DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on September 04, 2014, 10:14:12 PM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=922_1409850818
-
Are the odds greater that you would shoot a burglar or that someone in your house might get shot?
I bet the NRA does not even keep records on that.
-
Wrong stat to try and employ...try reality vs might (as in might happen, but more than likely won't)...as in how about how many bad guys are shot by civilians trying to commit a crime vs how many are accidentally shot in the home
-
What units does one use for might and right?
-
I bet the NRA does not even keep records on that.
I bet you and nobody else keeps stats on how many crimes are prevented
because the thug realizes the person in the house, car, or business may
be "packing". I personally in my wilder young days refrained from going
over the top because my friends and I were concerned if we did what
we were considering doing we could have been shot. There is no doubt
criminals are often deterred from criminal activity because they fear for
their own safety.
-
Most burglars try to burgle when no one is home. You and your friends strangely needed the specter of weapons to deter you from a life of crime. For most people, just respecting the rights of others seems to be enough.
-
Notice how you actually cut your own legs down there, Professor...that Burglars would rather tackle a home that they expect won't be defended...supporting the ongoing issue that bad guys would rather avoid the possibility of getting shot by someone defending themselves and/or their home
It's amazing how you claim a need of respecting the rights of others, while you trash the clear constitutional right that others have to keep a firearm. ???
And as far as What units does one use for might and right?, I have no clue what language you're peaking there
-
You and your friends strangely needed the specter of weapons to deter you from a life of crime.
For most people, just respecting the rights of others seems to be enough.
Youthful exuberance has been around a long time
not an excuse, but a fact
the description of "a life of crime" is a huge exaggeration
it deterred me from some stupid high school type vandalism
that I believe I have since been paid back for via karma
and as SIRS says I wish you would respect my rights right now
-
You and your friends strangely needed the specter of weapons to deter you from a life of crime.
For most people, just respecting the rights of others seems to be enough.
and as SIRS says I wish you would respect my rights right now
Exactly. Is the professor being ignorant when he makes a statement, like he just did, duplicitous, or just a plain hypocrite?
-
Are the odds greater that you would shoot a burglar or that someone in your house might get shot?
I bet the NRA does not even keep records on that.
For the burglar? The odds of running afoul of an armed defender eventually are pretty steep.
The stats on accidental shootings are down , perhaps public awareness is good for this.
That is the upside of threats to the Second amendment.
I suppose there are other benefits to threats to the second amendment , election of more Republicans , improved sales of new and used guns.
Personally I wish guns were cheaper again , I haven't bought one in a while.
-
Yea, you're right plane. In fact, I'm now seriously considering purchasing a semi-automatic rifle with scope. Any suggestions as to what type of ammo I should focus on? .223?, .308?, .338? What are your thoughts about the Lapua round?
-
What is the ratio of guns used to shoot burglars and gun accidents? That is the statistic that the NRA is unlikely to provide.
Too bad guns are sooo expensive. It would be nice if you could buy extra hands, so you could pack more of them at once, just in case you are burglarized by the Purple Gang.
-
What is the ratio of guns used to shoot burglars and gun accidents? That is the statistic that the NRA is unlikely to provide.
A little confusion here.....I thought stats provided by the NRA couldn't be trusted. Why would this be any different?? Or are we conceding that the stats the NRA provides is credible?? (the latter is a bit of a trick question, as the stats the NRA generally provided aren't "their stats", but ones acquired from sources, such as the FBI & Justice Dept)
-
What is the ratio of guns used to shoot burglars and gun accidents? That is the statistic that the NRA is unlikely to provide.
Too bad guns are sooo expensive. It would be nice if you could buy extra hands, so you could pack more of them at once, just in case you are burglarized by the Purple Gang.
That sort of comparison might be interesting ,but when I try to search up stats relating to gun control I find a lot of twisted and stacked stats because practically every source has more axe to grind than devotion to truth.
About half the value of guns is perceived scarcity , I smell a bubble.
-
http://start.toshiba.com/tv/3/player/vendor/Fox%20News/player/embedded/asset/fox_news-ny_gun_shop_owner_ordered_to_turn_over_customer_re-foxnews/source/Clips
New York Police ignore the law and go fishing.
-
What is the ratio of guns used to shoot burglars and gun accidents? That is the statistic that the NRA is unlikely to provide.
