The Curious Case of the Fall in Crime.

[piscator]

Human beings are nearer to ants than tigers or sheep, pretty useless on there own but together they can achieve things no other species can

Like Jeffersonian Democracy, the Wright Brothers, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo project?

The the work of 1000's if not millions, a truly vile cult those who worship the individual

Let's not forget Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Spinoza, Einstein, Nietzsche, Bell, Pythagoras, Ritchie, DaVinci, etc. Just because you're not very capable doesn't mean everyone else is in the same boat. One good individual in the right place can change the world.

[Seth]

Get real people. There is no tiger, and the odds against such a scenario are approaching astronomical.

The tiger is a metaphor. There are tigers...or perhaps jackals is a better metaphor...everywhere, even near where you are right this very moment. You just never see them till they strike.

And THOSE odds are anything but astronomical.

Very few that would be out to kill you, at least over here, so the odds are still minuscule. But then we do have a good social security system, and fairly restrictive gun laws, so things might be different where you live. And if they are only after your property, you have no business shooting them anyway.

Seth was switching horses again anyway. Blind groper was talking about guns and revolutions, concluding with: "You are so hung up on the need to own your own lethal toys that you cannot see that such ownership by private individuals is totally unnecessary." whereupon Seth replied: "Until it is. That's why it's not a "Bill of Needs" it's a "Bill of Rights."" I used the tiger as a metaphor in this context. Now he's switching back to guns in the context of ordinary crime again.

Only because that's what BG is doing. The same principle applies to both situations. A criminal predator is no less dangerous than a tyrannical government agent and the appropriate self-defense preparation is largely the same for both.

And it doesn't even have to be a government agent, it may merely be a large force of non-governmental criminals, like a drug syndicate or a motorcycle gang intent on enslaving others or merely victimizing them.

If you have tigers in your area, then it behooves you to learn how to defend yourself against tigers. If you live in a forest, then it behooves you to learn fire mitigation and suppression techniques. And since, as I have demonstrated, it's very hard to know exactly where all the metaphorical tigers actually are (like the escaped lions I referred to) and it's impossible to predict when and where and to whom such an event will happen, it's only prudent for each and every person to make a personal risk analysis and formulate a plan for response to likely and unlikely risk scenarios and obtain and learn how to properly use whatever tools they feel are best suited to dealing with that risk.

More pointedly it is both immoral and unconscionable for anyone else to presume to tell the individual how he may NOT plan and prepare to protect himself against specific perils he deems it necessary and reasonable to prepare for.

For example, I live in a small town now, but I still have a comprehensive wildfire-suppression system that cost well over $10,000 to create. It's a trailer equipped with a fire-rated motorized pump, a 500 gallon water bladder, nearly 2000 feet of fire hose of various sizes, adapters, fittings, nozzles, firefighting chemical delivery units and other equipment, including a full suite of both structure and wildland personal gear. I put this system together over the years because I regularly had to start, control and extinguish fires on the ranch. I had to burn ditches every year, burn pastures to eliminate weeds, and put out fires caused by trains, trespassers and lightning. I used it every single year for at least 20 years and the system was constantly evolving and improving.

I don't do that any more, but I never sold the equipment. I decided to do so last year and began looking for a buyer. Just as I was preparing to list it on Craigslist, a massive and horrifically destructive wildfire struck Black Forest, less than 5 miles away from me. Almost every fire company in the area was dispatched to fight that catastrophic fire that destroyed more than 500 homes and killed two people.

When that lit off, I prepared the equipment, made sure it was operating properly, hooked it up to the Hummer and drove to the local volunteer fire station. I spoke with the chief and informed him that the unit, which qualifies as a Type 3 fire truck, was available with me to engineer or without, and that it would be parked in front of my house, ready to go, with the keys in it for the duration of the emergency. I did this because there was grave danger that another fire might light off to the west of town, and with strong west winds would be blown quickly into town, and response might be compromised because so many assets were already committed to the Black Forest burn.

