Where are the statistics that prove that gun control makes you safer? D.C. has very strict gun control and it has the highest crime rate in the country. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun control and it has the lowest crime rate in the country. What this proves (at least in the U.S.) is that gun laws don't necessarily make any meaningful impact on crime rates. Even if guns were outright banned in every state, guns wouldn't magically disappear. Most gun-related crimes involve illegally-obtained guns anyway. If criminals can't obtain guns legally (which is already statistically unlikely), they'll just obtain them illegally.

In order for gun control to be effective, it would need to be rigidly enforced. The government would need to actively search for and confiscate/destroy every gun it could find and make sure that guns aren't smuggled into the country. The war on drugs has shown that such tactics are costly and ineffective.

If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Unlike guns, poverty has a direct and irrefutable correlation with crime. A reduction in poverty is GUARANTEED to result in a reduction of crime.

You are aware that the research behind the lead gasoline correlation was based on statistics, right? Statistics like the ones available on the FBI website? There has already been tons of research on the correlation between violent crime and guns. This site has some interesting statistics: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The point I've been making (and that the statistics support) is that there is no clear correlation between violent crime and gun control. The states with the loosest gun control laws (Florida, Texas, Maine, Vermont, Alaska) do not have the highest violent crime rates (in fact, Maine and Vermont have some of the lowest) and the state (DC) with the highest crime rate (by far) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Therefore, enacting more restrictive gun control laws is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, as there are clearly many other, more significant factors involved. The last part we can at least agree on, yes?

Out of curiosity, what exactly is your position on the topic? Do you believe guns should be banned? Do you think a ban would actually prevent criminals from getting guns? Do you think banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime? I'm pretty sure I already know your answers but confirmation would be nice.

BTW, liberals (or "progressives", as they like to refer to themselves) are no more interested in facts than conservatives are. Both are only interested in the facts that support their agendas. Such is the nature of politics. If a liberal wants to ban guns, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that. If a conservative wants to abolish all gun laws, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that desire. Willful ignorance is inevitable when people have strong beliefs.

@renatojj

Corporations already use force. They are more subtle about it than the Somolis, sure, that's an extreme example, but why do you think Foxconn employees commit suicide in such high numbers? They are forced to work long hours, the company forces them to live on-site, the company forces them to develop no social contact.

Companies in the States even use force on the government. They threaten to pull up stakes if a state won't change the laws to their liking. They pay billions of dollars to force their message down the throats of gullible people (such as yourself).

You want companies to have more freedom, to what end? Perhaps it would mean an increase in GDP, but a larger share of that GDP would go to a smaller number of people. If 95% of the people are worse off, 4% are the same and 1% do better, is that good policy? Look at Sweden, which has high taxes and strict laws governing how corporations must act. Are they suffering? Nope, the people are doing way better than America. Same for Japan. In spite of all their economic troubles, the PEOPLE of Japan are doing quite well. Americans? Not so much. One of the highest crime rates in developed countries, one of the highest infant mortality rates, near the lowest education and literacy levels, near the highest in poverty rates, near the lowest life expectancy. Is that the place where you want to live? More freedom for corporations means more gulf oil spills, more union busting, lower wages, lower employee benefits, more offshoring of American jobs.

Finally, China is not doing as well as most people suppose. Much of their economic boom has been real-estate driven and it is in a bubble which will make the US look like a joke by comparison. There are whole cities in China with space for two million people that are completely empty. All of it was driven by government legislation (ie. not free). In fact China has a much more restrictive business environment than America in many ways, they just have rock-bottom wages, a near endless supply of people and moderate education levels. That is why they're doing well (for now, we'll see what happens when their bubble pops).

>> ^chilaxe:

1. Fairness:
How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.
I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.

Genetics isn't the only thing you inherit from your parents. You also get citizenship in the country they live in, you get raised and educated in their social and economic class, and you might also be able to take advantage of their network of business contacts. And that's not even mentioning the potential differences in parenting techniques and lessons they impart.

When I say "you think life is fair", I'm mostly saying that you seem to think we all have the same paths in front of us to choose from. We don't.

I had a lot of opportunities available to me that other kids from my neighborhood didn't, not because I'd done anything to earn them, but because my parents were well off.

I had a lot fewer opportunities available to me than my classmates at school, not because I hadn't earned them, but because I wasn't the child of the owner of a multinational corporation.
>> ^chilaxe:
2. Racism:
You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.
Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.
California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.

There's a pretty big difference between having a debate over what the most fair (i.e. non-racist) admissions policy would be -- policies that promote racial diversity, or policies that discount race altogether -- and what you were talking about.

We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010.

In that short little quote you asserted:

1. Some races can't be educated, no matter how much money we spend trying to educate them
   
2. Some races will always commit lots of crimes, and no amount of policy change will stop it
   
3. Some races will be "permanently poor", and no amount of economic opportunity will change that
   

That's more or less the soul of the Jim Crow style of politics. There are good races, for whom higher education spending, and economic opportunity will work, and there are bad races, for whom such things are a waste. Therefore, the logic goes, smart policy would be to reserve that spending and those opportunities only for the good races, since they're the only ones who could ever make use of it.

Oh, and keep an eye on your valuables whenever one of those bad races comes by. You never know about those people.

You sure that all people in that kind of world can determine their ultimate fates, purely through their own individual choices? Hasn't that been disproven by history time and time again?
>> ^chilaxe:
3. Human rights:
Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.


Really, that's the only one? Rather than open that can of worms, I'll just follow through with my original line of thought -- that's a right you think everyone should have, right?

Why? Why not abolish such liberal ideas as "equal rights", and tailor our legal system to the findings of your studies?

#1, #2.

Netrunner said: "You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work."

Yes, that's definitely true for the majority of genomes in the US.

Step 1: Devote all waking hours to reading, working, and exercise. Do these things until you're smarter than everyone around you. Eschew meaningless experiential pursuits and don't get married until as late as possible.

Step 2: Profit.



#3 Netrunner said: "I didn't say people should lie."

Pronouncements that scientists should downplay, not publicize, or otherwise bias their results because we don't like those results (they "lend credence to racial stereotypes") has the final effect of countless liberal academics lying and using whatever means are at their disposal to force compliance.



#4 Netrunner said: "I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies."

It's useful for predictions. We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010. If we really want population-replacement that bad, just import poor people from China, and they'll on average outscore White Americans within a generation.



At this point, the fastest way to decrease poverty, academic achievement gaps, and most associated trends is to increase funding for genetics and technologies that lead to reprogenetics. If you want universal access for the poor, that's good.




>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe both your #1 and #2 points seem to be based on the premise that life is fair. You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work.
That's not true.
As for #3, I'm a little lost on what you're talking about. I didn't say people should lie, I was trying to explain why "liberal" people would say "we don't care if it's true" about studies that would seem to lend credence to racial stereotypes. I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies.
And assuming you mean this when talking about reprogenetics, I'm all for it. Here's my kicker though, I'll be demanding that it be covered under everyone's universal healthcare.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, vatican city, highest, crime, rate, lowest, age, consent' to 'stephen fry, vatican city, highest crime rate, lowest age of consent' - edited by xxovercastxx