Number of anti's on THR?
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
hso said:
It's interesting that the same study found no correlation between "shall issue" laws and violence, either. I thought that I had read that "shall issue" laws lead to a decrease in violent crime.
I am a little puzzled that you carefully omitted the fact the the "shall issue" laws were also considered. I thought that selective omission of facts was an anti tactic. Here's the whole quote:
Why did you truncate it?
Mike
budney said:
Can you sketch the outline of a rational proof for the existence of an "inalienable" right?
I had always assumed the the founders asserted that that these rights came from G-d because there was no rational proof of their existence.
Mike
Titan6
member
Ahhh... the ACLU is in the house...
You would have to read A System of Moral Philosphy by Hutcheson and the concepts of the social contract by Locke to get a better understanding. But by the way your question is couched I think you already know that.
What it comes down to is this:
You either believe all men are born equally free or you do not.
I'd let budney answer but he would undoubtly start spouting off about anarcho-capitialism or whatever it is he believes in.
You would have to read A System of Moral Philosphy by Hutcheson and the concepts of the social contract by Locke to get a better understanding. But by the way your question is couched I think you already know that.
What it comes down to is this:
You either believe all men are born equally free or you do not.
I'd let budney answer but he would undoubtly start spouting off about anarcho-capitialism or whatever it is he believes in.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
One needn't squabble about the existence of god to accept that some rights are inherent in our existence.
The alternative hypothesis is that NO rights are inherent in your existence.
If you accept that alternative, I claim you as my property. Report to my throne @ 0800.
The alternative hypothesis is that NO rights are inherent in your existence.
If you accept that alternative, I claim you as my property. Report to my throne @ 0800.
Titan6
member
What is interesting here is that while many people dispute that the shall issue laws lowered crime; no real researcher can point to any facts that dispute that the AWB had any effect at all.
Spinner
Member
Restrictive firearms laws don't stop criminals from having guns. 
Its true! Here in New Zealand, to legally own a firearm you must apply for a firearms licence. The requirements for successfully gaining a licence include having attended an approved training course and correctly answering questions on firearms safety and general knowledge. You must also be "a fit and proper person" which means that the Police will do a little check on you to see if you have a history of violence, drug use, association with organised crime, mental instability, anti-social behaviour, suspected terrorist links, etc. In addition, you must demonstrate that you have the means to secure firearms in a disabled state so that they are not easily available to other people .... like a housebreaker, child or other person. Your firearms licence and security needs to be reviewed and renewed every ten years. You need to have a licence (and to display a licence) to purchase a firearm and to purchase ammunition.
Great, so theoretically everybody who has a firearm also has a licence and only "fit and proper" people have firearms. Even if you have a firearm but you don't have a licence, you can't purchase any ammunition.
So why is it that when New Zealand Police do raids on drugs manufacturers and suppliers, burglary rings, gangs, etc that they keep finding firearms and ammunition? Why is it standard operating procedure for the New Zealand Police when they do a raid on a methamphetamine operation that the Armed Offenders Squad (basically SWAT) are involved?
The answer is restrictive firearms laws do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
Criminals, by their very nature, do not obey laws. Therefore, laws will not stop criminals from doing whatever it is they wish to do ... including acquiring and using guns.
Spinner
Its true! Here in New Zealand, to legally own a firearm you must apply for a firearms licence. The requirements for successfully gaining a licence include having attended an approved training course and correctly answering questions on firearms safety and general knowledge. You must also be "a fit and proper person" which means that the Police will do a little check on you to see if you have a history of violence, drug use, association with organised crime, mental instability, anti-social behaviour, suspected terrorist links, etc. In addition, you must demonstrate that you have the means to secure firearms in a disabled state so that they are not easily available to other people .... like a housebreaker, child or other person. Your firearms licence and security needs to be reviewed and renewed every ten years. You need to have a licence (and to display a licence) to purchase a firearm and to purchase ammunition.
Great, so theoretically everybody who has a firearm also has a licence and only "fit and proper" people have firearms. Even if you have a firearm but you don't have a licence, you can't purchase any ammunition.
