Gun control doesn't reduce crime (report)

[CFLarsen]

Where have I done this? Quotes, please.

Why, certainly:

And this is from 1953, so not exactly an ancient document from a less enlightened time...
...
No, I don't think I'll be moving to Denmark anytime soon...
...
Yeah, if you like tyranny...
...
How is that different from any other tyranny?

You also compare the monarchy in Denmark with Hitler's Germany, all in this thread.

Then explain your behavior in the thread where you cited the Danish Constitution and then jumped on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it.

Quotes, please?

How on Earth can a live-and-let-live philosophy possibily be considered "feeling superior"?

I think I have provided enough evidence that you think Denmark is of less value than the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, then, if the people get together, and the 80% of the people who are white vote to enslave again the 20% of the people who are black, is that okay?

Well, first of all, we don't have 20% black people....

That would be against the Constitution, as well as the international laws which Denmark has promised to uphold. Although there sometimes are contradicting laws, they are changed so they fit with the overall body of laws.

 

[shanek]

Why, certainly:

Claus, I was refuting points that you brought up! You said, "First of all the king hasn't got [executive power] [despite the fact that the Danish Constitution says that he does] and there's no prospect of him getting it anytime soon, so it's an entirelly academic question and also a mindboglingly naive one." I pointed out that it wasn't naïve since Hitler, who was really only a Chancellor, managed to do exactly that.

Quotes, please?

Hoo boy...from the exact same thread:

You tried to claim that gays in the US could not be married. For examples you cited state laws. Grammatron pointed out that gays could marry in Massachussets, and you replied with, "I said the US. Does it apply to the whole country? No." But neither did yours!

"Why is that "rich"? It prevents people from being jailed without reason, something that you in the US do not enjoy." (Fifth Amendment?)

You kept comparing it to the USA PATRIOT Act, even after it was pointed out to you several times that this Act doesn't have Constitutional support and hundreds of municipalities and over a dozen states are actively obstructing it. You also called its built-in expiration date "pure speculation" even though it's codified into the Act.

At one point, you dramatically shifted the goalposts by saying, "I wasn't talking about the constitution, I was talking about legislation." You wanted to compare the Danish Constitution to US laws ignoring the US Constitution, and made exceptions for the Danish Constitution whenever it said something you didn't agree with.

You said, "Again, you prove that you haven't read it" after quoting a part of your Constitution that I had already quoted at least twice and discussed in several posts.

I gave you a list of several questions to answer, which you ignored, and then had the gall to state, "I answer each and every one of your questions."

You kept insisting that your King had no power, you accused me of repeating a falsehood, said I was "ridiculous," and "The US president is the single most powerful person in the world. To claim that the Danish king is more powerful is not just ridiculous, it is outrageously wrong." This, of course, being long after I quoted your Constitution as saying, "Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King." (from §3)

You tried to obfuscate your Constitution setting up a state religion by claiming that our Constitution says our rights are "handed to you by a god" even after it was pointed out to you that our Constitution says no such thing. You replied to that with, "Been there, done that. "Creator"." When it was pointed out, yet again, that our Constitution does not even mention a Creator, you responded with, "I didn't say they did," a clear lie, which you repeated after I quoted you saying it. And I wasn't the only one who called you on this lie.

You called me "ignorant," a "dimwit," "off my rockers," and a "madman." When all of my claims, each and every one of them, were supported by direct quotes from your Constitution. Your only real response was basically, "well, that wouldn't happen in real life." And you were only talking about the Constitution when it helped you; when it didn't, you said things like, "I am not talking about the constitution."

Once again, you show yourself to be nothing more than a bigoted liar.

 

[shanek]

Well, first of all, we don't have 20% black people....

It's a hypothetical.

That would be against the Constitution,

The same Constitution which you as much as said can be ignored whenever it's convenient?

as well as the international laws which Denmark has promised to uphold.

But if the rights come from this democratic body, then are those international laws not infringing on your rights to enslave the minority?

We're talking about where rights come from Claus. Not what laws are present.

Answer the question.

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, obviously it didn't take long to derail this thread.

1.) The survey said that it was largely inconclusive, from what I could tell, that gun control law really worked. Zep made the valid point that while they have guns in other countries, folks aren't out there groovin' on the notion of blowing someone else's brains out, which would suggest to me that most people outside the U.S. have figured out that if you want to keep your guns, you have to use them responsibly!

For that matter, while it is true that more people die in the U.S. from other methods, (i.e., personal weapons, knives, ropes, etc.), the primary problem with guns is their availability, their concealability (is that even a word?), and their efficacy at what they do. If I hit you with a bullet in the chest, there's a good chance you'll be needing a subterranean condominium, and you'll need it quick.

The central point of self government is that it does not work without SELF CONTROL! Care to guess what we're lacking here in the U.S.?

