Gun Rights

[Maroza]

The Romans were an interesting mix of uncivilized ways with new, civilized and ground breaking ways. They invented cement, have public plumbing and were a republic. At the same time they liked to see death and thought putting up POWs and criminals in arenas to fight to the death with each other or the occasional exotic animal was a brilliant way to pass the time, TV and rated M video games didn't exist yet.

So you study the Romans? Finally, someone to talk with! Are you only a casual observer?

Only casual, I've always been interested in the Roman empire.

[Lessnt]

I can see that becoming a reality TV show.

[The Merchant Republics]

We stopped killing people?

Alert the media!!

never claimed that, I claimed that it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

Guns are a weapon that could only be regularly constructed in a civilized society. Guns cannot be uncivilized then.

[Lessnt]

never claimed that, I claimed that it's more civilized not to kill people than it is to kill people.

Guns are a weapon that could only be regularly constructed in a civilized society. Guns cannot be uncivilized then.

Items are not civilized or not.
People are.

[DaWoad]

This is all looking like an attempt to put a state religion in place... Not cool. There are as many, if not more, Christians bashing atheists as the reverse. I was raised Catholic, chose to be agnostic, and I think that the Bible has some great moral lessons to it (although I never really read it much). I also think it has some horrible moral lessons to it. Religion is no better - or worse - a moral teacher than what a non-religious person would get. We learn many of the same lessons at school, in everyday life, and from our parents. I see no reason to ban religion, or discriminate against it - it is simply the attempts of man to understand the world around us. Atheism is the same, just with a less supernatural slant to it. Neither is inherently evil or good, and to say otherwise is just silly.

As far as arming the people goes, even Gandhi was in favor of it. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." He obviously preferred peaceful protest to violent revolution, but between doing nothing and revolting, he would have chosen the revolt - I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour

(I wasn't advocating a state religion. That's why I specifically said "religious book of the child's preference." I'll go into further detail later.)

Like I said in my original post, that was an unrefined idea. That was like the miner had just pulled the rock out of the wall; it wasn't pretty, but there might be something good in it. To refine the idea a bit, I agree that it would most likely need to be secular. I mean, kids in china and Japan are forced to meditate, for crying out loud. Look at how much higher their test scores are! If anything, we need to learn a bit from them.

I see what your saying, that parents should teach children morals, etc. Sadly, that just doesn't work anymore here in the states. The 60's threw us way off course. The hippies didn't exactly hold themselves to the highest echelons of morality. So they never taught it to their kids. That process goes on down the line till we have modern day where the children and the grand children of the hippy generation are not taught morals. That isn't to say that no one is taught morals. A large amount, however, of children today are, to be frank, assholes.

I was made fun of for being Christian. A girl asked me if I believed in Christ. The students then proceeded to say they were stupid myths and laughed. I was called gay because I helped other students and didn't act like a jerk behind teachers backs.

1-religious books generally don't teach morals. Your parents/rabbi/preist what have you may and may use the book to emphasize a point but the book itseldf is internally self contradictory on too many points to offer a concrete basis for morality.
2-statistically, being religious makes you more, not less, likely to end up in jail.
3- you cannot force religion (any religion) on children it's morally and legally wrong.
4-this has been a complaint for as long as there has been a written history, people always (ALWAYS) bitch and moan about how the youngest generation is "immoral" or "out of control" "disrespectful" whatever and so far it seems to have worked out okay.

[DaWoad]

Take a look at the lower chart.
Interesting - crime per 100,000 people has gone up by about 1,500 instances since 1960. Violent crime has skyrocketed (admittedly except for murder - as of 2009, the murder rate per 100,000 people was down by .1 since 1960.)!!!

Take a look at how gun control has been going since then.
Hey, look - more gun control, and yet crime has gone up! How could that be? Shouldn't gun control magically prevent violent crime when it is passed?

correlation=/= causation. it really is that simple in this case.

and, of course, crime has gone drastically down since '91but gun control increased since then so, clearly, gun control prevents crime (<---example of an equally fatuous argument)

[Tsal-Kar]

Take a look at the lower chart.
Interesting - crime per 100,000 people has gone up by about 1,500 instances since 1960. Violent crime has skyrocketed (admittedly except for murder - as of 2009, the murder rate per 100,000 people was down by .1 since 1960.)!!!