So why is it that when New Zealand Police do raids on drugs manufacturers and suppliers, burglary rings, gangs, etc that they keep finding firearms and ammunition? Why is it standard operating procedure for the New Zealand Police when they do a raid on a methamphetamine operation that the Armed Offenders Squad (basically SWAT) are involved?
The answer is restrictive firearms laws do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
Criminals, by their very nature, do not obey laws. Therefore, laws will not stop criminals from doing whatever it is they wish to do ... including acquiring and using guns.
Spinner
Last edited:
Titan6 said:
Yep - Alberto Gonzlaes and John Ashcroft convinced me to renew my long dormant ACLU membership. You'll find and ACLU and NRA cards in my wallet.
Titan6 said:
It has been a very long time since I read Locke - I remember agreeing with him, but I think it's because I agreed with some of his conclusions, not because of any "proofs".
Can you give me a sketch of the form of the proof? I understand that listing all of the evidence would be tedious - but what is the outline of the proof?
Titan6 said:
I accept the question does come down to that belief. My point is that belief in and of itself is not particularly rational. In other words, if someone does not believe that such a set of rights exist, I don't think that I can prove that they do exist.
From that I can derive that someone may be able to derive a rational argument about whether or not any of the "inalienable rights" in fact exist.
Therefore, a rejection of a belief that there is a derivative right to keep and bear arms is not inherently irrational. It may be wrong, and I happen to disagree with it, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Mike
Bingo!
All gun control laws will accomplish is disarming the honest citizens and preventing them from being able to defend themselves. Anyone who honestly believes that a criminal is going to choose to obey gun laws while they freely commit other crimes has got their cranium inserted in their rectal orifice. It only takes common sense to see that a criminal isn't going to acknowledge the law. It may be trite, but it's true:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Jason
Titan6
member
Most of the greatest minds of the Western world disagree. I suggest Descarte and Plato. They have all the proofs you need. If you keep following your backwards train of thought down the logic hole you can't even prove you exist.
If you want proof stab yourself in the eyeball with a large steak knife. If you can still see out of both eyes you likely do not exist. If you can't well... you learned one the hard way.
Sorry, the barf button was stuck. Never mind.
Fosbery
Member
3.4% of Britons experienced violent crime in 2005:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf
(search for "3.4" and you'll find it)
1,390,695 violent crimes were comitted in the USA in 2005. In 2006 (a year lateer I know, but i couldn't find the 2005 info, close enough eh?), the population of the USA was 299,398,484. That's about 0.46% of people experiencing violent crime, if I've done my maths right.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
(yellow table, "violent" column)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
(first row)
I think that comes out at about 800% more in the UK than the US (excuse me if I'm getting things wrong, it's late this side of the atlantic
). I'm guessing that last time I worked this out I managed to find the population figures for 2005, which gave a more accurate (and higher) rate of violent crime in the USA, making it up to 900%.Titan6
member
Fosberry- Actually (I know this is discouraging) your numbers are too low for Great Britain.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle2710596.ece
The number of vitims does not equal the number of crimes so what you are looking at is a much higher rate of crime in GB. Sorry.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle2710596.ece
The number of vitims does not equal the number of crimes so what you are looking at is a much higher rate of crime in GB. Sorry.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU (yeah, THAT Gary Kleck) has claimed to be a "card-carrying member of the ACLU". It's by-and-large the ACLU bosses that are anti-gun, not necessarily the rank and file. Much like the AARP.
, Art
, Artbudney
member
Now you've done it: you've asked a mathematician for a proof.
Proving the existence of "rights" is like proving the existence of "points" or "lines": these are the basic assumptions on which everything else is based (in math, what we call an "axiom"). If I proved the existence of rights, that proof would be a logical argument based, ultimately, on--you guessed it--axioms! So if I can prove the existence of rights, it would only be because I assumed it (whether obviously or subtly) in my original axioms.
So axioms are not subject to proof. Even mathematics, the most perfect intellectual achievement in the history of the universe, is based on axioms I can't prove. Is there really such a thing as "set"? What is a set, exactly? And don't tell me it's a collection of "things," because I'll only ask you what a "thing" is, and soon we'll be arguing whether nonexistent "things," like pink elephants, are "things"...
