And that's WHY we carry them...

[laklak]

I find it quite extraordinary how Americans can be so proud of their overall system of government on the one hand ("the best goddamn system in the universe, boy..."), and so fearful that a government will morph overnight into a totalitarian dictatorship on the other...

The rest of the civilised world quietly grumbles about their tawdry or somewhat incompetent politicians from time to time, but don't go to bed fretting as to whether they have enough guns and ammo to survive the night of the black helicopters...

We were founded as a reaction to what we perceived as tyranny. Looking back it wasn't that bad, compared to the level of governmental control we live under now. OK, the quartering of troops thing sucked, but otherwise? Add to this the frontier mentality and you get....us. Or U.S., if I may be permitted a small bon mot. Personally I think the idea of the United States of America has a strong appeal, unfortunately those original ideals have been co-opted by the powerful and in many cases rendered untenable due to a rapidly changing world and increasing population. It is simply not possible for the majority of the population to live as rugged individualists, if in fact even a significant minority of the population ever did.

I don't blame outsiders for looking at us and scratching their heads in puzzlement, I do the same myself sometimes. I have no illusions that owning a few guns is going to stop a tyrannical government, as many have pointed out my rifles aren't going to do much against an M1A1 main battle tank or a Hellfire missile. But the chances of that happening are pretty remote. That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and hand in my weapons because of some bureaucratic pronouncement from on high. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

[Seth]

Seth

You claim to care about other people being hurt or killed. Yet you support the thing that does most of the hurting and killing.

Actually "the thing" that does the most hurting and killing is the automobile. By a rather large margin. So why aren't you ranting and raving about banning automobiles. Or abortion doctors.

The facts are clear. More guns mean more murders. Also more guns mean more people maimed and permanently disabled, including serious brain damage.

Except it doesn't, as the facts actually prove. More guns, LESS crime.

A person owning a gun, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, has twice the chance of being murdered than a person who does not. Western nations with more guns have more murders and more gun tragedies.

The New England Journal of Medicine article on the subject is a pile of crap, and has been proven to be a pile of crap many times.

None of us are asking for a total ban on guns. Just sufficient control to substantially reduce the death toll. This is like reducing the death toll from car accidents.

So, I suggested just such a method of licensing in detail, but have you even acknowledged that it exists? No.

I conclude that's because my plan allows anyone who is qualified to have a gun to get a license and carry that gun concealed, which is ostensibly your "sufficient control" goal. However, like every other hoplophobe lying sack of shit your argument about "sufficient control" (in Handgun Control parlance, "common sense regulation") has nothing to do with control and everything to do with bans, and we know it, which is why we reject it out of hand. Hoplophobe anti-gunners like you have been lying through their teeth ever since Kennedy was shot, and before, and you lie through your teeth when you say "none of us are asking for a total ban on guns," because that's exactly what many of your ilk are doing, and if it's not a total outright "If I had 51 votes I'd have said "turn them all in"" Pelosi lies, it's "reasonable regulation" that is defined as making it impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own, much less carry a gun for self defense. Your argument has shit to do with gun safety or public safety, it's all about banning guns, and we are well aware of it, which is why we call you what you are when you slither out from under your rock from time to time.

There's no use denying it, it's as clear as day to anyone with even less than half a brain.

With guns, it is just the same. You can reduce dramatically the number of people murdered, and the number maimed by doing the same thing.

Are you really this stupid?

Stricter rules.

Such as? "Don't shoot anyone with a gun unless you legally have to or we'll send you to jail for 25 years" sounds pretty strict to me. What "stricter rules" do you think would be effective at preventing the gang-banger in Newark who is already a felon who goes and steals a gun with the intent to use it to commit other felonies from doing so, pray tell?

Don't bother, I know your idiotic answer: Prohibition.

Did the prohibition of alcohol prevent the consumption of alcohol? Does the prohibition on marijuana prevent the consumption of marijuana? Does the prohibition on heroin prevent the consumption of heroin? Does the prohibition on murdering someone with a gun, or a kitchen knife, or a baseball bat, or your fists prevent those crimes from happening?

Nope.

Stricter policing.

Get caught with a gun committing a crime it's 5 years in the federal pen. Pretty rough. Of course first you have to get the feds to prosecute. So I happen to totally agree with this particular point. Strict policing of criminality involving guns would be a very good thing, and I encourage it.

Of course that won't affect me or other law-abiding gun owners because, well, we're law-abiding. Derp.

