What abt Mt Best fridge?

[Vaughn Simon]

Before the state (government is a myth just like santa clause) can give you
money to live off of, it must first take it from somebody else.

And/or from YOU! They take your money and then eventually give some of it
back with conditions attached. That is one tool that the government uses to
gain control of our behavior.

(My graduate degree is in Public Administration, I ought to know)

Vaughn

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott14.html

That explains it all, if you did not have easy access to guns, the
crime rate would be even higher.

Instead if 221 armed robberies per 100.000 inhabitants/year, there
would probarbly be about 1000.

Guess they should get more guns in canada aswell, might bring down
their statistics of 5.45 armed robberies per 100.000 inhabitants/year.

 

[no spam]

I think you have let the media brain wash you. There are many, many

Still, there are a lot of killing with firearms in the USA. I cannot
think of any other reason than that anyone can buy one without any
training.
The rate of guns in private homes in Norway are about the same as in
the US. But only 1/5 (As in per 100.000 citizens) get killed by them.

I'm sure there are more assaults in the US as well, different cultures. We
seem to be more violent than some people and less than others. You really
can't compare personal stats across national and cultural lines.

Any normal and sane person can get a gun in norway, but not any gun
and you need to have training before you get a permit.

IOW, you are afraid of your neighbors. In the US we tend, or at least used
to, trust people to do the right thing.

No, and no bike helmet. But I neither would I leave the keys in the
ingnition of my car.

Strange you mention that. You talk about me living in fear and yet DO leave
the keys in my car, and my truck and my tractor. I have moved but have not
sold my house in TN. Before I moved I had to go and buy a new door knob
because I had lost the key for the old one years ago. Can you walk out of
your house w/o locking your door, get into your car and drive off leaving
the keys in a second car and come home a week later and expect to find
everything there?

If more guns equals less crime, why is there so many criminals in the
US?

Because like the fact that lower tax rates means more money for the
government (been proven over and over in the US) there is a bottom limit.
Also in the US gun laws are a patch work. Each state and city can pass laws
covering firearms. In most major US cities with really bad crime rates it
is next to impossible to legally own a firearm. Yet the state with the most
lax laws is always at or near the bottom of the list of crime stats.

Murders committed with handguns annually:

Stats cut. . .I point out that the number of all crimes are going to be
higher in the US.

At the wery best, the dogs would flee.
Second best, a lot of locomotion
third best, a bite where one would probarby go to the emergenzy room
just to be sure.
etc.

You seem almost as ignorant on dangerous dogs as you are about firearms. A
dog that is already in 'attack mode' does not run off. I have personally
used a 80,000 volt police grade stun gun on an 50 pound dog with NO EFFECT!
This was not a pit or fighting dog this was a mutt I got from the pound.
You ain't going to scare one off with a lawn chair. I have the scars to
prove it. (Long story about trying to save two dogs from being taken to the
pound where they would have been put down)

I look at it moore as having a button for your airbags.

Same point, when you need it the odds are you aren't going to be able to get
it into action in time.

Yes, without knowing the number, i would not argue against it, as it
sounds reasonable.
But lighters are used way more frequent than firearms, so the accident
rate (per use) may be far higher for guns.

Probably be close if you counted a "use" as one light and one round fired.

Maybee, but it makes it a litle harder, thus reducing the risk.

Why not reduce it even more and require training and permits? After all if
it could save one life would it not be worth it? (old anti gun slogan here)

Many of the dangers I face in the car, are dangers that I cannot
controll. I just have to try to avoid them.

Doesn't change the facts that everyone in your car is in more danger of
injury than a child does from a firearm in the US.

I like to see it as that we try to create equal opertunities and
safety for all citizens.
But then again, that depens on the eyes of the beholder.

You can only do that by having the government control its subjects. There
was VERY little individual crime in the Eastren Bloc countries.

Sure, but it seems like firearms are the method of choice for locos.

