andrel wrote:
> You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I 
> was talking about.

I don't know who you're talking about. I'm saying that the expense of guns 
doesn't seem to have an obvious and direct correlation on the number of 
people who get shot, given that lots of people were shot in countries where 
guns were very expensive.

>>> Get over it, your second amendment is getting people killed outside
>>> the US. But don't worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>
>> Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people
>> killed outside the EU.
> 
> Interesting counterargument. Or is it? 

I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out that there are good and bad things 
going on everywhere. Blaming the US for people getting shot in the UK or 
wherever you are is like blaming the EU for people starving in Africa.

> Anyway never heard this theory before, care to explain?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm

We had enough grain to outweigh a couple of battleships ready to go 
(hundreds of thousands of tons), and some African countries wouldn't accept 
it until it was milled, because they didn't want to lose their EU market for 
their produce. Instead, millions of people starved in Africa because the EU 
wouldn't import grain from them in the future if they took this grain now.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml

>> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
>> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
> 
> OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related 
> 'crimes'.

Sure. That whole thing is screwed up here.  We don't like it either.

> Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available guns 
> is a recipe for disaster. ;)

Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 29-1-2011 21:08, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> BTW for completeness sake we also need to factor in those saved here
>>> by the guns made in and for the US market...
>>
>> Does that count stuff like weapons for soldiers?
> 
> No, that is another market

Why? If you're talking about manufacturing costs coming down because of 
bulk, why does a glock for a citizen count more than a glock for a policeman 
or soldier?


>> Because I think we're
>> still ahead on that one, barely. ;-)
> 
> In total killed more enemy soldiers than civilians and allies?

Saved more civilians than killed, I'm thinking. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2011 23:36, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> You might say that, but you would be wrong. At least for the people I
>> was talking about.
>
> I don't know who you're talking about. I'm saying that the expense of
> guns doesn't seem to have an obvious and direct correlation on the
> number of people who get shot, given that lots of people were shot in
> countries where guns were very expensive.

And I am saying they would be even more expensive if there wasn't such a 
large market in the US. BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know 
where to get them) are not outside the budget of a 15 YO.

>>>> Get over it, your second amendment is getting people killed outside
>>>> the US. But don't worry they are mostly foreigners.
>>>
>>> Yep. And the EU's stance on non-GMO food is getting a lot of people
>>> killed outside the EU.
>>
>> Interesting counterargument. Or is it?
>
> I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out that there are good and bad
> things going on everywhere. Blaming the US for people getting shot in
> the UK or wherever you are is like blaming the EU for people starving in
> Africa.

BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people 
abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands 
they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but still.

>> Anyway never heard this theory before, care to explain?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm
>
> We had enough grain to outweigh a couple of battleships ready to go
> (hundreds of thousands of tons), and some African countries wouldn't
> accept it until it was milled, because they didn't want to lose their EU
> market for their produce. Instead, millions of people starved in Africa
> because the EU wouldn't import grain from them in the future if they
> took this grain now.

Ok, you are blaming the EU for a decision in Africa by leaders that are 
more concerned about themselves than their people? Ok the EU is involved 
somewhere in this line of reasoning and I admit the reasons for that EU 
policy are mixed. Both large groups of EU citizens not wanting to 
consume GM food, as well as not wanting to be dependent on a US 
monopoly. Though both are probably not independent.

> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml

That sounds not so objective.

>>> You enforce your laws, we'll enforce ours. :-) We
>>> don't blame the netherlands for the US locking up pot users either.
>>
>> OTOH we blame the US for locking up Dutch citizens for pot related
>> 'crimes'.
>
> Sure. That whole thing is screwed up here. We don't like it either.
>
>> Talking about drugs, having strict drug laws *and* freely available
>> guns is a recipe for disaster. ;)
>
> Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.

Yes for exactly that reason.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know 
> where to get them) are not outside the budget of a 15 YO.

A 15YO drug dealer, maybe. It's not hard to see what the price of a gun is. 
The price *you* pay for them over there? Not so much.

I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms between 
the USA and the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class

Then, if you can't actually import them, you can do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun

> BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people 
> abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands 
> they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but still.

While I understand your concern, blaming firearm deaths on other countries 
having a big market for firearms is like blaming automobile deaths on other 
countries having a big market for automobiles. It basically doesn't really 
make much sense. The link between "americans are allowed to have guns" to 
"fred shot sam in the UK" is tremendously tenuous, methinks.

> Ok, you are blaming the EU for a decision in Africa by leaders that are 
> more concerned about themselves than their people? 

The same as you're blaming America for a decision made by criminals in your 
country.

>> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml
> That sounds not so objective.

I gave you the link to the newspaper, too. Of course it's not objective - 
it's a blog.

>> Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.
> Yes for exactly that reason.

Mexico has many guns for exactly *what* reason? Because Americans can own 
guns? They're not especially regulated in Mexico either, you know.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/29/2011 12:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>>
>> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
>> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
>
> I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many
> variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially
> given other studies that show the opposite.
>
Well, that is kind of the whole problem with this sort of thing. Its not 
like a nice clean experiment, where you can control *every* variable. 
Even the studies are not based on adequate data, since they can't 
control for variables either. All you can do is take aggregate results, 
check your predictions against what you see going on, and, more to the 
point, actually recognize that those other variables are there. I would 
argue that a lot of the studies, possibly on both sides, happily ignore 
the existence of variables (like, for example, a ready stock pile of 
weapons from some place that makes them in large numbers), in favor of 
only looking at the ones that support the conclusion they want, which in 
the case of gun advocates is.. pretty much not going to allow for, "What 
if they where not available to the criminals either, because we keep 
selling them?" Its not even on the radar.

Heck, the idea that their may be like 50 times as many people out there 
who *never* got gun training, safety training, or any kind of anything, 
before buying one, only even ever comes up when either a) defending 
their own possession of one, or b) talking about how things *should* be. 
Should isn't the same as *is*. You need to work for the former, the 
later happens all on its own, and doesn't give a damn what you *want* to 
be true. Yet, the arguments are often hedged with, "Well, if we made 
sure more people where properly trained!" 1) it won't bloody matter, in 
the case of the nuts, if you don't bother, notice, or recognize, the 
ones that are nuts (certain thing with a coupla airplanes proved that 
one..) and 2) until/unless you actually implement it, you might as well 
wish the sky was green and pigs flew, because you liked green, and liked 
bacon so much you wished it could be hunted like ducks.

We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there. We 
*don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots, for 
example, after all, teaching "martial arts" to people for "defense", 
which includes actually killing/injuring the attacker, even after you 
have disarmed them, and rendered them a non threat. This is assault 
and/or murder, even if you started out by defending yourself. Training 
may... lets just say, vary in its effect. :p

We do not know if everyone having one is a good thing, though that was 
*precisely* the way things where in the old west, and you could, often, 
only tell the bad guys from the good guys by whether or not the 
locals/courts decided you belonged on the end of, or rigging, the rope, 
hardly a prime example of the "good" that every idiot in sight being 
armed would produce.

And so on. And, the claims that "studies" say you are better off armed 
take as little, or less, of *any* of the stuff into account that studies 
saying guns are not a good thing do.

Pick what can predictably work (even if its not practical to go all the 
way and just stop making guns), or what is pure guess work, in the hope 
the other studies are more correct? Well.. Oddly enough, when ever 
something serious enough comes along, even the advocates for gun 
ownership go, "Ah, well.. Maybe we can limit things, just this one time, 
again..." Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other" 
studies saying its a good thing to have them around imo.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/29/2011 12:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
And, even more so when it happens to be attached to another word, with a 
D on it, and depending on who exactly is using it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>> public,
>
> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>
I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the 
damn things tended to either result in you being real clear you wanted 
to shoot someone, or having lots more time to change your mind. Sure, 
they where used a lot to kill people for various reasons, other than 
duels, but there was usually an "accepted" justification for it, or some 
sort.

>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>> to shoot someone,
>
> Of course they did.
>
Depends on what you define as rules. I would, again, argue that rules 
which operated on a) societal justifications, i.e., the person shot was 
*obviously* deserving of it, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., 
b) talking fast enough to convince people you had a reason, especially 
since it might not be possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to 
handily do away with any possibility of being arrested for shooting 
someone, all constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just 
needed to find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near 
anyone.

>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>> don't kill people, people do!",
>
> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
> just like knives were.
>
Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even, in 
many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that 
where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if you 
don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if you do, 
you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead. Kind of a 
damn stupid "tool". Its like complaining that people would like you to 
stop dropping matches every place, and saying, "But I never intended for 
all those buildings to catch fire!" The matches have a place and 
purpose, which doesn't involve improperly using them, and no one much 
cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to 
randomly light things one fire. Someone that carries them around for the 
*sole* purpose of, "I might need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably 
be presumed to be possible arsonists, especially if they tend to never 
*be* any place where they plausibly could *ever* need to do that, not 
law abiding citizens. Say that you, "may need to shoot someone.", even 
if you add in, "in self defense"... Well, lets just say its not what I 
would call a "compelling" argument either. lol

