The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
You forgot to post part IV.
Well, don't feel bad, Kevin. Bill Whittle's more eloquent than pretty much anyone. ;) We need more of him.
Mr. Whittle reinforces his argument, as should we all, by clear, unapologetic reference to The Pilot Program.
Pilot program? Yes, because it was child's play when compared to the gun-monopolizing, global state's goal, as set down by their radical green priests.
Bah. I still want to see your post.
I still want to finish it.
A post or three ago, I commented on the clear thinkers and writers you have in the US. Based on what I had read of his, Bill was one of the people I had in mind.
This is the first time I have heard him speak. Superb, and my fellow countryman James Kelly is adequately answered. He might not, probably will not see it, but poor-in-spirit people controllers are always with us.
Kevin, with all due respect, is that it? All this talk of an "uberpost" that you've apparently needed five months to get just right - and what we end up with is twenty-one words and an embedded video from some random guy on YouTube, that in any case relies on eccentric and self-contradictory arguments that I've already dealt with many times over?
My ten-question challenge -
UNANSWERED after FIVE MONTHS
I'll tell you one thing that speaks far more eloquently than Bill Whittle - the silence of Mr Kevin Baker. For the record, it didn't go unnoticed -
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that Kevin is somehow beholden to provide you an answer within the timeframe you consider to be reasonable.
You are wrong, and laughably so.
Speaking more generally, I would imagine that any author would be less than enthused at the prospect of investing considerable time and effort into writing something that he or she knows will have absolutely no impact on its intended audience... and I can only imagine that that enthusiasm wanes even farther when the audience in question exposes itself as having the maturity of a three-year-old ("I want it Daddy, and I WANT IT NOW!").
Linoge, old chum, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote below you'd have realised that I actually made a point opposite to the one you clearly wish I'd made - namely that it's entirely Kevin's prerogrative if he wants to respond at all. But I also pointed out that given his track record of heaping bile and scorn by the bucket-load on anyone he deems to have run away from debate, it's entirely appropriate to note when he appears to be doing just that himself. Now, if as he says below he still intends to respond properly, then fair enough - but I think I can be excused for misinterpreting this 21-word joke of a post as Kevin's definitive response given that it was entitled 'My Response to James Kelly'.
As for my weariness about devoting time and effort to writing lengthy responses to immature people with their fingers stuck in their ears, you're bang on, sunshine - but honestly, I can cope.
... but I think I can be excused for misinterpreting this 21-word joke of a post as Kevin's definitive response given that it was entitled 'My Response to James Kelly'."
Read the title of Kevin's post and what immediately follows it. Here; I'll quote it for you (emphasis added):
"My Response to James Kelly ... which is seriously overdue, provided by Bill Whittle:"
Y'see, you DID misinterpret Kevin's post, right from the start.
Now, what did Kevin do? He let Bill Whittle 'splain things, and he 'splained why:
"Bill is, as always, so very much more eloquent than I.
It has long been Kevin's practice, admitted many times in plain English, to quote a person whose statements are more eloquent than his while giving proper credit therefor. This is yet another instance, albeit in video form.
And, he's right; Bill Whittle is quite eloquent, and brief, too. Even so, it's a lot more than 21 words, and it's not a joke.
DJ, I know we're two countries divided by a common language, but I'm struggling to understand what you're getting at there. Are you suggesting this 21-word post (plus the YouTube link) does indeed constitute Kevin's definitive response? If so, it directly contradicts what he says himself downthread.
"DJ, I know we're two countries divided by a common language, but I'm struggling to understand what you're getting at there."
It's plain English. Read it again.
"Are you suggesting this 21-word post (plus the YouTube link) does indeed constitute Kevin's definitive response? If so, it directly contradicts what he says himself downthread."
No, and I didn't imply that it was, either.
I'm saying that Kevin's post included Bill Whittle's video, and doing so is no different from quoting the written words of someone else. Thus, his post is hardly a "21-word post", which you have repeatedly stated that it is.
Oh, and that "random guy on YouTube" is, once again, Bill Whittle. There is nothing even slightly random about him in these woods.
