Gun Control - Page 23

ziegler · 2012-10-01, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

*crickets*

This was answered by myself....quite a long time ago.

Yes, having guns makes this a more dangerous place to live.

We ,as a society, have accepted that, and it is more important to us that we are allowed to have guns to defend ourselves if need be, then to give them up and be totally dependant on a government that we distrust.

There simply isnt any argument that you can make that will change this. I dont expect a european to understand this, your society isnt built on independance, contrarily, your society is built on the exact opposite premise of someone will always be there to take care of you.

Figment · 2012-10-01, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by ziegler

There simply isnt any argument that you can make that will change this. I dont expect a european to understand this, your society isnt built on independance, contrarily, your society is built on the exact opposite premise of someone will always be there to take care of you.

You don't really understand Europeans at all, do you? We're pretty damn independent. Our nations have more sovereignty than your states (as they should since they're actually different cultures and nations, rather than an upgraded form of colonial provinces).

We take care of ourselves AND our community. That the nationals of a super-christian nation like yours are often not capable to understand that you have responsibilities towards others as well as to youself is just ironic. No, you're right, we're not as egocentric as you.

That doesn't mean we're dependent on the government, we decide what the government does for us as a society and as a liberal, we're in the camp that wants that to be rather little from the point you can or should be expected to be able to take care of yourself. If you look at just the socialists, then yes, they rely predominantly on the government. The socialists are however a very small group within (north)western Europe. The social-democrats, which are the biggest in northern Europe in terms of "left", want to have the government not provide by default, but step in a bit sooner as a safety net, but they still want to be free from government control.

The problem is you can't see the difference between safety nets and control. The safety net is there for all of us, so we all spend some of it, in case some of us need it in the end. Pretty much nobody wants to be in that position though, only a few promille of the populace abuses it, since you get more money if you work for minimum wages. However, if you are in between jobs, or handicapped or have some other disability, then yes, then the government (we as a community) step in to help. It won't be a lot, but it'll be enough to live without total poverty.

Really, for us it's not about dependency on the government, it's about adequately and fairly sizing the community's safety net for those that aren't as independent as one would like to be. That's quite different. We're however not stupid enough to send the entire populace up to the trapeze without a net and then look away or be surprised or even blame them when people fall.

Stop putting us in boxes you have no clue about.

Baneblade · 2012-10-01, 08:53 PM

That goes both ways Figgie.

ziegler · 2012-10-02, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Stop putting us in boxes you have no clue about.

Your whole post just confirmed what I said. You have an expectation of the government taking care of you if you fail.

You have an inherant tendancy to trust your goverment. We dont. Especially anything farther removed from us. Again, you live in a country, where your "federal government" is right around the corner from you, where, for myself and I am on the eastern side of the US, the federal government is 1000 Km away. It is much easier to keep a government honest when it is local as opposed to far away.

Your federal government would equate to our state governments, which is what federalism is about, the states having the most power, but Abe destroyed that.

Traak · 2012-10-03, 06:00 AM

You know, deaths due to automobiles are very low in countries without many cars. perhaps you should ban cars?

Self-defense is a God-given right. It isn't a privilege given by a government. It's a right taken away by governments who style themselves as greater than God.

And self-defense doesn't just mean from an individual, it means from a government, also.

And government does not exist to control the populace, as is practiced in the UK and other such places. It is by, for, and of the people in the USA, and it ever needs to remember that it is the servant of the people, not the people's master.

It isn't an enemy, it's an employee. But if the employee thinks it can rule over the populace of which it consists, it needs to be brought to heel. The few having authority to imprison the many is not the reason goverrnment exists, at least, in the USA.

And disarming the people of the USA? Keep that in Europe. In fact, you can have your arms and penises removed too if you so fear what people might do with them.

Meanwhile, one country on Earth recognizes that people are instilled with certain inalienable rights by their creator.

And people who hate God, hate what is right, and just hate people in general, continue to rail against that concept.

Traak · 2012-10-03, 06:04 AM

Oh, and thousands of lives are saved each year by women defending themselves with firearms. And thousands of rapes prevented. Disarming everyone, including women, so all criminals know no one can defend themselves? Yeah, women don't need that. As I quoted before, Sweden, another of those disarmed countries, has a very high rate of rape.

People have a God-given right to self-defense. Not given by a government.