Again you are showing just who is living in fear. I have no fear of locos
therefore I have no problem with people owning all kinds of firearms. I,
like a lot of Americans, do not want to give any more power than necessary
to the government.

Sure, and you could probarbly make a decent gun from scrap metal. But
you need to be quite more determent to make one.

Not really. You can do it but its a lot harder than most people think.

If you had a silencer lying at home, you would be more likely to use
it if you had bad intentions.

You do see evil in everyone don't you. I have several firearms in my house
does that mean I'm going to turn into a criminal. Sounds like the strange
logic they use for carry laws. In 26 of the 50 states you can get a premit
to carry a handgun but they all limit to where you can carry it. They seem
to think that a person is a find upstanding citizen one moment but as soon
as they step foot into a public park they are going to go loco and start
shooting people.

Many or maybee most killings are done without prior planning.
Guess the goverment thinks that the downsides cancel out the upside.

Governments don't think. They do what is going to get them relected to keep
them in power or to give them more control over the peole to keep them in
power.

Any adult can also own one, if they have proper training and permit.

I would doubt it. If you would could you check your laws and see if you can
own a firearm capable of firing the 50 caliber Browing Machine Gun (.50 BMG)
round.

I do not think that anyone owning a firearm is a potential risk, but
that the potential risks should be kept away from them.

IOW, people are considered potential crazed criminals until proven
different. Nice trusting society you have there.

As I see it -
What this all boils down to is that I think that one should be
required to have training, be required to store and transport the guns
in a described manner and not be seen as a danger to get a weapon
permit for any firearm.

You mean that any adult can judge by themself weather they can handle
a gun, and store it as they see fit.
With the expetion of known to be a possible danger like
criminals(offcource).
You think that any adult should be able to buy a gun without an
further ado.
You possibly want some guns to be restricted.

I guess that we will never agree on this. So we probarbly should just
agree to disagree.

Because we come from different backgrounds and from countries with different
histories and cultures. I'm a live and let live type. You seem to be a the
government should make sure that nothing happens to me type.

 

[no spam]

It's all a trade-off. Should you be FORCED by the state to
pay for medical care for people who didn't wear seatbelts?

No its not, not a "trade-off" at all. I should not be FORCED to pay for
anyone's medical care other than mine and my family's. If you are too
stupid to put on a seatbelt AND too stupid to have insurance the cold
hearted me thinks then maybe having to work the rest of your life to pay off
you medical bills might smarten you up a little. Also if you are that
stupid you might just be so stupid that you will die because of your own
stupid actions.

Where do we stop. How about you paid my mortage payment, after all if you
don't I could become homeless and you must be compassionate enough to not
want to see my kids homeless. Or better yet why don't show just how
compassionate you are by robbing your neighbors and send all that money to
me.

Most folks figure it's more compassionate to curtail others
freedom to put themselves at risk than to deny those people
the medical care they require when they fail to die.

Helping people to remain stupid is NOT compassion.

 

[no spam]

If more guns equals less crime, why is there so many criminals in the

That explains it all, if you did not have easy access to guns, the
crime rate would be even higher.

Instead if 221 armed robberies per 100.000 inhabitants/year, there
would probarbly be about 1000.

Guess they should get more guns in canada aswell, might bring down
their statistics of 5.45 armed robberies per 100.000 inhabitants/year.

In an area where you have an unarmed population why in the world would you
need a gun. You just walk into a house with a baseball bat and know that
you have the upper hand.

Check out the number of home burglaries where people are in the house at the
time in the various different countries.

As I have pointed out many times check out the numbers of assaults in the
countries that were a firearm is not present. I'm sure you will find the US
if at the top there as well. How is gun control going to stop this?

