Back from the brink?

Written By: - Date published: 11:48 am, January 11th, 2011 - 269 comments
Categories: us politics - Tags: , ,

For years, the Right in America has been ramping up the violent undertones in its rhetoric. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement have encouraged their followers to think that their guns are all that stands in the way of a socialist coup (and any restriction on those guns will be the start of the coup). Now, the violence has become real and the Right has, with some exceptions, baulked. Will the Tea Party’s rhetoric be scuttled?

The Tea Party has thrived by creating paranoia among its followers about a socialist takeover and fomenting gun-obsessed wackos’ violent fantasies. Now, inevitably, one of them has acted on those fantasies. Thankfully, the ‘mainstream’ Tea Party has reacted with horror, and tried to disassociate themselves by lamely claiming they have never advocated violence.

There doesn’t appear to be any appetite within the Tea Pay leadership for actual violence. Either it has all been an act to recruit the rednecks or they know that their position is still too weak for violence to be effective, and would only lead to isolating them and uniting both the Republican and Democrat establishments against them.

But, having quickly shunned and delegitimised the violence their rhetoric had inspired, where does the extreme Right go now? Glenn Beck can’t keep crying and warning that Americans have to be ready to resist Obama’s revolution. Sarah Palin can’t continue pretending she knows one end of a rifle from the other and making guns central to her political persona.

Can the Tea Party survive without its militant undertones?

Or will this reactionary, proto-fascist movement collapse if its leaders back away from their violent rhetoric? Let’s hope so.

269 comments on “Back from the brink? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    11 January 2011 at 12:18 pm

    No appetite within the Tea party leadership for actual violence. I dont think so
    Look at the comments from Tea Party senate candidate Sharron Angle in Nevada ( who lost)
    I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
    the 2nd amendment of course gives the right to carry guns.

    • Bright Red 1.1
      11 January 2011 at 12:20 pm

      jesus. still, an outlier, hopefully.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        11 January 2011 at 12:31 pm

        Yeah but in the US the most extreme 0.1% of the population still constitutes 300,000 people.

        And a lot of them will have a lot of guns.

        Further thought – the Tea Party shows that a lot of people in the US are angry with their economic and social situations. They may be following completely bogus understandings of what has happened to their families and their communities, but that anger is real.

        Good jobs have disappeared, social services are being cut, real wages have been stagnant for 30 years, and people are indebted to their eyeballs after trying to live as if that was not the case.

        The Right Wing knows what would happen if people figured out the true culprits of this situation – a few tens of thousands of followers of Chicago School neoliberalism. Smart of them to deflect that anger on to their political enemies instead.

        It also shows how inept the US “Left” has been at understanding and utilising these same dynamics.

        • Craig Glen Eden 1.1.1.1
          11 January 2011 at 12:40 pm

          Oh but she’s not meaning violence, no no she’s actually talking about 2nd amend rights which is the right to sit down and have a Tea Party. A Totally nonviolent take out of opponents you understand and anyone who says otherwise is a communist.
          Sarcasm 101.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.2
        11 January 2011 at 12:55 pm

        Then there is the comment on the @SarahPalinUSA twitterpage in may 2010

        Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”

        http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/10935548053

        For legal reasons the Teaparty leaders wont out and out say ‘Kill them’ but they are using codes phrases that say the same thing.

        AS well the Republican opponent to Giffords had a campaign meeting at a shooting range
        Get on target for victory in November help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly
        Im not sure of Kellys has a connection to the teaparty

  2. Richard 2
    11 January 2011 at 1:07 pm

    The left has had its share of violence inspired by rhetoric too. Remember the Red Brigade and Red Army Faction.

    I think that an important rule to remember is that, whether you are right or left, if the political actions you either commit or appeal to in your rheotoric are indistinguishable from the actions of a psychopath, then you are wrong.

    • Pascal's bookie 2.1
      11 January 2011 at 1:17 pm

      Remember the Red Brigade and Red Army Faction.

      Nah, I’m only pushing 40 though, so I have an excuse. So what was the rhetoric from mainstream lefties that inspired the violence?

      • Richard 2.1.1
        11 January 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Nah, I’m only pushing 40 though, so I have an excuse.

        Way off topic, but splinter groups and groups at least claiming to be the successors to the orginal groups have been active(ish) until at least the 1990s.

        So what was the rhetoric from mainstream lefties that inspired the violence?

        Red Army Faction originally arose out of mass student protests against the federal German government in the 1960s (they were protesting against increased fees, increased commodification of education, use of education as a tool for the state to train workers, etc). Plus other bits and bobs like US military presence in Germany, the Vietnam War and so forth.

        Pretty much normal leftie “smash the state” rhetoric.

        • lprent 2.1.1.1
          11 January 2011 at 2:02 pm

          “Smash the state” is usually the rhetoric of anarchists and libertarians (I usually can’t tell the difference myself) rather than what comes from the ‘left’.

          As I remember the red army faction and other similar groups (pretty much before my time as well and I’m 51), they weren’t so much interested in smashing the state as they were in changing the type of state.

          I’d suggest that you could do to read some actual history rather than just making it up as you go along.

          • Richard 2.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2011 at 2:31 pm

            “Smash the state” is usually the rhetoric of anarchists and libertarians

            Perhaps. Although in the sense of “…so we can replace it with this beter one”, it seems to apply to the left too.

            I see that the recent article on this site The widening gap is tagged as “class war”. This is the sort of left rhetoric that existed (well before) the 1960s, and obviously still exists today. This is the sort of left rhetoric that those left wing groups took literally and seriously.

            • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2011 at 2:45 pm

              Authors here write their own opinions, and there is quite a range of opinions and similarly tag in their own fashion. See the about.

              For instance if you look at my posts you’ll not find any mention of “class war’. But I’m a social conservative with a penchant for looking forward in the long-term (the latter prevents me from voting for conservative parties)

              In Marty’s case I suspect he was looking at the increasing disparities of wealth in society and looking at the effects on egalitarianism and opportunities of social movement that was built here in the 20th century rather than the older rhetoric from the 19th century. That is something as a conservative that I’m deeply committed to as well. Basically the idea of an hereditary aristocracy is something that simply doesn’t work. It is an exercise in governmental stupidity as we can see in the US (which probably comes closest to it these days).

              • Richard …
                11 January 2011 at 3:07 pm

                Authors here write their own opinions…

                That’s all well and good.

                However, it does not change the fact that mainstream elements of the left also use violent imagery (sometimes). It is not just a problem of the right. Psychopaths sometimes act on this rhetoric.

                Does this mean that violent rhetoric should be “banned”? If so, does that mean that all media that portrays violence should be censored? If Sarah Palin has to be censored does Marilyn Manson have to be too?

                The Tea Party is totally and utterly and irredeemably stupid. But we didn’t need a psychopath with a gun to tell us that.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 January 2011 at 3:24 pm

                  You’re trying to create ridiculous positions.

                  Calls to violence against others have no place in mainstream politics.

                  Yet you try to extend this idea to discussing some kind of ban on Hollywood Arnie films or 50 cent videos.

                  WTF.

                  • Richard …
                    11 January 2011 at 3:42 pm

                    Yet you try to extend this idea to discussing some kind of ban on Hollywood Arnie films or 50 cent videos.

                    It’s the same argument.

                    You (apparently) think that the Tea Party should not use violent imagery because of the danger that a psychopath will take the imagery seriously and literally.

                    This is exactly the same argument (probably used by the Tea Party itself) to argue for censorship from adults of other sorts of media. Hollywood violence has to be censored because of the danger that a psychopath will take it seriously and imitate it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2011 at 4:07 pm

                      Nutty like a choc bar.

                      Why are you trying to equate decorum in mainstream political discourse to an R18 Arnie Movie, Notorious or 2Pac. They are not equivalent in societal purpose, standing or environment. Its daft. Cannot believe you think we should be talking about Hollywood movies and the process of governing citizens as if they are one and the same. What kind of fiction is this? Hollywood is fiction, political leaders are real leaders in real communities.

                      And why should I care if Tea party idiots use this kind of argument, that does not make it any less daft.

                    • Richard …
                      11 January 2011 at 4:19 pm

                      Colonial Viper :Why are you trying to equate decorum in mainstream political discourse to an R18 Arnie Movie, Notorious or 2Pac

                      So, do you think that political discourse needs to be censored — because of the danger that psychopaths will act on it — but culture doesn’t? Is that correct?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2011 at 4:27 pm

                      So, do you think that political discourse needs to be censored — because of the danger that psychopaths will act on it — but culture doesn’t? Is that correct?

                      Beejjjeezus dude, why would our political leaders be saying such violent and obscene things to start with that you even need to think about censoring them???????

                      Why the hell are you even positioning Sarah Palin and a criminal gangsta rapper in the same sentence???????

                      I want to know what planet you live on and whether you come up with BS theoretical scenarios for laughs or for pay.

                • lprent …
                  11 January 2011 at 4:23 pm

                  However, it does not change the fact that mainstream elements of the left also use violent imagery (sometimes). It is not just a problem of the right. Psychopaths sometimes act on this rhetoric.

                  You’re basing this on what – an example from when I was a teenager? More importantly from a different country to either here in NZ or the US.

                  Quite frankly if you keep straining to get to this level of pontificating bullshit, then I suspect you’ll get hemarroids (?sp) quite early.

                  Does this mean that violent rhetoric should be “banned”? If so, does that mean that all media that portrays violence should be censored? If Sarah Palin has to be censored does Marilyn Manson have to be too?

                  And where did you get that from? As far as I can see, the only one talking about censorship is you – wanting to censor talk on why Sarah Palin is a political idiot.

                  What was said was that fuckwit politicians (eg like Sarah Palin) should not be encouraging it for their personal political gain because the consequences of such encouragement would have consequences. I’d suspect that her idiotic encouragement has sunk her chances of getting any political office for the foreseeable future. Furthermore the same political judgement is likely to be cast over all the other fuckwit politicians doing the same thing.

                  • Richard …
                    11 January 2011 at 5:06 pm

                    the only one talking about censorship is you – censor talk on why Sarah Palin is a political idiot.

                    I’ve not said that.

                    Palin is a political idiot, I agree.

                    I quite sure that the Tea Party violence rhetoric was only ever intended to be a branding exercise, an attempt to psychologically intimidate opponents, and a way to galvanise voters for the right in the US. I don’t usually trust much that politicians say, especially right wing ones, but I do actually believe the Tea Party leaders when they say did not intend to encourage anybody to actually assassinate their (domestic) political opponents. However, their brand has, I think, been tainted by this assassination attempt. Perhaps, not irrevocably, but it has certainly been damaged.

                    It’s perfectly fine to laugh at the train-wreck of idiocy that is Sarah Palin and US politics.

                    But, our left wing discourse is not immune from using violent rhetoric, certainly internationally and historically the left wing uses violent rhetoric and violence itself.

                    Something like the Tea Party is a mistake that the left could all too easily make too, and that is what we should be worried about. Some of the rhetoric about, say, wall-street bankers, taxation etc is quite inflammatory. Despite the fact that we might (or might not) think “class war” is a dry piece of political economic jargon — that’s not how it would be read as a part of a mass market campaign.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2011 at 5:14 pm

                      But, our left wing discourse

                      If you are a left winger then I’m the next President of the USA.

                      “OUR” indeed what a frakin laugh. Thanks but not thanks for your ‘concern’.

            • Bright Red 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 January 2011 at 2:53 pm

              can you please

              a) point out where Marty has espoused violence or used violent imagery in calling for action
              or
              b) grow up and apologise

              no, calling something a ‘class war’ is not a call for violence – it refers to the inherent conflict between economic classes as they try to maximise their own shares of the national wealth.

              • Richard …
                11 January 2011 at 3:10 pm

                So you are saying that Marty does not mean “class war” (or at least the “war” part) literally. I agree that is probably the case.