Take a look at how gun control has been going since then.
Hey, look - more gun control, and yet crime has gone up! How could that be? Shouldn't gun control magically prevent violent crime when it is passed?

correlation=/= causation. it really is that simple in this case.

and, of course, crime has gone drastically down since '91but gun control increased since then so, clearly, gun control prevents crime (<---example of an equally fatuous argument)

Oddly enough, it has continued to drop despite the ending of the assault weapons ban in 2004, and the 2008 Supreme Court decision that rendered the Washington D.C. Handgun Ban to be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it continued to rise to those unacceptable 1991 heights despite the 1987 automatic weapon ban, and the gun control act of 1968.

[DaWoad]

correlation=/= causation. it really is that simple in this case.

and, of course, crime has gone drastically down since '91but gun control increased since then so, clearly, gun control prevents crime (<---example of an equally fatuous argument)

Oddly enough, it has continued to drop despite the ending of the assault weapons ban in 2004, and the 2008 Supreme Court decision that rendered the Washington D.C. Handgun Ban to be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it continued to rise to those unacceptable 1991 heights despite the 1987 automatic weapon ban, and the gun control act of 1968.

yep which is why my point was that correlation=/= causation.

[President Mathias]

(I wasn't advocating a state religion. That's why I specifically said "religious book of the child's preference." I'll go into further detail later.)

Like I said in my original post, that was an unrefined idea. That was like the miner had just pulled the rock out of the wall; it wasn't pretty, but there might be something good in it. To refine the idea a bit, I agree that it would most likely need to be secular. I mean, kids in china and Japan are forced to meditate, for crying out loud. Look at how much higher their test scores are! If anything, we need to learn a bit from them.

I see what your saying, that parents should teach children morals, etc. Sadly, that just doesn't work anymore here in the states. The 60's threw us way off course. The hippies didn't exactly hold themselves to the highest echelons of morality. So they never taught it to their kids. That process goes on down the line till we have modern day where the children and the grand children of the hippy generation are not taught morals. That isn't to say that no one is taught morals. A large amount, however, of children today are, to be frank, assholes.

I was made fun of for being Christian. A girl asked me if I believed in Christ. The students then proceeded to say they were stupid myths and laughed. I was called gay because I helped other students and didn't act like a jerk behind teachers backs.

1-religious books generally don't teach morals. Your parents/rabbi/preist what have you may and may use the book to emphasize a point but the book itseldf is internally self contradictory on too many points to offer a concrete basis for morality.
2-statistically, being religious makes you more, not less, likely to end up in jail.
3- you cannot force religion (any religion) on children it's morally and legally wrong.
4-this has been a complaint for as long as there has been a written history, people always (ALWAYS) bitch and moan about how the youngest generation is "immoral" or "out of control" "disrespectful" whatever and so far it seems to have worked out okay.

Seriously, is no one listening? I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH RELIGION ON STUDENTS! You get it now? I'm not trying to push Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. I'm not trying to establish a state church. That's not even mentioning it was a rough idea that had no thought put into it. What I said is this:

The students have a ten minute period where they must read a book about morals, whether it be Islam, Christian, Judist, Secular, or Buddhist. I don't care which.

Lastly, I am part of this generation. So is it not okay for me to tell you that I am made fun of for being polite? I opened the door for others, tried not to bump into people, helped people pick up their books if they dropped them, offered to stay after school to help the art teacher, cleaned up the Chorus class after the others had thrown their trash all over, etc. For that I was labeled a fag and was made fun of for years. Random people I had never seen before would insult me as they walked by. I was easily the most popular student, not the most liked, but the most popular. So please excuse me if I have a tendency to say that the people of my generation need some structure and discipline.

[DaWoad]

1-religious books generally don't teach morals. Your parents/rabbi/preist what have you may and may use the book to emphasize a point but the book itseldf is internally self contradictory on too many points to offer a concrete basis for morality.
2-statistically, being religious makes you more, not less, likely to end up in jail.
3- you cannot force religion (any religion) on children it's morally and legally wrong.
4-this has been a complaint for as long as there has been a written history, people always (ALWAYS) bitch and moan about how the youngest generation is "immoral" or "out of control" "disrespectful" whatever and so far it seems to have worked out okay.

Seriously, is no one listening? I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH RELIGION ON STUDENTS! You get it now? I'm not trying to push Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. I'm not trying to establish a state church. That's not even mentioning it was a rough idea that had no thought put into it. What I said is this:

The students have a ten minute period where they must read a book about morals, whether it be Islam, Christian, Judist, Secular, or Buddhist. I don't care which.

