The CDC for a while was the NRA of anti gun laws. They were even reprimanded for exceeding their mandate and other "questionable" things, like......

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

"The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control."

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

I don't think is says anything about crime. Only about kids dying by accident. Do you have some better numbers?

 

Natural rights that are given by nature (or God) require a human belief system that rules exist independent of deciding which rules we should make(law). I really see very little protection of citizens in this human belief system of rights and wrongs that can be changed even quicker than a democratic mob can change the law.

The North Korean leaders are often portrayed as divine beings protecting the Natural rights of its people to be slaves.
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/North Korea materials/10 principles of juche.html

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

 

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

Explain no more...

This is the popup that comes as I entered the site. Seems to be more of a faith-based system. Tough for me to drink her Koolaid when she wouldn't even commit.

 

Explain no more...

Funny. I haven't seen popups in years -- I guess my popup blocker works well.

I chose the text I linked to because it provides a more thorough explanation of what I am trying to say than I can. I've never seen the site before, though I do agree with the premise of the popup.

You may choose to read the text, if for no other reason than to understand me and where I am coming from. Or, you may choose to avoid ideas that make you uncomfortable. Your choice.

If you do choose to read the text, please tell me which points are logically incorrect, and let's debate that. I care not what you think of the author of the ideas or the site that hosts them. I care about the ideas themselves.

 

Funny. I haven't seen popups in years -- I guess my popup blocker works well.

I chose the text I linked to because it provides a more thorough explanation of what I am trying to say than I can. I've never seen the site before, though I do agree with the premise of the popup.

You may choose to read the text, if for no other reason, to understand me, and where I am coming from. Or, you may choose to avoid ideas that make you uncomfortable. Your choice.

If you do choose to read the text, please tell me which points are logically incorrect, and let's debate that. I care not what you think of the author of the ideas or the site that hosts them. I care about the ideas themselves.

The thing that strikes me is that I don't want to live alone on a deserted island. I'm willing to give up some things for my comforts.
If you want to be totally free by her standards find yourself an island. Of course you have to build your own boat and row there.

 

Funny. I haven't seen popups in years -- I guess my popup blocker works well.

I chose the text I linked to because it provides a more thorough explanation of what I am trying to say than I can. I've never seen the site before, though I do agree with the premise of the popup.

You may choose to read the text, if for no other reason than to understand me and where I am coming from. Or, you may choose to avoid ideas that make you uncomfortable. Your choice.

If you do choose to read the text, please tell me which points are logically incorrect, and let's debate that. I care not what you think of the author of the ideas or the site that hosts them. I care about the ideas themselves.

People can survive in communities that rely completely on competition/free markets. However, as you think about your version of Utopia, also think about those people who are not winning the free-market competition. Think about those with physical disabilities, those with mental disabilities, the sick, the weak, the poorly educated, the uneducated... the losers in your game. As you think about those people, you have to realize that they have two options. Die, or survive. If they choose the option to survive, think about how they will manage to do that.

Please describe to me how they might do that. Then I will tell you a story about two of my family members that elected to survive in an era of free competition.

 

People can survive in communities that rely completely on competition/free markets. However, as you think about your version of Utopia, also think about those people who are not winning the free-market competition. Think about those with physical disabilities, those with mental disabilities, the sick, the weak, the poorly educated, the uneducated... the losers in your game. As you think about those people, you have to realize that they have two options. Die, or survive. If they choose the option to survive, think about how they will manage to do that.

Please describe to me how they might do that. Then I will tell you a story about two of my family members that elected to survive in an era of free competition.

Why must you be so obtuse, G? We are not talking about capitalism, we are speaking of rights. I was having difficulty getting my points across, so I posted an excellent essay which covers them brilliantly. Please tell me where the logical fallacy lies in the text, in regards to rights. Or not. Again, your choice.

 

You can always find a handful of these, but you won't hear about the guy that couldn't get a gun when he wanted it.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/16/in-defense-of-self-defense

You can hear from me. Three times in my life, having a gun stopped a confrontation from getting violent. All three times, I was in my home and therefore in possession of the gun. Twice, I was robbed, face to face, and a pistol in my pocket would have fixed both of those situations. Unfortunately, I couldn't get at the gun because I have been disarmed (in public) by my government while the criminals have simply decided not to obey the law, as is the definition of criminals.

 

https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/16/in-defense-of-self-defense

You can hear from me. Three times in my life, having a gun stopped a confrontation from getting violent. All three times, I was in my home and therefore in possession of the gun. Twice, I was robbed, face to face, and a pistol in my pocket would have fixed both of those situations. Unfortunately, I couldn't get at the gun because I have been disarmed (in public) by my government while the criminals have simply decided not to obey the law, as is the definition of criminals.

Don't expect @GopherT to value your contribution. Reason.com is a pro-free-market, pro-individual-freedom web site.

 

Don't expect @GopherT to value your contribution. Reason.com is a pro-free-market, pro-individual-freedom web site.

Don't expect much from me. There are too many people in line ahead of you.

I'll get to an answer for your previous question when I have time to read that mess. Is there a Cliff's Notes version?