Fortunately, nothing happened and my equipment was not needed, but the chief was very pleased that I had contacted him and offered its use, just in case.

Do I "need" to have ten grand worth of firefighting gear? No, not really. But I used to need it, which is why I bought it. I assessed the "need" and risk as a rancher and made the investment, which has turned out to be extremely useful and prudent over the years. Many people made fun of my "mini fire department." My neighbors asked silly questions and scoffed at me for keeping it around long after I sold the ranch...right up until the Black Forest fire lit off, and then four of my neighbors made a point of coming by an telling me how much they appreciated and felt comforted by the fact that there was a "fire truck" parked near their houses. And had something jumped off, I was equipped and prepared to hook up to the hydrant right across the street and lay hose that would cover at least six houses which could potentially prevent a structure fire from beginning.

You see, most of the structures that burned were not directly impacted by a wall of flame (although a number were essentially detonated by exactly such a fire front), most of them burned because of ground-flames that crept up to the house using combustible materials that came right up to the house, or they were ignited by burning embers being thrown far ahead (as much a a mile or more) of the fire front that would lodge in leaf or pine-needle litter on roofs or in gutters or would be trapped under eaves where they ignited the roof.

So something as simple as a garden hose or sprinkler, or a bucket of water at the right time and right place can stop a fire dead in its tracks.

Am I silly? Am I overreacting to the threat? I was beginning to think so, and others thought so too, until it happened just a few miles away and had the potential of happening to them in a matter of minutes, as was the case for many of the homes in Black Forest. People had literally minutes to escape, and at least two people didn't make it.

Maybe I am being silly, but you see it's MY RIGHT and MY CHOICE to do so, and NOBODY has any right to tell me I can't build my own private fire brigade if that's what I want to do.

And this argument is a precise analogy when it comes to keeping and bearing arms for self-defense or defense of the community or nation.

YOU don't have to do it...as many people in Black Forest didn't do ANY fire mitigation or preparation and therefore lost everything they owned in the inferno...but you have no right to interfere with anyone else doing so.

[Seth]

Human beings are nearer to ants than tigers or sheep, pretty useless on there own but together they can achieve things no other species can

Like Jeffersonian Democracy, the Wright Brothers, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo project?

The the work of 1000's if not millions, a truly vile cult those who worship the individual

Let's not forget Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Spinoza, Einstein, Nietzsche, Bell, Pythagoras, Ritchie, DaVinci, etc. Just because you're not very capable doesn't mean everyone else is in the same boat. One good individual in the right place can change the world.

Just like one bullet in the right place at the right time can change history...for good or for ill.

Viz: Arch Duke Ferdinand, JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Che Guevara, but unfortunately not Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

[Audley Strange]

Maybe I am being silly, but you see it's MY RIGHT and MY CHOICE to do so, and NOBODY has any right to tell me I can't build my own private fire brigade if that's what I want to do.

You are. I have EVERY right to tell you you can't build your own fire brigade, you don't need to listen. What I don't have the right to do is force you to desist unless your private fire brigade is actively and criminally endangering others. However I'm of the opinions that human rights should be encumbant on the individual not everyone but. You do not have the right to free speech or fresh water, you have the right not to be actively denied such.

A bit of a nitpick, but I'm sure you see the difference.

[Hermit]

Of course we all take precautions, be it merely to lock our homes or to turn them into fortifications, to avoid walking drunkenly on your own in slum areas during the night, or participate in organised neighbourhood watches. I have merely expressed my doubts about the necessity and efficacy of an armed population on an individual basis - at least in my country or those of Western Europe - as a means to prevent a government from turning itself into a tyranny. In my opinion there are better tools for that. I also challenge you to find a solitary post of mine which can be interpreted to interfere with your right to arm yourself to the teeth and relive the glorious past of the minutemen.

