Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:16:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:38:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is the owner is given instantly increased power
to be judge, jury and executioner while receiving little or no training [nor
screening] for any of these tasks.

You're absolutely correct. That is a real problem with gun ownership.

However, keeping guns out of the hands of honest citizens doesn't take them out
of the hands of criminals. And it's not as if most people can afford to hire
security guards who have been trained and screened and so on to protect them.


This is just a rehashing of NRA propaganda. Keeping guns out of the hands
of honest citizens will immediately reduce their chance of being killed by
a gun.

There's no proof of that.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 20:09:21 UTC+2, wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is

The only problem with gun ownership is that more people should own
guns.



The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them. But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

This isn't the UK.

But murders still happen in the UK.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Lord Vath wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 20:09:21 UTC+2, wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is

The only problem with gun ownership is that more people should own
guns.



The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them. But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

This isn't the UK.

But murders still happen in the UK.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

USA 4.7 per 100,000

UK 1 per 100,000

Lord Vath wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:16:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:38:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is the owner is given instantly increased power
to be judge, jury and executioner while receiving little or no training [nor
screening] for any of these tasks.

You're absolutely correct. That is a real problem with gun ownership.

However, keeping guns out of the hands of honest citizens doesn't take them out
of the hands of criminals. And it's not as if most people can afford to hire
security guards who have been trained and screened and so on to protect them.


This is just a rehashing of NRA propaganda. Keeping guns out of the hands
of honest citizens will immediately reduce their chance of being killed by
a gun.

There's no proof of that.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...l-reform-myths

An indication.

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:14:43 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

And I certainly prefer to
live in a society that has created such a government.

So do I.

So _much_ so, in fact, that I'm willing to argue for the concept of "natural
rights" in order to convince people that governments of the other kind don't
have the power to change what is right and wrong, and may therefore
legitimately be overthrown by force of arms.

So much so, that I would even do what was in my power to promote a fanatical
belief in the superiority of democracy as to make millions of people... willing
to slaughter other millions of people, if need be, that democracy will not be
destroyed.

John Savard

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:14:43 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

And I certainly prefer to
live in a society that has created such a government.

So do I.

So _much_ so, in fact, that I'm willing to argue for the concept of "natural
rights" in order to convince people that governments of the other kind don't
have the power to change what is right and wrong, and may therefore
legitimately be overthrown by force of arms.

The problem with "natural rights" is that the same concept you want to
use to limit what governments can do also limits what people can do.
There are things like privacy, or a minimum living standard, or health
care that were never dreamed of as rights a couple hundred years ago,
and which are now widely recognized as such. How do we draw the line
between "natural" and "man-made" rights?

I prefer to emphasize the concept of humanism, which takes a rational
approach to defining rights (and moral strictures) in a way that
maximizes human freedom and human happiness. That seems a far better
approach to creating a better society than arguing for a fictitious
concept like natural rights.

So much so, that I would even do what was in my power to promote a fanatical
belief in the superiority of democracy as to make millions of people... willing
to slaughter other millions of people, if need be, that democracy will not be
destroyed.

If that's what it takes to maintain democracy, I say good riddance.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:14:43 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

And I certainly prefer to
live in a society that has created such a government.

So do I.

So _much_ so, in fact, that I'm willing to argue for the concept of "natural
rights" in order to convince people that governments of the other kind don't
have the power to change what is right and wrong, and may therefore
legitimately be overthrown by force of arms.

The problem with "natural rights" is that the same concept you want to
use to limit what governments can do also limits what people can do.
There are things like privacy, or a minimum living standard, or health
care that were never dreamed of as rights a couple hundred years ago,
and which are now widely recognized as such. How do we draw the line
between "natural" and "man-made" rights?

I prefer to emphasize the concept of humanism, which takes a rational
approach to defining rights (and moral strictures) in a way that
maximizes human freedom and human happiness. That seems a far better
approach to creating a better society than arguing for a fictitious
concept like natural rights.

So much so, that I would even do what was in my power to promote a fanatical
belief in the superiority of democracy as to make millions of people... willing
to slaughter other millions of people, if need be, that democracy will not be
destroyed.

If that's what it takes to maintain democracy, I say good riddance.

How many would you be prepared to slaughter: one million,five million, one
hundred million, a billion, five billion, 20 billion?

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 3:51:59 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

USA 4.7 per 100,000

UK 1 per 100,000

Vermont, ~1 per 100,000.

Massachusetts has about 1/3 the gun ownership rate as Vermont, but has 6x the gun murders.

Massachusetts has about 1/3 the gun ownership rate as Vermont, but the about 3x the non-gun murders.

Might the availability of guns in Vermont be acting as a deterrent to violent crime, both directly and in-directly? Or do you have a different explanation?

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 5:20:21 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Lord Vath wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:16:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:38:46 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The problem with gun ownership is the owner is given instantly increased power
to be judge, jury and executioner while receiving little or no training [nor
screening] for any of these tasks.

You're absolutely correct. That is a real problem with gun ownership.

However, keeping guns out of the hands of honest citizens doesn't take them out
of the hands of criminals. And it's not as if most people can afford to hire
security guards who have been trained and screened and so on to protect them.


This is just a rehashing of NRA propaganda. Keeping guns out of the hands
of honest citizens will immediately reduce their chance of being killed by
a gun.

There's no proof of that.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...l-reform-myths

An indication.

No, a bloviation.

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:59:47 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

How about this one: two guys, both law abiding licensed to carry, shoot each
other in a road rage incident: http://kdvr.com/2013/09/19/angry-drivers-
both-licensed-to-carry-concealed-weapons-shoot-each-other/

Tailgating can be very dangerous.