A, hopefully, intellectual politics thread.

[Donnington]

Oringamly posted by Sasquatch
Because there have been areas -- like a handful of counties in Florida that I've personally read about, and I'm sure plenty more -- where firearms are mandatory, and that reduces crime rates dramatically.

I've done a little research on this matter and have found little evidence supporting the idea that Florida's drop in gun crime has anything to do with its gun laws.
Firstly the bill you are referring to came into effect early 2000 and between 200 and 2004there has been a drop in the crime rates. However it is interesting to note thae between 1994 and 2000 there was also a steady drop in crime. It appears that the recent drop in crime is actually of a trend as oppossed to the Bill.
Further more attributing the drop in crime rates to one law is ridiculas because that Bill wasn't the only government action being takken, In fact anti-gun action was afoot and is far more likely to be the cause of the drop in crime. This actions were the 2.7 million dollar campain about gun violence, the statement "Use a gun and you're done" was it's slogan. Also the Three Strikes rule came into effact in 1999 and merely having a gun in a crime is a can take you to strike two right away. So it's logical to assume that the lack of crime between 2000 and 2004 is a result of the lack of criminal, not the increase in guns.
As a final note Florida increased its police numbers by 6% leading up to 2000 while implementing 'none lethal police deterrents' such as the taser to replace guns.

I would also like to question who you would think should be allowed to carry a gun. You said law abiding citizens, but lets face it who really is such a person and how long will they stay that way?
Your average white suburban man may seem to be first choice but who's to say he won't commit a crime. Statisticaly he is less likely to than an inner city male surrounded by gangs, but that doesn't mean he can't or won't. By having guns you're providing a means to express violence, and by supporting guns you're also supporting violence.

Oringamly posted by Sasquatch
Have you ever seen a good-looking feminist? Ugly women who don't get the attention that average women get need to do something else for their attention

Yes, yes I have. I bet you want proof right? I'm asshamed to do this to these people just to prove a point, but I will if it'll shut you up.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ington/fem.jpg
I find nearly all of these woman attractive regardless of them being feminist

And as for you 'not' insulting people.

I do have respect for culture and civilization. What the Indians had was neither.

you've got your head up your ass on this one

Yes, hurricanes are intentionally named after women and homosexual men. Because they figured it would reflect how somebody that may be feminine can still have power.

I find all of these and many more of the things you say insulting.

[Sasquatch]

First of all, I wasn't referring to the crime rates in all of Florida, but in those specific counties where firearm ownership was made mandatory. The crime rate in surrounding counties actually increased, while the crime rate in those specific counties dropped. Because, like I said, criminals always prefer their victims to be unarmed. While crime rates in Florida have been through a steady decline, your numbers mean nothing (not to mention they're wrong, as the bill I was referring to came into effect long before 2000), as I was referring to crime rates by county. And, as I said, Florida was not the only state to do this.

"By supporting guns you're supporting violence" is just ignorant, I'm sorry. If you think that way, then we should ban kitchen knives, ropes, baseball bats, and medicinal drugs also, because somebody can use any of them to "express violence" and harm people -- and more people are killed by stabbing, suffocation, force trauma, and poisoning than by firearms. Giving a normal person a gun doesn't make them a violent criminal -- and violent criminals will find guns whether they're legal or not.

As for me not insulting people. If you find those quotes offensive -- which I don't really understand how you would, other than me telling somebody they've got their head up their ass, which is another way of saying they're ignorant -- then that's on you. But I haven't insulted anybody, other than to point out their ignorance. A lot of people are insulted when others realize they're full of it, that's not on me.

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Donnington

By having guns you're providing a means to express violence, and by supporting guns you're also supporting violence.

I agree with a lot of your post and thought your argument was really well-formed except for this quote I pulled out. That right there is a fallacy, and a huge one at that. Supporting guns does not equal supporting violence. To say that, you have to assume that all people own guns for the sole purpose of perpetrating violent crimes against one another. This simply is not true. People collect guns as a hobby, target shoot competetively, and hunt in designated and legal hunting seasons. To say that every gun owner is a violent person or supports violent behavior is sheer ludicrousy.

