Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

That depends on the reasons for the invasion, wouldn't it?
They have a vested interest on the infrastructure and the people. So, these facts would be a bigger deterrent than guns. If the government, for whatever reason, decided that these two considerations don't outweigh the desire to invade...then guns are not going to be much of a further deterrent. Again, depends on the reason for invasion. Also, as we have shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, a well trained military with highend weapons and protection are not easily turned away by rabble in the streets with guns...even when the most violent rabble aren't concerned with collateral damage. You called me naive for asserting that there were few to no scenarios I could think of that would result in the American government invading her own land (especially if I add the caveat that they do so unjustifiably) regardless of gun posession. That's a good quote, but it didn't seem to stop the British during the early years of the country. Not to mention, the physical isolation of our country compared to the rest of the world (only two countries, who happen to be allies, have the ability to directly invade us over land) makes an invasion expensive, and any invasion would be seen from space, giving our military and national guard forces time to get to where they need to be, plus, any country with the ability to actually carry out a full-scale invasion is an ally, all of which do a far better turn at dissuading an invasion than the possibility of the populace having firearms.Again, we're left with the specific scenario involving invasion...we defeated Japan in WWII without invading her mainland either...all we had to do was drop two nukes. Arguments for against the morality of the decision, it effectively cowed the country without an armed populace being a factor.All I'm saying, is that with the technology available to governments...especially first world ones, firearms are quickly becoming obsolete...but still dangerous in inexperienced, unbalanced, or overly emotional hands.

Exceptionally rare and very very very tightly controlled. Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - WikipediaI don't believe I have ever known anyone in the UK who owns a gun. Any wally with a packet of yeast, a bag of sugar and a bucket can make moonshine.I would argue that on the whole UK gun laws work in the UK.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think this thread is slowly derailing. Best I can tell, everyone seems to be for some level of reasonable gun control. Seems like most people agree for the most part, so what are we arguing about again?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

I brought up Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet relatively low crime. Yes I admit that it hasn't one of the lowest crime rates in the world but that doesn't invalidate my point. Even more importantly, you presented the homicide rates stand alone without any thought for correlation against gun ownership, nor for poverty or other factors that may affect those rates. Yet when I present more stats that debunk your point you suddenly remember that we have to factor in things like the more homogenous society and such. This is why I accused you of disingenuousness I thought you were saying that I pulled the figures 'out of my ass'. I misunderstood, so apologies. No, this is how it went:1) I make a statement claiming Switzerland has among lowest crime rates in the world despite high gun ownsership.
2) You present figures showing that crime in Switzerland isn't among lowest in the world.
3) You claim that "the argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime...has been totally debunked" (Message 267)
4) You also claim that "there does not seem to be a substantial decrease in things like burglaries in countries with lax gun laws as Legend proposed" (Message 267)
5) I concede that crime in Switzerland isn't among lowest in the world and present figures that show that it's still much lower than in the UK despite the much higher gun ownership, so my point still stands.
6) I present data(facts) about crime rates correlated against gun ownsership that totally debunk your statements in (3) and (4).
7) You come out crying that I didn't take into account other factors that affect crime rates.
8) I point out that neither did you and -as you were the first one (after RAZD) to use these stats- I accuse you of disingenousness.So this is where we are now. You have yet to show WHY ordinary citizens shouldn't have guns. Your only arguments have been variations on the "guns kill people" theme. Which isn't even an argument, more of a superstituous mantra really.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Wud up CS, They had guns in Waco, lots of them, semi auto/atutomatic in fact, that didn't stop the government.What you would need to do is form a significant enough sized group of people that could withstand an advancement from our military. As of right now, not even countries with a big enough size army can do this.There is no deterrant for the government. Iraq, Kosovo, Afgahn, Vietnam, etc. If they want you, their coming for you.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Sure you can. Rifles and shotguns require no background check or permit, or in fact anything other than the money to buy them, in most states in the US.That's the beauty of our laxed gun laws, anyone can buy one and kill whoever they want. It's a free-for-all. All you anti-gun control advocates should be happy that we live in a country where the "right to bear arms" is extended to every single person, no matter what they've ever done in the past.Any lunatic who wants to kill his wife or husband, any person who wants to go to the mall and pop off shots, any one willing to go into a school and open fire...here in the US, you're free to do that.You can buy the rifle or shotgun legally THEN become a criminal with it.Ah America... The Constitution claims that every citizen has the right to bear arms, period. It doesn't go into specifics about the type of weapon. Go buy a rifle or a shotgun, there, you have arms and your rights aren't infringed upon.Oh but that's not enough is it? We need 22 clip magazines on 9mm handguns. We need 50 cal. Desert Eagles. We need semi-automatic weapons with 100 clip mag. We need silencers. We need, we need, we need...This is an abuse of the right to bear arms Amendment. And takes them where specifically?Is it not enough that big brother has already herded the masses into cubicles and made them work just to pay off debts?Big Brother doesn't need to herd people who are already herded, but just don't know it. And what will you do with your single handgun? You're not Bruce Willis and this ain't Die Hard.If tanks and aircrafts come knocking at your door, like that's gonna happen, there isn't much you can do. Which branch of government will be coming for you?- Oni

