Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[Obvious Leo]

I'm not British, UA. In fact I'm a New Zealander by citizenship, and no Kiwi would be seen dead fucking a pig while there are sheep in the paddock.

[UniversalAlien]

I'm not British, UA. In fact I'm a New Zealander by citizenship, and no Kiwi would be seen dead fucking a pig while there are sheep in the paddock.

I prefer goats myself - though they are hard to understand.

I don't know about NZ but last I read Australia made the big compromise - You can own guns but they must be locked up when not in use. I suppose in some future world where reason prevails even 'gun happy' USA might be able to live with that type of gun control. I can't speak for the UK - But still maintain that their extremism on gun ownership is excessive and goes against what I consider to be a basic right of citizens to be able to protect themselves and what is theirs - I read somewhere that since the institution of the relatively recent gun restrictions in that country there have been an increase in home invasion type crimes as well as crimes with knives.

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)

Editorial Reviews
Review
“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”

(James Bovard Wall Street Journal)

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”

(John O. McGinnis National Review)
About the Author
John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe? , the latter also published by the University of Chicago Press.

Information source:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cr ... 0226493660

[Obvious Leo]

UA. You failed to mention the fact that Lott's statistical data has never been replicated by other academics and that the methodology of his research has attracted sustained criticism from experts in the field. You also failed to mention that he's an advocate for practically any right-wing cause going around and would mostly be regarded as at the lunatic fringe of many such advocacy groups.

If you seriously reckon that the world would be a safer place if everybody was armed with firearms then you defend a minority position and the convention is that in such circumstances the burden of proof lies with you. Kindly present this proof and stop prattling the propaganda of lobbyists.

[Scott Mayers]

"all of us have both 'good' as much as 'bad' in us and (this) makes gun ease of access more, and not less, harmful"

So what?

Again: why should I submit to hobbling and restraint cuz some schmuck did wrong with a firearm? If Joe does bad things, punish Joe. If I don't do bad things, leave me the hell alone.

You seem to even interpret me here in your own perspective incorrectly. My point was NOT that "of all" of us, that 'some' are "good" while others are "bad". My point is that EACH of us had both qualities and is merely dependent upon various factors like mood, or ones' present environmental conditions, etc. So "Joe" is as much prone to a balance of "good" that exists too.

To assert we penalize people AFTER the fact of some potential wrong should then permit even children to have a right to maintain firearms unless/until they actually do 'bad'. Given what I'm saying, since EVERYONE WILL be as much 'bad' as 'good' sometimes, the availability of guns is no different than allowing a child to have a gun. We usually even frown at the idea of them running around with scissors!

And don't think this extreme example using children is of no comparison to adults. A 'legal' adult is one determined merely upon one's age, not their actual maturity to be qualified as 'good' by some averages. It is just a practical guideline.

[Scott Mayers]

...
I agree to you in that the extreme to be completely too trustworthy of ANY entity, such as government, to just give up all means of security should be discounted for the sake of safety. But, if you read my last post above, my concern is that IF we must have some 'right' to keep any government in check of acting as an abusive body when their power enables them to make the population defenseless, it has to be done either most universally to actually guarantee everyone HAS a gun (even if they may not agree to having or using it), or we are perpetually in some back and forth competition to assure WHO actually has the power to maintain force in practice using such tools. ...

And yet in many countries where guns are rife the rule is abusive, how do you square this?

Do you seriously think that if your govt decided to become abusive the averagely armed citizen would be able to do anything against your military?

You know I AM for gun-control here, right? I was saying that 'if' one defends the right to arms for the concern that one's government COULD be 'evil', justifying the gun-lobby position should REQUIRE assuring each and every person HAVE a gun by LAW, not merely some option to own by choice. This is because, I'm arguing, that the presumption of 'freedom' for such choice, is non-existent. If I was desperately hungry enough to desire robbing my local store, if I had enough money to buy some gun, I'd have as much money to eat quite satisfactory for a few months, defeating my need to actually rob the store. (Here in Canada, where our laws don't have the same ease to access as those of the States, that is.) Even we could still do better though.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

More misdirected irrelevant paranoia.
What the fuck are you using for a brain; blancmange?

I'm using your sh-t for a brain JERK! At this point I could not care less if Isis overruns your country - I don't see your point a- hole - But you have made me understand them - And the American Revolution is not over - It has just begun

That is the dumbest re-joinder I've heard for a long time. There are people here, literally rolling on the floor. Priceless!!

I glad that you finally noticed that I open up your head and had a shit in it, that does not give you an excuse to think that ISIS is a significant threat. Even my shit knows better than that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You plead the case of ignorance, as surely it runs rampant. ...

You speak in sage-babble once more.
Your way of saying you don't understand, your ignorance, something you fear admitting.

Rome had it right, feed them and make them happy, and you'll maintain your wealth and the control of that which makes you wealthy. Not all understand. The propaganda engine is strong, surely in America, right?[/color]

Romans were armed to the teeth.
You missed it. Much of what I say depends upon ones knowledge of those things taught at university. In this case History. This particular bit spoke of the way in which 'governments' attempt to 'control' their 'subjects.'

