[smacintush]

Originally Posted by kylef 

Whichever you like - the Taliban in comparison to the Afghan people;

At what point is the populace responsible for allowing evil people to control their country? At what point do you admit that while the average muslim might not do what the Taliban does…or Al Qaeda, or Hamas etc.… most are supportive at least implicitly if not explicitly? They are no more "victims" of radicals than we are "victims" of liberals or conservatives.

the number of gun owners out to do bad vs. the rest who have one for enjoyment.

As an addendum to my previous reply to you: The banning of guns is not in support of life, it is an infringement of ones right to defend their life. You should not be trying to invent new ways to restrict ones right to make their own judgements on the best way they can defend their own life and freedom, while doing what you can to encourage the culture of the country to respectful of life and less enamored with real violence. It is the culture that is the problem, not the availability of weapons. You could give a country like Japan un restricted access to guns tomorrow and they would not simply start killing each other. There would have to be a shift in culture for that to happen.

How many civilians have to die exactly?

Exactly the amount it takes to reconsider their choice of the kind of government that either attacks or supports the attacking of my country or it's citizens. No more, no less.

I find it so ironic that you say it is the "responsibility of their government" when you fail to recognize that responsible government provides more than defence for just its people: it provides safety, services, healthcare, you name it. You aren't defending yourself if you are killing every civilian out there who gets in your way - you're a callous attacker who fuels the enemy even more.

I'm not failing to recognize anything, I'm denying its relevance in the context of the attack of my country by their country.

The only goal that you should have in war is how to stop it.

Wars are not stopped by hope and good feelings. They are stopped by defeating totally those whom you are defending yourself against. This is the scenario that is least likely to allow such aggression to pop up again out of that country.

By your logic of "civilian casualties ... committing an act of aggression" that means you are personally responsible for, say, the 9/11 bombings because you are an American citizen. That is a ridiculous assumption; a dangerous stereotype that has no place in today's world.

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you are saying here.

Certain industries are suited to certain markets. Merit goods like healthcare and education aren't provided at the levels that they should be

In order to make this assertion you must first:
Define what the "proper" levels are and demonstrate how you came about these figures
Provide evidence that these goods are truly under represented by the markets
Demonstrate that free markets are the cause of such problems in light of the fact that actual free markets have never really existed beyond small scale community bartering systems, and that in the freest of markets around the world those merit goods you mentioned are among the most heavily controlled and manipulated.

What is provided is overpriced (look at the ridiculous premiums), and not enough is provided (the lack of preventive care, for one). Industries don't care about the long term problems because they're exactly that - long term problems passed on to the next generations. Overuse of foreign oil and man-made global warming (if you believe it) are two of many examples.

The problem isn't that markets can't solve these things, it's where your definitions of "proper" levels comes from.

In a truly free market, what would stop a company from providing healthcare coverage with preventative care for example? If it is truly what people wanted, they would be willing to pay for it and there would be someone there to provide that service as long as there were customers available.

This:

because, sadly, people value other things more (you need only look at the number of people without health insurance or a decent education to see this in real life).

Is just the thing.

If people don't give a crap about preventative care, what right do you have to force a company to provide it to them or to force it on them via universal care? Morally speaking, you have no right. Not to mention that one of the direct causes of high premiums is forcing companies to provide for myriad services, without the option of creating plans that don't. These things have not been legislated because they aren't being provided, they are legislated because someone made a moral judgement about the necessity of these services and forced them upon others.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by kylef 

1.7 million people live in Northern Ireland, 1 million people in Detroit, 3 million people in Chicago. These are not small, insignificant figures. DC is in poverty and NYC is the financial hub of the world, of course crime in those areas are going to be high.

You're just repeating the same old tired cliches that revolve around this subject like a mantra. It's hard to believe you're actually from Northern Ireland if you really believe the violence there is only about guns being legal or not. The populations of Detroit or DC has nothing to do with anything- and you're ignoring the fact that even in DC- a mecca of Politically Correct Braindeath- even there they've given up on the idea that banning guns decreases crime, after decades of the exact opposite being the case. Your head in the sand about it changes nothing.