How would they do this?When you say "the government," which branch of government do you feel would be able to gather the resources to be able to invade it's own country?Do you mean with our military? Or on their own some how?Would they pull all of the troups overseas for this or just do it with the troups at home?Do you think the men and women serving in the Armed Forces would be able to attack their own country, and family and friends?If it attacks it's own citizens, and destroys it's infrastructure, then how would they fund the war?Who exactly would "they" be that could pull this off?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

The problem is he never said it.

quote:

---

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

​

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

---

SourceI can pretty much guarantee you can not find an original source for this quotation.One quick suggestion. Always confirm the provenance of any quotation you use to make a point. The majority of quotes I see are false.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Please show me how I have used that argument? I think you are again misrepresenting what I have said. Please stop that.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Legend, just lost a long post ... so this is probably longer ... Exactly, and those other factors make Switzerland sufficiently different from the US that you can't compare them to show a benefit to gun ownership. Let's look at poverty as an indicator of the need for people to commit crime:Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions

quote:

---

In Switzerland, poverty means not having what others take for granted. The official poverty line in 2005 was 2,200 francs per month for a single person household, or 4,600 for a family with two children.
...
Families were defined as poor if they received less than half the median income for their country. In this respect only the Scandinavians had a lower rate. Switzerland tied with the Czech Republic. The rate in Australia was 14.7%, in Canada 14.9, in Great Britain 15.4, and the US 21.9%.
...
Welfare benefit is available for those who would otherwise fall below the minimum means of existence. According to the Federal Statistical Office 3.3% of the population drew such benefits in 2005. The report showed that beneficiaries were more likely to live in urban centres, where they accounted for five per cent of the population, than in rural areas, where the rate was only 1.4%.

---

Economy of Switzerland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

he economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most stable economies. Its policy of long-term monetary security and bank secrecy has made Switzerland a safe haven for investors, creating an economy that is increasingly dependent on a steady tide of foreign investment. Because of the country's small size and high labour specialisation, industry and trade are the keys to Switzerland's economic livelihood. Switzerland has achieved one of the highest per capita incomes in the world with low unemployment rates and a low budget deficit. The service sector has also come to play a significant economic role.
...
Switzerland is among the world's most prosperous countries in terms of private income. In 2007 the gross median household income in Switzerland was an estimated 107,748 CHF, or USD 60,288 at purchasing power parity. The median income after social security, taxes and mandatory health insurance was 75,312 CHF, or USD 43,698 at purchasing power parity.

---

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[1] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.
...
Relative poverty describes how income relates to the median income, and does not imply that the person is lacking anything. In general the United States has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries, reflecting both the high median income and high degree of inequality.[4]
...
Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%. [31]

---

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Country         Absolute poverty rate     Relative poverty rate[4]
Norway           09.2           1.7           12.4           4.0
Finland          11.9           3.7           12.4           3.1

Switzerland      12.5           3.8           10.9           9.1
Germany          15.2           4.3            9.7           5.1

United Kingdom   16.8           8.7           16.4           8.2

United States    21.0          11.7           17.2          15.1
Netherlands      22.1           7.3           18.5          11.5
Canada           22.5           6.5           17.1          11.9
Australia        23.3          11.9           16.2           9.2
(Absolute poverty rate threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)[6]

---

Note: I have no idea what columns 2 and 4 represent, but the data sorts under the categories by the first or third columns, so those would be the rates in question, with Switzerland at 12.5 (per thousand?) or <74% of the UK rate (16.8) and <60% of the US rate (21.0) on the absolute poverty scale, and 10.9 on the relative poverty scale, <66% of the UK rate (16.4) and <57% of the US rate (17.2).The relative rate is probably better for predicting burglaries, as it compares who would likely be perps and who would likely be victims -- there's not much benefit to stealing from someone as poor as you within a given society.Let's compare these rates to your data in Message 274 for burglaries (your person invading a residence to steal) and murders (where people die by violence):

quote:

---

Burglaries (per capita)
# 7 out of 54 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 13 out of 54 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
weighted average: 5.1 per 1,000 people

