misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

[KelJu]

This is not about agreement. Fact is you can't scientifically prove anything. You have no experiment. The data is not 'repeatable'. You have no control group. Ergo, you have zero science. What you do have is A and B and you conclude there is a causal correlation between the two. Disagreeing with the scientific nature of statistics simply means you do not fully comprehend science and the scientific method.

Statistically speaking (from what I've read), gun ownership and crime rates do not seem to be linked. However, even in the case of statistical rejection, you have a very fragile case, regardless of whether you favour gun ownership or not. The amount of data is extremely limited and all too often not reliable at all. There are too many parties with political and economical motivations involved. It's worse than Global Warming. A lot of the so called 'data' is simply a bunch of conclusions, most of the time concluded from out of context data.
Worst of all, there are so many variables involved in the equasion it's almost impossible to find a link between just two of them.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc

But they have been linked. There is tons of data, some posted by Will previously that showed a direct correlation between tightening gun control and violent crime rates increasing in the cities listed.

 

[Little Wing]

everyone here owns a gun. probably 80% of households at least...

there was a murder like 25 years ago. some guys tied a girl to a tree, raped her then beat her to death with rocks.

 

[Will Brink]

The amount of data is extremely limited

False

and all too often not reliable at all.

Also false

There are too many parties with political and economical motivations involved. It's worse than Global Warming. A lot of the so called 'data' is simply a bunch of conclusions, most of the time concluded from out of context data.
Worst of all, there are so many variables involved in the equasion it's almost impossible to find a link between just two of them.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc

It's a topic you admit you have not looked into in depth. Leave it at that.

 

[Will Brink]

I was responding to the original post. That Q & A smells.

He gave citations/sources to the questions, so it "smells" of facts and data. You can of course question the answers as being correct or not, but I didn't "smell" anything per se....

I've stated my point on gun ownership more than a handful of times on here. In my view, you better be one squared away individual if you're going to own a firearm.

Then an awful lot of lisenced gun owners are "squared away" as they are involved in amazingly few crimes, much lower than the general public in fact.

The majority of people who own guns are, simply put, not qualified to handle them. I base this statement on having spent some time in the military.

Many people, perhaps most, are not qualified to drive cars, yet there you have it. Driving a car is not protected under the US Const, and driving cars kills more people than guns, yet no one is calling for a ban on cars or even limited access to them. I agree, everyone should get trained in how to use guns, they should be able to write gun safety courses off on their taxes, advanced courses should be given in school, etc.

Is there a link between violent crime and gun ownership?

Nope...

I really don't know.

At least you're honest about it.

No, there is n I'll tell you this though; I wouldn't feel safe if my next door neighbor owned guns. What if there's bad blood between me and my neighbor? Am I supposed to live in fear for my life? Alluding to my earlier point, there was this middle class guy on Long Island who shot and killed this 18 year old kid for traspassing on his lawn. He was a legal owner and all. Like I said before, most people who own guns have no real need for them, nor are they qualified to handle them. That makes me uncomfortable.

You need to research the data, the US Const, and history. It's a far larger issue than you, or I, or your 18 year old neighbor, and why men FAR smarter than you and I made sure it was a natural right. I had a neighbor stab his wife to death when I was a kid. Stabbed her like 100 times. Yet, I blamed him, not his tool. My prior post covers most of this, so no use repeating.

Some people will take the "don't confuse me with the facts" approach to this issue, and you appear to be one of those people.

 

[iMan323]

^^You fail to acknowledge that the "natural right" was created in a vastly different society, a LOOOONG time ago. In caveman society it was a "natural right" to drag women by their hair and to copulate against their wish.....see where I'm heading with this? What was acceptable 200 years ago, simply may not fly today. Just some 50 odd years ago it was okay to call black people niggers and tell them to sit in the back of the bus. Don't try to impose your "smarter men" philosophy on me.

 

[Will Brink]

But they have been linked. There is tons of data, some posted by Will previously that showed a direct correlation between tightening gun control and violent crime rates increasing in the cities listed.

