|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
I guess, except for all the cases I googled where the homeowner who assaulted a burglar got a longer, harsher sentence than the invader he'd assaulted. ...and you don't think that news sources that would turn up on a Google search would specifically select for "outrages" like that, while cases where the burglar received an appropriate sentence and the homeowner was never even charged would never even make the news for you to find in a search? The words "confirmation bias" spring to mind.
That's the issue, here. Not that homeowners aren't afforded equal protection under your law, but that criminals are. The notion that criminals have a right to safety, to not being assaulted, as they invade homes and put others at risk is insane. It's the insane notion that criminals should be expected to bear the physical risk of their crimes. Apparently you believe that a criminal forfeits his life the moment he commits a crime. Or that criminals stop being human beings. Tell me, crash, why do we not execute thieves? The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Theo writes: crash writes:
Please show the stats and your reasoning. In fact, you're a lot less likely to survive a home invasion in the UK than in the US. You know all you are doing is a version of a Gish Gallop. Quit flinging shit and back it up.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Crashfrog writes: Well, yes. For instance you protect criminals in the act of crimes. That's the issue, here. Not that homeowners aren't afforded equal protection under your law, but that criminals are. The notion that criminals have a right to safety, to not being assaulted, as they invade homes and put others at risk is insane. It's the insane notion that criminals should be expected to bear the physical risk of their crimes. Try to concentrate, just for a moment and stop deliberately misinterpreting what you are told. You're a clever guy, get a grip of yourself. In the UK we try to protect everyone as best we can all the time. That includes criminals. That does NOT mean that a criminal has a right to 'safety' when 'invading' a home. It does not mean that they are protected from violence - even extreme, fatal violence if the invade a home. The law is clear on this - a person can defend himself and his property using all reasonable force. If he fears for his life he is allowed to take a life - it's that simple.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Crashfrog writes:
A baseless claim for your first sentence. Look, Panda, I get it; you're as proud of your country as I am of mine.Not a good start. Crashfrog writes:
If you being honest is you saying something that is untrue, then your need to try harder. Maybe your conviction that I'm irrationally ignoring evidence out of nationalistic fervor - and let's be honest, that's what you believe Anyway...
Crashfrog writes: Panda writes:
*blatantly unable to show why it doesn't* It does. Australia banned guns and gun deaths went down dramatically.You have not shown otherwise. Do you think that a gun ban would produce an instant reduction?I think it would take several years at least. How long do you think it should take? (I realise that you have a history of not answering questions - but repeatedly asking them makes that more obvious to others.)...and still no link to a burglar being paid compensation. I'll add that to the list of your baseless claims. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
It is orders of magnitude easier to produce drugs than it is to manufacture firearms and ammunition. That's absurdly untrue. You can (and many do) manufacture a firearm and ammunition in a basement, with simple hand tools; while some drugs grow out of the grown with minimal processing, most drugs require advanced chemical processing before they're ready for distribution. Many drug labs rival professional pharmaceutical factories in scale and sophistication.
Firearms and ammunition require far more specialized materials. They don't and never have; that's why firearms technology was invented in the 1600's and crack wasn't invented until 1980.
But reducing the legal availability makes it more difficult to acquire guns and ammo... Just as reducing the legal availability of drugs made it more difficult to acquire drugs. But was society improved as a result? Did people use less drugs, or did they try harder to get drugs?
Nobody here has even once suggested that we should pattern a firearms ban on the "war on drugs." In fact, everybody suggesting tighter gun controls has suggested using exactly that, using policies and enforcement mechanisms exactly like those for drugs.
We don;t need those kinds of searches, and we don't need "zero tolerance" or mandatory sentencing. We already have them. I haven't heard you or anyone else advocate that we should end zero-tolerance policies for guns; if you oppose them, this is the first I'm hearing of it. And I guess I'd like you to clarify your new anti-zero-tolerance position. For instance, how many guns should someone be able to carry into a school?