And the old 'poverty causes crime' mantra is beyond played out. Even in this country, there have been times of gun ownership being far more common, greater poverty, and yet crime rates were lower. Around the globe it's easy to find areas of high poverty where violent crime is rare. The causes are more cultural than so easily explained away as merely a result of poverty.

And exactly how is it that you know this?

Because the facts and figures showing the high crime rates in the UK and Australia are easily obtained. You could even look it up rather than spew more cliches.

Yes - people are warding off guns with guns.

More power to 'em.

Like I said, fighting fire with fire.

Which is actually done all the time with fire lines and quite effective. Maybe you need to find a new cliche that ties in better with your anti-gun rhetoric.

If you ban guns, that means there will be less criminals with guns.

Yes, because criminals always care about what is banned. I bet if we banned crime, fewer criminals would commit crimes. Hey but wait a second... then why would we call them CRIMINALS? It's an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum!

I've linked sources to my articles to back up what I'm saying. Until you do the same for yours, how do you expect me to believe statements like "there are many crimes that are prevented by the presence of handguns". And even with statistics, we both know that crime cannot be isolated by gun statistics. Certain states have much higher poverty levels, much worse education standards ...

I haven't seen where you've proven jack- merely dredged up a bunch of tired cliches that even many of the most ardent anti-gun nuts have given up on. You haven't proven lower crime rates in the UK or Australia. You certainly haven't proven that violence in Northern Ireland has a thing to do with gun bans. Something tells me bombs, tossed rocks, Molotov cocktails, etc. are illegal in Northern Ireland, and thank goodness! Otherwise someone might have used these to kill someone else. There goes the neighborhood.

50 000 people died last year in the US. You call this a rare event? You need a reality check.

The overall murder rate in the US last year was 0.042802 per 1,000 people. In the UK it was 0.0140633 per 1,000 people.

Examine the details of most and you'll find very few that were just people out for a stroll in a small town or decent neighborhood being killed at random. That's simply not something most people really worry about- and yes Virginia, even most residents of Chicago and Detroit. Since lifting their failed gun bans, more people in D.C. and NYC may get the chance to join that crowd as well.

Guns have no other productive use whatsoever than to kill.

Again, since many crimes are prevented or lessened just by the mere presence of guns, this statement simply isn't true. You can hold your breath, stomp your feet, and insist that it is, but that won't change anything. And once again, all of this has been hashed over a gazillion times before.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

As has been discovered in the UK, removing firearms from the common man's possession simply means that he's defenseless against criminals who can get guns. And if you do so much gun confiscation to make it hard for even determined criminals to find guns, they'll get machetes, axes, swords, etc. and still terrorize the populace. Oh, and kudos for the Crown for making people who try to defend themselves victims a second time and prosecuting them for self defense. Obviously this level of gun control has not had the stated desired end product of lower crime. It has merely changed the methods by which criminals conduct their illegal business.

Concealing a sword, I assume, is a little more difficult that concealing a gun. Equally, using a machete or axe to kill someone is significantly more callous and I suspect takes a lot more guts to kill someone. Guts that someone criminals may not have.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the other hand, violent crime has FALLEN in the years since Texas codified and legalized carrying concealed firearms. Yup. If the baddies don't know just who might be armed, they seem to be smart enough in self preservation to avoid committing crimes against individuals. The economy has, on the other hand, shown us that crime is about two things: economics an social problems. Fix those social problems and avoid having people in a situation of multi-generational poverty, and crime may just diminish in general. Except for white collar crime, of course, but that's a different animal.

On the one hand you say "if the baddies don't know just who might be armed" and on the other "crime is about two things: economics and social problems." Which is it? Advocates place focus on the former, I believe that it is the latter more than the former.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

At what point is the populace responsible for allowing evil people to control their country? At what point do you admit that while the average muslim might not do what the Taliban does…or Al Qaeda, or Hamas etc.… most are supportive at least implicitly if not explicitly? They are no more "victims" of radicals than we are "victims" of liberals or conservatives.