DJ, a post containing 21 words is a 21-word post. Even by the logic-bending standards of this site's community, you'll be hard-pressed to 'reason' your way out of that one.
"DJ, a post containing 21 words is a 21-word post."
James, a post containing a video also contains the contents of the video.
"... you'll be hard-pressed to 'reason' your way out of that one."
I did reason my way out of that one. But, of course, you cannot agree, which is not surprising at all.
DJ, as I said (accurately) in my original comment that this post was "twenty-one words and an embedded video", I'm not entirely sure what you think you've proved. But whatever it is, you seem to be enjoying it immensely, so who am I to spoil your misplaced fun?
"I'm not entirely sure what you think you've proved."
Which is also not surprising at all.
Hmmm ... there's a fractal in there somewhere, methinks.
" if you'd bothered to read what I wrote below you'd have realised that I actually made a point opposite to the one you clearly wish I'd made "
If you had bothered to read what you wrote immediately above, you would realize that you actually made exactly the point I observed you making. You have acted like a spoiled, petulant little brat, and are continuing to do so, over the very thought that Kevin might possibly be ignoring you (despite the fact that he has made multiple posts and comments over the past few months indicating that he has been working on the uber-post, but life has been getting in the way). It is not my fault that you seem to relish, with unholy glee, the opportunity to contradict yourself at every available opportunity - that fault is yours.
" it's entirely appropriate to note when he appears to be doing just that himself."
Which, again, just goes to show how little you pay attention to this weblog, despite your oh-so-aggrieved, "I keep checking and I see nothing," bullshit.
"As for my weariness about devoting time and effort to writing lengthy responses to immature people with their fingers stuck in their ears, you're bang on, sunshine "
Hypocrisy, narcissism, projection, hubris, self-fellation, and a self-serving, malicious misrepresentation of what was written - what an accomplishment for you, James, to fit all of that in one single sentence. I can hardly blame anyone for not bothering to waste their time on you.
Linoge, gentle word of warning from an old friend - you are in severe danger of making a complete piffling fool of yourself here. Now, there is a problem with this Echo system that comments do not appear in chronological order - but, nevertheless, it's a matter of record from the time-stamps that I made perfectly clear at an early stage in this exchange that I have only visited Kevin's blog TWICE since June - the first time was in September, the second was in October. So if you want to know about "misrepresentation", look no further than your claim that I said "I keep checking". During those two visits, I did, however, check the posts under tags that had previously been used for this discussion and as far as I could see there was no mention since June either of me or of any intention to still write the "Uberpost". Kevin has now made clear that he still will and that he's been too busy, which is absolutely fine - but my misinterpretation the other day was hardly inexplicable given that Kevin had just written a 21-word post entitled 'My Response to James Kelly'.
Now, when it appeared that Kevin wasn't intending to write a meaningful response, my criticism of him was not that he was "ignoring me" (again, your words, matey, not mine) but was instead hypocrisy and double-standards. Time and again on this site we've seen Kevin leading a campaign of spite, scorn, bile and mockery against anyone he deems (usually on the basis of very little evidence) to be running away from debate. Given your current fixation with references to childhood, I'll just say this - grow up, Linoge and friends. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back when it's more than warranted.
Now, before I forget, here's a detailed response to the Whittle video -
So if you want to know about "misrepresentation", look no further than your claim that I said "I keep checking".
Ah, so you did not write and, for that matter, link to two separate posts consisting of scant more than you whinging about checking Kevin's weblog, and finding neither hide nor hair of the uberpost.
I guess we can go ahead and add "liar" to your list of credentials as well, then? Or is this nothing more than your ongoing attempts to contradict the everloving hell out of yourself?
Now, when it appeared that Kevin wasn't intending to write a meaningful response...
And that, right there, is the problem, as I tried to tell you in my previous comment - you refuse to see anything that even remotely contradicts the, "ZOMG, I am being IGNORED" petulant bullshit you showered on us. Nowhere in the past five months has it "appeared" as though Kevin is not going to respond to you, simply because, as I stated above, he has repeatedly made mention of the uberpost and its stuttering progress over the past few months, not just "now". I have no idea why that is such a complicated concept for you to grasp, but there it is.
Your assumptions have been flawed from the very beginning, and continue to be so.