That's an absurd notion, that as usual because you can see nothing else, you have attributed to my argument, not so!

But it'd be a solution to the revolutionaries problem of the soldiers that are supporting the regime?
Neither you nor I could know how those connections would manifest, but they surely would. And I seriously doubt a government comprised of the wealthy, would fair very well, dependent upon the loyalty of relatively poorer soldiers, killing their equally poor brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, so their wealthy/powerful superiors, could maintain the wealth/power (inequality) responsible for all the killing in the first place. This is 2016!

You try and stack the deck as to the sequence in such an event, because it serves your purpose, I'll not try and consult your crystal ball as if I can then know the future. Because I know that the future unfolds as it does.

And yet you tell me how it'll be with these family loving soldiers.
I expect such BS from one that would kill babies to save themselves, hiding behind their children as the reason, after saying that they shall not curtail their selfish want, so as to save the earth, because it's doomed anyway, thus throwing their children, and so their children, under that bus of their making. As such, you're pretty sick for the sake of argument, aren't you! Unlike you, I don't use my children, I actually care for them.

You claimed that the soldiers would not fire upon revolutionaries because their families might be amongst them, I pretty much quoted the revolutionaries experience of how that could and has occurred. What hasn't ever happened is that the troops have withheld fire when being fired upon and that is what the right to hold a gun supporters claim is a reason for having their toys in the first place.
And that's your mistake, confusing times of old, with now. Education and the disparity between the rich and the poor has increased, and we are faced with M.A.D., all of which are game changers, just to name a few of many.

Fuck you with your condescension crap, that you're too stupid to understand is your fault. ...

Fine with me as it was obviously not a point you wished to communicate.
There is no need to be condescending, in an attempt to cheapen your opponent, in truth, you only ever cheapen yourself. You should have taken the time to be intellectually effectual in argument, not appealing to emotion.

(Hey you just started it, not I! From me you'll get what you give, you don't want it, don't give it.)[/color]

Spare me your explanations as I don't give a toss about your emotional make-up.
Such explanations are only ever given to those seemingly far too stupid to realize their error. As they hold another accountable for that which they are guilty.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You tell him,UA. John Wayne never died and now we have the Trumpster to show the world the true American spirit. Why bother arguing with people when it's quicker to just shoot the fuckers.

Such a child sometimes, spitting out untrue generalizations, which actually spite your face. Calling into question your maturity, thus education.

[SpheresOfBalance]

All arguments for and against hand guns are in fact fear laden. PERIOD! But there's a new kid on the block, indiscriminate of the source of everyone's fears! It's surely M.A.D.!

OK. Follow the logic of this. You don't approve of controlling handguns because the only reason to do so is fear, which is a bad reason for controlling stuff for some reason you hint at but don't seem inclined to explain. Whatever, you can't approve of restrictions on nuclear armaments because the only reason to do so is fear, right?

For what it's worth though, fear is probably a pretty good reason for banning murder and rape. I don't want to be raped and murdered, therefore I am not willing to allow you to do those things. Are you in favour of banning those activities?

Seemingly you totally missed my point, but I can't understand why. Unless it was on purpose, if so, that's only for you to admit to yourself. Anything less and you'll remain appearing foolish.
I'll say it again rrreeeaaalll ssslllooowww.

"All arguments "for" and "against" hand guns are in fact "fear laden." "For and against."
That you picked only one side of my equation, then proceeded to argue it alone, proves your disingenuous nature. I'll wait for you to reconsider my point.

[FlashDangerpants]

You had just raised the fact of the existence of nuclear weapons as if it has something to do with gun control around the house. If I missed the purpose of your argument, I feel justified, because it can only be poor.

[henry quirk]

"It is just a practical guideline."

Yes, one based on the notion that, after a certain period, an individual has matured sufficently to self-direct responsibily. It's not a perfect system, but it works well enough.

#

Again (cuz, seems to me, the question is being ignored or danced around): why should I submit to hobbling and restraint cuz some schmuck did wrong with a firearm?

[FlashDangerpants]

Again (cuz, seems to me, the question is being ignored or danced around): why should I submit to hobbling and restraint cuz some schmuck did wrong with a firearm?

Because so might you.

[henry quirk]

So, I should be punished today for what I might do tomorrow?

[Obvious Leo]

So, I should be punished today for what I might do tomorrow?

Henry. With all due respect for your stated position I simply cannot understand how you could define gun control measures as a "punishment". In the wrong hands guns are lethal weapons which are being used to wreak untold harm in your society. Surely a society has both the right and the obligation to protect itself by doing its best to ensure that such lethal weapons don't fall into the wrong hands.

In my country the burden of responsibility for gun ownership lies with the gun owner. Such a person must be able to demonstrate to all the members of the broader community that he or she is not a threat to them. Why do you regard this as an unfair restriction?

[henry quirk]

Take my gun, or restrict my use of it, when I've done nuthin' wrong with the gun is, to me, punishment.

And: I have no problem with making gun safety trainig mandatory prior to purchase, in the same way I have no problem with mandatory driving safety courses. Once I pass either, however, get the hell offa my back and outta my face.