

Facts aren't facts just because you spout them.

I'm not saying these are facts because I spouted them. I "spouted" them because they are facts.

As can be evidenced by their reluctance to shoot fellow, armed criminals ?

As can be evidenced by the sharp reduction in crimes in the states that have adopted concealed carry permits, especially when compared to states that have strict gun control laws like California, New York, or territories like Washington D.C.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue=007

This information is verified on the American government's BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms website.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

The FBI reports that the nation’s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and that it has risen slightly in the last two years. By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that “at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973,” when the first such survey was conducted.

The FBI’s data show that since 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high, and 2006, total violent crime has decreased 38%, murder 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%. During 2004-2006, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1974. For the last eight years, the murder rate (fluctuating between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965. Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797

As anyone with one hour's time on a shooting range knows, that's the very definition of a polite society. It's because normal persons, engaged in disposing lethal force -- let's face it, guns, swords, and stone axes do that -- desire not to alarm or upset anyone while they're doing it. If you want to see good manners universally on display, hang out on a firing line for a while and people-watch.

Shawnee, your opinion is disproven by the universal experience of each and every state in the Union that has liberalized concealed carry of weapons, from 1987 to today. With the exceptions of the large urban areas, particularly NYC, DC, Detroit, and L.A., the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 persons compares with England's. (The big urbs do skew things.) We guns-and-freedom people know this; you do not. Even worse, what you are doing is harboring progenocide views. Don't do that; it's not just immoral, it's fucking gross, see?

Time for you to do some homework and become enlightened. You know -- kind of like me. I mean, I get it -- and where were you?

Uh... dead criminals are:

A. a Good Thing
B. a Bad Thing

Check one. No trying to fudge about wild shots and innocent bystanders hit; that really amounts to incontrovertible evidence of the badness of criminals overall, does it not?

Really, DanaC. That you posted such a posting indicates you do not really know. Now do you have the remotest clue why I think the Left is the habitation of the stupid?

I'm so mad I could shoot you in the face. But, but, but...luckily my reasoning takes over and I realize you might shoot me in the face back.

Puh, just penis substitutes for you big mocko men. You bore me silly. You and your "statistics."

Speaking of gross, looked in your mirror lately?

:lol2:

Oh, now there's a telling rebuttal.

You've proven yourself immature, ignorant, pro-crime, pissy, and still pro-genocide even after confronting an example of how to be better than that, and firmly in the camp of the stupid. All these sins are aggravated by antigun opinions, which you'd rather hold than be right.

Get ahold of yourself.

You told me! I'm so ashamed, now that I see the errors in my ways. If I had known, all those years ago, that there existed enlightened people such as you I never would have honed my opinion through my experience. I would have waited for you to provide this desperately needed illumination. I'm sure there is a special hell for non-violent trouble-making pacifists such as me. Lucky for the surely right masses, is it not?

Nanny nanny boo boo.

:)

When they can't deal in facts, reason, or logic, they use insults. How typical and childish.

"They" do, don't they? Shameful!

Well, to begin the enlightenment process with, pacifism isn't a philosophy that will sustain you in all circumstances, whereas my nonpacifism is. I'm using "my" only for convenience; I don't presume to own it, just to profess it.

My philosophy of Life And How To Do It doesn't make me die if I am lethally attacked. If a pacifist is lethally attacked, either the pacifist or the pacifism must die on the spot. It is not so with my nonpacifist, albeit plenty peaceable, martial-arts-influenced sort of lifeway. Remember what happened to Spexxvet when he tangled with Radar and me and Bruce over guns -- his pacifism disintegrated and he got stared down by about everyone in the Cellar. He's been quite silent on anti-rights anti-gun attitudes ever since. I guess a mind blown really is a mind shown. I do hope he's taking karate classes or something. They helped me be a good man, so surely they might do something for him.

You did right to be ashamed of that which is shameful. [Yes, your sarcasm is lost on me, for I pursue worthier things, and I think you should too. ;) ] Now do better.

First on the guns-and-freedom reading list, oh, let's take for convenience this genocides chart from the JPFO and the page around it; and this article is really key to a full understanding of why some people are so very unenlightened about, well, people who don't want to get murdered and believe the best way is to rely upon one's own powers. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are a fascinating bunch; I've been very impressed with them.