 

The Democrats have been on gun control as forr decades and you just need to look at Chicago, Detroit, etcm as a sense as to how effective such measures are.

Every time a criminal commits a crime with AA gun, it is the innocent, kaaw abiding people paying the price, first as a victim as such a crime andd then as a victim whose right to self defense by having his right to self defense getting taken away.

No wonder regular people are pissed all over the globe.

 

https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/16/in-defense-of-self-defense

You can hear from me. Three times in my life, having a gun stopped a confrontation from getting violent. All three times, I was in my home and therefore in possession of the gun.

You must live in a bad neighborhood. Please elaborate.

Twice, I was robbed, face to face, and a pistol in my pocket would have fixed both of those situations. Unfortunately, I couldn't get at the gun because I have been disarmed (in public) by my government while the criminals have simply decided not to obey the law, as is the definition of criminals.

Or you may still be with us today because you didn't have a gun. Were you in a school, bar, or political chamber?

 

You must live in a bad neighborhood. Please elaborate.

Do you think Indiana, California, and Florida are all the same neighborhood?

Were you in a school, bar, or political chamber?

Both the robberies were outside any building, not associated with any particular activity except walking, but I don't have time to tell you all the details right now. One robbery was a strong-arm robbery. Four against one. One was three amateur thugs with one pistol. I saw it coming 15 seconds and 100 feet away. That's how amateur they were. I had plenty of time to turn the tables, if only I had a table turner with me.

 

 

Excellent presentation -- and, of course, I agree 100%. But, for some reason, as I watched her, this song kept running through my head:

 

The question becomes ... how come we don't see this stuff on the news? Does the news agencies have an alternative agenda?

 

Do you think Indiana, California, and Florida are all the same neighborhood?

Both the robberies were outside any building, not associated with any particular activity except walking, but I don't have time to tell you all the details right now. One robbery was a strong-arm robbery. Four against one. One was three amateur thugs with one pistol. I saw it coming 15 seconds and 100 feet away. That's how amateur they were. I had plenty of time to turn the tables, if only I had a table turner with me.

So I can see a problem in California unless you want to do a lot of work, but why did you leave home without it in the other two states?

 

The question becomes ... how come we don't see this stuff on the news? Does the news agencies have an alternative agenda?

I'll be real generous (and grant the news media a level of benefit-of-the-doubt well beyond anything I believe they deserve) and observe that news organizations generally don't provide much coverage to common events. Of course, that would imply the defensive gun use is a common event. Well, since even the lowest estimates (from surveys that have been argued to be put together with an anti-gun agenda) put the number at well over 50,000 times a year (National Crime Victimization Survey), you can argue that this is too common an occurrence to garner much national news coverage. After all, how often does the national news cover a routine car accident that happened somewhere in Kansas? Most surveys peg the annual frequency of defensive gun use at between 750,000 and 3 million (with one showing 4.7 million). The higher numbers have a hard time being correlated to other data (such as hospital admissions for firearm injuries) and are suspected of not taking into account sampling bias due to unknown factors. So the actual number is probably somewhere between, say, 100,000 and 500,000 but could be as high as around 1 million).

The real numbers are very hard to pin down because a huge fraction of cases (estimated at between 70% and 95%) do not involve the discharge of the weapon, but merely its brandishment. In a very large fraction of those cases, no police report is ever filed -- the intended victim merely goes on with their business having a higher than normal pulse rate for a while. So it's far from a matter of just reviewing police records; you have to perform proper sampling techniques to get a sufficiently unbiased sample of the population.

 

I doesn't take much for society to breakdown into chaos if a sizable number of people overwhelm law enforcement in a crisis. The 92 LA riots are a good example of the use of firearms by citizens to maintain order after being attacked by criminals.

 

I'll be real generous (and grant the news media a level of benefit-of-the-doubt well beyond anything I believe they deserve) and observe that news organizations generally don't provide much coverage to common events. Of course, that would imply the defensive gun use is a common event. Well, since even the lowest estimates (from surveys that have been argued to be put together with an anti-gun agenda) put the number at well over 50,000 times a year (National Crime Victimization Survey), you can argue that this is too common an occurrence to garner much national news coverage. After all, how often does the national news cover a routine car accident that happened somewhere in Kansas? Most surveys peg the annual frequency of defensive gun use at between 750,000 and 3 million (with one showing 4.7 million). The higher numbers have a hard time being correlated to other data (such as hospital admissions for firearm injuries) and are suspected of not taking into account sampling bias due to unknown factors. So the actual number is probably somewhere between, say, 100,000 and 500,000 but could be as high as around 1 million).

The real numbers are very hard to pin down because a huge fraction of cases (estimated at between 70% and 95%) do not involve the discharge of the weapon, but merely its brandishment. In a very large fraction of those cases, no police report is ever filed -- the intended victim merely goes on with their business having a higher than normal pulse rate for a while. So it's far from a matter of just reviewing police records; you have to perform proper sampling techniques to get a sufficiently unbiased sample of the population.

Who knows which one is correct.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html