Really, a person who cannot even keep his own arguments consistent on a minute-to-minute basis, such as yourself, has absolutely nothing to offer to me. Speaking of, how is that violent crime rate in the UK doing?
Linoge, this is pretty basic stuff, but as you appear to be incapable of working out the blindingly obvious for yourself, I'll spell it out for you. I visited this blog twice, and after each occasion I wrote one post about what I saw here. Both posts did indeed start by noting that there was no sign whatever of the Uberpost after four months, or of any explanation as to its absence, but contrary to your assertion, neither post was principally concerned with that point. The one in September was about Kevin's bizarre post suggesting that Lucy Jones believed that people should "lie back and think of England" when being attacked, and the one in October was about his rant in the direction of Alan C Baird.
It's categorically and demomstrably untrue that either post stated that I'd been constantly scouring Kevin's blog for any sign of the uberpost - indeed the September post makes clear that the complete opposite is true:
"I've just had a peek at Kevin Baker's blog for the first time in a few months, because I was slightly curious to discover whatever had become of that latest killer "Überpost" we were promised back in June. I didn't really think it could have come and gone without me noticing (I usually get a brief, tell-tale influx of American traffic) but I just wanted to be sure. As it turns out, not a trace of it, nor of any explanation as to its mysterious ongoing absence (he did say it was going to be somewhat delayed but I didn't think he meant four months) but it seems Kevin has been keeping his beady eye on the British media all the same."
Now I don't want to follow you down the immature path of chucking words like "liar" around, but tell me, Linoge - what would you call someone who makes statements of 'fact' that are categorically and demonstrably untrue?
I've already pointed out that "I'm being ignored" were your words, and did not reflect not the sentiment I was expressing (and also why they didn't), so the fact that you've just repeated it unaltered as if your point has in some way been proved makes me wonder - if I may say so - if I am in fact talking to a petulant three-year-old with his fingers stuck in his ears.
And, incidentally, why is it such a complicated concept for you to grasp that, after a reasonably thorough search, I could see no sign of these "repeated mentions" of the uberpost over "the past few months" - indeed, none at all since June? Do they actually exist? Don't want to doubt you, old boy, but on past form...
It's categorically and demomstrably untrue that either post stated that I'd been constantly scouring Kevin's blog for any sign of the uberpost ...
That is great. That is also not something I accused you of. For someone who is so very concerned over what a person's words are or not, you surely do love your strawmen. Consistent, much?
what would you call someone who makes statements of 'fact' that are categorically and demonstrably untrue?
"James Kelly". What else?
I've already pointed out that "I'm being ignored" were your words,
A point I have never disagreed with, you would note (if you were not so busy pulling a priceless "methinks he dost protest too much" moment).
and did not reflect not the sentiment I was expressing
Speaking of "categorically and demonstrably untrue"...
if I am in fact talking to a petulant three-year-old with his fingers stuck in his ears.
What was that about "your current fixation with references to childhood" again? Whoopsies.
Do they actually exist?
Yes. But, unfortunately, Echo blows chunks when it comes to searching comments. But, hey, hurling specious, backhanded accusations is way easier than going looking for yourself.
You're flailing, Linoge, and I suspect you know it. I see you've gone off on yet another rant downthread, so once I've dealt with that, I'll do the decent thing and quietly leave you to your own private grief.
"... what we end up with is twenty-one words and an embedded video from some random guy on YouTube..."
Dont' flatter yourself, Jimmy.
No one knows who YOU are, either.
No one knows what you look like, nor can they associate your name with something notable in another field (Noam Chomsky, for instance, seems to think that since he's considered THE authority on linguistics, that he can transfer his "thinking" and public image upon us all, with regards to politics).
You are a nobody, and will always be, so don't, even for an instant, think of yourself as someone whom everyone should no about.
Since you obviously put a lot of value into the idea of "who someone is," instead of the argument being presented, YOUR argument holds no weight either.
Get in now, moron?
"No one knows what you look like"
Except for the photo on my blog and Twitter feed, you mean?
Right, because no one has used a fake photograp on the intertubes.
But by all means, grab those goalposts and run! Run, James, run!