How can anyone assign blame whenever they did not make a choice? The Taliban weren't voted in, they weren't on election ballots. I'm not a muslim so I don't know how supportive they are of the Taliban; but I am a Christian and I can tell you exactly how supportive I am of the church. And if you read the other threads around here, you'll see that I'm all for mosques being built and, constitutionally, for gay marriage to be allowed.

As an addendum to my previous reply to you: The banning of guns is not in support of life, it is an infringement of ones right to defend their life. You should not be trying to invent new ways to restrict ones right to make their own judgements on the best way they can defend their own life and freedom, while doing what you can to encourage the culture of the country to respectful of life and less enamored with real violence. It is the culture that is the problem, not the availability of weapons. You could give a country like Japan un restricted access to guns tomorrow and they would not simply start killing each other. There would have to be a shift in culture for that to happen.

You see guns as defensive tools - therefore defending life. I see guns as attacking tools - therefore harming life. I've already presented the statistics on attacks and I acknowledge that presenting statistics on the former isn't so easy. Because no one really knows.

I do believe that if you gave a country like Japan unrestricted access to guns that there would be more deaths. There might not be massive overnight kills, but there would be more in the long run. Inversely, if you revoked access to guns, there would be less. Shootings might not disappear overnight, but over time they would.

Exactly the amount it takes to reconsider their choice of the kind of government that either attacks or supports the attacking of my country or it's citizens. No more, no less.

I'm not failing to recognize anything, I'm denying its relevance in the context of the attack of my country by their country.

I don't understand both these paragraphs. Can you elaborate?

Wars are not stopped by hope and good feelings. They are stopped by defeating totally those whom you are defending yourself against. This is the scenario that is least likely to allow such aggression to pop up again out of that country.

I agree. But what I don't agree with is how "they are stopped".

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you are saying here.

Looking back, I misread what you said. Earlier you wrote "civilian casualties are the responsibility of their government for committing an act of aggression on another country." I read civilian casualties as the other country's. My bad.

In order to make this assertion you must first:
Define what the "proper" levels are and demonstrate how you came about these figures
Provide evidence that these goods are truly under represented by the markets
Demonstrate that free markets are the cause of such problems in light of the fact that actual free markets have never really existed beyond small scale community bartering systems, and that in the freest of markets around the world those merit goods you mentioned are among the most heavily controlled and manipulated.

The "proper" level is at the point where everyone has coverage. The 2008 US Census report outlined that 45 million people didn't have healthcare coverage in that year. How many people out of that group do you think didn't want health insurance? Everyone wants health insurance. It just needs to be at the right price. An entirely free-market, private system based solely on profitability does not lead to a right price. Free markets were the cause of the problem because that's what was in place when this happened. Had there been a socialist regime in place, it would have been the fault of the socialist regime.

Markets need to be limited to cater to the needs of everyone. That is the role of government. Otherwise all roads would be private, there'd be no street lights and education and healthcare systems would be entirely under the control of private corporations interested in profit. Let the free market be as free as it can be without harming public services or diminishing the way of life.

In a truly free market, what would stop a company from providing healthcare coverage with preventative care for example? If it is truly what people wanted, they would be willing to pay for it and there would be someone there to provide that service as long as there were customers available.

Sadly, many people are motivated by shorter-term interests. They'd rather have a new car than save the pennies or spend them "more productively" elsewhere. Whenever you buy preventive care what you get is peace of mind and security to know that you won't have to deal with a particular problem or illness because it has been prevented. People - wrongly - value other less important things above that. And they don't realize this until after it's too late. Sure, there will be people who buy preventive care who never needed it - but that's a risk. All free markets, all governments and all choices of life are the very same thing. A risk.

