And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

Here in Austria, we have a limit for how long an abortion is legal:
3 months
After that it can ony be performed if there is a medical necessity (e.g. the mothers life is in danger) and then only of the mother agrees.

And what is the basis for determining 3 months is the appropriate point to draw the line? It smacks of arbitrariness to me. It is odd that it has a nice whole number to define it. I would find it more credible if someone had said 3.437 months. It would lead me to believe that someone had actually calculated something as opposed to pulling a number out of their @ss.

So why should it be 3, rather than 2.9, or 3.1? How does the Science behind this law arrive at the number "3"?

Personally, I think that this regulation is pretty good and I am not in favor of abortions. If my not yet born doughter ever had an abortion, she would hear it from me. Would I want her to go to prison for that though? Of course not! There are certain situations where I would favor an abortion though. E.g. in case of a rape. I would not want my wife or doughter to have to give birth to the bastard of a rapist.
In that case I woul from my moral POV even find an abortion after 3 months excusable.

In past application of law regarding abortion, the women did not go to jail. They were used as witnesses against the man who actually committed the murder. There were doctors sent to prison for performing abortions. For what it's worth, I will point out that Mengele made his living performing abortions. It seems to be an appropriate vocation for people who have always killed people for a living.

And therein also lies a salient philosophical point. It is usually someone else who is not the woman that does the actual killing. The woman just enables him.

Many worthwhile distinctions are not clean, as you would wish.

Just those made up by people who guess. Science has pretty clean and accurate distinctions.

And of course precise boundaries are arbitrary. Take the analogy with statutory rape. We all agree (I expect) that sex with children is bad,

No, we do not all agree. It is my understanding that many Muslim countries allow or tolerate sex with children. There has been much written lately on the prevalence of this in Afghanistan. (Google "Dancing boys.") It is my understanding that Mexico allows consent at age 12. This is just another one of those subjective things that people assume is universal, when it is not in fact, universal.

It also happens to be one of the topics that I discuss here from time to time, but i'd rather not get diverted onto it right now.

between grownups less bad. So where do you draw the line for extreme penalties? Why (in UK) 16 years, why not 15.5 or 16.2?


The lack of precision does not invalidate a distinction between paedophilia and adult consensual sex.

Well you are making a good argument that the legal system is a sort of "seat of the pants" method of applying justice, but I would think that a determination of "FACT" ought to rely on the methodology of science.

Many hilarious books could be written involving legal reasoning and inconsistency. Indeed, the notion that a man can be charged with TWO murders for killing a pregnant woman making it a crime when he does it, but a "right" when she does it, is a prime example of the silliness of thought which masquerades itself as law.

[Diogenes]

In past application of law regarding abortion, the women did not go to jail. They were used as witnesses against the man who actually committed the murder. There were doctors sent to prison for performing abortions. For what it's worth, I will point out that Mengele made his living performing abortions. It seems to be an appropriate vocation for people who have always killed people for a living.

And therein also lies a salient philosophical point. It is usually someone else who is not the woman that does the actual killing. The woman just enables him.

Currently, women who spontaneously abort but have less then perfect lifestyles are being charged with murder.

Where? I've never heard of such a thing. I HAVE heard of women who use drugs while pregnant have been charged with child abuse.

[


This is a gross and appalling abuse of the legislation by ideologues with whom I have zero sympathy. They should themselves be charged with abuse of women.

Yes, please identify these radicals so we can deal with them properly!

[Diogenes]

Well over the "guns deter violence" argument I will just summarise:

Branas et al, with exemplary methodology, has strong emprical evidence that at an individual level any deterrance is more than counteraced by other effects so that gun possesion reduces safety overall. He controls for all the obvious gotchas here. See the long quotes above.

Humans do not always behave rationally. Specifically when they get into heated arguments they often say or do things they afterwards regret. The availability of lethal weapons does not change this behaviour. I am sure everyone here will have some experience of this and while most are controlled enough not to use guns in the heat of the moment some are not.

The statistics are telling. The US has a much higher death rate than other countries with gun less gun availability. In fat the correlation between gun control and death rates is precise and inverse. Furthermore, the rates for non-gun murder are very similar in most countries, it is just that guns, if not controlled, increase deaths rates by about 5X.

Does the UK have anything like Detroit? Or Baltimore? Or Washington D.C.?

I suggest you find out where all the killings are occurring and factor that into your equations. I think you will discover a characteristic that people will refuse to discuss.


Take that demographic out of the equation and then run the numbers again. I think you will be shocked to discover that most of your murders disappeared.


Obviously respected researchers such as Branas et al, wouldn't dare mention such a result even if they did notice it. It simply is not politically correct.

[Diogenes]

My reading is that violence in the UK has been escalating for years, and in many cases people there live in fear of their lives on a daily basis.

Violent crime has been falling, or more or less falling since the early 90's - same with most crime rates in the UK.

