"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:bvbt04domsb4ekat215u1mbofa9p5mgl48@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:03:33 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:cmjau3t3v47i3cf8s6isefpsrmb3gb0p5q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:38:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:iri3u3p6flps1iunf7g1g63evvlo1dltmi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:58:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:fuo2u3tsvnjl8fdt73dtenqekv5j7jbsc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:nus0u3d7gbfn3dtcstiuk18rthnhicjpca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"keithr" <keithr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:47df906a$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Patrick Turner" <info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:47DF8796.C9FDF1CB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the
American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Independance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bison
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North,
>>>>>>>>>>>>during
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>Civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item,
built
>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>sophisticated mechanical equipment. So im****tant was this item
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>hands
>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no
>>>>>>>>>>>>small
>>>>>>>>>>>>part,
>>>>>>>>>>>>for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark,
>>>>>>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>>US
>>>>>>>>>>>>history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many
>>>>>>>>>>>>Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>>seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>think that gun owning is both sane and a right for
individuals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>despite
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
>>>>>>>>>>militia.."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Separate clause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>**The meaning is clear enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not
>>>>>>> be infringed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**As part of a well regulated militia.
>>>>>
>>>>> The operative word is "people" and it is the same "people" who have
>>>>> the right to peaceably assemble and be secure in their persons,
homes,
>>>>> and effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also confound militia, select militia, and organized militia.
See
>>>>> George Mason, below.
>>>>
>>>>**No, I do not.
>>>
>>> Yes, you do. And do so again while denying it.
>>>
>>>> The US FFs' ONLY mentioned " well regulated militia". No
>>>>other qualifiers were used.
>>>
>>> And since "No other qualifiers were used" why do you perpetually refer
>>> to select and organized militia in your bogus arguments?
>>
>>**Because the words: "well regulated militia" are used in the 2nd
>>Amendment.
>
> But select, organized, 'called forth', 'in service of the government',
> nor any other similar term of art, was.
>
> I refer you, again, to the quotes immediately below.
**You may refer me to whatever you wish. Nothing alters the fact that the
"well regulated militia" part is integral to the Amendment.
>
>
>>> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
>>> few public officials."
>>> -- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
>>> the Constitution
>>>
>>> Not to mention I explained the English syntactical construction
>>> showing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
>>> infringed" is not dependent on anything else.
>>>
>>> Of course, as is typical of gun control zealots, you summarily ignored
>>> the words of the founding fathers as to the intent, as well as the
>>> clear English of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'militia' clause may be informative, or even a 'reason', for
which
>>>>> there may be multiple interpretations, but the rights declaration is
>>>>> absolute and is not dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a simple example. The dean of a university issues a written
>>>>> statement to the students of a class "the teacher being ill, class
is
>>>>> canceled."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about the 'ill' clause alters the command declaration of
class
>>>>> being canceled. If the teacher called in sick to watch a football
>>>>> game, but is not ill at all, class is still canceled. If someone
took
>>>>> the message wrong, class is still canceled. If someone got the
>>>>> teacher's names mixed up, the class is still canceled. If the
teacher
>>>>> experiences a miracle cure and is now well, class is still canceled.
>>>>> If the dean flat out lied about his reason, or had 25 other reasons
in
>>>>> addition to the one mentioned, class is still canceled. No matter
>>>>> what the status of the 'ill' clause may be, good, bad, current, or
>>>>> obsolete, class is canceled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, you can argue all day long that the dean didn't know what he
was
>>>>> doing, or there were substitute teachers available, or that the
>>>>> students could teach themselves, or any other 'modern' ideas you
dream
>>>>> up, but the fact of the matter is "class is canceled" and the only
>>>>> thing that can alter "class is canceled" would be a new declaration,
>>>>> an 'amendment', so to speak.
>>>
>>> Your deafening silence noted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
>>>>> be infringed."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
>>>>>>> "Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the
>>>>>>> convenience
>>>>>>> of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
>>>>>>> State is why explicit protections are stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The
Patriot
>>>>>>Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>>**Er, no. The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US
Constitution.
>>>
>>> Repeating an unsubstantiated falsehood is still a falsehood.
>>
>>**The Patriot Act is not a falsehood.
>
> I didn't way it was. I said your unsubstantiated falsehoods were.
**The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US Constitution. The
Patriot
Act is a reality.
>
>> That the Patriot Act violates several
>>parts of the US Constitution is not a falsehood.
>>
>>http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html
>>
>>http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
>
> The first place I went, long time ago, was the ACLU because I always
> look to hear both sides of a dispute.
>
> Besides their arguments being primarily loaded words the fact of the
> matter is the vast majority of their 'complaints' refer to powers
> already in existence for drug cases and racketeering (perhaps some
> others I forget off hand) and the Patriot act simply added terrorism
> to the list. And I find that imminently reasonable.
>
>
>>> All you do is parrot unsubstantiated accusations, as evidenced by your
>>> inability to mention a single thing of substance.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The search and seizure clause specifically says "unreasonable," not
>>>>> "any" or "all."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people ---- which universally means the people both
individually
>>>>>>> and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
>>>>>>> assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their
persons,
>>>>>>> houses, papers, and effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> List one rather than babbling unsubstantiated accusations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if you could, however, one infringement does not justify or
>>>>> excuse another.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
>>>>>>>>militia" as part of the rights to gun owner****p.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights
declaration
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> infringed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions
of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is
>>>>>>clear
>>>>>>that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed
>>>>>>militia.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's 'clear' is you haven't bothered to read a thing the people
'of
>>>>> the times' wrote on the subject because, if you had, it would be
>>>>> 'clear' they considered arms an individual right of the people
>>>>> irrespective of any organized militia.
>>>>
>>>>**And yet, they chose to deliberately include the term: "well
regulated
>>>>militia" in the same Amendment. Not separate, but within it. In fact,
>>>>within
>>>>the same sentence.
