Oh fucking hell. Ayn Rand? Really?

Ayn Rand's philosophy advocates nothing more than the triumph of the state of nature over civilization. The individual over society. Basic, ugly, survival of the fittest. If you're among the wealty or intellectual elite, you win, and if you aren't, you're in the shit, and fuck you.

Born with a disability and don't have wealthy parents? Fuck you, you're probably going to die, and that's great - you deserve to suffer and die because you're not useful to entrepreneurs.

In a country run on the basis of Ayn Randism, that's what you'd get.

Haven't we moved on from that?

As for taxes, I think it must be time again for my favourite quote from Oliver W. Holmes Jr., Supreme Court Justice:

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

One thing to note about taxes and government. The former poster said government was about violence and used taxes as an example. Problem is, the government does not use violence to collect taxes even to those who refuse to pay. Unless the person refusing to pay gets violent, the government wouldn't get violent on them. The few extreme examples where the governments attempts have gone violent are outliers and not the norm. If you go to court over your taxes and lose (and it's huge debt that gets you incarcerated in Club Fed), unless you pull a gun and try to escape custody, there won't be any violence. The individual has to initiate the violence for the government to respond in kind.

"If not a gun, a knife. If not a knife, a rope/cord. If not a rope/cord, a big rock. Man has been killing man since the dawn of man, long before the Chinese developed gun powder."

I said this on an earlier thread, and I will say it again: anyone arguing that knives can be used to kill too should compare the number of people stabbers/shooters manage to kill before being stopped.

"
I said this on an earlier thread, and I will say it again: anyone arguing that knives can be used to kill too should compare the number of people stabbers/shooters manage to kill before being stopped."

The incident the other day was *one*. That's all. *One*.

Comapre that with:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80964

*Eight* children dead in a stabbing. *Eight*. 8>1. And when you take away guns form everyone, the attackers with knives won't be as easily stopped as they are *with guns*. Better the evil I know than the one I don't.

Actually, knives are quite easily stopped by non-lethal crowd control weapons like pepper-spray. Your point is invalid.

And to those who say "what if it was your family member or friend". I, personally, have a friend who was killed in a convenience store robbery. He was an innocent victim of the assailant (who had an *illegal* black market gun). Had he been carrying that day, he might still be alive. But the law didn't allow him to carry his handgun into the store as they sold liquor and only cops with badges can carry firearms into those places. So he left it in the HUMVEE he was transporting between bases. A hell of a lot of good it does when a trained USMC Staff Sergeant isn't allowed to carry his sidearm to protect himself and others.

"Actually, knives are quite easily stopped by non-lethal crowd control weapons like pepper-spray. Your point is invalid. "

I've been pepper sprayed. Every Marine has (or used to be they had to be). You can continue to fight. And a druggie whacked out isn't even going to notice it.

And who carries pepper spray around? I don't have any on me. Do you have some on you right now? If some guy came at me with a knife, I could probably handle it. But I'm trained to deal in hand to hand when the other guy has a knife. If you haven't had some form of self defense training, you're going to be a victim in the event of a knife attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/21/3-people-killed-several-injured-in-stabbing-spree-aboard-taiwan-subway-train/

Just google subway stabbing to learn how deadly knives can be.

Oh, and pepper spray is illegal to carry, buy, sell, or bring into Singapore.

Additionally, it's a hell of a lot harder to disarm a man with a gun when you have no weapon, than it is to disarm a man with a knife.

Also, accidental gun deaths a hell of a lot more common than accidental knife deaths, mainly because it's difficult to accidentally kill people with knives.

And for the same reason that it is easier to disarm a knife wielding attacker (although not for the untrained common person who is more likely to get stabbed by trying), it is also more likely to *be* disarmed if you try defending yourself with a knife (especially against someone who is desperate enough to be invading your home).

'But more to the point, if you arm the citizenry with knives, but the home invaders still have guns (cause they are really good at obeying the law, aren't they...) you are just exposing them to even more risk. We know the home intruder will attack the easy "soft" targets (those without large dogs or that they know have no firearms). When every house is unarmed (and don't forget how many communities are outlawing pitbulls and even german shepherds as "dangerous animals") then you are, in effect, arming the criminals by giving them a distinct advantage.

And if you're suggesting everyone carries guns around so that when someone does fire a gun, everyone shoots him, you're going to get a lot of stray bullets killing people.

So if I live in a country where every criminal has such a distinct advantage, why then is the crime rate so much lower than yours? Surely it would be more profitable to commit crime here.

When a burglar comes to steal your stuff, the answer is to let them take it and contact the police after the fact, rather than attempting to shoot them and getting yourself shot in the process. No burglar will actively seek to kill you. They are not that fucking stupid as to get themselves willingly involved in a murder case.

@DDST - No, I am not suggesting everyone carry a gun. I'm suggesting those who wish to, are trained to, and who have proven to be responsible with them not be prohibited. This isn't an all or nothing. That would be like saying everyone has to fuck 24/7 or never fuck again. That's fucking stupid.

And the crime rates are falling in the US while they are on the rise in these so called "more civilized" countries where the criminals *are* armed better than the general populace. You really shouldn't try being witty when you have your facts wrong.

So you are calling for gun control to some extant, so as to prevent people who aren't trained in their use from accidentally getting everyone killed? In that case, your argument is reasonable. Though the system USA currently has is just let everyone have guns. That is what I disagree with.

Though, from my understanding, the people who have access to illegal weaponry in gun-free societies tend to also be part of organised crime rings, and as a result avoid random killing. They commit plenty of crime, but they like to keep low profiles by not shooting people. They use guns as an intimidation tactic, rather than a weapon.

"No burglar will actively seek to kill you."

