I'm happy to hear your aunt survived the experience, whatever that may count for in the grand scheme of things. . .
I would LIKE to do what australia did, but that's probably not politically viable. I will take waiting 25 years as a consolation prize
Wasn't politically viable in Australia either, still worked well.
|
The way I see it, reduce the criminal problem and then guns won't much of an issue (sure there will always be the rare case of mass murders but those occur with bombs too so...)How about let's reduce the criminal problem and reduce the gun problem?
Of course, we're already trying to reduce the criminal problem.
So the only change would be trying to reduce the gun problem.
So how about we do that?
You keep acting like they are somehow unrelated. Dropping the total crime rate will be reducing the gun problem without ever denying guns to the people who legitimatly deserve them.
Frankly trying to make the as safe as a square white padded room is unacceptable to me and I dislike people trying to force that state of affairs on me. If you hate guns that much, then get together with a bunch of gunhaters and go somewhere where guns are banned and leave me out of your anti freedom designs. (You can't have security and freedom)
Frankly trying to make the as safe as a square white padded room is unacceptable to me and I dislike people trying to force that state of affairs on me. If you hate guns that much, then get together with a bunch of gunhaters and go somewhere where guns are banned and leave me out of your anti freedom designs. (You can't have security and freedom)
Wait... Guns = Safety or Freedom then?
You seem to claim both then go on to say they are exclusive.
Funny, New Zealand is rated as the freest country on the face of the planet, and look ma.. no guhnz! (But yet safety AND freedom!)
I'm curious to see how many pro-gun control Democrats and liberals are going to agree with a report issued by the Cato Institute, the Canadian Fraser Institute ("right-wing libertarian") and the Liberales Institute ("classical liberal think tank"). Quotes supplied by wikipedia.
In the meantime, Iceland. Which I would imagine doesn't rank very high because they threw their bankers in jail. Supplied by Comrade TOZ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You keep acting like they are somehow unrelated. Dropping the total crime rate will be reducing the gun problem without ever denying guns to the people who legitimatly deserve them.
Enacting the legislation being proposed won't deny guns to anyone who "legitimately deserves them".
And, again, you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to address the root causes of criminality anyway, so it's a moot point. You offer zero workable solutions.
Frankly trying to make the as safe as a square white padded room is unacceptable to me and I dislike people trying to force that state of affairs on me. If you hate guns that much, then get together with a bunch of gunhaters and go somewhere where guns are banned and leave me out of your anti freedom designs. (You can't have security and freedom)
Nah, I think we'd rather force you to leave. The world is rapidly shrinking for RAH RAH GUNS AND JESUS folks. It's darkly heartening to watch the way conservatives panic when they realize just how true that is.
At least 4,800 people have been killed by guns since Newtown.
But the loss of human life is only considered a symptom, and we don't want to appear to only be treating symptoms.
It's not about whether or not it's a symptom. Conservatives don't care what they're treating. If treating the root causes allowed them to keep their guns, they'd advocate treating the root causes. If treating the symptoms allowed them to keep their guns, they'd advocate treating the symptoms.
Don't let them lie to you. They don't care what they're treating. Their priority is keeping their guns, and there is no length that they will not go to (or threaten to go to - the ones threatening violence typically have more bravado than balls) in order to protect that, no matter how amoral or intellectually dishonest.
|
It's darkly heartening to watch the way conservatives panic when they realize just how true that is.
It's really sad that you would find any joy to any Americans losing anything, especially a right.
Let me ask you this...
Once the sale of "assault weapons" is banned, is that going to be enough? Are you then going to try and make the ones already owned by the public illegal to possess? Then what? Perhaps a ban of all semi-auto firearms? Where does it stop? At what point do you stop and pat yourself on the back and say "we did a great job!" and move on, never to talk or think about gun control again?
|
|
I would LIKE to do what australia did, but that's probably not politically viable. I will take waiting 25 years as a consolation prize
I ask you a similar question that I asked of Scott...
At what point do you accept your "consolation prize" and move on?
If such a bill were proposed tomorrow, and became law effective January 1st, 2014, would you then somehow say to yourself, "oh well, this is the best I'm going to get!" and move on? Or are you going to say "Great, let's see what else can be done?"
I’m guessing the latter...