>>>
>>> A fact that you have no clue about because, I repeat, " you haven't
>>> bothered to read a thing the people 'of the times' wrote on the
>>> subject."
>>
>>**The words in the 2nd Amendment are clear enough.
>
> Yes, it is. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
**As part of a "well regulated militia".
>
>> They refer to a "well
>>regulated militia".
>
> They 'refer' to both and I've given you the plain English breakdown of
> the sentence. And, regardless of you ignoring it, class is still
> canceled.
**Ignore it all you wish. The clause still exists.
>
>
>>>>> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
a
>>>>> few public officials."
>>>>> -- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification
of
>>>>> the Constitution
>>>>>
>>>>> "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they
>>>>> be properly armed."
>>>>> -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
>>>>>
>>>>> "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
>>>>> Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
>>>>> conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
>>>>> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
>>>>> -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
>>>>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>>>>>
>>>>> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
>>>>> Americans possess over the people of almost every other
>>>>> nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with
>>>>> arms."
>>>>> --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
>>>>>
>>>>> "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
>>>>> -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
>>>>> Papers, 334
>>>>>
>>>>> "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left
in
>>>>> full possession of them."
>>>>> -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention
>>>
>>> Your deafening silence noted.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd
>>>>>>>>>>Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
>>>>>>>>> English, such as "the right of the people..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**I just deal in facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly false
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They also understand the origin of the right, common law
>>>>>>>>> precedents,
>>>>>>>>> the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>law
>>>>>>>>by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not 'the law'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
>>>>>>behalf
>>>>>>of the gun pushers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You imply yourself 'the law' by hysterically shrieking 'subversion'
>>>>> simply because they have a different opinion than yours.
>>>>
>>>>**Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> The NRA is on record for opposing laws which would limit the
>>>>availability of guns to criminals.
>>>
>>> They're on record for having a different opinion than yours but, as I
>>> pointed out, you are not 'the law' and your opinion is not 'the law'.
>>>
>>>> There is no sane, nor good reason for
>>>>doing so.
>>>
>>> In your opinion, irrational though it be.
>>
>>**What is irrational about holding the opinion that flawed US gun
control
>>laws do little to prevent legal gun owners from selling their guns to
>>criminals?
>
> That wasn't the topic.
**Yeah, it is.
The irrationality is your supreme arrogance in
> insisting that anyone who holds a different opinion than yours is
> 'subverting the law', not 'sane', and has 'no good reason'.
**That is not my position. My position is that anyone who opposes strong,
sane homogeneous gun control laws is a fool. Or a criminal.
>
>
>>>> UNLESS the NRA does actually happen to be working for the gun
>>>>manufacturers. THe NRA has no interest in the greater good. It acts
>>>>solely
>>>>to lobby and promote the sale of more and more guns. Fostering
paranoia
>>>>amongst Americans is it's most useful weapon to date.
>>>
>>> Just as you ignore the writings of the founding fathers, the meaning
>>> of militia (in it's various forms), and English syntax you ignore the
>>> obvious in order to construct your loony 'conspiracies'. And the
>>> obvious here is that it's likely the NRA bothered to read the writings
>>> of the founding fathers, knows the meaning of militia (in it's various
>>> forms), and understands English syntax, so it is not terribly
>>> surprising they have a different opinion than you.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make them infallible but it's a decided edge.
>>
>>**Nonsense.
>
> Being familiar with the writings and opinions of the founding fathers
> and authors of the Constitution is anything but 'nonsense'.
**Subverting the meaning intended by the US founding fathers is, however.
>
>> The NRA has opposed legislation which would seek to limit the
>>availability of guns to criminals.
>
> In your opinion.
**Nope. Fact.
>
> Btw, "seeking" is not necessarily "achieving,: not to mention a
> laudable 'goal' does not always justify the means.
>
>> The NRA has opposed the Brady Bill,
>
> There are sound reasons to oppose the Brady Bill.
**Name them.
>
>>Wa****ngton DC's gun control laws (despite a clear desire for DC citizens
>>for
>>tough gun controls) and many other laws.
>
> For good reason.
**What reason?
>
>
>>>>> The NRA has no power to 'subvert' the law. They can only speak and
>>>>> lobby on behalf of their constituents and the 'power' they do have
>>>>> comes from 1. their arguments having merit and 2. representing a
large
>>>>> constituency. All of which is well protected under the right of free
>>>>> speech and of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
>>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>>**Indeed.
>>>
>>> Glad we got the 'subversion' bit put to bed.
>>
>>**Nope.
>
> Oh, I knew you'd instantly reverse the "indeed" whenever it was
> convenient.
>
>> The NRA subverts the desires of many Americans, in preference for
>>the gun manufacturers' desires.
>
> The NRA doesn't "subvert" a blessed thing and the only accomplishment
> of your hysterics is to demonstrate arrogant irrationality.
**Yeah, they do. Constantly. Despite the clear preference of various
populations inside the US, the NRA attempts to subvert their wishes.
>
>
>>>> Therein lies the problem.
>>>
>>> Only if 'problem' is defined as someone having a different opinion
>>> than yours. But, then, we've already established that you aren't 'the
>>> law' and neither is your opinion.
>>>
>>>> The NRA effectively lobbies to ensure
>>>>that real gun control laws never see the light of day.
>>>
>>> The NRA effectively lobbies against 'subverting' the meaning and
>>> intent of the Second Amendment and they do so by pointing to the
>>> writings of the founding fathers, the meaning of militia (in it's
>>> various forms), and English syntax that you ignore.
>>
>>**Nope. The NRA, like you, prefers to ignore the words: "well regulated
>>militia" when interpreting the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
>>Ignoring
>>those words will not make them go away.
>
> No one "ignores' them.
**The YOU explain them.
The 'trick' is in being able to read and
> comprehend English. And I've given you the plain English structure and
> meaning of the sentences.