Again, as I have said the US, for what ever reason, has a violent society.
We have a history of violence, check out our history from the very
beginning. Heck, our nation was formed from the barrel of a gun. Luckily
for Europe we are such. From WWI through the end of the cold war it was the
US and its violent society that kept Europe free. At least in the past we
held personal freedom above all else, even above having a "safe society".
Everyone was considered innocent until he did something to prove otherwise.
Some are going to take advantage of this but this was not enough to restrict
the freedom of all because of the actions of the few.

Personally I think if you want to do something stupid; not wear a seatbelt,
put your hand under a running lawn mower, whatever, then its not the
government's nor society's job to stop you nor reward you or stop others
from doing the same stupid thing.

 

[Balanced View]

In an area where you have an unarmed population why in the world would you
need a gun. You just walk into a house with a baseball bat and know that
you have the upper hand.

Check out the number of home burglaries where people are in the house at the
time in the various different countries.

As I have pointed out many times check out the numbers of assaults in the
countries that were a firearm is not present. I'm sure you will find the US
if at the top there as well. How is gun control going to stop this?

Again, as I have said the US, for what ever reason, has a violent society.
We have a history of violence, check out our history from the very
beginning. Heck, our nation was formed from the barrel of a gun. Luckily
for Europe we are such. From WWI through the end of the cold war it was the
US and its violent society that kept Europe free. At least in the past we
held personal freedom above all else, even above having a "safe society".
Everyone was considered innocent until he did something to prove otherwise.
Some are going to take advantage of this but this was not enough to restrict
the freedom of all because of the actions of the few.

Personally I think if you want to do something stupid; not wear a seatbelt,
put your hand under a running lawn mower, whatever, then its not the
government's nor society's job to stop you nor reward you or stop others
from doing the same stupid thing.

You have to think outside the box. The laws protect US from " the stupid
people", who through their stupidity and
ignorance are a hazard to the rest of us.

 

[Balanced View]

no spam wrote:
...

We do have subsidized housing and welfare in the United States.
Obviously, we have not stopped. Many countries go much further
and have, as a consequence, much higher taxes to pay for it all.

Anthony

And as a result are healthier, live longer, have less crime and are
better educated.

 

[Balanced View]

Hey! Read the subject line:
"Re: OT: was What abt Mt Best fridge? now firearms"

You do know what OT means right?

And choke on this you Hussein/Hitler/Bush tinhorn wannabe:

Why the gun is civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those
two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger,
and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm
makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by
choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a
mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning
of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many,
and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even
an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the
state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker
defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is
level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply
wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal
and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm
afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

LOL.....And it's worked so well in the USA.

 

[Morris Dovey]

Dale E wrote:

| Well?
|
| Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

Trolls.

 

[Balanced View]

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who
do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are subjects.
-------------------------------------------

Well?

Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

If you want to compare the USA to the third world knock yourself out.
Most of the western world has had gun control
since WW2 and they all have lower crime rates of all sorts than the USA.
You are comparing gun control with gun confiscation,
which is a completely different animal.

 

[Balanced View]

3rd world?



3rd world?

nice snippage of Turkey, China , Guatemala, and Uganda. Germany was a
dictatorship as was the Soviet Union

 

[no spam]

LOL.....And it's worked so well in the USA.

If you want to compare the USA to the third world knock yourself out. Most
of the western world has had gun control
since WW2 and they all have lower crime rates of all sorts than the USA.
You are comparing gun control with gun confiscation,
which is a completely different animal.

Such as the gun control in England where the people were required to either
turn in their weapons or let the state render them inoperable? Hum. . .
didn't something very similar happen in Canada and Australia.

Something very similar has happened in Washington, DC, where now it is next
to impossible to legally own a firearm, and it is so amazing the crime rate
there has been one of the highest in the US. Just a few hundred miles away
is the state of Vermont where any one who can legally own a weapon can carry
it on their person at all times and yet the crime rate all over Vermont, in
the major cities, small towns and rural areas, are some of the lowest in the
nation. I think you are the one who thinks that having a gun will turn a
sane person into a loco killer, how do you explain the above?