Better technology (like guns that fire only for their owner)

"Son! Quick, run and get my pistol from the lockbox, assemble it, then open the safe with the ammunition in it, then load a magazine with the proper ammunition and shoot the guy that's raping and killing your mother who has tied me to a chair so I'm helpless... Oh, wait, my gun will only operate for me...never mind...goodbye son, it's been nice knowing you."

Dumb motherfuckers who talk about "smart guns" have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the dynamics of armed encounters and self defense. They are just dumb motherfuckers.

Better social environment.

I'm good with that. Let's start by killing all the lawyers. Then all the politicians who drive people into poverty and then use their power and control to keep them there permanently so that they will control their votes by controlling the welfare spigot.

It took 50 years for my country to drop the road toll to where it is today. It would take the USA decades to drop the gun toll by a similar amount. You need to make a start!

You need to go stick your head back up your ass.

[Seth]

You obviously don't recognise the fact that you and many of your fellow Americans are living in a deluded fantasy world, imagining yourself to be part of a heroic resistance movement against an evil government...

That's the sad thing about delusion. The deluded really believes the shit that the voices are telling them. To them, it's completely real, and they are acting for the best.
A bit like Clint Eastwood, and John Wayne. Never a stray bullet, never an innocent bystander killed.
No mistaken identities.

That's the world that people like Seth actually think they inhabit.

Cite the stats please. How many civilian concealed carry permit holders have killed an innocent bystander or mistaken the identity of the assailant? Next, how many HAVE NOT done so, which is to say how many of us are there out there frighting your poor pussies with our invisible guns?

Hard data please. Or shut the fuck up about things you know less than nothing about.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Please don't say things you know are not true. I have been communicating with you long enough that you must be aware that my message is to ban hand guns only.

Firearms are tools. They can be useful or very, very harmful. Hand guns as tools have greater potential for harm, as shown by the fact that there are 8 murders with hand guns in the USA for every one with a long gun. So hand guns need to be limited to those with a real need for them, and extensive training in how to use them, and (more importantly) when not to use them. Meaning only the police.

Long guns can be sold to those with a need for them, such as hunters or farmers, after they have gained a gun licence. This is what we do in NZ, and Australia, and Britain, and firearms murders are rare in our countries.



It is obviously true that a law abiding citizen is less likely to use a hand gun for murder than a criminal, though many people each year, previously considered law abiding, end up committing murder with a hand gun. But it is also true that if hand guns are widespread in the hands of those considered law abiding, they will also end up widespread in the hands of criminals. After all, interviewing prisoners in the USA has shown that one third of all hand guns in criminal hands got there by being stolen. Another third were bought on the second hand market. So, hand guns in law abiding possession will inevitably end up in criminal hands also.

Hand guns need to be the most strongly restricted and policed of all. They have the property of portability and concealability, which is why they are the most used for murder.

There are 8,000 murders each year in the USA with hand guns. How many people with concealed carry permits prevent murder? I do not know. You do not know. But I would bet it is a hell of a lot less than 8,000!

Thus, concealed carry permits are just another route by which hand guns, being sold or stolen, end up in criminal possession, and get used for murder.

[Seth]

To Seth

Please don't say things you know are not true.

You first.

I have been communicating with you long enough that you must be aware that my message is to ban hand guns only.

So you say. I believe you to be lying, and I know for certain that others of your mindset are lying through their teeth when they say that.

Firearms are tools. They can be useful or very, very harmful. Hand guns as tools have greater potential for harm, as shown by the fact that there are 8 murders with hand guns in the USA for every one with a long gun. So hand guns need to be limited to those with a real need for them, and extensive training in how to use them, and (more importantly) when not to use them. Meaning only the police.

Your ignorant opinion is noted and rejected.

Long guns can be sold to those with a need for them, such as hunters or farmers, after they have gained a gun licence. This is what we do in NZ, and Australia, and Britain, and firearms murders are rare in our countries.

And criminal violence rates are higher than they are here.

It is obviously true that a law abiding citizen is less likely to use a hand gun for murder than a criminal, though many people each year, previously considered law abiding, end up committing murder with a hand gun.

Yeah? How many, exactly?

But it is also true that if hand guns are widespread in the hands of those considered law abiding, they will also end up widespread in the hands of criminals. After all, interviewing prisoners in the USA has shown that one third of all hand guns in criminal hands got there by being stolen. Another third were bought on the second hand market. So, hand guns in law abiding possession will inevitably end up in criminal hands also.