[Seth]

Maybe I am being silly, but you see it's MY RIGHT and MY CHOICE to do so, and NOBODY has any right to tell me I can't build my own private fire brigade if that's what I want to do.

You are. I have EVERY right to tell you you can't build your own fire brigade, you don't need to listen. What I don't have the right to do is force you to desist unless your private fire brigade is actively and criminally endangering others.

Quibbling. You know perfectly well I was referring to government prohibition.

However I'm of the opinions that human rights should be encumbant on the individual not everyone but. You do not have the right to free speech or fresh water, you have the right not to be actively denied such.

Yes, sort of. One distinguishes what is a "right" from what is the enjoyment of a right, which are two different things. The easiest way of distinguishing this is to ask whether or not the exercise of the right either requires the active participation of others in making that exercise possible or that exercise unduly interferes or infringes upon the equal or superior rights of another to exercise their rights.

I have the right to speak freely which may not be infringed unless my speech is likely to cause an "immediate breach of the peace" or public disorder. The classic "FALSELY shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater" is the best example.

I have the right to DRINK or make use of water that I have lawfully acquired and taken sole possession of. I do NOT have a right to force someone else to labor or sacrifice their property (be it the water itself or merely access to the well) in order that I can exercise that right.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. But I do NOT have the right to demand that anyone serve that right or desire. I cannot force someone to manufacture or sell me arms, or give them to me.

I have the right to freedom of assembly and travel, but I do NOT have the right to demand that others assemble with me or provide me with bus service.

And exactly the same argument applies to medical care. I have the right to seek out, obtain by voluntary contract or administer medical care to myself. I do NOT have a right to enslave a doctor, nurse or anyone else to serve my medical needs against their will. That includes enslaving the general public by forcing them to labor and pay taxes on my behalf which are used to treat my medical needs.

A bit of a nitpick, but I'm sure you see the difference.

Indeed. The ONLY right that I have to compel anyone to do anything on my behalf in any way is the right to a fair trial by a jury of my peers, and even that right is actually an imposition on the government and the collective to provide me with those amenities and benefits if it chooses to prosecute me for a crime. The duty to serve on a jury, or in the military, is a duty imposed upon the individual by the collective not in the interests of any particular individual, but in order to serve the interests of the collective itself, in both an abstract and very real way.

Otherwise, the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and every other right, including by way of example "anti-discrimination" rights, do not require others to take action of some sort, particularly not labor, in order for the individual to exercise those rights, they require only forbearance on the part of others.

My right to (lawfully) speak freely does not imply an obligation on the part of anyone to listen to me, or even provide me with a forum for such speech, it requires only that others tolerate my exercise of that right.

The same applies to travel, assembly, religion, arms and everything else.

Whenever the law or society requires some positive action or duty of the public in support of the individual, except for jury service and military service, it's not a "right" that is being supported, it is a privilege that government has allocated to certain individuals and not others. If you're poor, you enjoy the privilege of enslaving others to your service so the government can pay you welfare. It's absolutely NOT a "right" to have welfare.

Nor is it a "right" to enslave members of the medical profession or the taxpayers to your medical needs. It's a privilege that government extends to you that can be revoked at will by the non-consent of the governed. Moreover, when the government enslaves others against their will to the needs of the poor or the sick, it is performing an unconstitutional act that is explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

[Seth]

Of course we all take precautions, be it merely to lock our homes or to turn them into fortifications, to avoid walking drunkenly on your own in slum areas during the night, or participate in organised neighbourhood watches. I have merely expressed my doubts about the necessity and efficacy of an armed population on an individual basis - at least in my country or those of Western Europe - as a means to prevent a government from turning itself into a tyranny. In my opinion there are better tools for that.

And you have a right to hold and express that opinion. What you do NOT have a right to do is to participate in the infringement of that right by the government.