Lastly, I am part of this generation. So is it not okay for me to tell you that I am made fun of for being polite? I opened the door for others, tried not to bump into people, helped people pick up their books if they dropped them, offered to stay after school to help the art teacher, cleaned up the Chorus class after the others had thrown their trash all over, etc. For that I was labeled a fag and was made fun of for years. Random people I had never seen before would insult me as they walked by. I was easily the most popular student, not the most liked, but the most popular. So please excuse me if I have a tendency to say that the people of my generation need some structure and discipline.

there are many reasons that personal anecdotes aren't . . . real believable but, more to the point, I doubt your being picked on had anything to do with a lack of discipline.

[Tsal-Kar]

Oddly enough, it has continued to drop despite the ending of the assault weapons ban in 2004, and the 2008 Supreme Court decision that rendered the Washington D.C. Handgun Ban to be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it continued to rise to those unacceptable 1991 heights despite the 1987 automatic weapon ban, and the gun control act of 1968.

yep which is why my point was that correlation=/= causation.

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

[Life and Progress]

1-religious books generally don't teach morals. Your parents/rabbi/preist what have you may and may use the book to emphasize a point but the book itseldf is internally self contradictory on too many points to offer a concrete basis for morality.
2-statistically, being religious makes you more, not less, likely to end up in jail.
3- you cannot force religion (any religion) on children it's morally and legally wrong.
4-this has been a complaint for as long as there has been a written history, people always (ALWAYS) bitch and moan about how the youngest generation is "immoral" or "out of control" "disrespectful" whatever and so far it seems to have worked out okay.

Seriously, is no one listening? I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH RELIGION ON STUDENTS! You get it now? I'm not trying to push Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. I'm not trying to establish a state church. That's not even mentioning it was a rough idea that had no thought put into it. What I said is this:

The students have a ten minute period where they must read a book about morals, whether it be Islam, Christian, Judist, Secular, or Buddhist. I don't care which.

Lastly, I am part of this generation. So is it not okay for me to tell you that I am made fun of for being polite? I opened the door for others, tried not to bump into people, helped people pick up their books if they dropped them, offered to stay after school to help the art teacher, cleaned up the Chorus class after the others had thrown their trash all over, etc. For that I was labeled a fag and was made fun of for years. Random people I had never seen before would insult me as they walked by. I was easily the most popular student, not the most liked, but the most popular. So please excuse me if I have a tendency to say that the people of my generation need some structure and discipline.

"So ended an unremarkable day in the life of America, where every citizen is a snarky, cynical, hipper-than-thou, irony-dripping icon of comedy and cool."
- Steve Rushin

[Lessnt]

yep which is why my point was that correlation=/= causation.

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

I like how military equipment the US gov sells/gifts to other countries some of it will most likely find their way back to america in the hands of criminals.

[DaWoad]

yep which is why my point was that correlation=/= causation.

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

or it could be that it does. Remember how I "proved" that correlationally?
try again.

[Tsal-Kar]

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

or it could be that it does. Remember how I "proved" that correlationally?
try again.

Aren't you the one that just said that correlation =/= causation? At the very least, neither have us have been proven right (by something you said that I quoted you as saying above)

[DaWoad]

or it could be that it does. Remember how I "proved" that correlationally?
try again.

Aren't you the one that just said that correlation =/= causation? At the very least, neither have us have been proven right (by something you said that I quoted you as saying above)

yes, that was exactly what I was saying. It's what I'm still saying. I'm saying you've failed to prove that gun control doesn't lower gun crime. I'm saying that you're correlational "evidence" is valueless.

[Senestrum]

Aren't you the one that just said that correlation =/= causation? At the very least, neither have us have been proven right (by something you said that I quoted you as saying above)

yes, that was exactly what I was saying. It's what I'm still saying. I'm saying you've failed to prove that gun control doesn't lower gun crime. I'm saying that you're correlational "evidence" is valueless.

Wait wait wait, you want us to prove a negative?

lol

[Andaluciae]

yep which is why my point was that correlation=/= causation.

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

The single most efficacious policy for the reduction of violent crime in the US was the widespread legalization of abortion. 18 years after Rowe v. Wade and the crime rate drops precipitously? Yeah...

Guns and gun restriction have jack-all to do with crime rates. You could ban guns tomorrow, and keep the ban in place for two decades and have, at most, a minuscule effect.

[Separatist Peoples]

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

The single most efficacious policy for the reduction of violent crime in the US was the widespread legalization of abortion. 18 years after Rowe v. Wade and the crime rate drops precipitously? Yeah...