>
>
>>> It's called freedom of speech, debate, the right of the people to
>>> petition the government and, in general, democracy.
>>
>>**Sure.
>
> Since you agree here, with "sure," yet continue to maintain it's
> "subversion," one can only conclude you consider freedom of speech and
> the right of the people to petition the government and, in general,
> democracy, to be subversion.
**The people of DC have expressed their wishes. The NRA has subverted
their
wishes.
>
>> And it is also the righs of DC residents, for instance, to want
>>tough, sane gun control laws.
>
> I doubt you've done a survey "of the people" but, nonetheless, "sure,"
> to coin a phrase.
>
>> Laws that the NRA opposes, despite the desires
>>of the clear majority of DC residents.
>
> Got news for you, even just 'one person' has the right to "oppose"
> anything, as long as it's peacefully and legally done.
**The NRA is imposing it's will upon the citizens of DC.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by
other
>>>>>>>>>>gun
>>>>>>>>>>loons
>>>>>>>>>>each and every year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the
text
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to
>>>>>>>>reflect
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
>>>>>>>>Amendment,
>>>>>>>>given the situation which exists today:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
>>>>>>> matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
>>>>>>> intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly by those who substitute their own 'desires' over the clear
and
>>>>> profuse writings by those who lived at the time, wrote, and ratified
>>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would
>>>>>>seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect
what
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck. But I believe you'll discover your expectation of what's
>>>>> "desired by the people" to be fantasy.
>>>>
>>>>**A few more school massacres should do it. Sadly, it seems to reached
>>>>epidemic pro****tions in the US.
>>>
>>> I suspect 'the people' may prefer a different means of addressing
>>> crime than 'subverting' the Constitution and surrendering their
>>> rights.
>>
>>**Your suspicion is duly noted. Perhaps those people could look to
>>Australia
>>and all the other Western, developed nations. They may alter their
stance,
>>when confronted with some facts, rather than NRA rhetoric.
>
> If you look to those 'developed nations' you'll find no consistent
> significant correlation between the enactment of stricter guns laws
> and reduced crime or murder.
**Wrong. Gun related homicides are lower in all the other Western,
developed
nations. In some cass, by a spectacularly large amount. Here in Australia,
for instance, by an order of magnitude. Critically, in Australia, we had
11
mass murders committed via guns in the 10 years prior to the 1996 gun
control laws. In the 11 since they were enacted, there have been zero
incidences. Nada, none, zip. Not one. Factor that into your thinking.
>
>
>>> Btw, good work on the hysterics. That's how people get the false
>>> impression crime is up when it's down and that schools are dangerous
>>> when more children die at the hands of their own parents and more
>>> people die from lightning strikes.
>>
>>**I just deal in facts.
>
> If people who make that claim actually dealt with 'facts' they're have
> no need to perpetually make the claim..
**I present the facts and you ignore them.
>
>> Gun related homicides are up. Not down.
>
> As of which date compared to which date?
**2002.
>
> According to the CDC, firearm homicides (all ages) in 1993 was
> 7.02/100,000 and in 2005, the last date for compiled statistics (at
> least online), it was 4.17.
>
>> Your attempt
>>to deflect discussion, by introducing a strawman (lightning deaths) is
>>duly
>>noted.
>
> No, it demonstrates how people inflame a topic by taking it out of
> context.
**No. It is a strawman. People can do something to mitigate the likelihood
that they will be struck by lightning. Being shot to death is much more
difficult to avoid.
>
>> Just because more people _may_ be killed by lightning strikes,
>
> There's no 'may' to it. That's taken from re****ted lightning deaths.
>
>> does
>>not mean that reducing the incidence of other deaths is not a desirable
>>thing to do.
>
> I didn't make that claim.
**Then why introduce that particular strawman?
But the implied argument that life should be
> 'riskless' is not only nonsense it's unachievable.
**Life is certainly not without risk. However, based on the evidence form
all the other Western, developed nations, we can dramatically reduce the
risk from being shot to death, with minimal difficulty. That is a laudable
goal to most sane people.
>
>> Reducing the chances to being killed by lightning, is something
>>which can be done by most people.
>
> It is also a 'risk' that has virtually zero utility to anyone, yet
> it's responsible for deaths.
**Not so. Without lightning, this planet would be a very different place.
>
>> Reducing the likelohood of being shot to
>>death is usually beyond the victim's control.
>
> There are a lot of alive victims who would dispute your claim.
**And yet, there are 10,000 dead Americans (every year) who can no longer
speak. They vastly outnumber those who may have used a gun to save
themselves.
>
>
>>>>>>>>* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it wasn't in 1789 either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**It was still under threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> By who? Those who signed the Peace Treaty?
>>>>
>>>>**Of course.
>>>
>>> Interesting how glibly "of course" rolls off your lips when the
>>> historical fact is they weren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The US military was in it's infancy. The
>>>>>>British armed forces were substantial.
>>>>>
>>>>> And on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is you said "occupied by a vicious foreign power" and that
>>>>> was factually false.
>>>>
>>>>**Indeed. I should have said "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a vicious foreign
>>>>power". Happy?
>>>
>>> I'm always 'happy' when people say truthful things rather than false
>>> things.
>>>
>>> Although, it's a bit problematic to say "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a
>>> vicious foreign power" when, prior to the 'revolution', that power
>>> was, by the standards of the time. the 'legitimate' governing power
>>> and not ' foreign' nor 'occupying'.
>>>
>>> Jefferson would likely have disagreed but that's because he formulated
>>> a rather radical new idea that 'legitimate power' originates with the
>>> people. But then he also believed in the natural right of self defense
>>> and the individual right to arms, even to revolution, so you're
>>> between a rock and a hard place in cherry picking which bits you like
>>> and which to ignore.
>>>
>>> And even to 'recreation'.