And we'd have to go a long way to get close to the kind of rates seen in the US.

2011 annual homicide rate per 100,000

UK 1.3
US 4.8

These numbers are misleading. Most of the murders occur in inner city violence ridden neighborhoods, and what makes them violent has nothing to do with whether they can get their hands on guns or not.

Were they completely disarmed, I shouldn't be surprised to see the murder rate go up.

And your Trayvon Martin comment/reaction-bait just proves what a truly nasty troll you are ("nuts" really is far too polite a term).

I don't care if you comment back or not. Given the quality of thought you put into your responses, I think the world would be better off if you refrained.

It is axiomatic to me that Trayvon Martin knocked George Zimmerman to the ground and proceeded to beat his head against the concrete, only because he didn't realize Zimmerman was armed and could kill him.

Had he realized Zimmerman was armed, he would have probably kept walking. Perhaps you are still suffering from being misinformed (by the lying American Media Services) regarding the actual facts of this case?

I should not be surprised, you certainly seem misinformed in other ways.

[93143]

@tomclarke: I normally don't like to get involved here, but let me just point out that live human -> dead human is not necessarily morally equivalent to no human -> live human -> dead human, particularly if the second step is unintended/uncertain...

Leaving now; 109% thrust in 3... 2...

[Diogenes]

I wish I could remember the (US) city that implemented a "we assume everyone that isn't otherwise prohibited has a concealed firearm" law. It apparently did wonders to reduce the crime rate in a very short time when it was suddenly assumed that everyone around you was carrying.

I think you might be referring to that town (in Georgia I think) that REQUIRED every home owner to have a gun.


It apparently has a copy cat.

[Diogenes]

First off, it's the flippin Daily Mail.

Secondly, from that very article:

"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime. 'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995."

Hmmm.... that's exactly what I said. Those numbers you cited are misleading because they give you an incorrect picture of what is occurring in the United States.

Certainly the Democrat created and controlled inner city hell zones are where the majority of murders in this nation occurred, but after Lyndon Johnson's Use of Federal dollars to massively expand the welfare system and thereby make stable marriages and fathers in the home unnecessary, why should anyone be surprised that it has left a "Lord of the Flies" legacy?

The vast majority of the rest of the country where Guns are ever present, has far less crime. I would bet you could find a better correlation between murder/violence and federal aid to unmarried mothers.

I don't see anyone arguing about how much death is caused by federal dollars going to irresponsible people though. Were it not for the massive amount of abortion occurring in these inner city neighborhoods, i'm willing to bet the numbers of fatherless bastards prowling the streets would be much worse.

I suppose the government dollars for direct murder are partially offsetting the problems caused by government dollars for irresponsible behavior, though I think we could solve the problem better by not doing either.

[Diogenes]

First off, it's the flippin Daily Mail.

Secondly, from that very article:

"Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime. 'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995."

Homicide rates are almost 100% reported everywhere and can be compared. US comes out 5X worse than UK, and the inverse correlation across many different coutries between %age of population carrying guns and homicide is indisputable and very very strong.

Violent crim is much more difficult to compare, because reporting is highly variable as is definition. For example strong campaigns in UK to encourage reporting of rape (for eample altering treatment of victims by police and in courts) have made reported rate stats increase over last 10 yaers, but people do not think rapes have increased.

On this one issue - guns make you personally safer - the anti-gun-control lobby has not an intellectual leg to stand on. But that will not change hearts and minds.

I believe you are wrong to a degree that only an intellectual is capable of, but it doesn't really matter anymore. Americans have awoke to the danger, and are now actively forcing the issue. We WILL maintain our freedom to own and carry guns, and we don't give a crap what you Brits, or anyone else thinks about it.

Having a communist "Precedent" has resulted in a massive surge in gun ownership and purchases of ammunition.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... in-america


The public has voted with their dollars and their feet.


Halleluiah!

[Diogenes]

You are right we don't trust our politicians/gov as much as you brits/europeans seem to.

Difficult to say which is the least trustworthy: a Daily Mail article, or a politician.

However, in this case the politician makes a reasonable point (it's difficult to compare violent crime rates from one country to another due to differences in the way they are recorded), so solving that tricky little dilemma.

By the way, outside of their swivel-eyed readership, The Daily Mail is widely regarded as a joke - see here, and here, not to say its support for Hitler in the 30's.

Then you ought to regard it as a good source, after all, Hitler firmly believed in Gun control. Of course, if support for a socialist dictator should render a media agency as having damaged credibility, then we pretty much have to eliminate all of them.

Support for Joe Stalin was pretty universal amongst the left wing media. Some of them were going so far as to cover up his mass murders in the Ukraine. (20 million people or so.)


It would suit me to regard all media sources as liars, since they are mostly the playthings of the left wing anyway.

