Solarian League Breakup?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:59:05 -0400, Dahak
<Dahak_II.RemoveThis@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:01:09 GMT, an orbiting mind-control laser made
>Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> write:
>
> I have to admit, these facts fascinate me.
>
> Could you provide citations for these?
>
>>americans are the most heavily armed nation in the world. 90 small
>>arms per 100 people.
>
> Most importantly, I'd like to ask you what you take from this
>factoid. What is it telling you?
>
>> they also own a bit under a third of the world's
>>total supply of small arms.
>
> Does that include rifles, and such? Purely civilian ownership of
>weapons, or military small arms, too?
>
> Context, of course, is everything.
>
>-JPB

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/28/europe/EU-GEN-Switzerland-Sm...-Arms.p

should be able to track down the actual organization from that article
if you want to.

i'm thinking that gun ownership in the usa indicates a grave lack of
perceived personal security. the number of people who for pragmatic
reasons actually need a firearm or two is not going to account for
more than a tiny number of firearms. by pragmatic i mean cops,
ranchers etc who may actually need a gun at some point. you then get
target shooters and hunters which account for a fairish chunk but you
still have a rather large number of people who seem to think having
guns will somehow make them "safer".

the article i read was a bit more detailed than the herald trib's that
i linked above. the definition of small arms used is pistols, smg's
rifles, assault rifles etc. anything short of a belt fed lmg pretty
much.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

"Ross" <nobody DeleteThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:46e344e5$0$416$6d36acad@fe4.nntpserver.com...
>
>
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > ... In
>> crowded anonymous cities, it's almost as daft, but to a lesser degree,
>> to let angry poor people have guns as it would be to let anyone buy
>> their own atom bomb (who would, but a would-be terrorist - or perhaps
>> a mercenary, who could get our country in a war because it facilitated
>> his actions).
>>
>> Of course a disarmed citizenry makes life easier for tyrants. But
>> there is still a difficult balance to be struck.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
> Crowded anonymous poor people with guns will not remain poor, or
> tractable. Remember the Chilean army first enforced the gun control laws,
> and then and only then moved against the working people and the Allende
> government.

What can be wrong with gun control when Stalin, Hitler, Moa, and other like
minded men champion it?

It worked great in Oz. The year after the last gun take out violent crime
went up hugely. What more can a thug ask for than an unarmed victim?
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

"Quadibloc" <jsavard RemoveThis @ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:1189385109.948739.320570@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Offbreed wrote:
>> So far as I am concerned, the question is not "Why do I need so many
>> guns?". It's "Why are you so uptight about my having any?"
>
> Not you. But criminals do have guns, and there is a lot of crime.
>
> If laws in my municpality make it awkward for *me* to carry a gun,
> then I want something done about criminals.
>
> At present, it seems difficult to press the government to bring down
> harsher penalties for criminals - although that is apparently less
> true in the United States; instead, the problem is that they fail to
> be convicted too often. That, too, is difficult to remedy. But placing
> restrictions on guns is "politically correct", so it's at least one
> thing that seems like a possible positive action.
>
> This is, of course, a good way to exploit a crime problem if you want
> to establish a dictatorship.
>
> John Savard
>

People want the government to protect them. They forget that the government
only shows up after the bleep has hit the fan and the deed is done in most
cases. I think some guy also said that any government that has the power to
effectively protect you can and will oppress you. Just give it time.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

deowll wrote:

> People want the government to protect them. They forget that the government
> only shows up after the bleep has hit the fan and the deed is done in most
> cases. I think some guy also said that any government that has the power to
> effectively protect you can and will oppress you. Just give it time.
>

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Introduction

It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and
individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom
also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective
violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more
freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence.
Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity
and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we
must also add that power kills.