>>>
>>> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
>>> advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
>>> gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
>>> with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
>>> and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
>>> constant companion of your walks.
>>> --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>* Savage natives no longer present a threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to
self
>>>>>>> defense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force,
along
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither
>>>>>>existed
>>>>>>several hundred years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> The police are there to string yellow tape around the dead bodies
and,
>>>>> one hopes, find who done it.
>>>>
>>>>**If you imagine that is all the police are charged to do, then you
are
>>>>sadly mistaken.
>>>
>>> Poor attempt at a strawman. I didn't say "all the police are charged
>>> to do," but the fact remains they are not personal 'defense'.
>>
>>**By using a gross over-simplification, that is EXACTLY what you did.
>
> No, it isn't. I was dealing specifically with the matter of "defense"
> and defense alone. And in that context it *is* all they are 'charged'
> to do. To be more specific, the police are not 'charged' with
> defending you.
**The police are required to perform a large range of duties. Maintaining
law and order, capturing criminals and a bunch of other stuff.
>
>> I
>>suggest you try a lot harder, when attempting to minimise the capacity
of
>>police to limit crime.
>
> Defense and crime are not synonyms. Nor is 'limiting crime', by the
> threat of after the fact incarceration, a 'defense' against someone
> who's already ignored the 'deterrent' in attacking you.
**Perhaps you've been living under a rock. I've actually seen vision of
police defending civilians against agressors.
>
>
>>>>> That is not "defense."
>>>>
>>>>**Indeed.
>>>
>>> Glad we got that part agreed to.
>>>
>>>> And your description of the functions of a modern police force is
>>>>utterly simplistic.
>>>
>>> No, but your implied argument that the police are a substitute for
>>> self defense is absurd and they'll tell you that themselves.
>>
>>**Cite where I stated such a thing. Be precise in your answer.
>
> Look up the word "implied."
**I accept that you cannot locate the reference.
>
>
>>>>>> Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
>>>>>>> from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**People are free to defend themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just want to take away the best means of doing so.
>>>>
>>>>**Do I? Prove it.
>>>
>>> You do that well enough on your own.
>>
>>**Lack of proof duly noted.
>
> You apparently don't even read your own arguments.
**I note your continued inability to locate your proof. I await your
admission that you manufactured the statement.
>
>
>>>> Whilst you are at it, prove that a gun is the best means
>>>>of self defence.
>>>
>>> I don't need to 'prove' a gun is "the best means of self defense."
>>
>>**You made this statement:
>>
>>"You just want to take away the best means of doing so."
>
> Yep, I sure did.
>
>>Here's where you go it wrong:
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>>You made two, faulty assumptions:
>>
>>1) That I wanted to "take away" guns (from unspecified people).
>>2) That a gun is the best means of self defence.
>>
>>I note that you cannot justify that statement, on either of your faulty
>>assumptions. I accept that, unless you can prove that statement, that
you
>>will either admit you are wrong, or you will withdraw the statement.
Which
>>is it?
>
> Neither.
**Good. I'm pleased we established that. I accept that you manufactured,
yet
another, falsehood.
>
> But I tell you what, I'll take you on your new implied word that you
> don't want to take anyone's gun away from them so there's no problem
> with the Second Amendment protecting the people's right to keep and
> bear what you have no intent to take away.
**Points:
* I don't live in the US. I have no concerns over what the US people want.
As long as they get what they want.
* If you want to ascertain my position, then you need to ask specific
questions, rather than making assumptions.
>
> So now you can quit pissing and moaning about it.
>
> On the other hand, if you continue to try destroying the clear English
> meaning of it one might conclude you're being intentionally two faced.
**Not at all. I have no major problems with law-abiding civilians owning
guns, PROVIDED they adhere to the regulations in my country.
>
>>The
>>> natural right of self defense leaves that determination and choice to
>>> the individual.
>>
>>**You made this statement:
>>
>>"You just want to take away the best means of doing so."
>>
>>You specifically refer to guns. Please confine your response to our
>>present
>>discussion. Do you now withdraw your faulty statement?
>
> I'm sure you imagine yourself incredibly clever with the 'demands' but
> it just makes you look like an ass.
>
> I made the statement "You just want to take away the best means of
> doing so." and also explained that the choice is the right of the
> individual to make. There is no 'confusion' nor do I need to 'prove'
> the choice, as it's theirs to make, and they've made the determination
> of what the 'best' is. I merely restated their choice.
**Wrong. You claimed that the gun was "the best means of doing so". You
have
not proved that to be the case. You have also failed to prove that I wish
to
take away this alleged "best means of doing so".
>
> And, as I alluded to above, if you have no intent to take away their
> choice then there's be no reason for your attempted mangling of the
> Second Amendment.
**I'm not mangling anything. The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear.
The "well regulated militia" part makes it so.
>
>
>>> It is also moot as long as the Second Amendment stands because it
>>> unequivocally protects "the right of the people to keep and bear
>>> Arms."
>>
>>**As part of a "well regulated militia", yes.
>
> There is no statement in the second amendment about "as part of"
> anything.
**The meaning is clear enough.
>
> You really do need to take an English class.
**I've studied English.
>
>
>>>>>> I do, however, challenge the
>>>>>>delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st
>>>>>>Century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give me a gun, you come at me with a knife, and we'll see.
>>>>
>>>>**You'll be dead. Of that you can have no doubt. The element of
surprise
>>>>will trump whatever weapon you happen to be holding.
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL
>>>
>>> Convenient how you preordain your 'element of surprise'.
>>
>>**Nope.
>
> LOL, of course you do.
**Murderers get to choose the time and place. That's the reality.
>
>> As the murderer, I get to make the decision of where and when.
>
> You can try but the grave yards are full of people that things "didn't
> go as planned" for.
**Yeah, sure. Let's examine the figures again:
10,000 killed each year, by murderers.
