Idiots

[Blind groper]

Seth

You really do run off at the mouth, don't you? Your motto must be"why use a few precise and concise words when a thousand bullshit words can be used."

First : You cannot argue against a well run academic study by calling them liars. That just shows you have no answer to their conclusions.

Second : There are 100,000 non suicide cases each year in the USA where a bullet passes through someone, and there are 12,000 cases where it is a fatal homicide. That is a hell of a lot more than your 0.45%. So who is lying?

Third : The number of crimes depend on the number of criminals. But the number of crimes that involve the use of a gun depend on the number of guns. More people with guns mean more crimes with guns, and those crimes are far more likely to result in horrible outcomes. If I surprise a burglar here in NZ, he will not be carrying a gun (almost none do here in NZ, as police statistics show), and I will easily scare him away. A burglar surprised in the USA is far more likely to have a gun and the confrontation will easily result in a person shot dead.

Fourth. You keep telling us that there is no way to effectively reduce the number of guns in society. Bullshit! Not only is it possible, but it has been done. In 23 or the 24 wealthy western nations. Only in the USA, where no effort has been made to reduce ownership of lethal hand guns is there such a problem. Ownership levels of hand guns can easily be reduced, and dramatically. It just takes political will, and a big effort on the part of police.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

(speaking of Seth)

Your motto must be"why use a few precise and concise words when a thousand bullshit words can be used."

[Seth]

Seth

You really do run off at the mouth, don't you? Your motto must be"why use a few precise and concise words when a thousand bullshit words can be used."

No, my motto is "Ride, speak the truth, and shoot straight." I reply in detail because it's necessary to rebut your bullshit claims accurately and completely and explain to the lurkers that they need to view your bilge with skepticism, and exactly why. I see that once again, having lost the debate, you turn to personal attacks in place of rational argumentation. It's not at all surprising that you do this because you are intellectually bankrupt and have nothing probative to say on the subject, and never have.

First : You cannot argue against a well run academic study by calling them liars.

Yes, actually, I can, because none of the "academic studies" you cite have been "well run." They are all produced by well-known and heavily biased anti-gun authors who grossly manipulate data and draw fallacious conclusions from data they have cherry-picked, just as you routinely do, to support their pre-determined conclusions, and each and every one of them has been authoritatively refuted and shown to be false propaganda by actual experts, not to mention simple, indisputable facts.

That just shows you have no answer to their conclusions.

No, it shows that I reject their fallacious and biased conclusions.

Second : There are 100,000 non suicide cases each year in the USA where a bullet passes through someone, and there are 12,000 cases where it is a fatal homicide. That is a hell of a lot more than your 0.45%. So who is lying?

You are.

Third : The number of crimes depend on the number of criminals.

Yup, and ONLY on the number of criminals.

But the number of crimes that involve the use of a gun depend on the number of guns.

Not according to your previous statement, which you are now flip-flopping on as per usual.

More people with guns mean more crimes with guns,

Lie. You said yourself that the number of guns has no bearing on the number of crimes, and therefore it can have no bearing on the number of "crimes with guns," your favorite bit of specious mendacity.

and those crimes are far more likely to result in horrible outcomes.

Only in places where the armed criminal's victims are disarmed by their government.

If I surprise a burglar here in NZ, he will not be carrying a gun (almost none do here in NZ, as police statistics show), and I will easily scare him away.

Or he will just beat you to death with your own golf clubs and you'll be utterly unable to defend yourself.

A burglar surprised in the USA is far more likely to have a gun and the confrontation will easily result in a person shot dead.

Another false claim you pulled from your ass. Burglars in the US are far LESS likely to carry any sort of weapon precisely because of "Castle Doctrine" laws that authorize homeowners to shoot burglars dead if they so much as wave a butter knife at any occupant of the premises. We very rarely have "hot burglaries" here where the burglar enters an occupied home, as is quite commonplace in the UK and other "gun free" zones. Instead, burglars go to great pains to ensure that no one is home so that they don't risk getting shot dead while trying to finance their fix. It's BURGLARS who are far more likely to get shot dead, and who gives a damn about them? Well, you do, obviously, because you once again try your subtle context shifting goalpost moving bullshit argument "will easily result in a person shot dead." This is mendaciously intended to make it seem as if the victim of getting shot is morally and legally equal whether it is an innocent homeowner or occupant or an intruder who threatens the use of force. The purpose of home-defense firearms is to ensure that if anybody gets shot dead, it's the intruder, and that's just fine by me since the more intruders that get shot dead the more likely it is that other intruders will be frightened away from breaking into other people's homes.