I would LIKE to do what australia did, but that's probably not politically viable. I will take waiting 25 years as a consolation prizeI ask you a similar question that I asked of Scott...
At what point do you accept your "consolation prize" and move on?
If such a bill were proposed tomorrow, and became law effective January 1st, 2014, would you then somehow say to yourself, "oh well, this is the best I'm going to get!" and move on? Or are you going to say "Great, let's see what else can be done?"
I’m guessing the latter...
Wait 5 or 10 years and see what happens. The GRAARR! Old white man nra is aging out and the political system might look different in 10 years.
Your assumption that I have some sort of malevolent, insidious plan isn't in assuming that I'm malevolent or insidious, but in assuming i have a plan.
|
|
Your assumption that I have some sort of malevolent, insidious plan isn't in assuming that I'm malevolent or insidious, but in assuming i have a plan.
I don't assume you have a plan, or are malevolent. I just hear you say how much you don't like "assault weapons", and have a difficult time believing that you'd be willing to wait years to see an outcome...
But you are correct in that the system will look very different in 10 years...
Not because of the old white NRA man going away, but because all across America right now, you cannot go into a gun store and just buy a firearm... No, there was such a huge panic-buy when Obama was re-elected, and then when Sandy Hook happened, that the available surplus of both guns and ammunition, virtually dried up. And according to the FFL holders selling all of these guns, most of these guns were sold to people that did not own a firearm previously...
There has always been a panic-buy of firearms whenever a democrat is elected president. And then, after a couple of months, the "panic" dies down and things go back to normal. This happened when Obama first took office, with the "panic" dying down a couple of months later. But somehow, things were different when he was re-elected. I mean, the panic buy wasn't this bad with Clinton's re-election, nor was it this bad just prior to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban...
So, yeah, things are going to look very different in 10 years...
It's really sad that you would find any joy to any Americans losing anything, especially a right.
I find no joy in Americans losing rights.
I do find it enjoyable to watch conservatives panic as their ideals become less and less tolerable to anyone who isn't part of their ever-shrinking clique.
Let me ask you this...
Once the sale of "assault weapons" is banned, is that going to be enough? Are you then going to try and make the ones already owned by the public illegal to possess? Then what? Perhaps a ban of all semi-auto firearms? Where does it stop? At what point do you stop and pat yourself on the back and say "we did a great job!" and move on, never to talk or think about gun control again?
Do you think that fear of a slippery slope ought to paralyze policy decisions? Or do you think that, instead, fear of a slippery ought to provide an extra level of caution that needs to be taken when formulating policy?
Because I think you believe the latter (which is what most people believe), except when you don't like what's being proposed (in which case you've convinced yourself that you believe the former, when the reality is that you just don't like the subject).
There is always been a panic-buy of firearms whenever a democrat is elected president.
I can think of very few better reasons why conservatives should have as little power over the rest of the country as possible.
|
|
Blame that on the NRA. They've been doing a much better job at pumping up the hysteria about gun-grabbing Democrats. It's great for business.
So, if the available surplus of firearms and ammunition has virtually dried up, with most of the people buying up these firearms being brand new first time gun owners... Well, they can't all be republicans can they (because that would mean that a lot of democrats are listening to the NRA as well)? I mean, the number of firearms sold in the last six months is significantly more than "staggering", and goes back to my statement earlier about how I think that a lot of people do not truly grasp just how many firearms there are here in the United States...
|
|
Do you think that fear of a slippery slope ought to paralyze policy decisions? Or do you think that, instead, fear of a slippery ought to provide an extra level of caution that needs to be taken when formulating policy?
Because I think you believe the latter (which is what most people believe), except when you don't like what's being proposed (in which case you've convinced yourself that you believe the former, when the reality is that you just don't like the subject).
I can be honest and admit that I just do not like the subject. But what I dislike about it is that many of the laws passed, should have been proposed as amendments to the Constitution. But we both know that it takes a lot to do that... So it's easier to just pass a draconian law banning this or that instead.
If things like the banning of "Assault Weapons" had been amendments, I could stomach them much better, because at least that way, I know that due process had been achieved, instead of someone's personal opinion and/or agenda becoming law because there happened to be one or two more democrats than republicans voting that day...
