Ok, lets address some of your arguments. Oh, and BTW you might want to make sure that HTML Formatted is set before posting. I personally use the Preview button to make sure it all went through ok.
my point, which despite attempting to make *very* clear, is that guns and software are sold through both legal, and illegal means. Do you own illegal software?
Yes, and my point is that there exists a huge difference between buying illegal guns and purchasing pirated software. For one small thing people who purchase illegal guns are normally planning to use them to commit other illegal acts. Robbing banks, Carjacking, Mugging, Murder, Etc ... Otherwise they would buy legal weapons. Whereas, people who purchase and use pirated software do not usually use that software to commit further crimes. And no, I have never purchased illegal software. I Use illegal software, but it was always given to me or offered for free. Such is the ability and mindset of most of the people who pirate software. Contrast that with the people who sell illegal firearms. They are most definitely in that business to make a profit. This is why purchasing or selling weapons has usually been in a separate category of crime then the purchasing / selling / giving away, of software. Also there is no waiting list to buy software and if someone were to try to implement one, most people would consider him or her insane. A waiting period has been established for firearms and most people believe it has helped.
The two types of illegal activities are worlds apart with regards to severity, accessibility, and potential further harm to the public. This is why I said the analogy was flawed. You are not comparing apples to oranges; you are comparing apples to assault rifles. This is why I believe the analogy is flawed.
Prove the physical addiction of marijuana. As far as I know, it is much a matter of debate. Some people would rather die than give up their drugs.
Yes the physical addiction of marijuana is a question of much debate. However most of the other illegal drugs, like Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, or Opium are well known for their addictive abilities. No one that I know of disputes those drugs. But even drugs position of illegality is in question. The argument however was wither it was a good analogy to illegal software.
"The same thing happened in England. The government cracked down on guns following a 1996 massacre of schoolchildren in Scotland. A terrifying crime wave ensued. The U.S. Department of Justice announced, in 1998, that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent. Assault and burglary rates were found to be almost 100 percent higher in England than in the United States."
I would be curious to see if the crime rate has maintained this elevated level or if perhaps it even dropped to a lower level then before. Also I wonder if the number of shootings and death also rose with this increased crime rate.
Immediate benefit? How do you suppose crime rates change for the better when criminals know you have nothing to protect yourself with?
I guess the question is wither or not you equate the ability to keep your possessions to personal safety. You have enumerated points where people are more able to keep from being mugged or burglarized. Even assaults could fall into this category if the difference is being beaten to being killed. The counter question to you would be, if you have a gun and you are reasonably sure the person you are robbing does not have one are you more likely to kill that person? Please don't argue the point that guns help prevent those crimes in the first place; because most violent crimes (I.E. Involving the criminal using guns) are committed out of desperation. Those same people are still desperate with and without guns.
How much say do you think you have under a government that denies you a right to self-preservation?
Do I believe that a government that would deny me the use of firearms is identical to a government that would deny me a right to self-preservation? No. Do I believe that a government that would deny me the right to self-preservation could still allow me to possess firearms? Yes. Do I live in a country where I cannot live without carrying around a gun? No. I have never owned a gun. (Some might say that that is a problem right there, but I would also say that I have never used crack cocaine and I still think I can hold a discussion on its merits/disadvantages.) And I have never been mugged/burglarized/assaulted.
You're belief in the infailability of the police state astonishes me.
Yes, and your belief in the infallibility of the crime state astonishes me.
I believe that means are what achieve the ends. I believe that if you must possess a weapon of lethal force over a weapon that can incapacitate.
(Once again please don't argue that mace is not that effective, etc... I know, I also know that other more effective means are and can be developed and that most of that development has been spearheaded from the military. The same group that is supposed to be the most lethal of means a government can employ.)
Then a problem exists with the means with which we employ to achieve a crime free country.
Yes, police states have notoriously low crime rates. So yes, guns and police states can lower crime. The question is do we want to use them, do we have to use them. Is our crime so bad that that guns are the only solution. It seems that you can imagine using only 2 means to prevent crime, Guns and Police States; fortunately my imagination is not so limited.
Trust me, *I'm* not the one who's being set aback by this. The analogy rings louder than before. A pity you won't be responding.
Well you are right, my comments have generated more commentary then your original post. Fortunately for me that I enjoy stirring up debate and discussion without having to resort to actually trolling. This way we can argue about important things without having to resort to name-calling. This I like. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about me not responding. I do usually try to answer any questions put my way.
Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]