If people don't give a crap about preventative care, what right do you have to force a company to provide it to them or to force it on them via universal care? Morally speaking, you have no right. Not to mention that one of the direct causes of high premiums is forcing companies to provide for myriad services, without the option of creating plans that don't. These things have not been legislated because they aren't being provided, they are legislated because someone made a moral judgement about the necessity of these services and forced them upon others.

People voted in a government. The government acts in the best interest of the people, even if the people don't realize it at the time. The abolishment of slavery. Offering women voting rights. Providing social security. There was backlash against all of these things when they happened - particularly on slavery - but it has benefitted the country and its citizens rather than hindered it. New healthcare coverage falls into that category too.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's hard to believe you're actually from Northern Ireland if you really believe the violence there is only about guns being legal or not.

When did I say that? I've posted in this thread numerous times, even in my most recent post, agreeing with the fact that there is more to consider - like education. Until we tackle these problems of course there will be violence. But if we can prevent even just a handful of those 50 000 atrocious deaths, then there's good in that.

I won't even get started on your pathetic little "it's hard to believe you're actually from Northern Ireland" comment when you clearly don't know what it has been like. The peace process has initiated because there is peace. Less violence. More co-operation. More security.

The populations of Detroit or DC has nothing to do with anything- and you're ignoring the fact that even in DC- a mecca of Politically Correct Braindeath- even there they've given up on the idea that banning guns decreases crime, after decades of the exact opposite being the case. Your head in the sand about it changes nothing.

You were the one who brought up Detroit and DC, I just thought I'd bring factual statistics to the table. The very fact that you see DC as a "mecca of politically correct braindeath" speaks volumes of your distrust in government. The government that has given you so much. Like education. Like healthcare. Like public roads. I agree that it has taken away some liberties, but it has given you so much.

And the old 'poverty causes crime' mantra is beyond played out. Even in this country, there have been times of gun ownership being far more common, greater poverty, and yet crime rates were lower. Around the globe it's easy to find areas of high poverty where violent crime is rare. The causes are more cultural than so easily explained away as merely a result of poverty.

Read my comments to others in this same post for my argument.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Because the facts and figures showing the high crime rates in the UK and Australia are easily obtained. You could even look it up rather than spew more cliches.

They're so "easily obtained" that I even made reference to them earlier to support my argument. And sourced 'em.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes, because criminals always care about what is banned. I bet if we banned crime, fewer criminals would commit crimes. Hey but wait a second... then why would we call them CRIMINALS? It's an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum!

If crime was legalized, it would probably be higher. Therefore, by making it illegal, it would drop. You can't use a comparison that isn't equal: something that isn't legal (crime) against something that is legal (guns).

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I haven't seen where you've proven jack- merely dredged up a bunch of tired cliches that even many of the most ardent anti-gun nuts have given up on. You haven't proven lower crime rates in the UK or Australia. You certainly haven't proven that violence in Northern Ireland has a thing to do with gun bans. Something tells me bombs, tossed rocks, Molotov cocktails, etc. are illegal in Northern Ireland, and thank goodness! Otherwise someone might have used these to kill someone else. There goes the neighborhood.

You really need to read my earlier posts, particularly those with sourced articles. The violence has reduced ever since the peace talks began, agreements were signed and weapons were decommissioned. Here's your figures:

CAIN: Sutton Index of Deaths - menu page
The Troubles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The overall murder rate in the US last year was 0.042802 per 1,000 people. In the UK it was 0.0140633 per 1,000 people.

33% less. Good going, UK.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Again, since many crimes are prevented or lessened just by the mere presence of guns, this statement simply isn't true. You can hold your breath, stomp your feet, and insist that it is, but that won't change anything. And once again, all of this has been hashed over a gazillion times before.

And yet here we still argue. Why? Because it's contentious and relevant. It affects liberties and it affects lives. It just so happens that you value the former as much as I value the latter.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by kylef 

On the one hand you say "if the baddies don't know just who might be armed" and on the other "crime is about two things: economics and social problems." Which is it? Advocates place focus on the former, I believe that it is the latter more than the former.