So please, don't say that guns=violence or that supporting gun ownership is supporting violence because although gun crimes do happen often, it cannot be said in absolute terms. It brings up the cliche "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's not redneck bias, it's true.

Anyway, bravo except for that last little bit.

Sasquatch, I can't fathom how you could say "Indians"(or I suppose Native Americans would be the people you're referring to) lacked(or lack because they still exist) a culture and civilization. What is your definition of culture and civilization, and please explain to me in depth how the Native American peoples lacked both. I seriously think I shat on myself a bit when I read that.

It's one thing to dispel liberal propoganda, which I'm all for, but saying far out(and yeah that's far out man, and I'm fawking right-wing for Christ's sake) things like that is another.

[Donnington]

Okay sorry Seraphim, guns don't automatically equal violence. People who own guns can be good honest people; I guess I went a little over board there. But so has Sasquatch;

Sasquatch
If you think that way, then we should ban kitchen knives, ropes, baseball bats, and medicinal drugs also, because somebody can use any of them to "express violence" and harm people -- and more people are killed by stabbing, suffocation, force trauma, and poisoning than by firearms. Giving a normal person a gun doesn't make them a violent criminal -- and violent criminals will find guns whether they're legal or not.

The purpose of kitchen knives is to prepare food.
The purpose of ropes is to secure things.
The purpose of baseball bats is to hit a baseball.
The purpose of Medical drugs is to save/ prolong lives.
Now what is the purpose of a gun? It is too harm that what was it was created to do. I'll admit practically anything in the house can be used to kill or harm someone but the difference is, is that house hold objects weren't created with such intent. Guns were.
That is why I said guns equal violence, because it is its nature. Guns aren't made to be collected, they aren't made to light up the dark for a few seconds, and they aren't made to permanently turn off a light. They are made to harm if not kill someone.

I'm sorry if I generalized my last point too much, but I do believe that guns at least lead to violence.

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Donnington

They are made to harm if not kill someone.

I'm sorry if I generalized my last point too much, but I do believe that guns at least lead to violence.

They were also made to shoot and kill animals to do this one thing... oh shit what was it called... OH YEAH! Eat... But then again a lot of people think it's wrong to do that too...

Why were bows and arrows made? Why were swords made? Why were ballistas and catapults and crossbows and seige machines made?

I will agree with you though, the purpose of a gun is to be shot at something. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else though. In a couple decades it could be lasers or some shit. Then we'll have anti-laser legislation sitting before Congress. Wouldn't that be wild?

Sasquatch I'm still waiting for you to explain that Native American stuff. I know you're out there, you're posting in other threads. Give me some support for that. I'm intensely anxious for you to explain to me how/why the Indians lacked culture and civilization. Naturally I expect more from you than, "because they did, it's just a fact."

[Sasquatch]

The purpose of a gun isn't to harm. That's just ignorant. That would be like saying the purpose of a knife is to stab, or the purpose of a rope is to strangle. And since more people are murdered by being suffocated or stabbed in America than shot, it would make just as much sense to outlaw knives or ropes. Yes, guns can harm, but that's not what they're designed for -- they're designed for defense, protection, recreation, and hunting. With few exceptions, of course. Just like how drugs (usually) aren't made to harm, they're made to save lives, or ease pain, or just to have fun.

On to Indians, or "Native Americans" (which I never agreed with -- their ancestors came over just like mine did, I'm a native American too). While not all were savages, it's unreasonable to think they all were civilized. While it's even a stretch to believe the Mayans and Aztecs, and other "civilizations" in what is now Mexico, were even civilized -- somehow, to me, civilization and the idea of sacrificing hundreds of innocent people at a time because it didn't rain last week are mutually exclisive -- at least they had irrigation and technology. The nomadic stone-age barbarians that most Indian tribes were didn't have those advantages.

Ann Coulter's quote concerned this. If we were "at one with nature", like people think the Indians were, we would be on the same level as the Indians -- which means we'd be nomadic stone-age barbarians.