Guns used for lawful self defense

[Seth]

Also, while Star Trek is, indeed, pure fiction, the concept of the needs of the many is very sound. True heroes throughout history have been sacrificing themselves to meet the "needs of the many". To denigrate their moral stand, and their sacrifice by denigrating their principle is very sad.

To argue abstractly for a moment ( ) here: The key point in that 'principle' is that it is self-sacrifice for the good of the many. Would it be moral to sacrifice the good of the few to benefit the many? If so how many of the 'few' are sacrificed before it becomes immoral? Is it moral to suppress the rights of 'the few' for 'the good' of the many? If so, how many of 'the few' are suppressed before it becomes immoral?

Let's not bring in the 'trolley car' bullshit.

And more importantly, who gets to make the decision who gets sacrificed to achieve the statistical political agenda?

[Seth]

With Gallstones and Pord talking a load of crap, I miss the good old days when I actually had an argument to reply to.

Present a rational argument and perhaps you might get one back.

And Pord's argument was a valid argument. A very valid one. Just ask the victims of the Road of Bones and the other Soviet gulags what happens when the government reduces you to a statistic.

Do you really think that someone who is as well-armed as I am (and I'm a piker by the standards of many I know, some of whom own enough "assault weapons" to arm a brigade) is going to allow you or anyone else to disarm me while I live?

It's easy to bloviate from across the pond, but the reality is much nastier for moral cowards like you. You might want to recall what happened the last time someone threatened to invade England and force you to speak German, and where your Home Guard got many of their weapons, and from whom.

You don't get to make decisions for the United States or anyone in it because you don't have the power to force anyone into compliance. It's just that simple.

[Jason]

Also, while Star Trek is, indeed, pure fiction, the concept of the needs of the many is very sound. True heroes throughout history have been sacrificing themselves to meet the "needs of the many". To denigrate their moral stand, and their sacrifice by denigrating their principle is very sad.

The problem is that heroes do it voluntarily, whereas you are proposing to victimize others to satisfy your narcissistic need to feel safe. You want to sacrifice OTHER PEOPLE, not yourself. Big difference. I'm denigrating YOUR moral stand, not theirs.

That's precisely what I was driving at with my 'abstract' argument above. Groper dismissed it out of hand.

I've noticed a pattern in his argumentation. Anything which he cannot address without losing he dismisses, anything which factually contradicts his position he dismisses, any argument he deploys which is soundly refuted he redeploys later as though it had not been refuted at all, any source he uses and/or interprets which is refuted he reuses later as though it had not been refuted.

It makes me wonder.

[Seth]

This is all just an exercise in arguing.
Blind groper and his ilk have zero power to make their wishes come true, and zero appreciation for the realities of any serious efforts made to try and make those wishes come true. ...

Which is why all the alarmist BS about Obama taking away guns is just that, alarmism. Politicians don't take on obviously losing causes because it diminishes them.

Actually, the danger is that Obama, and Clinton, will try to do through regulation (outside the system of checks and balances that constrain our Congress) what they cannot accomplish through legislation. Obama has a history of doing exactly that, much to the ire of Congress. That, in fact, is the main thrust of the Progressive agenda that's been in the works for a century now; to create the Administrative State where all the power to regulate and effectively legislate lies with the Executive Branch and it's non-elected bureaucrats led by the President in which the Congress is relegated to a powerless and impotent debating society that cannot obstruct the President as was intended by the Founders if and when the President exceeds his authority.

Obama cannot be reelected, so there's no reason for him not to pursue an anti-gun agenda which has always been one of his primary goals as President. He's nothing if not Machiavellian in his agenda, and has been waiting for this chance to ram through all manner of regulations, including treaties, that will infringe upon and destroy our gun rights.

Fortunately for us, treaties and regulations are irrelevant to those who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our natural, unalienable rights. As Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court's ruling that US law could not be enforced on Cherokee lands, ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Attempting to confiscate guns in America will end up with little more than many dead federal agents and perhaps some UN "peacekeepers" and few if any guns actually taken, or so claim those who have the arms.

[Seth]

you refuse to address or acknowledge the facts that have been presented to you that demonstrates that lawful concealed carry substantially reduces violent crimes everywhere it's been made lawful, which translates directly into lives SAVED and people freed from criminal victimization through the availability of handguns in our society.

Frankly, I did not want to get into this one, because the data is so crappy. I like clear cut data, upon which sound conclusions can be drawn. The effect of concealed carry on crimes rates, though, falls into the region of academic argument. There have been studies to support what Seth is saying, and the gun enthusiast organisations quote them mightily. However, there have been other studies also.

Below is a reference to a Yale University study, which found that concealed carry had variable results. In a few states, it reduced crime. But, in more states it increased crime.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayre ... rticle.pdf

My conclusion is that no conclusion can be drawn, and anyone who uses such crappy data to try to make a point is skating on very thin ice.

My conclusion is that you are basing your refusal to acknowledge the utility of lawfully-used firearms on deliberate and calculated ignorance and denial. The Yale study is of dubious value because, as I said, it's not a question of statistics, it's a question of individual rights, which are not subject to statistical infringement.

[amused]

This is all just an exercise in arguing.
Blind groper and his ilk have zero power to make their wishes come true, and zero appreciation for the realities of any serious efforts made to try and make those wishes come true. ...

