US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The argument stands. You may feel that a ban on smoking is warranted, but honestly, you have a choice. You can choose to go to restaurants that are non-smoking, you can choose not to hang around people who smoke.

Heh, one problem: people who smoke hang around EVERYWHERE. Every time you go out the door at a public institution you have to run a gauntlet of people gabbing and blowing that crap into the air.

I'm not sure how you get from the point, "I don't want to breathe in carginogens from smokers", to the point, "they should be banned."

Simple. Smoking harms people against their consent without providing enough of a benefit to society to balance it out. I'm not sure how to make it any simpler than that.

Now if your argument is that there is still incidental contact, mine is even simpler. There are plenty of carcinogens in the air that you breathe that you have no choice. You have far more danger from car exhaust, then you have from incidental smoking, and I don't see you saying that all cars should be banned.

No, because cars are necessary for modern society to function, and there is no viable alternative at this point in time. Neither of those is the case for cigarettes. Nobody needs tobacco at all, and there are other options for nicotine delivery besides inhaling burnt tobacco-leaf fumes.

We don't ban speeding do we? We issue tickets. I don't see how your argument for an outright ban is anything more then an extension of the nanny state.

As Asher said, this is a phenomenally silly thing to say. I might just as well say that we don't ban drinking and driving; you just have to go to jail and lose your license if you do it.

And how do you get from there to saying all guns should be banned because some people may use them to commit suicide? It seems to me what you need instead is treatment to keep them from killing themselves.

Or maybe you should ban all knives because people could use them to stab themselves.

As a matter of fact, I don't think suicide is a particularly pressing reason for banning handguns. I'm not sure that they should be banned at all, though at the very least they ought to be strictly controlled. I was just saying that your arguments were absurd. I somehow can't picture a suicidal person saying, "it's time to end it all, I'm going to eat nothing but fried pork rinds from now on."

Also, knives have many uses besides killing things. Guns do not, and the handgun in particular has only two real advantages, portability and concealability, over other guns. The latter advantage makes them splendid murder weapons, which is why D.C. had the ban.

Is that why he's saying that handguns are particularly deadly to the black community?

A non-sequitor if I ever heard of one. I think Asher just has issues with guns and likes to take stuff away from people that he doesn't like.

Whoosh. I was merely commenting that it's "homicide," not "homocide." Also, there's no such thing as a "non-sequitor."

Oh, and can you cite the point in this argument where Asher was possessed by Jesse Jackson and complained about guns hurting black people specifically?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Ben has a valid point though.

Do you enjoy playing stupid?

[Dauphin]

It beats being stupid.

[Asher]

[RGBVideo]

Hey Asher, if you're actually interested in what kind of societal developement the liberal talking point of "increased gun control will decrease crime" eventually leads to, read up on how violent crime has increased in Great Britain during the last 10 years.

The politicians are now being tough on crime by talking about banning kitchen knives there, wtg

[Asher]

Originally posted by VJ
Hey Asher, if you're actually interested in what kind of societal developement the liberal talking point of "increased gun control will decrease crime" eventually leads to, read up on how violent crime has increased in Great Britain during the last 10 years.

The politicians are now being tough on crime by talking about banning kitchen knives there, wtg

I'm not sure what kind of idiot assumes that banning guns will eliminate violent crime or cause it to always decrease, but rest assured the only idiots making that point are the people using it as a strawman like yourself. WTG indeed.

There are many incredibly complex factors that go into violent crime rates.

By the way, did you look at the latest statistic?


Look at the UK murder numbers (in the graph here).

More statistics: UK murder rate is 1.1 per 100,000 per year, US murder rate is 5.4 per 100,000 per year. So as you warn about "violent crime increases" in the UK, why don't you do some common sense analysis and look at the difference in scale.

This graph shows the level of violent crime in the UK.


Look how much higher the violent crime count is in 2005 than 1995. You're so ****ing clueless, VJ.

Cite: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp

[Asher]

Some more UK stats for VJ.

Look at the effect of the lack of guns have had on burglaries. It's increasing at dramatic rates!

[RGBVideo]

I don't really care about arguing with people. Arguing with people on the intarwebs is like special olympics and we know the rest.

now ben seems to be his usual idiot in this thread. "teh JEBUS would like me to defend this viewpoint because it's pro-religious-right in the us and that conforms to my identity" and he's off to trying to come up on the spot with ad-hoc explanations to statistics he doesn't really understand

i just hope that you understand that making the ownership of guns illegal won't do anything to stop criminals from having guns. that's the #1 leak the "increased gun control will decrease crime"-talking point has, and that's why trying to combat violent crime by increased control on gun ownership will only lead to tragedy, just like it has in England ca 1998-2008.

[Asher]

i just hope that you understand that making the ownership of guns illegal won't do anything to stop criminals from having guns.

If that was explicitly true, gun death rate in the UK wouldn't be smaller than the US' by orders of magnitude.

Banning handguns won't stop every single criminal from owning guns -- no one made this claim. Reducing easy access and popularity of guns DOES reduce how MANY criminals have access to handguns.

Just take a look at how many murders/assaults occur with guns in the US vs in Canada, the UK, or any other western country. You can't tell me those gun death rates wouldn't decrease if you banned guns.