Fourth. You keep telling us that there is no way to effectively reduce the number of guns in society. Bullshit! Not only is it possible, but it has been done. In 23 or the 24 wealthy western nations. Only in the USA, where no effort has been made to reduce ownership of lethal hand guns is there such a problem. Ownership levels of hand guns can easily be reduced, and dramatically. It just takes political will, and a big effort on the part of police.

Another bald-faced lie. Of course there is a "way" to reduce the number of guns in a society, but that's hardly the issue. Any despot can and does do so by tyrannizing and oppressing the people by confiscating guns. But that merely shifts the criminal victimization from the street hood to the government, which historically is far more deadly to tens of millions more people than every street hood that has ever existed on the planet since the beginning of time.

Nor has it "been done" in any of the countries you mention except perhaps England, to a limited extent. This is a lie you perpetrate based on a truth. which is that the ownership of guns, particularly handguns, by law-abiding citizens in those 23 cherry-picked nations (yet another mendacity of yours) has always historically been strictly controlled so that the populace was never armed in the first place. The UK didn't ban handguns until 1924, but at that time the ownership of handguns was quite small to begin with and consisted primarily of military-surplus handguns that came out of WWI. So the Brits were never really disarmed because they were never really armed to begin with, and this is true of every one of those nations you mention.

But the United States is different because we began our nation on the premise that all persons have a natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms that was vindicated and supported by the predations of the Brits on the citizenry prior to the Revolution. So, because Americans have been ubiquitously armed from the beginning, and today there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in the US, it is functionally impossible to confiscate them, if the armed citizenry were even to tolerate the attempt, which I doubt.

But the worst aspect of your last paragraph is the idiotic premise that confiscating guns is a good idea. It's not. As I keep on saying, more than 100 million people have been murdered by their own government because they were unarmed and unable to resist such tyranny and genocide. We in the US understand this and refuse to allow our government to even attempt to place us in a situation where the bulk of the populace is disarmed and therefore helpless to put down a tyrant.

Worse than that is your utter, disgusting and immoral disregard and outright disrespect for the unalienable right of each and every person on the face of the earth who has ever existed, exists, or will one day exist to be armed for self defense. You simply do not care how many people are killed by tyrants or street thugs so long as they aren't killed with a handgun, and you're willing to sacrifice any number of innocent persons to your ideological insanity with respect to handguns. And that is the most revolting aspect of your argumentation that exists.

Fortunately, we here in the US don't give a flying fuck what you jackasses down under think on the subject because you are all just slaves to your armed masters, by your own consent, and you are therefore unworthy of regard, respect or serious consideration.

[Hermit]

*Scolls*

[Blind groper]

Seth still cannot do brevity.

He still ignores the simple fact that the USA with 100 million people owning hand guns, has five times the murder rate of my country.

If guns are so wonderful, wy do so many American die by them? Why were there two murders inside the USA for every single American killed in Viet Nam during the years of the Viet Nam war?

Seth is in denial, failing to recognise what a horrendous problem the USA has.

[Seth]

Seth still cannot do brevity.

Brevity is not called for when refuting lies and misinformation such as yours.

He still ignores the simple fact that the USA with 100 million people owning hand guns, has five times the murder rate of my country.

And you still ignore the fact that violent crime still affects residents of your country and therefore its citizens have a right to be armed for self defense, a simple fact that you simply ignore.

If guns are so wonderful, wy do so many American die by them?

Because there are bad people in the world, that's why. They are in every nation and place on earth and they kill people with guns, knives, clubs, machine guns, poison gas, bombs, razor blades, automobiles, rocks and host of other deadly weapons. That people die by gunshot wounds is not a rational argument for banning guns because millions more people are not killed or victimized by armed criminals precisely because they have personal defensive firearms.

Why were there two murders inside the USA for every single American killed in Viet Nam during the years of the Viet Nam war?

Because the US is a big place with 300 million inhabitants, whereas there were far fewer soldiers in Vietnam.