These figures seem useful. I like this website, it has footnotes to tell where all the facts were found so you can get some idea of how reliable they can be considered.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
[][][][][][][][][][][]
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
[][][][][][][][][][][]
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
[][][][][][][][][][][]
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
[][][][][][][][]
A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."
[][][][][][][][][][][]
* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
[][][][][][][][][][][]
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year
[][][][][][][][][][][]
Doing math on these figures.
Approximately 5,340,000 violent crimes in a year.
Approximately 162,000 lifesaving incidents per year using guns.
Very ,very, approximately , a life is saved by the use of a gun at the rate of once in 33 attacks.
Since less than half of us are packing at all and only a very few pack heat most of the time , this is better numbers than I was expecting.
-
From the same website.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.
[][][][][][][][][]
* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents, constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.
* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations, constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.
[][][][][]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001 (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.
Now are these numbers slanted?
Perhaps they are , but they all are in my opinion, so it makes a lot of difference to know how, and how much they are slanted.
I appreciate the footnotes.
-
What is the ratio of guns used to shoot burglars and gun accidents? That is the statistic that the NRA is unlikely to provide.
Hey the NRA does keep track of safety stats.
But are you really interested in reading them?
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/firearm-safety-in-america-2013.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
the firearm accident death rate has fallen to an all-time low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904.2 Since 1930, the annual number of firearm accident deaths has decreased 81%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975. Today, the odds are more than a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.
-
Yea, you're right plane. In fact, I'm now seriously considering purchasing a semi-automatic rifle with scope. Any suggestions as to what type of ammo I should focus on? .223?, .308?, .338? What are your thoughts about the Lapua round?
My personal preference would be 308 or 30-06.
But I don't presently have one of those, My fathers 8mm was excellent .
But I can't tell which would give you the best satisfaction, the thing to consider is what your circumstance and target will be and what you are comfortable with.
Firstly what is your target? You don't want small bore for bear nor large bore for rabbit.
Are you riding most of the way to your target? or does your gun need to be light because the targets are at the end of a hike?
Try not to buy one that you can't test fire, the thing has to fit you too, a gun with unmanageable recoil isn't good, and one with less stopping power than needed can be cruel .
If you are intending home defense , you might give consideration to small shotguns because the range is short and the types of ammunition available allow you to tailor the response to the situation you think is most likely. For home defense the ability or not to penetrate walls becomes very important..223, .308, 30-06 all have the ability to penetrate an attacker , the walls behind him and the door across the street, this does not rule them out entirely , it depends on your circumstance.
Have you seen "Failure to fire"?
http://ftf-comics.com/
This is a very raunchy and opinionated comic, the comments are often the best part.
The Lapua round?
I don't know, what is it?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum
Hmmmm...
The Finns are always doing interesting things with rifles.
-
Thanks for the input Plane. With your suggestions, I've narrowed my cartridge choices to the .308 vs Lapua. It'd be largely for self defense, as I don't hunt at all. But I want the semiautomatic for a faster return to target than my pump action 30-30, as well as a scope for more pin point practice
-
I think all guns should be registered in some sort of national registry.
There are far too many guns in circulation to take them away from everyone, and taking them away from only some would be unfair.
I disagree that the Constitution gives everyone the right to own any sort of firearm they wish. The words "well regulated militia" seem to have been disregarded by the Supremes. The NRA is not a militia, and it is not organized as any sort of defensive group. It is organized to take money from gun and ammo manufacturers and put it in the pockets of the officials of of the organization.
One purpose of the Founding Fathers putting in the concept of a "well regulated militia" in the Constitution was to allow the creation of runaway slave catching patrols. During the Revolution, the British promised freedom to slaves who would rebel against their masters and support the British. Slaves escaped quite frequently. Arming the militias (slave patrols is what many of them were, but "militia" sounds ever so much better) certainly made them more effective.
-
I think all guns should be registered in some sort of national registry.
Of course you would think that. Thank God your ilk isn't in charge
I disagree that the Constitution gives everyone the right to own any sort of firearm they wish. The words "well regulated militia" seem to have been disregarded by the Supremes.
