|
|
| ||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
dmaestro 08-Jan-13, 07:00 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Fair point Jerry. Let me ask you a question, if heroin were legalised would the amount of heroin addicts be more, less or about the same? |
|||||||||||
|
itchyandscrathcy I think you'd have more people initially check it out, but it would essentially reamain the same. I'm sure you're going somewhere with this. I don't think there are any health benefits or even emotional benefits that would suggest that heroin is a greater good than bad. In fact I would suggest it is a bad thing in almost every single instance. Look, I think 1 death is 1 too many, and I get that people just want answers and they think the solution is black and white. But I just don't see any gun restrictions, even a complete gun ban reducing the number of crazy people who kill people. Maybe an assualt rifle makes it easier than a baseball bat, but so does a car that does 100MPH. We can't pick and choose who's liberties we want to trample simply because we don't guns. |
|||||||||||
|
Indeed I am, let me explain my point as clearly as I can. <<I think you'd have more people initially check it out, but it would essentially reamain the same.>> I'd be inclined to guess more, but going with your answer: In that case what is the point of it being illegal? Surely if it doesn't matter in terms of the negative consequences to individuals, then it being illegal would serve no purpose to the benefit of society? All you end up with is more people in jail or for no benefit of less addicts, right? There is evidence that the number of people who drank during the prohibition period was actually less, partly due to the increased expense and partly due to the increased danger. Of course, arrests for being drunk increased, but that was obviously because the threshold for what was defined as 'under the influence' dramatically dropped. To present an anecdote, I have never once taken an illicit drug, but for most of them it is not because I fear their long term effects. It is because I have never had the opportunity, due to lack of availability (compared to alcohol for example, which I consume on a fairly regular basis), and because I fear being prosecuted for doing so. Now if the amount of people like me is more than zero, the amount of people taking a drug in the event of legalisation must be more than do so now. To turn this argument around and back to guns, if illegality does restrict availability (which it self evidently would, not everyone is going to seek out the black market) and if there are people who would give them up for fear of prosecution (again I think this is self evident), then the number of guns in circulation must be lower. It is logical to assume that with less guns there are less gun crimes (that is, crimes committed with a gun in real terms, clearly the new crime of owning a gun might make the overall statistics increase, as it did with alcohol). As you point out, a complete ban won't remove all guns from society, but it would reduce the availability and would make them more difficult to own. <<But I just don't see any gun restrictions, even a complete gun ban reducing the number of crazy people who kill people.>> Perhaps it wouldn't reduce the number of incidents of that nature, but it would reduce the total number of gun murders, simply by virtue of decreasing the number of guns. Which is really the whole point is it not? |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Daily Count |
|||||||||||
|
itchy Actually just go to the link and read that. It seems to be pretty substantial documentation that your thoughts are incorrect on this. There seems to be good documentation that gun control does NOT control violence and that violence actually goes up. It seems to indicate where citizens are allowed to have guns, violence actually goes down. For example, it documents that while Russia was a gun control, guns outlawed country, it has four times more violent deaths than the U.S. There are many examples in that piece. See for yourself. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:01 |
itchy hardcore things like meth or cocaine or heroin.....I have no idea where to even begin trying to find that kind of stuff and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole either. But its available. I actually can't think of any illegal things that aren't available here or at least an option. Remember that lots of firearms are actually manufactured in the US. Along with ammunition. But more importantly, our country is more open to travel and trade than any nation on Earth. If you look at the number of airports in the US compared to other places.....we have way more airports and maritime ports than anywhere else. Our borders are very long and relatively open. We have many choices when it comes to moving goods around or sending things overseas. It's pretty much impossible to keep anything outside of the United States. |
|||||||||||
|
changeling 08-Jan-13, 22:02 |
softy The article you mentioned has already been debunked as incorrect fallacy. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:10 |
also Banning firearms after something like a shooting...even one that involves kids getting killed.....it's just so.....un-American. Creating a media circus and fighting with each other about banning firearms....then forgetting about it to focus on more important things....THAT is American. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:16 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 08-Jan-13, 22:33.
