Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Right To Bear Arms ( and propellants )

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- Sigmund Freud

Why mention Freud on a science site?

Been there , done that

franklyn - 2-6-2013 at 10:59

www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=24153#pid2833...

Rosco Bodine - 2-6-2013 at 11:44

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- Sigmund Freud

Why mention Freud on a science site?

One of the first things the Nazis did was to burn all of the books written by Freud. Perhaps that alone should be interesting, especially in the context that Freud evidently did recognize a retard when he saw one and could then make a scientifically correct positive identification of same.

unionised - 2-6-2013 at 12:10

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- Sigmund Freud

Why mention Freud on a science site?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

And, for whatever it's worth Freud wasn't interested in "retards". His interest was in psychoses, rather than learning difficulties.
If you want to cite someone who could scientifically assess learning you want this guy (among others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stern_(psychologist)
if you want a contemporary of Freud or this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet
who largely started that field

In any event, Freud has little credibility today and citing him doesn't really help take the discussion forward, at best, it's an appeal to authority and therefore a logical fallacy.

franklyn - 2-6-2013 at 12:40

@ Rosco Bodine

characteristically _

" citing him ( ' unionized ' ) doesn't really help take the discussion forward "

references to the heading of this thread will.

Thanks for those observations.

.

AndersHoveland - 2-6-2013 at 22:49

This was my concern also. If they succeed at coming after guns, it will be much easier for them to come after propellants also. One thing will lead to another, chemicals used to make those propellants will be banned too (or regulated out of existence), and then amateur chemistry will be left in a sorry state.

It's a progression, make no mistake about it. The idea that governments should, and have the right to, ban things to keep us "safe". These are not defective consumer products we are talking about here. A person who buys gun powder knows what they are buying, and the potential hazards that come along with it.

[Edited on 3-6-2013 by AndersHoveland]

amazingchemistry - 2-6-2013 at 22:57

I'll disregard my personal opinions on this "issue" and just say that this thread does not belong here. As far as I know, SciMad is a place for the scientific discussion of chemistry-related topics by amateur chemists. Let's keep it that way. You wouldn't talk about your sex life at church would you? there is a place for everything, and SciMad is not the place for potentially inflamatory, flame-war-starting, opinionated pseudo-political discussion. You could argue Whimsy is the right forum for this, but even there, the mods are starting to realize that this kind of content is not really conducive to much.

franklyn - 3-6-2013 at 00:53

@ amazingchemistry

• " SciMad is a place for the scientific discussion of chemistry-related topics by
amateur chemists." — It certainly is and it remains so.

• " SciMad is not the place for potentially inflammatory, flame-war-starting,
opinionated pseudo-political discussion." — I entirely agree. Controversy
has to remain civil and remain consistent with the section heading.
Legal and Societal Issues
Regulatory and social issues affecting scientific hobbyists.

• " I'll disregard my personal opinions on this "issue"
and just say that this thread does not belong here."
The forum is not a reform school , you don't have to read and learn if you don't
care to. Just like watching television if you don't like this show no one is making
you watch it , so your initial objection is unnecessary.

________________________________________

Curious , how much commentary is devoted in this thread
to being evasive and off topic — I wonder why that is.

.

unionised - 3-6-2013 at 02:14

BTW, the video about the UK says that since 2006 when there was a ban on handguns the number of gun crimes has risen by 40%.
The truth is, unsurprisingly, the opposite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398
There's also a sharp drop in 1996 when restrictions were brought in after the Dunblane incident
And there's one in 1992 which coincides with this
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2823/made
Sadly these improvements are set against a general rising trend but there's clear evidence that legislation in the uk works.

Incidentally, is there anything in the constitution which says the arms concerned are firearms?

And the people who say that the ban on fox hunting was a surprise hadn't been paying attention; It was part of the published Labour party manifesto. They said they would vote on it if they were elected. They did it. The legislation was passed.
That's the point of representational democracy.

[Edited on 3-6-13 by unionised]

watson.fawkes - 3-6-2013 at 06:48

Incidentally, is there anything in the constitution which says the arms concerned are firearms?

This issue came up in the Heller decision, which is on the U.S. Supreme Court site here. Here the relevant excerpt from page 7 - 8: I've excised the scholarly apparatus.

Quote:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” [...] Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” [...]

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” [...] Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

franklyn - 3-6-2013 at 08:24

@ unionized

The comment is
" we've seen a 40 % increase in firearms CRIME since the ban was introduced "
The chart referenced by the BBC clearly states " Firearms offences "
indicating firearms that were not surrendered in a timely manner after the
handgun ban and understandably as more are confiscated there are fewer
to be counted. 48 % of which are air guns and realistic fake handgun replicas.
That you take this to be equal to violent crimes commited is also unsurprising.
Show us where it says armed robbery is down 40 %.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gu...

" The number of people injured or killed by guns, has increased from 864 in 1998 / 99
to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008 / 09, an increase of 104 per cent ."

" There are now 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.K. By contrast,
there are 466 violent crimes per 100,000 here in America. This means that
Britain’s violent crime rate is over five times that of the U.S."
" In terms of violent crime the United Kingdom is now the most dangerous place to live
in the entire western world."

.

[Edited on 4-6-2013 by franklyn]

unionised - 3-6-2013 at 10:53

You do realise that, if someone owns a gun, but the police don't find out about it, it isn't counted as a firearms offence.
On the other hand, if (before or after the ban) a firearm was used in the commission of a crime then it would have been counted as a firearms offence (as well as robbery or whatever).