OK. With that out of the way, the best argument for inalienable rights is to argue that nobody has any rights. Sound silly? Well, if I'm not doing anything to you, where do you get the right to come over and molest me? Nowhere, that's where. And if you're not doing anything to me, where do I get the right to molest you? Again, nowhere. It we don't get this right from anywhere, then nobody has any right to assault anyone else, or impose his will on anyone else, or generally mess with anyone else.
Now everyone else has no right to aggress against me, just as I have no right to aggress against them. I sometimes say that I have a right not to be aggressed against, but by that I only mean that nobody else has the right to aggress against me.
That's not a mathematical argument; it's the sort of dialog we would have if we were discussing foundations--i.e., set theory. But I think it's extremely convincing.
And if I do say so myself, I think it quite artfully puts the burden of proof where it belongs: on your shoulders. I'm not doing anything to you, so I don't need to justify myself to you. It's you who wants to seize my land to build a road, or seize my money as "taxes," or put me in a cage because you don't like what I'm eating, or drinking, or smoking. Who gives you the right to do that? Nobody. So leave me alone.
At this point you will of course introduce democracy, and claim that being in the majority gives you the right. That's not a rational argument, though; it's religion. If three people are stuck on an island, and two of them agree to eat the third, how does being in the majority justify their action? It doesn't. You just have this religious belief that the "majority" is more than just a mob: it's a sort of divine being in its own right, that's entitled to get its way.
--Len.
Fosbery
Member
Titan6,
Your link dosn't work
Your link dosn't work
It doesn't matter whether any one person believes in "inalienable" rights here in America. The founders claimed to hold those rights as being self evident. They then went on to protect those rights with our constitution and most specifically, with the Bill of Rights. However, they were also very clear that just because a right wasn't listed, didn't mean that right was not protected from government and it's potential tyranny.
They laid the foundation for the idea that any state which wanted to be included in these United States, and any person who claimed to be a citizen of these United States, had to follow the constitution and it's bill of rights. Thus, whether you accept the idea of inalienable rights in your heart or not, if you want to be a citizen of the United States, you have to accept the protection of those rights for others who do believe in them. You also get the protection of those rights even if you don't believe in them.
People born in Cuba are offered no protection for any inalienable rights, whether they believe in them or not. That's a key difference between a free, constitutional republic and a tyrannical dictatorship. Also, throughout history, pure democracies have shown a tendency to allow the majority to trample on the rights of the minority by sheer numbers of votes, whether the minority or any members of the majority believed in inalienable rights or not. Therefore, freedom was extinguished for the minority in those democracies.
The founders understood this very well and decided that the very nature of our nation and it's government, would be centered on the idea that there are indeed inalienable, individual rights, which the government entities would be forbidden to trample upon. So even if one cannot "prove" the existence of an inalienable right, it matters not in the USA. The burden of proof is not on "The People". The burden of protecting those rights, whether anyone really believes in them or not, falls to the government, under threat of legal actions for failing to do so.
In theory, that's how the FF set up our nation. The one weakness in the system is that "The People" had to make sure that the government did not become too powerful and start limiting the freedom of "The People" in the name of security or safety. We have failed in many ways in that regard. We have actively voted and petitioned the government to become more powerful and we have willingly exchanged pieces of our liberty for small pieces of perceived security. That is a danger to our liberty and freedom in general. Is it too late to reverse this? That is a major source of an ongoing debate.
They laid the foundation for the idea that any state which wanted to be included in these United States, and any person who claimed to be a citizen of these United States, had to follow the constitution and it's bill of rights. Thus, whether you accept the idea of inalienable rights in your heart or not, if you want to be a citizen of the United States, you have to accept the protection of those rights for others who do believe in them. You also get the protection of those rights even if you don't believe in them.
People born in Cuba are offered no protection for any inalienable rights, whether they believe in them or not. That's a key difference between a free, constitutional republic and a tyrannical dictatorship. Also, throughout history, pure democracies have shown a tendency to allow the majority to trample on the rights of the minority by sheer numbers of votes, whether the minority or any members of the majority believed in inalienable rights or not. Therefore, freedom was extinguished for the minority in those democracies.