|
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:21 |
also changeling The point is, that there is a lot of violence in Russia and guns have nothing to do with it at all. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:22 |
|
|||||||||||
|
change I couldn't find quickly where it said Russia Outlawed guns, but I did find a place where it said that there were "extremely stringent gun controls" as you can imagine after Lenin and Stalin. As a result there were "few" civilians with guns but they still had about four times the violent deaths in 2002 as did America. Another example I found was in a table comparing violent deaths for countries that banned handguns with their neighboring countries that allowed guns. An example is Russia (Handguns banned), murder rate 20.54 versus Poland (handguns allowed), murder rate 1.98. If you read it, you'll probably see some other references also. You say this study has been debunked. By who? DM? You? |
|||||||||||
|
changeling 08-Jan-13, 22:35 |
tat |
|||||||||||
|
musket33r 08-Jan-13, 22:50 |
softy << An example is Russia (Handguns banned), murder rate 20.54 versus Poland (handguns allowed), murder rate 1.98. >> Gun ownership in Poland is very low due to very tight gun restrictions. Read more here: translate.google.com.au Now, don't accuse me of being biased against anything that goes against what I say but that particular journal is filled with inaccuraries and rarely explains the whole story. Briefly, the journal debunks an argument that no sensible gun control advocate has made: more guns leads to more death. The argument they should have attacked was that more gun control leads to less death. If you compare the table 1 on page 652, you'll see an example with this. The lower ranked the country, the stricter the gun control. The journal doesn't state this. Lots of countries have high gun ownership rates, tight controls and relatively low rates of gun crime. Germany is one example. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:52 |
Changeling You've climbed on a high horse and acted like other countries are doing something right while America is doing something wrong. I hadn't realized that you were allowed to say this but when I respond by criticizing this I am "digging at other countries" or some such nonsense. I deleted my post because I knew you'd respond exactly the way that you did. I've been down that road with you already and it leads to nowhere. |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 22:59 |
Omg. |
|||||||||||
|
changeling 08-Jan-13, 23:02 |
tat |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 08-Jan-13, 23:22 |
But it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would ever accuse me of looking down on other countries or not appreciating other languages and cultures. Did you know that I speak and read Russian? Yeah, I spent years learning that language because I'm that interested in Russia and Russian culture. All former soviet cultures actually. What you have interpreted as me looking down on other cultures is just me defending my country against people who are criticizing it. It's called loyalty. |
|||||||||||
|
musket33r 08-Jan-13, 23:40 |
Yes, a source from a Russian journalist and a Russian news agency, what would they know about their own country? <<But whatever. You obviously know better than criminologists and attorneys with decades of experience.>> Oh, is there a concensus between criminologists and attorneys with decades of experience on the matter of gun control? News to me. You can post dozens of articles and I can post dozens back. <<Obviously Harvard law school is a total sham institution with zero integrity whatsoever.>> 1. That article wasn't written by Harvard Law School, it was written by two attendees of Harvard Law School. Their opinions and findings do not represent HLS. Get this through your head. 2. Going to Harvard doesn't mean you have integrity. 3. Have you actually been to University? If so, you'd know that anybody can publish anything regardless of how accurate it is. Sheesh, you act like every official looking document is totally legit. Open your mind, some people are out to deceive you. |
|||||||||||
|
changeling 08-Jan-13, 23:49 |
tat |
|||||||||||
|
softy Actually just go to the link and read that. It seems to be pretty substantial documentation that your thoughts are incorrect on this. There seems to be good documentation that gun control does NOT control violence and that violence actually goes up. It seems to indicate where citizens are allowed to have guns, violence actually goes down.>> Yes I have read it, frankly I'm glad we are finally getting to the stage where people evidence their position with academic papers, it's a step in the right direction, so thanks tat. However, just because something is published in a paper does not make it infallible. Musket has done a good job debunking some of it so I won't go over old ground, the only other flaw I could find was that there seems to be a decimal error in the murder rate in Luxembourg. Luxembourg is one of the richest nations on earth per capita, and the highest rate I could find was 0.9. I am very sceptical that the real rate is as high as is quoted in the article. My views on the journal itself and a bit of extra information about the peer review process can be found in 1A. If anyone can't see it I'll happily copy them over. |