(end excerpt)

Life in Argentina after the most recent collapse, this links to two
viewpoints:

<http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2006/04/stories_from_po.html>

FerFAL's comments regarding the above:

<http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2006/04/stories_from_po.html#comment-24121885>

I'm glad to hear he was still alive as of April 06.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:35:49 GMT, an orbiting mind-control laser made
Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> write:

>On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:59:05 -0400, Dahak
><Dahak_II DeleteThis @theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:
-SNIP-
>>>americans are the most heavily armed nation in the world. 90 small
>>>arms per 100 people.
>>
>> Most importantly, I'd like to ask you what you take from this
>>factoid. What is it telling you?
-SNIP-

>i'm thinking that gun ownership in the usa indicates a grave lack of
>perceived personal security. the number of people who for pragmatic
>reasons actually need a firearm or two is not going to account for
>more than a tiny number of firearms. by pragmatic i mean cops,
>ranchers etc who may actually need a gun at some point. you then get
>target shooters and hunters which account for a fairish chunk but you
>still have a rather large number of people who seem to think having
>guns will somehow make them "safer".
-SNIP-

I asked the question 'What is it telling you?' for a very specific
reason.

It seems to me that you've read the factoid incorrectly (I'm not
prepared to argue the basic validity of the statistic).

You seem to have taken the statement '90 small arms per 100
people' and then gone an awfully long way toward the completely
ludicrous '90 out of 100 people have small arms.'

As a completely unrepresentative sample, my generation of
urban/suburban family has five members, then we have 14 kids and a
mom... that's twenty people, right there, not a gun among them.

By your apparent reckoning, there _should_ be 18.

Those raw numbers represent the skewed interpretation of hunters
and collectors across the country.

I would imagine that most people who regularly use guns have more
than one.

Say they have two. That 90% of Americans are armed (which is the
clear implication you were conveying) now become 45%.

Now factor in how many gun owners have true _collections_ - five,
ten or more guns of various types. That whittles away at the true
rate quiet quickly.


Of course, if we wanted to sample myself and the friends I was
visiting last week, between husband, wife & guest there were at least
three guns. I suspect more are in their collection, meaning that the
rate was greater than one gun per person. (He had a nice .45, he let
me try out his target .45 and she had her silver satin-finish,
rosewood handled .38 - the puurrteee gun!)

The same goes for Offbreed's reply in the thread, he skews the
figures dramatically.

Anomalous results like that tend to get lost when spread across
any national population.


I merely wanted to highlight the flaw in how you were using that
one factoid.

-JPG
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Dahak wrote:
> The same goes for Offbreed's reply in the thread, he skews the
> figures dramatically.
>
And I don't really have all that many, compared to some I know,
including a retired Judge.

To be frank, I strongly suspect that the number of guns in the US are
under estimated. There's likely double that, minimum. I think a lot of
people have bought an AK, SKS, or some other gun from someone so there
isn't any paper trail on it and stashed it somewhere, and they will
never admit to having it. I think that because of the way some people
acted when I had to sell a few guns to raise cash.

I suspect there's more than a few FBI analysts who have come to the same
conclusion.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Dahak <Dahak_II.DeleteThis@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote

> You seem to have taken the statement '90 small arms per 100
> people' and then gone an awfully long way toward the completely
> ludicrous '90 out of 100 people have small arms.'

> Anomalous results like that tend to get lost when spread across
> any national population.

> I merely wanted to highlight the flaw in how you were using that
> one factoid.

Yep.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

has Switzerland 27.2 % households with guns (includes all army
personnel.)

US 39.0 %

which is higher than any other (Canada and Norway next) but not
ludicrously high

--
Mike D
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

deowll <deowll RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote

> It worked great in Oz. The year after the last gun take out violent
crime
> went up hugely. What more can a thug ask for than an unarmed victim?

You have been reading gun bunny sites. First they said they was going
to be an increase, then they said there had been, then they either said
the police had fiddled the figures or stopped updating their rants.

They know what the answer is you see.

Same for England where they said there was going to be a huge increase
in burglaries. Of course there was a steady decrease from 724,000/year
in 1993 to 470,000 in 1998/9 (year all handguns banned) to
298,000 in 2005/6 .