The founders understood this very well and decided that the very nature of our nation and it's government, would be centered on the idea that there are indeed inalienable, individual rights, which the government entities would be forbidden to trample upon. So even if one cannot "prove" the existence of an inalienable right, it matters not in the USA. The burden of proof is not on "The People". The burden of protecting those rights, whether anyone really believes in them or not, falls to the government, under threat of legal actions for failing to do so.
In theory, that's how the FF set up our nation. The one weakness in the system is that "The People" had to make sure that the government did not become too powerful and start limiting the freedom of "The People" in the name of security or safety. We have failed in many ways in that regard. We have actively voted and petitioned the government to become more powerful and we have willingly exchanged pieces of our liberty for small pieces of perceived security. That is a danger to our liberty and freedom in general. Is it too late to reverse this? That is a major source of an ongoing debate.
Last edited:
Titan6 said:
An appeal to authority is the antithesis of logic. Plato's arguments about the nature the state were not compelling to me, and I don't think he had any notion of individual rights - weren't most of his arguments based on his notion of what was good for the most folks. Doesn't he end up building a state ruled by philosophers who have absolute power?
Descartes is too far in the past for me to remember. Did he say anything about inalienable rights?
Let me clear - I am not arguing whether a belief is right or wrong.
I have made a commitment in my life to a contract between G-d and the Jewish people 3500 years ago, as recorded in the Torah. I take this commitment seriously - but I would not argue that I do so on a rational basis. I would suggest that this commitment is more axiomatic than rational. Other folks can and do choose other sets of spiritual axioms. To me, an attempt to prove by logic that Judaism is true and Christianity is not, or that Christianity is true and Islam is not, or that Buddhism is true and Judaism is not - any such argument is silly and can only be engaged in by someone who doesn't understand logic.
Mike
Brevity and relevence. The question before us was the reasons for gun prohibition. I was addressing that in the limited space available. Regardless, I provided the direct quote in the post, "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.", which you've correctly interpreted to mean that there is no effect, good or bad, from gun restrictions on violent outcomes. No increase, no decrease, no effectiveness on violent outcomes.
But now that your bring it up, the fact that legitimate studies show no correlation, either beneficial or negtive, removes the reason for gun legislation, whether prohibitionist restrictions or silly "manditory" gun ownership. The studies show legislating firearms possession has no real impact on violent crime. If there's no impact then the basis for the legislation doesn't actually exist and it's a solution in search of a problem and a distraction from the search for the real solution to violent crime in America.
BTW, nice ad hominem
.
Anti and Pro gun folks with weak arguments resort to those. If you don't like the numbers don't put up a smoke screen. Come up with your own. Lets stick to the facts that can be supported with references instead of attacking the individual.budney
member
If so, they need to prove that they have the right to forcibly disarm us. We aren't doing anything to them; they're doing something to us. Just attributing their aggression to "different axioms" doesn't cut it. It I inform you that "my axioms" impose on me the moral imperative to rape and kill you, will you reply, "Oh. How interesting. Takes all kinds, I guess!"
--Len.
Titan6
member
You ask for a proof. Descarte offers you that proof and you reject it out of hand without review. His writings have the very proof you seek.
Also I was not refferencing Plato's system of government (which interests me not) but the foundation of logic and modern Western thought. They contain all the proofs you need.
Also I was not refferencing Plato's system of government (which interests me not) but the foundation of logic and modern Western thought. They contain all the proofs you need.
"The Declaration of Independence... contains discrepancies, one of which is the statement "that all men are created equal." Someone of the time could have talked to any one of those "3/5ths" of a person for an alternative point of view."
That's not a defect in the Declaration; it's simply an example of people stating a correct principle and then failing to uphold it."
Nice try. Doesn't hold up.
"Rights are nothing more than things agreed upon by a group of people."
Not true: the right to self and property are absolute
No they're not. They're just concepts agreed upon my a majority of the voters (or those in power) at the time.
"What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment.
You do know that "well regulated" means "well trained,"
Actually "well regulated" means "well regulated." If they meant "well trained" they would've written "well trained."
That's not a defect in the Declaration; it's simply an example of people stating a correct principle and then failing to uphold it."
Nice try. Doesn't hold up.
"Rights are nothing more than things agreed upon by a group of people."