Do you think that fear of a slippery slope ought to paralyze policy decisions? Or do you think that, instead, fear of a slippery ought to provide an extra level of caution that needs to be taken when formulating policy?
I find the 'Slippery Slope' argument tends to be played by people with very binary views - "If you take away one gun, you'll take them all!!111!!".
It's this bizarre view they have that Gun Control is the same as outlawing all guns, which isn't the case.
What are we looking at CA?
I can be honest and admit that I just do not like the subject. But what I dislike about it is that many of the laws passed, should have been proposed as amendments to the Constitution.
Nah. That would require getting the approval of people whose approval we're honestly just better off ignoring.
What are we looking at CA?
Apologies to the international brethren for my chauvinistic American self-centeredness.
|
|
My problem is with people who think they should be able to force their views and opinions on me but not the other way around. I have never done anything to deserve to have my guns taken away, but it doesn't matter to anti-gun people whether I deserve it or not, they are fearfull and somehow think that being fearful gives them some godgiven right to take it out on others.
I don't care whether people disagree me, what I care about is having a place on this earth for everyone, gun nuts and anti gun people alike. When certain thinks like this issue show their face the solution is quite simple, all the people with one opinion go one place and all the people with the other opinion go to another place. That was the entire point behind states, each state could be different to make different people happy.
Problem comes when sme people think they somehow have the right to deny happiness to others. This country has the right to bear arms, if you aren't happy with that right then someone has to leave, obviously the fairest way to determine who should leave is whichever side has the most options, in this case the side with the most options is the anti gun side, they have plenty of places to choose from while the progun side doesn't.
Additionally, the antigun folks like to focus entirelyon guns as a problem, but there are a million factors that go into the problem and guns is just one, if someone is incapable of realizing that there are other fixes and factors to work with then they are being unreasonable.
If one place has mandatory guns and no gun crime, and another place has no guns allowed and no gun crime, and another place has gun crime, obviously the laws concerning guns are not the only or even biggest way to bring down crime.
As far as people killing each other, it called human nature. Believing that we can have a world without it is just plain foolish.
Additionally, the slippery slope arguement is a legitamate concern, and indeed most things in life have that sloping effect, for example sad people see reasons to be sad, and act sad which often makes more reasons to be sad and happy people often see reasons to be happy and often make reasons to be happy. Self reinforcing loops are everywhere.
Lastly, everything about people is constantly adjust to their current circumstances, everything from muscles and bone to emotional stae and expectations to perceptions. This is what happens when people lift weights, their muscles adapt to lifting weights. So we must do the same for our mind, we must step back from the immediate circumstances and look at things objectively to avoid being shoehorned into making mistakes or believing something incorrect because of tunnelvision.
People must also realize that technology makes it easy to know about things happening anywhere in the world, and so people tend to see everything on the news like it's oh zo very common when it isn't. Zooming out to a larger scale will always make things seem more common, particularly if you still think in terms of being zoomed in. I.E. if one star in a galaxy goes super nova every week then looking at the numbers for a million galaxies would show over a hundred thousand supernovas everyday. Does this mean we shouls be in a panic over our star going supernova because it is a "common" thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few ironies here DLH:
"My problem is with people who think they should be able to force their views and opinions on me but not the other way around."
They should be open to you forcing your views on them, however.
"All the people with one opinion go one place and all the people with the other opinion go to another place".
As long as you aren't the guy doing the moving.
"Problem comes when sme people think they somehow have the right to deny happiness to others".
Which is what they are saying you are doing to them, so is it only a problem if they are doing it to you?
"This country has the right to bear arms, if you aren't happy with that right then someone has to leave, obviously the fairest way to determine who should leave is whichever side has the most options, in this case the side with the most options is the anti gun side, they have plenty of places to choose from while the progun side doesn't."
That's a rather self serving position though isn't it?
The country is a democracy, and in a democracy people have the freedom and liberty to vote on how they choose to live, and if the majority wish to be free from guns then that's the way it goes doesn't it? Or are you suggesting that democratic decisions can never be reversed by future democratic decisions? That choices made several hundred years ago in a totally different world bind future generations for all eternity?
The fairest way is not for the majority to leave, it is for the minority to either accept the broader decision, or to leave, and there are no shortage of options. I believe that the Middle East and Africa would certainly not even blink at your guns.