[Hermit]

Of course we all take precautions, be it merely to lock our homes or to turn them into fortifications, to avoid walking drunkenly on your own in slum areas during the night, or participate in organised neighbourhood watches. I have merely expressed my doubts about the necessity and efficacy of an armed population on an individual basis - at least in my country or those of Western Europe - as a means to prevent a government from turning itself into a tyranny. In my opinion there are better tools for that.

And you have a right to hold and express that opinion. What you do NOT have a right to do is to participate in the infringement of that right by the government.

Well, you're in luck there. The US constitution is a matter for the US citizens, and I am not one such.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

A rather vital difference between a fire truck and a gun.

The former is for saving lives. The latter is designed to kill people.

On "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
What a load of bullshit!

The people who wrote that instigated the death penalty, showing no respect for any right to life. Most of them owned slaves, showing no respect for liberty. And the pursuit of happiness is not a right. It is an inevitability.

Cutting out the crap, and the hypocrisy, and the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness disappears altogether.

Human rights are not real. They are important, but not real. More like virtual constructs. They are human inventions which can better human welfare, but are not cast in concrete. They can be, and are, and should be, changed periodically. Currently, the best set of human rights is that written up by the United Nations, which the USA does not subscribe to. The UN human rights pointedly do not mention guns.

[Seth]

To Seth

A rather vital difference between a fire truck and a gun.

The former is for saving lives. The latter is designed to kill people.

Wrong. Both are for the purpose of saving lives. That's rather the point. You might as well say that a fire truck is an implement of murder because some crook stole one once and ran some pedestrian down. It's not the inanimate object that has purpose, it's the people who put that inanimate object to use, for good or ill. And just because some people use guns, or fire trucks for ill doesn't mean that those who don't shouldn't be allowed to use them for protection. Duh!

On "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
What a load of bullshit!

The people who wrote that instigated the death penalty, showing no respect for any right to life.

The death penalty is just that, a penalty that's exacted due to malfeasance by the individual who thereby forfeits his rights.

Most of them owned slaves, showing no respect for liberty.

Some of them did, but then again the practicalities of politics forced them to make compromises in order to get the Union founded in the first place, after which they worked long and hard to eliminate slavery, and were eventually successful, at the cost of more than half a million American lives.

And the pursuit of happiness is not a right.

It is around here.

It is an inevitability.

I'm sure the Jews of Dachau would disagree with you.

Cutting out the crap, and the hypocrisy, and the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness disappears altogether.

I see. So having ideals to strive for while acknowledging political and social reality while on the way towards achieving those goals is pointless futility unless the end-state utopian ideal can be achieved instantaneously?

Human rights are not real.

They are as real as those who wish to enjoy them care to defend them against those who disrespect them. Thus the need for them to be armed, so they can do just that.

They are important, but not real. More like virtual constructs. They are human inventions which can better human welfare, but are not cast in concrete.

Depends on which rights you're talking about. I happen to disagree with you in re the Organic Rights.

They can be, and are, and should be, changed periodically.

I don't disagree with this. And neither does the Constitution. It sets forth a detailed process by which it can be altered or repealed. If people like you want to attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment they have that right. But that's the ONLY way they can repeal the constraint on government that prohibits it from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. It can't be done judicially, or legislatively, or by the executive, all of which have in the past or are are now attempting to subvert the Constitution and oppress the people.

Currently, the best set of human rights is that written up by the United Nations, which the USA does not subscribe to. The UN human rights pointedly do not mention guns.

Your OPINION on that is noted. It's my opinion that the fundamental failure of the UN charter is that it neither places fundamental individual rights above the desires of the collective, and particularly that it does NOT prohibit government from infringing on the natural human right of every person on earth to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the nation.

Your opinion is worth exactly the same as mine is.

What trumps your opinion is our Constitution, which agrees with me, not you, and not the UN, and hopefully never will, particularly if I have anything to say about it.

[piscator]

The people who wrote that instigated the death penalty, showing no respect for any right to life. Most of them owned slaves, showing no respect for liberty. And the pursuit of happiness is not a right. It is an inevitability.