                However, how is that different to Sarah Palin arguing that she did not mean for her supporters to actually “take out” (or whatever) her opponents?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 January 2011 at 3:20 pm

                  Uh, because “class war” is philosophical term in political economics stretching back a century or two, whereas “taking someone out” is from The Sopranos and typically means that you kill them.

                  • Richard …
                    11 January 2011 at 3:26 pm

                    Right and “war” never means killing people.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2011 at 4:18 pm

                      Frakwit.

                    • mcflock …
                      12 January 2011 at 11:54 am

                      “Right and “war” never means killing people.”

                      In the same way that “taking out” never means buying their movie ticket, a nice meal, maybe a few drinks and hoping to get biological.

                      There is a significant difference between using the term “class war” (in its context of describing entrenched sociopolitical frictions within a society) in a political commentary on a political commentary website where the context of the expression would [should] be widely understood, and an actual candidate explicitly using the patois of street violence at a campaign rally (and maybe even directing it at specific opposition candidates).

                      If you can’t see that, you’re a bigger idiot than Palin.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2
          11 January 2011 at 2:02 pm

          Pretty much normal leftie “smash the state” rhetoric.

          Thats rubbish. Anarchists are not Left Wing. They are into, well anarchy.

          Anyhows, the only need there is to smash the state is if the state starts representing the corporations and the financial capital, and not their people.

          So what other history lessons do you have for us which might be relevant to 21st century NZ.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2011 at 2:19 pm

            Anarchism and communism are very similar. They both get rid of the dictatorial hierarchy that has been around for millennia and replace it with some form of participatory democracy. Anarchism seems to be based around the market and communism around, well, the community.

            Anyhows, the only need there is to smash the state is if the state starts representing the corporations and the financial capital, and not their people.

            Which, of course, is where we’re at now. Especially the US in whose footsteps we’re following.

            • lprent 2.1.1.2.1.1
              11 January 2011 at 2:32 pm

              The communist ideal was that the state would eventually ‘wither away’ rather than get smashed. But I always considered the ‘pure’ communism was just another form of anarchism because it required that people would voluntarily look at issues longer term for the good of their neighbours hundreds of kilometers away and would avoid nimby behaviors.

              I always found that to be rather idealistic just simply because I could never figure out how the infrastructure required to support large populations would ever get built. Quite simply it required all individual people to get involved in political debates about the allocation of resources long term. My experience is that most people have absolutely no interest in much beyond their day to day realities.

              The libertarian version of anarchism is even less likely to work

          • Nick K 2.1.1.2.2
            11 January 2011 at 2:24 pm

            Is the Green Party left wing? They advocate lawlessness for political purposes, and always have.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.2.1
              11 January 2011 at 2:36 pm

              Rubbish.

              • Bright Red …
                11 January 2011 at 2:40 pm

                no, CV, I clearly remember Russel Norman saying that the government was undertaking an unconstitutional revolution, that citizens need to be armed and prepared to fight back.

                That’s right, eh, Nick K?

                • higherstandard …
                  11 January 2011 at 2:48 pm

                  No you’re mistaken it was actually “gimme back my fwag, gimme back my fwag, gimme back my fwag, gimme back my fwag “

                  • Bright Red …
                    11 January 2011 at 3:06 pm

                    It would have been so much more manly if he had a gun, eh, HS?

                    It kind of makes you tingle in funny places at the thought, eh?

                    • higherstandard …
                      11 January 2011 at 3:29 pm

                      Not at all – but it certainly made me long for the days of Jeanette and Rod rather than that petulant child.

                      feck mods can you fix me typo please.

                      [lprent: Done. You could just register and login – then it will always be correct. ]

                    • orange whip? …
                      11 January 2011 at 9:37 pm

                      Funny thing to say higherstandard. What did you actually think of Jeanette and Rod in their day? I’m going to hazzard a guess that it wasn’t all that charitable.

                  • prism …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:53 pm

                    Oh dear can’t we have a higherstandard of comment from you?

        • bbfloyd 2.1.1.3
          11 January 2011 at 5:49 pm

          Ricky… i’ve always found that in order to have an opinion that is relevant, then an understanding of the whole issue is necessary. in other words, do you think that the political situation in the USA is identical to the one that spawned such movements as the red brigade in europe in the 50’s and 60’s.

          do you actually have enough appreciation of the events, and the pressures prevalent right across europe in that period to be able to transfer that to modern america? if so, then i would like to see a breakdown of the facts as you see them.. otherwise, i would be forced to assume you are doing no more than attempting to misdirect the discussion..

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2
      11 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

      These are fringe groups which actively use violence. People like Palin wont go as far as that but if they use the symbols and wording of ‘shooting’ and someone so described is shot they they have to wear the consequences

    • Colonial Viper 2.3
      11 January 2011 at 1:30 pm

      The left has had its share of violence inspired by rhetoric too.

      Not the left as represented by Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists.

    • Bright Red 2.4
      11 January 2011 at 1:55 pm

      Richard: ‘they did it too’ is no excuse. In fact, it’s an admission that the Tea Party has been encouraging violence.

      • Richard 2.4.1
        11 January 2011 at 2:12 pm

        I’m not arguing that the Tea Party is blameless, or that “they it too”. The Tea Party is idiotic. It always was. A nutter with a gun doesn’t make it more or less idiotic.

        However, it is hardly news that violent rhetoric eventually results in psychopaths taking it seriously. The twentieth century is littered with examples both left and right.

        • the pink postman 2.4.1.1
          11 January 2011 at 2:48 pm

          The tea Party is obviously the nutty far Right of the Republican Party. What is of interest is that the NZ National Party is a member of the International Democratic Union and the Pacific Democratic Union. Senior Member is the USA Republican Party. There is evidence that theR/P has often helped and influenced the National Party. Can we expect some Right-Wing violence here .

          • higherstandard 2.4.1.1.1
            11 January 2011 at 2:50 pm

            “Can we expect some Right-Wing violence here.”

            If you mean from a political perspective – No

            • Bright Red 2.4.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2011 at 2:59 pm

              Nearly the political violence in NZ has been right on left – the Red Brigade, the Trade’s Hall Bombing, Waihi, 1951, Massey’s Cossacks etc

              • the pink postman …
                11 January 2011 at 3:54 pm

                Don’t forget Sidney Holland and the 1951 lock-out. Don’t forget Muldoon and Bastion Point and the SA Tour. Remember when he boasted that he had hit one of he protesters. The political Right has always used violence as a means of getting in to power.
                Just listen to Nats talking about workers ,unemployment and unions its scary. Listen to their yapping about “Tightning the Belt’ and listen to some of the scary talk from some Right-Wing farmers. Im afraid the Political Right is mainly made up,of nasty selfish people .In eighty years of living I have never met a nice one yet. As Harawira has said I would not like my sons to marry one. Why do you think they are known as the Nasty Parties ?

        • Colonial Viper 2.4.1.2
          11 January 2011 at 3:02 pm

          When you say Left in this context you are clearly not referring to Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists.

          Lenin, Stalin and Mao have very little to do with the modern political Left.

          • Richard 2.4.1.2.1
            11 January 2011 at 3:33 pm

            Lenin, Stalin and Mao have very little to do with the modern political Left.

            So?

          • ghostwhowalksnz 2.4.1.2.2
            11 January 2011 at 3:50 pm

            The left could be blamed for students throwing custard pies at Anne Coulter?

            • Colonial Viper 2.4.1.2.2.1
              11 January 2011 at 4:14 pm

              Lolz Richard is trying real hard to deflect the discussion.

              Notice how he takes the high ground by saying that the Tea Party is crazy and extreme, then immediately pushes positions supporting their behaviour of violent and extremist rhetoric.

              – By saying everyone does it.
              – By saying that if Hollywood is allowed to do it, everyone should be allowed to do it
              – By saying that the Left is the same as the Right
              – By saying that the Up is the same as the Down
              – etc

              Transparent as transparent aluminum.

  3. Pascal's bookie 3
    11 January 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Dave Neiwert has a little list

    http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/terror-arizona-just-another-isolated

    Youbetcha.

    These are not the terrorists you are looking for.

    There must be something in the water dear.

    Who would have thunk it?

    The left is just the same.

    It’s wrong to politicise this.

    You are just forgetting what it was like when Bush was in power, afterall, some random dude called him H1tler that time, and The democratic party did nothing! Except for vote for a resolution condemning that sort of thing.

    But still.

  4. Orangepeel 4
    12 January 2011 at 5:34 am

    “The Tea Party has thrived by creating paranoia among its followers about a socialist takeover and fomenting gun-obsessed wackos’ violent fantasies.”
    I have never understood how people think that protesting high taxation during a recession and believe in their constitution makes them “paranoid of a socialist takeover and fomenting gun-obsessed wackos'”. Anyone care to explain to me how there’s a connection?

    And which rhetoric are you talking about here? Do you mean like the stuff the Democrats were spouting 2 years ago up ’til now? Do not forget that the Republicans may have had cross hairs on a map, but the Democrats had bullseyes.

    “Can the Tea Party survive without its militant undertones?”
    Believe you me, we can. I’ve been against both the bailout and the military spending, but it’s a shame they weren’t stopped, and the only movement which is against both has been flagged as bigoted (by bigots), racist (by racists) and ignorant (by the ignorant).

    “Or will this reactionary, proto-fascist movement collapse if its leaders back away from their violent rhetoric? Let’s hope so.”
    Mussolini defined Fascism as the marriage between government and business. WHY WOULD FASCISTS BE AGAINST BAILOUTS?

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      12 January 2011 at 7:23 am

      Can you point me to any Democratic Party candidates talking about the need for ‘second ammendment remedies’? How about one telling their supporters that they need to stock up on guns?

      Got video of any Democratic Party candidates sharing a platform with militia leaders who are talking about the need for armed resistence to the federal govvernment?

      If you have, then you have equivalent rhetoric.

      How many liberals have walked into conservative churches in the last 18 months and started shooting people?

      • Orangepeel 4.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 7:42 am

        “Can you point me to any Democratic Party candidates talking about the need for ‘second ammendment remedies’?”
        Absolutely not! Since when has a Democratic party candidate been in favour of constitutional rights?

        “Got video of any Democratic Party candidates sharing a platform with militia leaders who are talking about the need for armed resistence to the federal govvernment?”
        They ARE the government, why would they resist themselves?

        “How many liberals have walked into conservative churches in the last 18 months and started shooting people?”
        Right, so because a madman who is also a conservative commits the horrid act of murder, that means conservatives in general are guilty of the same crime. Makes perfect sense.

        • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 8:06 am

          You’re really not getting it, are you? The Democrats aren’t the government, they’re the current leaders of the political arm. In political terms they are probably centre or centre right in most policy areas, because it appears impossible to get what would normally be considered sensible left/centre left policies up in the USA.

          The civilised world looks at the description of Obama as socialist and laughs. It’s also pretty funny that the USA doesn’t have free education, healthcare or efficient public transport, yet still labours under the delusion that they are the freest population in the world. And don’t get me started on the guns! What an awful way to live, knowing that you can be shot by any one of your fellow citizens for any reason at any time. I prefer the genuine freedom to live my life in cooperation with my fellow citizens, free from fear. It’s really cool.

          Some time in the next twenty years, the USA will lose it’s status as the world’s strongest economy. Chanting ‘we’re no. 2, we’re no. 2’ isn’t going to be as much fun, guy.

          • Orangepeel 4.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 8:18 am

            “You’re really not getting it, are you?”
            Getting what?
            “The Democrats aren’t the government, they’re the current leaders of the political arm. In political terms they are probably centre or centre right in most policy areas, because it appears impossible to get what would normally be considered sensible left/centre left policies up in the USA.”
            Who DOESN’T know that? The National government’s centre – right too, and they’re just as bad. They may as well call themselves Labour.

            Believe me, I ain’t one of the loons who call Obama a Socialist, but sacrificing capital gain for economic “fairness” (it’s not fairness, it’s equal outcomes at the expense of other’s labour: theft) at a time when the nation is in debt isn’t exactly wise in my books.

