Conservatives in favor of gun control

That is right - we do not have a "Bill of Rights" instead our whole system is based on a series of principles called "natural justice" It also means that we are not complacent about our "freedoms", which are relative in any event, but know we have to be vigilant and maintain the fight on a daily basis. We also have, generally a better idea of how to do that other than the usual American myth of gun ownership

 

"Natural Justice?" I believe that is more rightly called "Might makes Right." I think you are trying to say you support what liberals call "Social Justice" in this country: aka "feel-good laws." Whatever direction the political winds blow at any time, rules are made up, and the laws changed.

I don't believe in having my freedom to exprees ideas banned, like they are in your kingdoms. "Hate speech" is banned. There in nothing stopping the liberals in power from expanding that to anything they want. From what I'm hearing, you would likely make a law banning the criticism of any liberal gun law in your kingdom.

With your supposed knowledge of the world, please explain to me why Switzerland and Liechtenstein have such lower crime and gun deaths than the UK, Australia and NZ, with so many guns around?

Why do all the NW Euro nations all have fairly similar homicide rates with such different rates of individual gun ownership?

And why was the crime rate ten times lower in the US before the mid 1960's and all the gun control laws that followed, when there were just as many gun owners?

Bad people, bad laws and bad enforcement = more crime.

More guns = more crime is rubbish.

 

'Natural justice?' Ya like the American Constitution. Can't get more 'natural' than that. Euros only had the building blocks...we arranged them in proper order. You are still living in a half-built governance tied to an antiquated central power structure.

What do you consider your freedom 'relevant' to?

 

I question your empirical evidence. Please lay out your evidence and distinguish which cases are self defense.

 

And, how do you propose we cease all the manufacture of guns worldwide - including military and seize and destroy all the guns worldwide including all military weapons?

 

So, are you suggesting that the law abiding obey curfew hours and stay imprisoned in areas as part of their daily lives - essentially effectively becoming jailed by the criminals?

 

My empirical evidence? I'm only referring to the published literature. See, for example, Azrael and Hemenway (2000, In the safety of your own home: results from a national survey on gun use at home, Social Science & Medicine, Vol 50, pp 285-291):

"Our results suggest that, in the home, hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women"

Of course we have to be careful to make general remark over those with gun preferences. There are likely to be some selection bias at work. Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8, pp 1412-1417), for example, finds that handguns "are more common in the homes of battered women than in households in the general population"

 

Ayuh,.... Battered women buy handguns for protection,..?? Who'd thunk....

 

This is a serious subject, so please treat it as such. In the author's data two thirds of the households have the intimate partner using the gun(s) against the woman

 

Firearms used in Self Defense against Strangers are the Higher Statistic than Firearms used against close Relitives & Spouses (Except in Murder Suicide )

 

You're more likely to be a victim because of gun prevalence. However, there's certainly a personal security reason for gun ownership. That doesn't excuse hiding from the reality of the overall outcome though

 

"Our results suggest that, in the home, hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women"

I wonder if they could be any more ambiguous?

 

Did this guy really just say it is a God given right to bear arms?

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." -- Declaration of Independence - 1776

"Liberty" is defined as: "the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases, b: freedom from physical restraint, c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control, d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges, e: the power of choice."

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

Correct use of language given sampling has to be used. Basic stuff really: e.g. we do not accept hypothesis, we fail to reject hypothesis.

 

I already rebutted that comment, several times. I am sure your numerous attempts to sidestep my rebuttals and critical comments are an indication that you are defeated and are hoping big words and small ideas will save your argument. Internalizing externalities, especially data sensitive negative externalities, are nearly impossible to do accurately due to possible corruption of every binary bit of data, not to mention other factors any one of which would invalidate your claims. Additionally I have said several times, without rebuttal, that you are using a highly subjective culturally dependent analysis to validate your claims. Maybe (but I doubt it) your ideas may be valid somewhere..maybe in a firearm phobic firearm hating freedom fearing universe far far away, like England, but not in my USA universe! So admit that your UK, i.e. English culture holds certain ideals and optimums are not optimums of a culturally divergent USA. Not to mention that all this does is not validate your simple ideas of so called optimal gun control anyway. In other words even if your dearly clutched... er' held analysis is correct in that social costs i.e. deaths and injuries were connected to firearm ownership, number of chain and machine guns etc, those deaths and injuries would be considered acceptable liabilities when compared to the positive externalities of the right to keep and bear arms! I have expressed those PE’s tens of times. I have also pointed out the negative externalities of your idea of optimum gun control many times.

Ha ha Pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall Reiver. You need one of those Hellllpppp' I've fallen and I cant get up thingies ha ha! Allow me to repeat what I have already said since your (above) comment was so wrong; The definition and value of social costs SUBJECTIVE! Analogy; eating the brains of our parents are acceptable in some indigenous south American tribes, but horrific in western culture. Guns if they do cause more death and injury per number of or ratio of population are an acceptable risk in the USA but may not be in the UK. Now do you get it? BTW your attempt at deception by using fairly simple term/discipline specific language no longer works for you eh? it’s a dirty shame that you stoop to such tactics in the first place, that is why I refused to use the same language to debate you. So yes it my intention to point out to you that social cost and many other data compilations could be incomplete or corrupt.

