Einstein's Theory of Insanity

Just would like to share something with you all, to bring back the GUN OWNERSHIP debate to ATS.

Enjoy


"
The Insights of that remarkable scientist Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate for Physics in 1921, particularly his theories on relativity, continue to illuminate our understanding of the physical world. He was also responsible for a less well known theory.

THE THEORY OF INSANITY. - The endless repetition of the same experiments, in the hope of obtaining a different result.

There is some evidence to support the view that, in general, such experiments are normally pursued by non-commercial organisations, like governments, to whom the cost effectiveness is of no material consequence.
An example:
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE UK FIREARMS LAWS; 1903 - 200?

1) First they made it difficult for people who didn't own their own house to own pistols: But I didn't speak up because I owned my own house. ( 1903, Pistols act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

2) Then they made it more difficult for working class men who had fought for their country in WWI to own pistols or rifles: But I didn't speak up because I wasn't working class. ( 1920, Firearms act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

3) Then they came for machine guns: But I didn't speak up because I didn't have a machine gun. ( 1936 Firearms "Amendment" act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

4) Then they introduced controls on shotguns: But I didn't speak up because I didn't have a shotgun. ( 1967 Criminal Justice act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

5) Then they came for semi-auto rifles, and multi shot shotguns: But I didn't speak up because I didn't have either. ( 1988 Firearms "Amendment" act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

6) Then they came for centre-fire pistols: But I didn't speak up because I didn't have a centre fire pistol. ( 1997 Firearms "Amendment" act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased...

7) Then they came for small-bore pistols: But I didn't speak up because I didn't have a small-bore pistol. ( 1997 Firearms "Amendment" act.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased.)

8) Then they banned hunting: But I didn't speak up because I wasn't a hunter. ( Scotland, 2001.)
...and the government got more powerful, and crime increased.)

9) Then, when they came for my single shot target rifle and double barrel shotgun, there was no one left to speak up for me. ( Firearms "banning" act. - 200? )"

www.militaryphotos.net...



Written by [Dennis G]



So, does taking guns away from their owners decrease crime, or increase?

Is it worth allowing the population to have guns or not? Would death increase if people were allowed to have guns?

What is the correlation regarding death and crime ---> attached to guns.

This is very interesting, because if you take away guns, then people will have more confidence to commit crime.
If you give them guns, then chances of fire fights increase, therefore would cause more deaths, but would defuse the confidence criminals have, due to fear of getting shot due to crime.

[the above is my take]



Thoughts

oz

reply to post by oozyism


Here is a thought - what if Albert Einstein was nuts?

If you make guns illegal,then only criminals will have them.Australia had most of its guns taken in one fell swoop.
Port Arthur ,you may have heard of it.I havent checked the crime stats since so i dont know if it made an impact.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by oozyism

 

Here is a thought - what if Albert Einstein was nuts?

Well it is pretty nuts if you try the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different result.

But

the above being said, if you try something over and over and over and over again, you might get a different result.

But

the above being said, that would be an illogical choice to make, especially if lives and livelyhoods are at stake.

If you give everyone guns, the criminals get better guns or rocket launchers.
The *smart or organised* crims will always stay ahead.
So do you upgrade to a rocket launcher or accept that they will always be ahead and ban guns from the public making it harder to obtain weapons... im not on either side but thought id add my 2c

reply to post by byteshertz


You do not give everyone guns. People will buy guns because they run across criminals with guns.
Then, when the criminals buy rocket launchers, they simply buy rocket launchers too.
Note that in most populations there are more good guys than bad guys.
Also, having committed several criminal acts in the past, I think I would not bother buying a rocket launcher in order to rob the supermarket, as it has to be profitable after all.

with all due respect, criminals arent afraid of getting shot, they're afraid of getting caught.

in any case, criminals always get the jump om us folks, people who own guns have them locked up away in a safe. criminals have it on them. however, if you disarm the good folks, you give the criminals an edge. but, if you arm the civilians but make ridiculous regulations for them, criminals will steal you guns and shoot you with them.

reply to post by whatevername


see, this guy here is a criminal, ask him if he's afraid of a man with a gun or a cop with nothing.

reply to post by oozyism
I see your point on this context of insanity.

Another prime example of this type of insanity is the testing of nuclear weapons over the years.

en.wikipedia.org...
The nuclear powers have conducted at least 2,000 nuclear test explosions (numbers are approximated, as some test results have been disputed):

1. United States: 1,054 tests by official count (involving at least 1,151 devices, 331 atmospheric tests), most at Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands, with ten other tests taking place at various locations in the United States, including Amchitka Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico

2. Soviet Union: 715 tests (involving 969 devices) by official count, most at Semipalatinsk Test Site and Novaya Zemlya, and a few more at various sites in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.

3. France: 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric, 160 underground), 4 atomic atmospheric tests at C.E.S.M. near Reggane, 13 atomic underground tests at C.E.M.O. near In Ekker in the then-French Algerian Sahara, and nuclear atmospheric tests at Fangataufa and nuclear undersea tests Moruroa in French Polynesia. Additional atomic and chemical warfare tests took place in the secret base B2-Namous, near Ben Wenif, other tests involving rockets and missiles at C.I.E.E.S, near Hammaguir, both in the Sahara.

4. United Kingdom: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, some at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean, plus many others in the U.S. as part of joint test series)

5. China: 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground, at Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base, in Malan, Xinjiang)

6. India: 6 underground tests (including the first one in 1974), at Pokhran

7. Pakistan: 6 underground tests, at Ras Koh Hills, Chagai District and Kharan Desert, Kharan District in Balochistan Province

8. North Korea: 2 tests at Hwadae-ri


Nearly 2000 between America, Russia & France alone.

For gods sake how many times do we really need to do this to see you keep getting the same results.
In this cased results = stupidity.

reply to post by byteshertz


Yet if you take away guns from those law-abiding citizens, then only the criminals will have them. The people would then be defenseless. To me, this is intolerable, and subjugation and death would naturally follow. In many ways, gun ownership preserves freedom, namely the freedom from oppression.

TheBorg

Something to think about...

"What is the correlation regarding death and crime ---> attached to guns".

The figure is so high for a correlation between gun deaths and gangs/drugs in the US....it about 85% or better of all gun killing have to do with gangs/drugs or some use durring a criminal undertaking. Dont believe it just study all those convicted of murder doing time in prison and you will find only a small % of killings with guns have to do with crimes of passion.

These folks that get on TV like our mayor here of late and talk about guns and gun killings are stupid or part of the drop. I mean no one is hunting dear downtown at High and Main. Why do folks look outward when crime goes through the roof in the city? Why is it an indictment on joe small town 30 miles away? Well its not its a con job. Guns are not the problem drugs are and everybody all the way down the line that gets paid to turn their head. Coming to get my guns over this is an out of your mind, evil, brainless, responce that points to a con job on the part of FOP and LIBS and anyone else that comes looking for my gun when they see a dead drug head face down on the 6 oclock.

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Yet if you take away guns from those law-abiding citizens, then only the criminals will have them. The people would then be defenseless. To me, this is intolerable, and subjugation and death would naturally follow. In many ways, gun ownership preserves freedom, namely the freedom from oppression.

TheBorg

edit on 12-12-2010 by TheBorg because: clarity.

This is correct. Gun ownership is a right. Our Creator gave us the right to defend ourselves.

I believe in lawful, open carry. If you walk into a supermarket where there are 30 people shopping with sidearms, you likely will not even try to rob the place.

If guns kill people, spoons make them fat. It is just illogical.