Guns and gun restriction have jack-all to do with crime rates. You could ban guns tomorrow, and keep the ban in place for two decades and have, at most, a minuscule effect.

No, it'll go up, because then everybody who owns a gun is a criminal. Which means that the gangsta down the street packing a .38 special is a criminal, the hunter with his .308 bolt action hunting rifle is now a criminal, and Tim the history enthusiast is a criminal for collecting civil-war replica rifles. Technically, crime would skyrocket if all guns were banned tomorrow.

[President Mathias]

The single most efficacious policy for the reduction of violent crime in the US was the widespread legalization of abortion. 18 years after Rowe v. Wade and the crime rate drops precipitously? Yeah...

Guns and gun restriction have jack-all to do with crime rates. You could ban guns tomorrow, and keep the ban in place for two decades and have, at most, a minuscule effect.

No, it'll go up, because then everybody who owns a gun is a criminal. Which means that the gangsta down the street packing a .38 special is a criminal, the hunter with his .308 bolt action hunting rifle is now a criminal, and Tim the history enthusiast is a criminal for collecting civil-war replica rifles. Technically, crime would skyrocket if all guns were banned tomorrow.

So if we want our crime rate to go down we need to legalized Marijuana. I mean, some 40-60% of Americans have smoked it in their lives. 20-50% do it on a regular basis. So if we were to legalized it, crime rates would drop, drastically.

[Tsal-Kar]

No, it'll go up, because then everybody who owns a gun is a criminal. Which means that the gangsta down the street packing a .38 special is a criminal, the hunter with his .308 bolt action hunting rifle is now a criminal, and Tim the history enthusiast is a criminal for collecting civil-war replica rifles. Technically, crime would skyrocket if all guns were banned tomorrow.

So if we want our crime rate to go down we need to legalized Marijuana. I mean, some 40-60% of Americans have smoked it in their lives. 20-50% do it on a regular basis. So if we were to legalized it, crime rates would drop, drastically.

As would addiction and OD rates, if the nations that have legalized it are any indication. Prices would go up, however, but that would simply be more incentive not to use it

[Separatist Peoples]

No, it'll go up, because then everybody who owns a gun is a criminal. Which means that the gangsta down the street packing a .38 special is a criminal, the hunter with his .308 bolt action hunting rifle is now a criminal, and Tim the history enthusiast is a criminal for collecting civil-war replica rifles. Technically, crime would skyrocket if all guns were banned tomorrow.

So if we want our crime rate to go down we need to legalized Marijuana. I mean, some 40-60% of Americans have smoked it in their lives. 20-50% do it on a regular basis. So if we were to legalized it, crime rates would drop, drastically.

Technically, yes. But then, crime related to marijuana rarely carries serious penalties with it. Crime related to firearms often does. I'm just pointing out the logical fallibility of the statement that outlawing guns reduces crime rate. TECHNICALLY, it does the opposite.

[Vingtor]

Or, it could be that gun control doesn't reduce violent crime in America! *GASP!!!*

I like how military equipment the US gov sells/gifts to other countries some of it will most likely find their way back to america in the hands of criminals.

I like how you just magically pulled that little gem out of thin air. Especially since most of the mil-spec weapons in american hands come from foreign goverments trying to ditch a lot uneeded surplus.

[Vingtor]

No, it'll go up, because then everybody who owns a gun is a criminal. Which means that the gangsta down the street packing a .38 special is a criminal, the hunter with his .308 bolt action hunting rifle is now a criminal, and Tim the history enthusiast is a criminal for collecting civil-war replica rifles. Technically, crime would skyrocket if all guns were banned tomorrow.

So if we want our crime rate to go down we need to legalized Marijuana. I mean, some 40-60% of Americans have smoked it in their lives. 20-50% do it on a regular basis. So if we were to legalized it, crime rates would drop, drastically.

Yes, it would. The real question I think is "Why is it illegal?"

[President Mathias]

So if we want our crime rate to go down we need to legalized Marijuana. I mean, some 40-60% of Americans have smoked it in their lives. 20-50% do it on a regular basis. So if we were to legalized it, crime rates would drop, drastically.

Yes, it would. The real question I think is "Why is it illegal?"

The reason I didn't ask the same thing is because of people like the first guy who replied. There is no example, EVER, of someone od-ing on Marijuana. While it is physically possible, you'd fall asleep way before smoking your own weight. The 'experiments' that killed monkeys in the 80's were because they stuck them in boxes, and then just kept pumping the smoke in until the things suffocated.