2.) A huge thanks to AUP for pointing out what damn well should have been obvious. America did not defeat Hitler, the Allies did.

 

[Ed]

Well, obviously it didn't take long to derail this thread.


2.) A huge thanks to AUP for pointing out what damn well should have been obvious. America did not defeat Hitler, the Allies did.

Did you too miss my scarcasm? Jesus.

 

[Roadtoad]

Did you too miss my scarcasm? Jesus.

It wasn't missed by all of us. But enough of us.

 

[Ed]

It wasn't missed by all of us. But enough of us.

Help me here, in a litany of absurd contentions, why was this one taken seriously? Has everyone here resorted to Elaine Wood?

 

[Roadtoad]

Help me here, in a litany of absurd contentions, why was this one taken seriously? Has everyone here resorted to Elaine Wood?

More like Natalie...

 

[crimresearch]

Evelyn.

But the point remains that other countries have varying levels of ease of access to guns, and they don't match the US in levels of misuse.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I was refuting points that you brought up! You said, "First of all the king hasn't got [executive power] [despite the fact that the Danish Constitution says that he does] and there's no prospect of him getting it anytime soon, so it's an entirelly academic question and also a mindboglingly naive one." I pointed out that it wasn't naïve since Hitler, who was really only a Chancellor, managed to do exactly that.

And it was pointed out to you that there is absolutely no difference between that and what can happen in the US. Anyone can assume power, once he gets the army and police behind him.

Do you admit that I have shown evidence that you think Denmark is of less value than Denmark? Yes or no, please.

Hoo boy...from the exact same thread:

You tried to claim that gays in the US could not be married. For examples you cited state laws. Grammatron pointed out that gays could marry in Massachussets, and you replied with, "I said the US. Does it apply to the whole country? No." But neither did yours!

What does this have to do with me citing the Danish Constitution? I don't see any evidence of me "jumping on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it".

"Why is that "rich"? It prevents people from being jailed without reason, something that you in the US do not enjoy." (Fifth Amendment?)

What does this have to do with me citing the Danish Constitution? I don't see any evidence of me "jumping on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it".

You kept comparing it to the USA PATRIOT Act, even after it was pointed out to you several times that this Act doesn't have Constitutional support and hundreds of municipalities and over a dozen states are actively obstructing it. You also called its built-in expiration date "pure speculation" even though it's codified into the Act.

What does this have to do with me citing the Danish Constitution? I don't see any evidence of me "jumping on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it".

At one point, you dramatically shifted the goalposts by saying, "I wasn't talking about the constitution, I was talking about legislation." You wanted to compare the Danish Constitution to US laws ignoring the US Constitution, and made exceptions for the Danish Constitution whenever it said something you didn't agree with.

What does this have to do with me citing the Danish Constitution? I don't see any evidence of me "jumping on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it".

You said, "Again, you prove that you haven't read it" after quoting a part of your Constitution that I had already quoted at least twice and discussed in several posts.

You clearly hadn't read the whole thing - you merely cherry-picked the parts that seemingly supported your point, but - unfortunately for you - did not.

I gave you a list of several questions to answer, which you ignored, and then had the gall to state, "I answer each and every one of your questions."

I did not ignore them. Most of the questions were points I never made, but I did answer them anyway. You, OTOH, run away from the tough questions.

You kept insisting that your King had no power, you accused me of repeating a falsehood, said I was "ridiculous," and "The US president is the single most powerful person in the world. To claim that the Danish king is more powerful is not just ridiculous, it is outrageously wrong." This, of course, being long after I quoted your Constitution as saying, "Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King." (from §3)

I don't see any evidence of me "jumping on everyone's cases for pointing out problems with it". I - and others - pointed out that you were wrong about the Danish constitution.

You tried to obfuscate your Constitution setting up a state religion by claiming that our Constitution says our rights are "handed to you by a god" even after it was pointed out to you that our Constitution says no such thing. You replied to that with, "Been there, done that. "Creator"." When it was pointed out, yet again, that our Constitution does not even mention a Creator, you responded with, "I didn't say they did," a clear lie, which you repeated after I quoted you saying it. And I wasn't the only one who called you on this lie.

I did not lie, shanek.

You called me "ignorant," a "dimwit," "off my rockers," and a "madman."

Yes, I did. You are ignorant, and you are a dimwit. Sometimes, you do go off your rockers and behave like a madman. Don't you scream your head off from time to time, and throw hissy-fits when things aren't going the way you want them to?

When all of my claims, each and every one of them, were supported by direct quotes from your Constitution. Your only real response was basically, "well, that wouldn't happen in real life." And you were only talking about the Constitution when it helped you; when it didn't, you said things like, "I am not talking about the constitution."

Shanek, you have not understood the Danish constitution, despite the many who have explained it to you in extenso. Do you honestly think you know the Danish constitution better than the Danes, merely because you read bits of it? Do you really think you know more about how Denmark works than Danes?

