Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you happy that the decrease is only in civilian gun holdings?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are guns in law-enforcement up for debate here? I would think that law-enforcement would have to keep up with whatever exists among civilians. If they could, police might start doing most of their work without guns, as they do in my home country.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "keep up with whatever exists among civilians"?

I am asking why you're only concerned with reducing *civilian* guns. Why not government-held guns? Why do government agents get rights that I don't have?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is an interesting question why the US has such an alarmingly high gun murder rate compared to other developed countries. I don't think anyone knows why that is. I don't see how restricting hand guns could make that worse, but my opinion is useless.

I would be interested in the opinion of pro gun people why they think the US has such a high gun murder rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's already been addressed in this thread. A huge component of it is the war on (some) drugs; prohibition is much more violently enforced in the US than in other western countries.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "keep up with whatever exists among civilians"?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite simple. If a big part of the civilian population is armed, such as USA, law-enforcement must also be armed. If the civilian population has very few guns, then law-enforcement is able to do some tasks, such as patrols, without guns. This helps promote a gun-free society and is supposed to increase the safety of both civilians and law-enforcement.

[ QUOTE ]
That's already been addressed in this thread. A huge component of it is the war on (some) drugs; prohibition is much more violently enforced in the US than in other western countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't find it, maybe I missed it. Can you elaborate on your explanation?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under the biblical-english-american system, my statement of having a property right in my property is well established, your statement of you having a right to me not having a car is simply crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me that you are appealing to the definition of rights as determined by the majority opinion ("the biblical-english-american system"). This is exactly the system that I am defending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mob rule FTW! Hello Jim Crow! It's legit because the majority has spoken!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your proposed alternative is that when a person is accused of violating someones rights then the a minority of one gets to be the only one to speak. Even worse, you have chosen the absolute worst case single person to speak - the alleged violator of rights!

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because in that case I don't have anything but an assertion. Oh, and records from the dealer that I bought the car from, insurance policies, and boxes full of other documentation. Yeah, exactly the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you are demanding that I conform to your definition of rights, and that I conform to your prescribed conditions to be eligible to make a claim that you are violating those rights. You sure like to dictate conditions for others while complaining that when others dictate conditions to you it's violating your individual rights.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "keep up with whatever exists among civilians"?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite simple. If a big part of the civilian population is armed, such as USA, law-enforcement must also be armed. If the civilian population has very few guns, then law-enforcement is able to do some tasks, such as patrols, without guns. This helps promote a gun-free society and is supposed to increase the safety of both civilians and law-enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're not answering my question. Are you in favor of exempting government agents from your gun control regime or not?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's already been addressed in this thread. A huge component of it is the war on (some) drugs; prohibition is much more violently enforced in the US than in other western countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't find it, maybe I missed it. Can you elaborate on your explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make a product contraband, people will still demand it, and that demand will be filled by people operating outside of the law. These people will be (violently) excluded from "legitimate" dispute resolution, and will turn to violence in the absence of more peaceful means. Further, the lack of legitimate businessmen in this market will mean you have a higher proportion of uneducated, violent people in the market; these people have less favorable time preferences, and will be more predisposed to violence. Further, the government's violent prosecution of these market participants increases their own violence amongnst themselves.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your proposed alternative is that when a person is accused of violating someones rights then the a minority of one gets to be the only one to speak. Even worse, you have chosen the absolute worst case single person to speak - the alleged violator of rights!

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite, plz.

[ QUOTE ]
So now you are demanding that I conform to your definition of rights, and that I conform to your prescribed conditions to be eligible to make a claim that you are violating those rights. You sure like to dictate conditions for others while complaining that when others dictate conditions to you it's violating your individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me where I'm "demanding" either of these. I don't give a [censored] if you conform to my definition of rights or not - as long as you don't interact with me. If you're minding your own business it makes no difference to me what your opinion is on anything. What conditions am I dictating to you, other than the terms on which I will agree to interact with you?

[2OuterJitsu]

mosdef: I have the right to feel.
pvn: I have the right to act.
mosdef: Not if it makes me feel bad.
pvn: But you’re still feeling.
mosdef: If you violate my right to feel, I have the right to restrict your actions.

[begin]
pvn: no.
mosdef: yes.

Goto begin

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're not answering my question.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I am. My answer is yes. Where are you going with this?

[ QUOTE ]
If you make a product contraband, people will still demand it, and that demand will be filled by people operating outside of the law. These people will be (violently) excluded from "legitimate" dispute resolution, and will turn to violence in the absence of more peaceful means. Further, the lack of legitimate businessmen in this market will mean you have a higher proportion of uneducated, violent people in the market; these people have less favorable time preferences, and will be more predisposed to violence. Further, the government's violent prosecution of these market participants increases their own violence amongnst themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do I understand you correctly if you blame the gun problems in USA on drugs, and the fact that they are illegal?

However, the regulations around drugs and problems with drugs aren't unique for USA. I don't share your opinion, so I would like for you to elaborate even further why the American gun situation is caused by drugs.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your proposed alternative is that when a person is accused of violating someones rights then the a minority of one gets to be the only one to speak. Even worse, you have chosen the absolute worst case single person to speak - the alleged violator of rights!

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite, plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an extract from your post:

"How many arbitrators do you think will entertain such claims? I can just ignore you."

You are saying that if I accuse you of violating my rights, then you get to decide if arbitrators might side with me and if you think they won't then you get to ignore me. This is an "interesting" interpretation of the concept of arbitration.

[ QUOTE ]
What conditions am I dictating to you, other than the terms on which I will agree to interact with you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have missed the part where we were debating whether or not your action (deciding to own a gun) constitutes an interaction with me. You can't just say "well, I don't think that's an interaction and my declaration supercedes your appeal to arbitration". If you are given that power when you are accused of violating someone's rights, then all people accused of violating anyone's rights can pull the same move and just say "I don't think it's an interaction and I don't care that you think it is."

If you think my assertion is crazy and any arbitrator will rule against me, you should be ecstatic to go to court. But you can't just sidestep the accusation because it isn't "good enough" in your opinion. You can be innocent until proven guilty, but you can't decline the judgement just because you're pretty sure it will go your way.

[Huh?]

07 WorldNetDaily.com


Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.