Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Chris

Real Name Chris   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Azusa
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 11, 2007, 21:11
Total Comments 22 (Suspect)
User ID 45293
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


News Comments > Op Ed
109. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 16:17 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 15:19:

I have not asserted that developed versus undeveloped is relevant, I've asserted that only comparable nations (as in, similar wealth, policing, education etc) is relevant.

Are you drunk?

Who is it that you think brought developed nations into this discussion, the boogie man?? Your entire argument has been that developed nations are comparable nations, yet here you are, claiming you never wrote this:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 17:04:

compare murder rates in other developed countries and try claiming you are the logical one with a straight face.

Denying that you've ever asserted that developed nations are relevant.

I'm done here, and you should put the pipe down.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
107. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 14:22 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:52:
I explained how that explanation doesn't mean anything. I'll get back to you when I've done studies into the levels of policing, police corruption, poverty, national stability, smuggling, rich/poor divide, education, parenting and the thousands of other variables. Can you pencil in 10th September 2041? I might have it done by them. Or we could be adults and use reasonable estimates but evidently that's off the table.

"Non-developed countries" means countries that aren't developed. That's a widely recognised standard. (Edit: oh look, the places I used are the most developed! I must have edited that Wikipedia page!)

I did not intentionally remove any country and I stand by my estimation and you've yet to actually explain why it might be wrong. In fact, you explained why it might be right.

Please learn how to use quote tags.

So China and India, the two most populous nations on earth, aren't relevant to a discussion of murder rate as it applies to gun control, because they aren't developed. Right.

Per the link you posted, bolding mine:

A developed country or "more developed country" (MDC), is a sovereign state that has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations. Most commonly the criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic product (GDP), the per capita income, level of industrialization, amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living. Which criteria are to be used and which countries can be classified as being developed are subjects of debate.]

So how are levels of policing, police corruption, national stability, smuggling, education, parenting, and the thousands of other variables you mentioned accounted for in this purely economic statistic?

We aren't getting anywhere here. You have repeatedly refused to support your assertion that developed vs undeveloped nations is a relevant metric to apply to murder rates. I'm not obligated to do it for you. Claiming it's reasonable, doesn't make it so.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
99. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:43 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 09:25:

Again, you criticised me for not accounting for variables. I did. You're criticising me for doing so. Should I or should I not? I picked comparable countries to make a fair comparison. Should I not have done this? Am I wrong about the countries? How was I dishonest about these countries Do you have a better list of countries with comparable things like poverty and law enforcement?

You didn't 'account' for anything at all. I already asked you to provide the methodology used to arrive at this specific subset of the data, to which you replied that you used no scientific means to do so. In other words, you compiled a statistic based upon wholly subjective criteria, utilizing no standards, and then attempted to pass it off as truth. It's a total fabrication, and completely dishonest. You can either support your claim with data beyond 'they are comparable', or you can't.

without elaborating as to why the statistics are misleading.

By removing all 'non-developed countries' (whatever the hell that means, seems like a nebulous idea from someone trying use BS statistics to win an argument), you have also conveniently removed almost all the countries that have murder rates far, far higher than the the USA. That couldn't be intentional, could it?

Know what else you removed? A whole bunch of countries that have very strict gun control laws! Clearly, it's working for them, it'll work for us too.

There's your elaboration, again.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
77. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 01:16 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:32:

The whole idea that weapons are needed to keep the federal government honest is a nutter's fantasy, a century out of date. You think some militia is going to topple the tyrannical reign of noted socialist Comrade Obama? That's just sad.

Obama was elected by the people, I've no idea what you're on about. RKBA wasn't recognized to keep the government honest, it's to keep a legitimate government from being usurped by the militia.

I didn't remove half the world to suit my argument, I estimated where is comparable in terms of poverty, law enforcement and such like and came up with western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. I haven't performed scientific research for obvious reasons, but I think that's a fair comparison and there's correlation alright. Russia? It has tight gun laws, but it also has notoriously slack policing. I thought Canada had tighter gun laws and certainly has lower gun ownership. Plus, they're too polite to shot someone.

You can't criticise me for not accounting for these variables and then criticise me because I did account for them. The reason they help my argument is because I'm right.

You pulled a statistic out your hind end and touted it as The Truth, is what you did. If I sample a non-random subset of that data, I can manufacture any conclusion I like, and it would be just as worthless as yours. Account for? You eliminated evidence that didn't fit your premise. You're clearly willing to ignore anything that gets in the way of believing your own BS, though, so carry on.