Here's a fun one. The Brady Bunch gives a grade for the gun laws of different states. Want to live in a state with the lowest crime? Pick a state that gets the *worst* grade for their gun laws by the Brady Bunch:

STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,

New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-


2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:

Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2

 

[Will Brink]

^^You fail to acknowledge that the "natural right" was created in a vastly different society, a LOOOONG time ago. In caveman society it was a "natural right" to drag women by their hair and to copulate against their wish.....see where I'm heading with this? What was acceptable 200 years ago, simply may not fly today. Just some 50 odd years ago it was okay to call black people niggers and tell them to sit in the back of the bus. Don't try to impose your "smarter men" philosophy on me.

I see you don't have a clue what a natural right is, or how it applies to this debate. Really feable attempt on your part.

 

[BoneCrusher]

I see you don't have a clue what a natural right is, or how it applies to this debate. Really feable attempt on your part.

No. You're wrong. He nailed it completely. Lol ... you didn't even spell feeble
properly so how can you denigrate his intellect?

 

[Will Brink]

No. You're wrong. He nailed it completely.

No, you both don't understand what it means and I guess never took a basic course on it:

"natural rights, political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God."

Cont:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835002.html

"The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our nature."

Cont:

Natural Law and Natural Rights

Lol ... you didn't even spell feeble

My bad

properly so how can you denigrate his intellect?

Easy. He jumped on a term he only thinks he understood and you knowing even less, defended him.

Now run along and play

 

[MCx2]

Too bad UFC 74 starts in 2 hours.

 

[BoneCrusher]

No, you both don't understand what it means and I guess never took a basic course on it:

"natural rights, political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God."

Cont:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835002.html

"The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our nature."

Cont:

Natural Law and Natural Rights



My bad



Easy. He jumped on a term he only thinks he understood and you knowing even less, defended him.

You're sooo close ... but missed it.

Now run along and play

Nah you're more fun. Natural rights as he was referring too are the same as you just described but in simplistic terms. You in essence backed up his claims as you then booed me off the stage.

"natural rights, political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God."

You conveniently left out the parts where this applies to a society as it exists within it's evolutionary time line and that the version you used is based on a religious interpretation. Remove God and the preordainment that belief in him presupposes and it comes down to natural existence and the right of the individual at that moment within that evolutionary structure.

As cavemen we were still in an animalistic social state. Rape was part of how we procreated ensuring that the stronger genes would out perform the weaker ones. It was that caveman's natural right to rape women.

50 years ago society had not yet evolved enough to get on the proper side of the racial equality lines. It was normal and acceptable for a 5 year old white kid to see a black man and feel the superior person. It was his natural right as society had conditioned him to exist with that perspective at that time. As he grew that right was altered by his interaction with the black suffrage movement. He still had the right to FEEL superior, but he couldn't deny the black man the right to vote based on that false mindset.

You, for example, decided that because I didn't agree with your posts I must not have ever studied natural rights. That state of false belief is your natural right as it aligns with your mindset. Had your innate egotistically driven perspective not clouded your judgment you would have asked instead of assumed.

Where iman made his error was that he tried to imply that because we needed to be armed back the day but that society has evolved to a state that we need not now be armed natural rights would argue in his favor making excessive gun laws necessary and disarming the citizen socially healthy. He also is not correct.

YouTube Video

 

[iMan323]

I don't claim to be a paragon of reason, but as far as I see it there's no Injuns roaming your territory. That's my whole arguement against gun ownerships. That said, I really want to own a gun, I like shooting them immensely.

 

[BoneCrusher]

I don't claim to be a paragon of reason, but as far as I see it there's no Injuns roaming your territory. That's my whole arguement against gun ownerships. That said, I really want to own a gun, I like shooting them immensely.

C'mon man ... I live in Texas. Injuns is all over the frickin place. Did you watch that clip? That 72 year old man had to shoot that Injun or that ol woman woulda been dead as fried chicken right there in the fried chicken department of wallymart. She called him her angel ... her savior.

If your way was the legal way she woulda been pronounced legally dead.

 

[FishOrCutBait]

YouTube Video

Id try to stab her to death for having hair like that too.