You must remember a few things. One, gun control is more about control than
guns. Two, there were a lot of people in Germany who thought 'some thing
like that could never happen here'. Three, more innocent unarmed people
have been killed by their own governments than will ever be killed by
criminals. Its a historical fact that you have more to fear from your own
government than you do from the street level criminals.

One last thing, talk to some of the old timers around that lived through
WWII and ask them about if they were scared sh**less after Dunkirk because
there were not any weapons for them to use to defend themselves. Ask them
how many civilian weapons were put into their hands because the people in
the US donated them, only to have them destroyed rather than retuned by the
British government.

 

[no spam]

Personally I think if you want to do something stupid; not wear a

You have to think outside the box. The laws protect US from " the stupid
people", who through their stupidity and
ignorance are a hazard to the rest of us.

OK, so what freedoms and actions are you willing to give up to be
'protected' from the stupid people's actions? Do you know many stupid
people are hurt every year on and by ladders, should we now have to pass an
exam and get a license to buy a ladder? Or maybe we should ban the sell of
ladders to private citizens and only all licensed professionals to own and
use them? Or better yet only allow the government to own and use ladders?

If you are really worried about having to pay the medical bills of someone
who gets hurt in a car wreck how about the government really protects you by
requiring all cars to be built to NASCAR standards? Those cars can hit a
concrete wall at 150 mph and have the driver walk away. Shouldn't you be
demanding that you be protect the stupid people who might have a wreck, get
injured and NOT have insurance? If everyone was driving a NASCAR car then
almost no one would be injured in car wrecks and you wouldn't have to pay
for their medical care.

All that sounds silly doesn't it? But just a few years ago would you have
thought that the government would be telling you how much water you can use
to flush your toilet, where you can and can not smoke and in some places
what you can and can not eat at a restaurant? BTW, the next time you buy a
ladder look at all the warning stickers on it and you might just be to
scared to climb it.

 

[no spam]

Where do we stop. How about you paid my mortage payment, after all if

And as a result are healthier, live longer, have less crime and are better
educated.

You ARE kidding right? Have you ever visited any of "the projects" around
the US? If not find out where one is near you and take a tour. FYI, if you
have the wrong skin color, which color depends on which project, you better
not go w/o a major police escort if you want to come out alive.

People living in "the projects" lose on all three counts. They have a much
lower life expectancy, the crime rates are usually much higher than any were
else in the town, the drop out rate is higher and because of that the
average educational level is much lower. The people also have some of the
lowest income levels and standard of living. Personally I rather have my
family living out of our car than live in one. But hey that's just me,
there are people who are third and fourth generation projecters (just made
that up) who know nothing other than getting money from the government.
Ain't the government doing a grand job of raising people out of poverty?

 

[Balanced View]

Such as the gun control in England where the people were required to either
turn in their weapons or let the state render them inoperable? Hum. . .
didn't something very similar happen in Canada and Australia.

Not in Canada, you register your gun and that's that.

Something very similar has happened in Washington, DC, where now it is next
to impossible to legally own a firearm, and it is so amazing the crime rate
there has been one of the highest in the US. Just a few hundred miles away
is the state of Vermont where any one who can legally own a weapon can carry
it on their person at all times and yet the crime rate all over Vermont, in
the major cities, small towns and rural areas, are some of the lowest in the
nation. I think you are the one who thinks that having a gun will turn a
sane person into a loco killer, how do you explain the above?

And yet the largest city in Canada (over 3 million) has a homicide rate
of about 1.8 per 100,000 with full gun control.
I think it's more about income spread then gun control.

You must remember a few things. One, gun control is more about control than
guns. Two, there were a lot of people in Germany who thought 'some thing
like that could never happen here'. Three, more innocent unarmed people
have been killed by their own governments than will ever be killed by
criminals. Its a historical fact that you have more to fear from your own
government than you do from the street level criminals.