Avoid the actual argument, too, while you are at. You seem to specalize in missing the point.
Someone criticises me because "no-one know what I look like", I point out that it isn't true because I've publicly posted a photo of myself, and then you tell me that I'm missing the point?!?! As the rest of the post in question was just a pointless, rambling insult (which appeared to be based on the risible premise that I've set myself up as being on a par with the likes of Noam Chomsky), I hope for everyone's sake that I didn't miss the point.
(which appeared to be based on the risible premise that I've set myself up as being on a par with the likes of Noam Chomsky)
Based on that parenthetical alone, you just confirmed that you did, indeed, miss the point. Good show.
Ah, the delights of the KBFC! Never explain something to the outside world when it's much easier to just smugly share the joke with each other. Never mind, Linoge - the fact that you appear to be cheerleading for a comment that ended with the word 'moron' confirms a great deal about you.
But, but, but... James, you are always right, in all cases, and in all situations, and you automatically grasp onto whatever the arugment is, and bring your inimitable and ohsovery gloriously RIGHT logic to bear in all cases, and you can hardly miss out on anything at all, ever, so why should we ever need to explain anything to you? I mean, you are always right, in all cases, because you say so, so obviously I am wrong here.
Not so much.
Let me break it down for you, since you patently refuse to apply the necessary mental horsepower to figure it out on your own (or you just lack the ability, which is always an option): You attempted to dismiss Bill Whittle's video on the sole basis that he was just, and I quote, "some random guy on YouTube". Theirritablearchitect turned that exact argument around, and applied it directly to you - after all, you are just some random guy on the internet, so who should give a crap what you have to say?
Unsurprisingly, you not only completely missed the point, you instead chose to wholeheartedly latch on a completely tangential point that only seved as an illustration, not an accusation.
As I said before, you have absolutely nothing to offer me - you cannot even understand the English language, cannot even keep your own story straight, and cannot even comprehend your own "logic" when it is applied against you. Worse yet, you get militantly offensive and aggressive when people point this out to you.
You know what? You are right. On all counts. It is just not worth dealing with you any more. So, hey, you win - that is exactly what you wanted, right?
Linoge, I presume (although there are times when I wonder) that all this huffing and puffing is intended to try to convince your wider audience - and perhaps yourself - that you genuinely believe something that you know in your heart of hearts to be unlikely, namely that my comment "a random guy on YouTube" was intended as some kind of serious assessment of this chap Whittle's worth as a commentator. But if, by some chance, you really do literally believe all the high-minded guff you've been spouting, I'll once again patiently try to explain the blindingly obvious to you. I was merely trying to convey bemusement that after stating that he needed more time to get his "Uberpost" in response to my series of posts "just right", Kevin had come back after five months with a post that could reasonably assumed from the title to be his definitive response, and which consisted of 21 words and a link to a video by someone else. Anyone other than Kevin would have been fairly 'random' in the circumstances - although the fact that it was someone who I suspect even most people in your country would never have heard of is, I suspect, why the phrase "some random guy" has hit such a nerve.
Linoge, consider that he lives six time zones east of here (well, east of Oklahoma, anyway). Now, check the times of his responses. He just responded at 9:32 PM, my time, which is (unless I am mistaken), 3:32 AM, his time. He's just in it for the noise (and he wonders what I get out of it), but it appears to be important enough to him to lose sleep over.
DJ, I believe in your country, just like mine, it's not unheard of for people to have good reasons to keep odd hours. I can assure you I'd be up anyway. Nice try, though.
"I can assure you I'd be up anyway."
Well, that's why I said it "appears to be" important enough for you to lose sleep over. Nice try, though.
Either way, I know I need to work on that whole "Don't feed the trolls" bit... sorry.
If I'm supposed to be the 'troll' you might want to start by having a word with Kevin. There was always the vague possibility I might have a view to express on a blog post with my name in the title.
How many questions can you ask that are largely rhetorical? How many straw-man arguments can one man construct to support his position? : / sigh.
"How many questions can you ask that are largely rhetorical?"
Now, that sounds suspiciously like a variant on the fabled 'reasoned dicourse'. Find the questions a bit awkward? Let's pretend they were never asked. Or that they're not legitimate. Or that they're just beneath your dignity to answer. Or something.
