From: Mag.phil. Raimund Karl <[log in to unmask]>
John B. wrote to which bjones responeded:
> >Out of respect for Ray's request to stick to things Celtic ...
> One which you are obviously not paying heed.
> > ..., I've left it a
> while before responding to the various points recently made. I hope he
> forgive this brief message.<<
> Then I hope for the same ...
Well, you both are forgiven. Anyways, even though I'd prefer discussion
to return to things Celtic I'll also take the liberty and state some
things on this - before it degenerates into a worthless flamewar.
I've already stated a few times I do believe it directly applies to things
Celtic in the modern age. You may disagree. Oh, a war infers there are
hostilities. I've never gotten hostile. Sometime I do state things as I see
them. It's a bothersome aspect of freedom.
> >The other side of the coin is that I have great problems in coming to
> >with the "sanctity" of the US Constitution. ...
> Being a foreigner, most of couldn't care less what you think about it.
>>Being from Austria, where we have our own constitution, it's hard to get
more bored than by hearing about US constitutional rights and the usual
legal and moralistic imperialism going hand in hand in those cases where
it usually is mentioned. I'm sorry if this shocks anybody, but US laws
and constitutional rights are not the non plus ultra possibility of
right and justice and do neither apply everywhere on this planet nor are
the sole good solution for every problem on this planet. Thus, I would
be extremely pleased if we could leave out such absolutely meaningless
discussions on this list.<<
And being from Austria, you own your very existence to this nation AND those
laws. Y'all were living under the heel of that booger Adolph Hitler when we
all set you free, lest you forget. It was exactly the sort of laws,
constitution and all, that made us think y'all might have been worth saving.
And before y'all chime in with how much everyone else contributed, let me
remind you all of Europe that was free and Russia literally survived by dint
of our generosity. Yes, y'all put a few soldiers into the field too. We
wanted you to have a hand in your own liberation. When that war was over,
we - the US Military - reorganized and sanctified the newly free governments
of Europe, INCLUDING Austria. One of its more important aspects, for
example, was the decision that all children in germanic schools (which
included Austria) would be taught a pacifist curriculum in an attempt to
assassinate the germanic penchant for war. That is something that was highly
endorsed by the British too, BTW. Many years and many billions of dollars
later in aid in food, clothing, machinery and construction, y'all have
forgotten that we could have enslaved you, but because of our belief system
stemming from that same Constitution and Bill of Rights you so easily
insult, we gave you freedom. This is extremely simplified, but it is true.
BTW, none of you have ever paid us back. That figure also did not include a
few trillion in arms and machinery you all BEGGED us for at the beginning of
the war. You haven't paid that back either.
>Again I'm sorry, but then, obviously, your country makes some very
>serious mistakes, as in Austria, where there is no constitutional right
>to carry handguns the crime rate, especially in regard to violent
>crimes, is much lower than anywhere in the US. And since a new law was
>introduced three years ago that even more tightened the ban on firearms,
>the rates for violent and non-violent crimes even further decreased.
We taught you pacifism. Not so here. You assumptions are incorrect. There
are many places - very large expanses of places (some larger that all of
Austria) where there is virtually NO CRIME here. The crime rate is, indeed,
much lower than some places in Austria. You believe too much of what some
fascist feeds you in the newspapers.
>>From this I can conclude three possibilities: a) crime rates have
nothing at all to do with constitutional rights to carry weapons or not
or b) the practice of having firearms mostly banned results in lower
crime rates than having not or c) Austria is paradise on earth. I doubt
that possibility c) applies, and I'm pretty sure that possibility b) is
nonsense as well, so maybe one could conclude from possibility a) that
there are a huge number of reasons and solutions for this problem with
depend mainly on the specific circumstances and have only little to do
with what is written on some paper named constuitution.<<
These assumptions fall apart quickly when actual crime data is alalyzed.
This is a part of my official job with the US Government. We have tons of
data, all scrupulously collected. All of my beliefs derive directly from
that information. I am not given to any emotional or irrational judgements.
> >The obvious solution to me is to ban the practice. ...
> The obvious solution to WHAT? Lower crime? What you propose has been
> to RAISE crime. You enable and support robbers, rapists and murderers. No
> thank you.
>>This may be true for the US, but is definitly not true for Austria,
where exactly the effect proposed by John resulted from a more rigid
limitiation of firearms. So no, he does not enable and support robbers,
rapists and murderers, at least not everywhere on the planet.<<
Personally Ray, I believe that the crime rate would lower in Austria even if
someone only gave you all an order to lower it. You are a very collective
goal oriented people.
> Right now, the UK, Canada and Australia all have higher murder and violent
> crime rates than the US overall. If one subtracts the ethnic gang areas in
> the inner cities where most violent crime in the US occurs between waring
> gang factions, then the US has a REMARKABLY lower crime rate than that of
> any of those countries. The practice that should be banned is YOUR
>>Nonsense. In Austria, for instance, crime rates in the urban areas are
much higher than in the countryside, and the same is true in all of
Europe. It is the cities which are the hotbeds of criminality,
everywhere on this planet. It is a sociological problem that causes
higher crime rates in urbanised areas, a problem that is neither solved
by allowing free access to firearms nor by forbidding all firearms.<<
Actually Ray, this is not true. We have cities with very high crime rates
and cities with fairly low crime rates. The major difference - since all are
populated by Americans - is exactly as I stated. And remember, Americans are
not a culture. There is no single race, religion or anything else. We are
all united by only one thing; a belief in freedom, and our Constitution
protecting that freedom.
>>Now, if you want to discuss this further, please return it to where it
belongs - to private messages. <<
I am not discusing. I am instructing. I am also through.
Bruce L. Jones
The Desert Hostage
The Mojave Desert - The Geographic Center of Nowhere