---

Ratio of Burglaries (Switzerland/UK) 58%That's a pretty good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%.Compare them to your gun ownership statistics

quote:

---

Gun ownership (guns/residents):
Switzerland : 0.46 (3 out of 34)
UK : 0.056 (29 out of 34)

---

Ratio of Gun Ownership (UK/Switzerland) 12%Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries. It doesn't.

quote:

---

Murders (per capita)
# 46 out of 62 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
# 56 out of 62 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people

---

Ratio of (all) Murders (Switzerland/UK) 66%That's a very good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%.Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries and murders. It doesn't.Now let's go back to those murder by gun rates for these two countries as given in Message 252 to show that you are still picking the stats that you like:Gun violence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

% homicides      Firearm homicide
Country          with firearms    rate per 100,000 pop.
England & Wales         8           0.12
Australia              16           0.31
Ireland                24           0.32
Canada                 34           0.54
Switzerland            37           0.56
United States          65           2.97

---

England & Wales is 21% compared to Switzerland - a closer correlation to the rate of gun ownership than either burglaries or murders overall. This certainly seems to show that an increase in the proportion of guns available means that the methods chosen for murder are increasingly biased to using guns. The higher rate of gun ownership in Switzerland is matched by a higher rate of murders committed by firearms.Conclusion: the rate of murders and burglaries correlates well with poverty rates irrespective of gun ownership rates, and increased rates of gun ownership correlate with increased use of guns to commit murders.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi onifre, And if you want to look at who would be involved just look at the ones that broke the constitutional rights in the last administration.... and the willing herds that voted for them ....Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Legend, this will be quick, as I've already replied in another post. False. Cowboy vigilante justice is deciding that you will be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Burglary is not a crime punishable by death, so you're willingness to give a death sentence for such a crime is you over-reacting based on your own prejudice and paranoia, and if you ever end up engaging in this behavior you might find the justice system takes a dim view of this behavior, possibly because it IS cowboy vigilante justice. A dozen? ... and yet you still live and post freely. What injuries did you receive? How would it have been different if you had a gun? Perhaps you can list who those "most" are and provide evidence of it.I'll note that Hezbollah is an organization, not a neighbor, and it has been able to find many recruits solely due to the behavior of Israel, without which they would not exist.Yes, 60 years, and there has been no change of any significance because the neighbors keep reacting to the exclusive behavior of Israel. Curiously, one of your gun bearing citizens in Israel even killed the best possibility for peace because the extremists IN Israel don't want to share. Is that because you are unwilling (confirmation bias) or unable (cognitive dissonance) to understand the relationships?We're talking about this because it is an example of precisely the false thinking that guns can solve problems, or even reduce them, by attacking symptoms rather than dealing with the real social issues. Who said anything about a "Cold War" situation? It's just a straight comparison of the "Irish Troubles" and the middle east conflagration.Please read your own description of Israel's relationship with it's neighbors again.The Troubles - Wikipedia

quote:

---

"The Troubles" refers to approximately three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland's nationalist community (principally Roman Catholic) and unionist community (principally Protestant). Use of the term "The Troubles" has been raised at NI Assembly level, as some people considered this period of conflict a war [15][16][17][18][19]. The conflict was the result of discrimination against the catholic/nationalist minority by the Protestant/unionist majority[20] and the question of Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom.[21][22]

---

Discrimination and exclusionary policies are not ways to make friends. If Israel truly wants peace, they need to make friends, not more enemies. Curiously, the solution has involved much more than just talk, it has included participation in government and in developing further solutions. Of course, if that breaks down then violence may reemerge for the same reasons it did originally, the same reasons that violence still exists in the middle east: marginalization and disenfranchising of people.Fascinatingly, these are also reasons for people to turn to crime ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Indeed! Though I'm not so sure I'd like to meet some of the people I've known while I was there We didn't stay in the area long enough for me to make any lasting friendships, but I do have fond memories of a couple of butties from back then.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hi iano,long time no chat! Still performing mental acrobatics in "God really exists" circus? No. The intruders can much more safely neutralise the 'threat' to them by simply not invading in the first place. If the price for something is prohibitive, most people won't go for it. well I learn something new every day! I can get rid of the Rottweiler now, it was too expensive to keep anyway. Thanks for the tip!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hi Legend..Armed-to-the-teeth-America can act as our guide. Do they have burglaries there still? Or dramatically less burglaries than here? Perhaps a comparable guide can be hold-ups of liquor stores and the like in which both sides arm themselves and it's a question of shoot-first-ask-questions later - as countless YouTube videos make plain.