Which is why all the alarmist BS about Obama taking away guns is just that, alarmism. Politicians don't take on obviously losing causes because it diminishes them.

Actually, the danger is that Obama, and Clinton, will try to do through regulation (outside the system of checks and balances that constrain our Congress) what they cannot accomplish through legislation. Obama has a history of doing exactly that, much to the ire of Congress. That, in fact, is the main thrust of the Progressive agenda that's been in the works for a century now; to create the Administrative State where all the power to regulate and effectively legislate lies with the Executive Branch and it's non-elected bureaucrats led by the President in which the Congress is relegated to a powerless and impotent debating society that cannot obstruct the President as was intended by the Founders if and when the President exceeds his authority.

Obama cannot be reelected, so there's no reason for him not to pursue an anti-gun agenda which has always been one of his primary goals as President. He's nothing if not Machiavellian in his agenda, and has been waiting for this chance to ram through all manner of regulations, including treaties, that will infringe upon and destroy our gun rights.

Fortunately for us, treaties and regulations are irrelevant to those who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our natural, unalienable rights. As Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court's ruling that US law could not be enforced on Cherokee lands, ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Attempting to confiscate guns in America will end up with little more than many dead federal agents and perhaps some UN "peacekeepers" and few if any guns actually taken, or so claim those who have the arms.

I just don't see that happening Seth. The Democrats will now turn all their energy on the mid-terms in hopes of getting control of the House for the final two years. Obama isn't about to start a huge controversy by going around congress on gun control and handing the Republicans the perfect argument for why the voters should not give the Democrats control of the House. Gun control is a minor issue to most of us on the left and not worth the political capital that would be wasted.

[Blind groper]

My moral stand, Seth, is to take away something that does not matter, except to extreme obsessives. That is : hand guns. Rifles and shotguns remain. But it is hand guns that cause the damage in the USA. 20,000 people dead each year. I am talking of doing something that is to the benefit of the majority and does no harm to normal sane human beings.

[Seth]

You think it doesn't matter, and your false characterization of those to whom it does matter demonstrates the flaws in your logic.
What you think is irrelevant.

[FBM]

I'm wondering, Bg, what you plan to take away from your fellow Kiwis in order to curb your own suicide rate? Or is it none of my business, since I'm not a NZer and have no right to criticize a place I've never even been to and a group of people I've never even met, who live in a society I've never experienced?

[laklak]

Yeah, like you can talk FBM. You got Koreans raining outta skyscrapers like snow in Syracuse. Them and the Nips are cut from the same cloth, 3 year olds putting their heads on subway tracks because they got a red sticker instead of a blue on their art project.

[FBM]

Yeah, like you can talk FBM. You got Koreans raining outta skyscrapers like snow in Syracuse. Them and the Nips are cut from the same cloth, 3 year olds putting their heads on subway tracks because they got a red sticker instead of a blue on their art project.

Ah, but I do live here, so at least I have some basis to justify my interest and involvement. I think the gummit should ban tall buildings and subways tracks instead of trying useless crap like public service announcements, education, counseling, etc.

[Gallstones]

My moral stand, Seth, is to take away something that does not matter, except to extreme obsessives. That is : hand guns. Rifles and shotguns remain. But it is hand guns that cause the damage in the USA. 20,000 people dead each year. I am talking of doing something that is to the benefit of the majority and does no harm to normal sane human beings.

But it is really you who are the extreme obsessive on this topic. You obsess about handguns and eliminating handguns and call those of us who have handguns and like handguns (any guns it seems) extreme obsessives and psychopaths and insane. And that is just insane.

Also, when did 20K become the majority?
Have you even interviewed a majority of Americans, found out what the majority thinks about this?

[Blind groper]

I'm wondering, Bg, what you plan to take away from your fellow Kiwis in order to curb your own suicide rate? Or is it none of my business, since I'm not a NZer and have no right to criticize a place I've never even been to and a group of people I've never even met, who live in a society I've never experienced?

I wish I knew. We have a similar problem to the USA, but worse, in that we have a large ethnic minority with real and genuine problems. In the USA, you have African Americans. in NZ, we have Polynesians. Our white majority have a low suicide rate, but the economically depressed Polynesian community have a high crime rate, and a high suicide rate.

The obvious answer is to reduce levels of poverty. However, many efforts have been made to do this, to no avail. It will probably take several generations to make a major change. I am unaware of any simple solution.

[Blind groper]

Also, when did 20K become the majority?

20,000 is the majority of violent deaths in the USA by suicide and homicide.

Most reasonable people would consider a substantial reduction in both homicide and suicide as eminently desirable.

[Seth]

Also, when did 20K become the majority?

20,000 is the majority of violent deaths in the USA by suicide and homicide.

Most reasonable people would consider a substantial reduction in both homicide and suicide as eminently desirable.

Again, at what cost? We could make a substantial reduction in the automobile death rate by banning automobiles, but we don't because automobiles have positive social utility that exceeds the disbenefits of hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.

Your refusal to acknowledge the positive effects and utility of handguns in protecting crime victims and deterring crime does not mean that these positive effects do not exist, it only means that you are mendaciously ignoring the facts.