So, the number of firearms offences and the number of firearms crimes are pretty much the same thing.
We are, after all, talking about criminal offences and those are, when it comes down to it, crimes.
The distinction you make between firearms crimes (which are criminal offences involving firearms) and firearms offences (which are criminal offences involving firearms) seems a bit odd. It seems the numbers are going up and down at the same time.

" Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362."
Call it 10,000 per year
And, according to this
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....

there were something like 1 million violent crimes each year in the UK ( the number is embarrassingly high but currently falling based on that data).
So firearms were about 99% irrelevant to UK violent crime.

In any event, it seems very unlikely that permitting guns would somehow reduce the number of gun crimes in the UK.
Do you somehow imagine that criminals would stop using them if they became more available?

Rosco Bodine - 3-6-2013 at 12:09

Statistical analysis has to compare apples with apples to have meaning, and there are layers of factors which should be considered relevant to making any rational conclusions interpreting what the raw data means. Wholesale numbers for raw data can be very misleading about what are actual associations of cause and effect. Common sense must not be tossed out the window while doing a study of statistical data trying to identify relationships which show a common denominator or several commonalities that factor into making reasonable conclusions as to what the data means.

For example, suppose that the statistics are broken down and categorized into brackets identified according to rural versus urban and it is seen that population density is a factor. And suppose further search parameters are applied to the ethnicity of the perpetrators, educational and income brackets, immigration status, or familial generational ancestry of a citizen for example are they the first generation in country or are they the tenth generation of family in the same region for 300 years, (territorial factor). Interesting results begin to appear and a clearer picture emerges that "gun violence" is not such a simple proposition for analysis and that the psyche and character of persons is a much more profound indicator of "good and evil". The factors which are revealed are not widely discussed because such data analysis presented for what it is shows some stark realities which are not consistent with "political correctness" and the entire ideology about "diversity" having validity which would be hoped for it. The story involving what the statistics actually show will not be told because the bracketed classes of persons involved in the most crime will be offended by the ethnic or racial prejudice which is claimed to be communicated simply by publishing the truth. So for reasons of sensitivity to political correctness, the statistics which are a stigma for particular classes of persons will not be shown or discussed frankly as to their meaning, but will be generalized and a misleading portrait will be applied to the entire population being indicted for what are the crimes more correctly attributed to a "special class". Indeed sometimes it will be found that almost all the serious crime in a particular city may be generated from a single district that is a "bad neighborhood", and yet the entire city will be stigmatized as a high crime area when that is simply not the truth. It really does come down to people of certain identifiable groups and the police have certainly long been aware of this.

Anyway it should be a matter of caution about what conclusions are reasonable involving "statistical analysis".
Because truly there is more to the story than numbers in that exercise seeking truth, and none of it is governing for the person who is being a victim of some crime which would not be occurring were they armed and able to defend themselves and prevent that. All the statistics in the world and all the laws and philosophy and politics and psychology are completely irrelevant at that point for that person.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gu...

[Edited on 3-6-2013 by Rosco Bodine]

unionised - 3-6-2013 at 12:29

Fair point about the stats.

In any event, it seems very unlikely that permitting guns would somehow reduce the number of gun crimes in the UK.
Do you somehow imagine that criminals would stop using them if they became more available?

Rosco Bodine - 3-6-2013 at 13:00

I think history has already shown what works and what does not. Proliferation of arms was never the problem, it is societal decadence that is the problem, and arms control has been the wrong medicine for treating what never was the disease. I have an idea if it isn't broke don't fix it. Fix what is broken instead.

franklyn - 4-6-2013 at 01:48

The single minded obsession given to Gun control is a mania absent of reason.
The number of victims and crimes which involve the violent use of firearms are
the primary matter of public interest. Perversely the focus of crime taxonomy
in the UK is the weapon itself be it an air pellet gun, a shotgun or pistol, the actual
crime whether it was violent or not is not a consideration , they are all ' offenses '
to be categorized by type of weapon.
Firearm Crime Statistics
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
from page 2 above
• Number of offences
_ In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences,
• Type of offence
_ In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%)
of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11
63 % of 11,227 is 7 0 7 3 <= that's real all the rest is BS.
~ approximately 12.6 acts of gun violence per 100,000 people. ( 56,000,000 population )
The murder rate is supposedly 1.3 per 100,000

" there are as many as 55 offences involving ﬁrearms that it is possible to commit
even before a gun is pointed or its trigger pulled." ( top Page 9 ) Here _
Gun Crime A Review Of Evidence & Policy
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus713/&ei=9VatUceTMYio0AG1mYHAAg.pdf
This study is the best subjective analysis - more from the above _
" The impact of ﬁrearms legislation is contested and ‘notoriously difﬁcult to measure’,
several mediating factors ‘underline the difﬁculties inherent in trying to understand
the relationship between ﬁrearms legislation and recorded ﬁrearms offences’. These
include: crime counting and recording practices; crime reporting rates; legislation;
policing [such as the establishment of dedicated ﬁrearms units]; and the availability
of intelligence data to ascertain which illegal ﬁrearms are used and how often any
particular ﬁrearm is used." ( middle page 35 )
" One of the strongest and most consistent themes to emerge from the research
that is available is the inadequacy of the existing evidence base in terms of providing
a basis for formulating policy responses to the problem of ‘gun crime’" ( end )