            “… free education, health care, or efficient transport…”
            I laugh at people who think that public education is ‘free’, when there’s no such thing as free education if other people are FORCED to pay for it!
            Compare Canada’s health care to the US’s: the US is having such major problems with it’s capitalistic health care system, and yet it STILL isn’t as bad as Canada’s public one! If there hadn’t been such subsidising and therefore debt with them; basically government interference plus the recession, there wouldn’t even be a problem with it.
            Do you honestly believe New Zealand has and efficient public transport system? America’s is a lot better, but you knew that.

            Oh please, oh dear God please don’t tell me you believe in gun control! Give me ONE statistic where Gun control HASN’T increased crime rates! ONE!
            Oh yeah, are you aware that the majority of people you meet are actually good people, and if you gave them a gun they actually wouldn’t go around shooting everyone in sight? Are you aware that there has not been a SINGLE major shootout in the WORLD in an area with gun ownership rights? Are you aware that criminals have openly admitted to preferring to commit crimes in Gun controlled areas where they know citizens are unarmed and helpless? Here’s a few videos if you don’t believe me:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg&feature=related
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related

            “Some time in the next twenty years, the USA will lose it’s status as the world’s strongest economy. Chanting ‘we’re no. 2, we’re no. 2′ isn’t going to be as much fun, guy.”
            As much as I hope that won’t be the case, I’m afraid I do agree with you there. If Obama stays in power, corporatist China will be the next #1 superpower.

            • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 8:30 am

              “Are you aware that there has not been a SINGLE major shootout in the WORLD in an area with gun ownership rights?”

              Do you not read the news? There was a major shootout in Arizona on the weekend. Look it up, you might find it educational. I’m also pretty sure there are major shootouts most days in the other 49 states. So many, in fact, they aren’t even newsworthy, unless someone famous dies.

              I’m in favour in gun ownership rights. Particular the right to restrict ownership so that the rest of us stay safe.

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    12 January 2011 at 8:11 am

    “Can you point me to any Democratic Party candidates talking about the need for ‘second ammendment remedies’?”
    Absolutely not! Since when has a Democratic party candidate been in favour of constitutional rights?

    Thank you. This is exactly the sort of thing we are talking about.

    1) If Democratic Party candidates are not in favour of constitutional rights, then it follows that they are dangerous to the republic. From that, it follows that patriots should shoot them.

    Fortunately, Democrats are not actually coming to get your guns. That’s simply bullshit. Unfortunately some people hear that sort of rhetoric and act on it, doing things like going into liberal churches and shooting people, or shooting cops. take a look at the neiwert link I posted above for some examples.

    2) What constitutional right are talking about. What is this alledged ‘second amendment remedy’ that people might start looking to use against policies they don’t like. Policies legislated by a duly elected congress and signed into law by a duly elected president.

    They ARE the government, why would they resist themselves?

    Again, thank you. I’m not sure who you mean by ‘they’, but I assume you mean Democrats. When the Democratic party is in power, it is because they are elected. I was asking you for examples of Democrats, when in opposition, sharing a platform with people saying that armed resistence to their opponents was on the table.

    Right, so because a madman who is also a conservative commits the horrid act of murder, that means conservatives in general are guilty of the same crime.

    I didn’t say, or imply, that.

    Perhaps you feel embarrassed that there has been so much political violence lately from conservatives. Instead of attacking strawmen, perhaps you might start to think about whether or not rhetoric saying liberals and/or democrats are a threat to the constitution might have played a role in the uptick.

  6. Orangepeel 6
    12 January 2011 at 8:25 am

    “What constitutional right are talking about. What is this alledged ‘second amendment remedy’ that people might start looking to use against policies they don’t like. Policies legislated by a duly elected congress and signed into law by a duly elected president.”
    Tell me, was it a Democrat or a Republican who instigated the total ban on handguns in Washington DC before it was declared Unconstitutional?

    “I was asking you for examples of Democrats, when in opposition, sharing a platform with people saying that armed resistence to their opponents was on the table.”
    http://current.com/1nf0s4c

    “I didn’t say, or imply, that.”
    And then you say:
    “Perhaps you feel embarrassed that there has been so much political violence lately from conservatives.”
    Of course I disapprove with their actions, but so what if he was conservative?

  7. Orangepeel 7
    12 January 2011 at 8:33 am

    “Do you not read the news? There was a major shootout in Arizona on the weekend.”
    Hence the ‘Don’t retreat, reload rhetoric.”
    Tell me: does America have a small or a LARGE population? Where exactly are these particular shootouts? Do you know what they all have in common?

    “I’m in favour in gun ownership rights. Particular the right to restrict ownership so that the rest of us stay safe.”
    I see. So you’d join the NRA if you could?

    • The Voice of Reason 7.1
      12 January 2011 at 9:29 am

      Hmmm, your first para makes no sense, so I’ll ignore it. As for the NRA, I have previously mused that I would join the NRA given the chance, if only to significantly lift the average intelligence of the membership and, secondly, to try to subvert it’s mission to allow the carnage to continue from the inside.

      • Orangepeel 7.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 9:33 am

        “Hmmm, your first para makes no sense, so I’ll ignore it.”
        That’s very (dare I say) ‘typical’ of you.
        I was playing at a country with a large population is going to have a larger amount of shootings. Why question their locations? They’re in areas where guns are particularly controlled. Take West Virginia or Illinois for example.

        So you think that banning guns & increasing crime is better than allowing people to choose whether or not they want to defend themselves?
        If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

        • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 9:49 am

          The tactic of asking questions only you know the answer to is childish. I understand that the Arizona shooter did exactly that to Giffords in the weeks before the shooting, posing some psuedo bullshit about grammar and government at a rally expecting an answer from her. I imagine she just rolled her eyes and thought I hope I don’t meet this nutter again.

          Don’t tell me what I think, dude. You’re not operating at that level anyway. I am opposed to banning guns. They are very useful on farms and in sporting clubs (used to be a NZ rated pistol shooter myself). But they have no place on our streets, in our bars, cafes and schools. They do not work as a defensive weapon, as all the stats from the States prove. A significantly large number of Americans are, in fact, shot by their own weapon.

          • Orangepeel 7.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 10:00 am

            “But they have no place on our streets, in our bars, cafes and schools. They do not work as a defensive weapon, as all the stats from the States prove. A significantly large number of Americans are, in fact, shot by their own weapon.”
            So are you for the banning of citizens carrying concealed guns in the streets? Isn’t it cafes where several of the shootouts have been?

            • Armchair Critic 7.1.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 10:33 am

              So are you for the banning of citizens carrying concealed guns in the streets?
              I certainly support banning citizens carrying concealed guns in the streets.
              There is almost nothing that can be achieved by carrying a gun that can’t be done better without a gun. Exceptions only for the likes of recreational hunting, pest eradication and target shooting in my book.
              Using guns to kill or injure people is only acceptable as a part of war – and I’m a reluctant pacifist.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 10:37 am

                “I certainly support banning citizens carrying concealed guns in the streets.
                There is almost nothing that can be achieved by carrying a gun that can’t be done better without a gun. Exceptions only for the likes of recreational hunting, pest eradication and target shooting in my book.
                Using guns to kill or injure people is only acceptable as a part of war – and I’m a reluctant pacifist.”
                But that’s exactly why there have been so many killings in the streets! Gun control laws don’t stop criminals from getting or carrying guns! That’s why they’re criminals! If you were a criminal, would you go to an area where everyone may or may not be carrying a gun, or an area where you know people aren’t carrying guns?
                Citizens being allowed to carry guns hasn’t lead to chaos in the streets. Taking away their protection and allowing criminals to attack them has.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  12 January 2011 at 10:49 am

                  That’s rather torturous logic, Op. The vague possibility that someone else may be packing isn’t going to stop any crim from going about his trade. And the arming of citizens isn’t currently stopping crime in the USA, so what point do you think you are making?

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 10:56 am

                    You’re joking, right? Do you not know the difference in crime rates between the South and the North?

                    “And the arming of citizens isn’t currently stopping crime in the USA, so what point do you think you are making?”
                    You don’t get do you? It’s not about arming the public, it’s about allowing them to choose whether or not they carry a weapon to defend themselves.
                    The point I’m trying to make is if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. Why would you ban guns for citizens when it has only ever increased crime? What harm is there in allowing people to choose whether or not they defend themselves?
                    If you don’t like guns, don’t carry one. But don’t rob people of the right to choose to defend themselves.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      12 January 2011 at 11:24 am

                      But guns are not defensive. They are an offensive weapon and the idea that people are more safe when they carry a weapon is bollocks. As I mentioned earlier, the more likely result is your gun is used to kill you. People in the states do not intervene in crime the way the fantasy tells you they do. Was it any help to Gifforths? To John Lennon? To the Kennedy bros? To whatever poor sod is dying in a robbery as we speak? Nope. No help at all.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 11:30 am

                    “But guns are not defensive. They are an offensive weapon and the idea that people are more safe when they carry a weapon is bollocks. As I mentioned earlier, the more likely result is your gun is used to kill you. People in the states do not intervene in crime the way the fantasy tells you they do. Was it any help to Gifforths? To John Lennon? To the Kennedy bros? To whatever poor sod is dying in a robbery as we speak? Nope. No help at all.”

                    Now THAT is where you’re getting ridiculous. How were the Jews rounded up and taken to concentration camps? National Socialists took their guns so that they were defenseless.
                    What were responsible for the Americans winning the revolution against England?
                    I can see you’ve gotten desperate, because you’ve been reduced to claiming that guns are now ‘bad’ so no one should be allowed to have them rather than actually making a fact-based argument.

                    Also, I don’t see that statistic anywhere? Didn’t you say that “History has actually proven that gun control works..”? Prove it! Show me ONE statistic!

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:05 pm

                      “What were responsible for the Americans winning the revolution against England?”

                      Frenchmen.

                    • mcflock …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:34 pm

                      Also, I don’t see that statistic anywhere? Didn’t you say that “History has actually proven that gun control works..”? Prove it! Show me ONE statistic!

                      Meh, wikipedia , but what the hey. US homicide rate 2009: 5/100k. NZ 2005 (last available on the site): 2/100k. Canada: 1.81/100k.

                      And bear in ming that this is homicide rate, so Canada’s allegedly abysmal health system won’t be saving as many people. /sarc

                      And the US rates are also subdivided by state – a quick glance suggests the southern states are weighted towards higher homicide rates? What’s their gun control like?

                • Armchair Critic …
                  12 January 2011 at 11:08 am

                  That’s a very American perspective. I’m inclined to believe you’ve not lived in NZ for more than a month or so, and you’ve probably never visited. Which is not pertinent to the discussion, but if you could confirm either way it would help me understand your perspective.
                  Addressing your points:
                  But that’s exactly why there have been so many killings in the streets!
                  So many killings in the streets in NZ? I’d guess that most of the deaths in the streets of NZ are due to MVAs, without a hint of a gun. Most of the gun deaths would be police shooting as a last resort, or gang members shooting each other.
                  Gun control laws don’t stop criminals from getting or carrying guns!
                  I’d not go that far. They do not prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms, they do reduce the amount of illegal possession of firearms, because there are less available to be acquired, and the those that can be acquired are less powerful.
                  If you were a criminal, would you go to an area where everyone may or may not be carrying a gun, or an area where you know people aren’t carrying guns?
                  I’m not a criminal. If I were I’d go where the most money was and figure out how to get my hands on it. This would, in all likelihood, not involve guns at all. I’d use more passive means, essentially confidence tricks or fraud. But not being a criminal, you can be sure I won’t be doing this, either.
                  If you are serious about stopping people carrying firearms to commit crime then you would consider measures that reduce the desire of these people to commit the crime. No doubt this will be too radical for you to consider.
                  Citizens being allowed to carry guns hasn’t lead to chaos in the streets.
                  In NZ, preventing citizens from carrying guns has not lead to chaos in the streets. Yours isn’t a good argument for allowing people to carrying guns.
                  Taking away their protection and allowing criminals to attack them has.
                  No one has had their protection taken away. Gun control just says “find a method of protecting yourself that is less likely to be lethal than carrying a gun”. Learn self-defence, make society safer by reducing inequality, learn how to keep yourself safe using passive methods – there’s no need to kill people.
                  There’s nowhere in the world where “criminals” are allowed to attack people. This is bullshit talk.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 11:18 am

                    “That’s a very American perspective. I’m inclined to believe you’ve not lived in NZ for more than a month or so, and you’ve probably never visited. Which is not pertinent to the discussion, but if you could confirm either way it would help me understand your perspective.”
                    I grew up in Devonport and have a house there.