What is the bad guy's "Burgler" shirt is at the dry cleaners that day, and the only ones he has to choose from are his "Homicical Maniac" and his "Rapist" shirts?

You know this how? Have you polled a cross section of burglers and found this to be the case?

"They are not that fucking stupid as to get themselves willingly involved in a murder case."

How do you know what that person is thinking? You're trying to place rational thoughts into the head of a person who has shown himself to be anything but rational -- he's entering someone's home with the intent to steal from the homeower.

Making assumptions about the badguy's intent is a very dangerous game to play, IMO. I am not saying the an armed homeowner should go looking for a confrontation. Actually, the opposite tactic should be employed -- secure your family, put as many lock doors between you and him as possible, and as you said, call the police. But, don't for one single second try to assume you know the intent of that person is just an little innocent ole burglary.

I mean what if you're wrong? What if his intent is to rape your wife, your children, or you? What if he's so out of his gourd and doesn't know what he wants, he just knows that whatever it might be is inside your house and you are standing between him and it? Are you willing to put you life and the lives of your loved one's in jeopardy should such a horrific scenario come to pass on an ASSUMPTION about what a criminal is thinking?

No, the US doesn't lket just everyone have guns. We have laws in place requiring background checks and licensing requiring training for handguns to get a conceal carry permit. You are incorrect with that statement. Now, I agree that we should have a bit more requirements and we should require states to fulfill their obligations. The problems we have are that not every state is submitting their criminal records and psychological records to the federal database.

I would agree with having more firearm training for any weapon, not just conceal carry hand guns, but we do not allow people to carry guns on the street unless they are trained. That is simply false. And we do not allow just anyone to have a gun. That is also false. The rest of the world seems to think that because their media portrays us as cowboys in the old west still having gunfights at the OK Corral. The gunbattles with police are typically criminals who have their guns illegally either by stealing them or from the blackmarket anyhow. Changing the laws isn't going to change this aspect. If they aren't obeying the current gun laws, what makes you think they'll suddenly say "Oh wait! New gun laws! Maybe we shouldn't have these stolen semi-automatics in our waist bands to pop the rival gangs with."

Is mental illness so prevalent in your country that this is a likely scenario, MichiganMan?

So the problem is that there are already too many guns in circulation, because you can just steal/buy them off all the people who are actually permitted to have them?

I didn't make up the scenario, you did. You said, "No burglar will actively seek to kill you. They are not that fucking stupid as to get themselves willingly involved in a murder case," not me.

All I am saying is that one shouldn't try to assume why that criminal is in their home. They're there, knowing that if they're caught or confronted, it could be by and armed and scared homeowner, yet they're there anyway -- despite the potential dangers. That to me, is the epitome of irrationality, and I am not going to ask him, "hey, you're just here to take my TV and iPads right?" But then, neither am I going to just blast him either. As I said, make a prudent defense but don't for one second try to think for that criminal -- you're just asking for trouble.

Don't try to deflect my point because you cannot make a defensable rebuttal.

And, no, it is not a likely scenario, but it happens unfortunately.

"So the problem is that there are already too many guns in circulation, because you can just steal/buy them off all the people who are actually permitted to have them? "

In part, yes. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't just stuff her back in.

"Is mental illness so prevalent in your country that this is a likely scenario, MichiganMan?"

I'm not MM, but I will say this. Mental illness is *very* prevalent in the criminal sector. The two show a correlation statistically speaking. Perhaps mental illness makes one less able to control impulses and urges and therefore turns them into criminals at a higher rate. I don't know and don't want to confuse correlation and causation, but the correlation is there. That's why we are able to profile the various types of criminals and figure out their next move for those major offenders.

Fact is, if someone has broken into your house, they are more likely to be mentally unstable than the average person you meet on the street. This is a proven corollary.

Right Draugnar! To take your point further, if you add drug use into the equation, the corollary gets even stronger.

IMO, ShockTrooper's position stated above displays a serious "victim's mentality." Assume the best case (that he just wants your stuff), that he's got no ill-intent against you or your family, and just sit quietly like a good victim until the police come (most likely AFTER any violence has taken place). If it turns out you're wrong, oh well, sucks to be you.

I'm saying it's far more likely for crime to be caused by factors other than mental illness due to the fact mental illness is not that common. A lot of bad decisions are behind criminal behaviour, but sane people don't try to kill random individuals. Sane people also prefer to avoid drawing attention to their criminal activity. Killing people draws attention to your criminal activity.

"I'm saying it's far more likely for crime to be caused by factors other than mental illness due to the fact mental illness is not that common. A lot of bad decisions are behind criminal behaviour, but sane people don't try to kill random individuals. Sane people also prefer to avoid drawing attention to their criminal activity. Killing people draws attention to your criminal activity."

All those things are true, and I'd agree with them. But, again, you're making assumpitions. Stats show that MOST home invasion (and most violent crime) occur at night. So, you're awoken by the sounds of a forced entry into your home, it's dark, you're disoriented, you're scared, you know you want to get to your little daughter's room to make sure she's ok. Now, you're throwing in trying to make an assessment of whether or not the guy in your home is sane or insane, sober, or on drugs, and whether any of these factors is going to make him want to do harm to you or your family. To me, that is INSANE.

If a home invader is there to kill you, you're shit out of luck, and you've got a damn good chance of ending up dead regardless of circumstances. It's not pleasant, but escape is likely your best course of action, as such an individual is likely to be armed with at least the most effective weapon society allows in that area. You're on even grounds if you are also armed as such.

If you're skilled enough to get the drop on such an individual, thus circumventing the even footing, you don't need a gun, a large heavy object to the skull, or sharp object to the temple/throat is equally effective at killing an unawares opponent.