Economics and a social setting that encourages lack of respect for others set up the environment and motivation for crime. But someone who wishes to victimize someone else has to balance the risk with the supposed payoff, so if he does not know whether or not his intended victim will be able to defend himself-whether with a firearm, martial arts, or even a pointed stick-then he often thinks twice.

Your question appears intentionally obtuse-was my statement that difficult to parse as two different issues?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by kylef 

When did I say that? I've posted in this thread numerous times, even in my most recent post, agreeing with the fact that there is more to consider - like education. Until we tackle these problems of course there will be violence. But if we can prevent even just a handful of those 50 000 atrocious deaths, then there's good in that.

A large number of those 50,000 'atrocious' deaths are gangbangers offing each other. Sane people aren't willing to give up their liberty and safety to 'save' a bunch of retards running around pretending they 'own' some block of worthless turf. In fact, most people, if they're honest, say "and good riddance" to those that fit that mold.

Add to it, the facts that banning guns wouldn't even keep the same retards from pretending to own 'turf' and offing each other over it- you see, we've already BANNED them from doing that. There's a BAN on murder. They don't give a shit what you 'ban', they do it anyway. An unarmed HONEST populace then just becomes more easy victims to rob. We in the US don't want the higher crime rates you DO have the UK, partially as a result of disarming the honest people.

Unlike you, I'm not worried about law abiding people owning guns any more than I'm worried about law abiding people owning cars. Since criminals will own weapons to rob, hurt and kill people REGARDLESS, why would anyone focus on disarming the law abiding? That's all any gun ban really ever does.

I won't even get started on your pathetic little "it's hard to believe you're actually from Northern Ireland" comment when you clearly don't know what it has been like. The peace process has initiated because there is peace. Less violence. More co-operation. More security.

And NOTHING to do with banning guns.

More security? What does that actually entail? More people singing Kumbaya and spewing "Can't we all just get along?"

The very fact that you see DC as a "mecca of politically correct braindeath" speaks volumes of your distrust in government. The government that has given you so much. Like education. Like healthcare. Like public roads. I agree that it has taken away some liberties, but it has given you so much.

The funniest thing about all that, is our nation's statists take great pleasure in spouting off about how all of those things are the WORST in the world. Now it's suddenly wonderful, and all thanks to the benevolent angels in D.C.

If crime was legalized, it would probably be higher. Therefore, by making it illegal, it would drop.

Wait, didn't Confucius say that?

And yet here we still argue. Why? Because it's contentious and relevant. It affects liberties and it affects lives. It just so happens that you value the former as much as I value the latter.

Yes, I do indeed value liberty more than some statist's hand-wringing about 'lives'.

The lives I'm interested in saving, are those defending themselves from the douche bag criminals of the world. If tomorrow every gangbanging retard offed two or three other gangbanger idiots and then themselves using a gun, I would push for that to become a national holiday on par with the 4th of July.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by kylef 

The "proper" level is at the point where everyone has coverage. The 2008 US Census report outlined that 45 million people didn't have healthcare coverage in that year.

How many people out of that group do you think didn't want health insurance?

I don't know. How many of those were teenagers in entry-level jobs that were already insured by their parents? How many of those were housewives and househusbands who are working for extra income and are on their spouses policies? How many are young and healthy and working entry-level jobs on a temporary basis and work up to a better job with coverage? How many are illegal immigrants working for cash because they chose to? How many are self-employed and/or wealthy enough that they CHOOSE not to pay for insurance and just pay their bill outright? Those huge numbers of uninsured have been debunked before.

Everyone wants health insurance. It just needs to be at the right price. An entirely free-market, private system based solely on profitability does not lead to a right price. Free markets were the cause of the problem because that's what was in place when this happened. Had there been a socialist regime in place, it would have been the fault of the socialist regime.

Never in the history of the world has a truly free market existed on a national scale. Most certainly not in America. We've come the closest, but have come very far away from that in the last 100 years. We have a mixed economy that is heavily regulated, especially and increasingly in the healthcare sector.