No, the comma is what's been disregarded by folks like yourself. Clear grammar, that you'd think a linguistic professor would grasp is that while A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you catch that? There are 2 entities in play here. The one referencing a militia, to help defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. The OTHER, as referenced by the comma, is consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, spelling out rights for the people of this country. The Supremes were able to grasp that, it's stunning how you haven't
Then again, there's another neat component built into the Constitution....its the amendment process, which allows folks like yourself to petition like minds across the country, that if they feel that strongly that something needs fixed, the Constitution can be amended
But the wording is clear, the punctuation clearer. The NRA isn't required to be a militia, nor is anyone required to be a member of one. The right is individual, as is the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, and so on, and so on, and so on, and son on
-
I think all guns should be registered in some sort of national registry.
What would this be good for? When the police find evidence that a gun was used in the commission of a crime , what would the registry tell them?[/quote]
There are far too many guns in circulation to take them away from everyone, and taking them away from only some would be unfair.
[/quote] Yes , I think so too. Even moreso the day after an incomplete gun roundup the balance of power on the street would be tilted strongly in favor of those who did not co-operate.
I disagree that the Constitution gives everyone the right to own any sort of firearm they wish. The words "well regulated militia" seem to have been disregarded by the Supremes. The NRA is not a militia, and it is not organized as any sort of defensive group. It is organized to take money from gun and ammo manufacturers and put it in the pockets of the officials of of the organization.
One purpose of the Founding Fathers putting in the concept of a "well regulated militia" in the Constitution was to allow the creation of runaway slave catching patrols. During the Revolution, the British promised freedom to slaves who would rebel against their masters and support the British. Slaves escaped quite frequently. Arming the militias (slave patrols is what many of them were, but "militia" sounds ever so much better) certainly made them more effective.
I think that connecting the word "militia " to slave catchers is a red herring, in those days slave catchers were called slave catchers and half of the people who composed the constitution were abolitionist.
And the Indians are not a common threat anymore.
Are you trying to say that militias are not a good idea anymore?
-
Thanks for the input Plane. With your suggestions, I've narrowed my cartridge choices to the .308 vs Lapua. It'd be largely for self defense, as I don't hunt at all. But I want the semiautomatic for a faster return to target than my pump action 30-30, as well as a scope for more pin point practice
In combat against snipers this would be the thing, but most of the desperate situations in the present are occurring indoors.
Everything depends on what you think is the most likely, or worst that is reasonably possible .
-
Guns are used to kill people. Many are designed fore only that purpose. Every car is registered, and there are no cars designed to kill people.
Registering guns would surely be helpful in tracking down murderers. It is a no-brainer.
But then the NRA is more interested in hawking guns and ammo. The Stupid Supremes are like bat guano for them.
-
Registering guns would surely be helpful in tracking down murderers.
I do not see how.
Why would it be helpful ?
Is it such a no brainer that it cannot be elucidated?
-
Guns are used to kill people. Many are designed fore only that purpose. Every car is registered, and there are no cars designed to kill people.
Guns are a tool, that can be used to defend, deter, or if necessary provide lethal force. Nor is there a Constitutional right to a chevy, not to mention deaths due to cars far outweigh deaths due to guns. How has registration prevented those deaths?
The Stupid Supremes are like bat guano for them.
And apparently there are stupid lingustic professors who can't grasp simple grammar :o
-
Car registrations have indeed saved lives, as they have made it possible for manufactures to inform second and third owners that defective parts that would cause fatal accidents and injuries are available for replacement.
I bet you think that the constitution allows children to own guns, because they are citizens.
Guns should be registered. It would make it necessary to report thefts of guns, which could then be put in a database of stolen weapons.
Cars are traceable by license plate and VIN numbers. Guns should be at least as traceable.
-
And you would lose that bet. You think Children should be allowed to vote?? That's the same analogy ::)
-
Car registrations have indeed saved lives, as they have made it possible for manufactures to inform second and third owners that defective parts that would cause fatal accidents and injuries are available for replacement.
Recalls do not require registration with the government , they require warranty cards or failing that a public notice defective guns are a serious thing , but it is already adequately addressed. I bet you think that the constitution allows children to own guns, because they are citizens.
Guns should be registered. It would make it necessary to report thefts of guns, which could then be put in a database of stolen weapons.
You would win that bet. I myself owned a rifle as a preteen, when my father adjudged me mature and careful enough, I ran a lot of 22 rim fire through that little rifle
Cars are traceable by license plate and VIN numbers. Guns should be at least as traceable.
Why? What causes this to be beneficial?
-
Crimes are committed, children are abducted, people have emergencies to communicate to others, and an all points bulletin on white 2010 Toyota Corolla BFD-456 can be flashed on overhead signs, given to patrol cars.
