Guns, Guns Guns

Daryl wrote:Down to definitions.
My definition of socialism doesn't include the state owning very much production at all. Just start up industries that are sold off when established, and a few natural monopolies (roads, broadband infrastructure etc).
The socialist part is having a uniform national health, defence, welfare and education system.

There is no elimination of private property at all. That does happen in some totalitarian states in theory, but even there people build personal fortunes. Lots of very rich people in China and Russia.

It should be noted though that Russia is possibly one of the LEAST socialist on earth.
Ever since Yeltsin´s maniac hunt for privatisation and "capitalism", Russia is far less socialist than USA for sure.

It´s one of the reasons the rebuilt communist party got the 2nd most votes in the last Russian presidential election (17%) and the last election for the duma(12%).


And it´s not just a matter of paradigm difference with MAD, he´s far far beyond that.

@Tenshania
Bad dog...who let you off the leash back to the shed to practice your Russian. Remember, their your friends they come in peace!

Remember that little old territorial invasion that never happened according to your sources. I know the Swedish Home Guard is going to defend the nation!

Tenshinai wrote:

Daryl wrote:Down to definitions.
My definition of socialism doesn't include the state owning very much production at all. Just start up industries that are sold off when established, and a few natural monopolies (roads, broadband infrastructure etc).
The socialist part is having a uniform national health, defence, welfare and education system.

There is no elimination of private property at all. That does happen in some totalitarian states in theory, but even there people build personal fortunes. Lots of very rich people in China and Russia.

It should be noted though that Russia is possibly one of the LEAST socialist on earth.
Ever since Yeltsin´s maniac hunt for privatisation and "capitalism", Russia is far less socialist than USA for sure.

It´s one of the reasons the rebuilt communist party got the 2nd most votes in the last Russian presidential election (17%) and the last election for the duma(12%).


And it´s not just a matter of paradigm difference with MAD, he´s far far beyond that.

DDHvi wrote:

The USA has from 10 to 30 times the gun deaths per population size of any other civilised developed country. Not 10% more or double, but 10 to 30 times!

BUT is it the concealed carry people who are doing the shooting, or the madmen and criminals, especially the gangs and terrorists

Outlaws generally don't obey laws.

Are you under the impression that is a situation unique to the US? Other countries don't have criminals? Or in other countries criminals obey the laws?

Because unless you believe one of those two things then your comment has no bearing on the massive differential in gun death rates between the US and those other nations.

A lot is made of gun death numbers but it's fairly simple that more guns around mean more opportunities for them to be the cause of injury or death. It does not mean that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, only that it will likely reduce the number of injuries and deaths in which guns were the cause.

Since you seem to be trying to say that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, how does the USA compare for assault, homicide, and suicide? That is the only metric I can think of that would reasonably support your point (and that's assuming the data is in fact comparable).

gcomeau wrote:

DDHvi wrote:BUT is it the concealed carry people who are doing the shooting, or the madmen and criminals, especially the gangs and terrorists

Outlaws generally don't obey laws.

Are you under the impression that is a situation unique to the US? Other countries don't have criminals? Or in other countries criminals obey the laws?

Because unless you believe one of those two things then your comment has no bearing on the massive differential in gun death rates between the US and those other nations.

Daryl wrote:...every modern developed country is really an early stage NAZI state, and eventually we'll all end up controlled by a totalitarian government, and be powerless...

No, they aren't "German" they are simi-fascist.

Daryl wrote:...and the only possible way to stop that is for every citizen to be armed.

No, it is a MAJOR obstacle for the would-be dictator to overcome. If we just roll-over and give up that freedom (as you suggest) then we give up all other freedoms. The Right-to-Bear-Arms is a section of the Bill-of-Rights. To suggest that it is otherwise is ludicrous. Giving up that part cracks the Crystal of the Bill-as-a-Whole and all other articles of the bill are open to repeal. With that goes all other rights Then, ALL the Rights Americans have fought 2 centuries for are no-longer "Rights" but "privileges" that the federal government can take away whenever they feel like it.

gcomeau wrote:Are you under the impression that...in other countries criminals obey the laws?