Figment · 2012-10-03, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

That goes both ways Figgie.

Eh, I'm more knowledgeable of the variations in US attitudes than the other way around tbh. :/ Democrats tend to understand still, but strong conservatives in the US live in a world of their own that's entirely irrealistic. I can't say I "get" the views, no, but I can say I understand what they are.

Originally Posted by ziegler

Your whole post just confirmed what I said. You have an expectation of the government taking care of you if you fail.

No, we have an expectation of the community taking care of you if you fail, particularly if it's not your fault. We do not expect the state to endlessly care for us: we provide for our own pensions through savings and the state ensures those pensions are safe.

People are given time to find new jobs before the community by means of your former company first, government second. We're mostly responsible for ourselves, having some support does not mean we expect the government to care for us. It simply stimulates the taking care of yourself.

Only when you're truly out of your own doing are unable to provide for yourself by having certain conditions do you get subsidies. Think of disabilities. Welfare exploiters exist, but are few and they have to make due with less than minimum wage. Beats them taking to drugs and stealing though. So that's actually cheaper because you take less economic damage from these groups. You should try to see it as an investment in society, rather than taxes.

You have an inherant tendancy to trust your goverment. We dont. Especially anything farther removed from us. Again, you live in a country, where your "federal government" is right around the corner from you, where, for myself and I am on the eastern side of the US, the federal government is 1000 Km away. It is much easier to keep a government honest when it is local as opposed to far away.

You mean like island nations local? The smaller the community pool it governs, the more prone a government is to nepotism.

You have state level government to look out for your interests, but that doesn't mean federal level doesn't care at all, federal is more interested in overal interests. And yes, that can mean they're not always in your personal and local interests, but more in a national or interstate sense.

Your federal government would equate to our state governments, which is what federalism is about, the states having the most power, but Abe destroyed that.

Our federal government would equate to the European Union actually. The EU though has no shared mono-culture on even a basic level, whereas the US does.

Do we want the EU to govern us? No. Do we however mind that the EU imposes certain things on its member states? Not at all, but still depends on what it is.

Do we mind EU taxes? Yes and no. No in the sense that we think it's fine there is EU budgeting, because upscaling can be very efficient and because stimulating each other's economies is a good thing and we have vested interests in things like the border security of southern and Eastern Europe. Yes, in the sense that we don't want to be the one that always pays the most or are the only people always sticking to the rules as set forth in agreements. (For some reason, southern European countries have... "difficulties" with following financial rules, he said sarcastically...). If the money is spend well, we're fine with it. If it is wasted or goes to corrupted people etc, that's something else entirely. Compare that to the anti-federalists in the US, who want NO federal taxes by default and you realise how silly those are because they're incapable of understanding the benefits of cooperation.

Look at Silicon valley: different, separate companies working together by investing together in shared interest technologies results in far greater achievements than if they were to do all that on their own. That's the difference between states investing together, or on their own. Imagine that there are no federal taxes or budgets and Texas would have to pay for border security on their own, every other state in the USA would suffer the consequences. Imagine if only the coastal states would pay for the coastguad and personal navy upkeep and only the inland states for anti-forestfire firebrigades, equipment and technology.

Consistency is a good thing. Especially when it concerns things like laws between nations, Interpol (FBI in your case), trade regulations being similar and trade barriers being removed, fighting corruption in other nations and even on the level of the EU itself providing a diplomatic platform that prevents wars and takes away friction between states. Each EU member state has an army, navy and airforce of their own right now. Which do you reckon is more coherent and organized, the US army or the EU armies combined?

Traak · 2012-10-03, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I think the assumption that the American military will obey orders to combat Americans is a little on the high side.

I would think so. Because the armed forces of the USA have a pretty high representation by people who have little respect for despotism. And, whose extended families would be among those the Sturmgeschutz would be rounding up.

Baneblade · 2012-10-03, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Eh, I'm more knowledgeable of the variations in US attitudes than the other way around tbh. :/ Democrats tend to understand still, but strong conservatives in the US live in a world of their own that's entirely irrealistic. I can't say I "get" the views, no, but I can say I understand what they are.

Maybe you do, but you still miss the most important things. Like that your statistical arguments are not going to work. I don't care if I'm the only responsible gun owner left... I'm still not giving them up.