If so, you can add "deluded" to the list.

Once again, you show yourself to be nothing more than a bigoted liar.

Yes, you repeat this, in the vain hope it becomes reality. Your arguments are rapidly boiling down to calling people names, and merely brushing their points off the table, regardless of their validity.

You don't argue. You screech.

 

[CFLarsen]

The same Constitution which you as much as said can be ignored whenever it's convenient?

I have said no such thing and you know it. It has been explained to you very thoroughly how the Danish constitution can be changed. It cannot, however, be ignored when it's convenient.

But if the rights come from this democratic body, then are those international laws not infringing on your rights to enslave the minority?

Those rights are merely on an international scale.

We do not have "rights" to "enslave the minority" any more than you do. Denmark abolished slavery way before the US did, so don't talk to me about "enslaving the minority".

We're talking about where rights come from Claus. Not what laws are present.

I am talking about rights. Are the American rights endowed by God or do they come from a natural law?

 

[Zep]

Well, obviously it didn't take long to derail this thread.

1.) The survey said that it was largely inconclusive, from what I could tell, that gun control law really worked. Zep made the valid point that while they have guns in other countries, folks aren't out there groovin' on the notion of blowing someone else's brains out, which would suggest to me that most people outside the U.S. have figured out that if you want to keep your guns, you have to use them responsibly!

For that matter, while it is true that more people die in the U.S. from other methods, (i.e., personal weapons, knives, ropes, etc.), the primary problem with guns is their availability, their concealability (is that even a word?), and their efficacy at what they do. If I hit you with a bullet in the chest, there's a good chance you'll be needing a subterranean condominium, and you'll need it quick.

The central point of self government is that it does not work without SELF CONTROL! Care to guess what we're lacking here in the U.S.?

2.) A huge thanks to AUP for pointing out what damn well should have been obvious. America did not defeat Hitler, the Allies did.

Thank you, RT. A rock of stability again. You have also given me something to consider that I hadn't considered myself - the issue of self-control. I'll cogitate on that for a bit before responding...

 

[shanek]

And it was pointed out to you that there is absolutely no difference between that and what can happen in the US. Anyone can assume power, once he gets the army and police behind him.

Again, completely irrelevant to the points I brought up. I'm talking about Constitutions, Claus, and what protections they give the people.

Do you admit that I have shown evidence that you think Denmark is of less value than Denmark? Yes or no, please.

No. You have shown me giving a personal opinion that Denmark's system of government is not one I personally would want to live under. The fact that you turn that into a value judgement just confirms your bigotry and how you personalize this whole thing.

What does this have to do with me citing the Danish Constitution?

It doesn't, because as I pointed out the only time you cited it was to accuse me of not reading it, even though I had quoted and discussed the part you quoted at length. That's jumping on someone, Claus.

But go ahead, stick your head in the stand instead of doing a bit of self-evaluation. You'll sleep better at night.

I did not lie, shanek.

I proved you did. And at least one other poster agreed. So don't go pretending it's just me.

And even though you'll certainly deny it, the rest of your post is your typical personal abuse. If you do deny it as usual, you will only confirm your worthlessness to the rest of the posters here.

 

[shanek]

I have said no such thing and you know it.

No, that is exactly what you said when you claimed that the King has no power.

It has been explained to you very thoroughly how the Danish constitution can be changed. It cannot, however, be ignored when it's convenient.

Then the King wields full executive power and shares legislative power. So, either you were saying the Constitution could be ignored, or you were lying. Which is it?

Those rights are merely on an international scale.

Then they're not human rights.

We do not have "rights" to "enslave the minority" any more than you do.

Then the rights don't come from the demoncracy.

So, where do they come from?

Answer the questions.

 

[shanek]

Thank you, RT. A rock of stability again. You have also given me something to consider that I hadn't considered myself - the issue of self-control. I'll cogitate on that for a bit before responding...

He's right; self-control is absolutely critical. However, that's exactly what you take away the more government intrudes into our lives. People lose real control because government force makes them behave a certain way; so, by extension, they lose self-control as they acquiesce to the control of government around them.

And as a result, they start saying "there oughta be a law" every time they run into something they don't like. But even if they have the perfect idea of how such a law will work, they won't be the ones drafting it; all they will do is give the lawyer-legislators the power to draft yet more legislation that no ordinary citizen can hope to understand, and that Congress will pass without even reading. And our society becomes more litigious, wanting "protection" from (for example) fast food restaurants selling them fatty foods or restaurants allowing people to smoke, when it would be very easy for they themselves to purchase and eat less fattening food and to eat in restaurants that didn't allow smoking.

And so, "there oughta be a law" inevitably turns into "it's not my fault." They end up seeing the government as being there to clean up the mess they make of their lives, or that they're entitled to money from the government every time something happens to them that's "unfair," or they seek out a lawsuit settlement to gain money they have not rightly earned.