                    “So many killings in the streets in NZ? I’d guess that most of the deaths in the streets of NZ are due to MVAs, without a hint of a gun. Most of the gun deaths would be police shooting as a last resort, or gang members shooting each other.”
                    How about shop owners who seem to be held up sometime or another every week in the news? They carry handguns. Where did they get them? Most likely a black market, seeing as how a lot of the time they don’t have a gun license.

                    “I’m not a criminal.”
                    Neither is the average person. If they carried a gun, they wouldn’t commit crimes.

                    “If you are serious about stopping people carrying firearms to commit crime then you would consider measures that reduce the desire of these people to commit the crime.”
                    Precisely. If you want to actually reduce crime, you can’t be in favour of more gun control. Just Google “Gun control reduces crime” and read any of the links.

                    “In NZ, preventing citizens from carrying guns has not lead to chaos in the streets.”
                    Did you stop to think that percentage wise New Zealand has more crime than the average US state?

                    “No one has had their protection taken away. Gun control just says “find a method of protecting yourself that is less likely to be lethal than carrying a gun””
                    So why would it be better for a would-be rape victim to not be carrying a gun?

                    “learn how to keep yourself safe using passive methods – there’s no need to kill people.”
                    Yeah, ban guns instead. It’ll work.

                    Give me one statistic where gun control has reduced crime. Just one. Go on.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      12 January 2011 at 11:28 am

                      Can’t be arsed finding a stat, but I can give you a country. NZ. Oh and England, Sweden, the rest of Europe etc etc. Basically, any country with respect for its citizens controls access to guns.

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:02 pm

                      I grew up in Devonport and have a house there.
                      Thanks. I also grew up in Auckland have a house where I live, south of Auckland.
                      How about shop owners who seem to be held up sometime or another every week in the news? They carry handguns. Where did they get them? Most likely a black market, seeing as how a lot of the time they don’t have a gun license.
                      Yeah, but your initial statement was about gun deaths in the streets. This is somewhat of a shift. On your original point, do you have better evidence than “seem to be” and “most likely”.
                      Addressing your point, which I presume is something like “shopkeepers should be allowed to carry weapons, to reduce the incidence of crimes being committed against them.” Feel free to correct me if I presume wrong.
                      I disagree. There are more effective ways of reducing crime than allowing shopkeepers to arm themselves.
                      Also, I don’t want to go to a shop armed, in case the shopkeeper decides I have done something wrong and need to defend myself against their firearm.
                      If they carried a gun, they wouldn’t commit crimes
                      Can you clarify – the use of “they” in both subclauses makes the meaning unclear.
                      If you want to actually reduce crime, you can’t be in favour of more gun control.
                      I do want to reduce crime and I do favour gun control – please don’t tell me what I can or can’t think.
                      I googled as you suggested and came up with this gem
                      “Most static sagest other wise, the opposite in fact. The National Academy of Sciences “could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crimes or murder. Because, Criminals do not fallow the law. It only restricts law-biting citizens from having weapons for protection.”
                      A lot of under-informed opinion, nothing solid that I could see. Perhaps you could provide a link to someone without an obvious agenda.
                      Did you stop to think that percentage wise New Zealand has more crime than the average US state?
                      So you are stepping back from “chaos in the streets” to “crime in NZ vs. the average US state”. How about you have the courage to stick to “chaos in the streets”.
                      So why would it be better for a would-be rape victim to not be carrying a gun?
                      Aha, an entirely hypothetical and highly emotive situation, we could disagree for days just on this alone. I’m not keen to go there, except to say:
                      (a) gun-point rapes are reasonably uncommon in NZ, and
                      (b) I’d prefer the hypothetical would-be rape victim to not be in the situation where they could be raped (because the rape-culture that exists has gone) and thus the life of the hypothetical rapist was not at risk either. What would you prefer?
                      Yeah, ban guns instead. It’ll work.
                      Who’s advocating a total ban on guns? Not me. I’m advocating for controls.
                      Give me one statistic where gun control has reduced crime. Just one. Go on.
                      The root cause of the crime is what needs to be addressed. Gun control is a part of reducing crime, not a complete solution. Any statistics can only show correlation, not causation, so your challenge is not realistic.

            • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1.1.1.2
              12 January 2011 at 10:44 am

              Yes, concealed weapons should be banned. As I understand it here, if you are caught carrying a concealed gun in NZ, you will almost certainly lose your right have weapons and will have a conviction against your name.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 10:47 am

                Forcing people to show everyone that they’re carrying a dangerous weapon intimidates them, putting pressure on them to hide it. But if they hide it they break the law. Therefore most people won’t bother to carry a weapon, and are left helpless to criminals who are concealing weapons.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  12 January 2011 at 10:54 am

                  OP, if someone pulls a gun on you, you are helpless. End of story. You could have a bazooka up your jacksie, for all the good it would do. Once you are staring down the barrel, resistance is futile. Best to cooperate, survive and then help the cops by giving them as much detail as possible.

                  To be clear, I am opposed to people carrying guns, concealed or not. It serves no good purpose and promotes crime.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 11:00 am

                    “OP, if someone pulls a gun on you, you are helpless. End of story. You could have a bazooka up your jacksie, for all the good it would do. Once you are staring down the barrel, resistance is futile. Best to cooperate, survive and then help the cops by giving them as much detail as possible.”
                    If they pull a knife on you you aren’t. If you see them pull a gun on someone else you can help them. That is what happens in America, where they don’t have the gun bans.

                    Like I said, if you don’t like guns, don’t carry one. If you think everyone around you is carrying guns, shouldn’t that be comforting? If you were in an area where guns were banned that would tell you no one can help if a criminal pulls a gun on you.

                    Give me one statistic where gun control has reduced crime.

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:06 pm

                      If you see them pull a gun on someone else you can help them. That is what happens in America, where they don’t have the gun bans.
                      We are not awash with stories of how complete strangers regularly rush to the aid of people being held at gunpoint, brandishing their own firearms in defence of the person being held up, because it doesn’t happen. Except in the movies.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:09 pm

                      Interestingly in the AZ incident, no one else fired a shot. There must gave been dozens of people in that shopping area packing heat, but no one fired a shot (apart from the perp killing people).

                      I hope that makes you feel so much safer Orangepeel.

                      As an aside:

                      Later in the interview, he took issue with laws that allow the carrying of concealed or non-concealed weapons at all times.

                      “That’s the height of insanity,” Dupnik said. “I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe they could pass a law that would require that every child have an Uzi in their crib.”

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html

                      Clip from the CBS interview is worth watching.

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:22 pm

                      I’d hypothesize that if society was condition to react as OP suggests and pulled out and used a firearm in defence of strangers, then Darwinism would come into effect and recondition the rest of us.
                      The questions one would face is “who is the bad guy, who do I shoot?”, “is there one person trying to commit a crime and one trying stop it, or two people trying to commit the crime?”. Sure, if it was legal to carry a firearm, and use it in self-defence then the resulting slaughter wouldn’t be a crime, but there would be a lot of people dead, unnecessarily. Hypothetically.

                  • lprent …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:36 pm

                    Depends on the range and how much you’ve practiced. When I was in the army I was a pretty good shot with everything except the bloody browning 9mm. With that I had problems hitting a person sized target at 25 metres, indeed my targeting was pretty useless at 10m. Whereas with a rifle I was lethal at 300M.

                    The best idea is not to get too damn close.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 11:33 am

                “Can’t be arsed finding a stat, but I can give you a country. NZ. Oh and England, Sweden, the rest of Europe etc etc. Basically, any country with respect for its citizens controls access to guns.”
                Hahaha you couldn’t find a statistic, stop lying.
                Don’t even get me started on Sweden’s crime rates.

                Also, I asked for you to find me a statistic where you can compare crime rates before and after gun control was instigated, and the result are in favour of gun control. But could you find one? No, you couldn’t, but you don’t want to admit to that do you? Why’s it so hard for you to google search gun control and prove to me that “History has proven gun control works”?
                Pathetic.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 January 2011 at 11:56 am

                  Well here is something on neighbouring Switzerland

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

                  Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture – but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

                  The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

                  It seems that the Swiss are somehow able to use the guns they have freely available in a more responsible fashion. Interesting.

                  And oh look

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

                  NZ’s firearms related death rate is 2.66 per 100,000, in the US its over 10 per 100,000.

                  Why’s it so hard for you to google search gun control and prove to me that “History has proven gun control works”?
                  Pathetic.

                  Time you should be getting advice from us, don’t you think, if you want to make your communities safer? Even Costa Rica and Uruguay kick the US’ ass in terms of firearms safety. Even Mexico’s drug war and crime gang driven gun death rate is only 20% higher than the US, at 12/100,000.

                  Like an addict who can’t admit a problem even though its staring them in the face.

                  How embarrassing.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:00 pm

                    “NZ’s firearms related death rate is 2.66 per 100,000, in the US its over 10 per 100,000”

                    How many MORE hundreds of thousands of people are in the US compared to NZ?
                    Comparing the two countries populations to support failed government control… how embarrassing.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:05 pm

                      Ummmmm…OK did you do math at school? Because those figures are per 100,000 of population.

                      That is, per person, the US has a 4x higher death rate from guns than NZ does.

                      And here you are preaching that your system makes you safer.

                      Well good on you coz thats a kind of American safety we don’t need!!!

                      Also, the US has about 300 million people more than NZ, not hundreds of thousands more.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:11 pm

                    “Also, the US has about 300 million people more than NZ, not hundreds of thousands more.”
                    *facepalms* Oh dear, I can’t believe you thought I meant that… I was talking about there are more ‘hundreds of thousands of people’ in America than there are in NZ.

                    Why not move to Australia? They banned guns, and gun crime went up 22%

                    Or Mexico, where there is a gun ban in every single major city, yet that’s where criminals in America who shoot out in GUN CONTROLLED areas obtain their weapons.
                    That’s the sort of system you guys support…

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  12 January 2011 at 11:58 am

                  Op, you really should try to reply under the comments. It makes life easier for us all.

                  I am not a liar, I’m at work so I really, really cannot be arsed trying to find a stat that will convince you and there probably isn’t one that you’d accept anyway. And if you think you’ve got stats that prove otherwise, er, fire away. The only stat that really counts is the death toll. And it is blindingly obvious that America has a problem in that area.

                  Abuse, BTW, is the blog world’s equivalent of rasing the white flag. ‘Help me, I’ve lost the argument and don’t know what to say next … so i’ll just call people names instead.’

                  Still, I suppose I should be grateful you didn’t just shoot me.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:03 pm

                    “Op, you really should try to reply under the comments. It makes life easier for us all.”
                    Fair enough, but how do I do that?

                    “Abuse, BTW, is the blog world’s equivalent of rasing the white flag. ‘Help me, I’ve lost the argument and don’t know what to say next … so i’ll just call people names instead.’”
                    I was really getting at the fact that you stated that history has shown gun control works, and yet you can’t be ‘arsed’ to simply google search. After all, it should be one of the first results if it works so well.

                    “Still, I suppose I should be grateful you didn’t just shoot me.”
                    I don’t own a gun, I just feel safer knowing I won’t get robbed when other people in the area can immediately deal with the criminal.