"Additionally, the antigun folks like to focus entirelyon guns as a problem, but there are a million factors that go into the problem and guns is just one, if someone is incapable of realizing that there are other fixes and factors to work with then they are being unreasonable".
Anyone not doing what you want is unreasonable. Gotcha.
"As far as people killing each other, it called human nature. Believing that we can have a world without it is just plain foolish".
I agree with you there, as does everyone on all sides of the debate. The discussion though is about the ease and quantity of killing.
My problem is with people who think they should be able to force their views and opinions on me but not the other way around. I have never done anything to deserve to have my guns taken away, but it doesn't matter to anti-gun people whether I deserve it or not, they are fearfull and somehow think that being fearful gives them some godgiven right to take it out on others.
No one has proposed taking your guns away, but given some of the things you've said here, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion. Your views and opinions are silly, but you've convinced yourself that they're sensible, and that's dangerous.
|
|
-I don't really expect people to agree with me much less try to force it, if I did I would spend significantly more time makeing far better arguements and would spend hours finding internet sources to link to.
-I don't moving, I've lived many different places already.
-Not everyone can be happy, but happiness from having a choice is far more fair then happiness from denying others a choice. Besides I am not denying others anything, they are the ones who want to deny things to people other then themselves.
-Democracy has limits, particularly with scale. Should we all become communists because the number of communists outnumbers capitalists (globally speaking, though I am guessing at being outnumbered)? No we shouldn't. We must realize that at a certain point even a minority should get something of their own.
-The middle east and africa are not first world technologically advanced places, not to mention that the muslims beliefs and culture make the middle east very unacceptable for anyone who desires freedom. Neither of those places are anything like the US. Europe on the other hand is not near as different and thus doesn't require a lot of change except language on the part of someone moving there. There are more things to think about then just a single issue. ( though africa may be agood place to create a new social structure but the support for it has to come from somewhere and there would likely be a lot of unhappy neighbors, something already being considered as I get things set up)
-Anyone thinking their way is the only way and wanting to force on anyone else is unreasonable. Ever hear of the Social contract theorom? Applies to democracy as well.
-I personally find the reasons behind killing to be more important then the ease or even the number. Aka, killing for self satisfaction is bad, killing in self defense is just fine.
I don't assume you have a plan, or are malevolent. I just hear you say how much you don't like "assault weapons"
Where are you hearing that?
Your problem with the statement is in the exact wording. The problem with your problem is I'm not using that exact wording.
and have a difficult time believing that you'd be willing to wait years to see an outcome...
My degree is in forestry. Starting something I'll be worm food for before i see isn't anything new.
There has always been a panic-buy of firearms whenever a democrat is elected president.
Which causes irrational panic, fear, and a gun buying spree. I wonder why the republican party and the NRA keep fueling that paranoia...
-Not everyone can be happy, but happiness from having a choice is far more fair then happiness from denying others a choice. Besides I am not denying others anything, they are the ones who want to deny things to people other then themselves.
Not everyone can be happy, but that doesn't include you? They aren't looking to obtain happiness by denying you your choice, they are seeking happiness by being safe - and that involves being safe from your choices.
-Democracy has limits, particularly with scale.
How do you figure that the majority of US citizens shouldn't have the Democracy they wish?
-The middle east and africa are not first world technologically advanced places, not to mention that the muslims beliefs and culture make the middle east very unacceptable for anyone who desires freedom. Neither of those places are anything like the US.
What are you even talking about? Israel and Saudi Arabia are shiniing beacons of the first World. Dubai is off the charts in progress and advancement... there are numerous examples that contradict this standpoint.
-Anyone thinking their way is the only way and wanting to force on anyone else is unreasonable. Ever hear of the Social contract theorom? Applies to democracy as well.
But that is precisely what you are saying should be the way, that they should comply with your wishes or get out. Where's the deomcracy here?
-I personally find the reasons behind killing to be more important then the ease or even the number. Aka, killing for self satisfaction is bad, killing in self defense is just fine.
Which really comes down to the question, "why are you being attacked?"
|
|
-Safety comes from lack of freedom. This country was built on freedom, why attack the very foundations of the country out of simple fear? And that is why this is an issue, fear and nothing more.
-You should reread what I said about that because you missed the entire point which reworded is democracy on too large a scale is not always a fair solution.