You do know that most of the guns in Mexico come from the US, right? I do know that, but the guns in Mexico are in Mexico. That's what it means to be in Mexico.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
...and you don't think that news sources that would turn up on a Google search would specifically select for "outrages" like that, while cases where the burglar received an appropriate sentence and the homeowner was never even charged would never even make the news for you to find in a search? Who cares about those? The point was that it was easy to find examples of what you said wasn't happening. Geez, I'm sure it's the case that not 100% of your courts are insane, just as not 100% of Americans are rootin'-tootin' pistoleros.
Apparently you believe that a criminal forfeits his life the moment he commits a crime. I believe that criminals should bear the physical risks of their crime, not their victims. Your notion that there's a societal interest in protecting the lives of burglars as they menace the occupants of the homes they invade is absolutely insane. Why should a burglar be allowed to put my life at risk as a result of his crime? It's absurd. Insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
In the UK we try to protect everyone as best we can all the time. That includes criminals. Yes, insanely. But yes I absolutely agree that this is true. And because this is true - and try to pay attention, this is the important part - home invasion burglars know that, in the UK, they're safer when they invade a home with the occupants present than they are in other countries. That's why, in your country, the rate of home invasion burglaries where the occupants are present is four times higher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi CS, I see you added to the message later:
Catholic Scientist writes: I'm still missing the irony... He asked why I wouldn't go for a full-auto for killing people. Then he asked why grenades shouldn't be at WalMart. I don't think full-autos should be at WalMart either. You're trying awefully hard to make me look stupid. Sorry, wasn't trying to make you look stupid. If you don't see the irony then you don't see the irony, but it had nothing to do with grenades at WalMart. I explained what was ironic, you quoted it in your message, no grenades, no WalMart: "Your blas attitude combined with the thought of a device that could wreck your house while not being destructive was just too ironic to pass by without comment." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Why should a burglar be allowed to put my life at risk as a result of his crime? It's absurd. Insane.
Why should you be allowed to execute someone for breaking into your house?The police are not allowed to execute the burglar, why should you? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
crashfrog writes: But they haven't been. They've been increasing, even as the national gun ownership rate has been in decline. Yes, I believe I've heard that, though I haven't been able to verify it myself. The best I could come up with just now was this graph:
It's from a 2011 Gallup article titled Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993 Anyway, if gun ownership is actually declining then do you have the data for that? Is it significant compared with gun ownership rates in countries we've been comparing to the US? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
*blatantly unable to show why it doesn't* I don't recognize this text from my post, but you attribute it to me. Can you show me where I made this remark?
ustralia banned guns and gun deaths went down dramatically. You have not shown otherwise. No, in fact Australia's gun ban had almost no effect on the rate of gun deaths: Like other countries, Australia succeeded in preserving a low rate of firearms ownership and homicide, but the bans did nothing. Gun deaths in Australia were already on the decline, and they didn't decline any faster as a result of their guns ban.
Do you think that a gun ban would produce an instant reduction? Of course it should be immediate, if your position is that illegal things are harder to get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why should you be allowed to execute someone for breaking into your house? Why should their criminality be allowed to put me at risk?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Of course it should be immediate, if your position is that illegal things are harder to get. Harder to get is not the same as harder to have in your possession. Gun bans don't magically poof away guns. They just make them harder to get, so their numbers decrease over time. Not immediately. Tis has been stated multiple times in this thread.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...otings-in-the-united-states
quote: Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. My Christmas wish: Crash starts using the [thumb] dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They just make them harder to get, so their numbers decrease over time. Because what, they evaporate? Even if you made guns literally impossible to make, you'd still have just as many guns as you would year after year, minus the ones that, I don't know, fell down between the couch cushions or something. Guns are a durable good. Emphasis on the durable, a lot of Americans own rifles manufactured just after the Revolutionary War. They can still be fired even to this day.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024