|||||||||||
|
tat, that was sort of my point. <<I actually can't think of any illegal things that aren't available here or at least an option.>> Available yes. But availability would surely increase in the event of legalisation, wouldn't it? If I wanted a cigarette right now, I could go to a shop a 5 minute walk away and buy them. I would have to work a lot harder to even procure cannabis, I really wouldn't know where to begin. Even if I'm an outlier and it is a lot easier than my experience would have me believe it can't be as easy to acquire as alcohol or cigarettes can it? |
|||||||||||
|
dmaestro 09-Jan-13, 02:48 |
|
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 09-Jan-13, 08:35 |
musket ITS A STATE OWNED AND STATE CONTROLLED NEWS AGENCY. It's like reading Arab News and being like "Yup! I have a clear picture of what's going on in Saudi Arabia now!" There is another newspaper/news agency in Russia called "Pravada" (English pronunciation of a Russian word) which translates to "Truth" or "Accuracy" in English that is ALSO totally censored. It's owned by the Communist Party in Russia. I tell you this because I have no doubt that you'd assume it's trustworthy because it's named, "Truth". Like, for example, today their top stories include "Why American's Cannot Discipline Their Children" and "South Korean Woman Gets Ready to Rule The Country of Men", there is also an ad for a dating service that says "Russian Women Make the Best Wives".... There is also an article "Agenda Prevails Over Truth" which is about how the western world lies to it's inhabitants about everything. Basically, it's like reading your posts or changelings posts. You accuse other people of doing the very same things that you yourself are doing, talk as though other people don't have a mind of their own, and you flip flop nonstop. I prefer The Moscow Times, and the Saint Petersburg Times. These are owned by a publishing house that is not Russian, and they were started after the USSR dissolved and there was "freedom of press" in Russia. I also like Kommersant. There is an American website run by a museum in Washington DC called Newseum. Each day they have snapshots of the front pages of newspapers all over the world. Not all countries and not all papers agreed to participate in this. So, for example, North Korea and Russia don't have any papers at Newseum. But still, using Newseum you can see the headlines from around the world and compare the news coverage. Here: www.newseum.org Anyway, when I said that the link you posted about Russia was beside the point, I meant that what you were using it to reinforce was just totally meaningless. Read these editorials for a clearer picture: www.themoscowtimes.com www.themoscowtimes.com "1. That article wasn't written by Harvard Law School, it was written by two attendees of Harvard Law School. Their opinions and findings do not represent HLS. Get this through your head. 2. Going to Harvard doesn't mean you have integrity. 3. Have you actually been to University? If so, you'd know that anybody can publish anything regardless of how accurate it is. Sheesh, you act like every official looking document is totally legit. Open your mind, some people are out to deceive you." I honestly have no idea where to even begin responding to this. Once again, you're spewing your communist/socialist/australian mindset onto something and are totally, utterly, incorrect. Do you ever check to make sure that the things you know aren't wrong? I mean, it's just strange to me that you would even assume that anyone can just publish whatever they want in a HLS journal. And yes, these journals DO represent the integrity of the University. What kind of crack are you smoking down under that you think otherwise? Honestly, what are things like in Australia? Because from what you're saying, there is zero integrity in Australia and you're too lazy to read things. What I posted was not an article. It was a study published by a Harvard Law School journal. No WONDER we have like, 400 TRILLION pairs of UGGS in the United States. Your country is OVERFLOWING with fluffy naive lambs like yourself. Ok, that's not entirely true. Someone at my office is from Australia and he's okay........ |
|||||||||||
|
tat3225 09-Jan-13, 08:55 |
changeling I have no problem with Australia. I love Koala Bears. Crocodile Dundee is a great movie. Someone from Australia gave me a big boomerang once that I have on a shelf in my living room. I'm just joking........but not about the boomerang. In all seriousness though, anything critical I've said about Australia is just ribbing in response to you criticizing the United States. We don't see eye to eye when it comes to gun control. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you're australian and I'm American. We just don't agree on it. However, you've totally had an attitude of superiority when it comes to Australias gun control laws as though your country is doing something right and mine is doing something wrong. Whenever I've retaliated against that, you've acted like it was out of nowhere and I was- for no reason at all- blasting my American superiority complex all over you. |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