Seth is in denial, failing to recognise what a horrendous problem the USA has.

Yes, the US, like every other country on earth, has a problem with violent criminals, some of whom use guns. But the solution to that problem is not to take guns away from the very people who need them the most to protect against those violent criminals. That's just idiocy, which is what you spout at every turn.

[Tero]

So you all need 8 guns per gun owner which you can't keep track off and part of which end up in the hands of criminals who want to shoot you. Logical.

[Seth]

So you all need 8 guns per gun owner which you can't keep track off and part of which end up in the hands of criminals who want to shoot you. Logical.

Eight or eight hundred, it doesn't matter. If a person is qualified to own ONE gun, it makes no difference how many he owns because he can generally only carry one or two guns at a time. The rest sit quietly in their gun safes, locked cabinets, gun cases and wherever else the owner chooses to store them. Since they are valuable property, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners take pains to make sure their guns don't get stolen, and those that are stolen from law-abiding owners are reported to the police, where they are entered in a national database of stolen guns accessible through the National Crime Information Center by any certified NCIC terminal operator (like me) at the request of any police officer who comes into contact with a firearm in the field wielded or possessed by a suspect.

The implicit argument you present is idiotic in the extreme. If we are to give that argument any credence, then we should ban and confiscate automobiles, cell phones, jewelry, watches and other items that are frequently stolen by thieves on the idiotic principle you espouse that the owner of a stealable, valuable item is responsible for it being stolen and therefore we should deny them ownership and possession of that item so that it cannot be stolen.

Idiots indeed. And I ain't referring to gun owners.

Besides, it ain't the Bill of Needs, it's the Bill of Rights.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your whole approach to this issue is religious.

You insist that owning a gun is a human right. But who determines what is or what isn't a right? The religious approach, which you take, is that it is God given. The rational approach, which I take, is that rights are determined by humans.

If rights are determined by humans, instead of some hypothetical deity, then they are to a large extent arbitrary. The history of rights shows that to be true. The 'divine right of kings' was an arbitrary piece of nonsense. The right to bear arms is another arbitrary piece of nonsense. Rights in the past have included the right to fight duels. The right for aristocrats to rape peasant girls. The right to trial by combat. And all sorts of other crap.

Since only the USA is stupid enough to grant a 'right' to bear arms, that is strong evidence that it is arbitrary and based on bullshit. Which it is.

[JimC]

Seth

Your whole approach to this issue is religious.

You insist that owning a gun is a human right. But who determines what is or what isn't a right? The religious approach, which you take, is that it is God given. The rational approach, which I take, is that rights are determined by humans.

If rights are determined by humans, instead of some hypothetical deity, then they are to a large extent arbitrary. The history of rights shows that to be true. The 'divine right of kings' was an arbitrary piece of nonsense. The right to bear arms is another arbitrary piece of nonsense. Rights in the past have included the right to fight duels. The right for aristocrats to rape peasant girls. The right to trial by combat. And all sorts of other crap.

Since only the USA is stupid enough to grant a 'right' to bear arms, that is strong evidence that it is arbitrary and based on bullshit. Which it is.

While agreeing with you that rights are determined by humans, they can and should be a very important foundation for a nation's life. They should be of a legal nature that makes them hard to remove by the government of the day in the name of political expediency. Various aspects of common law or constitutional provisions achieve that to one degree or another in most modern democracies, and they should not be regarded as arbitrary.

While I don't wish for a constitutional provision for the right to bear arms in Australia, it seems that a definite majority of Americans wish to retain such a right; ultimately, it is for them to decide. However, of that majority, I suspect that a very significant number would, unlike Seth, support tighter regulation, in the sense of reducing access to the sorts of crazies that commit their many, many massacres...

[Seth]

Seth

Your whole approach to this issue is religious.

As is yours. So what?

You insist that owning a gun is a human right.

No, the keeping and bearing of "arms" is a human right. That happens to include, but is not limited to, firearms.

But who determines what is or what isn't a right?

The individual who asserts that right and is willing to defend it's free exercise and a society that supports freedom, liberty and individual autonomy.

The religious approach, which you take, is that it is God given.