-Sure they are beacons, for rich people. Oh and religious beliefs are still a problem. I won't live with people who blame women for their being raped.
-So what you're saying is I should comply with your wishes? Sounds a mite hyppocritical. I have desires and you have contradictory desires. Unfortunatly it isn't always easy to find an acceptable compromise and sometimes a comprimise isn't even possible.
-Duh, there are bad people and even among good people there is always conflict, it doesn't always get resolved by physical violence, but everyday is conflict between you and your needs/desires against the contradictory needs/desires of others. The pen and sword are of equal measure, the pen can make more people happier for a little while but it leaves the door open for more conflict later, the sword leaves less people happy, but solves the conflict permanently.
|
|
Of course
I want gun.
You want me to not have gun.
Who is it that wants to dictate what others do? How does your fear change your opinion on the matter?
What about,
I want you to give away all your money.
You want to keep your money.
Did you pick yourself both times? Or did you catch the fact that it is the same issue in each case just flipped around, two people with mutually exclusive desires. What side do you believe in?
Selecting the same person in both cases makes one a hyppocrite. That leaves two remaining options.
The dictator and the freeman.
The dictator selects you the first time and me the second time.
The freeman selects me the first time and you the second time.
By that definition, I am a freeman. What are you?
-Safety comes from lack of freedom. This country was built on freedom, why attack the very foundations of the country out of simple fear? And that is why this is an issue, fear and nothing more.
That has to be rubbish, otherwise Taliban Afghanistan and Zimbabwe are two of the safest places on Earth.
Amazingly, countries like New Zealand, where people are incredibly safe, has significant freedom.
Who is 'attacking Freedom'? I think people becoming increasingly jaded with gun owners shooting them might feel that their freedom AND safety is under threat though, and they might ask you why you insist on attacking their rights to freedom and safety.
New Zealand is not safe if you are wearing a Wallabies jersey......
So what happened in Australia 10 years or so after John Howard did one of the few brave and good things of his Prime Ministership, in regulating guns.
Did we all get rounded up and sent to the secret human disposal camps by the New World Order..... Nope still here.
Did the Conservative government that introduced the laws form a dictatorship and start opressing us. Nope they got voted out a couple of elections later.
Did gun owners get all of their guns taken away.... Nope, I can get a licence should I wish and shoot animals with high powered rifles and shotguns. I can join a gun club and shoot stuff at a range. In fact I went to a gun range for my brother inlaws bucks party and had a go with a desert eagle.
Do Australians see the need for guns in the household... Nope handguns and assault rifles are like swords their primary purpose is for killing people.
Is the US different to Austailia... Yes and no...
Can you have the freedom to "tool up" with the added requirements of a background check and a ban on military style ordinance,... S&#~ yeh.
Do I think it's people who are either paranoid or have something to hide that are complaining about tighter gun laws... Yes, yes I do.
Did gun owners get all of their guns taken away.... Nope, I can get a licence should I wish and shoot animals with high powered rifles and shotguns. I can join a gun club and shoot stuff at a range. In fact I went to a gun range for my brother inlaws bucks party and had a go with a desert eagle.
Exactly right, which is why it is about gun-control, not outlawing guns. The only way to argue against the logic is to get all alarmist-extremist and insinuate that ALL GUNS WILL BE TAKEN!.
Which isn't the truth, anywhere.
Do I think it's people who are either paranoid or have something to hide that are complaining about tighter gun laws... Yes, yes I do.
But what if teh Elehrminarti ARE really out to get us all?
Did gun owners get all of their guns taken away.... Nope, I can get a licence should I wish and shoot animals with high powered rifles and shotguns. I can join a gun club and shoot stuff at a range. In fact I went to a gun range for my brother inlaws bucks party and had a go with a desert eagle.Exactly right, which is why it is about gun-control, not outlawing guns. The only way to argue against the logic is to get all alarmist-extremist and insinuate that ALL GUNS WILL BE TAKEN!.
Which isn't the truth, anywhere.
Do I think it's people who are either paranoid or have something to hide that are complaining about tighter gun laws... Yes, yes I do.But what if teh Elehrminarti ARE really out to get us all?
If you are totally jonesing to play with the heavy equipment, you can join the Army Reserve.