No I do not agree. All data can be and routinely is corrupt. Data is used to validate and buttress all your claims eh? Not just murders etc. ALL DATA IS SUBJECT TO BE INACCURATE.

How would you accurately calculate unreported events, and how can you guarantee that using proxies would render an infallible conclusion etc ?

Still too inaccurate for something this important. Additionally you have not so carefully AVOIDED commenting on the subjective nature of your claims. Even if I agreed that you could precisely calculate the social costs etc and even if the social costs were great, ie many deaths and injuries related to the number AND EVEN THE TYPE (see I gave you one) of firearms etc IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, in our country, (get ready Reiver here comes the important part, the one you have missed since day one of our disagreements) …ready? >>> in our country the USA those unacceptable social costs according to you and your gun phobic ilk would be well within the range of acceptable in our historically Pro Firearm culture! Its called subjectivity. Watch the TABOO series on national geographic sometime. Maybe, just maybe the concept of what is good in one culture may be bad in another.

Rev A

 

You are not a conservative. You are a progressive in conservative clothing.

Also, fundamentally, the right to bear arms is the right to self defense. Your theory is incorrect, and the SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment is not explicitly tied to militia use. It is an individual right.

 

James Brady, unfortunately, is brain damaged. I'm not sure we can count his views as rational or conservative.

Suicide is a mental health issue, not a rights issue.

In terms of stopping crime, Pope John Paul II was shot by a handgun in Italy which has restrictive gun laws. Gun control does not stop crime.

In terms of Mexico, most of the illegal guns there cannot be traced--they are from countries without registration or good record keeping. It's hard to trace an AK-47 that was made in China or Russia and then stolen from a Third World Armory. U.S. made sporting and self defense weapons are a minor part of the Mexican problem.

 

"Live free or die."

"Give me liberty or give me death."


Do those sayings sound familiar?


The thing is, since the 1990s, gun control has been laxer. The crime rate is going down. IMHO, that means that gun control probably has little effect on crime. Since that is the case, why do it?

 

You believe that you have rebutted the comment. In reality you haven't. You'd have to demonstrate that externalities were zero or promote some cloud cuckoo land where they are positive due to deterrence effects. You cannot do that.

This is nonsense. Its actually a rather simple exercise. Its only reference to supply and demand after all. The only difficulty is how we calculate the costs from deaths. Of course we can use the standard cost-benefit assumptions with that one.

You'd have to discount supply and demand. As I always remark, I don't mind you doing that!

We're not interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. We're only correcting for market failure (from a coercion you ignore, ensuring that you're assaulting the very basics of individualism)

A simple 'thanks' would suffice. Given you were showing inconsistency and attacking your own argument, its a bare minimum required.

This amused me. Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that indicates homicide data is severely under-reported?

I've already said. With proxies one routinely tests for robustness. It isn't difficult.

There is no subjectivity. There is only objective application of the evidence. I don't find that difficult for this topic as I have no dogma. However, if you want to attack me for embracing individualism then go ahead. I do believe that a hardcore element of the pro-gun lobby are restricted by the authoritarian personality. I have psychology experiments in support too, which is nice.

 

I would guess that getting rid of the 5th Amendment would leave us even safer that getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Do you want to do that as well?

 

Thank you for the sources. Even though they are over 10 years old, I'll review them this week.

There is a distinct difference between "used" and "displayed". And, again I'll be looking for gun use and self defense compared to non-self defense.

 

I look forward to it!

 

I am suggesting that people take responsibility for their own actions. It is my right to jump off a bridge, but who is to blame if I jump and am injured or killed?

 

And you so blinded by conventional dogma, that I'm sure you can't see the hand in front of your face.

Of course we should ban the entry of radical muslims into the country. Who said the two are mutually exclusive? And do you think that guns are going to protect you against terrorists? Come on. What good would a gun have done on 9/11?

The failure of South Africa to implement a gun control policy has more to do with the lack of infrastructure, corruption and poor economic conditions than anything else. I was able to dig up a few stats, however:

There are some positive recent data concerning murders and gun-murders in South Africa:

SAPS data indicates a 12.2% fall in murders in the three years 2001/02- 2004/05 to a little under 19 000 [3].

the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, which draws its data from a sample of mortuaries, indicates that between 2000 and 2004, the proportion of homicides in which guns were used has fallen from 61.9% to 57.8% [4].
How can these trends be explained?

Guy Lamb, of the Institute for Security Studies, reports that there was no violence prevention strategy or major community crime initiatives which explain the trends. He believes that they can be 'mainly attributed to the implementation of the Firearm Control Act … and to police operations aimed at confiscating illegal firearms

Source: http://www.gca.org.za/Resources/Res...d/2140/ItemID/201/language/en-US/Default.aspx