Guns, Guns Guns

gcomeau wrote:National level firearm control would certainly lower the overall homicide rate.

I am however completely stumped at what the hell you think the relevance of high population density areas having higher rates of crime than low population density areas is. No, a national firearm law would not magically equalize the crime rates across those different regions. It would just bring the overall average down across the board.


If, of course, a certain clueless percentage of the population wasn't dead set on refusing to allow it to happen.

So you are in fact a statist. Thank you for clearing that up.

Also exceedingly uncivil. They are clueless because they don't share your values or opinions on what is important. Because of course you are right,

By the way it isn't strictly related to density there are areas in the US where the opposite is true. Which should, in fact, let you know who might be clueless.

Yeah, I am exceedingly anal retentive to the point that I don't see the forest for the trees a lot of the time.

One thing I know I don't want my government guided by is the Three Laws of Robotics. Especially on something that has 840:99160 ratio of affecting me in my lifetime anyway.

So back to ignore mode. As my opinion is both clueless and in the past BS, in your stated opinion. <no loss>

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:National level firearm control would certainly lower the overall homicide rate.

I am however completely stumped at what the hell you think the relevance of high population density areas having higher rates of crime than low population density areas is. No, a national firearm law would not magically equalize the crime rates across those different regions. It would just bring the overall average down across the board.


If, of course, a certain clueless percentage of the population wasn't dead set on refusing to allow it to happen.

So you are in fact a statist. Thank you for clearing that up.

Yes, my answer to one question about whether the government could effectively impact one aspect of one issue makes me a "statist". How terribly perceptive of you.

Also exceedingly uncivil. They are clueless because they don't share your values or opinions on what is important. Because of course you are right,

By the way it isn't strictly related to density

I was addressing your comment, not attempting to characterize the entire length and breadth of the peculiarities of regional differences in crime statistics across the nation.

Tenshinai wrote:The only rights citizens CAN have is what the nation gives them, if you skip that part, you do not have a nation at all and any claims about citizen rights are completely invalid anyway.

That's in your country. Here in the USA, our rights are those that the government does not take away. By default, citizens have all the rights and the government has none. Our constitution grants the government certain limited powers, and prohibits it from taking rights not explicitly given to it. In addition, the first ten amendments reiterate certain particularly important rights that the government is not allowed to take from us.

The US Constitution does not grant us our rights; it permits the government to limit those rights to the extent necessary to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
---------------------
Terrorists and wacko nut jobs can't threaten our way of life or change who we are. Only we can do that. If we surrender to fear, if we give up our freedom for an illusion of safety, we do to ourselves what all the wackos and terrorists in the world can only dream of doing to us.

"NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can’t Take Syrian Refugees Because It’s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns"

"42 For I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not serve You?’

45 “He will answer, ‘Truly I say to you, as you did it not for one of the least of these, you did it not for Me.’

46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

"
WWJD, help the refugee's.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

"You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy."

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:The only rights citizens CAN have is what the nation gives them, if you skip that part, you do not have a nation at all and any claims about citizen rights are completely invalid anyway.

That's in your country. Here in the USA, our rights are those that the government does not take away.

You're arguing semantics. That situation you just described is the case why? Because the nation was set up that way to give the people those rights.

There's no practical difference between the two situations. The citizens of ANY nation have what rights they have under the laws of said nations because said nations grant them. You can nitpick terminology and try to phrase that differently but that's all you would be doing.

gcomeau wrote:...snip not sorting...

So you have no problem using the federal government to enforce your views on the individual value of a liberty or a life. With no actual regard to the local conditions.

While others are not asking you to do anything. Yep doesn't cost you a thing you value,apparently. Yet you are surprised that the people who value a liberty more than a life fight you over it.

Lets look at the scale here. To protect some fraction 30,000 lives you are willing to literally impact and punish the lives of millions of innocents. IIRC Blackstone had a saying, "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than let an inocent man suffer." Or some such.

For you it is better to punish at the rate of thousands to one. For their beliefs, opinions and values which are different than your own. I find that incredibly scary.

--------------------------------------

Let me go to a different hypothetical way to save lives.

Sarcasm tag on.

If we want to save ~5,000 lives next year. Let me give the simple way to do it! BAN MURDERCYCLES.

This would be a simple, easily enforceable law. I mean even Barney couldn't miss a 2 or 3 wheel vehicle.

Be we are talking about less than 5% of the population. Unlike gun deaths they die in droves twice the number of the 90's. I mean really they are 37 times more likely to die than a car.

We need to save them from themselves.

Sarcasm tag off.

I do not value life more than the manner living of that life.

Americans are now reversing the trend of national obesity. Cause cited in the article I flashed through, benefits of a good diet.

#1 Cause of death in the US heart disease, ~600,000. Gun Deaths aren't even in the top ten. Suicide is 10th but as only half of them are firearm related but ~70% of the total gun deaths.

Seems to me that suicide prevention would be a much more worthy expenditure of this much effort. Heart disease and its causes would be even better.

Yes I understand that my view on life and living is insane to some world views. Fair enough I consider any other view insane.

The Three Laws of Robotics are the height of insanity.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:...snip not sorting...

So you have no problem using the federal government to enforce your views on the individual value of a liberty or a life.

I stated a simple fact in response to your question.

Would national firearm control reduce homicide rates?

Yes it would. As clearly demonstrated by the entirety of all available data on that issue from across the globe.


Feel free to go off on any unhinged rant about that that you like.

Thinks, mental health is one of the holy triad of gun desths. Not just suicide, but other gun deaths as well.

It's also an issue that America seems to be seeeping under the carpet because soloutions are both difficult and long term propositions. (Not the only country btw)

Preventing those with mental health issues from owning a gun, or even just some restrictions, will go a long way towards lowering such death rates simply and quickly.

Actually acting as supervisors and I suppose carers for such sick people and their guns would be a good thing that the NRA could do.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

gcomeau wrote:I stated a simple fact in response to your question.

Would national firearm control reduce homicide rates?

Yes it would. As clearly demonstrated by the entirety of all available data on that issue from across the globe.


Feel free to go off on any unhinged rant about that that you like.

Actually no you didn't to INSMHO. In your opinion you did yes, I agree. The sigline is not just about dollars.

Heck I expected better than unhinged. I used insane for myself.

Whatever, back to ignore,
T2M