[quote]apayne wrote:
This is a tough issue, if the government doesn’t step in the property owners may become the victim of many different kinds of attacks from the developer and might end up worse off. Definitely a two edged issue.[/quote]
You’re kidding, right? “Hey, buddy, the US decided to amputate your legs, ‘cause otherwise, the mob woulda fuckin’ killed ya.”
So will outlawing pencils stop bad writing?
I mean banning an inanimate object in order to stop criminal intent has to be one of the great fallacy’s of politics.
European ploce states are a bad example to use when arguing gun control. It is more accurate to look at the massive drop in violent crime after a state passes a “right to carry law” if you want to see the effect of gun ownership on crime.
I have never understood why someone would trust their personal safety and that of their family to another and not use the most efficient tool possible to insure it.
There is simply no comparison between the United States and Denmark. Denmark is five and a half million people and about forty thousand square kilometers and change. The United States is over nine million square kilometers and over three hundred million in population. The logistics related to size and population alone make the matter more complicated.
Take a look at this link:
Denmark had a greater increase in serious assualts and murders during that time period than the United States. How long has Denmark had these regulations regardind gun ownership?
If I had the time this data would make an interesting meta-analysis of gun laws and violent crime prevalence…
W/r/t actual emminent domain takings, Kelo v. City of New London was just argued in front of the USSC – on which the court has yet to rule – and the ruling will have a lot to say about government takings for private development projects – that’s basically the issue at bar.
If you want to read some more stuff on the topic from an organization the litigates a lot against governments in these cases, check out the Institute for Justice website:
[quote]apayne wrote:
Eminent Domain is an issue here in South Florida. Bandgeek, do you happen to live in Riviera Beach?
In response to an earlier post, from what I understand, government steps in when individuals will not necessarily sell to the developers.
This is a tough issue, if the government doesn’t step in the property owners may become the victim of many different kinds of attacks from the developer and might end up worse off. Definitely a two edged issue.[/quote]
Miami. I have read about cases in Georgia and Connecticut (the latter is currently before the Supreme Court, I believe), where they are trying to replace private residences with commercial properties, among others. What kinds of “attacks” have been seen from the developers in such cases? Not being a smart-@$$…I have never heard this angle before (although I tend to agree with Nephorm’s assessment).
“An armed society is a polite society.”
I read somewhere that the thing criminals fear most is when they run into a possible victim that is armed.
Good answer. But what do you think of my reasoning?
Don’t worry I’m not trying to corner you with your own statements and then spring something on you . . . or am I?
heh heh heh
[quote]ZEB wrote:
NateN wrote:
I’ve got a question for Zeb specifically:
A lot of people make the argument that “guns are bad and kill innocent people, therefore we should make them illegal” right? Because society would be safer without them.
However, if you really look at the issue, you realize:
Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of responsible citizens which means they can’t protect themselves. And the criminal who’s just going to obtain his gun illegally anyway will not only still have a gun but have all the more power because there is less opposition.
Bad people will get their gun regardless of some law. So society is no better off with a law against gun ownership. Actually it’s even worse off.
All of the above is basically correct, you agree with it, right?
I have a follow-up question…
I agree that most citizens (who qualify) should be allowed to possess a handgun.
[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You stated:
“that still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.”
I merely called you on that statement! I see you have backed away from it now. I’m glad that you see you are wrong.
[/quote]
Get your head out of your ass. I stand by that statement and have not backed away from anything. Why would you take one statement out of context? You knew I was responded to the described incident yet you are now trying to act as if you made some point? You didn’t. Don’t fool yourself.
[quote]NateN wrote:
Good answer. But what do you think of my reasoning?
Don’t worry I’m not trying to corner you with your own statements and then spring something on you . . . or am I?
heh heh heh
ZEB wrote:
NateN wrote:
I’ve got a question for Zeb specifically:
A lot of people make the argument that “guns are bad and kill innocent people, therefore we should make them illegal” right? Because society would be safer without them.
However, if you really look at the issue, you realize:
Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of responsible citizens which means they can’t protect themselves. And the criminal who’s just going to obtain his gun illegally anyway will not only still have a gun but have all the more power because there is less opposition.
Bad people will get their gun regardless of some law. So society is no better off with a law against gun ownership. Actually it’s even worse off.
All of the above is basically correct, you agree with it, right?
I have a follow-up question…
I agree that most citizens (who qualify) should be allowed to possess a handgun.
[/quote]
I think one of the things that many forget (usually liberals) is that criminals are going to have guns regardless of the law. Do you know why? because THEY ARE CRIMINALS. You see, criminals don’t obey laws 
Oh…and Nate…am I playing appropriately? If not let me know.