[Diogenes]

Government's decision to opt for public order at the cost of individual safety began in 1920 when fears of a Bolshevik revolution led to passage of the Firearms Control Act, the first real restriction on handguns for self-defence. The act required police to license handguns. Approval was to be based upon whether the applicant was a "suitable person" to have a gun and had a "good reason" to have it. A series of classified instructions from the Home Office narrowed the definition of "good reason" until in 1969 the police were informed: "It should never be necessary to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." In 1997, in response to the terrible Dunblane massacre, all handguns were banned and those already owned were confiscated. No exception was allowed for Britain's crack Olympic shooting team or for handicapped target shooters. The result has not been what the proponents expected. Gun crime had doubled a decade later with the very weapon banned. Indeed, in London gun crime in 2010 had doubled in one year. While gun crime climbs, the police are intolerant of any innocent contact with a gun. In 2009 when former soldier Paul Clarke turned in a gun he found in his garden to the Surrey police, he was immediately taken to the cells to face a five-year prison sentence. Surrey law required him to telephone the police and they would pick up the gun. At Clarke's trial the judge pointed out: "in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

homicide rate 4 X lower than US? How is that not safer?

All countries have had nasty riots at specific times and places. They are a sign that a subclass of people are completely at odds with societies norms. We last has them in Bristol (1980 I think). That caused a major rethink of many things.

This time the riots are more difficult because they had no clear cause, just young people being completely lawless. Deep-seated causes no doubt.

Would guns have protected people? Only if the rioters did not haveguns. othrwise in the chaos and fear (yes, lots of that) many more people on both sides would have died.

It is extremely silly to post outlying events and think that they prove anything about the average. Do you want me to post stuff about nasty US riots? You have had them!

Yes, I want you to post something about a US Riot. I want you to post about how Korean Store owners climbed on top of their roofs and warned the rioters that they would kill them if they came any closer. (Rodney King Riot in Los Angeles)

I want you to write about the fact that THEIR area of the city didn't get burned and looted. How about you write about THAT riot?





http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/08/11/h ... alifornia/

[Diogenes]

Ah yes, a country where the citizenry is armed never experiences riots (and of course, should the unthinkable happen in such a country, only the good guys would use guns).

London Riots 2011 deaths: 1

LA Riots 1992 deaths: 53


Did I mention that the homicide rate is four times higher in the US than here in the UK?

Four. Times. Higher!

Most of our riots are race riots. Most of our homicides are Minority on Minority homicides.


It's a dirty little secret we're not supposed to talk about or notice.








Get a frickin clue.

[Diogenes]

The point is that the steps taken by your government in the 20th century i.e. the gradual systematic banning of firearms and practically speaking self defense have not helped the British people in fact they have made things worse.

Nah, the point is the vast majority of us here in the UK are very happy that guns and crime involving guns are rare and wouldn't want that to change. Why would we?

And by all means, you lot keep your guns and your 85 fatal shootings per day and your incredibly high homicide rate. No skin off my nose. I never intend to visit - in fact the aforementioned being prime reasons not to.

I think your Labour party's insistence upon opening up the floodgates of immigration from third world countries (especially Islamic countries) is going to result in your statistics changing for the worse.

I wonder what you will do when it reaches a critical mass? Probably beg us for guns once again. Silly Buggers, wot?

[Diogenes]

maybe we should disarm the police too.

You joke, but they more or less did in England.

Cause if you disarm the police injuries/deaths among the police decline. Of course they do because disarmed cops are far less likely to intervene in violent situations because they can't defend themselves let alone help a crime victime. If cops patroling in violent neighborhoods in the US were disarmed, thats what they would do "patrol" from the safety of their cars, only showing up much much later to take victim statements(if their still alive) and cart away the bodies. Suppose incidents of police brutality would decline...crime would skyrocket as the gangs were emboldened realizing they had little to fear from the police.
Bet if you disarmed our soldiers in Afghanistan injuries/deaths among them would decline too. Because they would be to scared to patrol outside of being inside well armed vehicles and would refuse to leave the base to patrol.

Sounds stupid, but they DID give us Neville Chamberlain.

[krenshala]

Ah yes, a country where the citizenry is armed never experiences riots (and of course, should the unthinkable happen in such a country, only the good guys would use guns).

London Riots 2011 deaths: 1

LA Riots 1992 deaths: 53


Did I mention that the homicide rate is four times higher in the US than here in the UK?

Four. Times. Higher!

Um, the murder rate in the US is only ... only ... four times higher than in the UK? Thats not too shabby considering we have about five times the population.

According to a couple different sources, UK has ~63M people, while the US ~313M as of 2011/2012. 63/313 = 4.968253968 ...

[CKay]

Um, the murder rate in the US is only ... only ... four times higher than in the UK? Thats not too shabby considering we have about five times the population.

Haha.... priceless!

Please keep the comedy coming everyone.