It was the government that started meddling in healthcare by treating Blue Cross and Blue Shield as non-profit charities and giving them special tax exemption. Because of this, by the 1950's they were the largest insurance providers in America. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were started as a form of catastrophic coverage to prevent families from going broke. Then they transformed their coverage into a cover-all sort of system which everyone else followed in order to try to remain competitive. It was the government preferential treatment of BC and BS that started this mess.

It was made worse by the 1942 Stabilization Act which froze wages, but allowed employers to provide or increase employee benefits such as health insurance, since benefits were not considered wages under the Act. In 1943, in response to the Act, the IRS decreed that health insurance premiums paid by employers are not taxable income to employees and are therefore exempt from federal income tax. The IRS further decreed that health insurance premiums are a legitimate cost of doing business and can be deducted from the employer’s taxable income. These decrees were later codified into the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

These income tax laws are largely responsible for the growth in employer provided health insurance.

Then in the 60's we got Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare pays doctors so poorly and burdens them by so much paperwork that about 30 percent are turning away some or all new Medicare patients. Hence, newer Medicare patients often cannot find a doctor in their area who will treat them at all. Plus, they don't have any private insurance alternative. With the insignificant exception of Medigap policies, Medicare has destroyed the private insurance market for the elderly, and many elderly patients are left with no way to seek medical treatment except through hospital emergency rooms or charity.

Medicaid is a bigger problem. Medicaid reimbursement rates for doctors and other providers are generally even lower than they are for Medicare, and many doctors opt out of treating Medicaid patients. The number of doctors that accept new Medicaid patients is about half of those that accept new, privately insured patients.

By tying health insurance to employment through the income tax law, by providing preferential legal status and tax treatment to nonprofit companies and their payment plans for routine services, and by establishing government health insurance for the elderly and the poor in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, the government has created a system that violates individual rights and fosters an entitlement mentality. Consequently, while more and more of their rights are being violated, more and more Americans are coming to expect health insurance to cover everything

It is the government that has created the system of employer provided insurance, provided preferential legal status and tax treatment to nonprofit companies and their payment plans for routine services, created heavy restrictions on health insurance providers, and created expensive and inefficient entitlements that have driven up costs of healthcare, and consequently health insurance in this country.

Markets need to be limited to cater to the needs of everyone. That is the role of government. Otherwise all roads would be private, there'd be no street lights and education and healthcare systems would be entirely under the control of private corporations interested in profit. Let the free market be as free as it can be without harming public services or diminishing the way of life.

All this is, is an assertion of your personal political view. This does nothing to address the questions of why it is necessary for the government to do these things, or whether we are better or worse off with the government doing these things, and what role individual rights should play. These things are not under the control of government out of necessity, it is because people, like you, have made the moral judgement that these things should be controlled by the government.

There are privately run roads in different parts of the world. In nearly every case, accidents are far fewer, traffic problems are far fewer, and they are cheaper than the public counterparts. There are places where they are starting to remove stoplights and signs from intersections in cities. What happens? Accidents go down significantly…and so does congestion. Education in this country has only gotten worse as the government exerts more and more control, and private schools are nearly always significantly better than public. Healthcare I have addressed.

Just because we have had thousands of years of a ruling philosophy of controlling people, either for their benefit or that of the rulers, doesn't mean it is the proper way to govern. It certainly doesn't mean it is the best way. Throughout history, it has been those countries with the freest of markets, freest of people, and least amount of government intervention in the private affairs of its citizens that have had the most…and perhaps more importantly…most widespread prosperity.

Sadly, many people are motivated by shorter-term interests. They'd rather have a new car than save the pennies or spend them "more productively" elsewhere. Whenever you buy preventive care what you get is peace of mind and security to know that you won't have to deal with a particular problem or illness because it has been prevented. People - wrongly - value other less important things above that. And they don't realize this until after it's too late. Sure, there will be people who buy preventive care who never needed it - but that's a risk. All free markets, all governments and all choices of life are the very same thing. A risk.