They have all the big boys toys you can wish for.... In my my youth it was SLRs and M60s only the regulars got the Steyrs and Minimi's. I entertained the thought of joining when I was at Uni... I wanted to join the Hunter River Lancers but as I was a student I would have had to join UNE company of Sydney University Regiment.
I wanted an emu feather in my slouch hat and to be in a Light Horse unit, and not part of the country branch of "sewer" as Sydney Uni Regiment is known, having to put up with rich farmers sons pretending to be soldiers
Anway my politics took a sharp left turn and I decided the army and I probably wouldn't be a good match.
-Safety comes from lack of freedom.
Isn't the entire core of your argument that you are safer if you are able to freely own firearms, because you are (ostensibly, even if reality says otherwise) capable of defending yourself?
Come on.
This country was built on freedom, why attack the very foundations of the country out of simple fear? And that is why this is an issue, fear and nothing more.
Fear is predicated on unknowns. Contrary to what you might like to believe, we actually have a pretty solid understanding of gun violence and what it is tied to. One of those things is prevalent ownership of firearms.
We're not arguing from fear.
We're arguing from knowledge. And that's a damn good place to argue from.
-So what you're saying is I should comply with your wishes? Sounds a mite hyppocritical. I have desires and you have contradictory desires. Unfortunatly it isn't always easy to find an acceptable compromise and sometimes a comprimise isn't even possible.
Your right to a compromise flew out the window when we tried your way for decades and discovered that the result is gun violence levels that are so high compared to other developed nations that they would be hilarious if this wasn't an issue that revolved around trying to prevent people from dying.
|
|
-My arguement isn't that I am safer from having guns. I can become safer if I have access to guns and indeed having guns makes it easier to become safer because learning to use guns effectively and properly is a lot faster and easier then learning other methods not to mention guns have a certain advantage over other methods, namely range.
But that isn't the core of my arguement. My arguement is based on two things, one, your proposals take negative action against ten times as many people as the ones your worried about and it isn't near as effective as you claim. Two, there are places with mandatory gun laws and those places don't have super high problems with guns and that is absolute proof that having apopulation fully armed with weapons is NOT the cause of gun violence.
People keep compareing the US to other countries, but such comparisons are false proof. There are millions of factors that play into the situation andcomparing just one or two can not in any way give proof to a particular result. Every statistics teacher will tell you how easy it is to make statistics say what ever you want.
Statistics can a relationship, but they won't show which is the cause or effect or even indicate if perhaps the cause is something not shown.
For example statistics show that when more ice cream is consumed more violent behaviour occurs. That doesn't tell us however that violent behaviour makes us hungry for ice cream. In truth it is believed that higher temeratures cause both the increased comsumtion of ice cream and the increase in violence. But the statistics don't mention temperature at all.
My arguement is very centered on the fact that I don't like my rights being taken away when I did nothing to deserve it, and even more so when that right isn't even the problem.
And no we can't just undo it later. Theoretically we should be able to except law is so heavily based on precedent that we would have to be faceing imminent invasion before it could be undone regardless of how many people wanted to undo it.
-This point was addressed above. Knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence nor wisdom.
- We are different from other countries on a few fundemental levels. Why can you not the possibility that it is those fundemental differences in culture that account for the disparity? Particularly when there are towns where every house has a gun without becoming a warzone?
But that isn't the core of my arguement. My arguement is based on two things, one, your proposals take negative action against ten times as many people as the ones your worried about and it isn't near as effective as you claim. Two, there are places with mandatory gun laws and those places don't have super high problems with guns and that is absolute proof that having apopulation fully armed with weapons is NOT the cause of gun violence.
People keep compareing the US to other countries, but such comparisons are false proof. There are millions of factors that play into the situation andcomparing just one or two can not in any way give proof to a particular result. Every statistics teacher will tell you how easy it is to make statistics say what ever you want.
HOLY BALLS. I cannot even fathom how you can write these two paragraphs back to back.
"A handful of countries is absolute proof that guns are not dangerous!"
"A worldwide gun violence correlation based on dozens of studies is false proof!"
WHAT?!
And stop talking about what statistics do or don't mean. Statistics can confuse a layperson, but anyone with a basic foundation in statistics stands a good chance of sussing out that kind of manipulation. Furthermore, we have a brutal peer-review system of people who are far past the novice level when it comes to statistics, and every study must pass through this system before it becomes part of the literature.