Observations by the police _
" officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics.
The crime figures are meaningless. Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."
" the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being
committed." " a series of tricks rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' An example,
is where a series of homes in a block of flats are burgled and were regularly recorded as
one crime." ( a one man crime spree ?)
" British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. Suppose that a woman
is killed during an argument outside a bar. Three are arrested for murder, but because of
problems with identification ( the main witness is dead ), charges are eventually dropped.
In American crime statistics, the event counts as a homicide, but in British statistics it
counts as nothing at all." ( only convictions matter as a crime )

Crime in England and Wales, year ending June 2012
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf
Crime tabulating criteria has been revised 4 times in the
last 20 years - see page 13

No sir, figures don't lie , but liars will figure. Official tabulations are contrived to obfuscate
the circumstances of what the person on the street is well aware of.
" There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
— Mark Twain ( which he attributes to — Benjamin Disraeli )

Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0111.pdf

Measuring Crime for 25 years
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf
( more useless traveloque )

Crimes detected in England and Wales 2011/12
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116435/hosb0812.pdf
from page 11
762515 violence against the person
56,000,000 population
1361 per 100,000

Crime in the U.S dropped by 50 % over the last 20 years
and other analysis , here _
www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0
An compelling idea explaining the crime drop _
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=22949#pid2707...

.

Hennig Brand - 4-6-2013 at 12:46

Seems like a no brainer. Once predators get the idea that private citizens are less likely to have an effective means of defending themselves there will be more incentive for them to enter the homes of these citizens and rob and/or physically assault them.

Possessing firearms helps instill a whole different attitude in general, I believe, one of self reliance and independence. This is a healthy thing I believe. I agree with the comment above that no one will ever protect or help you as well as you can help or protect yourself. Police might arrest someone after your murder, but what good does that do you?

The firearms owner attitude and the ability to resist if necessary are very important when dealing with concentrations of power as well. Some things never change, keep in mind the old adage.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[Edited on 4-6-2013 by Hennig Brand]

hyfalcon - 4-6-2013 at 13:33

All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from multiple directions.

----------

I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.

[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon]

Hennig Brand - 5-6-2013 at 06:56

It seems that a big motivation for gun control is for big government/big business to have a monopoly on violence. I don't think it is in individual citizen's interest, in any way shape or form, for big government/big business to have a monopoly on violence.

unionised - 5-6-2013 at 10:57

All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from multiple directions.

----------

I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.

[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon]

Indeed, but because it was in the UK we were able to ask him who talked him into this obscene act. We got that guy too.
We were able to exclude the possibility that his behaviour was caused by a treatable mental illlness, We didn't sink to his level and we remembered the importance of "due process".
As a side benefit, we robbed their cause of a martyr.

[Edited on 5-6-13 by unionised]

Rosco Bodine - 5-6-2013 at 11:14

The government through sensible civil defense advisories in times past advocated the virtuousness of preparedness and situational awareness for citizens to be able to sustain and protect themselves during any times of emergency which might arise due to natural or man made disasters. One of the components of such preparedness would be arms, for many obvious reasons.

On that basis alone it would now seem to be entirely convenient propaganda to try to advance the opposite proposition that any foreseeable future emergenicies shall be more benign and for being so genteel and civilized as all people have evolved to being even in times of hysteria and desperation, that sufficient authority in any future emergency will be supplied by use of harsh language, due to the improved more socially adjusted good nature of any anticipated future looters or other invaders who have been put on their honor and conditioned in advance to be better behaved in desperate times. Likewise there should be no need for hunting and fishing equipment because more highly evolved survival conscious people can just think happy thoughts about having food on the table when starving, and food shall magically appear.

Sarcasm aside, it would be impossible to reconcile the more sensible traditional and well proven views and methods of times past about what is involved with basic preparedness of a common sense variety, with the attempted to be revised ideas about preparedness which align with the fantasies of "political correctness".

For anyone who really critically examines the premises for such revisions made which attempt to redefine what is rational thinking to be compliant with social or political sensibilities, the "new math" about such basics simply does not add up. Indeed there are a great many things which can be made subject to convoluted yet "rational analysis" where the final conclusion is incorrect. One of the perils of intellect is not being able to see the forest for the trees.

hyfalcon - 5-6-2013 at 13:35

Difference being, the soldier would still have a chance to be alive and not the terrorist. Different priorities I guess.

franklyn - 6-6-2013 at 20:48

No doubt COBRA will now call for quick and decisive action to have
national registration of all cleavers and licensing of all butchers and
meat cutters. ( COBRA , Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms , committee
set up to coordinate the actions of bodies within the government of
the United Kingdom in response to instances of national or regional
crisis). I don't get it , what is the crisis ? Back in the early 1980's
during the heyday of ' crack ' ( freebase smokable cocaine ) related
crime , some weeks would top 50 homicides in New York and other
major urban cities , reaching into the hundreds nationwide. Certainly
a matter of concern to an otherwise peaceful public , but it hardly rose
to the threat of preemptive nuclear strike. Nowadays all one need to
do is attach the word ' Terrorist ' to a lurid violent murder and this is
national news foreshadowing The End Of The World As You Know It.
This has more the appearance of a propaganda driven pretext for
suspending civil liberties. It is and will always relentlessly continue
since such events are not even within the ability of a penal institution
to obviate within the convict population. The end of this tunnel is east
European Soviet style Marshall law - guns in civilian possession are
evil assault weapons , whereas police force defensive arms ( hugs &
kisses ) are good - for nothing , didn't defend the gored man first hit
by a car. Would the two perpetrators have been so bold if they knew
they might also have been killed by bystanders at the scene before
the arrival of police ? Who by the way shot them anyway.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4qrFFxqxg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIig9jHBQM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGdGbCX03Q

<iframe sandbox width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hftgytmgQgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
She's a witch of trouble in electric blue.
In her own mad mind she's in love with you,
With you.
Now what you gonna do?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
She's some kind of demon messin' in the flue.
If you don't watch out it'll stick to you,
To you.
What kind of fool are you?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
On a boat in the middle of a raging sea,
She would make a scene for it all to be
Ignored.
And wouldn't you be bored?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
Strange brew, strange brew, strange brew, strange brew.
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.