And so we end up with conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or the 9/11 attacks because people just don't want to admit to themselves that the government can't protect us from terrorists. And this same fear allows the government to pass the USA PATRIOT Act and instigate random strip searches at airports.

All of this results in a loss of self-control. Where is the motivation to be safe with a pair of pliers when an accident with them will allow you to sue the tool manufacturer and become independently wealthy? Where is the motivation to protect your rights and live your life as you see fit if the government keeps you scared of one boogieman after another?

"There oughta be a law"? We have laws against rape, murder, theft, and slavery. We have the laws in place to enforce contracts and compensate victims of fraud. And, most importantly, we have laws in place to restrict the government from taking action that restricts your rights. Those are all the laws a free society needs. But it's all dependent on us maintaining self-control. There's a reason Francis Scott Key ended every verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" with "The land of the free and the home of the brave": because if you're not the home of the brave you cannot remain the land of the free.

I know that's an awful lot to write to say "I agree with him," but there you are...

 

[CFLarsen]

Again, completely irrelevant to the points I brought up. I'm talking about Constitutions, Claus, and what protections they give the people.

I can understand why you would think they are irrelevant: It completely destroys your argument.

No. You have shown me giving a personal opinion that Denmark's system of government is not one I personally would want to live under. The fact that you turn that into a value judgement just confirms your bigotry and how you personalize this whole thing.

I live here, Shanek, and have lived here for the most of my life. Other Danes agree with me on this - are they similarly bigoted?

It doesn't, because as I pointed out the only time you cited it was to accuse me of not reading it, even though I had quoted and discussed the part you quoted at length. That's jumping on someone, Claus.

But go ahead, stick your head in the stand instead of doing a bit of self-evaluation. You'll sleep better at night.

OK, it doesn't. So you criticize me for something that had nothing to do with the issue. Way to go.

I proved you did. And at least one other poster agreed. So don't go pretending it's just me.

Lies are not determined by vote.

And even though you'll certainly deny it, the rest of your post is your typical personal abuse. If you do deny it as usual, you will only confirm your worthlessness to the rest of the posters here.

Pointing out that you are wrong is, to you, "personal abuse". Yes, we get it now.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, that is exactly what you said when you claimed that the King has no power.

I can understand why Kerberos called you retarded: The King has no power!

Then the King wields full executive power and shares legislative power. So, either you were saying the Constitution could be ignored, or you were lying. Which is it?

You clearly are not interested in understanding the Danish constitution. Fine with me. Be a fool by your own ignorance.

Then they're not human rights.

What are you talking about? Of course they are human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are on an international scale.

Then the rights don't come from the demoncracy.

So, where do they come from?

Answer the questions.

This is what I mean when I say that you are not interested in debate: You simply don't listen to what people tell you.

As for questions? You just joined a small, but distinguished group of people.

 

[shanek]

I live here, Shanek, and have lived here for the most of my life. Other Danes agree with me on this - are they similarly bigoted?

Claus, it's a personal opinion! What don't you get about that? I don't want to live in Boston, either, although I love to go there. Does that mean I'm making some kind of value judgement about Boston? I'd rather live out here in the country where I am than in the city of Charlotte; yet, I go into Charlotte all the time. Am I making a vlaue judgement there?

THIS is why you're a bigot, Claus. You turn every opinion someone expresses into some kind of personal value judgement against your beloved homeland.

I can understand why Kerberos called you retarded: The King has no power!

According to your Constitution he does! He has executive power and shares legislative power! So, you're ignoring your own Constitution!

You clearly are not interested in understanding the Danish constitution. Fine with me. Be a fool by your own ignorance.

Fact: The Danish Constitution gives the king full executive power and shared legislative power in §3: "Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King." Fact: you and Kerberos say the king has no power. Conclusion: either you're lying or your Constitution is being ignored. Which is it?

What are you talking about? Of course they are human rights.

Not if they exist "merely on an international scale." Then they're rights granted by an international body; they're authoritative rights, not human rights. You can't have it both ways.

This is what I mean when I say that you are not interested in debate: You simply don't listen to what people tell you.

No, I'm listening; I'm just having the gall to point out contracitctions in what you say.

What you are advocating is not human rights; it's governmental rights or authoritative rights and "human rights" is nothing but a mislabel designed to cover that. They can only be human rights if all humans have them, regardless of what a majority or any governmental body, sovereign or international, says.

You say you believe in human rights. Yet every time I ask you where these rights come from, you cite an authority. Bogus.

 

[rockoon]

So, then, if the people get together, and the 80% of the people who are white vote to enslave again the 20% of the people who are black, is that okay?

I bet if those 20% had firearms, the other 80% would think twice about voting such a law in.