[quote]doogie wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And a Japanese boy was killed while on an exchange program. He knocked on the wrong door, the wife screamed when she saw a stranger(of another race), and the husband shot him dead as he stood on the doorstep, waiting for his friends to come out to play.
He was a college student, drunk off his ass banging loudly on the door and trying to force his way into what he thought was his friends house in the middle of the night, not a little kid asking if Johnny can come out and play.
[/quote]
It wasn’t the middle of the night. It was the evening. He wasn’t plastered. He was small, and the homeowner who shot him was huge.
I’m not Japanese, but living over here you get a different perspective on things. All the posters on this thread going on about how guns make America safer- I have learned how wrong you are. Look at the respective crime rates of the US and Japan. Look at the respective murder rates of the two countries. Sure, other social factors etc come into play, but a gunless society is a safe society.
I doubt I am going to change any of your minds, though, and as I have some work to do now, I’ll leave you to your delusion.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
doogie wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And a Japanese boy was killed while on an exchange program. He knocked on the wrong door, the wife screamed when she saw a stranger(of another race), and the husband shot him dead as he stood on the doorstep, waiting for his friends to come out to play.
He was a college student, drunk off his ass banging loudly on the door and trying to force his way into what he thought was his friends house in the middle of the night, not a little kid asking if Johnny can come out and play.
It wasn’t the middle of the night. It was the evening. He wasn’t plastered. He was small, and the homeowner who shot him was huge.
I’m not Japanese, but living over here you get a different perspective on things. All the posters on this thread going on about how guns make America safer- I have learned how wrong you are. Look at the respective crime rates of the US and Japan. Look at the respective murder rates of the two countries. Sure, other social factors etc come into play, but a gunless society is a safe society.
I doubt I am going to change any of your minds, though, and as I have some work to do now, I’ll leave you to your delusion.
[/quote]
Look above at the post regarding the fallacy in comparing Denmark and the U.S. That logic holds here buddy. Japan is a fairly homogenous population, small land mass, etc, etc. Let me ask you this, with milions of guns circulating around the world and the U.S., how would you propose that we make our society gunless? Just becuse you outlaw guns does not mean that Uncle sam will wave his magic wand and all existing guns will disappear. You may say, well, the guns are registered and they will confiscate them. Yeah, who registers guns…honest citizens, who steals and purchases guns off the blackmarket so that they are untracable…criminals.
So here’s my follow-up:
I think this same logic can be applied to other social issues. Like prostitution. Making it illegal has certainly not stopped it from happening (nor will it ever). Because the motivation will always be there. Making it illegal means that there are no standards of disease control and more danger of violence toward the women involved. If prostituion were a legal business, it would be much safer. And the money wouldn’t be making some pimp richer.
If someone wants to shoot someone, he’ll find a gun and do it. If someone wants a prostitute, he’ll find one and “do it”.
I understand that your views on prostitution being legal and gun control are different. But it seems like the same logic used to justify keeping guns available could be applied to prostitution.
So what’s the difference? (And before you say anything about the morality, remember that, as with guns, if someone wants a prostitute, he’ll find one).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think one of the things that many forget (usually liberals) is that criminals are going to have guns regardless of the law. Do you know why? because THEY ARE CRIMINALS. You see, criminals don’t obey laws
Oh…and Nate…am I playing appropriately? If not let me know.[/quote]
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Look at the respective crime rates of the US and Japan. Look at the respective murder rates of the two countries. Sure, other social factors etc come into play, but a gunless society is a safe society.
I doubt I am going to change any of your minds, though, and as I have some work to do now, I’ll leave you to your delusion.
[/quote]
THis is interesting. What are the respective violent crime rates between the two societies?
As you said, there are a slew of differences between the two societies, and I rather think the racial homogeneity (sp?) and lack of a border with another country (immigration and non-racial cultural issues) – and the issues necessarily avoided because of those – might have a little more to do with it than just the gun laws.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Look at the respective crime rates of the US and Japan. Look at the respective murder rates of the two countries. Sure, other social factors etc come into play, but a gunless society is a safe society.
I doubt I am going to change any of your minds, though, and as I have some work to do now, I’ll leave you to your delusion.
THis is interesting. What are the respective violent crime rates between the two societies?
As you said, there are a slew of differences between the two societies, and I rather think the racial homogeneity (sp?) and lack of a border with another country (immigration and non-racial cultural issues) – and the issues necessarily avoided because of those – might have a little more to do with it than just the gun laws.[/quote]
Sorry to make a statement without any supporting facts, BB.