What right do you, or the government, have to deny another person their right to act in their own best judgement? Yes, these people are making choices that are not in their rational best interest, I agree, but that is THEIR choice. To take the property (read: money) of productive people by force in order finance the poor choices of another is wrong.

People voted in a government. The government acts in the best interest of the people, even if the people don't realize it at the time. The abolishment of slavery.

The government encouraged and promoted slavery. Did you forget that? They also didn't do a damn thing about it until there was a large enough public movement. It was groups like the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and the New York Manumission Society that were instrumental in the abolition movement in the north. Also, abolition started in the states, not the federal government.

Offering women voting rights.

Again, who was it that was restricting woman from voting in the first place? Also, like slavery, it was a long, hard road fought against the will of the government that led to their right to vote. It certainly wasn't some enlightened, benevolent gesture led by the government.

Providing social security.

Social Security is a detriment to our country that should have never happened. Not only is it a rights-violating redistribution scheme, it redistributes money from the working class to the wealthy.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by kylef 

Fighting fire with fire? Using more gun violence to stop violence is plain illogical. You don't shoot someone who steals your car or breaks into your house.

Actually I WILL shoot and kill someone who gets into my house. That is the risk they take by that kind of activity. Where I live we can also wear our sidearms in public. We have "Second Ammendment Breakfasts" where we wear our sidearms in plain sight as several of us meet up at Denny's or one of the other spots that do this.

Originally Posted by kylef 

Guns kill people instantly, the victim has no choice.

Depends on where you shoot them. Shoot 'em in the knee and he won't be running away, but not die. If I shoot to kill, I'll aim for your head or upper chest. My 45 ACP will leave a big mess. Just what the bad guy deserves. It's not like they had a gun pointed at them to rob my house or something.

Originally Posted by kylef 

I think that, for some, being locked up for the rest of their life is worse than death itself. Everyone was punished after 9/11 by not being able to fly, likewise no one could take the tube in London after the 7/7 bombings. Was it wrong to shut down the stock markets, close the airports and stop the train services? No. It wasn't. It was the general public welfare being put at the forefront of society. Everything that you listed above has other, valuable uses in society. Guns don't.

You still have that attitude to be a coward and let the bad guys have their way with you and your family! The cops sure don't "Protect and Serve" do they? They come, clean up the blood, and try to figure who did it. The easier method is to shoot the bad guy and let them think about how stupid they are while they feel the pain and bleed out. Obviously, I don't care about the bad guys. They have no value.

Originally Posted by kylef 

There are some situations where war and the obliterative actions that you speak of are justified, but you can't target an entire country over a small number of people when the end result is death (with removal of guns it is life). Moral sentiment aside, the repercussions of such an action would be far too great economically to even consider. America could take over the world if it wants to, but you can bet that the world won't be here for very long. There are certain absolutes that we just don't cross. The cold war serves as the most apt reminder of that very point.

Why do you stress "our casualties" but care not for other civilian lives who get caught in the crossfire? A life is a life, whether that is Iraqi, British, Pakistani, American or whatever. If they aren't out to hurt you, you should be doing everything you can not to hurt them. Obliterating any potential pocket of terrorism does exactly that. Thankfully, the world is recognizing this and we're developing more accurate technologies that prevent the use of such callous methods.

It will never prevent mishaps, but may reduce them.

Originally Posted by kylef 

With regards to healthcare, people have a choice with what they eat and drink and what their lifestyle is like. The benefits and dangers are clear. People don't have a choice in a war if they get shot, or if they get shot in their own home. The government is providing assistance to those who do suffer, and also some preventive care measures against deathly diseases like Cancer (that you failed to mention). Not to mention the fact that it reduces premiums.

So if the owners of the house had a few guns, do you think the bad guys would try to overpower the residents? For every bad guy shot and killed, that's one less piece of human waste that is around to cause more damage.

[Wiskedjak]

... explains soooo much ...