Wow, I didn't know were Wales is.

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

I just looked at that first link. They say she's a "commoner" and "middle-class". Her background would make her bloody posh compared to 99% of the population. Only the Royals could get snobbish about someone like that.


>> ^kronosposeidon:

>> ^jan:
Not really a Queen, from net search
After her marriage to Prince William of Wales, Kate Middleton's title will be Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales. On the engagement announcement, Kate used her full name, Catherine. So she will likely be known as Princess Catherine of Wales.
If Prince William receives a dukedom following the marriage, she will be known as Duchess as well as Her Royal Highness.

When Prince William becomes King, his wife, Kate Middleton, will be Queen.

http://bit.ly/9BYztO
http://tiny.cc/kcl8f
http://bit.ly/9guct1
Until Kate becomes Queen, let the courtiers decide her exact title and the pecking order at Buckingham Palace. In this palace, AC will be Queen tout de suite!

>> ^jan:

Not really a Queen, from net search
After her marriage to Prince William of Wales, Kate Middleton's title will be Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales. On the engagement announcement, Kate used her full name, Catherine. So she will likely be known as Princess Catherine of Wales.
If Prince William receives a dukedom following the marriage, she will be known as Duchess as well as Her Royal Highness.

When Prince William becomes King, his wife, Kate Middleton, will be Queen.


http://bit.ly/9BYztO
http://tiny.cc/kcl8f
http://bit.ly/9guct1

Until Kate becomes Queen, let the courtiers decide her exact title and the pecking order at Buckingham Palace. In this palace, AC will be Queen tout de suite!

Not really a Queen, from net search
After her marriage to Prince William of Wales, Kate Middleton's title will be Her Royal Highness Princess William of Wales. On the engagement announcement, Kate used her full name, Catherine. So she will likely be known as Princess Catherine of Wales.

If Prince William receives a dukedom following the marriage, she will be known as Duchess as well as Her Royal Highness.

1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe.



Even England still has blasphemy laws on the books from hundreds of years ago, but they're never enforced. Actual instances of people being prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe are very few and far between.



The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.



Depends how the cameras are used. The mere existence of CCTV cameras on the streets is not necessarily a bad thing.



There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit.



That would be very very bad, but the law hasn't actually been passed yet. It was just proposed. Surveilance of the internet is worse than surveilance of public streets because:



1. Nearly all internet crimes are victimless crimes except where people are using the internet to plan to do something IRL. There is no such thing as getting mugged on the internet, and viruses/hacking are nearly 100% avoidable as a matter of personal responsibility without much need for policing.



2. There is an expectation of privacy in your personal communications that does not exist when you're walking down a public street. If 1000 other people walking down that street can see it too, why are you worried about one more guy watching it on CCTV?



3. People can and will use encryption to circumvent any and all attempts at policing the internet, so don't even bother. Internet anarchy is inevitable so you might as well accept it.




Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).



This is exactly the same in principle as fingerprinting. I've got no problem with it.


There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.
It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.




Separate courts for Sharia law are bad, but is that really much different from a corporation making employees agree to resolve all civil disputes with the employer via binding arbitration with a particular arbitrator? In the latter case there's sort of coercion/adhesion going on. If both sides were really free to choose and agreed upon using a particular arbitrator to resolve their civil disputes, then there'd be no problem. If e.g. Muslim women in abusive relationships are being forced my their husbands to use these separate courts, that's terrible, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that or anything similar.

@jwray: 1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe. There seem to be a lot of laws against blasphemy popping up.

I never said that the US was "more free" than the UK, or said that the US was better. I said that the UK was not better than the US, though. They're just fucked up in different ways.

The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world. There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit. Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).

There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.

It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.

Still wrong, still going strong eh...

"The foundations of Buddhist tradition and practice are the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the community)."-wiki

Buddhists have belief. That you don't understand what they believe, or how they believe it, means nothing.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"There is a sufficient belief in a supreme being or entity to constitute a religion for the purposes of charity law," declared the Charity Commission for England and Wales in response to the Druid Network's application.
By that definition, Buddhism is not a religion, because it has no god.
Now, for no reason at all, here's Twinkie Henge.

"There is a sufficient belief in a supreme being or entity to constitute a religion for the purposes of charity law," declared the Charity Commission for England and Wales in response to the Druid Network's application.

By that definition, Buddhism is not a religion, because it has no god.

Now, for no reason at all, here's Twinkie Henge.

Thanks! =D

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
*quality

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/831660-blind-dog-myron-can-still-catch-balls-and-frisbees:

The brave hound's courage has made him one of Australia's best-loved dogs.

He sadly had both eyes removed by vets when he was just a few months old, but the four-year-old Boxer/Border Collie cross still manages to have fun just like any other pooch.

His owner Raquel Wood takes him for walks in her local park in Campleton, New South Wales, where he sprints around catching toys.

Raquel believes that Myron's acute hearing, intelligence and a kind of sixth sense has helped him enjoy life to the full.

The 41-year-old said: 'We don't think Myron is disabled. He's differently abled.

'He can still catch balls and Frisbees because his hearing is so good and he's learnt through trial and error.