That old bastard prolonged the beehive's life.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Id try to stab her to death for having hair like that too.

That old bastard prolonged the beehive's life.

I'm totally with ya on that one. He shoulda at least scalped her before he died ... fugginn Injuns never get anything right.

Back on topic though. We cannot even let any media source govern our perspective. I look at foreign media sources for a more honest look at world issues.

 

[Will Brink]

You're sooo close ... but missed it.
Nah you're more fun. Natural rights as he was referring too are the same as

Babble snipped. You made no points other than to hear yourself talk and attempt to show how smart you are, yet still missed the major point of the issue.

 

[Will Brink]

I don't claim to be a paragon of reason, but as far as I see it there's no Injuns roaming your territory. That's my whole arguement against gun ownerships.

And it's mighty poor one at that, and based on ignorance of the topic no doubt.

"Gun-control laws have always been elitist and racist. Elitists have always wanted to disarm the common folks while, of course, retaining the privileges of arms for themselves. And the right to keep and bear arms has always been a populist cause." - James Madison (boasting to a European critic that the new country of America did not fear its own people and allowed them to own arms).

That said, I really want to own a gun, I like shooting them immensely.

Ah, so it's a right that applies to you but not to others?

 

[Witchblade]

That was a ridiculous assumption Witchblade. I don't own guns because of my political motivations. Fact is I am not even in agreement with any political party at all. I own guns because I like them. I own guns because of the world we live in. I own guns for reasons I cannot go into here.

I'm not saying you're actively defending gun rights for your own cause. I'm saying you own guns, therefore you can never be 100% objective (like all Americans basically). It doesn't even have to be consciously, but the fact someone owns guns means they have a personal interest in keeping them, regardless of their intentions. It's not a jab at you or an assumption, or even something personal. It's simply how it works.

 

[Will Brink]

I'm not saying you're actively defending gun rights for your own cause. I'm saying you own guns, therefore you can never be 100% objective (like all Americans basically). It doesn't even have to be consciously, but the fact someone owns guns means they have a personal interest in keeping them, regardless of their intentions. It's not a jab at you or an assumption, or even something personal. It's simply how it works.

What point are you actually trying to make here? That all human beings have a natural bias toward topics that are of interest to them? That would be the ???no duh??? statement of the century.

 

[ZECH]

As far as I'm concerned the government needs to get their noses out of Americans business and just do the job they are supposed to do...

I'm sick of liberties being stripped away from the American people....

I'm sick of gun control, I'm sick of anti-abortionists, jailing journalists, regulations on what prescriptions doctors can prescribe their patients, the FBI can look into anyone private records without the proper warranting procedures....my beefs oscillate over both sides of the party lines I have no set agenda except for True Freedom....

Best post of thread!!

 

[Will Brink]

Best post of thread!!

Then you should probably vote Libertarian as they get about as close as you ever will to that same goal.

 

[ZECH]

Then you should probably vote Libertarian as they get about as close as you ever will to that same goal.

I'm one of the biggest gun owners and supporters! I guess I get tired of hearing people debate something back and forth that is almost impossible to convince either side of their ways. No one will ever change their beliefs once they have them set in.

 

[MCx2]

I'm one of the biggest gun owners and supporters! I guess I get tired of hearing people debate something back and forth that is almost impossible to convince either side of their ways. No one will ever change their beliefs once they have them set in.

New best post of the thread.

Agree 100%.

 

[Will Brink]

I'm one of the biggest gun owners and supporters! I guess I get tired of hearing people debate something back and forth that is almost impossible to convince either side of their ways. No one will ever change their beliefs once they have them set in.

True enough 99 out of 100 times, but once in a while, given enough counter info to their position, people can change their minds. Rare, but it does happen. Regardless, we still have to fight the good fight. The lives of millions of people may in fact depend on it.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they can achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison

 

[Witchblade]

I guess I get tired of hearing people debate something back and forth that is almost impossible to convince either side of their ways. No one will ever change their beliefs once they have them set in.

Basically my point too.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Babble snipped. You made no points other than to hear yourself talk and attempt to show how smart you are, yet still missed the major point of the issue.