Germany in the 30's was a dictatorship. How many citizen have been
killed in the USA, Canada, France or
Britain by the government since World War Two?

One last thing, talk to some of the old timers around that lived through
WWII and ask them about if they were scared sh**less after Dunkirk because
there were not any weapons for them to use to defend themselves. Ask them
how many civilian weapons were put into their hands because the people in
the US donated them, only to have them destroyed rather than retuned by the
British government.

Retuned?

 

[Balanced View]

OK, so what freedoms and actions are you willing to give up to be
'protected' from the stupid people's actions? Do you know many stupid
people are hurt every year on and by ladders, should we now have to pass an
exam and get a license to buy a ladder? Or maybe we should ban the sell of
ladders to private citizens and only all licensed professionals to own and
use them? Or better yet only allow the government to own and use ladders?

Oh I see it coming " Why don't we just lock ourselves in our room"
argument. Laws are based on reasonable risk.
Work sites that involve overhead construction have covered walkways and
everyone wears hardhats and steel toed
boots. It's the element of and rate of risk that has determined the laws.

If you are really worried about having to pay the medical bills of someone
who gets hurt in a car wreck how about the government really protects you by
requiring all cars to be built to NASCAR standards? Those cars can hit a
concrete wall at 150 mph and have the driver walk away.

Just what I thought, "Why don't we just lock ourselves in our room" argument

Shouldn't you be
demanding that you be protect the stupid people who might have a wreck, get
injured and NOT have insurance? If everyone was driving a NASCAR car then
almost no one would be injured in car wrecks and you wouldn't have to pay
for their medical care.

Again, you are not talking about reasonable risk ,the speed limit is 60
mph, not 150. With the advent of crush zones
airbags and seat belts you already have the equivalent of a full body
cage. Thousands more now walk away from
accidents than even ten years ago.

All that sounds silly doesn't it? But just a few years ago would you have
thought that the government would be telling you how much water you can use
to flush your toilet, where you can and can not smoke and in some places
what you can and can not eat at a restaurant? BTW, the next time you buy a
ladder look at all the warning stickers on it and you might just be to
scared to climb it.

As I said, it's the stupid people the laws protect us from, the ones
that insist in blowing smoke in your food and air,
putting poisonous shit in your food and water.

 

[Balanced View]

You ARE kidding right? Have you ever visited any of "the projects" around
the US? If not find out where one is near you and take a tour. FYI, if you
have the wrong skin color, which color depends on which project, you better
not go w/o a major police escort if you want to come out alive.

I'm talking about other countries, most western nations have far more
social programs than the USA,
"And as a result are healthier, live longer, have less crime and are
better educated".

People living in "the projects" lose on all three counts. They have a much
lower life expectancy, the crime rates are usually much higher than any were
else in the town, the drop out rate is higher and because of that the
average educational level is much lower. The people also have some of the
lowest income levels and standard of living. I rest my case
Personally I rather have my
family living out of our car than live in one. But hey that's just me,
there are people who are third and fourth generation projecters (just made
that up) who know nothing other than getting money from the government.
Ain't the government doing a grand job of raising people out of poverty?

Look at how other countries are doing it, they are doing a much better
job of it.

 

[Balanced View]

no spam wrote:
...
...
They won't walk away if they don't wear their seatbelts.
You are advocating that the law requires people to wear seatbelts.

Anthony

Funny how seat belts became a " Circular argument" ;~)

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

You ARE kidding right? Have you ever visited any of "the projects" around
the US? If not find out where one is near you and take a tour. FYI, if you

Here are some pictures from a person who had "gone slumming" in Oslo.
http://www.calcuttagutta.com/index.php?articleid=4936&m_c=m_va

 

[Balanced View]

Laws are a politician's commands, backed by threat of force, up to,
and including killing you.

You live in the land of extremes, the government is not threatening to
kill me if I eat transfats, or not wear my seatbelt.
The same laws that allow you to carry a weapon also give the cop the
right to defend himself against you.