"How many straw-man arguments can one man construct to support his position?"
Which was broadly my own response to the Whittle video when someone posted it on my blog a couple of hours ago -
"Now, that sounds suspiciously like a variant on the fabled 'reasoned dicourse'. Find the questions a bit awkward? Let's pretend they were never asked. Or that they're not legitimate..."
Well, while we're at it, tell me, Jimmy, should anyone BE addressing a question that isn't legitimate?
I'm not going to engage in answering a question, just because you say so.
Think about that one, Al Gore.
James--I imagine the more snark is packed into your riposte the more time it takes to filter the bullshit and put together a response.
van der Merwe, again with respect, you'd be hard-pressed to credibly dispute that the modest level of 'snark' that I've given back doesn't even begin to match what's been doled out from the general direction of this site over the last eighteen months.
Incidentally, I'm quite happy to concede that it's entirely Kevin's prerogrative if he doesn't want to answer my questions - I'm sure he's a busy man with lots of things to fill his time. But given the scorn ("reasoned discourse", etc) he's repeatedly heaped on anyone who he charges with shying away from debate, I don't think it's inappropriate to at least note in passing that this is exactly what he appears to have done himself in this case. Five months? Come on.
But given the scorn ("reasoned discourse", etc) he's repeatedly heaped on anyone who he charges with shying away from debate, I don't think it's inappropriate to at least note in passing that this is exactly what he appears to have done himself in this case.
James, Reasoned Discourse™ is a very specific charge - closing comments at a minimum, consigning comments to the memory hole at worst. You've demonstrably done one of those, I have not.
You have, however, a point concerning my lack of response. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I have reasons, but no excuse. I will say that I've started and restarted that essay about a dozen times now, each time in the full knowledge that the target of the post will be oblivious to it. But I made a promise, and I intend to keep it. When it's done - whenever that is - you'll be the first person I contact.
It's nice to see, however, that I've had such an effect on you! You've been repeatedly visiting TSM and writing posts about what you've seen here! Thanks for the traffic.
Sorry if I can't say I've returned the favor, though.
Kevin, mate, that little moment of triumph would have worked so much better if you hadn't actually a) just visited my blog, and b) and written a post two days ago that directed traffic to it, albeit indirectly - that was the only reason I knew you had 'responded' (ahem) to me. I, for my part, somehow managed to tear myself away from your blog between June and September, and what finally brought me back for a couple of brief visits was a nagging curiosity about two very simple questions - Uberpost???? Where???? But, yes, it's true that while I was here I spotted a couple of your more exotic posts that gave me something to write about when nothing much was happening in Scottish politics - so I'm happy to return the compliment by saying "thanks for the inspiration, Kevin".
As for Reasoned Discourse, it seems to mean whatever you say it means on any given day. You've clearly previously blocked people from responding to you, given that you volunteered to Alan C Baird in your bizarre rant to him that you "think" you have "only" banned two commenters. I say that again - BANNED.
Did you hurt yourself while patting your own back? ;)
Yes, I just visited your blog. You did just put not one but two links in a comment, did you not?
Yes, in seven years I've banned two people from commenting here. One of them I invite you to do a Google search on: JadeGold (one word) - perhaps the single most banned troll on the internet. The second was Billy Beck, someone I think you'd find more objectionable than you find me, though I have since rescinded his ban. But I don't close comment threads, and I don't erase comments (other than obvious spam). Banning abusive individuals is just good housekeeping.
Again, when I finish my post, Über- or not, I'll contact you directly and let you know. You may count on that.
"Did you hurt yourself while patting your own back?"
No, Kevin, he broke the fucker with his self-congratulatory celebration.
As for Reasoned Discourse, it seems to mean whatever you say it means on any given day.
Here, allow me to assist you...
1) How many of the attempted crimes allegedly foiled were actually genuine? This is the most obvious question to ask about a self-reporting survey in which the respondents' word is simply "taken for it", ie. the figures do not appear to be based on police records or any other documentary evidence. As the supposed methods for foiling crimes include something as vague as "scaring people off" with a gun, it does not inspire huge confidence that the alleged crime victim will always have got to the point of objectively establishing that a crime is actually occurring - they may in some cases simply have convinced themselves that this was the case.