... nice try. Cute phrase ... babble snipped; however, your desire to ignore reality can't change it Will. That hearing yourself talk part? That is alllll you. Lol ... speaking of which, what major point of this issue did I miss? None. It's just your ego that needs placated so you had to respond. Kinda like me now ... but at least I admit it.

I enjoy a good debate with someone but this ego bashing garbage gets old, and since we are on the same side of the gun control issues there is no debate to be had betwixt us. Anything either one of us posts vs each other in this thread on this issue is just more flatulent ego stimulation and totally pointless.

 

[Will Brink]

... nice try.

Thanx. Now have a nice day and all that.

 

[BoneCrusher]

I'm not saying you're actively defending gun rights for your own cause. I'm saying you own guns, therefore you can never be 100% objective (like all Americans basically). It doesn't even have to be consciously, but the fact someone owns guns means they have a personal interest in keeping them, regardless of their intentions. It's not a jab at you or an assumption, or even something personal. It's simply how it works.

You on the other hand ...

Since you've continually flown the "Holland is better than the US" banner in various subliminal ways I'd like to see your numbers on violent crime in Holland. Real numbers in English with sources would due nicely.

Let me axe you somethin' here. When a Hollander decides to kill his neighbor for banging his wife what does he use? When a crime of financial opportunity is committed what's the weapon of choice over there in Holland? When a Hollander decides to check out what does he use to kill himself with?

And another thing. You thinking I am not capable of stepping out of my situation in deference to the needs of my country based on what is best for the nation as a whole is an insult and I demand satisfaction Withcblade. Lets say we meet up somewhere in the south of France and shoot it out with .50 cal's mounted to humvees. I have a spare if you need to borrow one ...

 

[Will Brink]

Your "I know you are but what am I?" babble was snipped.

speaking of which, what major point of this issue did I miss? None.

As you decided to answer your own question, there is little need for me to attempt to correct you. His response and your defense of that response, simply tells me you both don???t really understand the concept, and then both tried the high school debate tactic of the straw man. Natural rights is a term that has dropped out of the current lexicon in favor of terms such as intrinsic rights, universal rights, unalienable and perhaps most appropriate, human rights.(1)


The right of self defense, is a basic human right no government can grant or take away. No matter which time a society chooses to ignore those rights, does not alter them or remove them. Your feeble example of the white man feeling superior over the black man simply shows you don???t understand the concept on the larger scale. The white people could ???feel??? it was their natural right to be superior, but it was simply wrong, and their basic human right of equality was denied to them. Basic human rights, intrinsic rights, universal rights, or what ever the lingo of the day is, do not change, ever. Currently for example, it???s illegal for most gay people to get married, and that is simply an example of their being denied their basic human right of equality in the society.

That society, or parts there of, may feel they should not be allowed to marry, or that blacks should not be allowed to vote, or that women don???t have the right to vote, etc, etc is quite irrelevant. Thus, why they Founders wrote ???We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.??? Those rights do not change, ever, and thus why the right to free speech, the right to self defense (be it from tyranny in government or foreign), etc., are basic human rights of all people.

As far as a Natural Right argument specific to the Second Amend, see:

Natural Rights Arguments for the Second Amendment

General stuff on human rights:

Human Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A book that looks at the connections between natural rights, human rights, etc., designed for a philosophy class that's a good read:

Amazon.com: The Philosophy of Human Rights (Paragon Issues in Philosophy): Books: Patrick Hayden


Specific things for you to take a look at regarding 2A:

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/article...n macro2.pdf

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/i...dAmendment.pdf




(1) Yes, some philosophers would differentiate between some of those terms, but many feel they are a continuum of each other if not directly interchangeable as I do.

 

[JerseyDevil]

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they can achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison

Nice quote. Although I can't seem to verify James Madison actually said this, it is something he more then likely would have agreed with.

This worked for the 1700's. In present times, how enslaved is our press? Does CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX all have a stockpile of weapons in case "they" come? What is really humorous is do gun advocates really think their peashooters could hold off a F16 or a Sherman tank?