200 killed each year, as self defence actions.
>
>>You'll be dead, long before you can use any of your guns.
>
> Thousands of people attest otherwise.
**A statistical blip. 200 per year.
>
>> I'll bring to your
>>attention these two sets of data:
>>
>>* Number of Americans who are murdered via attackers using guns each
>>year -
>>10,000.
>>* Number of Americans who kill their attackers, via the use of guns each
>>year - 200.
>
> I've already dealt with the false presumption in those numbers.
**False? Argue with the FBI. It's their data, not mine. Frankly, I'm
willing
to accept their figures.
In
> particular, the goal of defense is not death so it is patently absurd
> to argue that's the measure of it.
**It's a very good measure. The intent of a murderer is murder, but that
is
not always achieved either. Dealing with the numbers of dead, is a
convenient starting point. Besides which, it is the only data you are able
to present. Given it is the only data you can present, I fail to see why
you
argue with it.
>
>
>>Clearly, using guns for self defence puposes is largely a mythical
>>exercise
>>for the vast majority of Americans. It works in a vani****ngly tiny and
>>statistically insignificant number of instances. Despite the
protestations
>>of the NRA and other hysterical groups, bent on fostering paranoia
amongst
>>Americans.
>
> No, what's 'clear' is you reconstruct the same bogus arguments even
> after the falsehood of them have been previously explained to you.
**Sorry. The data is factual. The FBI is a reliable re****ting agency.
Others
are not.
>
>
>>> Certainly rules out any 'police defense', don't it?
>>
>>**Pretty much.
>
> Then quit bringing up police in the context of defense.
>
>> The police use guns, like murderers do, as first strike
>>weapons. It is this, where a gun is most effective.
>
> Utter fantasy.
**So you say. Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves.
10,000 : 200.
>
>>>>> Care to place bets?
>>>>
>>>>**Since I am not a murderer, it is moot.
>>>
>>> The 'debate' was whether a gun is a useful weapon for defense.
>>
>>**In a statistically insignificant number of events, it is.
>
> As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are
> statistics.
**Indeed.
10,000 : 200.
>
> And you using a false 'goal' is a good example of it.
**What is the "false goal" you speak of?
>
>>> Granted, an absurd debate because it obviously is, but then you have a
>>> habit of ignoring the obvious.
>>
>>**The obvious fact, is that murderers will use the element of surprise
in
>>almost all cases. Remember the data:
>>10,000 vs. 200.
>
> The comparison has no meaning.
**It does to the relatives of the dead.
>
>
>>>> I should, however, remind you of
>>>>how many armed police officers are killed, largely because their gun
is
>>>>in
>>>>it's holster.
>>>
>>> The police are restricted as to when they may draw a weapon and their
>>> job routinely places them in the position of confronting someone they
>>> have no means to know if they are a threat or just another of the
>>> vastly more common 'peaceful citizen', which, of course, is the reason
>>> for the restrictions.
>>
>>**Indeed. The police are charged with obeying the law and they must
>>challenge suspects first. They are trained to do this, along with
weapons
>>training. All these things may not be part of the training for
civilians.
>>Which is why civilians should not carry guns in public. They usually
lack
>>the training (though they may not).
>
> So much for the "first strike weapon" fantasy.
**The police attend crime scenes with their guns drawn, safety off and
ready
to fire. When holstered, safety on, a police person is as defenceless as
any
other unarmed person.
>
>
>>>> The element of surprise trumps whatever weapon is held,
>>>
>>> It may or may not. Depends on how well you execute it, whether you
>>> achieve it at all, what your purpose was in the 'surprise'; and, if
>>> the victim is not disabled or dead, whether they can retaliate
>>> nonetheless..
>>
>>**10,000 vs. 200.
>
> It's B.S. no matter how many times you repeat it.
**Nope. It's fact. If you have a problem, then take it up with the FBI.
You
may present your alternate DATA, culled from police re****ts, FBI data, or
reputable media if you wish. Until you do, the FBI data is the standard.
>
>>
>>>
>>> In short, your comical presumption that all crime is an overwhelming
>>> 'surprise' with no possible recourse by the victim is patently absurd
>>> as you declare by it that any criminal is automatically 'the winner'
>>> and no defense whatsoever is possible.
>>
>>**10,000 vs. 200.
>
> It's B.S. no matter how many times you repeat it.
**Nope. It's fact. If you have a problem, then take it up with the FBI.
You
may present your alternate DATA, culled from police re****ts, FBI data, or
reputable media if you wish. Until you do, the FBI data is the standard.
>
>>
>>>
>>> It is, however, a good argument against the 'unloaded, locked, gun'
>>> notion since you're adding to the potential success of the criminal at
>>> the expense of the victim.
>>
>>**10,000 vs. 200.
>
> It's B.S. no matter how many times you repeat it.
**Nope. It's fact. If you have a problem, then take it up with the FBI.
You
may present your alternate DATA, culled from police re****ts, FBI data, or
reputable media if you wish. Until you do, the FBI data is the standard.
>
>
>>>>regardless of the training of the individual. There's a good reason
why
>>>>soldiers and poilce officers carry their guns in a very specific
manner,
>>>>when entering a potentially dangerous situation. Civilians rarely have
>>>>such
>>>>luxury.
>>>
>>> I seriously suggest you not try out that theory with a gun owner.
>>
>>**I have little interest in doing so.
>
> Wise choice. You might live after all.
**Of course. I've stared down the wrong end of a handgun. It was not a
pleasant experience. I will continue to fight against the proliferation of
guns in my country.
>
>
>>> Or, at least, consult an 'expert' first, such as...
>>>
>>> Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons
>>> incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and
>>> Rossi re****ted that 34% of the felons said they personally had been
>>> "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69%
>>> said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said
>>> that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or
>>> "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and
>>> 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about
>>> meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
>>> ---James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A
>>> Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]
>>
>>**I'm pleased that Prof Wright trusts criminals so much. After all, I'm
>>sure
>>they never tell lies.