                    • lprent …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:27 pm

                      There is a reply link under each comment.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:30 pm

                      re: the reply function. Each individual comment in a sub thread has a ‘reply’ button on it (though there is a maximum number of related comments that will eventually bring it to an end). You seem to have got it right most times, but a few times (in your excitement to be having a conversation with us gun hating liberals?) you’ve replied in the main comment box, which starts another numbered thread. They are numbered, as well. So a reply to the first comment becomes 1.1, but a ‘new’ comment will be number 2. And so on…

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 12:32 pm

                    I couldn’t reply to the ‘re: comment’ because it’s reached it’s limit. This has happened quite a few times too.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:35 pm

                      When this happens, scroll up and reply to the last available reply button in the thread.

                    • lprent …
                      12 January 2011 at 12:42 pm

                      I’ve got the thread indent set to 10 which is the maximum allowed by wordpress. The arguments just keep going… Of course another thread could be started..

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    12 January 2011 at 8:38 am

    “Tell me, was it a Democrat or a Republican who instigated the total ban on handguns in Washington DC before it was declared Unconstitutional?”

    Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I’ll put it more bluntly.

    Do you think the second ammendment gives US citizens the constitutional right to armed revolt?

    Your link is to opinion pieces using fairly standard, but yes violent, metaphors. They are not the same thing as militia leaders saying that they are prepared to start a literal revolution.

    but so what if he was conservative

    You were saying that there is no difference between conservatives and liberals in terms of their rhetoric. I’m saying that there has been quite a lot of politically motivated violence from conservatives, and that perhaps their rhetoric has something to with that. So of course the political beliefs of people involved in political violence are of relevance.

    • Orangepeel 8.1
      12 January 2011 at 12:36 pm

      “When this happens, scroll up and reply to the last available reply button in the thread”
      I had to scroll down for this one :/ but I get what you mean.

  9. Orangepeel 9
    12 January 2011 at 8:42 am

    “Do you think the second ammendment gives US citizens the constitutional right to armed revolt?”
    I’ll answer with a question: do you know why the founding fathers put it there?

    “I’m saying that there has been quite a lot of politically motivated violence from conservatives, and that perhaps their rhetoric has something to with that. So of course the political beliefs of people involved in political violence are of relevance.”
    Whether or not a madman is conservative or liberal does not mean conservatives in general are to be placed with those sort of people.

    • Pascal's bookie 9.1
      12 January 2011 at 9:08 am

      Whether or not a madman is conservative or liberal does not mean conservatives in general are to be placed with those sort of people.

      True, but beside the point. I’ve not said ‘conservatives in general’ are ‘those sort of people’. I’ve said conservative rhetoric about the potential imminent need for armed revolution may well be influencing people towards, well, attempts at armed revolution. I don’t think this is an unreasonable point given the uptick in politically motivated violence from people who just happen to be right wing.

      I’ll answer with a question: do you know why the founding fathers put it there?

      Like all such questions, opinions vary. The federalists though, did win out over the anti-federalists. However, this is again, beside the point. Why don’t you just answer the question?

      “Do you think the second ammendment gives US citizens the constitutional right to armed revolt?”

      If you think it does, then are you saying that shooting politicians for political reasons is a constitutionally protected right?

      What eaxcatly is this alleged ‘second ammendment remedy’?

      • Orangepeel 9.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 9:17 am

        “Why don’t you just answer the question”
        The second amendment was put in place so that American citizens would never have to be put through a tyrannical dictatorship again. How were they meant to know whether or not they were living in a tyrannical state/were going to? Well, first of all they’d have their guns taken and the constitution changed.

        “If you think it does, then are you saying that shooting politicians for political reasons is a constitutionally protected right?”
        That’s almost a straw – man.
        You would have no need to assassinate a political head so long as you have your gun rights. Guns are how the people protect themselves from the government, and it’s the ONLY way. Gun control doesn’t reduce crime as history has proven, so there is literally no reason to make it illegal for people to choose whether or not they wish to defend their own rights.

        “What eaxcatly is this alleged ‘second ammendment remedy’?”
        It seems to be the encouragement of people actually owning guns (of course you know that just because guns are legal in an area, doesn’t mean people will actually buy them). And it makes perfect sense: if any of the victims had chosen to carry guns – bar minors of course – can you honestly say the same amount of people would have died?

        • The Voice of Reason 9.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 9:39 am

          “Gun control doesn’t reduce crime as history has proven, …”

          Jebus, now it’s getting weird. History has actually proven that gun control works. No guns, no gun deaths. The USA proves every day that without controls over gun ownership there will be carnage. I live in a country where there are plenty of guns, but bugger all deadly use of them against other citizens. That’s because we have controls on their use, the most sensible of which is the stopping of people with histories of criminal violence from being licenced gun owners.

          Ps, OP, use the reply button directly under the comment you are replying to, rather than the reply box at the foot of the page. It keeps the continuity going.

          • Orangepeel 9.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 9:45 am

            “Jebus, now it’s getting weird. History has actually proven that gun control works. No guns, no gun deaths. The USA proves every day that without controls over gun ownership there will be carnage. ”
            It appears you didn’t understand my previous paragraph too. You can’t compare countries with significant differences in population, but you can compare states of that country: can you explain to me why the states with strict gun laws have had more violent crime than those with gun ownership rights?
            Makes sense too. The only people who are actually going to obey gun control laws are law abiding citizens, who wouldn’t commit those crimes in the first place. So now you’ve disarmed the public, it’s only the criminals who have guns. Where will they get them? The recently-created black market, over the boarder, or make them as some have done and can do.
            Why would you want the average law abiding citizen’s gun taken, but not the criminal’s?

            • The Voice of Reason 9.1.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 9:54 am

              Read my comment again. I specifically said that I am OK with law abiding citizens having guns and that I oppose criminals having them. Hell, even though I fall into the latter category myself. Some youthful indiscretions mean I am unlikely to be issued a gun licence and I am totally cool with that. OK, I miss out on a bit of fun, but I’m safer overall.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.2
          12 January 2011 at 9:44 am

          It seems to be the encouragement of people actually owning guns

          That doesn’t make much sense given the context of the quote. I apologise if yuo didn’y know what I was talking about, but here’s the quote from GOP candidate Sharron Angle:

          “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

          “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

          That seems quite clear to me that the ‘remedy’ Angle is suggesting people will be considering is armed revolution.

          • Orangepeel 9.1.1.2.1
            12 January 2011 at 9:47 am

            “That seems quite clear to me that the ‘remedy’ Angle is suggesting people will be considering is armed revolution”
            She clearly doesn’t understand that they just need to protect themselves with guns, not make a pre-emptive strike.
            But if you had a gun, wouldn’t you rise up to a tyrannical government?

            • Bright Red 9.1.1.2.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 9:54 am

              and the problem is that the Teabaggers are calling Obama a tyrant, while also saying things like “if you had a gun, wouldn’t you rise up to a tyrannical government”.

              It’s a violent rhetoric that your loonier teabaggers were inevitably going to start putting into action.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 9:57 am

                “and the problem is that the Teabaggers are calling Obama a tyrant, while also saying things like “if you had a gun, wouldn’t you rise up to a tyrannical government”.”
                You must be one of those people who believe people should fear their governments.

                “It’s a violent rhetoric that your loonier teabaggers were inevitably going to start putting into action.”
                Not at all. We don’t strike first, hence the shooter wasn’t one of us.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 January 2011 at 11:46 am

                  Not at all. We don’t strike first, hence the shooter wasn’t one of us.

                  But you personally support a system which allowed him to buy a Glock 19 compact with an extended 33 round clip no problems, despite his troubled history of mental health and prior run ins with law enforcement.

                  Real clever.

  10. djp 10
    12 January 2011 at 8:45 am

    Did you forget the video that showed climate poluters being blown up eddie?

    Here is a bit of a refresher: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

  11. Orangepeel 11
    12 January 2011 at 8:48 am

    Indeed I have. Thank you for that, now I remember how hateful the left can be.

    • Pascal's bookie 11.1
      12 January 2011 at 9:11 am

      “Whether or not a madman is conservative or liberal does not mean conservatives in general are to be placed with those sort of people”

      And yet ‘the left’ is responsible for that video?

  12. Orangepeel 12
    12 January 2011 at 9:19 am

    “And yet ‘the left’ is responsible for that video?”
    And it was ‘Right wing’ rhetoric that influenced the madman?

  13. Rharn 13
    12 January 2011 at 11:12 am

    “Do you think the second ammendment gives US citizens the constitutional right to armed revolt?”

    Only the ‘winner’ can answer that question.

    Feds=No

    Revolutionaries=yes

    n 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2]

    As the law now stands……….NO

  14. Colonial Viper 14
    12 January 2011 at 11:44 am

    Wow orangepeel sure is professional, polished and well practiced 😛

    Love it that some Americans think that putting semiautomatic 9mm’s with 33 round clips on the street available to mentally unstable people with a history of police run ins, but who can still somehow buy the weapon and the extended clip (which used to be banned pre 2004) no questions asked, is somehow good for their society.

    Mutually Assured Destruction with small arms while you do your grocery shopping morning – great! By all means, NZ, lets follow their lead, its proving so good for them.

    (Hey how many of these people packing concealed .357 SIGs or 9mm FMJ even have enough training to understand that when they shoot a perp chances are the round will penetrate straight through and kill another one or two innocent bystanders?).

    • Orangepeel 14.1
      12 January 2011 at 11:47 am

      “Wow orangepeel sure is professional, polished and well practiced”
      Flattering.

      “Love it that some Americans think that putting semiautomatic 9mm’s with 33 round clips on the street available to mentally unstable people with a history of police run ins, but who can still somehow buy the weapon and the extended clip (which used to be banned pre 2004) no questions asked, is somehow good for their society.”

      Love how New Zealanders think that making it illegal to make that choice or not will reduce crime, yet have no evidence whatsoever.

  15. Orangepeel 15
    12 January 2011 at 11:49 am

    “But you personally support a system which allowed him to buy a Glock 19 compact with an extended 33 round clip no problems, despite his troubled history of mental health and prior run ins with law enforcement.”

    I love how you think that if that were made illegal, the shooter wouldn’t have been able to obtain a Glock 19.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      12 January 2011 at 12:00 pm

      You’re a professional lobbyist who personally supports a system making it LEGAL and EASY for the perp to get a Glock 19 with an extended 33 clip.

      From a retail store, in broad day light, in November!

      Good on you!

      You’re a real help to your society!

      • Orangepeel 15.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 12:07 pm

        “You’re a professional lobbyist who personally supports a system making it LEGAL and EASY for the perp to get a Glock 19 with an extended 33 clip.”
        I’m a real estate agent and I don’t own a gun.
        Did you know that in Texas when they regulated gun ownership (Texas… gun control… HA!) in 1991 the major shootings in Austin were from guns that were smuggled over the border in Mexico? Didn’t think so.

        I support a system that would allow the victims to defend themselves. You support a system that removes that right yet ignores the fact that 75% of gun crimes are in gun controlled areas with illegally obtained guns.

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 12:33 pm

          LOLz mate good on you for trying to make your community a safer place.

          Tell us won’t you when you match NZ’s gun death rate, which is currently 1/4 of the US gun death rate.

          Can’t wait.

  16. Orangepeel 16
    12 January 2011 at 12:16 pm

    “Interestingly in the AZ incident, no one else fired a shot. There must gave been dozens of people in that shopping area packing heat, but no one fired a shot (apart from the perp killing people).”
    My point I made before exactly. Just because you make guns legal in an area doesn’t mean everyone’s packing heat, despite the fact you guys seem so paranoid about being surrounded by guns if they were allowed.

    “I hope that makes you feel so much safer Orangepeel.”
    I hope you understand what you just said.

    Later in the interview, he took issue with laws that allow the carrying of concealed or non-concealed weapons at all times.

    “That’s the height of insanity,” Dupnik said. “I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe they could pass a law that would require that every child have an Uzi in their crib.”

    Tennessee made it the law for each household (this was only an electorate, mind you) to contain a gun. Gun crimes went down but over 40%. Don’t believe me? Google it.

