|
I gave up on the LP. That sounds really nice, live and let live. But follow that out and look at the results. If you are a Libertarian, you believe that I should be forced to tolerate what you think is right. For example, I believe the platform still calls for abolition of all arms and ammunition control. That initiates force against me, because it forces me to tolerate what I know to represent a grave danger. So all the rhetoric about being the party of liberty, choice, rights, is nonsense. Where is my right to be protected by the government when people are walking around with Kalashnikovs? Am I free then? I'm sick of the simplistic (and people of all political stripes do this-liberals when they talk about abortion, conservatives when they talk about guns, and so on. I don't take sides any more, because all parties are guilty of this.) 'freedom good, choice good, rights good!' It trivializes complex, important issues.
Eh...every party has its issues, as you said. I think there is a huge gulf between realistic desires and the platform of any party. Like all parties, the LP has a range of beliefs no matter what the actual platform might say. Taking certain stances to their logical ends only results in tears and gnashing of teeth. At least for someone. Which is why compromise is such a wonderful thing. And something this country has long since forgotten.
As a generally fiscal conservative/social liberal, I have some clear ideas on what I want out of the LP. My social liberal nature nearly always wins out over my fiscal conservatism. But I truly wish that didn't need to be the case. It doesn't mean I don't vote for the main parties. I certainly do. That mostly has to do with 1) availability of LP candidates on the ballot and 2) how far a particular LP candidate goes with certain subjects. One of those subjects happens to be gun control and implications of future weapon development.
I am not a member of the party as much as I am a sympathizer to their cause. But I do call myself a Libertarian, though I think I prefer the phrase Classic Liberal. It just appears that few people really know what that means so I use the more recognizable term. That is, if I find it necessary to label myself at all. That is usually for the purposes of expediency. As with all labels, it also comes with the burden of assumption as well. Which I am fully able to discuss as it comes up.
Honestly, it seems easy to lump the third tier parties under certain headlines. Which is exactly what I do occasionally to get a point across. Naturally, it is more complex than that and I know very few Libertarians that would vote exclusively an LP ticket. They vote for different parties depending on how the candidates present themselves. It is interesting, as the Democrats and Republicans seem to have more freedom in how they can present their platforms. Which is a strong advantage for them.
If the Republican party wasn't so interested in legislating morality at this time, I would most certainly vote Republican more often. When I do, I look for candidates who stand apart from that aspect of the party. I am generally fine with a party that holds a standard of morality, that isn't the issue. Some of their morals simply don't line up with mine and I appreciate and recognize that. I am not willing to gain one benefit at the loss of another. Of course, some of these recent Republicans haven't been very fiscally conservative right now either. So the choice is a bit easier.
On the subject of gun laws, I think having complete and total freedom is a bit of a stretch. But the Libertarians say they have a plan to help mitigate the harm that could be done in this situation. Which is likely not going to be effective in the least. Which is why I support some level of gun control. I am pretty confident the Founding Fathers would have been a little less free with their words on weapons if they knew what kinds of weapons would be developed in the future.
Of course, the other side of coin is that gun control rarely prevents the criminals from getting exactly what they want. So if we can come up with a reliable way to prevent the true criminals from getting a hold of these kinds of weapons without unduly hindering the honest citizens from owning a firearm, then I think it would be a miracle.
The assumption the LP holds is that most social issues should not impact you in any way. Our freedoms only extend to the lives of others. If my freedoms harm or otherwise unduly impact an individual, then there is an issue. Which is why the gun stance is a bit odd, since there is a real concern that some people would use those weapons to harm others. I imagine that has something to do with the idea of mutually assured destruction. A person seeking to do harm would be more wary because the person they intend to harm might be armed as well. I don't think I really ascribe to that notion, however.
Gun control is one of those thorny subjects I actually hate discussing because 1) it is so polarized and 2) it can never be resolved by the people currently playing the political games. As such, I find it a bit of a mire that is hard to navigate by either side.
Ultimately the party simply states that social and civil liberties are something the government stays out of unless those rights invoke harm or limit rights. If that appears as "force" to you then it is just that. That is a perfectly valid opinion of the stance. I just don't see it that way. But I certainly respect that thought and, to some extent, really sympathize with it.
That does seem trivial, but it is a good starting point for the more complex nature of these issues. The platforms presented to the public really aren't there to help with the act of governing (well, they are, but stay with me here). They are there to provide voters with hot little keywords or phrases they can use to explain their stance. It is summation of desire and rarely the reality put in action. Everything changes when it comes into contact with opposing view points of view it morphs under the great god of compromise. As I said, I just think some politicians have forgotten that idea. Giving and taking is not in our modern lexicon.
I get from what you are saying you have given up on all parties. Personally I see no value in finding an exclusive political home. I imagine you are thinking roughly the same, but I am not sure. For my part, the LP lines up more closely to my beliefs. But it doesn't completely represent my views. But it is closer than the primary parties by a long stretch. All though, as I said, I tend to compromise towards my social liberal side than my fiscal conservative side, which leads to interesting issues.
Excuse me for the ramble. I think I better get back to my blog entry before I lose the inspiration to write. :) Thanks Jocund for engaging that point. It really helps me more clearly define my stance, not just for the purposes of discussion but for my own benefit. Every time I engage in that manner I learn something new about myself in the process.
Wow, what a jerk. Who is he?
Biologist at the U. of Chicago, does a lot of research on speciation in fruit flies. Recently, he's known as the author of Why Evolution is True, which is everything that Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth tried (and failed) to be -- and in half as many pages. Anyone who reads Coyne's book and understands a tenth of it will have no problem realizing that, if evolution is false, then God is a trickster who spared no effort in arranging all of the physical and biological evidence so as to fool us into thinking it's true.
|
Wow, what a jerk. Who is he?Biologist at the U. of Chicago, does a lot of research on speciation in fruit flies. Recently, he's known as the author of Why Evolution is True, which is everything that Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth tried (and failed) to be -- and in half as many pages. Anyone who reads Coyne's book and understands a tenth of it will have no problem realizing that, if evolution is false, then God is a trickster who spared no effort in arranging all of the physical and biological evidence so as to fool us into thinking it's true.
Quantum Mechanics = Free Will
Yes G~D plays dice with the Universe.
Anyone who reads Coyne's book and understands a tenth of it will have no problem realizing that, if evolution is false, then God is a trickster who spared no effort in arranging all of the physical and biological evidence so as to fool us into thinking it's true.
LOKI!!
*shakes fist at the heavens*
GRRRRRR bark bark bark bark!
Wow, what a jerk. Who is he?Biologist at the U. of Chicago, does a lot of research on speciation in fruit flies. Recently, he's known as the author of Why Evolution is True, which is everything that Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth tried (and failed) to be -- and in half as many pages. Anyone who reads Coyne's book and understands a tenth of it will have no problem realizing that, if evolution is false, then God is a trickster who spared no effort in arranging all of the physical and biological evidence so as to fool us into thinking it's true.Quantum Mechanics = Free Will
Yes G~D plays dice with the Universe.
“God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of the players, (ie everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.”
~ Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes NutterCouldn't resist.
Free Will
Yes G~D plays dice with the Universe.
Well, there are two possibilities:
(1) Evolution occurred, and the Earth is billions of years old; or
(2) God always changes ALL of the physical evidence, and outright manufactures a lot of it, to make it appear that possibility (1) is correct to anyone who thinks to look. (See also Last Thursdayism).
Possibility (1) has (at least) two mutually contradictory sub-possibilies; either one fits the evidence:
1A: There's a benevolent God who is not limited to human time scales, and He sets laws for the universe to follow, and created life and set evolution into motion; or
1B: There's no God, but it happens anyway.
Possibility (2) has no sub-possibilies; it's absolute. If correct, it means that there is definitely a God, but that he's a spiteful con artist who plays with nothing but illusions and falsehoods, rather than a benevolent creator who maintains an orderly universe. He's perfectly happy to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get you to believe what he wants you to believe so that you'll go to hell. He's an evil god.
Having free will, I choose to reject possibility (2) in favor of possibility (1). After that, I don't worry too much about whether 1A or 1B is more likely.
Anyone who adores the monster that is Sarah Palin
Umm I'm notionally what would pass for a Liberal in your country (in that Im not a hardline conservative) but I'd tap Sarah in a heartbeat - does that make me a bad person?
Gun control is one of those thorny subjects I actually hate discussing because 1) it is so polarized and 2) it can never be resolved by the people currently playing the political games. As such, I find it a bit of a mire that is hard to navigate by either side.
I'm glad I live in a country where 99.9% of people don't own a gun.
So much safer really.
I never understood how the right to bear arms translated into "I can go nuts at the local gunstore and outfit my own armoury with the most off the wall kit imaginable"
Allow firearms if you must, just make them .22 bolt action rifles.
Problem (mostly) solved!
Gun control is one of those thorny subjects I actually hate discussing because 1) it is so polarized and 2) it can never be resolved by the people currently playing the political games. As such, I find it a bit of a mire that is hard to navigate by either side.I'm glad I live in a country where 99.9% of people don't own a gun.
So much safer really.
I never understood how the right to bear arms translated into "I can go nuts at the local gunstore and outfit my own armoury with the most off the wall kit imaginable"
Allow firearms if you must, just make them .22 bolt action rifles.
Problem (mostly) solved!
Just because someone has a right to purchase roleplaying material doesn't mean they have to go nuts and have entire walls of bookshelves filled with them.
For many people, it is a hobby and one they enjoy spending time and money on even if it means they may never use most of the material they purchase.
Anyone who adores the monster that is Sarah PalinUmm I'm notionally what would pass for a Liberal in your country (in that Im not a hardline conservative) but I'd tap Sarah in a heartbeat - does that make me a bad person?
Word, man. Word.
Possibility (2) has no sub-possibilies; it's absolute. If correct, it means that there is definitely a God, but that he's a spiteful con artist who plays with nothing but illusions and falsehoods, rather than a benevolent creator who maintains an orderly universe. He's perfectly happy to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get you to believe what he wants you to believe so that you'll go to hell. He's an evil god.
Evil. It's the new good.
Anyone who adores the monster that is Sarah PalinUmm I'm notionally what would pass for a Liberal in your country (in that Im not a hardline conservative) but I'd tap Sarah in a heartbeat - does that make me a bad person?
Depends on how your society views such sexist attitudes towards women.
|
|
Free Will
Yes G~D plays dice with the Universe.
Well, there are two possibilities:
(1) Evolution occurred, and the Earth is billions of years old; or
(2) God always changes ALL of the physical evidence, and outright manufactures a lot of it, to make it appear that possibility (1) is correct to anyone who thinks to look. (See also Last Thursdayism).Possibility (1) has (at least) two mutually contradictory sub-possibilies; either one fits the evidence:
1A: There's a benevolent God who is not limited to human time scales, and He sets laws for the universe to follow, and created life and set evolution into motion; or
1B: There's no God, but it happens anyway.Possibility (2) has no sub-possibilies; it's absolute. If correct, it means that there is definitely a God, but that he's a spiteful con artist who plays with nothing but illusions and falsehoods, rather than a benevolent creator who maintains an orderly universe. He's perfectly happy to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get you to believe what he wants you to believe so that you'll go to hell. He's an evil god.
Having free will, I choose to reject possibility (2) in favor of possibility (1). After that, I don't worry too much about whether 1A or 1B is more likely.
I had a long drawn out response and then realized I was still stressed from a crappy day at work and way miss read you. So even though you did not get to read it, I am sorry.
I agree with this:
One fits the evidence:
1A: There's a benevolent God who is not limited to human time scales, and He sets laws for the universe to follow, and created life and set evolution into motion.
|
|
Anyone who adores the monster that is Sarah PalinUmm I'm notionally what would pass for a Liberal in your country (in that Im not a hardline conservative) but I'd tap Sarah in a heartbeat - does that make me a bad person?
Since the moment she opens her mouth....well she would look so much better if she kept something in it at all times. That way I would not hear her speak.
Since the moment she opens her mouth....well she would look so much better if she kept something in it at all times.
Man, I have one dirty mind.
Just because someone has a right to purchase roleplaying material doesn't mean they have to go nuts and have entire walls of bookshelves filled with them.
For many people, it is a hobby and one they enjoy spending time and money on even if it means they may never use most of the material they purchase.
Sure, but I don't remember the last time someone went crazy in a shopping mall and took out a bunch of people with a Players Handbook.
We have collectors and enthusiasts in this country as well.
The restrictions are significant, and the control measures are VERY tight, as opposed to some random guy with a bunker full of gats.
That said, regardless of permit, NOBODY is allowed to walk around with their firearms (or drive around etc - you get the idea)unless they are on duty members of a 'uniform' profession.
The Average Joe simply has no reasonable use for anything other than the sort of basic rifle described.
Makes for a safer society, but hey if you guys all prefer to live with jacked up crack-heads all running around you armed with guns then be my guest; I'm much happier (and safer) here with the disarmed loonies who have only their fists.
stuff
<watches Kirth wield Occam's Razor precisely like a surgeon's scalpel>
Makes for a safer society, but hey if you guys all prefer to live with jacked up crack-heads all running around you armed with guns then be my guest; I'm much happier (and safer) here with the disarmed loonies who have only their fists.
I'm not even going to bother responding to this one, I'm just going to laugh and walk away.
Depends on how your society views such sexist attitudes towards women.
Well just because I find a woman attractive (in this case, I'd be on it like a fat kid on cake) doesn't make it 'Sexist'.
I think my society has some well balanced understanding and application of the word.
I'd really dig to see your treatise on finding someone attractive is the same as sexism.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes. Just because she refused to let dying people see their families. Just because she forced the mto convert to get treatment. Yeah, she was a real sweetheart. Absolutely no negative points, at all.
And yet she's revered by millions. Even if you take wiki as whole unvarnished truth, doesn't that mean she dodn't have a high cha...
funny thing about Occam and his pointy blade there is a corollary to it
** spoiler omitted **
We live in a world of BS. Grab a shovel. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
<off topic> Marx couldn't carry Nietzsche's jockstrap. </off topic>I would like to see a fist fight between Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Sorry about the Off-Topic, but this whole thread combined with the other only provoked this simple thought.
^watches Harpo Marx pull a jockstrap out of his coat*
Not what you meant?
<off topic> Marx couldn't carry Nietzsche's jockstrap. </off topic>I would like to see a fist fight between Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Sorry about the Off-Topic, but this whole thread combined with the other only provoked this simple thought.
^watches Harpo Marx pull a jockstrap out of his coat*
Not what you meant?
*SNERK*
<off topic> Marx couldn't carry Nietzsche's jockstrap. </off topic>^watches Harpo Marx pull a jockstrap out of his coat*
Not what you meant?
Ha! Nice. :D
Makes for a safer society, but hey if you guys all prefer to live with jacked up crack-heads all running around you armed with guns then be my guest; I'm much happier (and safer) here with the disarmed loonies who have only their fists.
Yeah, and it makes it easier for women to be attacked and abused, not being the physical match for their attackers usually. Of course, women should be marginalized and treated as nothing more then sexual objects that men can feel comfortable jumping on "like a fat kid on cake" in some people's view.
Yeah, and it makes it easier for women to be attacked and abused, not being the physical match for their attackers usually.
Actually, it makes it harder.
A guy with a gun is in a much better position to assault a woman than a guy without, as the women are FAR MORE LIKLEY to be able to fight back and escape, and far less likely to get killed in the struggle.
Added to this, if the guy suspects that the woman may be armed, he is far more likely to use significantly more force from the outset of the encounter.
Of course, women should be marginalized and treated as nothing more then sexual objects that men can feel comfortable jumping on "like a fat kid on cake" in some people's view.
Well I don't know about you, but people being able to express their attraction to one another generally makes for a far less confused, far less repressed society. Of course if the other party isn't interested they can always tell you to go jump.
The view that seeing women as sexually attractive automatically means that they must therefore be only viewed as sex objects to the exclusion of all else was the first step to putting them in a Burkha.
You can keep your Western Taliban mores; I'd prefer the two way street (she can comment/he can comment) approach where people don't have to pretend to be asexual as if that is some kind of 'respect'.
Makes for a safer society, but hey if you guys all prefer to live with jacked up crack-heads all running around you armed with guns then be my guest; I'm much happier (and safer) here with the disarmed loonies who have only their fists.Yeah, and it makes it easier for women to be attacked and abused, not being the physical match for their attackers usually. Of course, women should be marginalized and treated as nothing more then sexual objects that men can feel comfortable jumping on "like a fat kid on cake" in some people's view.
So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers... give me a break pres man, even for you that's reaching. I'm sure you can show statistics that women in countries with much stricter gun laws are much more likely to be attacked and abused than in the US... go on, we'll wait here while you find such statistics.
|
|
Just because someone has a right to purchase roleplaying material doesn't mean they have to go nuts and have entire walls of bookshelves filled with them.
For many people, it is a hobby and one they enjoy spending time and money on even if it means they may never use most of the material they purchase.
Sure, but I don't remember the last time someone went crazy in a shopping mall and took out a bunch of people with a Players Handbook.
We have collectors and enthusiasts in this country as well.
The restrictions are significant, and the control measures are VERY tight, as opposed to some random guy with a bunker full of gats.
That said, regardless of permit, NOBODY is allowed to walk around with their firearms (or drive around etc - you get the idea)unless they are on duty members of a 'uniform' profession.
The Average Joe simply has no reasonable use for anything other than the sort of basic rifle described.
Makes for a safer society, but hey if you guys all prefer to live with jacked up crack-heads all running around you armed with guns then be my guest; I'm much happier (and safer) here with the disarmed loonies who have only their fists.
You ever go deer huntin with a bolt action .22? How about a bear? Nope. Ok then. Now on to the criminal thing, a very high percentage of crimes involving fire arms are commited with illigally obtained weapons, that means no gun control laws are going to prevent those. However those that are commited with legal weapons are crimes of passion, i.e. hubby was gonna kill her anyway, he woulda used a knife instead if he had to. So the gun laws wouldn't have saved her in that case either. I own guns, I like to tinker with them. My currnent fave is a 12 gauge Mossberg Mav 66, with tactical conversions. I.e. a shorter muzzle, a collapsable stock, pistol grip, and a red light mounted in front of the fore stock. Does this make me a gun nut psycho who is going to gun down a mall full of shoppers? Nope. Just makes me a guy with a shotgun in his house. I also have a collection of swords and such. No reason to have those either. I used to be heavily involved in martial arts, no reason to train in Mhuy Thai is there? Nope. Tell you what, I won't tell you how to run your country, you don't tell me how we should run ours. We can all get along splendidly that way.
My currnent fave is a 12 gauge Mossberg Mav
First gun I ever bought was a Mossberg Maverick.
I'm sure you can show statistics that women in countries with much stricter gun laws are much more likely to be attacked and abused than in the US... go on, we'll wait here while you find such statistics.
He won't be able to.
He can look all he wants, just about any given graph shows the opposite.
So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers...
Sorry, never said that, but good effort.
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.
True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.
|
|
Depends on how your society views such sexist attitudes towards women.Well just because I find a woman attractive (in this case, I'd be on it like a fat kid on cake) doesn't make it 'Sexist'.
I think my society has some well balanced understanding and application of the word.
I'd really dig to see your treatise on finding someone attractive is the same as sexism.
As for this, I got what you meant, she is a very attractive woman. I don't think saying you would be on that like a fat kid on cake is wrong to say, we've all seen members of the oppisite sex we could say that about. And I agree.
Hmmmmm Cake.
|
|
When I was younger we had a .38 special in the house. First gun I ever fired. Shot it at the neighbor. Well in the air to make him pay attention. He was drunk and going to drive off with his little girl after beating her momma. I didn't let him.
He walked away. with a nice little pool of yellow at his feat. You see, he was about to try to take the gun away from me when I shot. My came home about then and took it from me. He started to scream at her for having a gun and was about to go after mom. She put the gun in his face and told him to leave now on foot and alone.
You ever go deer huntin with a bolt action .22? How about a bear? Nope.
Well that's what I was saying about ownership of such tools being permitted to genuine registered users.
Billy wants to go hunting big game, Billy registers as a Hunter, goes through the rigorous checks, proves he has the right security set up to prevent people stealing his weapons, and that he is of good character - and so long as he registers attendance at a few hunts he is just fine.
Ditto with the collector and enthusiast - he joins the relevant Club, and has his log book stamped when he attends swap meets and fairs. This shows he is genuinely a collector/enthusiast.
Personally, I'm a HUGE gun fan.
Do I think they have a place in the average suburban home - no, in rural areas - sure, in someones car or on their person on a day to day basis - no way known.
Anyhow, that's my reflections as an outsider looking in, and an opinion that is worth what you paid for it. No one is telling you how to run your Country, however it is always an idea to look around to see what other people are doing and what works for them - that way you can assess it on it's merits and then take it or leave it.
So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers...Sorry, never said that, but good effort.
You implied it, though, why bring it up if it wasn't what you meant?
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
Both Israel and Switzerland ALSO have MANDATORY National Service (ie you MUST serve in the Military) - do you think this might slightly alter the viewpoint they have around firearms?
On a side note, Israel is fighting a protracted battle against their neighbours - and there is solid Policing all around the place by necessity - this level of overt policing has a pronounced effect on street crime etc.
Switzerland has a significantly high suicide rate, and amongst other things, this has been attributed to the ease of access to firearms.
Not all roses and light is it?
|
|
You ever go deer huntin with a bolt action .22? How about a bear? Nope.Well that's what I was saying about ownership of such tools being permitted to genuine registered users.
Billy wants to go hunting big game, Billy registers as a Hunter, goes through the rigorous checks, proves he has the right security set up to prevent people stealing his weapons, and that he is of good character - and so long as he registers attendance at a few hunts he is just fine.
Ditto with the collector and enthusiast - he joins the relevant Club, and has his log book stamped when he attends swap meets and fairs. This shows he is genuinely a collector/enthusiast.
Personally, I'm a HUGE gun fan.
Do I think they have a place in the average suburban home - no, in rural areas - sure, in someones car or on their person on a day to day basis - no way known.
Anyhow, that's my reflections as an outsider looking in, and an opinion that is worth what you paid for it. No one is telling you how to run your Country, however it is always an idea to look around to see what other people are doing and what works for them - that way you can assess it on it's merits and then take it or leave it.
I understand where you're comming from, and I do appologize for my overly aggresive response. I get very touchy when it comes to the topic of gun control, I'm sure the way things work in your country work for your country. I like being able to own my guns, and keep them here at the house. I grew up in the country, we hunted when we wanted, not had to join a club and pay dues and fees. As for the permits to carry, I would get one myself but I have no reason to. But for a bussiness owner who regularly leaves his shop with large sums of cash? I can see the need.
|
|
Gun Control: Myths and RealitiesBoth Israel and Switzerland ALSO have MANDATORY National Service (ie you MUST serve in the Military) - do you think this might slightly alter the viewpoint they have around firearms?
On a side note, Israel is fighting a protracted battle against their neighbours - and there is solid Policing all around the place by necessity - this level of overt policing has a pronounced effect on street crime etc.
Switzerland has a significantly high suicide rate, and amongst other things, this has been attributed to the ease of access to firearms.
Not all roses and light is it?
Of course there is the possibility that minus a gun, the suicidal person might just overdose, slit their wrist, or drive headlong into traffic, yes? But I can assent that pulling a trigger is irreversable, and the alternatives I gave can be undone if help arrives in time.
You implied it, though, why bring it up if it wasn't what you meant?So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers...Sorry, never said that, but good effort.
You might have infered it, but I didn't imply it.
All square are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Of course there is the possibility that minus a gun, the suicidal person might just overdose, slit their wrist, or drive headlong into traffic, yes? But I can assent that pulling a trigger is irreversable, and the alternatives I gave can be undone if help arrives in time.
Gun Control: Myths and RealitiesBoth Israel and Switzerland ALSO have MANDATORY National Service (ie you MUST serve in the Military) - do you think this might slightly alter the viewpoint they have around firearms?
On a side note, Israel is fighting a protracted battle against their neighbours - and there is solid Policing all around the place by necessity - this level of overt policing has a pronounced effect on street crime etc.
Switzerland has a significantly high suicide rate, and amongst other things, this has been attributed to the ease of access to firearms.
Not all roses and light is it?
Research also shows that men are more likely to use means that are more destructive-immediately fatal than women on average. Perhaps we should outlaw being male. :D
Research also shows that men are more likely to use means that are more destructive-immediately fatal than women on average. Perhaps we should outlaw being male. :D
That law would be pretty short lived... if only because we'd run out of people eventually... ;)
You implied it, though, why bring it up if it wasn't what you meant?So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers...Sorry, never said that, but good effort.You might have infered it, but I didn't imply it.
All square are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Suuuure you didn't, because of all the examples you could have brought up you just randomly picked this one. Right? Pure coincidence. Nothing else.
|
|
Research also shows that men are more likely to use means that are more destructive-immediately fatal than women on average. Perhaps we should outlaw being male. :DThat law would be pretty short lived... if only because we'd run out of people eventually... ;)
Well they do have those special banks that could keep the world going for a few more generations at least.
But then again women are hormonal, they may launch the big one when they run out of chocolate. (j/k) ;)
Suuuure you didn't, because of all the examples you could have brought up you just randomly picked this one. Right? Pure coincidence. Nothing else.You implied it, though, why bring it up if it wasn't what you meant?So guns are only for women to protect them from would-be attackers...Sorry, never said that, but good effort.You might have infered it, but I didn't imply it.
All square are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
No doubt people reducing a woman down to being nothing but meat that they would like to jump on like a fat kid, brought that particular example foremost to my mind. But that isn't the only situation out there when someone would want to use a gun to protect themselves or others from an individual or group of individuals that could potentially harm them. The gun has been a powerful tool to equalize the field for many people. See Crimson's example above.