Statistics can a relationship, but they won't show which is the cause or effect or even indicate if perhaps the cause is something not shown.
Actually, they can do all of those things! It's just harder to do. Proper and rigorous control methodology can generate causal data. But even moderate (and very reasonable) controls can produce correlative data for which an extremely high confidence level exists that the factors share a direct link.
For example statistics show that when more ice cream is consumed more violent behaviour occurs. That doesn't tell us however that violent behaviour makes us hungry for ice cream. In truth it is believed that higher temeratures cause both the increased comsumtion of ice cream and the increase in violence. But the statistics don't mention temperature at all.
Yet - lo-and-behold! - control methodology can create a study where the environment remains static, eliminating confounding variables like the one you highlight!
Amazing!
It's almost as if research professionals have already had the exact same thoughts you're having, decades ago, and actually decided to figure out a way to avoid that problem!
The best part of all of this is that, ignoring the fact that you don't understand how research works, you're essentially saying, "Statistics are flawed so instead how about we just make policy decisions based on my guesses and wishful thinking?"
My arguement is very centered on the fact that I don't like my rights being taken away when I did nothing to deserve it, and even more so when that right isn't even the problem.
That right is the problem (or one of them, at least), and a lot of people think it shouldn't be a right to begin with.
I will be very clear: the fact that you believe you have an unrestricted right to own firearms means absolutely nothing to me.
Dark Light Hitomi, OTD's punching bag.
Anyway, I was on my way back from a feminist rally this afternoon (peddling socialist newspapers, of course) and I drove past a used book store.
I, of course, can't help but go into every used book store I see and as I was heading for the back where the sci-fi/fantasy books are kept (scored a couple volumes of Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, Le Guin's Lathe of Heaven) I saw a pamphlet entitled "Gran'pa Jack Sez: 'Gun Control' Is Racist!" and I was like, woah, I've been saying that for years!
Turns out the place was a libertarian bookstore, and he had not one, but two copies of Robert F. Williams's quite awesome Negroes with Guns!!!
I had never even seen a physical copy of the book before, only a xerox of the original that was passed down from one generation of revolutionary socialists to the next (revolutionary socialists are big on defying copyright laws and peddling xeroxed copies of books around).
Anyway, I couldn't help myself and bought 'em both, so if anyone wants a copy, send me $15 and it's yours.
Vive le Galt!
Anyway, I was on my way back from a feminist rally this afternoon (peddling socialist newspapers, of course)
And to pick up, I am guessing :-)
Comrade Dwarf, you shock me!
We are trying to build a party of professional revolutionaries here, not a sex-crazed swingin' singles club!
Never would I besmirch the noble cause of international proletarian socialist revolution by objectifying my proud proletarian sisters!
Bad, dwarf, bad!
Hee hee! The best part, for me, was when my fellow goblin was pressing her hard on building a mass movement to demand Single-Payer instead of voting for politicians who are going to betray us, when she started screaming "We had a rally for Single-Payer last Thursday at noon. Where were you?!?" to which he cooly replied "I was at work. Like most people. Why do you have rallies when working people can't attend?" and she ran off in a huff.
But there were some fine lookin' fillies out, I can't deny.
Comrade Dwarf, you shock me!
We are trying to build a party of professional revolutionaries here, not a sex-crazed swingin' singles club!
The Comrade Anklebiter your outfit represents what is wrong with the world! Nothing says 'we reject your societal straight-jackets!' quite like having your club ALSO happen to be a sex-crazed swingin' singles club - because those Sisters should have the freedom and liberty of objectifying you right back.
I think too many lefties take themselves ultra seriously and miss the fun and good humour of the movement, which is sad, because all they then look like is grim and dour conservatives with a better script
Anway my politics took a sharp left turn and I decided the army and I probably wouldn't be a good match.
I disagree comrade, think you'd have found it far less of a problem than you believe...
I thought the whole point of being a revolutionary was because "chicks dig bad boys" ;-b
We have "universal" healthcare, if you can afford it you can go private if you wish...
Last time I went private it was subsidized by the government because it was necessary surgery (I tore a hole in my cornea and I need to laser resurface my eye,) and I paid a quarter of the fee (I could have waited a few extra weeks but I didn't want to spend that long on pain killers).