Donlt tell me that knowing the serial number of a gun that was used to shoot someone cannot be helpful to the police. It is obvious that it can be.
-
In other words, registration doesn't prevent anything
-
Crimes are committed, children are abducted, people have emergencies to communicate to others, and an all points bulletin on white 2010 Toyota Corolla BFD-456 can be flashed on overhead signs, given to patrol cars.
This is exactly what you cannot do with information about a gun , no matter how specifically and correctly you have the information.
Imagine.... and an all points bulletin on blue 2010 Beretta 9mm registration # BFD-456 can be flashed on overhead signs, ....
This would help , in what way?
-
Information on stolen guns, of course, would be used by the police to track gun crimes, based on ballistics tests and other information. The question I was answering was about cars and how it was helpful to have a national registry for them.
-
In the fast and furious fiasco , the government marked a few hundred guns and sent them into the stream of guns flowing into criminal hands along the border.
What were they thinking would be the benefit?
When one was used for a crime there is the chance of saying , there it is!
How does this help ?
Some of these guns were actually fitted with radio pingers , even this hasn't given the government any idea where these things are right now.
I think that a gun registry would be very hard to accomplish, very very expensive to operate , prone to fail and usefull very seldom.
Why do I feel confident to say this ? Not just logic on my side , also experiment on large scale , this has been tried before.
............ Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise. Criminals, of course, don’t register their guns. And even law-abiding citizens tend to ignore registration when it comes to long guns mostly used for hunting and target shooting.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/
-
In the fast and furious fiasco , the government marked a few hundred guns and sent them into the stream of guns flowing into criminal hands along the border.
What were they thinking would be the benefit?
When one was used for a crime there is the chance of saying , there it is!
How does this help ?
Exactly my point as well. Nothing is being prevented. Registration doesn't save one life. If the inertia is combating these supposed epic number of deaths, at the hands of a gun, there has yet to be a rational explanation as to how registration actually achieves that supposed goal.
At best, it might help police track down a killer, AFTER the fact.
At worst, it can be used by the Government to localize legal gun owners for far more nefarious legislation.
-
Registration allows law enforcement to do a better job.
-
Registration allows law enforcement to do a better job.
This is entirely disproven by the Canadian attempt to do this.
I provided a link previously, but you can find accounts elsewhere.
The Canadians have a lower population , fewer guns percapata, and a generally good attitude towards their government .
What they found was a low rate of compliance , a much higher than expected expense and a useless list in the final result.
All of these problems would scale up for the US, and if it were done with ten times the efficiency and co-operation of the Canadian experience, the result would still be a list useless to the police for any practical purpose.
Why ignore the Canadian experience? Not that they are the only ones to have the same experience.
I can imagine a circumstance in which a registration list might help solve a crime , but as it turns out this is a pretty rare situation and when the Canadians had their list they didn't use it much.
-
Why not check and see how the Germans and the Swiss have handled gun registration.
-
Why not check and see how the Germans and the Swiss have handled gun registration.
OK , but this tells me that you didn't read the link I found about the Canadian experience.
The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country
This is the same link as earlier.http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/
Since you ask, and I am curious myself I will look up the Swiss registration situation if I can.
-
I realize that this may seem strange to you, but all this discussion about gun "rights" I find to be boring. I don't have a gun, I don't want a gun. After my father died, we found a pistol in his desk. I did not want it, my sister did not want it, so we turned it in the the police. It wasn't loaded and there was no ammo for it. My father was the Recorder of Deeds of the county, and I think he found the gun in the desk when he took the job, and it originally belonged to some previous Recorder who died long ago.
I don't much care about the Second Amendment, I think we could get along just fine without it. There are too damn many guns in circulation, but I have no plan to remedy that.
-
Gun ownership in Switzerland defies the simple categories of the American gun debate.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
Oh really?
This is part of a long article that includes some interesting things I am leaving out.
From the very first years of Swiss independence, the Swiss were commanded to keep and bear arms. After 1515. Switzerland adopted a policy of armed neutrality. For the next four centuries, the great empires of Europe rose and fell, swallowing many weaker countries. Russia and France both invaded, and the Habsburgs and later the Austro Hungarian Empire remained special threats. But Switzerland almost always retained its independence. The Swiss policy was Prévention de Ia guerre par Ia volonté de se défendre During World War I, both France and Germany considered invading Switzerland to attack each other's flank. In World War II, Hitler wanted the Swiss gold reserves and needed free communications and transit through Switzerland to supply Axis forces in the Mediterranean. But when military planners looked at Switzerland's well-armed citizenry, mountainous terrain, and civil defence fortifications, Switzerland lost its appeal as an invasion target. While two World Wars raged, Switzerland enjoyed a secure peace.