Since many CRIMES themselves are subjective in nature- for example, here in America "assault" is wholly in the mind of the assaulted; if you feel as if you are being threatened in a any way, you HAVE been assaulted! - the reporting of these crimes must therefor also be wholly subjective. Since the crime itself may be difficult if not impossible to substantially "prove", asking if "objectively establishing" that a crime has occurred is a moot and foolish point. Battery, on the other hand is easy to prove, but how do you prevent battery if you actually have to get hit to have the crime committed? Ah, you cannot. Thus, subjective reporting of "foiled crimes" is really the only way to get the data, short of putting up camera everywhere (1984-style; which your country is making an admirable attempt at doing, I might add).
2) How many of the attempted crimes were serious and how many were petty? Obviously hugely significant given the claim that Nate is making - that 108,000 'crimes prevented' can be meaningfully weighed against 12,000 people per year murdered with a gun.
DOES IT REALLY MATTER? If a serious crime is, say, murder, and a "non-serious" crime is simple assault, are you saying it's OK with you that people get assaulted? Without being to show you statistics (for the reasons listed in my response to #1 above), let's just say 10% of those would be serious crimes - like say murder - then we have "saved" as many murders as are "caused" (althought I do believe myself that people cause murder, not handguns). The question here is not if they prevent "petty" vs. "serious" crimes; the question is do handguns SERVE A LEGITEMATE PURPOSE. If any of the previous paragraph rings true to you, then they DO, and you are incorrect in your conclusions.
3) How many of these crimes could and would have been averted anyway, without the use of a gun? Again, this fundamentally challenges the credibility of the conclusions Nate feels able to draw from the report. It stretches credulity to suggest that a significant number of these 108,000 incidents would not have been stopped by another method - in the UK, members of the public without guns prevent both petty and serious crimes every day of the week.
Straw man alert! "...in the UK, members of the public without guns prevent both petty and serious crimes every day of the week." I am sure they do... Just as there are members of the public without guns who do the same thing here in America. The report is specifically speaking to those situations where a gun was involved in the prevention of crime; if you concede that there are people out there preventing crime *without* having to resort to using a gun then clearly there are people out there that *HAVE TO* use guns to avert crime, AND IN DOING SO SUPPORTS ONCE AGAIN THAT THOSE SAME GUNS HAVE A LEGITEMATE PURPOSE. Everything else is just argument as to the matter of degree of the need. And, when you consider that at least SOME "serious" crime (see response to #2) must have been averted by the use/presence of a gun, then once again we come full circle to "legitemate purpose". If lives can be taken by criminals then lives can therefore also be saved by good people - or is that too farfetched an idea?
Response here -
4) How many of these alleged crimes would have been attempted had it not been for the prevalence of guns in American society? There is absolutely no meaning in suggesting that legal firearms helped you prevent a crime, if the general legality of firearms caused - either directly or indirectly - that crime to be attempted in the first place.
WRONG. Because using ANY FIREARM in the commission of ANY CRIME is ANOTHER CRIME in and of itself. That's like suggesting that the automobile is illegitemate because they are sumetimes used in crime, or that steak knives shoudl be outlawed because they, too, are sometimes used in crime. The existence and presence of firearms, cars, or steak knives DO NOT CAUSE CRIME. To suggest so simply illustrates the depth of your ignorance. PEOPLE have morals, moral and immoral behavior, and inanimate objects cannot be the ends, only the means. If the ends are sufficiently motivated, either by violence, greed, or any other human failing, the means becomes irrelevant. Assaulting someone with a gun, steak knife, and car are all considered "assault with a deadly weapon, and we don't charge the weapon in court.
5) How many guns start off as legal but end up being held illegally? This is related to the above point, because if the wide legal availability of (and therefore demand for) guns leads to a massive increase in the number of illegal weapons in play for criminal purposes, it follows almost inevitably that a proportion of the 'crimes prevented' with guns would not have been attempted in the first place had a gun ban been enforced. This is one question that I actually found a partial answer to by reading other sections of the report Nate had linked to, and I think this extract speaks for itself -
"A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun. Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually."