.

[Edited on 7-6-2013 by franklyn]

Pulverulescent - 7-6-2013 at 02:55

The US military's trigger-happy motto of "Kill 'em All" seems to have somewhat insinuated itself into American society in general . . .
But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies.

IrC - 7-6-2013 at 10:13

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

The US military's trigger-happy motto of "Kill 'em All" seems to have somewhat insinuated itself into American society in general . . .
But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies.

What a croc. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, the list goes on. So where in today's Christian nations are the hundreds of millions of dead to prove your point. Oh that's right, it is the secular societies responsible for mass death and history proves it. History is calling you a liar and so am I. Both history and myself grow tired of useless propaganda and lies.

watson.fawkes - 7-6-2013 at 10:55

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

You're both wrong. Genocide has no strong correlation with either religious or secular societies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history Just see if you can pick out a distinction in these lists in which either religious or secular societies come out looking well.

As for specifics, Hitler's Germany was quite religious. While the others were not, there's the history of genocide in the Americas (North, Central, and South all) that can't be ignored in this context, all of which was by religiously-minded Europeans and their progeny. To be sure the most recent large genocides were by atheist leaders, but to assert a generality from that is to use a ludicrously short historical attention span.

IrC - 7-6-2013 at 20:03

While I see your point I do not think I'm wrong at all. If we go by sheer numbers killed we have over a hundred million dead between three, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. In each case absolutely non religious. As to hitler he was heavy into the occult which to me means anti religious. I agree about the population of WWII Germany, no argument with you there about religion. Yet it was hitler who called the shots and I was talking about numbers of dead at the hands of the leaders and their standing on religious views* as it relates to "But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies".

* consider that the government, or nation as a whole was likewise secular in these examples, regardless of the secret beliefs the people may have held.

To me the above quote is completely fabricated bullshit. Nothing but propaganda and it is sad anyone considering themselves educated and intelligent actually believes it. Going further it is diametrically opposite to the truth through history. Go down through history. Whenever there was terrible wrong it was usually corrected by powers with strong connection to religion. Church people in bad times hiding and saving many. From slavery here to the Jews in Europe, on and on through history. There is no secular great shining light of goodness for life and happiness in any society in all recorded history. Name the great wonderful secular society in history where right and goodness prevailed at all. Not to mean all was perfect, rather the point being it was people with moral convictions which eventually ended great wrongs through history.

If one desires to research true history minus the political lies which abound today it is the religious right which ended slavery. For over a hundred years it was liberal progressive democrats who fought to keep black people enslaved, even into the late 50's with LBJ and others fighting in congress to block civil rights legislation. Sadly progressives have twisted this history to make black people think democrats are their saviors. Ironic when through social programs they still enslave black people to this day. Keep them fed but never let them get ahead. Add to this the progressive democrat eugenic program planned parenthood which so far has a US death toll of over 54 million, mostly blacks. 42 percent of black pregnancies in NYC alone end in death by abortion. Christians believe abortion is murder. So how is it the statement above quoted in red has any truth at all? It does not!

Just as satans greatest lie is making people believe he does not exist, republicans greatest lie is they are not identical progressives to their progressive democrat counterparts, when in reality they are all exactly the same and equally corrupt.

Rosco Bodine - 7-6-2013 at 22:43

Be careful IRC, you know that secular progressive ideologues let ideology color their analysis of history and everything else with confirmation bias. Cutting through all the lies is like taking on the task of a cult deprogrammer trying to get through to the brainwashed. Good luck with that.

To hear some unvarnished politically incorrect "God and country" type of intellectually unhobbled and uncastrated "man talk" commentary try this channel ....if you are not too easily offended by hearing some straight talk from somebody laying it on the line. If you are really an advocate of political correctness, then you probably shouldn't listen to what this old lawman has to say, since it will be straight talk and not sugary euphemisms.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WildBillforAmerica/videos

Here's a blog that may be of interest also
http://thegunwire.com/

When sane leadership is elusive in the real world, perhaps a virtual representation of what sanity in leadership would sound like can provide a momentary, if fictional and simulated respite from the sad reality of the present popular madness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI

[Edited on 8-6-2013 by Rosco Bodine]

mayko - 8-6-2013 at 04:36

Hitler not a Christian because he dabbled in trinkets? What an odd whitewash for remarks like

Quote:

[The Jews'] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation.

(Mein Kampf)

Hitler aside, the secularity of Nazi society can be judged by the books they burned:

Quote:

All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

(source)

Oh, and then there's this bit of "confirmation bias"

Quote:

BERLIN, Feb. 23 (AP)--A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces.

(source)

Keep your theocracy to yourself, please.

unionised - 8-6-2013 at 04:41

Difference being, the soldier would still have a chance to be alive and not the terrorist. Different priorities I guess.