    “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html
    Clip from the CBS interview is worth watching.”
    Hahaha, the sources.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      12 January 2011 at 12:32 pm

      Your country has 4 times the gun death rate of NZ. Why should we believe you on anything you say about guns?

      • Orangepeel 16.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 12:35 pm

        Because, percentage & population wise, NZ has higher crime rates. More people die each year in America, but the percentage of the population in the US is smaller than the percentage of those who die in NZ. But you knew that.

      • Orangepeel 16.1.2
        12 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

        I’ll ask you again: compare gun controlled areas to areas where citizens are allowed to defend themselves in America.
        …
        …
        …
        …
        Yeah, I didn’t think you could.

        • mcflock 16.1.2.1
          12 January 2011 at 3:29 pm

          “I’ll ask you again: compare gun controlled areas to areas where citizens are allowed to defend themselves in America.
          …
          …
          …
          …
          Yeah, I didn’t think you could.”

          So if this with it’s USA state-by-state breakdown of homicide rates doesn’t cut it, maybe you’d care to support your position with supporting data?

          • Orangepeel 16.1.2.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 3:32 pm

            “So if this with it’s USA state-by-state breakdown of homicide rates doesn’t cut it, maybe you’d care to support your position with supporting data”
            That link only looks at homicides per country, not the comparison of gun violence in Gun controlled and and gun bearing states.

            • mcflock 16.1.2.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 4:39 pm

              No, if you go to the anchor linked it shows some countries by region/state. Yep, it’s the general homicide rate (not gun violence), but it does split by state.

            • mcflock 16.1.2.1.1.2
              12 January 2011 at 4:39 pm

              And I’ll take your word for gun control levels (weak, medium, strong).

  17. randal 17
    12 January 2011 at 12:18 pm

    so limburger and palin and crew have finally done it.
    they have incited a sub normal moron to commit murder in pursuit of the flea party’s political aims.
    the flea part is little more than a mob.
    they say they are americans but they are just rabble with cars and computers and the ability to mobilise nutbars.
    they say they want less government but want they really want is disorder so they can get away with stuff that a legitimate society penalises.
    they might think that they are invulnerable but the rest of the world is watching and they are aghast.

  18. Orangepeel 18
    12 January 2011 at 12:21 pm

    “Frenchmen.”
    Armed with?

    • Pascal's bookie 18.1
      12 January 2011 at 12:25 pm

      The french government’s firearms.

      • Orangepeel 18.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 12:27 pm

        “The french government’s firearms”
        As you were following the argument you will know it was over the good guns have done.
        Thank you for proving my point.

        • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 12:33 pm

          “As you were following the argument you will no it was over the good guns have done.”

          No it isn’t. You seem to have problems with basic logic.

          You asked what French troops were armed with. I answered. That doesn’t prove anything at all. It certainly doesn’t prove that the US revolutionary war was won due to private gun ownership, which is what you seemed to be implying.

          • Orangepeel 18.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 12:44 pm

            You weren’t following the argument.
            The part you commented on had nothing to do with private gun ownership, it was over the good and bad guns have done.
            The french government’s firearms are guns, so once again you proved my point.

            • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 12:54 pm

              Nonsense on stilts.

              Here is what I was responding to:

              “Now THAT is where you’re getting ridiculous. How were the Jews rounded up and taken to concentration camps? National Socialists took their guns so that they were defenseless.
              What were responsible for the Americans winning the revolution against England?”

              The implication is that unlike the German jews, …?

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 12:56 pm

                What are you on about?
                You were talking about the French FIREARMS helping win a revolution in a subtopic over whether guns are good or not.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  12 January 2011 at 1:05 pm

                  I never said anything of the sort. I said the french were the reason the Americans won the war. You asked what they were armed with. Of far more importance than the guns were the money and the logistical support.
                  \
                  Kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 1:08 pm

                    So guns had nothing to do with them winning the war? They could just have easily have one if the French were carrying anything but guns?
                    It appears that’s what you’re implying.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      12 January 2011 at 1:19 pm

                      That’s not what I’m saying at all. I am saying that US private gun ownership had very little to do with them winning the war, and so the US victory has little to tell us about gun control.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 1:20 pm

                    “That’s not what I’m saying at all. I am saying that US private gun ownership had very little to do with them winning the war, and so the US victory has little to tell us about gun control.”
                    The subtopic was over the good and bad guns have done, not gun control.

        • The Voice of Reason 18.1.1.2
          12 January 2011 at 12:35 pm

          Er, no, it doesn’t prove your argument, whatever it is. The French help was before the constitution was in place and has no bearing on whether the 2nd amendment is still useful now. Which clearly it is not, given how many gun deaths it is causing.

          • Orangepeel 18.1.1.2.1
            12 January 2011 at 12:37 pm

            Compare gun related deaths in gun controlled areas to those with gun rights, in America.

          • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.2.2
            12 January 2011 at 12:47 pm

            Ha, this is fun TVOR and PB. I feel like listening to the Ramones.

            • Orangepeel 18.1.1.2.2.1
              12 January 2011 at 12:48 pm

              I’m listening to Cher.

            • Orangepeel 18.1.1.2.2.2
              12 January 2011 at 1:14 pm

              “Well, there was that comparison between NZ and the USA. To recap, NZ has stronger gun controls than the USA, and NZ has less gun deaths per 100,000 people than the USA. Can you explain why this comparison isn’t valid?”

              In the US there were times when there was Gun regulation, then gun rights. There is proof crime went down.
              NZ has always had similar Gun regulation, making there be no possible way to compare gun control to gun rights in NZ.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

                Keep yer guns then, you’re obviously so much safer with them, killing each another at a rate 4 times faster than us.

              • Armchair Critic …
                12 January 2011 at 1:24 pm

                I’d suggest that in the USA it’s the inconsistency in the spatial application of gun controls rather than the absolute level of gun control that drives the level of crime involving guns. And the main drivers that could reduce gun crime would be social change around the value of human life, the good that guns bring to society and distribution of wealth across society. That’s off the top of my head, I’d need to do a bit more research to come up with something more comprehensive. Admittedly it’s not as simple a solution as “let’s let everyone who wants one have a firearm”, but often we can’t solve problems at the same level we created them.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 January 2011 at 1:24 pm

                But if gun regulation was the major factor, then that should show up.

                Maybe something else explains the much higher rate in the US. Indeed, if you are right and gun control does increase the murder rate, the something must account for our lower rates.

                I nominate our comparitave lack of crazed right wing rhetoric.

                • Orangepeel …
                  12 January 2011 at 1:26 pm

                  I do suggest you look into the before and after effects gun control had on America.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    12 January 2011 at 1:38 pm

                    post hoc ergo propter hoc?

                    How do you account for the US’s much higher murder rate, which if you are correct, would be higher still if they had our gun laws?

                    I nominate their crazed right wing rhetorical environment.

                    • Orangepeel …
                      12 January 2011 at 1:42 pm

                      The Northern states are HUGE, and they also have the strictest gun laws. They also happen to be where the majority of gun crimes are.
                      How do we know this is due to gun control?
                      New Hampshire relaxed it’s gun laws almost to Texas level, and gun crimes dropped tremendously.
                      Texas used to have strict gun legislation in 1991, and when they removed gun control.. surprise surprise crime levels dropped.
                      Mind you, this is at a time where gun control is put in place, crime rises, urging more regulation, creating more crime, urging more regulation… you get the idea.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      12 January 2011 at 1:46 pm

                      Thought so.

                      post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                      But how do you account for the US’s higher rate in comparisaon to nz?

                      I balme their national discourse which is infested with right wing rhetoric about guns and paranoia.

      • Armchair Critic 18.1.2
        12 January 2011 at 12:30 pm

        I’d suggest that England’s economy and political climate at the time, in conjunction with the impacts of the technology of the day on the supply chains, also played a significant role.
        The alternative is that it was some special tools made out of wood and metal – but guns don’t win revolutions, people do.

        • Orangepeel 18.1.2.1
          12 January 2011 at 12:31 pm

          Just like how guns don’t kill people, people do. Facts and history back me up, too.

          • The Voice of Reason 18.1.2.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 12:37 pm

            Er, again, facts and history prove you wrong Op. Dead wrong.

          • Armchair Critic 18.1.2.1.2
            12 January 2011 at 12:43 pm

            People win revolutions without guns. People kill people without guns. Neither are a good argument for allowing people to own guns for the specific purpose of killing other people.

            • Orangepeel 18.1.2.1.2.1
              12 January 2011 at 12:45 pm

              People use guns to shoot other people and kill them.
              Fat people use spoons to eat and gain weight.
              Ban guns and you reduce crime.
              Ban spoons and you reduce obesity.

              • Armchair Critic …
                12 January 2011 at 12:51 pm

                Hence we should allow fairly unrestricted gun ownership?
                You are not supporting your point very well. Is it becoming too confusing for you?
                Please don’t go down the fat-hate path – stick to the subject. The facts don’t back you as well as you would hope on fat-hate.

                • Orangepeel …
                  12 January 2011 at 12:53 pm

                  I have yet to see one statistic where restricted gun ownership of any form has REDUCED crime.
                  You brought fat-hate into this, I’m just using the same logic gun control uses.

                  But to the point: why can’t you google search gun control, and give me a link to when it has worked? What’s so hard about that?

                  • Armchair Critic …
                    12 January 2011 at 1:06 pm

                    You brought fat-hate into this
                    Where? Link or some reference, please.
                    Don’t resile from the fact that you said killing people is analogous to gaining weight Implication – gaining weight is bad, because killing people is bad. That is fat-hate. Maybe you weren’t aware. It’s a false analogy, too.
                    All I did was ask you to not continue on that line and stick to the subject.
                    I why can’t you google search gun control, and give me a link to when it has worked?
                    Define “worked” and I’ll try to add to the efforts of others above. What do you consider to be sufficient evidence?
                    I think you are deliberately asking for something that does not exist, because your views are too inflexible. I’m not keen for an exercise in futility.

  19. prism 19
    12 January 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Just looking at one of the bloggers here. Orangepeel has put on at least 46 entries to Back from the brink (that was up to 157 comments just a moment ago) and the first from o/p was at 5.34am today, 12 January. Either this person is a crazed insomniac who has great staying power or is a visitor from a land far away writing during their day. The discourse seems fairly right wing I think.

    • Orangepeel 19.1
      12 January 2011 at 1:11 pm

      Hahahaha!
      Typical leftist: treating someone with a condition as a second – class citizen.

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 1:13 pm

        No, lefties tend to socialism, which tends to creating inclusive societies with more equality, not less.

        • Orangepeel 19.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 1:16 pm

          Like, Nazi Germany. They banned gun’s, nationalised health care, Government ran businesses and took over and owned the means of production, put in strict environmental protection laws and were as anti capitalist as they were anti communist.

          Define equality? Are you for Substantial or formal?

          • mcflock 19.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 3:59 pm

            OP, invoking Godwin against a NZ socialist is exactly the sort of hyperbolic crap that makes people think that Tea Party supporters are a nutball cross between the Dukes of Hazard and Rambo.

            And then there’s the call to make your opponent (not “enemy”, “opponent”) label themselves according to some obscure jargonistic meaning that you read on screamingnutbar.org, no doubt so if they pick the wrong one you can compare them to Stalin as well.

            I watched the Daily Show online today – John Stewart refused to blame anyone’s rhetoric for causing the AZ murders, but he did say it would be nice if rational political rhetoric was easily distinguishable from things like the Unabomber Manifesto.

            I think that sums it up quite nicely, and it’s sad that you’ve disproved the original post – Tea Partiers are not “stepping back from the brink”.

      • prism 19.1.2
        12 January 2011 at 1:21 pm

        Haha ha Typical rightist, bending the argument any way possible, going off at tangents to attempt to make some, any, point ie ‘someone with a condition as a second-class citizen’. Anything to prevent clear examination of the argument until it is so confused that it crumples up and drops to the floor exhausted. You are a pathetic waste of time.

