Ayn Rand's Utopia

wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them.

That is a ridiculous comment, and typical of a left-wing loon.

But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

How would Aunt Minnie defend herself?

From whom?

wrote:
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?

Yes. Vermont is much more rural. Rural areas have less crime. Even in
Britain where there are no handguns and anyone shooting a burglar risks a
life sentence.

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 6:25:56 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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....

TO some other people, either directly or through government coercion.

(Fixed that for you!)

There are things like privacy,

That was recognized long ago, though perhaps not respected by busybodies such as yourself.

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?

A "right" to a "minimum standard of living" (whatever THAT is) or healthcare implies and imposes a duty/responsibility on someone else to provide.

Natural rights only call for a duty to -respect- others' natural rights.

You can speak, I can speak. (However, what I say makes more sense.)

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them.

That is a ridiculous comment, and typical of a left-wing loon.

But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

How would Aunt Minnie defend herself?

From whom?

Burglars, muggers, rapists, robbers, kidnappers...

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:16 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
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?

Most gun deaths are not murders.

Vermont firearms death rate 9.2 per 100,000

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/u...rms-death-rate

So as well as having the same murder rate as the UK you are nine times as
likely to be killed by a gun than you are to be murdered.

That's if you misuse it. Most people DON'T misuse their guns, yet they are still enjoying the deterrent effect that gun ownership provides.

Try to be logical.

wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 3:45:13 PM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins

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.

Vath, liberals have very poor reasoning powers. They love
apples-to-oranges comparisons. They live in a dream world. The law of
unintended consequences completely baffles them. Ultimately, they are hypocrites.

The USA has high rates of gun ownership.

The USA has very high murder rates.

See a correlation.

You might try using inductive logic to suggest that the high gun ownership
is one of the causes of the high murder rate.

Not proof but a good indication.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:18 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
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?

Yes. Vermont is much more rural. Rural areas have less crime.

That's because rural residents like guns.

Even in
Britain where there are no handguns and anyone shooting a burglar risks a
life sentence.

How do you know it's a burglar? Would shooting a would-be rapist be OK? How about a would-be murderer? Do you need to check with the intruder first? Do it matter if the intruder has a gun or other weapon? Oh, that's right guns are illegal in the UK, as is, presumably, burglary, rape and murder.

So in the UK you'll NEVER have to shoot an intruder, because there ARE no intruders!

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

Now, that being said, guns are good equalizers. For the most part that is a positive.

Rubbish!

Equality is a good equaliser,

Nonsense!

There are a few sub-cultures here which disdain the ideas of education,
hard work and polite behavior.

What do you expect me to do about that?

If they have guns they are equal to you by your definition.

By "equality" I presume you mean socio-economic equality. Perhaps you should be more clear and say what you mean.

What do you expect me to do about kids who won't do their homework and then drop out of school?

wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

The problem of gun ownership is this; Only those who don't want guns should
be allowed to own them.

That is a ridiculous comment, and typical of a left-wing loon.

But we don't don't do that.
So in the UK we just ban handgun ownership. That does the job.

How would Aunt Minnie defend herself?

From whom?

Burglars, muggers, rapists, robbers, kidnappers...

Burglars : Burglar alarm, video cameras, security lights - all cheap.
Muggers: Is she wearing a holster or carrying a concealed weapon? Muggers
will attack from behind and she won't stand a chance.
Rapists - keep away from strange men.
Robbers - see muggers
Kidnappers: Is this likely for aunt Minnie? If she's rich enough to be
worth kidnapping her servants will deal with the kidnappers (unless she's
kidnapped by the servants). Best way not to be kidnapped is not to take her
yacht on a tour of East Africa or the South China Sea.

wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:50:18 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
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?

Yes. Vermont is much more rural. Rural areas have less crime.

That's because rural residents like guns.

Even in
Britain where there are no handguns and anyone shooting a burglar risks a
life sentence.

How do you know it's a burglar? Would shooting a would-be rapist be OK?
How about a would-be murderer? Do you need to check with the intruder
first? Do it matter if the intruder has a gun or other weapon? Oh,
that's right guns are illegal in the UK, as is, presumably, burglary, rape and murder.

So in the UK you'll NEVER have to shoot an intruder, because there ARE no intruders!

Shooting anyone would be the same crime. You are allowed to use reasonable
force. Shooting someone in the back or backside would probably not be
reasonable force because they are running away.

Carrying a handgun is, I think, a five year sentence.