All Democrats understand is pandering to a base they have no historical precedent to pander to, Democrats were proslavery, anti immigration, anti women, anti minority, and anti welfare. Republicans are corrupt though, so we really do have two evils.

So we have to choose between the Lawyer Party and the Religious Nutjob Party, which to me is not a choice.

Despite what Traak was indoctrinated to believe, god has fuck all to do with what this countr6 stands for with one exception: Freedom of religious association. But then again, everyone that walks into a mosque is a terror suspect, so I suspect you have to be one of the 31 Flavors of Christian to be acceptable. Even so, some are 'more Christian' than others.

I consider it an embarrassment to be in a country that tarnishes the name of god by pasting it on idols.

Figment · 2012-10-03, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

You know, deaths due to automobiles are very low in countries without many cars. perhaps you should ban cars?

Perhaps you should make them safer through regulations, safety standards and testing? Hmm. Maybe the US should have thought of that before becoming a third rate car quality country and losing virtually all competitiveness with foreign industries...

Self-defense is a God-given right. It isn't a privilege given by a government. It's a right taken away by governments who style themselves as greater than God.

Really? I believe your latest god's representative said something about turning the other cheek and dismissed the idea of violence.

Of course, the OT god loves genocide and the idea of defense against the israelites or humane treatment of the captives or conquered wasn't exactly a priority of the god. So I'm not sure where you get from that self-defense is condoned by your god: either you get enslaved, or you don't fight. There's no such thing as self-defense mentioned in the entire Bible.

And self-defense doesn't just mean from an individual, it means from a government, also.

Again, when Jezus was supposedly asked by the Israelites to lead the revolt against the Romans, he refused. So at least that's not a divine right, calling or obligation.

Either way, rather than combat, I'd try for the court option first. Resistance against a government is a self-given right, not one provided by the government or other authority beyond civil disobediance.

And government does not exist to control the populace, as is practiced in the UK and other such places.

You've never been to the UK, stop making a fool out of yourself. The time of oppressive absolute monarchies and fuedalism is long gone. There are such things as constitutional monarchies, federations and republics now, where the government is dictated by democratic elections.

It is by, for, and of the people in the USA, and it ever needs to remember that it is the servant of the people, not the people's master.

I think you need to remind your own populace that there are more than two options in a real democracy though.

It isn't an enemy, it's an employee. But if the employee thinks it can rule over the populace of which it consists, it needs to be brought to heel. The few having authority to imprison the many is not the reason goverrnment exists, at least, in the USA.

No, but then why does the USA have the highest amount of prisoners in the world, if you're the land of the free and we're the oppressed serves?

And disarming the people of the USA? Keep that in Europe. In fact, you can have your arms and penises removed too if you so fear what people might do with them.

Lovely eloquent sentiment.

Meanwhile, one country on Earth recognizes that people are instilled with certain inalienable rights by their creator.

Iran?

And people who hate God, hate what is right, and just hate people in general, continue to rail against that concept.

Ironic, since the one who is spouting most bigotted hatred and intolerance in this entire forum is you. Well you and Duke really, but at least he admits he's drunk when he does that.

Originally Posted by Traak

Oh, and thousands of lives are saved each year by women defending themselves with firearms. And thousands of rapes prevented. Disarming everyone, including women, so all criminals know no one can defend themselves? Yeah, women don't need that. As I quoted before, Sweden, another of those disarmed countries, has a very high rate of rape.

You ignore the Swedish context when you quote those stats.

As I quoted before, Sweden defines rape differently from other countries and covers a far more extensive definition where sexual assault in Sweden and potential rapes and threats of rape, as well as a wide variety of sexual crimes considered "sexual abuse" in other nations are also listed as rape. Sweden also strives to register as many cases of rape as possible in order to further protect women legally. This is not the case in every other nation in the world, even if in most civilized countries the same offenses are illegal, the difference is with how they are recorded.

So yes, naturally Sweden will have a higher ratio of rapes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Check the article below out in particular:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/02/rape-...edefines-it-2/

SWEDEN REDEFINED RAPE IN 2005.

In 2005, the definition of rape in the Swedish Sexual Crimes Act was broadened to include, for instance, having sex with someone who is asleep, or someone who could be considered to be in a “helpless state”. This applies to situations when someone would not be capable of saying “no”. A typical situation where the law could be applied is if someone who is drunk at a party falls asleep only to wake up and realize that someone is having sex with them.