[RGBVideo]

i've already made up my mind years ago so you're wasting your time

cherry-picking statistics

first picking an ideological agenda and then bending reality to confirm it

[Elok]

Psst, VJ, Asher just posted several graphs contradicting you. You might want to address that in some fashion. Just a friendly suggestion!

EDIT: Okay, you did. Sort of. I dearly hope you're trying to sound silly with that response.

[Ben Kenobi]

Heh, one problem: people who smoke hang around EVERYWHERE. Every time you go out the door at a public institution you have to run a gauntlet of people gabbing and blowing that crap into the air.

"Go out the door".

So you are saying that the smokers all have to smoke outside and congregate at a specific area. I take it you aren't working inside with them. That's what I mean by incidental contact.

Are there no doors where the gauntlet doesn't exist?

Simple. Smoking harms people against their consent without providing enough of a benefit to society to balance it out. I'm not sure how to make it any simpler than that.

I'm afraid you've got the wrong understanding of rights. We have the right to do things that are harmful to ourselves, that is part of what liberty is all about. You seem to be saying that it is good to ban all smoking, everywhere, even in people's homes. How would you enforce this? Shut down the sellers? That would put them on the black market. Cut off vendors hands if they are caught selling smokes?

I really don't understand how otherwise reasonable people see smokers as a plague that ought to be eradicated.

No, because cars are necessary for modern society to function, and there is no viable alternative at this point in time.

So is liberty. If the government can tell us whether or not we can or cannot smoke, then what else can they take away from us. I don't know if you get it, but a government large enough to regulate these portions of our lives, can also restrict many other things they might actually like.

Neither of those is the case for cigarettes. Nobody needs tobacco at all, and there are other options for nicotine delivery besides inhaling burnt tobacco-leaf fumes.

Nobody needs a car Elok. Human society did just fine without them. People will not die if they cannot drive. Cars are a waste of resources, they pollute the air, and are a detriment to overall society.

It's either liberty or no liberty. People have the right to do things that harm themselves.

As Asher said, this is a phenomenally silly thing to say. I might just as well say that we don't ban drinking and driving; you just have to go to jail and lose your license if you do it.

Good point. So why do we treat speeding differently then drinking and driving? Whereas people have the right to do things that harm themselves, they do not have the right to do things that harm others.

Where is the harm to you if someone else chooses to smoke? You might breathe in the fumes if you pass by them in the morning? I don't feel that warrants the crusade against smoking.

I somehow can't picture a suicidal person saying, "it's time to end it all, I'm going to eat nothing but fried pork rinds from now on."

I can see a government banning and regulating the ingestion of 'bad' foods. The government wants us to be healthy and so it takes away our liberties in order to do so. It's happened up here, and I certain can see it coming in the future.

Also, knives have many uses besides killing things. Guns do not,

Self-defense is not a use of handguns? Again, not all encounters with handguns result in death, the vast majority actually do not result in anyone getting killed. So how can you say that killing people is the primary purpose of owning a handgun, when that is not the most common outcome of it's use?

and the handgun in particular has only two real advantages, portability and concealability, over other guns. The latter advantage makes them splendid murder weapons, which is why D.C. had the ban.

It also makes it very risky to mug someone if you know they have a weapon on them. Banning handguns has no effect on the criminals, they can still get the guns anyways, but it does prevent people from carrying them in self defense. You get the worst of both worlds.

Oh, and can you cite the point in this argument where Asher was possessed by Jesse Jackson and complained about guns hurting black people specifically?

Good question. The victims in the US are disproportionately black, so why hasn't Asher, the civil liberty crusader made any mention thereof?

[Asher]

Good question. The victims in the US are disproportionately black, so why hasn't Asher, the civil liberty crusader made any mention thereof?

Because it is irrelevant to the debate on a handgun ban? Honestly, Ben, WTF are you thinking?

It also makes it very risky to mug someone if you know they have a weapon on them. Banning handguns has no effect on the criminals, they can still get the guns anyways, but it does prevent people from carrying them in self defense. You get the worst of both worlds.

BAM.

Look at the UK statistics or Canadian statistics. Specifically, look at how many guns are committed with handguns (as a percentage) in the UK and Canada compared to the US. This claim is absolutely ridiculous, that all criminals can and will easily get guns and the only thing that'll change is the "good guys" don't have guns. Look at the stats, Ben. Just look at them. Just once. Once you look at the stats, see if you can find some common sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've seen them and cited them already Asher.

As you say there are many factors that are responsible for those shifts.

I would expect a secular decline, you look at the homicide rates, and the greatest factor is age. Young men between 15-25 are by far the most likely to commit homicide, and the less of a proportion they are, the lower the overall rates of incidence.

Demographics play the largest role, not the instruments involved. The argument in the UK is now they should ban knives, because they are the most likely weapon to be used in homicide. That tells me banning handguns will be ineffectual.

Look at your statistics, the rate in the UK is higher now, then when it was 40 years ago, and I daresay firearms were around 40 years ago.

[SlowwHand]

You can't ban people having handguns. If you did, it would have the same effect as a lock. It would keep honest people out.