I know, I know; some people would think that's a sign they wouldn't ever read any of their writings ever -- but they do themselves a horrible Oedipus-style blinding if they take that attitude. How well do you see the light if you're blind?

It will sustain you in the circumstances that matter to you. My pacifism will sustain me in circumstances which are important to me.

I thank you for your well thought post, seriously. I guess I get upset because of the basic argument that "we" are wrong and hopelessly doomed, whereas I might think you are wrong but I don't see you burning in the eternal hell of misunderstanding of all that is right and true, either. I also believe in your right to carry your damn guns, whether I like it or not. Conversely, I can believe that there is something inherently wrong with guns, and be disheartened that most others don't see it that way.

I won't wow you guys with article after article protesting too mucheth; I don't have the brains ;) or the patience to do so. Yes, I respond emotionally; that is who I am. It is neither right nor wrong. My opinions come from somewhere, where is not important nor relevant...but I'm not exactly an uneducated "all butterflies and lollipops" thinking individual. I feel that having my opinions, such as they are, should not automatically lump me into you and Radar's "Camp For the Criminally Stupid." And my apprehensions about guns in our society hardly make me a criminal who hopes everyone dies at the hands of evil.

So, we'll just agree to disagree, no? :)

Or C. irrelevant to the point I was making.

My point is, that the criminals with guns do not seem to be put off from shooting other criminals because the other criminals have guns, so why would law-abiding people carrying weapons put them off?


As for the rest of the post which you directed my way: you, sir, are arrogant and pompous.

Not irrelevant. It's a choice between being an easy victim or being able to defend yourself.

Criminals do seem put off from shooting other criminals unless they have a way to outnumber them or otherwise have an unfair advantage. This is why they are criminals. Criminals don't want a fair fight. They know they can't outnumber regular citizens and they can't plan properly how to victimize someone if they don't know whether or not they have a gun.

When a criminal steals a car, he doesn't try to think of how he can get past the best security system, he looks for the car that doesn't have one. He looks for the houses that are easiest to break into. He looks for the person who looks like an easy target. This is why in states that have carry permits, crime (especially murder) has dropped dramatically.



I'm sure you feel that way about a lot of people who happen to be correct when you are not. To be fair, it's easy to feel confident when you know you're right and the other person is wrong; especially when dealing with someone who is as consistently wrong as you. I'm not defending UG though. UG is wrong far more than me, and maybe as much as you on political matters, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Not in the least. My assertion that UG is arrogant and pompous has nothing to do with whether he is correct or not. Nor has it anything to do with the fact that he disagrees with me. There are plenty of people in this forum with whom I disagree vehemently, and regardless which of us is 'right' or 'wrong' I would not accuse them of arrogance or pomposity. It is UG's manner which is arrogant and pompous.

I see. Well that's that then. I have been deemed consistently wrong by the arbiter of all that's right.

I'm just saying, in most discussions we've had you seem to side with those who want to blow up Jews because they live on land that wasn't stolen, but which their ancestors happened to live on. You seem to be anti-gun. And if I remember correctly, weren't you supporting socialism?

In my personal opinion, you're on the wrong side of all these issues. I'm sure there is something we must agree on. I just don't know if we've broached that subject yet.

The fact that you believe me to be on the wrong side of those issues does not make me stupid or beneath contempt; this is the subtext (if indeed something can be so explicitly stated and still remain a subtext...) of Urbane Guerilla's post.

That you 'know' you are right and hold that notion with such vehement conviction is a little worrying. Yes, you are right, I am a socialist. I hold my political convictions close to my heart. I am not lacking in intellect and that intellect has led me to the stance I take. In my more selfish, and arrogant moments I fancy that I know I am right. I recognise, however, that mine is but one opinion amongst many.

You are right and all who take a contrary view are wrong, possibly stupid, and certainly misguided. My friend, grow a little humility.

Things are not that simple. Come on. Give us a break. You are making a bunch of assumptions about gun owners.

Well, DanaC, you're reduced to complaining at my tone. That tells me you are completely out of persuasive arguments for your point of view contrasted with mine. Capitalism wins out over socialism again, Right trumps Left. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn summed it up: "Right is right." He left his reader to draw the conclusion about the Left.