>
> Oh, I doubt he 'trusts' them at all but it's better than simply
> inventing fantasies and then dismissing data out of hand because it
> doesn't com****t with your fantasies.
**Nope. However, you admission that criminals are paragons of virtue and
honesty is duly noted. I do not share your opinion of human nature. Many
criminals have been known to lie. I realise that may come as something of
a
shock to you, but it is, indeed, fact.
>
>>>>>>In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each
>>>>>>year,
>>>>>>whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses'
(DGUs).
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around
>>>>>>10,000
>>>>>>must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull
>>>>>>over.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Mark Twain, I think it was, said: there are lies, damn lies, and
>>>>> then there are statistics.
>>>>
>>>>**I cited the facts. Nothing more.
>>>
>>> The evidence is you ignore the facts.
>>
>>**Nope. Facts are facts. They cannot be ignored. Like these facts:
>>
>>10,000 vs. 200.
>
> It's B.S. no matter how many times you repeat it.
**Nope. It's fact. If you have a problem, then take it up with the FBI.
You
may present your alternate DATA, culled from police re****ts, FBI data, or
reputable media if you wish. Until you do, the FBI data is the standard.
>
>
>>> And you apparently don't understand Twain's point. That statistics are
>>> 'facts', easily constructed to suit almost any purpose, is what makes
>>> them such a grand lie.
>>
>>**I am familiar with the analogy. Are you?
>
> What's the point of asking a stupid question after I just explained
> the meaning?
**It seems you're not familiar with the analogy. People like John Lott
Jnr,
Kleck and others present bogus data and twist that information to suit
their
own purposes. The FBI, OTOH, just present the raw data. No editorialising.
Just data. It is impossible to argue with data. It is, however, possible
to
argue with false information and editorialising.
>
>
>>>>> The 'trick' to those statistics is the underlying false premise that
a
>>>>> crime has not been thwarted, or a life saved, unless the defender
>>>>> killed the perpetrator.
>>>>
>>>>**I _only_ listed those killed. I did not list those injured. The
figure
>>>>could be as high as 60,000 - 100,000. By remaining with deaths, the
>>>>figures
>>>>cannot by fudged.
>>>
>>> I didn't say you 'fudged' the figures. It's simply that the 'figures',
>>> whether fudged or not, are inappropriate to the irrational conclusion.
>>> To wit, it may be rational to judge the 'effectiveness' of a murderer
>>> by the number of deaths he inflicts but it is not indicative of
>>> 'defense' because 'death' is not the goal.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The fact of the matter is the vast majority of 'gun defense' occurs
>>>>> from simply brandi****ng with the perpetrator exercising his own
>>>>> instinct for self preservation in retreating.
>>>>
>>>>**Prove it. Cite your evidence. Police re****ts, FBI data or reputable
>>>>media
>>>>re****ts will be adequate proof.
>>>
>>> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
>>
>>**We're discussing FACTS, not the wet dream of some gun hugging idiot.
Let
>>me re-cap for you:
>>
>>Police re****ts, FBI data or REPUTABLE media re****ts will be adequate
>>proof.
>>Wet dreams are not proof. Nor are the equivalent of Penthouse Letters to
>>the
>>Editor. Hard data is the only stuff of interest.
>
> Let me recap for you, some one else's facts are not "wet dreams"
> simply because they don't com****t with your fantasies.
**Good. We'll let the FBI data speak for itself.
>
> The purpose of defense is not death and it's B.S. to claim that's the
> measure of it.
**Already addressed.
>
> Not to mention it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the text of
> the Second Amendment.
**Indeed.
>
>>>> Not to mention the
>>>>> obvious case of wounding, but not killing, and firing with no hit
(as,
>>>>> perhaps, a warning shot), and those who simply avoid persons, or
>>>>> premises, they know/suspect are armed.
>>>>
>>>>**See above.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously suggesting you can't grasp the notion that wounding
>>> someone is not a killing?
>>
>>**Sure. How many Americans are are wounded each year by gunshot? 50,000,
>>100,000, more? Those data are difficult to come by. Deaths are not.
>
> The 'convenience' of a number does not make it useful or valid.
**It makes it very valid.
>
>> We know,
>>with a good deal of certainty, how many people are murdered each year.
We
>>know, from FBI investigations, how many people use guns in self defence
>>actions each year. 10,000 and 200 respectively.
>
> No you don't. You know how many perpetrators were KILLED, not how many
> people successfully defended themselves because DEATH is NOT the goal
> of defense.
**Nor is attempting to murder another. However, the results are similar.
Some people are killed. Some are not.
>
>> More on each side will be
>>wounded. How many more, the FBI don't state. It is, therefore,
appropriate
>>to consider deaths, as these figures are well tabulated. We don't need
to
>>rely on some clown's wet dream, as a substitute for actual data.
>
> The 'convenience' of a number does not make it useful or valid.
>
>>>>>>>>* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and
>>>>>>>>funded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and
>>>>>>funded
>>>>>>back
>>>>>>then.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is the Constitution provides for the military so there was
>>>>> no need to add an 'amendment' to provide for that which was already
>>>>> provided.
>>>>
>>>>**And yet, with the addition of the words: "well regulated militia"
that
>>>>is
>>>>exactly what was done.
>>>
>>> LOL. No, it's just more evidence that wasn't done because it's
>>> inherently irrational.
>>
>>**And yet, those are the words used.
>
> ALL the words are used. The 'trick' is in being able to read and
> comprehend English.
**Ignoring the "well regulated milita" part won't make it magically
dissappear.
>
>
>>>>>>> In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the
>>>>>>> militia,
>>>>>>> arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
>>>>>>> exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
>>>>>>> 'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
>>>>>>> provided for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is
>>>>>>>>capable
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>obliterating every armed force on the planet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be nice if the bad guys figure it's 'overkill' too and, so,
>>>>> exercise good judgment and avoid being the object of the 'overkill'.