As for mental health, it seems everyone's talking about it (as SMA says). Certainly I'm all in favour of making healthcare more widely available but I gather large segments of the US population aren't and I think they may overlap with those who don't want gun control. But the big problem is ... what exactly is supposed to be done? Unless crazy people line up to be registered as unfit to own a gun, it's not going to do a whole lot. Certainly if someone has a history of violent conduct then the checks and limits should be stricter but 99.99% of the population aren't checked to see if they're crazy or not.

Sure, everyone is talking about it. That helps. How many laws have been submitted to committee, let alone gotten a vote in the full house or senate, dealing with the mental health aspect directly? Our elected leaders, from either party, are accomplished at saying what people want to hear while doing the bidding of their lobbyist friends; that's how they got elected.

For what it's worth, I agree with the comment earlier that the entire mental health angle is basically a sideshow; the mentally ill are overwhelmingly more likely to be a victim of violent crime, than to perpetrate one. restrict those judged mentally incompetent by a court from gun ownership just like felons are, nothing else is necessary or warranted.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
69. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 18:09 Azusa
 
And still there is no correlation. Further down that list, far below the murder rate of the US, you have countries like Finland and Canada which also allow relatively unrestricted civilian ownership.

On the other hand, Russia, which I think you'll agree is a developed country, has a murder rate over twice as high as the US. And yes, very restrictive gun control laws.

But you say you removed them as a control for other variables. How did you arrive at that decision? What methodology did you use to determine that simply removing half the world (the half that doesn't support your argument) from the equation was a viable means of increasing the accuracy and relevance of these statistics?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
67. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 17:52 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 17:04:

As for logic, well, compare murder rates in other developed countries and try claiming you are the logical one with a straight face. The countries which don't allow inanimate objects only useful for killing which have lower murder rates. How could this be? What logical explanation is there? I wonder! And why is it that fewer criminals actually own guns in a country which doesn't give them away to anyone opening a bank account? There must be a logical explanation but my tiny brain can't find it.

I wondered when we were going to start playing the Fun with Statistics game. By removing all 'non-developed countries' (whatever the hell that means, seems like a nebulous idea from someone trying use BS statistics to win an argument), you have also conveniently removed almost all the countries that have murder rates far, far higher than the the USA. That couldn't be intentional, could it?

Know what else you removed? A whole bunch of countries that have very strict gun control laws! Clearly, it's working for them, it'll work for us too.

Maybe, just maybe, murder rate isn't correlated to gun ownership rate at all, but is a product of many factors including population age, poverty level, cultural variables, etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
58. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 16:06 Azusa
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:01:

Of course he can't. White culture is all about saying racist things then denying you're racist.

Speaking of bigotry...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
56. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 15:58 Azusa
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:42:
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

And LOL so much for banning assault rifles, Harry "I won't put forth a budget vote but gun bans are good" Reid doesn't think it'll pass. There's an article on AP right now about it, unfortunately tinyurl won't generate a link to post here. hosted.ap.org should lead one there though.

Not much chance AWB 2013 will pass, it's a terrible election cycle for the democrats, look at the democrats who are up for reelection. They will likely lose the Senate if they pass that bill, and all for nothing, because it'll go nowhere in the house. They'll continue this ghoulish waiting game for another tragedy, though.

AWB isn't the goal, anyway. They want universal confisc...er, regist...background checks. Cause, criminals who use stolen guns register them, right?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
54. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 15:48 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

IMO, it requires precise language to discuss these issues effectively. That's difficult, because it's tedious, but also because some folks would rather not see that discussion take place. They would prefer that we combine the concepts of race and culture into one entity, which is entirely out-of-bounds to criticism. It's a form of social control, and it's bad news for absolutely everyone.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
46. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 14:39 Azusa
 
That is, I believe, what he meant. However, he used a race to describe this culture and it is very clearly very racist to assume that black = criminal!

Agreed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
43. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 14:18 Azusa
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. I think he meant that sort of criminal rap culture, but he said black as if it's the same thing and that's racist.

How so? I agree that his words as written were a racist statement. But it seems you are suggesting here that even if he hadn't said 'black people', but had instead referred to a culture, he's still a racist?

Racism is a belief that a group of people are inferior because of the physically identifiable characteristics of their race. It has nothing to do with culture. Culture is a choice, race is not. The fact that race isn't a choice is the singular reason that racism is such an abhorrent idea. Applying that same level of stigma to someone because they addressed a perceived problem in a culture is dishonest.