That would constitute rape according to the 2005 law, and not “sexual abuse”, which was the case before the law was amended. In this respect the new law did not criminalize behaviour that previously had been legal, but rather broadened the definition of what constitutes rape to include a larger number of sexual crimes.

You honestly think there are less rapists in Turkey where women and girls are still married off to families without consent and there's a huge tabu on sex and rape? Or do you acknowledge they're simply not reported because it would shame the family in those countries? Or what about Russia? Just five rapes in the entirety of Russia because only five were reported? You're kidding, right?

Don't know about you, but I wonder how a woman that's being sexually assaulted while asleep is going to use a gun.

PS: how sure are you that the amount of reported rapes in the US aren't so 'low', because the women in question are afraid of violent retributions from the purpetrators? As Ziegler says: there's little trust in your government (and police), why would women go to them and expect anything from a "my word vs your word" trial? If the assaillant is released due to lack of evidence, the threat of violent revenge by said assaillant is greater in the US than in Europe.

Baneblade · 2012-10-03, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Perhaps you should make them safer through regulations, safety standards and testing? Hmm. Maybe the US should have thought of that before becoming a third rate car quality country and losing virtually all competitiveness with foreign industries...

US safety standards for automobiles are higher than anywhere else. Many European vehicles can only be imported and operated here with special modifications or with liability waivers. If the market wasn't so lucrative, it wouldn't even be worth the cost to export your vehicles to us.

As for your quip about the quality of American automobiles, largely false... especially these last few years. I know it is hard to believe. That said, plenty of fine vehicles come from overseas. I drive a German car right now.

Figment · 2012-10-03, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

US safety standards for automobiles are higher than anywhere else. Many European vehicles can only be imported and operated here with special modifications or with liability waivers. If the market wasn't so lucrative, it wouldn't even be worth the cost to export your vehicles to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26444467...r-just-not-us/

Passengers without seatbelts having to be safe and side lights. >.> Hmm... Obligated to wear seatbelts here and most new cars warn if someone isn't wearing theirs, so kinda pointless to make safety regulations about not using them. Sidelights... eh.

As for crash standards... Yeaaaah. That's a bit of a testcase definition problem I think.

I dunno, I'm under the impression the US standards are more focused on the occupants, while the EU standards are more focused on anyone who's in or around the car. For example, manufacturers have had to change engine layouts due to the impact of a pedestrian on the hood, hitting an engine.

Tests may look similar at the outset but contain crucial differences. The European frontal crash test uses a deformable barrier — made to mimic another car — that slams into 40 percent of the front of the vehicle. That challenges engineers to spread the energy from the crash across the rest of the car. The fixed barrier in the U.S. test absorbs no energy, causing a severe crash that evaluates the vehicle's overall strength.

Some tests have very different goals. IIHS tests bumpers with 3 mph and 6 mph collisions to see how well the bumpers protect the vehicle in a crash. In Europe, tests replicate hitting pedestrians at 25 mph to see how much harm the bumper causes.

"The bumper to absorb energy to reduce the risk of injury is not the kind of bumper system you would design to help protect the vehicle," Vondale said.

This kinda reminds me of the differences in aircraft certification with competing legislation and "our tests and standards are bestestest". :/ So not entirely sure if it's about strictness, or more the arbitrariness of the different legislative bodies which sometimes react to local problems and perceive one specific solution to be the only solution. I heard that's the case for certain headlight and other standards in the US, which are sometimes incredibly restrictive to the design but do not per definition improve safety. More of a "that works, so do it" thing.

In Europe one of the most stupid rules is that all cars have to be recyclable. Which prevents carbon fiber cars and therefore more sustainable, fuel economical and sometimes safer cars from becoming possible. The reason this was done was mostly because politicians figure that recycling is by definition better, even if it costs more resources to produce. :/

Would be nice if they made up their mind and finally harmonize regulations as they've done in many other industries. Saves so much time, money and energy.

As for your quip about the quality of American automobiles, largely false... especially these last few years. I know it is hard to believe. That said, plenty of fine vehicles come from overseas. I drive a German car right now.

Well depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about Ford, you're quite right. If we're talking about Chevrolet or GMC, meh. US pickups for instance have horrible quality compared to say a Toyota pick-up.

(we're not getting off-topic are we?)