And that's WHY we carry them...

[Blind groper]

Seth

Statistics are vitally important in this argument, because statistics are the facts.

You continue to claim that more people with guns means fewer people killed. The facts show that to be wrong. Wrong. Wrong!!!

The USA has the highest gun ownership in the western world and also the highest murder rate in that group of nations. Out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of the firearms murders. More guns makes a more dangerous society. It is just that simple.

The second highest firearms ownership in the western world is Finland, and it has the second highest murder rate.

The second highest firearms ownership in the English speaking portion of the western world is Canada, and it has the second highest murder rate in that group.


The safest nation in the world to live in is Japan, and it has the lowest number of firearms. No coincidence.

[Hermit]

...you're all fucking brain-dead barbarians who don't give a flying fuck how many people get killed...

The USA has a murder rate, five times as high as NZ on a per capita basis, and 4.5 times as high as Australia.

It's not a statistical argument BG. I've told you this before. You have no right to reduce anyone's life to a statistical value

It's you who doesn't give a fuck how many people are killed, Seth. Those of us who do are perfectly entitled to point out the murder rate in the USA, compare it to the murder rate in New Zealand and Australia, note the differences in gun ownership, and conclude that more guns = more killings.

If you were an honest debater who is convinced that statistics are irrelevant regarding gun ownership, you would not bother citing your mantra "more guns = less crime". The hypocrisy of attempting to use statistics in defence of gun ownership, but disallowing its use to criticise it is palpable.

[piscator]

But there's gotta be some flaw in using stats in an overarching appeal to emotion in an effort to get some tinkering done with that darn Bill of Rights.
Say, you know we'd all be a lot safer if the cops could just walk in and search our homes whenever they felt like it. Why not tighten up that 4th Amendment too?
Then you had those union organizers using free speech to incite riots against the owners and financiers, the true producers of the world, so that undeserving workers got a bigger cut of the American industrial pie. That caused hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths. That 1st Amendment is blood soaked as well.

Rivers, Rivers of blood! Only sensible way to put a stop to it is to come back into the fold and embrace the Commonwealth.

[MrJonno]

Statistics are vitally important in this argument, because statistics are the facts.

Seth has said before he has no interest in statistics (especially when they go against his ideology) as rights trump statistics.

You can't argue with fanatics whether they are religious nuts or even 'rights' fanatics.

No moral absolutes for me, moral relativism is the only way we can function, no law or right that can't be changed if someone can show it will make society a better place

[Tero]

[Hermit]

But there's gotta be some flaw in using stats in an overarching appeal to emotion in an effort to get some tinkering done with that darn Bill of Rights.
Say, you know we'd all be a lot safer if the cops could just walk in and search our homes whenever they felt like it. Why not tighten up that 4th Amendment too?
Then you had those union organizers using free speech to incite riots against the owners and financiers, the true producers of the world, so that undeserving workers got a bigger cut of the American industrial pie. That caused hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths. That 1st Amendment is blood soaked as well.

Rivers, Rivers of blood! Only sensible way to put a stop to it is to come back into the fold and embrace the Commonwealth.

On the presumption that your post was a reply to the one immediately above yours let me point out that it had quite a limited objective. It merely meant to focus on the hypocrisy of continuously banging the more guns = less crime drum, then turning around every time someone disputes the validity of that mantra by quoting actual statistics with words to the effect that "We don't need your stinking statistics. They are absolutely irrelevant because we have this constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms."

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

Yes, there always is the problem of two wolves and one sheep voting on who is to be the dinner, but is that worse than one shepherd delivering all his sheep to the abattoir? A militia is no guarantee that the latter can't happen. The concept of a militia is a double-edged sword. For instance, the core of a militia called Sturmabteilung was formed from members another militia, the fiercely anti-communist Freikorps, and it became a critical factor in the eventual overthrow of the Weimar Republic. I am confident that you know what happened next.

[MrJonno]

For instance, the core of a militia called Sturmabteilung was formed from members another militia, the fiercely anti-communist Freikorps, and it became a critical factor in the eventual overthrow of the Weimar Republic. I am confident that you know what happened next.

The whole rise of the Nazi's was due to weak government and heavily armed private armies

[Hermit]

The whole rise of the Nazi's was due to weak government and heavily armed private armies

Orly? "The whole rise of the Nazis" was due to number of other reasons in addition to "weak government and heavily armed private armies". To cite just two more, Hitler would not have been able to attain power if WWI had resulted in a Marshall Plan instead of the Versailles Peace Treaty. Hitler also mentioned something along the lines of "If the economy keeps improving any further, I will not succeed." MrJonno, please stop making remarks borne of utter ignorance.

[piscator]

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

The Bill of Rights? Only by another Constitutional Convention. Or the King.

[Hermit]

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

The Bill of Rights? Only by the King.

That's way too oracular for me. Care to demystify?

[piscator]

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

The Bill of Rights? Only by the King.

That's way too oracular for me. Care to demystify?

Well, we don't have a King, so....

It's got to get a lot worse before America would have a Constitutional Convention and throw out the Bill of Rights millions have died for.
Maybe let's talk then?

[Hermit]

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

The Bill of Rights? Only by the King.

That's way too oracular for me. Care to demystify?

Well, we don't have a King, so....

It's got to get a lot worse before America would have a Constitutional Convention and throw out the Bill of Rights millions have died for.
Maybe let's talk then?

Who is talking about constitutional conventions or even about throwing out the Bill of Rights? Is it so difficult to grasp the concept that the 27 amendments you ratified between 1791 and 1992 are incremental, piecemeal changes to your existing constitution, that even the amendments themselves can in turn be changed by further amendments, that tinkering has always happened and ought to keep happening when deemed necessary?

[laklak]

Bet this Mr. Sacco was glad someone was carrying.

http://www.wesh.com/news/deputies-good- ... 40#!bg3Oiy

[piscator]

As for tinkering with that darn Bill of Rights, what do you think the Bill of Rights is? It consists of ten tinkerings with your constitution among 17 others that have been made to your Constitution between 1791 and 1992, and two of them were repeals of previous constitutional amendments. Tinkering can take place, has taken place and hopefully will take place again.

The Bill of Rights? Only by the King.

That's way too oracular for me. Care to demystify?

Well, we don't have a King, so....

It's got to get a lot worse before America would have a Constitutional Convention and throw out the Bill of Rights millions have died for.
Maybe let's talk then?

Who is talking about constitutional conventions or even about throwing out the Bill of Rights? Is it so difficult to grasp the concept that the 27 amendments you ratified between 1791 and 1992 are incremental, piecemeal changes to your existing constitution, that even the amendments themselves can in turn be changed by further amendments, that tinkering has always happened and ought to keep happening when deemed necessary?

The 2A is a restraint of government, like the rest of the 1-digit Amendments, plus 1. I don't see us becoming needy enough to amend the Bill of Rights any time soon.

But who knows? Maybe enough Americans will decide the American government isn't powerful enough?

[piscator]

Bet this Mr. Sacco was glad someone was carrying.

http://www.wesh.com/news/deputies-good- ... 40#!bg3Oiy

Apparently, if your name is Sacco and you're male...




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