.........
In 1847-48, liberals throughout Europe revolted against aristocratic rule. Only in Switzerland did they succeed, taking control of the whole nation following a brief conflict called the Sonderbrund War. (Total casualties were only 128.) Civil rights were firmly guaranteed, and all vestiges of feudalism were abolished.
....................
Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. This training may be a young man's first encounter with his countrymen who speak different languages. (Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian and Romansch.)
Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle. They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.
........
From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training. From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods. Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."
........
By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms. After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.
Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)
After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.
When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.
.......
Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.
The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun........... Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.
There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns. About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have no rules at all There is no discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.
Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require no purchase permit and are not registered by the government. Thus, the only long guns registered by the government are full automatics. (Three cantons do require collectors of more than 10 guns to register.)
Gun sales from one individual to another are regulated in five cantons and completely uncontrolled in all the rest.
Oh man XO is right the Swiss have militarized their whole society, this is exactly what we should be doing. This is in the spirit of the second amendment , or even better.
-
I realize that this may seem strange to you, but all this discussion about gun "rights" I find to be boring. I don't have a gun, I don't want a gun. After my father died, we found a pistol in his desk. I did not want it, my sister did not want it, so we turned it in the the police. It wasn't loaded and there was no ammo for it. My father was the Recorder of Deeds of the county, and I think he found the gun in the desk when he took the job, and it originally belonged to some previous Recorder who died long ago.
I don't much care about the Second Amendment, I think we could get along just fine without it. There are too damn many guns in circulation, but I have no plan to remedy that.
That is because you have evil ideas , but that is what I like about you.
-
Swiss society is not militarized, it is simply very orderly, which is interesting in a country that has four languages and two religions. John McPhee wrote an excellent book on Switzerland. Another very good one is Swiss Watching.
One thing the Swiss rarely do is shoot one another.
-
One thing the Swiss rarely do is shoot one another.
What?
In spite of having almost universal military training?
In spite of having more guns percapata than the US?
In spite of having lots of privately owned military assault rifles?
In spite of having lots of entirely unregistered guns?
You just gotta be kidding me!
How are the Swiss both peaceful and well armed?
How am I going to get there?
-
I suggest Swissair. It is a very interesting country. Either of the boks I recommended were far nmore interesting than anything ever said in this forum about politics, abortion and guns.
-
Being wrong about gun control is tantamount to being wrong about human nature.
You may quote me.
-
yeah, whatever.
Human nature is that some people are obsessed over petty crap like owninf more guns than hands and some woman they don't know being deprived of her rights by the government, and poor people they also do not know being so utterly useless that they should maybe crawl off and starve or freeze to death.
-
yeah, whatever.
Human nature is that some people are obsessed over petty crap like owninf more guns than hands
And what's it to you when the facts demonstrate decreased crime and murders at the same time people were buying more guns than they had hands for??
You realize also that some people are so irrationally obsessed with believing they know better than everyone else, and by god, everyone else is going to follow those rules they've decided on, regardless the repercussions. So blinded by that obsession, that facts, reality, simple economics, and even current laws, are completely ignored. Be it immigration laws, tax laws, or even simple grammar, as what a comma functions as. And that's not even human nature....that's blinded ideology
-
And you and seriously infected with it.
-
LOL.....you actually going to try to pull "I know you are, but what am I" crap??
As opposed to those obsessed with their brand of ideology, that they can't wait to place everyone else under, my obsession is purely with freedom and the Constitution that highlights not just those freedoms, but the limits to which the Government can infringe upon them
-
You have to admit that XO is manfully doing the best that he can do.
I admire his bearing up under the disadvantage .
Don't get frustrated that he doesn't see reason and convert, this is quite unlikely, not just for him, us too.
Lets be glad and thankful that he is of generous enough sprit to let us see reason the way he sees it, I learn something now and then from this , even when I can't see his reason as reasonable.
Indeed what easier way do I have to examine the quality of my logic than having it reflected back nits first?
Critics can be good for you.
Thank you XO.
Be Sanguine Sirs.
-
Point taken