Prohibitionism never works. Never has, never will.

Hand guns need to be the most strongly restricted and policed of all. They have the property of portability and concealability, which is why they are the most used for murder.

Which is why they are the best tool for lawful self defense.

There are 8,000 murders each year in the USA with hand guns. How many people with concealed carry permits prevent murder? I do not know. You do not know. But I would bet it is a hell of a lot less than 8,000!

Armed citizens thwart or prevent crime using their guns, including handguns, somewhere between 80,000 and 2.5 million times each year, which at the low end is TEN TIMES the rate at which people are murdered with handguns.

Thus, concealed carry permits are just another route by which hand guns, being sold or stolen, end up in criminal possession, and get used for murder.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

Go back under your rock.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Response to your last post.

1. Please do not accuse me of lying. I do not lie. When I express opinions, of course, I can make a mistaker, since I am human. But so can you. That is not the same as lying.

2. You claim that criminal violence is higher in NZ, Australia and Britain compared to the USA. That is a dubious claim, for the simple reason that what is classified as criminal violence varies from country to country, and no accurate comparisons can be made.

However, if your claim was correct, it would strengthen my case. If NZ, Australia and Britain had more violent crime, and we look at the fact that our murder rates are one quarter to one fifth that of the USA, then you must ask yourself what makes a less violent society more murderous. There are two answers. First : more guns. Second : a pathological vigilante attitude. The fantasy that every man can be "Dirty Harry".

3. You said that prohibition never works. That is demonstrably untrue, based on the simple fact that those nations banning hand guns have very low hand gun possession, and very low hand gun crime, including murder. Only in the USA, where there is no hand gun prohibition are hand guns such a terrible problem.

4. DGU's.
The FBI says 70,000 DGU's per year. John Lott, who is regarded as a charlaton by his peers, says 2.5 million. I know which one I believe.

However, the flaw in your argument is the belief that those DGU's are necessary. If there are 70,000 DGU's each year in the USA, we have to ask how many are actually needed.

A man at home hears a strange noise. He grabs his gun, and yells at a burglar, who then runs off. That would be recorded as a DGU. But here in NZ, where hand guns are very rare, and even long guns are owned by a small minority, that case would simply be a burglar running off when the home owner yelled at him. No gun involved. Which means a DGU happened, where a gun was totally unnecessary.

My guess, is that out of 70,000 DGU's, the vast majority would be situations where the gun was not needed, and in many cases, the gun would make the situation worse.

I have a friend, a woman, who was mugged n Africa. She was attacked by two men, who pushed her and grabbed her hand bag and ran off. She lost some money. But if she had a hand gun tucked away out of sight, that simple mugging and loss of a little money might have resulted in her becoming a killer, and ending up in prison. Or worse, the mugger would have grabbed her gun, shot her, and gone on to murder others with her gun.

Classifying something as a DGU does not mean the gun was needed, or even desirable.

[Tyrannical]

Most gun crime, as well as the largest percentage of crime in general in the US is perpetrated by Blacks. Australia and NZ have similar problems with their "native" populations. If you want to get rid of guns, then you must first get rid of the need for guns. Give up your silly fantasy of equality and pass the needed laws to control uncivilized behavior. Black crime was tightly controlled under the KKK and Jim Crow laws, all the civil rights laws accomplished was allowing savages to act like savages.

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

We are all aware of your unthinking prejudice against our brothers and sisters who have more melanin in their skin.

However, it is always true that there are specific cultural groups in our respective societies who are more violent than others. Logically, we need to restrict access to the weapons used mostly for murder. ie. Hand guns.







T

[Tyrannical]

Always with the personal attacks. Why not just say there is little to no genetic influence for the variability in behavior and intelligence.
If pretending makes you feel better, just assume creationism is true and god really made us equal.

I'm sure Africanized honey bees are more aggressive due to their lower socioeconomic status too and not because of genetics.

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

Bear in mind changes in IQ. The Flynn Effect describes how IQ is rising steadily, probably due to children being better educated in abstract modes of thinking. Anyway, it is interesting to note that the average IQ of white people when IQ tests were first introduced was lower than the present average IQ for African Americans. This is a clear cut indication that much of IQ is due to learning, not genetics. It is also worth noting that the increase in IQ over time is currently greater among African Americans than it is in white Americans.