Well, that's the construct of the Founders, who were a deeply religious people. However, I differ from them because I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a "natural" right, not necessarily a "God given" one, which may be derived from natural behavior and evolutionary principles. That doesn't make it a "religious" argument if science and evolution are not themselves religious arguments.

The rational approach, which I take, is that rights are determined by humans.

Which humans? Using what criteria? Applying to whom? Under what circumstances? You see, the problem with human-granted fundamental rights like the right to life, liberty, property and the right to keep and bear arms for defense of the aforesaid is that humans often disagree on the criteria and so they pretty much arbitrarily assign and deny rights based on little more than majority opinion or a desire to oppress someone else. The reason for framing certain fundamental rights as "God given" or "natural" or "inherent" or "unalienable" is to remove the cupidity, stupidity, avarice, evil and pretensions to tyranny from the assignment of fundamental and essential rights. To do otherwise is to deny the very concept of rights entirely and turn one's life into nothing more than a subject and vassal of those who hold the power, usually by force of arms.

If rights are determined by humans, instead of some hypothetical deity, then they are to a large extent arbitrary.

Which is exactly why fundamental rights aren't apportioned to humans by other humans, they are an inherent part of our status as human beings and are therefore superior to any attempt by other humans to infringe upon them.

The history of rights shows that to be true.

Human-apportioned rights, yes.

The 'divine right of kings' was an arbitrary piece of nonsense.

Yup. But it was a right claimed as superior to the rights of his subjects. The "natural rights" definition of rights does not admit that one person's fundamental rights are superior to another person's identical rights merely by virtue of some arbitrary categorization of the individuals. Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms is exactly equal to the right to keep and bear arms of the President, or a Congressman, or a state Senator, or anybody else. Their RKBA are not superior, they are not entitled to any greater or lesser respect for that right than I am, nor does their political position in life grant them control of my RKBA in any way whatsoever.

The right to bear arms is another arbitrary piece of nonsense.

No it's not, it's a fundamental natural right that flows from the evolutionary organic need of the individual for self defense to protect that individual's life.

Rights in the past have included the right to fight duels.

Which was replaced by the right to sue someone who harms you in a court of law, which is merely a substitute for the more direct and efficient method of resolving disputes inherent in dueling, which has nothing whatever to do with the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear effective arms to facilitate that.

The right for aristocrats to rape peasant girls. The right to trial by combat. And all sorts of other crap.

Not all rights are fundamental, natural rights. But some, including the RKBA, are.

Since only the USA is stupid enough to grant a 'right' to bear arms, that is strong evidence that it is arbitrary and based on bullshit. Which it is.

Much smarter people than you don't happen to think so, and since they enshrined those principles in our founding documents what you think is utterly irrelevant and you can go pound sand up your ass till your head explodes for all we care about your opinions.

[laklak]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Talk about fucking idiots. The good, right-thinking people of Greensboro, North Carolina. staged a gun "buy back", except without the "buy" part. The idea was you would come down, sign a "pledge of non-violence" and turn in your guns. Presumably to be beaten into plow shares in a green and eco-friendly manner. "Almost" 1000 people turned up, likely dressed in homespun hemp and carrying baskets of organic flax seed energy bars, to Save the Planet through non-violent means. They got....wait for it.....wait a bit longer for it.....ONE FUCKING BB GUN. Oh yeah, and a knife. One knife.

Guess those predictions of the Blueing of the Deep South weren't exactly accurate, eh?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/22/n ... g-results/

[Blind groper]

I have given up reading all of Seth's posts. They are too long winded. So from now on I will reply only to the bits he manages to keep concise in the beginning of his posts. The rest will remain unread.

Jim

I agree that rights are important. That is why it is important they be carefully thought out, and the result of the wisdom of the many. I support the human rights as stated by the United Nations. But it is clear that the 'right to bear arms' is obsolete and silly, and maintained by the hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda by the gun manufacturers.

Seth

Calling your religious ideas 'natural' does not change anything. That the rights are based on what you think of as nature, then you have simply replaced Yahweh with Gaia. Still religious.

[Seth]

I have given up reading all of Seth's posts. They are too long winded. So from now on I will reply only to the bits he manages to keep concise in the beginning of his posts. The rest will remain unread.

Ah, the pungent odor of intellectual pygmyism, cowardice, and utter ideological defeat fills the air...

How's that for concise?

[Jason]