Of course they do, that's why British cops don't carry guns...

Spacekiwi wrote:I would actually argue that it can work, it just couldnt work in the past due to an inability to perfectly implement it...

You seem to have an idea that humans have the ability to implement ANYTHING "perfectly", where are these "perfect" humans? Haven't seen any yet.

Donnachaidh wrote:A lot is made of gun death numbers but it's fairly simple that more guns around mean more opportunities for them to be the cause of injury or death. It does not mean that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, only that it will likely reduce the number of injuries and deaths in which guns were the cause.

Since you seem to be trying to say that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, how does the USA compare for assault, homicide, and suicide? That is the only metric I can think of that would reasonably support your point (and that's assuming the data is in fact comparable).

The US compares poorly.

For example:


http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengin ... raph-1.png

http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/7240162_f520.jpg

gcomeau wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:A lot is made of gun death numbers but it's fairly simple that more guns around mean more opportunities for them to be the cause of injury or death. It does not mean that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, only that it will likely reduce the number of injuries and deaths in which guns were the cause.

Since you seem to be trying to say that getting rid of guns will have a significant impact on the number of injuries and deaths, how does the USA compare for assault, homicide, and suicide? That is the only metric I can think of that would reasonably support your point (and that's assuming the data is in fact comparable).

The US compares poorly.

For example:


http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengin ... raph-1.png

http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/7240162_f520.jpg

Under the assumption that those graphs are accurate. The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a murder/assault problem. It is unlikely that those who want to commit murder/assault wouldn't do so just using another means, if guns were magically removed. So the colors on the bars would simply shift from the gun bar to the pointy object bar. So perhaps we should discuss how to reduce murder/assault in general. One point is that the vast majority of murders/assaults occur in high crime areas that constitute a very small % of the USA as a whole. Cure those areas (or even some of them) and watch the nationwide number crater.

biochem wrote:Under the assumption that those graphs are accurate. The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a murder/assault problem. It is unlikely that those who want to commit murder/assault wouldn't do so just using another means, if guns were magically removed. So the colors on the bars would simply shift from the gun bar to the pointy object bar. So perhaps we should discuss how to reduce murder/assault in general. One point is that the vast majority of murders/assaults occur in high crime areas that constitute a very small % of the USA as a whole. Cure those areas (or even some of them) and watch the nationwide number crater.

A problem illustrated in this story. i noticed this one because this was the nearest college town to where I grew up. So the town name caught my attention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/colleg ... index.html

1) Go to a store buy a large knife. 2) Kill 2 people. 3) Commit suicide.

T2M

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The US compares poorly.

For example:


http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengin ... raph-1.png

http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/7240162_f520.jpg

Under the assumption that those graphs are accurate. The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a murder/assault problem. It is unlikely that those who want to commit murder/assault wouldn't do so just using another means, if guns were magically removed. So the colors on the bars would simply shift from the gun bar to the pointy object bar. So perhaps we should discuss how to reduce murder/assault in general. One point is that the vast majority of murders/assaults occur in high crime areas that constitute a very small % of the USA as a whole. Cure those areas (or even some of them) and watch the nationwide number crater.

In order to make that argument you have to implicitly be stating that Americans are just immensely more violent and criminal prone and just generally uncivilized than the citizens of other developed nations. You can make that argument if you want, but it's silly.


The reality is that the ready availability of a gun during incidents where tempers flare will *obviously* often cause an escalation. Where two people otherwise might have had heated words and maybe a shoving match... one or both of them pulls a gun to show what a big bad man they are or because they're feeling threatened and now we're off to the races. What might have been a drunken disorderly bar fight or a disturbing the peace citation now becomes a felonious assault with a deadly weapon or a homicide.