Not really, no.
It doesn't take long to kill someone with a machete so the guy would have been dead before anyone drew a gun.
So the difference is fewer people dead- one rather than two (or more if anyone got hit by crossfire).
Different priorities I guess.

watson.fawkes - 8-6-2013 at 05:52

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

While I see your point I do not think I'm wrong at all. If we go by sheer numbers killed we have over a hundred million dead between three, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot.

If you go by numbers you're introducing a bias toward recent events, given the last few hundred years of population rise. More proper, I think, would be to look at percentages of target populations eliminated. That's a figure that fluctuates, but even with that measure there are no winners in this game, no evidence that one side has any superiority over the other.

IrC - 8-6-2013 at 06:03

Good point Rosco I don't know what I was thinking trying to bring historical reality into the discussion. Mayko proved you right by quoting the words of a schizophrenic murdering madman and confusing that with the recorded reality of what hitler actually did. In effect not seeing the difference between someone calling themselves Christian and those who actually are one. No decent person orders the building of ovens and gas chambers to fulfill their order of the murder of millions of innocent people. The very least definition of true Christians is that they are decent people. I brought abortion into it because Christians were in effect lumped into the group causing death in the name of religion in the words I quoted above. True Christians believe abortion is murder and therefore wrong. So far in the US alone over 54 million served while even Pol Pot is only responsible for 2 million dead. This makes planned parenthood, i.e. Margaret Sanger 27 times worse than Pol Pot. Likely worse than even Stalin. In fact if you consider her tours in Europe speaking of eugenics and abortion in the 1920's as not only getting the bandwagon going over there and add those numbers possibly good old Sanger is even worse than all the dictators I mentioned combined. In fact her tours started a revolution among people of science on both continents promoting eugenics which influenced hitlers final solution as much as our own Edward Bearnaise influenced Goebbels propaganda campaign. In his own words at Nuremberg Goebbels wrote that without Bearnaise they would never have been able to build the third Reich. Clearly many still lump together people who call themselves Christian and are not, with those who really are.

mayko - 8-6-2013 at 06:08

I actually cited several actions Hitler took. And, are you familiar with the "No true scotsman" fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?

PS Let's not forget prominent Christian eugenicists like William J. Tinkle, nor the "Curse of Ham" justification for slavery.

[Edited on 8-6-2013 by mayko]

IrC - 8-6-2013 at 07:40

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

I actually cited several actions Hitler took. And, are you familiar with the "No true scotsman" fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?

PS Let's not forget prominent Christian eugenicists like William J. Tinkle, nor the "Curse of Ham" justification for slavery.

[Edited on 8-6-2013 by mayko]

Hate to burst your bubble but your doing it yet again. Confusing the deeds of those calling themselves Christian with those who truly are Christian. Regardless of any titles they claim, no murdering madmen are Christian. Nor would they support slavery. Right in the handbook is a recounting of a yet future event. A large group stand before the Lord laying claim to their 'Christian' acts. His words were most telling: to paraphrase "get away from Me I never knew you". He was speaking to the crowd who called themselves 'Christian' yet there was nothing 'Christian' about them. The definition is 'Christ-like'. Since He never knew them obviously even to the low information voters it should be clear they were not 'Christ-like', therefore not 'Christian'.

I fail to see the 'No true Scotsman' connection. The fallacy is your taking examples as evidence of the mindset of Christian people based upon the actions of those who clearly were not Christian.

While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?

Derided by whom? This is my point. Derided by those who were clearly not Christian. What was the opinion of the roughly 23,191,875* other Americans who were not saying this?

* based upon 1850 census showing a US population of 23,191,876 during those years.

Not really trying to turn the thread into a historical debate, nor a debate on religion. I was merely responding to the statement made earlier equating religion with mass murder. I can say for myself as a Christian we all have a God given right to build rockets and blow holes in our backyard in pursuit of chemistry. Where you get your rights is not something I can comment on we each have to justify our own belief system to ourselves.

[Edited on 6-8-2013 by IrC]

Lambda-Eyde - 8-6-2013 at 08:40

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- Sigmund Freud

You should really act your age. This is a fucking disgrace and you know it.

Pulverulescent - 8-6-2013 at 09:52

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

Hate to burst your bubble but your[sic] doing it yet again.

[Edited on 6-8-2013 by IrC]

Whoops! 'Can't argue with such 'intelligence'!

hyfalcon - 8-6-2013 at 10:19

Drift alert.

franklyn - 8-6-2013 at 14:08

Discussion in keepng with this topic heading is the right to bear arms.
Polemics veering into discussion of religion , are calculated I suspect
to relegate this thread into detritus. Well , those who do not remeber
the past — have a short attention span don't they , take your ritalin
and calm down. We all know the history of the world or should if you
weren't sleeping in class.

___________________________________________________

How does one explain to people who are so set in their thinking they don't want
to hear much less consider anything that may threaten their beliefs and notions.
A person who feels threatened by ideas and who responds with emotion is not
being rational. The observations and collected wisdom of witnesses to human folly
best serve by example.

Bearing foremost in mind that the actual words were written over 225 years ago
and the definitions of words then had not yet been corrupted , the law of our land
says in contemporary usage _
An armed public being necessary for the preservation of a free society,
the right of people to be armed is not open to curtailment.