This is usually the outcome when someone tangles with me on this field. I am not lacking in intellect myself -- and like you, my intellect leads me to the stances I take, and shows me what's wrong with the others. I'm able to articulate what's wrong, too. Frankly, very few of my opponents get that far. You can read what they wrote, and they just can't do it. As the observation has it, recorded in various forms from the late nineteenth century through Clemenceau and Churchill: "If you aren't a socialist [earlier: liberal] at twenty you have no heart; if you're still a socialist [earlier: aren't a conservative] at forty you have no brain." By this standard, I've always been blessed with a brain. This is why my opposition ends up in a corner.

Ok Ug. You win. You are without doubt the most impressive intellectual and I cannot even begin to touch your arguments. Capitalism wins over socialism again and I am in awe. I will of course be sure not to tangle with you on this field again.

Incidentally, it is less your tone I was complaining about than your manner....or should that be manners? I was raised to believe that civility costs nothing.


[eta] btw, at what point did this become a debate between capitalism and socialism? we were I believe talking about guns?

Oh lord, there's that poor "us" (a refreshing pause from "we" and "they").

Did you read my last post in this thread? Yeah? Then shut up. Cock. :p

Not before I posted this reply. So you shut up. Pussy.:)

Wow! Cock and pussy all in one thread - this may have to get a NSFW designation.

lol

Fine, dinglebutt. :blush:

I disagree. I've found you lacking in the intellect department on a few occasions, and I have yet to see your intellect or debating skills back anyone into a corner. While we can agree that socialism is always a failure and pure capitalism is always a success, this to me is merely stating the obvious.

As far as "right is right" goes, I also disagree with that. I don't think any polarized position is tenable. This is why libertarians are accused of being leftist by those on the right and of being right-wingers by those on the left. I support freedom in all cases. I support the non-initiation of force in all cases, which isn't to say I am against the use of force...just not initiating it. It's ok to use force against those who are using force to infringe upon your property, person, or rights.

This is why your foreign policy views are so backwards. You support the initiation of force to enforce your own personal view of what freedom means. You support misusing our military for actions that are not in our own defense. You support going around the world bullying people into submission and making enemies, and keeping us in a perpetual state of unnecessary war.

But but...I thought you guys liked each other in this thread. :confused:

I don't think we like each other in any thread, though we occasionally agree on an issue or two. I'm sure even you and I agree on a few. I tend to have points of disagreement or agreement with people at different times, though it seems more of the prior than the latter.

I do think there was one thing I agreed with you about; can't for the life of me think of what it was. :)

Albania
Albania
You border on the Adriatic
Your land is mostly mountainous
And your chief export is chrome.

Albania: the place that sucks so hard even Capitalism didn't work. What you say, I thought Capitalism was perfect. We have to revise that: *nearly* perfect.

50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property. These are not the signals of success you were expecting. These are extreme market failures. Capitalism almost always works... although sometimes it doesn't. But that's the human condition in a nutshell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Albania a former Eastern block nation? My guess is any kind of attempt they made at capitalism, wasn't really capitalism. They probably didn't even understand what capitalism really means. Pyramid schemes aren't capitalism and nor is any system that requires government force to exist. My guess is they had some form of highly regulated system with capitalist leanings that didn't work because it was stifled.

Capitalism is the free and voluntary exchange of goods or services on a value for value basis. Any third party involvement on the part of the government in these exchanges disqualifies this from being capitalism.

Here's a real-life question: since America has, for the past decade or so, meandered down a path of deregulation, and since Radar argues that deregulation is inherently good (I could be wrong, please feel free to correct me), why is that the United States is economically falling behind those countries who have more socialist-type governments, specifically the European Union?

Regardless of which side of that argument you want to be on ten years is far too short to measure the true economic effect of policies. There is a considerable lag between cause and effect.

I would agree with that. Historically speaking the time lapse between changes in real wages and corresponding societal changes (such as the effect on age at first marriage etc) is about 30 years.

That may be true, but I would expect that the lag between deregulation and the resumption of activities that instigated regulation in the first place is not very long at all.