        • Orangepeel 19.1.2.1
          12 January 2011 at 1:24 pm

          Typical Leftist: no evidence for claim and resorts to name – calling.

        • Colonial Viper 19.1.2.2
          12 January 2011 at 1:25 pm

          Keep your 4x murder rate, it seems to make you happy, and keep your system where its LEGAL and EASY to buy a Glock 19 and a 33 round magazine, even if you are a seriously disturbed individual.

          Good on you.

          • Orangepeel 19.1.2.2.1
            12 January 2011 at 1:29 pm

            This has gotten ridiculous. You don’t seem to understand facts and logic, you just go by what you feel is right. Just because people are ALLOWED to purchase a gun of that sort, as you pointed out before not a single shot was fired at the shooter despite being in an area where that was allowed.

            To make sure this get’s through your head: 75% OF ALL GUN RELATED CRIMES ARE CAUSE BY ILLIGALLY PURCHASED FIRE ARMS.

            • Colonial Viper 19.1.2.2.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 1:31 pm

              And you support a system where a disturbed individual with a history with law enforcement can LEGALLY and EASILY buy a Glock 19 with an extended magazine.

              Good on you, you are doing a good job for your community. Hold up that 4x murder rate.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 1:36 pm

                Annnd you’ve just repeated yourself… over and over and over and over again with no evidence. You just base your argument on emotion.

            • The Voice of Reason 19.1.2.2.1.2
              12 January 2011 at 1:44 pm

              Don’t shout, Op. Putting an irrelevent stat in caps is not helping you. It makes no difference whether someone is killed by a bullet fired from a legally purchased gun or not. Dead is dead. If there wasn’t such a mindless worship of guns in the states and the almost unregulated spread of weapons, there would be less gun deaths.

              BTW, you might be able to help on one thing. Would it be fair to say that the 75% of ‘illegal’ guns were 100% legal at some point? ie. that they entered, or were manufactured, in the US legally and then were stolen by or sold to crims?

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 1:48 pm

                No, not necessarily. Anyone can obtain the supplies, no matter how strict the gun laws. A lot of the guns are also obtained from Mexico, or stolen by the military (as was a scandal in 2003).
                But strict gun laws being put in place and increasing crime hasn’t just happened in the US, it happened Australia and the UK too. They aren’t ‘gun worshippers’ but even they know that gun control hasn’t reduced crime.

    • Colonial Viper 19.2
      12 January 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Apparently OP is a US real estate agent who does not even own a gun (come on, we may be in the colonies but we’re not stupid). Assuming being US based OP started posting around lunch time, EST.

      • Orangepeel 19.2.1
        12 January 2011 at 1:24 pm

        Wow! Really? I never expected this, but please continue. I’d love to live in the US.

        • Colonial Viper 19.2.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 1:29 pm

          This is what you said here

          http://thestandard.org.nz/back-from-the-brink/#comment-287041

          I don’t own a gun, I just feel safer knowing I won’t get robbed when other people in the area can immediately deal with the criminal.

          The area you referred to was the U.S.

          Was it not? Seems you are being inconsistent now.

          • Orangepeel 19.2.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 1:30 pm

            When does that say I live in the US. That’s just saying how I’d feel safer.

            But you knew that.

        • prism 19.2.1.2
          12 January 2011 at 1:35 pm

          Bet you would like to really live there. Unfortunately people only exist in the USA, they have forgotten how to live happily. They are either too poor, too bigoted, too scared of commies, too scared of all the other citizens so they need guns, or they’re too rich and scared they might not be able to get everything they can afford or that the poor people get hold of their wealth, so they need guns etc. Charming country.

          • Orangepeel 19.2.1.2.1
            12 January 2011 at 1:44 pm

            Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

            America doesn’t fit that description at all, mainly because you’ve never been there, yet you have the nerve to judge.
            Yea, you fit the above description.

      • Armchair Critic 19.2.2
        12 January 2011 at 1:27 pm

        I own a gun (semi-automatic at that), and I’m strongly in favour of gun control.

        • Orangepeel 19.2.2.1
          12 January 2011 at 1:35 pm

          So? Owning a gun has nothing to do with wanting them banned (ironically).
          If you want low crime, you want the public to be allowed to defend itself.
          Facts have shown this whether you deny them or not.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related
          http://www.allbusiness.com/management/3586665-1.html
          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html
          http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
          http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=28253

          The ones who deny facts being on my side can’t seem to find a single article, page, or even a truthful quote that proves gun control reduces crime. It makes me wonder why you would stick to your position even though you cannot find a single statistic.

          • Colonial Viper 19.2.2.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 1:36 pm

            Keep your 4x murder rate buddy, it keeps you happy.

            We’ll keep our 1/4 murder rate and our current gun controls thanks.

            • Orangepeel 19.2.2.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 1:38 pm

              You don’t think that if the gun control was removed, there will be even less gun crime as has happened in France (1989) US (1991) and went the opposite way in the UK (1999) and Australia (2005)?

          • lprent 19.2.2.1.2
            12 January 2011 at 1:49 pm

            Just look at NZ rather than the US (the US is always a bit of a freak for almost anything).

            Strong gun controls (and quite a lot of weapons) here, and bugger all deaths from misuse of weapons. Most of the deaths are either from hunting accidents or police.

            Look at almost any other 1st world country apart from the US and you’ll see much the same thing.

            Look at the US and there are sporadic gun controls and easy borders to slide across. The death rate from weapons both legal and illegal exceeds every other country in the world apart from active combat zones.

            Quite simply you’re arguing bullshit without referencing the wider world populations.

            • Orangepeel 19.2.2.1.2.1
              12 January 2011 at 1:51 pm

              You ignored my gun control argument about Australia the UK and France didn’t you.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 January 2011 at 2:13 pm

                Lolz mate, keep your 4x murder rate since you are so happy that you got the formula right.

                Hey, I’ve a bright idea, why not make machine pistols like the Glock 18, the Uzi and the Tec 9 legal and freely available to citizens to carry and conceal?

                Orangepeel, how much do you reckon murders in the US will decrease by if that happened?

                I think you should start pushing for that ASAP. It is a right for every US citizen to be able to carry a firearm which can shoot at 1100 rounds per minute, especially when you consider that the Federal Government’s security forces have similar weapons.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:36 pm

                  In fact, I am being disingenuous. Orangepeel, why don’t we start a campaign to make submachine guns like the H&K MP5 legal and accessible to purchase and carry in every state!

                  I am sure that crime rates will go down to a new low.

                  What do you think? In addition, pistol rounds for those submachine guns able to penetrate body armour should be fully legalised.

                  Lets do it ASAP, I think you are on to something here.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 2:38 pm

                    I love it when Leftists lose an argument. They get so mad! Especially when having to face facts rather than feeling…

                    Actually, that makes me think. If they were legalised, it’s highly unlikely crime rates would rise knowing your opponent has a pretty deadly weapon and… no, best not confuse a leftist. Sure, more guns means more crime, and all the articles are false. Go nuts.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2011 at 4:46 pm

                      Ah, yes, good thanks for your comments.

                      You support the introduction of civilian carried machine pistols to the streets of US cities. You also believe that crime rates would not increase if done so.

                      Good to know.

                      Interesting you don’t claim that crime rates would decrease if more lethal firearms were made available. Wonder why that is.

                      I love it when Leftists lose an argument. They get so mad! Especially when having to face facts rather than feeling…

                      Oh, you’re welcome to be smug, after all you live in the country with the 4x murder rate.

          • Armchair Critic 19.2.2.1.3
            12 January 2011 at 1:51 pm

            If you want low crime, you want the public to be allowed to defend itself.
            I want low crime. The public in NZ are allowed to defend themselves. Just like most of the rest of the world.
            The implication that there is a link between low crime and the right to self-defence is rubbish, because self-defence is an almost universal right, yet crime rates vary wildly. For example, comparing NZ and the USA, gun crime rates are higher in the USA and gun controls are weaker in the USA.
            Have you considered that if you want low crime you want to address the drivers of the crime. Hint – These drivers include poverty and inequality, not access to guns.

            • Orangepeel 19.2.2.1.3.1
              12 January 2011 at 1:54 pm

              Poverty. Yes. That is a huge problem.
              America was doing so well when it was capitalist, not a failing corporatist welfare state like China’s become. But I do agree with you that if we allowed freer markets; more and better jobs; we would end poverty and crime. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the heavily democratic cities are the ones with the highest crime rates, whereas the most libertarain state (New Hampshire) is one of the safest?

              I just don’t see how anyone can logically argue that gun control will reduce crime without any sources…

              • Armchair Critic …
                12 January 2011 at 2:01 pm

                Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the heavily democratic cities are the ones with the highest crime rates, whereas the most libertarain state (New Hampshire) is one of the safest?
                No, it doesn’t strike me as odd. I’d say it is something to do with the spatial variation in the application of gun control, as I explained here, rather than the absolute level of gun control.
                It also doesn’t strike me as odd that you haven’t addressed the impact of spatial variation. I’ll be kind and attribute this to the multi-pronged attack of liberalism you are battling.

                • Orangepeel …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:04 pm

                  New Hampshire and Maryland have very similar ‘spatial variations’ if you will, only one’s only gone into more debt and the other is well on it’s way out.
                  One has almost twice the crime rates, the other has relaxed gun laws.

                  • Armchair Critic …
                    12 January 2011 at 2:20 pm

                    So?
                    This is a complex issue that can’t be solve with a simple solution. Expecting clear correlations between two (out of the many available measures) that you have focussed on is unrealistic. The NY Times article you linked to above says as much, too. Not sure why you provided the link, it does as much to demolish your argument as it does to support it.

              • The Voice of Reason …
                12 January 2011 at 2:09 pm

                “America was doing so well when it was capitalist, …”

                Why didn’t you just say you were a randian nutter at the start, Op? It would have saved me so much time trying to be nice to you by explaining where you where you were going wrong. Now that I know you aren’t in touch with reality at all, your willful denial of the obvious horror that is the US fixation with cheap and easily available penis substitutes make more sense to me.

                • Orangepeel …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:15 pm

                  Hypocrisy: accuse someone of name-calling then doing it yourself.

                  You believe in Socialism I take it? Yea, you’re in no position to call me ‘out of touch with reality.’

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 January 2011 at 4:47 pm

                not a failing corporatist welfare state like China’s become.

                Lolz what.

                Last I looked, Communist China funded the US Government.

        • lprent 19.2.2.2
          12 January 2011 at 2:09 pm

          I’ve owned several weapons over the years. It is a tool on farms to keep the pests down and as a mercy.

          I’ve always been in favor of strong gun control. Indeed it is pretty hard to find any owners here of weapons who isn’t apart from some of the collectors (who seem to delight in whining about them). Even they just want to rules changed rather than removing gun controls.

          Illegal weapons are not a major hassle because the gun controls are very strict on how weapons are stored – making it harder to steal them. Possessing an illegal weapon will generally give you a high sentence regardless how you obtained it. They aren’t a major problem.

          • Orangepeel 19.2.2.2.1
            12 January 2011 at 2:13 pm

            It may appear that way, but facts seem to show that it isn’t that hard for a criminal to obtain weapons. Take Australia for example. When they put in strict gun laws gun related deaths increased by 22% and it was found criminals were obtaining weapons through smuggling ships. So the government wasted the people’s money on stricter border control, but then they found gangs were making many of their own weapons and selling them on the black market. Money was spent, crime didn’t go down.

            • Colonial Viper 19.2.2.2.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 2:15 pm

              When they put in strict gun laws gun related deaths increased by 22%

              Link now or it never happened.

                • Armchair Critic …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:29 pm

                  Why did you link to this? The conclusion says the statistics are not to be relied upon.
                  “The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia’s gun ownership laws and the government’s firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can’t be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren’t necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.”