'Sometimes I do call out to him if he's "hot" or "cold" but not always, its like he has a sixth sense.

'He can also lie down, beg, roll over and do all sorts of doggie tricks.

'He's very smart. It's actually hard to tell he doesn't have any eyes.'

Vets recommended that Myron should be put down as a pup, as he also sadly suffers from epilepsy and is hyper sensitive.

However, Raquel and her husband Terry stuck by him and spent thousands of dollars getting him better.

*quality

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/831660-blind-dog-myron-can-still-catch-balls-and-frisbees:

The brave hound's courage has made him one of Australia's best-loved dogs.

He sadly had both eyes removed by vets when he was just a few months old, but the four-year-old Boxer/Border Collie cross still manages to have fun just like any other pooch.

His owner Raquel Wood takes him for walks in her local park in Campleton, New South Wales, where he sprints around catching toys.

Raquel believes that Myron's acute hearing, intelligence and a kind of sixth sense has helped him enjoy life to the full.

The 41-year-old said: 'We don't think Myron is disabled. He's differently abled.

'He can still catch balls and Frisbees because his hearing is so good and he's learnt through trial and error.

'Sometimes I do call out to him if he's "hot" or "cold" but not always, its like he has a sixth sense.

'He can also lie down, beg, roll over and do all sorts of doggie tricks.

'He's very smart. It's actually hard to tell he doesn't have any eyes.'

Vets recommended that Myron should be put down as a pup, as he also sadly suffers from epilepsy and is hyper sensitive.

However, Raquel and her husband Terry stuck by him and spent thousands of dollars getting him better.

The boxer who took the dive was found unfit to fight in Sydney by the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority.

On 21 July 2010 Briggs returned to the ring in Perth to take on Danny Green for the IBO cruiserweight title. Before the bout Green labelled Briggs "unprofessional" after the latter weighed in nearly 4kgs over the agreed-upon weight. The ensuing fight was seen as a "farce",[4] with Briggs collapsing after 29 seconds following an innocuous left jab by Green, his first in the fight, which appears to have at most brushed the top of Briggs' head. Briggs was subsequently booed out of the stadium by irate fans, and had to be protected by management from projected missiles being thrown at him. In a post-bout interview Green labelled Briggs a "less than canine" and claimed he would not be getting paid for the fight, while also apologising to fans who had paid to attend.[4] Speculation has arisen as to whether Briggs threw the fight, as online bookmaker Centrebet labelled the bout "highly, highly dubious" following a massive betting plunge shortly before the fight.[5] The fight had been due to be held in Sydney but was moved at the last minute after the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority refused to commission the bout claiming Briggs was "unfit" to fight.[6]

Boxing is known to cause damage to the sense of balance. I thought it was the left jab to the body, a late pain in the lower stomach that caused him to give up. He could have gotten up. This statement is in hopes that he was physically unfit for fighting.

According to the Article that @kymbos posted, he was knocked out while sparring two weeks prior to the fight. Who the hell get's knocked out whilst sparring. Unless they do some different sparring down under.

Paul Briggs came out looking good, but I think he was just spent mentally. His trainers should have never let him fight.

Edit: This fight looks like shit.

A raven is a type of crow. Crows in general are pretty amazing birds, from the Jackdaw that can be taught to "speak" like a parrot to crows in Wales that go sledding in winter for fun. In cities, I'd rather have crows around than pigeons.

(http://www.warplane.co.uk/Wales.htm):
Machynlleth Loop

The most appropriate place to start with is the Machynlleth Loop which is usually referred to by aircrews as ‘The Loop’ although the USAF crews refer to it as ‘The Roundabout’. It is literally a roundabout of flowed valleys running counter-clockwise following the A470 north eastwards from Machynlleth in the south to Dinas Mawddwy then heading north west to join the A487 at the Cross Foxes Inn. From here it follows the A487 southwards through Corris to end back at Machynlleth. Ordnance Survey Explorer Map OL23 is recommended for anyone planning a visit.

It is arguably the busiest part of the UK low fly system and although the cold war days of up to 80 plus movements in a day are long gone it is still sometimes possible to see 30 plus aircraft in one day. The usual daily total is usually between 10 and 20 aircraft mainly made up of Hawks with the odd Tornado, Harrier or Hercules thrown in. It is certainly the place to go to practice your panning technique.

It takes about 3 minutes for a jet aircraft to do a circuit of the Loop and multiple passes by aircraft is not an uncommon sight, especially by Hawks. So whenever you see an aircraft it is worth checking to see if it looks like doing a circuit as you may be lucky enough to see it again in 3 minutes.

We use that one in Ireland about anyone who lives in the west. Or if you happen to live in the town in the west about the people in the countryside around you. Eg in secondary school we had a way of singing ♪You're all sheepshagging b*stards, sheepshagging ba-a-stards...♪ at gaelic football matches with the country teams >> ^alien_concept:

For some reason, it's an old running joke that the Welsh shag sheep. It's all we've really got on them, cos really they're good people
And, hey eric!
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
The joke about Wales went right over my head. I'm guessing that's a strictly English thing. Someone explain it to me.