America has not been deregulating. It has been re-regulating. De-regulation means not regulated by the government. Some people stupidly claim that we had rolling blackouts in California or suggest the Enron scandal happened due to deregulation in the power industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If we had truly de-regulated the power industry consumers could choose who they bought their power from in the same way they choose who they buy their long distance from. I'll admit the phone companies are still regulated, but not to the degree they were before Bell split up.

If consumers could pick who they purchased power from, we'd never have a single blackout, and our service would greatly improve. When you compare laser eye surgery to the rest of medicine in America you see a stark contrast. Due to a high amount of regulation in the insurance and medical industries, the prices are higher and the quality of service sucks.

Compare that to laser eye surgery which is voluntary so it has almost no government regulations associated with it. Over the years laser eye surgery has gotten better and better and cheaper and cheaper.

The same is true of the computer business. It's largely unregulated.

True de-regulation is great. It means better products and services, and better prices, with more features, more competition in the marketplace, and more innovation. It's the reason a long distance phone call has greater quality with lower prices than we had 30 years ago. The same is true of computers. The same is true of laser eye surgery.

If power companies were truly de-regulated, ANYONE could get into the power business, and consumers could choose who they bought their service from. Also, it would mean hemp was legal because it's the only currently available source of power that could make us 100% self-sufficient without the need of a single drop of foreign oil.

I think what he's saying is competition without government intervention is a good thing. Can't say I disagree.

I'm saving this quote. For when Dana next explains that Communism as practised in the 20th century is not soemthing she would advocate. It's usually decreied as a twisty excuse, so I'm pleased to see there are examples at the other end of the spectrum.

BTW I still remember that Cheers episode.
I bet this weekend if I start singing "Albania, Albania" my brother will join in...
I honestly thought that was just a family thing!

"My mental model of X is that it's perfect! Therefore, if it's not working, the only possible conclusion is that it is NOT X."

This appears to be a basic logic error that appears in all humans.

By all means save it, but it does nothing to bolster that argument. Communism started off with all of the altruistic intents of Marx but eventually it led to totalitarianism because it must. It always does because it violates human nature.

All I'm saying is merely calling something "capitalism" doesn't make it so. Capitalism didn't fail in Albania. Albania failed to implement real capitalism.

This has nothing to do with my "mental model" of capitalism. It has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist and everything else does and because capitalism is purely voluntary. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect....just closer to perfection than any other economic system ever devised.

Radar says, "You must adhere to my doctrine! You must see things my way! I am correct! You are wrong! Hear me now!" :rolleyes:

Which doesn't stop him from being right about capitalism. It's based on mutually beneficial transaction.

As in any system, somebody can try cheating -- fraudulent transactions. The cheater might even manage to get away with it for quite some time if he hides cleverly and well. The more rigid the system, the better gaming it seems to pay off, if Communist Party apparatchiks are any example.

If it's not perfect it must not be X.

50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property.

Mutually beneficial transaction. Very good, I read Friedman too. But in the case of a pyramid scheme, who mutually benefits?

Which is why a pyramid scheme is outside the pale of proper capitalistic practice, just like any swindle.

The very problem with a pyramid scheme: everybody in it believes it's chock-full of mutually beneficial transactions.

Enough people with a broken belief can break a market economy.

So one answer is that we outlaw pyramid schemes... but that fails Radar's test 4 posts up: "it has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist" -- well no, Capitalism requires a system of policing, and courts, and legislation, to determine what is swindle and protect against it.

To this formerly hard-ass libertarian, this realization was a sharp slap in the face.

It also requires good government for its framework of capitalist infrastructure: establishing currency, putting in place a system of deeds of ownership, etc.

A market economy requiring government. Whoda thunk it.

Yeah, some of us libertarians acknowledge a place for what I call society's coercive functions -- intended overall to keep a society in good order, and in considerable measure independent of a society's intensity, or amount, of governance.

The coercive functions may often be distinguished by this point: that nobody's found a way to make money or wealth from them, yet they are agreed upon as necessities in support of making money and wealth.

Well stated and well summerized.

Well, summarized anyway. The other way it's like heavier-grade oil in the crankcase and a new air filter...

Woo Hoo! They finally came out with the decision. The Supreme Court finally did something right!

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Guess he's finding out whether he was right or wrong.

Crazy that it was 5-4, but a good decision just the same.
:us: