Keith Devens .com

Well, all I'm adding to this is that here in Ireland, our police force is unarmed.

I partly agree with you on affirmative action. It's a well meaning, but inappropriate way of dealing with inequalities in society. Here in Europe, we really never had the need to do anything like that (I think even the gender-balance thing is just a guideline) as, being the wacky social democrats (and no, social democracy isn't socialism) we all are, the emphasis was put on improving the communities of those who lacked the means, as opposed to using quotas. Quotas treat symtoms, not the causes.

Oh, and when you get rid of societal inequalities, inherent inequalities begin to matter less. They don't die away completely--there'll always be come crime, for instance--but it will become minimised.

Big problems of the death penalty are, it doesn't solve anything and there have been (and will be) innocent people wrongly convicted.

I also wonder at the gun thing, I usually find that people wanting a gun to "defend themsleves" usually defend themselves from their neighbour who bought a gun for the same reason. Notwithstanding all the accidental deaths caused by guns found in households.

I agree with the previous comment on saying that the symptoms are treated, not the cause. Like building a wall on the border, it would just try to prevent people from crossing the border; not treating the cause of why they want to do it.

Sorry for the formatting of my previous comment, I messed it up.

I usually find that people wanting a gun to "defend themsleves" usually defend themselves from their neighbour who bought a gun for the same reason.

You usually find?

(By the way, you may be interested in Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog)

I agree with the previous comment on saying that the symptoms are treated, not the cause. Like building a wall on the border, it would just try to prevent people from crossing the border; not treating the cause of why they want to do it.

1. What's the cause you want to treat?
2. How do you want to treat it?

Language mistake for the find (english is not my native tongue). A better word would be "think" for what I wanted to say.

For the wall, I'm not saying that I know the cause but just that there is a cause in the fact that some people want to cross the us border. Blocking them just treats the symptom, not the cause of why they're trying to cross in the first place.

I went to have a look at the blog you pointed out.In my opinion, it lacks perspective, just giving news about situation when a gun was supposedly useful. It would quite as easy to have a blog showing the opposite, futile exercise in any case.

I [think] that people wanting a gun to "defend themsleves" usually defend themselves from their neighbour who bought a gun for the same reason.

Even with that correction, I don't think that makes any sense. If one owns a gun for self defense, surely he doesn't own one to protect himself from his law-abiding neighbors.

For the wall, I'm not saying that I know the cause but just that there is a cause in the fact that some people want to cross the us border. Blocking them just treats the symptom, not the cause of why they're trying to cross in the first place.

I wasn't asking about the wall. Obviously the reason people want to come to America (to give context, we're both referring to this post) is because there's more opportunity here than in, say, Mexico. Besides the fact that poor immigrants put a strain on our society by committing more crime and by increasing medical costs for everyone by doing things like using the emergency room as their primary care physician, I don't have a problem with someone who wants to improve his lot in life, and I can totally understand that. My problem is that the same holes that let in hard-working Mexicans who want opportunity are the same holes that let terrorists (and drugs, like I mentioned last time) into the country. I think you may have misunderstood my emphasis last time around.

But again, I wasn't asking about the wall, but about the gun issue. What's your position on it? What are the causes you want to treat in reference to this issue, and how do you plan to treat it, whatever it is?

I went to have a look at the blog you pointed out.In my opinion, it lacks perspective, just giving news about situation when a gun was supposedly useful. It would quite as easy to have a blog showing the opposite, futile exercise in any case.

Dismiss it if you want, but the fact is that every day that blog covers people who would have been robbed or murdered had they not had a firearm. Plus, what's "the opposite"? People using guns for crime? If you make laws forbidding people to have guns, the criminals will still have guns, yet law-abiding citizens won't.

Even with that correction, I don't think that makes any sense. If one owns a gun for self defense, surely he doesn't own one to protect himself from his law-abiding neighbors.

Ok, I'll try to rephrase that. If everybody has a gun to "defend himself" then everybody ends up defending against each other. I mean, I buy a gun to "protect" myself, my neighbour does the same, then I end up being paranoid, most likely "defending" myself against my neighbour. Does it make more sense ? It's general paranoia.

Plus, what's "the opposite"? People using guns for crime? If you make laws forbidding people to have guns, the criminals will still have guns, yet law-abiding citizens won't.

The opposite would be a weblog showing how guns kept in households cause accidents.

Criminals would still have guns, yes. There is no way you can' completely prevent some people to get what they want. My position on guns is that it makes no sense to have one at home, because it would not do any good.

To add to that I don't think the immigrants are the ones putting such a huge strain on economy. They do a bit, as in every country but they are plenty of other factors (finance is a big actor). One cannot view a country solely on its economy.

If everybody has a gun to "defend himself" then everybody ends up defending against each other... It's general paranoia.

That simply doesn't follow. It's also against the facts -- in places where there are a lot of guns, people simply don't hole themselves into their houses afraid of everyone else. Plus, there's generally lower crime. You're just making stuff up.

The opposite would be a weblog showing how guns kept in households cause accidents.

My position on guns is that it makes no sense to have one at home, because it would not do any good.

I as well as many others (some of whom have defended themselves with their firearms) would disagree. Real peoples lives are saved by guns all the time. You may not choose to have one in your home, which is fine (I assume you're not allowed to where you live in France anyway). But I think it's closed-minded to argue that others either can't because they'll hurt themselves, or shouldn't be allowed to because you disagree, despite evidence to the contrary.

In places where there are a lot of guns, people simply don't hole themselves into their houses afraid of everyone else. Plus, there's generally lower crime... But I think it's closed-minded to argue that others either can't because they'll hurt themselves, or shouldn't be allowed to because you disagree, despite evidence to the contrary.

Could you provide some of your evidence to the contrary? A link to an article or three talking about areas with "a lot of guns" and "generally lower crime." ...for my reading pleasure, of course.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/

You've read this? Any other non-I-have-to-purchase-this links?