" The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping
their own arms."
— Samuel Adams

" Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief
would ensue were the law abiding deprived of the use of them."
— Thomas Paine ( author of Common Sense )

" Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is
hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people
against the dangers of good intentions."
— Daniel Webster

" If you take all the guns off the street you will still have a crime problem,
whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem."
— Anonymous

Allegations of revisionist meanings of the original intent for an armed citizenry
are specious prevarications by contemporary mendacious schemers harboring
ulterior motives and designs for the subjugation of human rights.

" To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."
— George Mason

" Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends
than that good men should look on and do nothing."
— John Stuart Mill

" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."
— Matthew 7:15-20 , King James Bible
( The emblem of the Council on Foreign Relations is a wolf wearing a fleece )

" All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man:
it's one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be
aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior
only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then
it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One
of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much
alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search
out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is
potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most
dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things
out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives
under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries
to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to
spread discontent among those who are.”
— H.L. Mencken

" When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show
that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence,
and both of these opinions generate hatred."
— Niccolo Machiavelli

Watch what they do — never mind what they say.
www.youtube.com/embed/k3DKuN2ey80

" In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
— George Orwell

What do pacifists say

Mahatma Gandhi on violence and using arms
www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

Dalai Lama on violence and using arms , ( near the bottom end )
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=200...
" If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to
shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound
might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens,
www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
Below here are some excerpts with my commentary _

There exists such a surreal suspension of reason in the minds of police
officials in some jurisdictions that you have to believe not only are they
by law not responsible to you for your personal safety but that they also
mock you for good measure.

" Armed resistance to sexual assault is not considered an option by some
law enforcement agencies. Instead, the Illinois State Police advise victims
to claim they have AIDS, forcibly inducing vomiting, or fighting back with
nail files or keys. The city of Davis, California, suggests mace or whistles,
but also recommends urinating or defecating."

Personally I would like to hit the author of this strategy with a blackjack
and see how effectively he can soil his pants to make me go away , or
to see how well the other one can go for his keys with broken fingers.
No sir , you can't fix stupid , that is near criminal in malfeasance.

" After Colorado’s concealed carry law was enacted , Colorado State
University decided to allow concealed carry and observed a 60 % decline in
reported crimes. While the University of Colorado prohibited firearms and it
observed a 35 % increase in crime. It does appear then , would be robbers
are not deterred by stickers on the doors announcing that armed robbery
is severely frowned upon by the student code of etiquette and conduct."

If truth be told _
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-reali...

The alternative
Gun abolition — the Japanese model — The police state
www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
" The Japanese criminal justice system is based on the Government possessing
the inherent authority to do whatever it wishes. In a society where almost
everyone accepts nearly limitless, unchecked Government power,"
You do not have the right to object. If you object you can and will be brutalized
until you submit to your sanctioning authority. The consequences of gun control
is that all Japanese look alike , like docile cattle. The question for gun control in
America is , who are we then all going to look like , alike , and who will decide who
in this design is to be sacrificed to attain the objective , because clearly if you don't
belong , it must be mandatory that you be purged , intolerance is not tolerated in
Utopia.
How it all started , See - B. The Sword Hunt
" The Japanese paid a price for their order. Freedom was an alien concept. Interclass ,
social , and geographic mobility were extinguished. As Turnbull points out , Hidéyoshi's
hunt for swords and firearms marked the end of social freedom in Japan. The abolition
of firearms probably would not have succeeded if Japan had a free economy or a free
political system."
If power corrupts , then absolute power corrupts absolutely. See - C. The Rush to Militarism
" The 1930s degenerated into a horrible period of government by assassination ,
as military factions attempted to destroy each other , and as militarists murdered
opponents of war. Despite the strict gun laws , the frequency of assassinations far
exceeded anything seen in Europe or North America in [the 20th] century."
In the Imperial Japanese Empire prior to it's capitulation at the end of the second
world war , there existed a law enforcement organization which was referred to
as the Japanese Special Higher Police ( Tokko ) , or Japanese Thought Police or
Secret Police , also known as the Kempai Tai. They would arrest people on the
pretext that they were thinking bad thoughts. Their function was primarily political
repression and censure rather than any legitimate law enforcement function. They
tortured captured allied soldiers as well as civilians in occupied countries. ( sound
familiar ) Many of the officer staff were convicted for commission of atrocities by
the allied war crimes tribunals and later executed.
How can people be so stupid ? See - V. The Preference for Paternalism
" More than gun control , more than the lack of criminal procedure safeguards ,
more than the authority of the police , it is the pervasive social controls of Japan
that best explain the low crime rate." " Other nations , such as the former Soviet
Union , have had severe gun control , less criminal justice safeguards , and more
unconstrained police forces than Japan. But the Soviets' crime rate was high and
Japan's minuscule because Japan has the socially accepted and internalized
restraints on individual behavior which the Soviets lack."
Be careful what you hope for _
" The Japanese experience does not seem to support the hypothesis than fewer
guns means fewer suicides." " Parents bent on suicide take their children with them,
at the rate of one per day , in multiple suicides. In fact, 17 per cent of all Japanese
officially defined as homicide victims are children killed by suicidal parents." " One
reason that the official Japanese homicide rate is so low is that if a Japanese
woman slits her children's throats and then kills herself , police statistics record it
as a family suicide," " one reason Japan has a suicide problem is that people have
little sympathy for suicide victims." " the lack of sympathy ( and hence the lack of
social will to deal with a high suicide rate ) is based the Japanese' feelings of insecurity
and consequent lack of empathy. They trace the lack of empathy to a ' dread of
power '. That dread is caused in part by the awareness that a person cannot count
on others for help against violence or against authority." " firearms prohibition is
part of a culture that subordinates the individual to society. When the individual
finds himself not fitting into social expectations , self destruction may often seem
appropriate , since in a conflict between the individual and society , society is , by
definition , always right." " Japan , with its severe gun control , suffers no less
murder than Switzerland , one of the most gun intensive societies on earth."

" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin

" I repeat that all power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise;
that from the people, and for the people all springs, and all must exist."
— Benjamin Disraeli

" Things must be done by parties , not by persons using parties as tools.
— Benjamin Disraeli

.

Pulverulescent - 9-6-2013 at 02:57

The lady doth protest too much, methinks ─ way, waaay too fucking much, if truth be told . . .

franklyn - 13-6-2013 at 01:55

Not all gun legislation is bad. A few proposed laws are actually reasonable and sensible.

HR 322
Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act
by Rep. Jeff Miller , R-Fla.
— HR 322 would exclude all firearm and ammunition components from the definition
of "chemical substance" under federal environmental laws , so that the lead and other
substances in ammunition couldn't be regulated or restricted.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.322:

S. 82
Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky.
— S. 82 , the companion bill to HR 410 , would invalidate any past, present or future
executive actions on gun control , like those President Obama took Jan. 16 ,
rendering them as advisory only unless Congress enacts them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.82:

HR 410
Restore the Constitution Act of 2013
by Rep. Steve Stockman , R-Texas
— HR 410 , the companion bill to S. 82 , would invalidate any past, present or future
executive actions on gun control , like those President Obama took Jan. 16 ,
rendering them as advisory only unless Congress enacts them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.410:

HR 575
Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
by Rep. Steve Stockman , R-Texas
— HR 575 would express the sense of Congress that the United States should not adopt
any treaty that threatens national sovereignty or abridges rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, and should stop providing financial support
to any entity that does so. It would bar the United States from providing any funding to
the United Nations for a fiscal year unless the president certifies to Congress that the U.N.
has not acted to infringe on individuals' rights in the United States to have a firearm or
ammunition, or abridge any other constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.575:

HR 578
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013
by Rep. Marlin Stutzman , R-Ind.
— HR 578 would guarantee that individuals who legally carry a concealed weapon
in their home state may also carry in any other state that allows concealed carry.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.578:

.

unionised - 13-6-2013 at 11:41

So, it's reasonable and sensible to poison wildlife with lead shot as well as to shoot it.
I guess it's consistent.

I guess you think there's a reason why the US should pay less than it's share of the cost of the UN too.

And the last one only makes sense if the local laws are consistent.
Imagine two states one of which permits concealed carrying of just about anything by anyone.
Someone resident there could go to another state with very strict laws on the matter but be exempt from those laws.
Why would you want to give out of towners more rights than the locals?

franklyn - 13-6-2013 at 20:19

@ unionized

You show your inclination to contention to be such a strong compulsion
that you leap to declare yourself without even knowing what you are
refering to or speaking of.

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
— Goethe

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.322:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/53/I/2602

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.575:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.578:

Most bills introduced at any given time regarding firearms are just plain evil ,
fostered by depraved demagogues. Predicated on the affront that nothing
stands or will ever remain , settled in law. They will stalk and harass people
of good will and wholesome principles forever. All the more reason to dispel
their unsavory messianic overtures.

.

hyfalcon - 13-6-2013 at 23:37

When someone tries to assert their will and wishes on another person they are depriving that person of their free agency. When someone tries to deprive me of MY free agency they fall into the category of evil incarnate. They become no better then Satan himself when they deprive you of your choice.

froot - 13-6-2013 at 23:58

When someone tries to assert their will and wishes on another person they are depriving that person of their free agency. When someone tries to deprive me of MY free agency they fall into the category of evil incarnate. They become no better then Satan himself when they deprive you of your choice.

That's perfect in a perfect world where everybody has the same level of mental health as you do and I wish it were so, it would be so much easier. A gun toting closet psycho in your midst would make you nervous too if you knew about it, from this point on the complications start and threads like this become long.

jock88 - 14-6-2013 at 04:56

There has to be arms control.
Otherwise we could all own bazookas, tanks, second hand battle ships, large caliber uranium firing gattling guns (I want one of those, and because of the narrow minded fucks on the hill I cannot have)........

unionised - 14-6-2013 at 07:15

You do realise that you are proposing anarchy, don't you?
Either Satan deprives you of the right to choose to murder with impunity or he deprives your victim of the right to choose to live.
The question is which "rights" ought to be curtailed.
It seems that you believe that your "right" to pollute the environment is more important than others' right to live in an unpolluted one.
Odd as it may seem, society doesn't agree with you.

BTW, the lawyers would love the concealed carry law suggestion which include the phrase " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device)"
Now, since handguns (other than water pistols perhaps) are, by their nature destructive the legislation refers to handguns that are not handguns.
At the very least a handgun, if used, destroys the propellant.

And if I was ignorant it was not wilfully but because I believed what was written in the thread. It may have been remiss of me not to check the primary source, but it was even more so for someone to précis it incorrectly.

[Edited on 14-6-13 by unionised]

watson.fawkes - 14-6-2013 at 09:16

the lawyers would love the concealed carry law suggestion which include the phrase " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device)"
Now, since handguns (other than water pistols perhaps) are, by their nature destructive the legislation refers to handguns that are not handguns.