Bearing these points in mind, there is no rational reason to suggest that people of African descent have poorer intelligence genes compared to those of European descent.

It is interesting to note that genetic variation is greater among Africans than among Europeans. This is logical when you consider that all Europeans descended from a small group of people in the last 90,000 years or so, while Africans had a much larger base population, and one that had lived in Africa since the evolution of humans some 200,000 years ago. So they evolved a wider genetic diversity. Wide genetic diversity means more people at the extremes of any characteristic. In terms of intelligence, this means the most intelligent Africans would be smarter than the most intelligent Europeans. Of course it also means the stupid ones are more stupid, but the average should be similar to that of Europeans.

You may also ponder the fact that we are all Africans, since our ancestors all came from Africa.

[Seth]

Always with the personal attacks. Why not just say there is little to no genetic influence for the variability in behavior and intelligence.
If pretending makes you feel better, just assume creationism is true and god really made us equal.

I'm sure Africanized honey bees are more aggressive due to their lower socioeconomic status too and not because of genetics.

It's a cultural thing dude, not genetics. Using your calculus, statistically speaking, the most dangerous races on the face of the planet are Chinese, followed closely by Russian Slavs and then Aryans. Blacks don't even move the needle when it comes to distinct racial groups perpetrating violence.

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical

Bear in mind changes in IQ. The Flynn Effect describes how IQ is rising steadily, probably due to children being better educated in abstract modes of thinking. Anyway, it is interesting to note that the average IQ of white people when IQ tests were first introduced was lower than the present average IQ for African Americans. This is a clear cut indication that much of IQ is due to learning, not genetics. It is also worth noting that the increase in IQ over time is currently greater among African Americans than it is in white Americans.

Bearing these points in mind, there is no rational reason to suggest that people of African descent have poorer intelligence genes compared to those of European descent.

It is interesting to note that genetic variation is greater among Africans than among Europeans. This is logical when you consider that all Europeans descended from a small group of people in the last 90,000 years or so, while Africans had a much larger base population, and one that had lived in Africa since the evolution of humans some 200,000 years ago. So they evolved a wider genetic diversity. Wide genetic diversity means more people at the extremes of any characteristic. In terms of intelligence, this means the most intelligent Africans would be smarter than the most intelligent Europeans. Of course it also means the stupid ones are more stupid, but the average should be similar to that of Europeans.

You may also ponder the fact that we are all Africans, since our ancestors all came from Africa.

The flynn effect is a myth, and the increase is caused in part do to familiarity and not inherent intelligence, and that the questions do not fully test intelligence. Regression to the mean is a fairly simple way to fairly accurately determine if intelligence is being gauged by the question. A guess a decent real world example would be the lawyers that take a dozen attempts to pass the bar exam versus someone that passed on the first attempt.

Variation in Africa is higher in part for a variety of different reasons:
Africa is long and narrow and the environment is much more diverse from N/S than E/W.
SSA are at least two distinct subspecies, Congoid and Capoid.
A jungle environment also naturally inhibits gene flow.
Jungles are also disease repositories, and natural selection based on disease resistance is one of the most strongly selected for genetic traits.

[Blind groper]

The Flynn Effect is not a myth. Ity is extremely well documented.

Disease resistance is selected for, certainly, but probably more in European populations. It is well established that people of European stock have developed better resistance to several diseases, such as measles and (historically) smallpox. Both those diseases kill Africans at a greater rate than Europeans.

[MrJonno]

The Flynn Effect is not a myth. Ity is extremely well documented.

Disease resistance is selected for, certainly, but probably more in European populations. It is well established that people of European stock have developed better resistance to several diseases, such as measles and (historically) smallpox. Both those diseases kill Africans at a greater rate than Europeans.

Strangely enough the most resistant people to HIV are those who live in Africa, certain mutations and you are close to immune to it

[Tyrannical]

The Flynn Effect is not a myth. Ity is extremely well documented.

Disease resistance is selected for, certainly, but probably more in European populations. It is well established that people of European stock have developed better resistance to several diseases, such as measles and (historically) smallpox. Both those diseases kill Africans at a greater rate than Europeans.

Well documented and well criticized too. The black white IQ gap has remained relatively unchanged since IQ tests were invented, and the best predictor for Black intelligence is percentage of European admixture.

Developed a better resistance is an odd way of putting it, nothing actually developed. Its just those that were most vulnerable to the disease died out at a much greater rate. Strong selective pressure was put on certain genes.