>> makes about as much sense as saying, "cars without working brakes
>> don't kill people, the people that drive them do.", oh.. and the crazy
>> idea that guns represent someone *other* than a very clear, specific,
>> and intentional, way to kill things.
>
> Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry
> guns? How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
>
Cars without breaks = guns in places most reasonable people wouldn't 
bring them, with more ammo than reasonable, semi-auto, when this is 
overkill just by itself, and a whole host of other issues, not the least 
being that we are ***not*** talking about a police officer, or anyone 
else that one might presume actually has the training, at least in 
principle, if not actuality, to know when, and how, to use one properly. 
So, no, a cop wouldn't drive a car without brakes. Half the people I 
know wouldn't even notice they didn't have any, until they tried to 
stop. They simply wouldn't bother to notice that a problem existed (and, 
by the same token, they wouldn't see anything odd with having an 
overdone gun, in the hands of a badly/untrained person, shooting 
inaccurately, at someone that might not even be an appropriate target). 
And that is just the non-criminals. The criminals, I would have some 
presumption, might have fired the thing often enough to know who they 
where shooting at, ironically.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/29/2011 3:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Because I think we're
>>> still ahead on that one, barely. ;-)
>>
>> In total killed more enemy soldiers than civilians and allies?
>
> Saved more civilians than killed, I'm thinking. :-)
>
Which war, and in *whose* hands? Just saying..

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "What if they where not available to the criminals either

That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple 
firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded by an 
attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.

Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would happen.

Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to use 
them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider that maybe 
the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if reducing them would 
help.

> We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there.

Yeah, because that worked *so* well with drugs.  And with alcohol before that.

> We *don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots,

Sure. Because only the brightest people go into the military, and people 
accidentally shoot each other every day there.

> We do not know if everyone having one is a good thing, though that was 
> *precisely* the way things where in the old west, and you could, often, 
> only tell the bad guys from the good guys by whether or not the 
> locals/courts decided you belonged on the end of, or rigging, the rope, 
> hardly a prime example of the "good" that every idiot in sight being 
> armed would produce.

Sure. But that was also at a time when the only police force was the general 
population. Disarm them, and watch what the bad guys do.

> And so on. And, the claims that "studies" say you are better off armed 
> take as little, or less, of *any* of the stuff into account that studies 
> saying guns are not a good thing do.

No it doesn't. It's a simple statistic: People with guns got hurt in violent 
crimes less than people without guns.  Admittedly it didn't look at things 
like accidental shootings, but then this was the FBI unified crime 
statistics, not the FBI unified accident statistics.

Saying you can't tell whether it works is like saying you can't tell whether 
changing the speed limit state-wide reduces accidents.

> Pick what can predictably work 

Does it work? How do you know?

> Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other" 
> studies saying its a good thing to have them around imo.

Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when the 
shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this 
country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm 
everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the 
government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being just as 
disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>>> public,
>>
>> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
>> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>>
> I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the 

I have no idea what that has to do with duels. And nobody that carried a gun 
carried it unloaded when it takes a minute or more to load.

>>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>>> to shoot someone,
>>
>> Of course they did.
>>
> Depends on what you define as rules.

Laws. Same as we have now. Nobody went around saying "He's italian, so I get 
to shoot him."

> I would, again, argue that rules 
> which operated on a) societal justifications, i.e., the person shot was 
> *obviously* deserving of it, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., 
> b) talking fast enough to convince people you had a reason, especially 
> since it might not be possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to 
> handily do away with any possibility of being arrested for shooting 
> someone, all constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just 
> needed to find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near 
> anyone.

Do you have any evidence at all for this?

>>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>>> don't kill people, people do!",
>>
>> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
>> just like knives were.
>>
> Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even, in 
> many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that 
> where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if you 
> don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if you do, 
> you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead. 

Gun control means hitting your target. :-)

Note that automobiles are much more dangerous than firearms in that respect. 
Heck, last I looked, swimming pools were more dangerous than firearms in tht 
respect.

 > The matches have a place and purpose, which doesn't involve improperly 
using them, and no one much
> cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to 
> randomly light things one fire. 

And a gun in your pocket doesn't tend to randomly shoot people.

> Someone that carries them around for the 
> *sole* purpose of, "I might need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably 
> be presumed to be possible arsonists, 

Wow, really? And I guess anyone who carried a pocket knife on the grounds 
it's useful for opening packages ought be arrested for assault if they 
didn't get any fedex deliveries that day?

>> Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry
>> guns? How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
>>
> Cars without breaks = guns in places most reasonable people wouldn't 
> bring them,

I don't follow. What normal places would reasonable people not bring guns?

Nevermind. Your analogy is just too tortured to communicate anything.

Indeed, I think your entire screed is too tortured to communicate anything 
worth responding to, since you're not actually making any points except "I 
don't think people should have guns because they're all stupid, even tho I 
have no actual evidence for this."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message