This question is completely unrelated to the stated purpose of the list, which is to bring into question whether or not firearms (handguns in particular, I think) have a legitemate purpose. And, once again, stealing a gun, knowingly possessing a stolen gun, and using a gun in crime is still criminal, and it's not the gun's fault. I don't blame the internet for the idiotic opinions some people express, I blame the person. Once again, if a steak knife has a legitemate purpose, but is then stolen and used in a murder, does that obviate the legitemate purposes of all steak knives? The logic of your argument completely fails.
6) How many of the 'crimes prevented' can be put down to the values of a paranoid, brutalised society which teaches its children that the next threat is always round the corner, and that 'freedom' can only be won down the barrel of a gun? This is obviously a more intangible point, but it's nevertheless important because Kevin Baker in particular has spoken at great length about how differences in culture can massively affect outcomes in terms of crime. The weaponisation of society is clearly a significant factor in the prevailing culture, thus offering another plausible reason for theorising that a gun ban could have ensured that many of these crimes would not have been attempted in the first place - further calling into question Nate's assumption that these were 108,000 incidents that would have been crimes had a gun ban been in place.
The purpose of the legalization of firearms here in the USA is to ensure that the balance of the power rests in the hands of the people. Your folks once threw off the yolk of English repression, did they not? Did they use "legal" weapons (sticks and fists, perhaps?), or was the possession of the swords, spears, etc. used to fight those battles then considered unlawful by the rule of the oppressor? The Framers knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they put right in the Bill of Rights the assertion that the PEOPLE had a RIGHT to "keep and bear" the most deadly piece of military hardware of the day. You might not agree with that assertion, you clearly do not like it, but the fact remains that is OUR supreme law of the land, and it was imagined and included by people far superior in moral character than you or I.
And the last:
7) How many people were unnecessarily killed or injured by someone 'defending themselves'? This is a question that particularly troubles me given the rather broad definition of legal killing the US authorities seem to use.
Once again, pretty irrelevant to your question of "legitemate purpose" (see other responses above), unless of course you are trying to assert that even ONE life lost to a firearm is too many. In which case you better get your efforts off this topic and work instead to make your own country safer by banning cars, fatty food, and smoking, which each kill more people every year than firearms do (and that's even without accounting for the "saved" lives, which really should be subtracted off that total).
8) How many guns being used for defensive purposes have been wrested away and used by an attacker? In these instances people arming themselves with a gun have simply put themselves and others in far more danger.
Irrelevant. How many people in the UK have been bludgeoned toi death by items found in the home? Probably a higher number than this question purports to examine. See response to #7.
9) How many accidental shootings have there been from guns that were used carelessly, or not stored properly? Not related to crime, but these numbers would clearly offset any benefit Nate is claiming from gun legality.
Once again, not relevant to the report as referenced, however I will have to agree that many, if not all of these incidents are tragic and most likely preventable. How many deaths are caused by inattentiveness behind the wheel, or by drunk driving?? Many, many more, and I don't see you campaigning for the banning of alcohol or the government to require the installation of a breathalyzer in all new autos (although now that I have typed that I can see that coming to the nanny state nearest you, soon). LEGITEMATE PURPOSE - something I believe I have already established in #1-#5 responses, does not get erased by problems caused by misuse and abuse of inanimate objects by careless people.
10) How many suicidal people have found a quick and easy way out due to having a gun handy, when otherwise they might have stopped to think for longer and found a better solution? Similar to number 9, and again I actually found an answer to both of these questions in the report -
"Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger. For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger."
In other words, twice as many deaths by gun in these categories than even the sky-high homicide-by-gun rate.
**If you care to explore the question, as I am not going to provide references, but in my psychology education for professionals involved in the treatment of those suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis (who as a group constitute the vast majority of people who commit suicide), people who WANT to commit suicide will FIND A WAY. Does the availability of a firearm make it easier? Absolutely. But once the decision is made, those people make it happen. Ironically, people who really, really, want to kill themselves find the quickest, most painless way to kill themselves. Guns fill that bill. And, if you really explore the subject (which I unfortunately was required to do), people who use a firearm to self-terminate are less likely to cause harm to others in the process. As it is quick and clean, unlike cutting, drug overdose, crashing a car, or jumping from a height, where all too often innocent bystanders or public safety personnel go in harms way, get injured, and die, while trying to save someone else's life. Ever hear of "death by cop". Becoming quite popular, since you don't have to pull the trigger yourself...