Whatever your opinion is on the political matter, please don't be ignorant about the facts. "Destructive device" is a term of art in US law, defined in the National Firearms Act (1934).

elementcollector1 - 14-6-2013 at 09:24

Quote: Originally posted by jock88

There has to be arms control.
Otherwise we could all own bazookas, tanks, second hand battle ships, large caliber uranium firing gattling guns (I want one of those, and because of the narrow minded fucks on the hill I cannot have)........

Well, what's the point of owning an RPG when your next-door neighbor has the same thing?

jock88 - 14-6-2013 at 12:13

Same point as owning a hand gun (insert any weapon you like here instead of handgun) if your neighbour has one.

There HAS to be gun control. Where it starts and ends is the question.
The 'taking my rights away brigade' will not let me have a high caliber, DU firing, gattling gun.

12AX7 - 14-6-2013 at 15:06

Gatling guns are okay as long as the magazine is 10 rounds or less, and the machine is hand cranked (which, I guess, puts it in the class of semi-automatics). So, yes, putting a motor on one (hurr durr) is a federal offense (motorized Gatling being a Vulcan Cannon).

Years ago, I recall discussion on a metalworking group debating whether magazines can be chained together to produce greater sustained fire.

On-topic comic...
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3005#c...

Tim

Pulverulescent - 15-6-2013 at 01:39

Quote:

Gatling guns are okay as long as the magazine is 10 rounds or less, and the machine is hand cranked (which, I guess, puts it in the class of semi-automatics). So, yes, putting a motor on one (hurr durr) is a federal offense (motorized Gatling being a Vulcan Cannon).

Sheeesh! What's next ─ a limit on fuel for flamethrowers?

unionised - 15-6-2013 at 04:11

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Whatever your opinion is on the political matter, please don't be ignorant about the facts. "Destructive device" is a term of art in US law, defined in the National Firearms Act (1934).

Indeed, and the legislation given does not say that it is using the phrase as so defined.
Now, it may just be a difference between the ways that laws are drafted in the UK and US but, in the uk they would need to say that they were using the phrase in a particular way or it would be interpreted as its normal English meaning i.e. a device that is destructive is a destructive device.
The term is not, for example, in quote marks, italicised, capitalised or otherwise distinguished.

watson.fawkes - 15-6-2013 at 10:22

Indeed, and the legislation given does not say that it is using the phrase as so defined.

It doesn't need to. It's an amendment to an existing law, which contains all the definitions. From the text of the bill:

Quote:

Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following

See that word "amended"? It means that it will change an existing law, and you have to read the full text to understand the context of the bill completely.

Go look up 18 U.S.C. to see the definitions. The one you didn't think to consider is in 18 USC § 921(a)(4).

unionised - 15-6-2013 at 11:50

OK, fair enough, I missed that. (If I was a lawyer I'd get paid a lot better)
Now all we need is fro Hyfalcon to explain how everyone can have total freedom.

franklyn - 16-6-2013 at 01:36

New York State Sheriffs' Association letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NYSSA Response to NY SAFE Act_021113.pdf.

Cops are citizens too , and have fanily and freinds they care about.

_______________________________________

I'm really interested in why anyone in UK would have
a care of U.S. Gun Control. This is more than bizarre.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-control

.

unionised - 16-6-2013 at 06:17

OK, so on one hand, the evidence says that, for example, reducing the magazine capacity reduces harm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380814/?page=2
but the the sheriffs say
"Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the
maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law
enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will
unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It
bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not
make New Yorkers or our communities safer."

So, the police are not following the evidence.
No great shock.
However this is a science website: shouldn't we go with the evidence rather than the gut feelings of the sheriffs?

hyfalcon - 16-6-2013 at 07:16

Hard to do on a highly charged EMOTIONAL topic such as this. When the phrase, " God, family, guns and country," are your perceived most important ideals, then logic takes a back seat to emotion MOST of the time.

watson.fawkes - 16-6-2013 at 07:36

OK, so on one hand, the evidence says that, for example, reducing the magazine capacity reduces harm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380814/?page=2

That's not what that letter says at all. (It's a letter, not a peer-reviewed article, but that makes no difference here.) There's no mention of any kind of harm to human life or health in the article. What's being measured it confiscations of contraband weapons called by the MD term of art "assault pistol", a term rare enough I had to look it up in the MD code. There's no mention at all of how this all affected violence and harm.

And it's not like it was a particularly significant class of weapons. At its height, this class only consisted of 2.5% of all weapons confiscations. It would quite a stretch to claim that this particular kind of weapon, regardless of its scary name, is hugely more lethal than any other. Regardless, this letter presents no evidence about this issue at all.

So, the police are not following the evidence.
No great shock.
However this is a science website: shouldn't we go with the evidence rather than the gut feelings of the sheriffs?

"Evidence"? That's quite an elevation of something it's not.

Look, I don't care if it's laziness, disregard, or bad faith, but you're letting your side down. Violence is a serious issue, and it deserves serious arguments, made with care and good faith. And it needs those arguments on both sides.

unionised - 16-6-2013 at 08:59

Feel free to find better evidence, but at least I tried.

[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: removed unnecessary quoting]

[Edited on 7/8/13 by bfesser]

Pulverulescent - 16-6-2013 at 09:04

Sound of the Gun!
They don't ma . . .

watson.fawkes - 16-6-2013 at 11:00