Would it also be racist to suggest a culture of cannibal Asians was a 'bad' culture?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
35. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 13:02 Azusa
 
Not to be pedantic, but it can be simultaneously by design and out of date. Why would they have thought a land owners opinion was worth more?

  • Because they pay taxes (Direct income tax didn't exist at the time)

  • Because they were generally better educated

  • Because the founders believed in an agrarian model of living, and were generally distrustful of large cities, such as those found in Europe at the time


  • Wasn't independence based on the ideal that all men are created equal?

    It seems based upon your comments about rich, white male land owners, you already know the answer to that question. Created equal in the eyes of God, yes. Treated equal in the world of man, no.

    It wasn't until the passage of the 14th amendment during reconstruction that the world 'equal' first appeared in the Constitution, as it relates to the people generally. All previous usage was confined to the mathematical meaning, or referred to the various states.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    33. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 11:43 Azusa
     
    RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:17:
    Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:08:
    The line between a democracy and a republic is so vague, it might as well not exist. I'm not aware of any country that can be described as one and not described as the other. Even in the UK, where "republican" means someone opposed to the Royal Family, we operate as a republic. We also operate as a democracy, just not a direct democracy.

    I didn't know about the 3/4 rule. That seems wrong, why should a voter in Wyoming get about 50x the power of someone in California? That's still a form of democracy, it just moves the bar from 50% to 75%. That's still mob rule. Any system where the population has any say in the law is mob rule, and these are better systems than the alternatives.

    Honestly I think you folks in the UK have it worse what with the failure that is the euro. Who in their right mind honestly thought having every country on the exact same currency was a good idea, so that if one country has shit hit the fan economically like say a Greece, it affects everyone else? Great thinking there.

    At the very least you guys still do have a couple voices of reason and logic with folks like David Starkey. That guy is absolutely brilliant.

    The Euro, and the union it's named after, were designed to prevent World War 2, part 2. Economic disparity and currency manipulation have a rich history in Europe, The idea was they could tie everyone together and no one would fall so far behind they had to elect Mussolini again out of sheer desperation. Sure it was a bad idea, most attempts at solving unsolvable problems are.

     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    31. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 11:30 Azusa
     
    Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:08:
    The line between a democracy and a republic is so vague, it might as well not exist. I'm not aware of any country that can be described as one and not described as the other. Even in the UK, where "republican" means someone opposed to the Royal Family, we operate as a republic. We also operate as a democracy, just not a direct democracy.

    I didn't know about the 3/4 rule. That seems wrong, why should a voter in Wyoming get about 50x the power of someone in California? That's still a form of democracy, it just moves the bar from 50% to 75%. That's still mob rule. Any system where the population has any say in the law is mob rule, and these are better systems than the alternatives.

    And we call the United States a democratic republic. Democratic ideals, applied to the framework of a republic. The USA, as was originally designed, was an indirect democratic republic. The people voted for state government, and those elected officials then voted for senators and the president. The only direct representation the people had at the federal level was their house representative.

    That's all changed over the years (17th amendment, etc), but the framework for fundamental change to the constitution hasn't. The guy in Wyoming has more say because the system was designed that way. The founders wanted land owners to be more influential than city dwellers/renters. You can argue that it's not fair, but that's the way our system of government was designed.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    29. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 11:16 Azusa
     
    Evil, weather you believe in a literal or biblical interpretation of that idea, is in the hearts of men. All the mental health treatments in the world won't do squat to stop an evil person from doing evil things. Mental health certainly has a part to play, but IMO it's a mistake to believe that all people who commit these heinous acts are 'crazy'. Some people just want to watch the world burn. Others want to light the fire.

    This is both an argument for, and against, gun control.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    26. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 10:33 Azusa
     
    In the United States, the only method available to repeal an amendment to the constitution would be another amendment to the constitution. See Prohibition. Constitutional amendments require the ratification of 3/4 of the states to become law.

    A majority vote is democratic, and democracy is possibly the single most awful system of government ever devised. It's also called mob rule. Fortunately, the people who created this country realized that, so they created a republic, not a democracy.

     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    25. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 10:21 Azusa
     
    I'm sure you're familiar with the Russians decade long attempt to take over Afghanistan; for most of that time, the Afghan people were fighting Hind attack helicopters with AK-47s. They won, eventually, with the help of Stinger missiles imported by the American CIA. The important thing to remember though is they successfully resisted the occupation for years using nothing but small arms.