1. The Constitutional Convention didn't instigate capital punishment. Capital punishment predated them by all of recorded history, as well as English law.
2. Most of them did not own slaves, even though English law in some colonies provided for same. The men who gathered to declare independence from the Crown were more or less law-abiding Subjects of the Crown before they walked into the room. This includes the slave owners.
3. The pursuit of happiness is not inevitably codified in law. You only think it's a good idea because America introduced it to the world. You're welcome.

[Blind groper]

Piscator

You are correct insaying that the death penalty came down from English law. But Seth, in his usual arrogant way seems to think that The first American legal system set up something unique and superior. Also, and relevant to this discussion, the adoption of the death penalty shows clearly that the "right to life" was pure bullshit.

And the legislators at the time did mostly own slaves.

The American constitution that was then set up stank of hypocrisy.

[piscator]

Piscator

You are correct insaying that the death penalty came down from English law. But Seth, in his usual arrogant way seems to think that The first American legal system set up something unique and superior. Also, and relevant to this discussion, the adoption of the death penalty shows clearly that the "right to life" was pure bullshit.

And the legislators at the time did mostly own slaves.

The American constitution that was then set up stank of hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, do you not understand that the 13 American Colonies were a part of Britain, and the holding of slaves as chattels by English citizens in the 13 Colonies was then legal under English law? Twas the English instituted slavery in North America. The US Constitution didn't instigate it. Slavery was legal on English soil until 1833, a mere 7 years before New Zealand became an English colony. If your little country had formed 10 years earlier, you too would have had slavery.

Do you not understand that the new US Constitution actually reduced the number of capital crimes that were then under English law? Do you not get the longstanding tradition of depriving criminals of their liberty, their pursuit of happiness, and in some cases of "capital crimes", their lives, was in effect everywhere in the world when the US Constitution was drafted? Have you not heard of London's Tower Hill? Were you unaware that England had capital punishment for murder until 1965? Were you aware that several US states abolished capital punishment over 100 years before the UK?

Don't be a twerp and talk about American hypocrisy with a Commonwealth accent. It makes you guilty of it yourself, as well as of the sharpshooter fallacy.

[Blind groper]

Piscator

Yes, England had slavery, but discarded the custom long before the USA did. In fact, slavery was common throughout the world at one stage. New Zealand, before the coming of Europeans did, indeed, have slavery, since the native Maori people frequently enslaved captives from other tribes. The rejection of slavery is one of the marks of increasing civilisation. Noteworthy that the USA took this step long after other western nations.

But my point was the hypocrisy of your founding fathers in claiming to stand for human rights including liberty when most of them owned slaves. Quoting 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as some recommendation for the American way of doing things is total crap, since those who wrote those words did not mean a jot of it.

To Seth, who weirdly believes that guns are for saving lives.
Perhaps you could ask Reva Steenbergen about that. Oh, sorry. You cannot. She is not doing much talking these days. But how about her boyfriend, Oscar Pritorius? Well, you might have to wait many years till he is out of prison.

[piscator]

Piscator

Yes, England had slavery, but discarded the custom long before the USA did. In fact, slavery was common throughout the world at one stage. New Zealand, before the coming of Europeans did, indeed, have slavery, since the native Maori people frequently enslaved captives from other tribes. The rejection of slavery is one of the marks of increasing civilisation. Noteworthy that the USA took this step long after other western nations.

So? What does that have to do with the American Founders?

But my point was the hypocrisy of your founding fathers in claiming to stand for human rights including liberty when most of them owned slaves. Quoting 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as some recommendation for the American way of doing things is total crap, since those who wrote those words did not mean a jot of it.

They damn sure did. They were the first to put it down on paper, then they risked their lives over it. Do you think the American Experiment in representative democracy and free enterprise was the common way things were done in the 18th century?
Jeezus. Maybe you'll learn about this shit when you get into high school?