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 2:28 pm

                Sorry, not 44%. 300%

                • mcflock …
                  12 January 2011 at 4:33 pm

                  OP,

                  Seriously – do you have any idea what you’re talking about, ever? The article you linked to is an essay in how statistics (among other things) are misused. For example, it corrects your quoted “300%” increase down to 171%. Still an increase? This is where we bring in a “confidence interval”, i.e. the expected bounds of where an observation would fall by chance (roughly – good enough for our purposes). The “171% increase” was actually only 19 deaths, up from 7 the year before. Out of a population of 4 million, the difference is (to use a technical term) feck all. If it had gone from 50/100000 up to 200/100000 (a “300% increase” that actually does give a significant difference) then you’d have a point. It doesn’t, you don’t, and the article you linked as evidence states exactly why you don’t have a point.

                  I realise that your past comments here questioning how many more hundreds of thousands etc probably indicate that you’ll not understand the bigger numbers or the meaning of “significance” when it comes to statistics, but if you reread your own linked article more carefully you might figure out that you should probably go back to school for a bit.

  20. prism 20
    12 January 2011 at 1:48 pm

    This person is like John Cleese in the Monty Python argument sketch. The object is strictly to disagree. Real estate agent? Sounds like a bush lawyer.

    captcha determined

    • Orangepeel 20.1
      12 January 2011 at 1:50 pm

      You’re like a child: you attack the person not the argument.

      I’m gonna stop talking to you.

      • Hateatea 20.1.1
        12 January 2011 at 3:02 pm

        For which we will all be grateful

        OrangePeel, to put in simple words so that you don’t misunderstand – I have never felt less safe in my entire life than I did in Texas with so many guns on open display.

        People will do criminal acts whether or not there are gun laws. The availability of guns enables little children to shoot other little children with the weapon found in the bedside cabinet or behind the couch. It has schools needing armed guards and metal detectors.

        This is all a diversion however from the real issue that started this debate:
        Abusive and disparaging rhetoric using violent imagery should not be a part of the arsenal of any politician, be it of the right or the left, in New Zealand, the US or anywhere else.

        That it seems to have become an accepted tactic amongst some US politicians and social commentators is a sad indictment on the current level of political debate and thinking.

        Your refusal to see that crime statistics and specifically violent death by ‘guns’, are four times the NZ level in the US seems to suggest that you would like to see New Zealand become a country where guns are not just available but encouraged.

        If that is the case. may I respectfully suggest that you don’t live here and leave New Zealand to those of us who prefer that firearms ownership is tightly controlled. I prefer the level of freedom that I experience here to the state of affairs in the US, even with the current NZ leadership.

        captcha: seconds

        • Orangepeel 20.1.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 3:04 pm

          The US may have higher crime, but no one here seems to be paying attention to WHICH parts of America have the high crime.

          • Hateatea 20.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 3:20 pm

            Crime in general or gun deaths?

            In my experience, crime has many roots but poverty and social deprivation / extreme variance between the richest and the poorest in the community and mental health care (or lack of it) play probably the biggest part. Therefore more crime occurs in densely populated areas with large pockets of high unemployment, low educational expectations and outcome, significant numbers of mentally unwell people, with some exceptions. Gun related deaths from crime would be expected where gun ownership, whether legal or illegal, is significant.

            Changing criminal offending has little to do with gun control or free gun availability. However gun availability demonstrably affects the percentage of the population who are killed by guns!!

            captcha: policies

          • Armchair Critic 20.1.1.1.2
            12 January 2011 at 3:24 pm

            but no one here seems to be paying attention to WHICH parts of America have the high crime.
            That’ll be because assuming a causal relationship between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates (or total crime rates) is overly-simplistic.
            I’ve had a good look at a number of the links tried a less loaded search than you suggested (in addition to the search you suggested). The term “reduce” in the search you suggest is loaded and tends to influence the results.
            As a result of my search I’ve concluded:
            1. there are a lot of vested interests out there, advocating for less gun control
            2. the basis of this advocacy relies on incorrect assumptions, poor research, simplistic analysis and false conclusions
            Your ongoing presence here, repetition of what are stock standard lines, refusal to back your points with evidence, repeated failure to stand by your statements, use of diversions, use of false analogies, overly-emotive language and failure to genuinely engage with other commenters leads me to conclude you are a troll. I’ve wasted enough time on you.

            • Orangepeel 20.1.1.1.2.1
              12 January 2011 at 3:29 pm

              “That’ll be because assuming a causal relationship between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates (or total crime rates) is overly-simplistic.
              I’ve had a good look at a number of the links tried a less loaded search than you suggested (in addition to the search you suggested). The term “reduce” in the search you suggest is loaded and tends to influence the results.”
              I don’t fully understand the ‘simplistic’ context you’re indicating, but just explain to me why the more gun controlled areas in the United States have more gun crimes.

              “Your ongoing presence here, repetition of what are stock standard lines, refusal to back your points with evidence, repeated failure to stand by your statements, use of diversions, use of false analogies, overly-emotive language and failure to genuinely engage with other commenters leads me to conclude you are a troll. I’ve wasted enough time on you.”
              If that’s just a cowardly way to say “I’m done” then by all means. If you won’t find a source explaining how gun control reduces crime then we may end this having achieved nothing.

              • Armchair Critic …
                12 January 2011 at 3:36 pm

                If that’s just a cowardly way to say “I’m done” then by all means.
                Nice try.
                This isn’t your discussion forum, or mine, I’ve no doubt some of the other readers are sick of seeing my name pop up all day. So I’ll take responsibility for my actions.
                You’ve got nothing new in the last hour or so. I’ll reply to you when you come up with something worth responding to that hasn’t already been thoroughly discussed.
                Please, do me a favour and tell me this counts as a victory on your part. Use the three letter word for victory. Make my day.

                [lprent: Are you encouraging him to come to my attention for the owned/pwned/won heresy that I like castigating people on this agree to disagree site for? It is an interesting trap for those unwary of the moderating rules. But it may involve me in exerting more effort… ]

                • Orangepeel …
                  12 January 2011 at 3:46 pm

                  I’d rather not change the subject.

                • Armchair Critic …
                  12 January 2011 at 5:09 pm

                  Are you encouraging him…
                  You may like to think so, LP, but I couldn’t possibly confirm or deny.
                  If he did get banned (and I’m not advocating either way) I’d consider it to be contributory negligence.
                  If I was encouraging him (and I’m still not admitting I was), and if this was pushing the boundaries, I will refrain in the future.

                  [lprent: 🙂 Channeling Sir Humphrey? ]

                  • Armchair Critic …
                    12 January 2011 at 8:08 pm

                    Yes, Sir Humphrey in that comment. In the previous comment it was Harry Callahan, because it seemed appropriate for the thread. Shows a bit of flexibility on my part, too, if I may say so.

    • The Voice of Reason 20.2
      12 January 2011 at 2:14 pm

      No he’s not, prism.

      (your turn …)

      • Orangepeel 20.2.1
        12 January 2011 at 2:17 pm

        Child: “This person is like John Cleese in the Monty Python argument sketch.”
        Me: You attack the person not the argument.
        You: No he’s not, prism.

        I was told this site was full of children who do nothing but slam those with opposing views… I should have believed them.

        • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 2:22 pm

          We only slam dumb simplistic views for the most part. The ones that the gun lobby professional spin machine like to use, for instance.

          Like how much a 4x murder rate makes you safer, also that it should be easy and legal for someone to buy a Glock 19 compact with an extended 33 round magazine, especially if they have a history of mental instability crossed with prior run ins with law enforcement.

          • Orangepeel 20.2.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 2:24 pm

            You guys are funny. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were actually a conservative trolling to make the left look bad. What with your rejection of fact, distance from reality and bigotry to those who disagree.

            • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 2:54 pm

              You are correct, I am bigotted against firearms idiocy.

              Keep your 4x homicide rate, you like it so much.

    • Colonial Viper 20.3
      12 January 2011 at 2:19 pm

      lolz…the real estate market must really suck in Miami, Fresno or Vegas for OP to have so much free time worrying about guns instead of about listings.

      • Orangepeel 20.3.1
        12 January 2011 at 2:21 pm

        I wouldn’t know, I’ve never been there.

        You guys aren’t very tolerant, are you?

        [lprent: read the policy. That delineates my tolerances. ]

        • Colonial Viper 20.3.1.1
          12 January 2011 at 2:23 pm

          You should consider yourself lucky that its not easy for us to buy a Glock 19 compact with an extended 33 round magazine then, eh?

          • Orangepeel 20.3.1.1.1
            12 January 2011 at 2:25 pm

            Go to the UK. They have really strict gun laws. There’s a huge black market.

            • Armchair Critic 20.3.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2011 at 2:35 pm

              And a very low gun-death per 100,000 rate, when compared to the USA.
              http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
              Go wild, randroid.

              • Orangepeel …
                12 January 2011 at 2:36 pm

                Yea, I think you’ll notice the USA has a slightly larger population than the UK.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:37 pm

                  Uh, OP, its a gun death rate per 100,000 population that Armchair is referring to. Different population sizes have already been taken into account.

                • Armchair Critic …
                  12 January 2011 at 2:42 pm

                  I did notice. So did the authors. That’s why the authors use crime rate per 100,000 people. If your maths is really this good, I have shares in a harbour bridge in Hamilton to sell. Keen?

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 2:44 pm

                    Habour bridge in hamilton? One of the many, and slightly unimpressed.

                    Which articles ticked your fancy? I’m sure there were loads. Just gimme four which proved your point.

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      12 January 2011 at 2:53 pm

                      I’ll stick with three:
                      The NY Times link you provided, which says no conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of the gun controls due to the complexity of the issues.
                      The snopes link you provided that says its conclusions should not be relied on.
                      The comparison of gun-death rates and gun ownership rates between the USA and NZ that shows a lower gun ownership rate and lower gun-death rate in NZ.

                  • Orangepeel …
                    12 January 2011 at 2:58 pm

                    “I’ll stick with three:
                    The NY Times link you provided, which says no conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of the gun controls due to the complexity of the issues.”
                    First of all, the NYT is as reliable as Fox news.
                    Second, I asked for proof gun control reduces crime, not a source that’s skeptical to all the other articles that come from much more reliable sources.

                    “snopes link you provided that says its conclusions should not be relied on.”
                    Applies the same as the top: never officially declared gun control reduces crime.

                    The comparison of gun-death rates and gun ownership rates between the USA and NZ that shows a lower gun ownership rate and lower gun-death rate in NZ.
                    Source, not distorted facts.
                    How hard is it to find an article proving gun control reduces crime? After all, it is what you believe. If the US has such high crime rates surely there’s an article denouncing gun right due to the same logic you guys use?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2011 at 4:43 pm

                      How hard is it to find an article proving gun control reduces crime? After all, it is what you believe. If the US has such high crime rates surely there’s an article denouncing gun right due to the same logic you guys use?

                      Waste of time.

                      Go back to your 4x higher murder rate, since you have all the solutions.

                    • orange whip? …
                      13 January 2011 at 5:19 am

                      Perhaps the (hopefully) last word in this (ridiculous) thread could go to the late Bill Hicks (paraphrased):

                      There’s no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There’s no connection, and you’d be a fool and a Communist to make one.

  21. Colonial Viper 21
    12 January 2011 at 5:51 pm

    I guess its bed time for our US based RWNJ.

  22. Jum 22
    12 January 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Watched Sleeping Dogs;

    Volkeyner is rising.

  23. Irascible 23
    12 January 2011 at 9:16 pm

    The issue of political rhetoric and gun control is summed up in these cartoons from the US:
    http://www.gocomics.com/claybenett
    http://www.gocomics.com/stuartcarlson
    http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent
    Succinct and to the point.

  24. Hateatea 24
    12 January 2011 at 10:51 pm

    I found this while looking around the internet. As one who remembers very vividly the shootings of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr and Robert Kennedy, this article brought back very many memories.

    How quickly we forget (well, some people anyway)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/post_1548_b_807713.html

    captcha: readers

Links to post