10) [continued]All of these questions are, I think, perfectly logical, and to be frank it's not possible to make much sense of the study without answers to them. But although Nate (to be fair) addressed some of them later, his first reaction was instead to call into question my reasons for asking them -
**Most of your questions are absent ANY logic, although even after spending a bit of time here putting up responses, as Kevin says, will not put a single dent in your opinion.
Oh, that's nice. Beyond firearms, it hits many topics both consciously and not. I gotta try and figure out how to get this embedded into my blog. I am 100% certain you would not mind.
You are correct. Repost away.
Find the questions a bit awkward? Let's pretend they were never asked. Or that they're not legitimate.
Which is your MO, James.
But you'll be glad to know that the latest death we're discussing here was kids stomping another kid to death - the preferred gang execution style of the UK - with no icky guns around.
What a win for you!
As for Reasoned Discourse, it seems to mean whatever you say it means on any given day.
More projection from you. This been explained to you on this site and your site multiple times, but like "innocent", you just make up your own definition.
It's par for the course with you, James. You can't argue honestly, so you argue dishonestly, and accuse others of lying.
You've clearly previously blocked people from responding to you, given that you volunteered to Alan C Baird in your bizarre rant to him that you "think" you have "only" banned two commenters. I say that again - BANNED.
Yep. Two. Who were warned of their behavior. Their *comments* are *still here*, though. Nothing was deleted. Just further commenting banned.
And it wasn't because they were getting the best of anybody, much less Kevin, in debate.
But I'm sure you can just make up something to fit your mental image in rebuttal - it's what you do.
In terms of "snark"? Well, considering the level of dishonesty exhibited by yourself, and hypocrisy, I'd say snark is the best you can expect. Yes, yes, yes, I know, all lies by me. Right.
But see, James, here's the thing: I don't have to make up scenarios to defend my worldview. You do. You admitted have a couple of facts you'll point to unfailingly (per-capita numbers), but you can't analyze them into *rates* and *percent changes*, which is really telling, both for your worldview, and your policy.
You can't deal with the fact that those large numbers you like to cite are skewed by policies - largely administered by people who think like you do.
But the worst part of all, James, is that with you, it comes down to your feeling.
That's it. "I feel safer!"
But that's no prescription for a policy, because I don't. And that's where that will fail.
You demand that your feelings trump mine. And to support that, you'll shade the truth, outright deceive and project onto others motivations and intents - but then deny that what you're projecting might be wrong, or might even be more devastating to your argument if applied to more likely threats.
That's why Kevin's not writing *to* you. He's writing *about* you.
We can certainly debate my description of your methods and abilities. I think it's been well settled, personally, but if you insist. But I'll -again- point this out: your examples fall apart under scrutiny and investigation, and yet you insist on using loaded and incorrect descriptions to characterize them. In my mind, and most of us here, that's all that needs to be demonstrated.
Depriving Peter of his property on the grounds that Paul misused similar property is neither reasonable nor moral.
In addition, depriving Peter of his property on the grounds that Paul might misuse similar property is neither reasonable nor moral.
The simple fact is that our society gave the matter of prior restraint all due consideration, and ultimately, rejected the premise in favor of liberty, doing so at a fundamental level. To be certain, there are exceptions, but they are *exceptions*, not the general axiom, and more often than not, the exceptions made create greater problems than that which they tried to solve.
It's one of those first principle divisors: you either accept or reject the premise that society has the power to restrain *potentially* harmful verbs and nouns based on some theory they *might* be abused.
This very topic is one of the fault lines in our society, a vibrant conflict of ideas still very much in play.
A lot of effort in my reply, and no response from Mr. Kelly (been out of town, on vacation, so haven't been checking in to see).
I believe he responded at his site. You might want to go there.