--
Mike D
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:39:39 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:


>So far as I am concerned, the question is not "Why do I need so many
>guns?". It's "Why are you so uptight about my having any?"
>

where did i say i was uptight about it?

i do find it interesting though that so many americans seem to live in
fear though where canadians don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:28:50 -0400, Dahak
<Dahak_II.TakeThisOut@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:35:49 GMT, an orbiting mind-control laser made
>Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> write:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:59:05 -0400, Dahak
>><Dahak_II.TakeThisOut@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:
>-SNIP-
>>>>americans are the most heavily armed nation in the world. 90 small
>>>>arms per 100 people.
>>>
>>> Most importantly, I'd like to ask you what you take from this
>>>factoid. What is it telling you?
>-SNIP-
>
>>i'm thinking that gun ownership in the usa indicates a grave lack of
>>perceived personal security. the number of people who for pragmatic
>>reasons actually need a firearm or two is not going to account for
>>more than a tiny number of firearms. by pragmatic i mean cops,
>>ranchers etc who may actually need a gun at some point. you then get
>>target shooters and hunters which account for a fairish chunk but you
>>still have a rather large number of people who seem to think having
>>guns will somehow make them "safer".
>-SNIP-
>
> I asked the question 'What is it telling you?' for a very specific
>reason.
>
> It seems to me that you've read the factoid incorrectly (I'm not
>prepared to argue the basic validity of the statistic).
>
> You seem to have taken the statement '90 small arms per 100
>people' and then gone an awfully long way toward the completely
>ludicrous '90 out of 100 people have small arms.'
>
>
i did not assume gun ownership was spread out evenly which is why i
said "a rather large number of people". even allowing for multiple
gun ownership there are still tens of millions of americans out there
who will tell you they sleep better knowing they have a gun in the
house or feel the need to strap on on before going to work etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Brian McDonald wrote:

> i did not assume gun ownership was spread out evenly which is why i
> said "a rather large number of people". even allowing for multiple
> gun ownership there are still tens of millions of americans out there
> who will tell you they sleep better knowing they have a gun in the
> house or feel the need to strap on on before going to work etc.
>
You've lived a sheltered life. Some of us have not been so lucky.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:21:30 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Brian McDonald wrote:
>
>> i did not assume gun ownership was spread out evenly which is why i
>> said "a rather large number of people". even allowing for multiple
>> gun ownership there are still tens of millions of americans out there
>> who will tell you they sleep better knowing they have a gun in the
>> house or feel the need to strap on on before going to work etc.
>>
>You've lived a sheltered life. Some of us have not been so lucky.

i live in a civilized country is all. the rest of the developed world
outgrew this wild west nonsense a good ways back.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Brian McDonald wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:21:30 -0700, Offbreed

>> You've lived a sheltered life. Some of us have not been so lucky.
>
> i live in a civilized country is all. the rest of the developed world
> outgrew this wild west nonsense a good ways back.

The "wild west" had several big attractions, one being it was much more
peaceful than the east coast of the US. That was the era of "Hell's
Kitchen" in NYC, and sometime check out /why/ the big cities were so
violent (see also "Sullivan Act", and who supported Sullivan.

Check up also on Singapore before WWII. The easiest way would be to
simply google Sykes and Fairbairn.

Colt did not get his motivation to develop the 6 shooter from the "wild
west", he got it from visiting port cities when he was a merchant
sailor. It was intended for use against street gangs armed with knives
and sharp pointed sticks.

No, the global news media has told a number of lies. The US is violent
because we have enclaves of violent minorities that are large enough to
reach critical mass. Remove the violent minorities from the statistics
and the US has less crime and violence, and less crime and violence
involving firearms, than Europe does. For some reason, the global news
media does not cover that.

Most of the crime and violence is against people who are prohibited from
legally owning firearms for one reason or another. People known to own
and carry guns live surprisingly peaceful lives, so long as they are
polite.

More tsunami warnings, I'll have to post this without further editing.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup?