3 ms·

You're broadening the discussion from freedom of speech to freedom in general, and I don't think the conversation is particularly valuable over-broad. In terms

You're broadening the discussion from freedom of speech to freedom in general, and I don't think the conversation is particularly valuable over-broad. In terms of homicides, looking at London's rate relative to, say, major cities in the US, I strongly suspect the 2nd Amendment in the US plays a lot more role than the 1st. Comparing London to, say, Chicago, it seems that the freedom to run around with untracked firearms isn't doing the US any favors. Maybe it's the cultural difference, but I don't see London's rate as "epic" given that they're a city of 8 million souls and US cities with smaller populations have more murders. But freedom of speech and freedom to be armed are different freedoms.

fullofhatred 8y ago
Except that A) freedom of speech is the most essential freedom (hence, "first" amendment), so I'm not broadening the discussion too much, am I? (aka, slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy) B) I'm glad that you brought up Chicago, since it's run by leftists and anti-gun politicians, just like every other high crime city in the US and Europe; in fact, just like pretty much every high crime dump in the world is run by leftists. It used to be easy enough to dismiss such silly arguments by saying "Chicago and the rest of Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws", but leftists have a fallacious argument for everything. Fortunately, the leftists' favorite argument of "Chicago's gun crime is caused by the 2nd amendment and the ability to bring guns across state line, etc." doesn't last very long when you consider that the states with the most gun freedom in the US have some of the lowest crime rates (Idaho, Vermont, etc.). Or, are you prepared to offer a theory (other than "cultural differences" - last I checked murder is not an acceptable "culture", or is that the next wave of leftism?) about why people in Idaho and Vermont aren't murdering people due to their nearly unrestricted access to guns and legal ability to carry them in public?
- fixermark 8y ago
  I think you're reversing causality. Wouldn't higher rates of gun-related homicide induce a locale to enact stricter gun laws? And if those gun laws are only partially effective because the problem they're trying to control is systemic and national, you'd end up with the situation you're observing: places with few gun crimes have few laws because they've not been induced to enact them, and places with more gun crime have more laws (but continue to have more gun crime because places with fewer gun laws facilitate unregulated gun markets and transportation costs within the US are extremely low). The rest of your comments are basically an angry anti-leftist rant that I'm not interested in engaging in. I have Facebook for dealing with political rants, thank you. ;)
  - fullofhatred 8y ago
    I'm not implying causality at all; in fact, my entire point has been to show the exact opposite, that rights (or objects, like guns, the acquisition of which stems from a right) don't cause behaviors. I have the right to eat dirt and drink toilet water, but I don't do either, because neither would be quite right. So, in Chicago and London, where the crime has been on the rise, a reasonable person cannot blame the increase in crime on guns (esp in London's case, where it would be easier to get your hands on the Ark of the Covenant than a gun). So, if not guns, what about other policies (welfare, immigration, maybe even other, less controversial etc.)? (re: rant) Leftists have good ideas (protect the environment, take care of helpless people, etc.), but most leftist ideas require a bigger government and more taxation, as a means to implement them. As a result, government grows, and, because government is itself not governed by the markets, it is by nature inefficient[1], which means it eventually becomes a bloated mess (which can also lead to rising crime, etc.). Acquisition of power eventually becomes the end (see Stalin's Soviet Union, Moa's China, Castro's Cuba). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
    - fixermark 8y ago
      Chicago's murder rate has been falling. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-murder-rate-national-statistics-fbi-report/ https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-murder-rate-nation...
      - fullofhatred 8y ago
        /lol @ “murder is down” when it comes slightly down off epic highs for a brief moment. I recommend this as a starting place: https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/functions-maxima-minima.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/functions-maxima-minima.h...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

fullofhatred 8y ago

Except that A) freedom of speech is the most essential freedom (hence, "first" amendment), so I'm not broadening the discussion too much, am I? (aka, slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy) B) I'm glad that you brought up Chicago, since it's run by leftists and anti-gun politicians, just like every other high crime city in the US and Europe; in fact, just like pretty much every high crime dump in the world is run by leftists. It used to be easy enough to dismiss such silly arguments by saying "Chicago and the rest of Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws", but leftists have a fallacious argument for everything. Fortunately, the leftists' favorite argument of "Chicago's gun crime is caused by the 2nd amendment and the ability to bring guns across state line, etc." doesn't last very long when you consider that the states with the most gun freedom in the US have some of the lowest crime rates (Idaho, Vermont, etc.). Or, are you prepared to offer a theory (other than "cultural differences" - last I checked murder is not an acceptable "culture", or is that the next wave of leftism?) about why people in Idaho and Vermont aren't murdering people due to their nearly unrestricted access to guns and legal ability to carry them in public?

fixermark 8y ago
I think you're reversing causality. Wouldn't higher rates of gun-related homicide induce a locale to enact stricter gun laws? And if those gun laws are only partially effective because the problem they're trying to control is systemic and national, you'd end up with the situation you're observing: places with few gun crimes have few laws because they've not been induced to enact them, and places with more gun crime have more laws (but continue to have more gun crime because places with fewer gun laws facilitate unregulated gun markets and transportation costs within the US are extremely low). The rest of your comments are basically an angry anti-leftist rant that I'm not interested in engaging in. I have Facebook for dealing with political rants, thank you. ;)
- fullofhatred 8y ago
  I'm not implying causality at all; in fact, my entire point has been to show the exact opposite, that rights (or objects, like guns, the acquisition of which stems from a right) don't cause behaviors. I have the right to eat dirt and drink toilet water, but I don't do either, because neither would be quite right. So, in Chicago and London, where the crime has been on the rise, a reasonable person cannot blame the increase in crime on guns (esp in London's case, where it would be easier to get your hands on the Ark of the Covenant than a gun). So, if not guns, what about other policies (welfare, immigration, maybe even other, less controversial etc.)? (re: rant) Leftists have good ideas (protect the environment, take care of helpless people, etc.), but most leftist ideas require a bigger government and more taxation, as a means to implement them. As a result, government grows, and, because government is itself not governed by the markets, it is by nature inefficient[1], which means it eventually becomes a bloated mess (which can also lead to rising crime, etc.). Acquisition of power eventually becomes the end (see Stalin's Soviet Union, Moa's China, Castro's Cuba). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Chicago's murder rate has been falling. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-murder-rate-national-statistics-fbi-report/ https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-murder-rate-nation...
    - fullofhatred 8y ago
      /lol @ “murder is down” when it comes slightly down off epic highs for a brief moment. I recommend this as a starting place: https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/functions-maxima-minima.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/functions-maxima-minima.h...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]