Not true: the right to self and property are absolute
No they're not. They're just concepts agreed upon my a majority of the voters (or those in power) at the time.
"What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment.
You do know that "well regulated" means "well trained,"
Actually "well regulated" means "well regulated." If they meant "well trained" they would've written "well trained."
Wow - can't argue Plato... sorry, not that read.
Quote the pertinent parts if you are to quote me Many of the Anti's I've met have put the end game run on ... crime... if the kids(adults) can't shoot kids(adults) w/ guns they can't have (they are all banned remember... no really... seriously... like NO guns.. i mean it... (satire)) then we would be safer. They truly believe that if the govt. bans all guns they will go away and suddenly violent death dealing people dying crime will go away. My argument is that even if the gun goes away - or is "too" hard to get - the crime will still take place w/ just another weapon (slingshot anyone? easily constructible and deadly w/ a steel ball bearing from an overpass... and SILENT!!! OMG, they will have to make slingshots a class III weapon!!!)
The breakers of the law will always break the law... the law exists to (hopefully) make the breaker of the law to think first "do i really want to go to jail/die/etc" Which I'm sure has kept many in check. I have heard (no proof - just heard) the success ratio of robbing a bank ONE time is nearly 100%... and yet... most of us don't go about robbing banks... go figure, most of us don't want to take the chance to go to jail.... for a lousy however much i got outta that till.
A friend of mine had an interesting tail after bringing up "guns" to a traveling co-worker of his from Pakistan. the Pakistani said that "only bad people have guns, no good people in Pakistan have guns" Any one know what the crime is like in Pakistan if this is a "nationals" belief? Don't know stats so can't comment on em.
In the end - as in my 1st post - it all comes down to emotion. Emotion says irrational things like "if no one had a gun this wouldn't have happened" Its an absolute value that can't exist in the real world. Even where it so blessed hard to obtain a gun that its ridiculous (for a law-abider) guns exist and are being used. Nothing on this planet is absolute. One of my favorite musings came from a comic or some such thing- what if we all had one get out of jail free card a year... to kill ONE person no questions asked... would the nation dissolve into chaos? or would we all be a LOT more polite since we don't know if the other person has used his or her alloted free pass? hehe.
Not sure if i would be dead or not already... but its an interesting thought =)
-Jason
Quote the pertinent parts if you are to quote me
Many of the Anti's I've met have put the end game run on ... crime... if the kids(adults) can't shoot kids(adults) w/ guns they can't have (they are all banned remember... no really... seriously... like NO guns.. i mean it... (satire)) then we would be safer. They truly believe that if the govt. bans all guns they will go away and suddenly violent death dealing people dying crime will go away. My argument is that even if the gun goes away - or is "too" hard to get - the crime will still take place w/ just another weapon (slingshot anyone? easily constructible and deadly w/ a steel ball bearing from an overpass... and SILENT!!! OMG, they will have to make slingshots a class III weapon!!!)The breakers of the law will always break the law... the law exists to (hopefully) make the breaker of the law to think first "do i really want to go to jail/die/etc" Which I'm sure has kept many in check. I have heard (no proof - just heard) the success ratio of robbing a bank ONE time is nearly 100%... and yet... most of us don't go about robbing banks... go figure, most of us don't want to take the chance to go to jail.... for a lousy however much i got outta that till.
A friend of mine had an interesting tail after bringing up "guns" to a traveling co-worker of his from Pakistan. the Pakistani said that "only bad people have guns, no good people in Pakistan have guns" Any one know what the crime is like in Pakistan if this is a "nationals" belief? Don't know stats so can't comment on em.
In the end - as in my 1st post - it all comes down to emotion. Emotion says irrational things like "if no one had a gun this wouldn't have happened" Its an absolute value that can't exist in the real world. Even where it so blessed hard to obtain a gun that its ridiculous (for a law-abider) guns exist and are being used. Nothing on this planet is absolute. One of my favorite musings came from a comic or some such thing- what if we all had one get out of jail free card a year... to kill ONE person no questions asked... would the nation dissolve into chaos? or would we all be a LOT more polite since we don't know if the other person has used his or her alloted free pass? hehe.
Not sure if i would be dead or not already... but its an interesting thought =)
-Jason
- Status