>>>>
>>>>**What makes you think that the US is always a "good guy"?
>>>
>>> Comparative observation with the 'other guy'.
>>
>>**Big mistake.
>
> Nope.
>
>> It could be argued that the present US leader****p is riddled
>>with criminals.
>
> Anything can be 'argued'. That doesn't make it valid.
**Except that it is valid.
>
>> The US has committed attrocities, in the name of being a
>>"good guy". Torture, the killing of innocents and fraud are all tactics
of
>>the Bush regime.
>
> And there's a good example of an invalid 'argue'.
**You claimed that the US was a "good guy". Regimes which regularly use
torture and murder to achieve their aims are not "good guys".
>
>> The US has managed to acquire a poor reputaion in recent
>>years as a consequence.
>
> It's acquired a 'poor reputation' among some because of flat out lies
> by others.
**Nope. It's because the US violates the human rights of other people. The
US uses torture and murder to achieve it's aims.
>
>
>>>> Care to discuss:
>>>>* Grenada.
>>>>* Nicaragua.
>>>>* Iraq.
>>>>* Etc.
>>>
>>> No, because you'd, no doubt, exhibit the same irrationality,
>>> construction of fantasy and dismissal of fact you've exhibited on
>>> this topic. And then there's the matter of it being utterly irrelevant
>>> to the clear meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.
>>
>>**I remind you that _you_ brought up the notion that the US was a "good
>>guy". I merely listed clear evidence of criminal acts perpetrated by
>>various
>>US governments.
>
> No, you just arbitrarily declared whatever suits your fancy a
> 'criminal act' like you arbitrarily declare anyone who disagrees with
> your opinion about gun laws a 'subversive'.
**Nope. I listed a bunch of illegal acts by the US.
>
> I've noticed that just seems to come naturally to the left. They can't
> have an 'honest disagreement' about anything... the other side is
> always a 'criminal, 'subversive', or whatever despicable insult comes
> to mind.
**Nope. I just deal in facts. The US has (most recently) violated the
tennents of the Geneva Convention on torture. That is a criminal act.
>
>>>>>>>>* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority
of
>>>>>>Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone has choice. I thought I made that clear in the "freedom"
>>>>> comment.
>>>>
>>>>**You did.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>> And _I_ am merely making the comment that had the US FFs known
>>>>what kind of a society the US would become, they may well have made
some
>>>>adjustments to their words. In fact, they did forsee such things, by
>>>>ensuring that there was a mechanism to alter the US Constitution.
>>>
>>> What you 'imagine' the FF 'might' have thought or done, had they a
>>> crystal ball, is irrelevant. And, since you have so much trouble
>>> figuring out what they actually did, doubly so.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Freedom means someone else has their choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed
nations
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they
are
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is.
>>>>>>That
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>nice freedom to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shot?" Are you trying to make a case that being stabbed or beaten
to
>>>>> death is a good thing?
>>>>
>>>>**Nope. I'm trying to make the case that Americans are more than 10
>>>>times
>>>>more likely to be shot to death than the citizens of any other
Western,
>>>>developed nation.
>>>
>>> You keep restricting to 'shot' when the real issue is murder and
>>> crime.
>>
>>**When discussing gun controls, the real issues are GUN crimes and GUN
>>deaths.
>
> No, because it's a waste of time if the same thing simply happens by
> other means.
**"IF". Since no double blind trial has been performed, then we do not
know
if the murderer would have chosen another method.
>
>> Here in Australia, since 1996, both have fallen.
>
> There's no correlation between the enactment of Australia's gun laws
> and falling murder or crime rates.
**And yet, the know that murder and attempted murder figures have fallen
since 1996. More spectacularly, mass murder, via the use of guns has
fallen
to zero.
>
>>
>> And while the U.S. murder rate is higher than some, and lower
>>> than others, there is no evidence that it rises or falls with the
>>> number of guns.
>>
>>**Nope. The US has, by a very wide margin, the highest level of gunshot
>>murder rate of any Western, developed nation. It is, for instance more
>>than
>>10 times higher than Australia's. 20 times higher than that of the UK.
>>Many
>>times higher than Germany's, Holland's, Italy's, et al.
>
> There's no correlation between gun laws and falling crime/murder
> rates.
**Introducing "crime" is your strawman. You build it. You burn it down.
We're discussing GUNS and GUN crimes. Anything else is a distraction.
>
>
>>> In fact, from 1973 to 1993 U.S. handgun owner****p increased 110%
>>> (73.3% increase in guns of all types) but the murder rate fell 9.5%.
>>
>>**Strawman.
>
> Nothing 'strawman' about it. If 'guns cause crime' then why didn't an
> increase of 'the cause' cause the crime?
**Again: Your strawman. I NEVER suggested that "guns cause crime".
>
>> We're discussing GUN CONTROLS, not overall gun owner****p.
>
> If you're speaking of a 'gun control' then state the 'control' instead
> of dancing all over the place about the Second Amendment.
**I have only ever discussed gun controls. You were the one introducing
spurious issues, claiming that "guns cause crime". I never made such a
claim.
>
>
>>>>> People do killing, not inanimate objects.
>>>>
>>>>**Strawman.
>>>
>>> No, it's a fact.
>>
>>**Nope. It's a strawman. We're discussing GUN CONTROLS.
>
>
> If you're speaking of a 'gun control' then state the 'control' instead
> of dancing all over the place about the Second Amendment.
**I have only ever discussed gun controls. You were the one introducing
spurious issues, claiming that "guns cause crime". I never made such a
claim.
>
>
>> And if it were the case that 'guns cause murders'
>>> then the above murder rate should have risen, not fallen, with a 110%
>>> increase in what you argue is the 'cause'.