I lack your skills for searching, cutting and pasting, BB, but here’s something I found.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
It shows the countries with the top 50 murder rates per capita. No Japan to be found and the US comes in at No. 24, which is a poor effort for the world’s most advanced country.
Here are the statistics for assaults:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap
The US fares even worse here, coming in 5th. Japan is 42nd.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Look at the respective crime rates of the US and Japan. Look at the respective murder rates of the two countries. Sure, other social factors etc come into play, but a gunless society is a safe society.
I doubt I am going to change any of your minds, though, and as I have some work to do now, I’ll leave you to your delusion.
THis is interesting. What are the respective violent crime rates between the two societies?
As you said, there are a slew of differences between the two societies, and I rather think the racial homogeneity (sp?) and lack of a border with another country (immigration and non-racial cultural issues) – and the issues necessarily avoided because of those – might have a little more to do with it than just the gun laws.[/quote]
According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, the rate of assualts (it doesn’t specifically separate violent crime and homocide) per 1000 population in Japan in 2000 was .6 versus 6.5 in the United States. The average prevalence rate for the 10 crimes they tracked was 21 in Japan and 39.5 in the United States. I should dig into the data and look at the police report statistics to determine if that info is valid or if it can be accomodated by cultural differences in reporting crimes or something of that nature. I need to shower the periworkout stank off myself though…
Here’s the link for the ICVS:
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/
or if you just want the data in a pdf:
Interesting to read a lot of these.
I would say that most gun control laws should be abolished as they are nothing more than political pandering. I have never heard a convincing argument from an anti-gunner that was backed up by real statistics or solid legal reasoning(at least using US law and the Constitution).
Keep destructive devices illegal and maintain something along the lines of the NICS system to make sure convicted felons aren’t buying guns(at least legally). Other than that, hands off. While Im at it, I would add a law…national concealed carry. All the little bullshit federal , state and local laws do nothing but confound honest gun owners and create a treacherous web for them to navigate.
Eminent domain is a concept that has always bothered me and at a minimum should be reformed.
The guy who suggest we get rid of “no knock” warrant service made me laugh. That was a left field thing for sure. If he is worried about the cops, that is often the justification for a no-knock warrant…officer safety. The other notable reason is to prevent the destruction of evidence…ie the flushing the stash down the toilet routine. Perhaps this was a concern of his…
I have no problem with prostituition being made legal, but it would have to be licensed and conducted under some regulations. I know that flies in the face of my usual less-governement stance, but it is a business that could result in tremendous harm if their were no standards.
I’m pretty surprised that no one mentioned tort reform, as this is the real bane of our society. I don’t know if this qualifies as removing laws or reworking them however.
On a local level, I am seriously against the massive infringement on people’s property rights that municipalities often legislate. If I want to build a deck, that is my own damn business, not the town’s and not my neighbors. I realize there has to be a cut-off at some point(I wouldnt be too keen on an outdoor concert hall in the next yard), but the amount of regulation in some places would make Mao proud.
If you really dug, you could probably argue that somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of the laws at various levels could disappear and there wouldn’t be a very negative impact. Most of the crap floating around out there is the result of an over-abundance of lawyers and politicians who have nothing better to do than come up with bills to attach there name to. In the New York area, some politician has proposed a bill requiring liability insurance on kids scooters. I think that says it all.
Nep and Band,
Not agreeing with Eminent Domain ideas at all. Kinda playing devil’s advocate. Unfortunately if a corporation/government decides they want something you’ve got it’s an uphill battle.
[quote]3FL wrote:
If there’s no guns there’s no need for a gun to protect yourself.
In my opinion.[/quote]
Great, it works in Denmark, where there aren’t many guns. Too bad there ARE guns here in America. Banning them won’t make them disappear.
The phony drug war
[quote]WguitarG wrote:
Look above at the post regarding the fallacy in comparing Denmark and the U.S. That logic holds here buddy. Japan is a fairly homogenous population, small land mass, etc, etc. Let me ask you this, with milions of guns circulating around the world and the U.S., how would you propose that we make our society gunless? Just becuse you outlaw guns does not mean that Uncle sam will wave his magic wand and all existing guns will disappear. You may say, well, the guns are registered and they will confiscate them. Yeah, who registers guns…honest citizens, who steals and purchases guns off the blackmarket so that they are untracable…criminals.
[/quote]
It would not be simple or short process by any means, but this is no reason not to start it. I have no doubt that in the long run it would lead to a safer America.