    Guerrilla warfare is a nasty business, the purpose of which is to reduce or eliminate the technological and organizational advantages of a opposing force. We'll have to agree to disagree about heavy military hardware being absolutely essential to resisting a tyrannical government, I don't think history supports that statement.

    I'm not against freedom: I think gun laws should be as lax as is conducive to the public good. But I am not convinced that assault rifles serve a civilian purpose, and thus I think the net utility of assault rifles is to the detriment of the public good. Whether banning them is constitutional, I cannot say for certain -- although we did have such a ban for over a decade and the Supreme Court never, to my knowledge, struck it down -- but purely on the basis of public policy, separate from constitutional law, I think we lose more than we gain by having assault rifles, sub-machine guns, machine guns, et al. freely available.

    I can respect that, but again, the 2nd isn't about the public good. It's about resisting tyranny, and that's all it's about.

    This comment was edited on Mar 19, 2013, 13:03.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    21. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 02:50 Azusa
     
    Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 02:21:
    It's not against federal law, or the laws of most states, to own a rocket launcher.

    A MLRS is not a rocket launcher -- it is self-propelled rocket artillery piece built off the M113 chasis: I'm pretty damn sure you can't go buy an operational MLRS + ammunition carrier + ammunition at the local gun show. ...

    Now you're changing the goalposts. First you said it was illegal to own, now you're saying you can't buy one. I'll say it again: Rocket launchers, the MLRS included, are perfectly legal for civilians to own. An M1A1 Abrams main battle tank is also legal to own, as is an A-10 Warthog. Can I walk down to S-Mart and buy one during my grocery shopping? No, but that's entirely a different thing to say than 'it's illegal'.

    The US Government purchases military weaponry, as the owner of that equipment they have every right to sell, or not sell, to whomever they want. The Queen of England doesn't have to sell me the crown jewels either, but that doesn't make it illegal for me to have them, does it?

    I won't engage in a discussion of 'civil applications'. The 2nd amendment isn't about civil applications, it's about resisting a militia/army that has usurped government from the people. Nothing civil about it.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    20. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 02:29 Azusa
     
    Quboid wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 22:42:
    Azusa wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 21:22:
    Could it possibly be that there are reasonable limits to freedoms, even those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

    Not in the sense that you suggest, no. Name one other right recognized by the US Bill of Rights that is subject to the level of prior restraint suggested by any of the current batch of proposed firearms laws. Good luck.

    So just to be clear, you'd be fine if there was a referendum to scrap the 2nd amendment?

    Referendum as in, a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment? Sure, go for it. We'll both be dead of old age long before that has a chance of being ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    If you mean referendum as in, some populist democratic scheme whereby city dwellers remove the right to self defense from rural dwellers because there are more of them, then no, the United States is not and never has been a democracy, it doesn't work like that.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    News Comments > Op Ed
    18. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 02:12 Azusa
     
    Sepharo wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 22:28:
    I think both of you (Azusa and SMA) made some good points but your last one Azusa is kind of strange.

    "[T]he framers intended the citizenry to possess weaponry [...] as a check against the might of the militia."

    I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment is a militia check against the army. Not a citizen check against the militia. Militias are made up of citizens instead of soldiers right? The framers didn't want the federal government to use the army to bully States so an amendment was passed to prohibit prohibiting militias.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I don't see how you can claim it's the clearest amendment while the nation has been having this same discussion about its meaning since just about the time it was written.


    What army? There was no standing army in the founders time, they were very clear they didn't want one, and they certainly didn't have one. Armies, yes, standing armies, no. What we think of as the Army, today, was the militia.

    You have to remember that the second is an amendment, meaning it amends the original text of the constitution. Specifically, article 1 section 8 deals with the raising of militias to enforce laws, repel invaders, etc.

    The second amendment was written as a defense, of the people, against the power being granted to congress, to form militia.

    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
    ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

    They had just fought a war against a King who answered to no one, and an army who answered to no one but the King. It's difficult today to understand just how concerned these people were with the corrupting influence of idle military might.

    As for my claim that it's the clearest amendment, I don't see any correlation between people discussing it and it's clarity. There will always be those who wish to disarm the population. I could spend hours digging up quotes and writing abstracts of the opinions clearly expressed by the founders, it didn't do any good back then and it doesn't now. The second is controversial because utopian statists cannot tolerate the idea expressed within, not because it's unclear.
     
    Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
     
    22 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
    < Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


    footer

    Blue's News logo