>>
>>**It would, if we were discussing owner****p rates. We're not. We're
>>discussing gun control laws.
>
> If you're speaking of a 'gun control' then state the 'control' instead
> of dancing all over the place about the Second Amendment.
**I have only ever discussed gun controls. You were the one introducing
spurious issues, claiming that "guns cause crime". I never made such a
claim.
>
>>>> Sensible gun control laws have been shown to reduce the
>>>>likelihood of several gun related crimes (here in Australia). Guns
(per
>>>>se)
>>>>are not the problem. The lack of sensible controls over those guns, in
>>>>the
>>>>US, is the problem.
>>>
>>> In the first place, you cherry pick your, so called, 'facts' (like
>>> claiming 'no defense' occurs unless the victim kills the perpetrator)
>>> while ignoring others less convenient to your preordained conclusion.
>>
>>**OK then, provide some data to sup****t your notion that guns are an
>>effective means of self defence. Remember:
>>Police re****ts, FBI data and/or REPUTABLE media re****ts will be adequate
>>proof. Wet dreams will be discarded as, well, wet dreams.
>
> You mean anything that doesn't com****t with your fantasies will be
> discarded.
**I note your inability to supply one shred of actual data.
>
>>> Second, Australia is not the U.S. and data for the country in question
>>> (U.S.) indicate exactly the opposite of what you claim. The murder
>>> rate, more often than not, goes up with more gun restrictions and
>>> drops without them.
>>
>>**And yet, that is PRECISELY what has not occured in Australia. However,
>>let's look at your claim in more detail. Examine the gun control laws in
>>these two cities:
>>NYC
>>Miami
>>
>>Now look at the homicide rates, via gunshot. Which city is worse?
>
> There is no correlation with stricter gun control laws lowering
> crime.murder.
**Really? Examine what has occuring in Australia. Here's what has occured
since the 1996 gun controls were enacated:
* Homicide via the use of guns - down.
* Attempted homicide via the use of guns - down.
* Robbery committed via the use of guns - down.
* Theft of guns from civilians - Substantially down.
* Mass murder committed via the use of guns. Dramatically down. To zero,
in
fact.
Ya gotta hate those facts, don't you?
>
>
>>> Btw, this re****t indicates no statistically significant effect one way
>>> or the other in Australia. They simply lost some rights for,
>>> essentially, nothing.
>>>
>>> http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
>>
>>**Oh please! You've just presented information which is 7 YEARS out of
>>date!
>>I suggest you examine the actual data, which clearly shows the following
>>has
>>occured:
>>
>>* Mass murder via gunshot has fallen to dramatically.
>>* Gun thefts from civilians has fallen by around 75%.
>>* Murder via gunshot has fallen.
>>* Attempted murder via the use of guns has fallen.
>>* Robbery via the use fo guns has fallen.
>
> Crime rises and falls for a variety of reasons and the date is valid
> because it falls within the period the laws were changed.
**Except that the falls have been sustained for more than 10 years. How
many
more years are required, before you will admit that the gun control laws
were responsible? Another 1? 5? 10? 20? 50? Give me a number.
>
>
>>>>>>>>* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than
tens
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>seconds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>those
>>>>>>>>available several hundred years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily
available',
>>>>>>> virtually everyone had them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are.
>>>>>>Nor
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more
>>>>>>im****tantly,
>>>>>>no
>>>>>>where near as deadly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The framers of the Constitution didn't believe in the right to bear
>>>>> arms on the theory they weren't deadly.
>>>>
>>>>**Indeed. They weren't able to predict the future, either. Which is
why
>>>>they
>>>>allowed for alterations to the Constitution.
>>>
>>> As I said before, you're free to propose an Amendment but not free to
>>> alter the meaning of the one that's there.
>>
>>**I'm altering nothing. I am merely pointing out the words which are
>>already
>>there.
>
> No one disputes, or 'ignores', the words. the 'trick' is in being able
> to read and comprehend English. And despite your attempt to alter the
> meaning, class is still canceled.
**Ignore the words: "well regulated militia" all you wish. They're still
there.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the
>>>>>>>>realities
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully
>>>>>>>>provided
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>method for this to be accomplished.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of
>>>>>>> B.S.
>>>>>>> about what the existing text means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**The existing text seems clear enough to most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> And "most people" recognize it means an individual right, just as
the
>>>>> framers intended and said.
>>>>
>>>>**As part of a well regulated militia.
>>>
>>> The people, whether subject to call or a member of any 'organization',
>>> are the 'militia',
>>>
>>> [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
>>> the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
>>> young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
>>> promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind
>>> that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
>>> anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to
>>> practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true
>>> republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
>>> ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
>>>
>>>>>> They refer to a "well
>>>>>>regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys
wandering
>>>>>>around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.
>>>>>
>>>>> They didn't need to refer to 'good ole boys'. In fact, the
Federalists
>>>>> argued they didn't need to mention anything at all, militia, press,
>>>>> speech, or otherwise, because the Federal government has NO powers
not
>>>>> granted and there are NO powers granted to ban or confiscate
firearms,
>>>>> or to prohibit speech, or to close down newspapers.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, they argued it was damn dangerous to include the Bill of
>>>>> Rights because, they predicted, some future idiots might get the
>>>>> stupid notion that anything not mentioned wasn't a right.
>>>>>
>>>>> They lost that debate when the others argued NO one could EVER be
THAT
>>>>> dumb... but we'll add the 9'th and 10'th 'just in case'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the Federalists were correct, 9'th and 10'th
notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>>**Oh, and that pesky Patriot Act.
>>>
>>> Only 'pesky' for terrorists.
>>
>>**Except that the Patriot Act has caused far more problems for law
abiding
>>Americans than any terrorists.
>
> Pure fantasy.
**Pure fact., actually.
Trevor Wilson
|