Our health care is just as good as the US there may be some tech we don't have yet but we catch up very quick.
Back to the conversation on guns... From the outside looking in.
You had a revolution to rid yourselves of a regime that taxed you without representation. It was a civilian based uprising and the people had to arm themselves. This lingers as part the national consciousness.
The South had its freedom to choose its form of government and the ability to leave the Union denied and that appears to feed into the government is out to oppress you paranoia.
The residual guilt and fear that if you stole (conquered) your land from others that other people could do the same to you paranoia (we did this also in Australia the guilt is writ large and a lot of Australians fear facing it, slowly we are making amends).
The foundations of your country were influenced by religious zealots fleeing a regime opposed to the way they worshiped, that feeds into the pervasive extreme conservative christian resistance to change and a suspicion of authority.
You had an enslaved underclass and a fear that they would rise and you need to have arms to prevent this.
From the outside it looks as though your whole culture is only beginning to out grow the perception that arms are needed. It will be some time yet before you can work past this.
Anway my politics took a sharp left turn and I decided the army and I probably wouldn't be a good match.I disagree comrade, think you'd have found it far less of a problem than you believe...
I dont know being stuck with a bunch of rich Squatters sons, in an officers training reserve unit would have sent me around the bend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know being stuck with a bunch of rich Squatters sons, in an officers training reserve unit would have sent me around the bend.
I'm not a Green Leftie, but I'm a Leftie in Green and so far not a problem ever encountered ;P
You had a revolution to rid yourselves of a regime that taxed you without representation. It was a civilian based uprising and the people had to arm themselves. This lingers as part the national consciousness.
Yes, that's true, but I believe the right to bear arms in the anglophonic world goes back much earlier to, at least, the longbow-wielding yeomen of Henry V. It was further enshrined in the Bill of Rights coming out of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 and was described in Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) as one of the "liberties of Englishmen."
The South had its freedom to choose its form of government and the ability to leave the Union denied and that appears to feed into the government is out to oppress you paranoia.
My historical antecedents believed that the smashing of the American slaveocracy was the last, great, progressive act of the world bourgeoisie, but, for the sake of argument: there is a wealth of post-1865 history to justify the fear that the government is out to oppress us. I can make a list, if you like.
The residual guilt and fear that if you stole (conquered) your land from others that other people could do the same to you paranoia (we did this also in Australia the guilt is writ large and a lot of Australians fear facing it, slowly we are making amends).
I have never gotten the sense that right-wing gun nuts feel much guilt about the aboriginal genocide in this country. Left-wing gun nuts champion the right to bear arms so that, among other things, the remaining aborginals may defend themselves against the racist American state. Link
The foundations of your country were influenced by religious zealots fleeing a regime opposed to the way they worshiped, that feeds into the pervasive extreme conservative christian resistance to change and a suspicion of authority.
Not only did the Puritans come out of the (historically-speaking) left-wing opposition to Stuart absolutism, I think their influence on the later course of American history is overstated. The United States being awash in Christian religiosity can be more properly, in my opinion, traced to the series of "Great Awakenings." And the first two weren't, by American standards, conservative at all.
You had an enslaved underclass and a fear that they would rise and you need to have arms to prevent this.
And, more importantly, "we" needed to make sure the slaves didn't have access to weapons. (See: Slave Codes and, post-Civil War, the Black Codes.) Gun control has always been racist.
From the outside it looks as though your whole culture is only beginning to out grow the perception that arms are needed. It will be some time yet before you can work past this.
If you've been following along in the "History Is Cool" thread, you will see that I've been reading Priscilla Robertson's The Revolutions of 1848: A Social History. I haven't finished it yet (still have Italy and the British Chartists to get through), but in France, Prussia and Austria, a key demand of the liberals and democrats was the right to bear arms and the formation of people's militias.
But there was a recurring pattern: eventually, the workers would get the idea that all this talk about freedom and liberty also applied to them and they armed and demonstrated in their own interests.
They would then usually get gun downed by forces loyal to the liberals and democrats. And then, when the reactionaries would come against the libs and dems, they no longer had the workers behind them, and they would get crushed. After that, the right to bear arms became a lot less popular with the liberals and democrats of Europe. Gun control has always been racist and classist.